Author Topic: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood  (Read 21409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2012, 09:54:13 pm »
Art, back the fuck off.
If he's going to say everyone who disagrees with affirmative action is stupid and then dodge questions... No. No I will not. Deal with it.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2012, 09:55:10 pm »
Art, back the fuck off.
If he's going to say everyone who disagrees with affirmative action is stupid and then dodge questions... No. No I will not. Deal with it.

No, you back the fuck off.

You are going to cease this harassment.  He answered your question.  I am sorry that you didn't like the answer.

Now grow up and deal with it.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2012, 09:58:46 pm »
No, you back the fuck off.

You are going to cease this harassment.  He answered your question.  I am sorry that you didn't like the answer.

Now grow up and deal with it.
No he did not. I asked two simple yes and no questions and he dodged it. If you can discern a coherent answer to my questions from his post, by all means enlighten me.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2012, 10:00:36 pm »
No, you back the fuck off.

You are going to cease this harassment.  He answered your question.  I am sorry that you didn't like the answer.

Now grow up and deal with it.
No he did not. I asked two simple yes and no questions and he dodged it. If you can discern a coherent answer to my questions from his post, by all means enlighten me.

I am sorry that you were unable to understand his answer.  However, that is not my responsibility to help you with that.

He addressed your question.  That is all that is necessary out of him.  You are in the wrong.

Now back the fuck off.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2012, 10:06:06 pm »
I am sorry that you were unable to understand his answer.  However, that is not my responsibility to help you with that.

He addressed your question.  That is all that is necessary out of him.  You are in the wrong.

Now back the fuck off.
I'm extremely saddened that I need to explain this so many fucking times to you, but if you're not willing to even attempt to justify yourself, then I will not only be ignoring your attempts to order me around, but I will also mock you as long as you continue to attempt to do so, k? Now if you actually expect something to come of this, either justify why I should accept it as a valid answer, or go fuck yourself. Personally, I'm good with either.

Offline Osama bin Bambi

  • The Black Witch
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10167
  • Gender: Female
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2012, 10:16:27 pm »
Yes, white people fucked over basically every minority in US history. No, that doesn't mean their descendants have to be looked over for a position they are qualified for just because someone else who is equally qualified happens to be a minority. If it really gets down to the point where you have to pick between a white applicant and a black applicant, and both are equally qualified, and you want to be fair, flip a damn coin.

Be clear. "I dislike what past generations have done to people on the basis of race. But I am not personally willing to give up the my privileged position in society to make good those wrongs, or to invest any money at all, to bear any cost or burden or do anything at all to end the scourge of racism in American society. Because I did not commit the acts in the first instance."

If that's what you think, that's what you think. I don't think that's acceptable, but that's just opinion.

Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways. You are deliberately painting a racist strawman caricature of me that is not true. I do not deny for a second that I benefit from white privilege. But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color. If an employer wants to increase racial diversity in their company and choose to hire someone else rather than me, power to 'em. What I disagree with is legislating it into law and forcing private organizations to abide by it, or instituting any system that discriminates based on race into a public institution.

Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.

It's true that it would be irrational for a business to hire your black person. In fact, it is illegal for a private company to hire minorities proportionately (since they are not proportionately qualified). That's why the government needs to act 'irrationally' and change the game. Well, okay. What should they do?

Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.

That's not an option.

Why?
Formerly known as Eva-Beatrice and Wykked Wytch.

Quote from: sandman
There are very few problems that cannot be solved with a good taint punching.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2012, 10:19:45 pm »
I am sorry that you were unable to understand his answer.  However, that is not my responsibility to help you with that.

He addressed your question.  That is all that is necessary out of him.  You are in the wrong.

Now back the fuck off.
I'm extremely saddened that I need to explain this so many fucking times to you, but if you're not willing to even attempt to justify yourself, then I will not only be ignoring your attempts to order me around, but I will also mock you as long as you continue to attempt to do so, k? Now if you actually expect something to come of this, either justify why I should accept it as a valid answer, or go fuck yourself. Personally, I'm good with either.

*sigh* I'm sorry that I have to explain the obvious to you.

First of all, he did directly answer your question.  He went beyond the yes or no answer to expand on it and explain his answer.

Essentially, he was saying that it was more complicated than any yes or no or multiple choice question could answer.  Multiple factors have to go into a situation, to make up for the lack of education that comes with people who fit the second person you listed.

In short, while one would rationally choose the person who, through the grace of fate and fortune, managed to already be successful enough to be able to qualify for the job, the government has to force an irrational decision.

The answer to your question was thus implicit.

He didn't dodge the question.  You're dodging the answer.  And your threats have placed you in the realm of harassment.  You are bullying other forum members.

Back.  Off.
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2012, 10:40:49 pm »
*sigh* I'm sorry that I have to explain the obvious to you.

First of all, he did directly answer your question.  He went beyond the yes or no answer to expand on it and explain his answer.

Essentially, he was saying that it was more complicated than any yes or no or multiple choice question could answer.  Multiple factors have to go into a situation, to make up for the lack of education that comes with people who fit the second person you listed.

