| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2004 03:59:22 PM |
| Object: |
'Value in Diversity' |
'Value in Diversity'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28384-2004Oct12.html
Page A20
ON ITS WEB SITE, the Board of Education of Charles County, in Southern
Maryland, affirms its belief that "there is value in diversity." That
credo is in danger of being distorted by several members of the board.
Among the ideas they are advancing: to have science classes offer
instructional materials that teach creationism and cast doubt on
evolution; to require books that stress America's history as "a
Christian nation"; and to revamp sex education so it is informed by
"theological perspectives of the Founders." Board members would also
invite Gideons International to provide Bibles to students, and cull
school reading lists to ban books offering "a neutral or positive view
of immorality or foul language."
Maryland evolution
http://news.google.com/news?q=Maryland%20evolution&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=Maryland+evolution&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Maryland+evolution&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Maryland%20evolution&safe=images&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 04:42:30 PM |
|
|
***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> writes:
You also have the right to serve who you like in your home, or to host
a private party and to invite whoever you want. Based on whatever
criteria you choose. But if you are going public, then it should be
all the public.
So, once you've chosen to sell to an arbitrary public, your
property effectively becomes public property? How fair is that?
What is strange is that you are arguing not for the "freedom of
conscience", rather for the right to discriminate.
Those are the same thing. I find it grating and intellectually
dishonest to listen to someone say, "Oh, they can think that way all
they like, but they can't *act* that way." How is this different from
"I don't mind gay people as long as they don't act that way in public?"
You may not like it, but the constitution spells out certain rights,
and those are supposed to apply to all, but they have not until
the force of the law is brought about. `
I actually do like the way the Constitution spells out certain
rights. I would love, just once, to hear a politician or a federal
judge state unequivocally, "We're sorry, but your right to access
someone else's property without their consent is not spelled out in the
Constitution, and I can't help you."
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dick C" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
16 Oct 2004 12:40:55 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote in talk.origins
***** C <foo. > writes:
You also have the right to serve who you like in your home, or to host
a private party and to invite whoever you want. Based on whatever
criteria you choose. But if you are going public, then it should be
all the public.
So, once you've chosen to sell to an arbitrary public, your
property effectively becomes public property? How fair is that?
Well, isn't that the purpose? Why would anyone care what color of
skin someone has when they want to buy a can of peas? And that is
exactly what this is about. Minorities not able to go into a
store or restaurant to purchase something. But some people seemed
to think that the color of skin means that they should not be
able to buy something, or sleep somewhere, or even use the same
doors as others.
What is strange is that you are arguing not for the "freedom of
conscience", rather for the right to discriminate.
Those are the same thing. I find it grating and intellectually
dishonest to listen to someone say, "Oh, they can think that way all
they like, but they can't *act* that way." How is this different from
"I don't mind gay people as long as they don't act that way in public?"
How is that dishonest? You are more than free to think what you like
about people. Nobody is trying to change your mind. But, the problem
is that by allowing some people to choose who they want to sell to
removes a whole host of rights from a very large portion of the
populace.
You may not like it, but the constitution spells out certain rights,
and those are supposed to apply to all, but they have not until
the force of the law is brought about. `
I actually do like the way the Constitution spells out certain
rights. I would love, just once, to hear a politician or a federal
judge state unequivocally, "We're sorry, but your right to access
someone else's property without their consent is not spelled out in the
Constitution, and I can't help you."
And they do it all the time. But, there is a clear difference between
private property for private use, and opening something to the public.
--
***** #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
17 Oct 2004 12:12:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:42:30 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
***** C <foo.dickcr@comcast.net> writes:
You also have the right to serve who you like in your home, or to host
a private party and to invite whoever you want. Based on whatever
criteria you choose. But if you are going public, then it should be
all the public.
So, once you've chosen to sell to an arbitrary public, your
property effectively becomes public property? How fair is that?
No, your property does not become public property, that is just silly.
You have limit rights with your property. Which is nothing new at all
in U.S. or Common Law. I have pointed out several limitations in the
past. You can't arbitrarily set fire to your property, you can't use
it to produce poisonous gases, and, now, you can't use it to interfere
in interstate traffic by discriminating against people on the basis of
skin color.
