Author Topic: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood  (Read 21405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MadCatTLX

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2095
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #15 on: June 09, 2012, 08:02:28 pm »
Well, as MLK said, white people did something special to black people, now they have to do something special FOR them, to make up for it.

I have do pay for something I didn't do? Isn't that one of the common pieces of BS we mock fundies for on the main page?
History is full of maniacs, my friend, men and women of intelect, highly perceptive individuals, who's brilliant minds know neither restraint nor taboo. Such notions are the devils we must slay for the edification of pony-kind. Even if said edification means violating the rules of decency, society, and rightousness itself.
                                                                                                                                                             -Twilight Sparkle, MAGIC.mov

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 #16 on: June 09, 2012, 09:05:39 pm »
I know you've been online since I've posted this and I know you've been reading this thread, seeing as you've been editing your posts quite recently. I'm not going to ask you again, either answer the questions or I'm reporting you to the mods.

Screw you and your threats. I was thinking about it before making a snap response.

It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?

Look at it like a Keynesian would the economy. If all private actors act rationally (to maximise their own profit), sometimes you get an irrational result; recession. So you need an actor who is not constrained by the short-term profit motive (gubebrmint) to act 'irrationally'. And now you have a rational result.

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?

Allow me to edit this next bit you wrote so it's a little more clear.

For a supposed non-racist, you Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement seems to have trouble grasping the fact that people aren't part of some sort of racial collective hive mind. Race is nothing more than a collection of superficial physical characteristics. You Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement do know that you are essentially saying that anyone who is white is somehow responsible for slavery and the oppression of an entire race, regardless of whether or not they were even born when most of it happened, much less have the means or desire to do it, right? Sure, it's one thing to say that the well-off should try to give a hand-up to those who are worse off, but to judge whether nor not any given person is worthy of such a hand-up purely on their race is extremely misguided and poorly-thought out at its very best.

If you say so. But at least direct you accusations of anti-white racism where they should go.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2012, 09:10:25 pm by Lt. Fred »
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

Offline Osama bin Bambi

  • The Black Witch
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10167
  • Gender: Female
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2012, 09:12:41 pm »
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.
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 Cataclysm

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2458
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2012, 09:14:18 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'd be more sympathetic if people here didn't act like they knew what they were saying when they were saying something very much wrong.

Quote
Commenter Brendan Rizzo is an American (still living there) who really, really hates America. He used to make posts defending his country from anti-American attacks but got fed up with it all.

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 #19 on: June 09, 2012, 09:23:21 pm »
No, AA is when the company hires/promotes people due to a lack of them, or hires a percent of people of a race based on the percent that applied (or more stupidly, the the percent that is in the population.) This plan is proving that the employers are racist.

By looking who company X hires, ie affirmative action.
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

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 #20 on: June 09, 2012, 09:27:32 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.
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

Offline Osama bin Bambi

  • The Black Witch
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10167
  • Gender: Female
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #21 on: June 09, 2012, 09:31:53 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.
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 kefkaownsall

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3253
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2012, 09:33:07 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

Offline Osama bin Bambi

  • The Black Witch
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10167
  • Gender: Female
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2012, 09:35:23 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.
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 kefkaownsall

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3253
  • Gender: Male
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2012, 09:37:21 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.

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 #25 on: June 09, 2012, 09:39:38 pm »
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.
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

Offline Osama bin Bambi

  • The Black Witch
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 10167
  • Gender: Female
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2012, 09:41:55 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.
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 Eniliad

  • Sword And Shield Of The Innocent
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1265
  • Gender: Male
  • Perpetually horny cock-slave
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2012, 09:48:27 pm »
Holy shit, this thread is annoying. O.o

Okay, I'll sum up my thoughts re: affirmative action and duck out immediately. I do NOT want to be part of this fight. While I think it could be managed better and implemented better, I think affirmative action is necessary because, while it would be nice to judge merely on merit, the trouble is that it ignores the causes of someone having less merit - an african-american who is less qualified because his parents didn't have the money to send him to college due to their own parents being discriminated against deserves a chance to improve his station.

Also, if you judge solely on merit, anyone who's less-than-perfect never has a chance to become better and more qualified, and will never get a satisfyingly-paying job.
<Miles> "If dildoes are outlawed then only outlaws will have dildoes."
Quote from: Mlle Antéchrist
Yeah, gays cause hurricanes, tits cause earthquakes, and lack of prayer causes tornadoes. Learn to science, people.
Quote from: Mlle Antéchrist
Porn peddlers peddling pedal porn? My life is complete.

Art Vandelay

  • Guest
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2012, 09:50:20 pm »
Look at it like a Keynesian would the economy. If all private actors act rationally (to maximise their own profit), sometimes you get an irrational result; recession. So you need an actor who is not constrained by the short-term profit motive (gubebrmint) to act 'irrationally'. And now you have a rational result.

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?
"My black person"? I never said one of them was black. In fact, I never mentioned race at all. Now stop question dodging and give me a straight answer. Which do you think is more ethically deserving of the job? Yes or no. 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?
Allow me to edit this next bit you wrote so it's a little more clear.

For a supposed non-racist, you Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement seems to have trouble grasping the fact that people aren't part of some sort of racial collective hive mind. Race is nothing more than a collection of superficial physical characteristics. You Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement do know that you are essentially saying that anyone who is white is somehow responsible for slavery and the oppression of an entire race, regardless of whether or not they were even born when most of it happened, much less have the means or desire to do it, right? Sure, it's one thing to say that the well-off should try to give a hand-up to those who are worse off, but to judge whether nor not any given person is worthy of such a hand-up purely on their race is extremely misguided and poorly-thought out at its very best.

If you say so. But at least direct you accusations of anti-white racism where they should go.
I'm a little confused here. Are you trying to imply that these are just ol' Martin's veiws and not yours, or are you simply making an argumentum ad authoritatum?

Offline Witchyjoshy

  • SHITLORD THUNDERBASTARD!!
  • Kakarot
  • ******
  • Posts: 9044
  • Gender: Male
  • Thinks he's a bard
Re: Stupid people, or why MLK is still misunderstood
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2012, 09:50:56 pm »
Art, 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