In short, while one would rationally choose the person who, through the grace of fate and fortune, managed to already be successful enough to be able to qualify for the job, the government has to force an irrational decision.
What the fuck are you rambling about now? I specifically stated in my question that both people were equally qualified for the job. I didn't say anything about person two's education or lack thereof. In a nutshell, the only information I gave about either was that person one was financially worse off than person two. Furthermore, I wasn't asking a vague question about why government regulations  can be necessary, I was ultimately asking, based only on this financial need, which person ethically deserves that job more, and whether or not the answer would be changed if race were in some way or another added to the equation. Neither you nor Fred have even come close to answering that question and it quite frankly baffles me as to how you seemed to miss the point by a lightyear (intentional question dodging notwithstanding).
He didn't dodge the question.  You're dodging the answer.  And your threats have placed you in the realm of harassment.  You are bullying other forum members.

Back.  Off.
...Harassment, bullying?! You bleeding heart twit. He's free to simply state he doesn't want to answer any time he simply doesn't want to participate. Simply taking a harsh tone with someone in the middle of an argument when they're free to leave at any time is not harassment, nor is it bullying you stupid pillock. In fact, by your own asinine logic, you're currently bullying me.

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2012, 10:43:55 pm »
...Harassment, bullying?! You bleeding heart twit. He's free to simply state he doesn't want to answer any time he simply doesn't want to participate. Simply taking a harsh tone with someone in the middle of an argument when they're free to leave at any time is not harassment, nor is it bullying you stupid pillock. In fact, by your own asinine logic, you're currently bullying me.

Threatening to report someone for "question dodging" is bullying, especially when they respond to your question and you insist that it's not enough.

You no longer have any high ground in this discussion.

It's clear that you're not interested in any actual discussion, either.  You just want to be right. :-/
Mockery of ideas you don't comprehend or understand is the surest mark of unintelligence.

Even the worst union is better than the best Walmart.

Caladur's Active Character Sheet

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2012, 11:00:21 pm »
Nice that you completely ignored the part where I explained in detail why his answer was a dodge. You really make a convincing case for yourself there Zacho.
Threatening to report someone for "question dodging" is bullying, especially when they respond to your question and you insist that it's not enough.
...Especially?! So, you're saying that even threatening to report question-dodging on its own counts as bullying? Are you even thinking anymore about what you're saying, or do you seriously not fathom the sheer absurdity of the idea that informing someone that they're violating the rules of an internet forum is actual bullying? I swear, that has to be one of the most stupid things I've seen on this forum since the sugargate drama. Actually, scratch that. The stupidest thing I've seen on these forums since sugargate has to be the fact that you seem to sincerely believe that it'll convince me to take orders from you. I'm just astounded that any regular here can be that pants on head, petrol sniffing, chasing the girls around the playground with a piece of dog poo on a stick fucking stupid.

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2012, 11:02:09 pm »
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2012, 11:04:20 pm »
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
I believe it's your face.

Now are you going to answer the questions or not?

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2012, 11:05:58 pm »
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
I believe it's your face.

You didn't answer. It has to be a yes or no or it doesn't count.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2012, 11:09:57 pm »
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
I believe it's your face.

You didn't answer. It has to be a yes or no or it doesn't count.
Well then, it'll go with yes.

No but seriously, make with the answers. Which do you think is more ethically deserving of the job? Yes or no One or two (shut up, you all knew what I meant). Also, would you change your answer if either one or the other were white and the other black? Yes or no.

Just so we're clear, that's a simple "yes" or "no" to both questions, mkay one or the other to question one and yes or no to question two?

Straight answer pls.

Offline kefkaownsall

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3253
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2012, 11:13:16 pm »
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?

I think that companies should be allowed to choose not to hire someone for any reason. When a company does not hire a black man or a gay man, it is impossible to prove (outside of psychic powers or whatever) that the employer turned him down on the basis of race or sexual orientation.

I don't think that companies should be allowed to fire someone or give them unequal pay for equal work based off of bigoted reasons. Once a person is hired by an employer, the employer has an obligation to treat that employee the same way they would treat any other employee doing equal work.
It is possible actually through stats or they hire a dumbass for the position instead of the more qualified black guy

I am having trouble understanding what you wrote, but I'll try to answer your question.

I think you are asking if it is possible for a company to hire a dumbass over a more-qualified black man.

My answer to that is, sadly, yes. And it happens all the time. If a company wants to risk its financial health just to maintain its own racism, that's its own problem that it will have to pay for.
I dunno actually since I think that type is provable and I think you can actually sue I've seen it done before with an older man trying to be a firefighter.

I presume that fire stations are public institutions where you live. In that case, I would definitely say that he could sue, because a public institution is supposed to be equally open to everybody. The government does not have the freedom to make judgments based on race, sexual orientation, etc., and this extends to their institutions.
I actually used that as an example but I'm sure I could find a case of hiring discrimination http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/424.html