[snip]
You may not like it, but the constitution spells out certain rights,
and those are supposed to apply to all, but they have not until
the force of the law is brought about. `
I actually do like the way the Constitution spells out certain
rights. I would love, just once, to hear a politician or a federal
judge state unequivocally, "We're sorry, but your right to access
someone else's property without their consent is not spelled out in the
Constitution, and I can't help you."
That you don't understand Constitutional law is something you can fix.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 04:04:39 AM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<94orm0pbph75f2c7rpup23q3hl715sndi4@4ax.com>...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:37:26 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Jeffery"
<observa_no_spam@xtra.co.nz> thought hard and said:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:audrm0tt307f5b053mn29l1piak2viv0vm@4ax.com...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:59:22 +0000 (UTC), (maff)
thought hard and said:
'Value in Diversity'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28384-2004Oct12.html
Page A20
ON ITS WEB SITE, the Board of Education of Charles County, in Southern
Maryland, affirms its belief that "there is value in diversity." That
credo is in danger of being distorted by several members of the board.
Among the ideas they are advancing: to have science classes offer
instructional materials that teach creationism
<snip>
Oh! I thought you talking about that other type of diversity. You
know, the ***** one all the universities and colleges love to talk
about.
Just to make sure there is no confusion. Please explain what that is.
Alan Jeffery
My omment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 10:42:17 AM |
|
|
(maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Extending special rights and extra credits because of one's melanin
production is pretty offensive and damnably un-American.
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence. I think
people should be free to refuse to do business with others for whatever
reason they wish and should suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Racism is generally expensive for racists; its *costs more* to keep
"them" (whoever "they" might be) out of your shop/neighborhood/park than
it does to do business.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 11:20:48 AM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Extending special rights and extra credits because of one's melanin
production is pretty offensive and damnably un-American.
I didn't know that affirmative action was limited to skin color.
Why to you think it is?
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence. I think
people should be free to refuse to do business with others for whatever
reason they wish and should suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Racism is generally expensive for racists; its *costs more* to keep
"them" (whoever "they" might be) out of your shop/neighborhood/park than
it does to do business.
Its not just a microeconomics problem that the legislation attempts to
solve, is it?
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 01:04:07 PM |
|
|
Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com> writes:
I didn't know that affirmative action was limited to skin color.
Why to you think it is?
I don't; I'm just generally unaware that, at current, it has
much utility in gender equality issues. At current, its broadest use is
in racial issues.
The term "affirmative action" arises from President Johnson's
1965 Executive Order 11245, which states that federal agencies and their
contractors must "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without
regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
There's a difference between *de jure* equality and the
establishment of different criteria for individuals based upon "race,
creed, color, or national origin."
After the installation of *de jure* equality, it *is* a just
microeconomics problem.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 05:07:17 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com> writes:
I didn't know that affirmative action was limited to skin color.
Why to you think it is?
I don't; I'm just generally unaware that, at current, it has
much utility in gender equality issues. At current, its broadest use is
in racial issues.
The term "affirmative action" arises from President Johnson's
1965 Executive Order 11245, which states that federal agencies and their
contractors must "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are
employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without
regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
There's a difference between *de jure* equality and the
establishment of different criteria for individuals based upon "race,
creed, color, or national origin."
After the installation of *de jure* equality, it *is* a just
microeconomics problem.
I think that you are minimalizing a whole raft of problems including
moral, legal, political, sociological, psychological and probably more
if I thought about it more. I know that you don't think that government
has a role in these matters, but most of us do. It can be an agent
of good when properly applied.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 11:57:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:17 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> thought hard and said:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Because I am not a leftist, that automatically means I am a fascist in
maff's little bigoted eyes.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 07:02:12 PM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c9ctm0p1pbaelvndhbsg2o4tnfvkgn9mtf@4ax.com:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:17 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> thought hard and said:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Because I am not a leftist, that automatically means I am a fascist in
maff's little bigoted eyes.
I think it has more to do with what you said. Your dislike of a program
designed to create equality sounds much like a bigoted statement.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lt. Kizhe Catson" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 11:37:39 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message news:<Xns9582B89BBA614GaryBohn@130.133.1.4>...
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c9ctm0p1pbaelvndhbsg2o4tnfvkgn9mtf@4ax.com:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:17 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> thought hard and said:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Because I am not a leftist, that automatically means I am a fascist in
maff's little bigoted eyes.
