Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's Time to End Affirmative Action

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    You're the last person who should accuse anyone here of being ignorant.
    This coming from Joe Ignoramus!

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Time to close this thread. We can revisit it when the courts make a decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Again you have ZERO clues, it gets old and people here are tired of your ignorance.
    You're the last person who should accuse anyone here of being ignorant.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    So you have to lie to feel as though you got your point across. Since you have never applied for or have been excepted at any higher education institution, it will be difficult for you to understand the selection process. I could explain it to you, but your lack of understanding simple concepts would do you in.

    I did not have to lie about anything since I was not the one who tried to use his personal experience to get the point across. That was YOU who tried to do it! And even though I do not have personal experience with the US higher education, I have gained knowledge about it in my personal life through my wife and my children. So, if I wanted I could use their examples! But I preferred to bring facts fro sources that other people can verify here, something that you were incapable to do so despite your three degrees...
    Again you have ZERO clues, it gets old and people here are tired of your ignorance.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    So you have to lie to feel as though you got your point across. Since you have never applied for or have been excepted at any higher education institution, it will be difficult for you to understand the selection process. I could explain it to you, but your lack of understanding simple concepts would do you in.

    I did not have to lie about anything since I was not the one who tried to use his personal experience to get the point across. That was YOU who tried to do it! And even though I do not have personal experience with the US higher education, I have gained knowledge about it in my personal life through my wife and my children. So, if I wanted I could use their examples! But I preferred to bring facts fro sources that other people can verify here, something that you were incapable to do so despite your three degrees...

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    I never cared for Bush or Obama, I actually liked Carter until he proved incompetent, what any of these comparisons has to do with affirmative action, especially many years later is, is at best trivial.
    Jimmy Carter: proof positive that academic achievement, technical wherewithal, and good character do not translate into political competence. And in a strange way, this tidbit will be pertinent to the discussion.

    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Slick wants to talk about the disconnect between elite status and merit. The first question is how to measure merit, I think we can agree that it isn't a birthright but it surely must have a genetic component?
    Measuring merit isn't easy. There's no perfect test for it. Various tests, however, can be combined with astute observation, as described by the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

    Is merit an inheritable trait? I say no. Talent may be inherited, but the ability to develop that talent, and then to put it to good use, is decidedly not an inherited ability. That's what merit is: having raw talent, developing it, cultivating it, then applying it to worthy enterprises. The development, cultivation, and application of talent require not raw talent, but industry, determination, and also judgement and even wisdom. Those last four traits are functions of a good character. Character is decidedly not an inherited trait, certainly not genetic.

    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Talent as a basis for entrance into a university was traditionally measure alongside character. How do you measure character? Isn't it reasonable to expect that the elites more vigorously prepare their children making it harder to focus on raw talent when assessing merit? Is slicks point overreach towards an equality of opportunity that can never be realized? So on and so forth.
    Would you apply that yardstick to the Kennedy's? The Cuomo's? The D'Alesandro's? To any political dynasty? Strikes me that the bulk of politicians' scions are raging a$$holes. They're too insecure, too emotionally needy, they have way too much to prove.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.62160185510f

    There's a lot of basket cases in that list.

    It varies so much from family to family that I wouldn't dare to hazard a guess. If I had to guess, however, I'd say that the field of endeavor that the family made their reputation in may go a long way in determining what kind of character the heirs will develop. If the field in question rewards mendacity, then you'll have your answer about character and how it's transmitted from parent to child.

    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    The founding fathers were mostly men with advantages they inherited from their parents and family ties. Does that invalidate in anyway the foundation they prepared?
    Before the founding of our republic, there wasn't much in the way of public education, so it only stands to reason that the republic's first generations of leaders came from privileged backgrounds.

    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Isn't a republic almost guaranteed to be ran by privileged individuals to a degree?
    Perhaps, but that condition need not be set in stone. Great dynasties have been known to implode throughout history. Combine that with the fact that a society prospers when it receives injections of new blood on occasion, and clearly it's actually desirable to turn over the leadership from time to time. It's why we so strongly favor term limits.

    https://www.google.com/search?biw=14...13.5rRoaKHP3Sc

    It's why genetic diversity generally ensures offspring's survivability.

    https://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2003-con...n-populations/

    We don't NEED dynasts. Sometimes a dynast may be preferable, if he possesses superior knowledge and technique, learned from his forebears -- but in this era of universal education, and the ubiquity of the internet, wherein nearly the whole of human knowledge is accessible with little more than a few keystrokes or swipes, dynasts' advantages are no longer so obvious as to justify their monopolies. They're just not necessary. Frankly, they're expendable.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Yes we got it the first time and the argument doesn't improve with repetition.

    ​​​​​The argument against what you are suggesting is taught to second graders as two wrongs do not make a right.


    You got it, but some of the right-wing posters here who challenged the claim did not get it. This was what led me to defend my claim. As to those who "got it" and accept my initial claim, I am not saying that affirmative action based on race should exist because rich kids are getting unfair advantages based on their family's background. What I am saying is that ALL types of advantages should be on the table when we discuss how to change the admission process of universities. We should not restrict the discussion only within those existed advantages that fit best to our political agenda.