I think it has more to do with what you said. Your dislike of a program
designed to create equality sounds much like a bigoted statement.
Well, in this case I think it has at least as much to do with maff's
generally charming personality. Personally, I find maff's
inflammatory rhetoric not worth paying attention too -- even on those
occasions when it's in connection with a position that I might be
generally in sympathy with (and that's assuming I can figure out what
the hell he's ranting about this time).
-- Kizhe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 10:34:37 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c9ctm0p1pbaelvndhbsg2o4tnfvkgn9mtf@4ax.com:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:17 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> thought hard and said:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Because I am not a leftist, that automatically means I am a fascist in
maff's little bigoted eyes.
I think it has more to do with what you said. Your dislike of a program
designed to create equality sounds much like a bigoted statement.
Affirmative Action is a racist policy. Michael Badnarik put it best
when he said "Either we are all created equal or we are not."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 01:01:55 PM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:uirvm0p4ggpn9h5mrf0fej4h505hqtoqfs@4ax.com:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c9ctm0p1pbaelvndhbsg2o4tnfvkgn9mtf@4ax.com:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:17 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> thought hard and said:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow
fascists but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a
mattter of demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Because I am not a leftist, that automatically means I am a fascist
in maff's little bigoted eyes.
I think it has more to do with what you said. Your dislike of a
program designed to create equality sounds much like a bigoted
statement.
Affirmative Action is a racist policy. Michael Badnarik put it best
when he said "Either we are all created equal or we are not."
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr
Tveitt are my Gods. Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane
Scientist.
So you believe that social stratification is a good thing? Or do you
believe that society will give everyone practical equality without being
nudged in the right direction?
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
19 Oct 2004 04:21:40 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:34:37 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:02:12 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
<garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:c9ctm0p1pbaelvndhbsg2o4tnfvkgn9mtf@4ax.com:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:17 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> thought hard and said:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Because I am not a leftist, that automatically means I am a fascist in
maff's little bigoted eyes.
I think it has more to do with what you said. Your dislike of a program
designed to create equality sounds much like a bigoted statement.
Affirmative Action is a racist policy. Michael Badnarik put it best
when he said "Either we are all created equal or we are not."
We are. Once the 'clock starts' after exiting the womb all bets are
off. That, Daniel, is the problem.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
And Duty Imp and Rapscallion
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 11:11:09 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:42:17 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
maff91@yahoo.com (maff) writes:
My comment is about affirmative action. Its proponents claim it
increases diversity. Diversity is overrated.
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly can do business with fellow fascists
but you'll find your market share will shrink. It's a mattter of
demographics.
There's no evidence, in this post, that Kolle's a "facist."
Extending special rights and extra credits because of one's melanin
production is pretty offensive and damnably un-American.
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence.
All civil right legislation?
I think
people should be free to refuse to do business with others for whatever
reason they wish and should suffer the consequences of their decisions.
Before the passage of those acts the consequences was admiration in
their community.
Racism is generally expensive for racists; its *costs more* to keep
"them" (whoever "they" might be) out of your shop/neighborhood/park than
it does to do business.
Funny, it worked for a long time. But I guess eventually it would have
stopped, we just needed more patience.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 12:58:09 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence.
All civil right legislation?
Yes. I'm generally a liberatarian minarchist; the government's
sole reaon for existing is to be the singular institution in society
with a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is such an awesome
responsibility that it must be used with the utmost care, and dictating
manners is far beyond any reasonable scope. If an employer wants to
forgo the most competent person for a given job because of sex, race,
whatever... let 'em. Their loss.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 06:58:29 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87fz4htbyj.fsf@drizzle.com:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the
grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence.
All civil right legislation?
Yes. I'm generally a liberatarian minarchist; the
government's
sole reaon for existing is to be the singular institution in society
with a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is such an awesome
responsibility that it must be used with the utmost care, and
dictating manners is far beyond any reasonable scope. If an employer
wants to forgo the most competent person for a given job because of
sex, race, whatever... let 'em. Their loss.
Elf
The consistant inability of a particular minority to establish
themselves as a productive part of society (get a job) will only lead
them to actions that will increase crime that affects *you*. Give them
equal opportuniity and crime will go down.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 10:27:56 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
The consistant inability of a particular minority to establish
themselves as a productive part of society (get a job) will only lead
them to actions that will increase crime that affects *you*. Give them
equal opportuniity and crime will go down.
Even if that means taking away your rights?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 12:47:07 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87oej4f14s.fsf@drizzle.com:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
The consistant inability of a particular minority to establish
themselves as a productive part of society (get a job) will only lead
them to actions that will increase crime that affects *you*. Give
them equal opportuniity and crime will go down.
Even if that means taking away your rights?
Elf
What rights would those be? Does a store owner lose the right to refuse
service to a disruptive or an abusive or a violent person? Granted, if I
was a bigot I would lose my right of refusal based on colour, but if I
wasn't a bigot I wouldn't refuse that person anyway so effectively I
haven't lost any rights. In this country hate is a crime, maybe it
should be there as well.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Mathers" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 03:46:36 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
The consistant inability of a particular minority to establish
themselves as a productive part of society (get a job) will only lead
them to actions that will increase crime that affects *you*. Give them
equal opportuniity and crime will go down.
Even if that means taking away your rights?
Elf
It is not an either/or, zero/sum situtation. It is very complex and
therfore lends itself to ideological covictions rather than problematic
solutions that may or may not work to overcome past historical
discrimination.
RAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
16 Oct 2004 03:41:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:46:36 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rich Mathers
<R-Mathers@wiu.edu>:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
The consistant inability of a particular minority to establish
themselves as a productive part of society (get a job) will only lead
them to actions that will increase crime that affects *you*. Give them
equal opportuniity and crime will go down.
Even if that means taking away your rights?
Elf
It is not an either/or, zero/sum situtation. It is very complex and
therfore lends itself to ideological covictions rather than problematic
solutions that may or may not work to overcome past historical
discrimination.
Minor nit (which may not be so minor in this context):
It's impossible to overcome past prejudice and past racist
and sexist behavior ("discrimination" would be quicker to
type, but since I exercise discrimination when I choose the
clothes I wear and the food I eat, I'd rather not use it in
its bastardized meaning). All we can do is not indulge in
racism and prejudice *now* (and in the future).
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 12:54:40 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in
news:fk13n01lnb9gjb7bmlitu366aj74cphta9@4ax.com:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:46:36 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rich Mathers
<R-Mathers@wiu.edu>:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
The consistant inability of a particular minority to establish
themselves as a productive part of society (get a job) will only
lead them to actions that will increase crime that affects *you*.
Give them equal opportuniity and crime will go down.
Even if that means taking away your rights?
Elf
It is not an either/or, zero/sum situtation. It is very complex and
therfore lends itself to ideological covictions rather than
problematic solutions that may or may not work to overcome past
historical discrimination.
Minor nit (which may not be so minor in this context):
It's impossible to overcome past prejudice and past racist
and sexist behavior ("discrimination" would be quicker to
type, but since I exercise discrimination when I choose the
clothes I wear and the food I eat, I'd rather not use it in
its bastardized meaning). All we can do is not indulge in
racism and prejudice *now* (and in the future).
"discrimination" varies its meaning based on context so it's OK to use
it here.
You are quite correct, but it is necessary to keep reminding
ourselves of the injustice in the hopes we will not repeat it. We also
have to let the people that have suffered at our hands know that we are
sorry, not so they can hold it over us but to help them let go of the
anger.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Mathers" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 02:06:19 PM |
|
|
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:46:36 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Rich Mathers
<R-Mathers@wiu.edu>:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
The consistant inability of a particular minority to establish
themselves as a productive part of society (get a job) will only lead
them to actions that will increase crime that affects *you*. Give them
equal opportuniity and crime will go down.
Even if that means taking away your rights?
Elf
It is not an either/or, zero/sum situtation. It is very complex and
therfore lends itself to ideological covictions rather than problematic
solutions that may or may not work to overcome past historical
discrimination.
Minor nit (which may not be so minor in this context):
It's impossible to overcome past prejudice and past racist
and sexist behavior ("discrimination" would be quicker to
type, but since I exercise discrimination when I choose the
clothes I wear and the food I eat, I'd rather not use it in
its bastardized meaning). All we can do is not indulge in
racism and prejudice *now* (and in the future).