    Actually, with affirmative action it is the other way around, the selection is based on race not intelligence which is unfair.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    pamak you are making a trivial point, some people are more privileged than others. I think everyone knows that. The question is if the solution is unearned privilege.

    My point was not that some people are more privileged than others. My point (which ironically 101combatvet proved) was that the issue of "unearned privilege" is used selectively by hypocrites who are only concerned about "meritocracy" when they talk about minorities but remain blissfully ignorant when undeserved rich white kids are benefited by the current system of admissions.
    So you have to lie to feel as though you got your point across. Since you have never applied for or have been excepted at any higher education institution, it will be difficult for you to understand the selection process. I could explain it to you, but your lack of understanding simple concepts would do you in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Hida Akechi View Post

    Massena is an idiot, of course--attacking me because I dared to give an example that clashed with his fanaticism. The job I had I was there for nearly 10 years. The person they put in the position was a black female. A friend of mine, I really liked her, but even she herself admitted that she didn't know why I wasn't given the promotion, since I had the experience and work record. I ended up having to do a lot of her work anyway until the company collapsed in on itself a couple of years later.
    Here you go-perhaps this will help you instead of merely crying in your beer:

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/...cid=spartandhp

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    Yes we got it the first time and the argument doesn't improve with repetition.

    ​​​​​The argument against what you are suggesting is taught to second graders as two wrongs do not make a right.


    You got it, but some of the right-wing posters here who challenged the claim did not get it. This was what led me to defend my claim. As to those who "got it" and accept my initial claim, I am not saying that affirmative action based on race should exist because rich kids are getting unfair advantages based on their family's background. What I am saying is that ALL types of advantages should be on the table when we discuss how to change the admission process of universities. We should not restrict the discussion only within those existed advantages that fit best to our political agenda.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    pamak you are making a trivial point, some people are more privileged than others. I think everyone knows that. The question is if the solution is unearned privilege.

    My point was not that some people are more privileged than others. My point (which ironically 101combatvet proved) was that the issue of "unearned privilege" is used selectively by hypocrites who are only concerned about "meritocracy" when they talk about minorities but remain blissfully ignorant when undeserved rich white kids are benefited by the current system of admissions.
    Yes we got it the first time and the argument doesn't improve with repetition.

    ​​​​​The argument against what you are suggesting is taught to second graders as two wrongs do not make a right.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied

    Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
    pamak you are making a trivial point, some people are more privileged than others. I think everyone knows that. The question is if the solution is unearned privilege.

    My point was not that some people are more privileged than others. My point (which ironically 101combatvet proved) was that the issue of "unearned privilege" is used selectively by hypocrites who are only concerned about "meritocracy" when they talk about minorities but remain blissfully ignorant when undeserved rich white kids are benefited by the current system of admissions.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    pamak you are making a trivial point, some people are more privileged than others. I think everyone knows that. The question is if the solution is unearned privilege.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Now, after dealing with the nuances of this thread, back to the subject...

    Since I do not want to turn the conversation regarding legacies to a partisan issue, here is another example from the "left" (supposedly the mainstream Democrats are the "left")

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry


    220px-John_Kerry_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait.jpg
    Education Now, a JD degree (law) is a postgraduate degree. There is a lot of competition among applicants for Law schools.

    Now, can anybody explain how a "C" student at Yale was accepted to Boston's JD program?

    By the way, we also have the transcripts for Kerry

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8127403/ns...nscript-shows/

    BOSTON — Sen. John F. Kerry's grade average at Yale University was virtually identical to President Bush's record there, despite repeated portrayals of Kerry as the more intellectual candidate during the 2004 presidential campaign.

    Kerry had a cumulative average of 76 and got four Ds his freshman year — in geology, two history courses and political science, The Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

    His grades improved with time, and he averaged an 81 his senior year and earned an 89 -- his highest grade -- in political science as a senior


    And we also know that his father was a Yale alumnus, and that letters of recommendation from professors are part of the evaluation of the candidate when he applies for a postgraduate program

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kerry
    Last edited by pamak; 23 Oct 18, 20:59.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post
    You are not really that dumb.

    I do not talk about myself, and if I am smart or dumb or not. Notice the topic of the other thread which mentions the observable fact in psychology that most people overestimate their intellectual capabilities.

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...ngful-dialogue
    .


    Feel free to have your own opinion about my intellect,, but notice that, incidentally, in the same thread I posted previously, even one of my political opponents here called me "smart"

    https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...14#post4617514

    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    I think you are really smart and must be a really nice guy in person. But sometimes you do come across in a way that it may be wise for me let it be known I am not taking a position, and therefor no need for you to rescue me from that supposed position.


    Personally, I do not care what you or anybody else here thinks about me. I only care about people's claims. You claimed that the video I posted with Bush's speech was edited, and I gave you the full speech from the university's youtube channel to shut your mouth or at least to make sure that if you continue your talk, you will sound as somebody who does not know how to respond back. Your last respond fulfilled my expectations.
    Dumb

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X