Good points! I should have qualified my comment with an "attempt to
overcome past historical discrimination" I agree it is absolutely if
not mostly impossible to overcome past patterns of historical
discrimination. AA is easy to attack because it employs the very
mechanism it wants to overcome. It clearly is a temporary effort and
largely ineffective practice. Having said all that I would argue it was
historically about the only politically, economically and socially
acceptable strategy to attempt to redress past discrimination related
inequalities.
RAM
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ernest Major" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 02:56:09 PM |
|
|
In article <2tghebF1usplhU1@uni-berlin.de>, AC
<mightymartianca@hotmail.com> writes
I dunno Fred. Is the playing field level now? Can a black man get
voted president of the United States? Hell, for that matter, could a
black man even win the nomination of either of the two major parties?
People are talking about amending the Constitution to let an ex-body
builder from Austria with some successful movies under his belt run for
the highest office, but no one in the Democratic or Republican parties
seem very interested in putting an African American to the public as
their candidate for the White House (ditto for women). Both parties
nominate people who say that African Americans are equals, and to their
credit, put African Americans in high positions, but neither party has
the balls to actually present America a black candidate.
Wasn't there are fair chance that Colin Powell would have been nominated
if he was willing to accept?
--
alias Ernest Major
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 01:22:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:58:09 +0000 (UTC),
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence.
All civil right legislation?
Yes. I'm generally a liberatarian minarchist; the government's
sole reaon for existing is to be the singular institution in society
with a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is such an awesome
responsibility that it must be used with the utmost care, and dictating
manners is far beyond any reasonable scope. If an employer wants to
forgo the most competent person for a given job because of sex, race,
whatever... let 'em. Their loss.
Um, let's put this into the context of the Deep South in the 1950s for a
moment. Blacks couldn't go to the same restaurants, bars, laundromats,
grocery stores and schools in many places. Let's not even talk about being
chosen for a job. Just how many blacks would even been allowed to apply, or
could even get into a college sufficient to educate them?
This isn't a matter of manners, but of basic rights of certain groups of
citizens being infringed upon or outright ignored. This is about the
underlying racism in many police forces where a black man driving a nice car
is immediately typed as a thief/drug dealer/pimp.
Beyond that, civil rights legislation in the US has its roots in the Bill of
Rights (not to mention the 13th Amendment). Are you suggesting that the
government has no interest in assuring that the Constitution is enforced?
This sounds like a very extreme form of liberatarianism, and as with all
extreme forms of any ideaology, is all but detached from reality.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Harper" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
16 Oct 2004 09:08:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:22:58 +0000, AC wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:58:09 +0000 (UTC), Elf M. Sternberg
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the
grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence.
All civil right legislation?
Yes. I'm generally a liberatarian minarchist; the government's
sole reaon for existing is to be the singular institution in society
with a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is such an awesome
responsibility that it must be used with the utmost care, and dictating
manners is far beyond any reasonable scope. If an employer wants to
forgo the most competent person for a given job because of sex, race,
whatever... let 'em. Their loss.
Um, let's put this into the context of the Deep South in the 1950s for a
moment. Blacks couldn't go to the same restaurants, bars, laundromats,
grocery stores and schools in many places. Let's not even talk about
being chosen for a job. Just how many blacks would even been allowed to
apply, or could even get into a college sufficient to educate them?
This isn't a matter of manners, but of basic rights of certain groups of
citizens being infringed upon or outright ignored. This is about the
underlying racism in many police forces where a black man driving a nice
car is immediately typed as a thief/drug dealer/pimp.
Another issue with regards to this subject is that civil rights
legislation is imposed by the federal system onto smaller, otherwise
self-contained enclaves of racist thought and social stratification, i.e.
the South. When I was younger, I used to believe the way Elf does now,
that white males are now a discriminated minority and that affirmative
action programs are a form on institutionalized racism (see the "Pretty OT:
Old Stuff Written By Me" thread for proof of this) -- at the time I can
tell you that I did not feel racist to any degree, and even looking back
on it now I don't feel that my attitudes were racist, so much as socially
naive and misguided.
What I neglected, and what I think Elf may (or may not, I haven't had a
discussion with him) be missing is that while it's all well and good to
talk about a free market allowing for freedom of choice in whom one
serves, if you happen to live in an area (like, say, Montgomery, Alabama in
1950) in which racist attitudes are predominant, and you are one of the
minority races, then there may very well be _no_ place you can go to eat
in peace. If and when a minority decides to open up his/her own place of
business that serves everyone equally, the loan officers at the bank, the
real estate agents, et cetera, equally racist and equally immune from
prosecution for this racism, are under no obligation to help this minority
applicant, no matter his/her qualifications.
Essentially, under a "free market" system as Elf seems to want, in areas
of institutionalized racism, there is no system of redress except in those
cases where outside assistance is garnered into the system, i.e. getting a
bank in a non-racist area to float a loan for a new hamburger joint. Since
the amount of foreign speculation by outside banks in necessarily limited,
the ability for minorities to advance socially is equally limited. Civil
rights legislation in general, and affirmative action in particular, seek
to redress this problem.
The primary difference that I see in my own thoughts between my days as a
right-wing libertarian and my current self, more liberal in political
thought, is that when I was a libertarian I believed in a highly limited
role for government, essentially that government is _solely_ for external
defense and internal policing. As I saw more complexities in the world
around me, I saw that even under an ideal Ayn Rand system, government
would still have some tricky "gray lines" as to which types of problems it
sought to redress -- racial issues being only one example. Now I feel that
government has a responsibility to help ensure justice, even without
necessarily violent criminal behavior, and that this certainly includes
the righting of wrongs around racism and the history of racial
interactions in the United States.
I still don't really _like_ affirmative action, for some of the same
reasons that Elf mentions -- it seems like a form of institutionalized
racism to me. But I feel that, given the history that minorities have been
through, and the unlikelihood of spontaneous social change within a
generation or two, some form of affirmative action is necessary.
Beyond that, civil rights legislation in the US has its roots in the Bill
of Rights (not to mention the 13th Amendment). Are you suggesting that
the government has no interest in assuring that the Constitution is
enforced?
This sounds like a very extreme form of liberatarianism, and as with all
extreme forms of any ideaology, is all but detached from reality.
An extreme libertarian would probably reject the 13th amendment as an
ideal.
--
Romani Ite Domum
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
20 Oct 2004 07:05:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:58:09 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence.
All civil right legislation?
Yes. I'm generally a liberatarian minarchist; the government's
sole reaon for existing is to be the singular institution in society
with a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is such an awesome
responsibility that it must be used with the utmost care, and dictating
manners is far beyond any reasonable scope. If an employer wants to
forgo the most competent person for a given job because of sex, race,
whatever... let 'em. Their loss.
Here is a story from the pre-Civil Rights Acts era that Elf prefers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/movies/20kill.html?pagewanted=2
"Amelia Ray was 22 when she sat in a darkened theater, watching her
father, Carl Ray, perform his autobiographical one-man show, "A
Killing in Choctaw." Only then did she discover that he had witnessed
the murder of his father decades before, killed because Carl had
refused to say "sir" to a white man."
Let me explain on of the laws that Elf find preferable to our current
system. Individual states could set their own voting requirements. One
of the requirements to vote was that you could read to a particular
level. (Remember, this is also a time when the states could have
separate schools for Blacks and Whites.) If you could not read well
enough you could not vote *unless* your father or grandfather had the
right to vote. The law is clearly race neutral, right? I suppose Elf
would agree that it should be changed to father or mother or
grandfather or grandmother. One of the things that the civil rights
legislation did was to eliminate the reading requirement.
Elf's position, which he does not find racist, was that
disenfranchising (with all of the resultant problems caused by not
having a vote) some 10-20% of the population was preferable to having
the federal government tell the state how to act.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 03:48:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 17:58:09 +0000 (UTC), "Elf M. Sternberg"
<elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
I'm generally opposed to civil rights legislation on the grounds
that it enforces something as straightforward as basic manners with
goverment action and its legitimate monopoly on violence.
All civil right legislation?
Yes. I'm generally a liberatarian minarchist; the government's
sole reaon for existing is to be the singular institution in society
with a monopoly on legitimate violence. This is such an awesome
responsibility that it must be used with the utmost care, and dictating
manners is far beyond any reasonable scope. If an employer wants to
forgo the most competent person for a given job because of sex, race,
whatever... let 'em. Their loss.
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 05:15:33 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 06:59:26 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87k6ttrlgz.fsf@drizzle.com:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
You already have equality. You want superiority.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
