Tendo City

Or the French, for that matter.

I hope America never gets so liberalized that we're faced with this situation, though it does seem like we're getting close sometimes.

Quote:<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" border="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="99%">French Fume Over Proposed Ban on Beards
</td> <td align="right" width="1%"> </td> </tr></tbody> </table> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" border="0" width="420"> <tbody><tr valign="middle"> <td width="40%"> <!-- Yahoo TimeStamp: 1074720811 --> <!-- timestamp 1074720811 48537 secs stale 28800 secs --> Wed Jan 21, 4:33 PM ET
</td> <td width="60%" nowrap="nowrap" align="right"> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr><td width="1%"></td><td width="99%" nowrap="nowrap"> Add World - AP to My Yahoo!</td></tr></tbody></table> </td></tr></tbody> </table> <!-- TextStart --> By JOCELYN GECKER, Associated Press Writer

PARIS - France's fight to keep religion out of schools has entered new — and some say absurd — territory. Teachers and some religious leaders fumed Wednesday over a government minister's call to ban beards and bandannas from classrooms along with Islamic head scarves, Jewish skullcaps and Christian crosses.

<table align="left" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="99%"> <center> <table width="150" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td> <center>
AP Photo </center>
</td></tr></tbody></table> </center> </td><td width="5">
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Muslim leaders were divided, with some denouncing a curb on facial hair as "total delirium." Others said street protests against the planned law had rattled the government and provoked a crackdown.



Le Monde newspaper devoted its front-page cartoon to the subject, showing a teacher inspecting a student's beard with a magnifying glass, as veiled women with big smiles looked on.



The latest twist in France's controversial plan to ban religious symbols from classrooms came Tuesday, when Education Minister Luc Ferry said the planned ban on religious symbols could also cover facial hair and bandannas, sometimes worn as a discreet alternative to the traditional Muslim head scarf.



Ferry made the comments during a parliamentary debate, where lawmakers questioned whether the wording of the bill was tough enough. They asked if the ban should cover "visible" religious symbols, rather than "conspicuous" symbols, as the draft law states.



Ferry said the existing wording would allow for a broader interpretation of the law.



And so, "if a beard is transformed into a religious sign it will fall under the law," Ferry said. Likewise, a bandanna "will be banned, if young girls present it as a religious sign."



This came as a shock to many in France, particularly to teachers who will be at the front line of policing the new law, expected to be in place for the next school year in September. Lawmakers begin debating the bill Feb. 3.



"Beards? Bandannas?" asked Daniel Robin, national secretary of France's largest union for high school teachers. "What next?"



"This exercise has become absurd. Totally absurd," he said in a telephone interview.



How will teachers identify religious facial hair? Would they reprimand a "religious" bandanna but allow it as a fashion statement?



"I don't know how to respond to these questions," said Robin, who added that boys too lazy to shave never were punished in the past. "Beards were never a problem before. Let's not create new problems."



The Education Ministry did not respond to calls asking for clarification of Ferry's remarks.



Ferry declined to speak to reporters as he left a Cabinet meeting Wednesday. Government spokesman Jean-Francois Cope spoke on his behalf, saying only that the new law would be applied "with discretion."



President Jacques Chirac says the law's goal is to protect France's secular underpinnings. However, it also is seen as a way to hold back Islamic fundamentalism in the nation's Muslim community, at an estimated 5 million the largest in Western Europe.



Last weekend, up to 10,000 people — mostly Muslim women in head scarves — marched in Paris to protest the planned law.



The march was organized by the Party of Muslims of France, a small group known for its radical views. The group's president, Mohamed Latreche, called banning of facial hair "total delirium."

<table align="left" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="1%"> <tbody><tr valign="top"> <td width="99%">
</td> <td width="5">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>





"This law has become a farce," he said by telephone. "It's not up to the government to tell us if we can grow beards.

"It proves what we've been saying all along — that this law is anti-Muslim," Latreche said.

Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French council of the Muslim religion, had discouraged Muslims from attending the protest, saying the rally would exacerbate the anti-Muslim climate.

"Now, you see the repercussions," Boubakeur said, adding that a ban on bandannas or beards showed "the government was toughening its position."

"I told people not to demonstrate. I told them they'd scare French people — and this fear would result in France closing the door."

Weltall Wrote:Or the French, for that matter.

I hope America never gets so liberalized that we're faced with this situation, though it does seem like we're getting close sometimes.

France is full of ignorance and prejidice, This isnt liberalism but snubism. This law is uncontituional and violates basic rights and freedoms and would never be passed anywhere else except france.This is what happens when a country is filled with Darunian atheists.

I doubt the law will even be passed. No civilized country would put up with something like this, and all the protests are going to go a long way in convincing France's lawmakers that they would be stupid to pass this law.

Dude, that's pretty f*cked up. (Pardon my French... no pun intended.) This is what happens when seperation of church and state is allowed to go too far.

Yeah, this isn't really liberalism, Weltall... I can see why they would do it and call it liberal but banning stuff like that makes me think more of being reactionary, or paranoid, or scared of other groups, than of liberalism... but you really do have to put it into context first.

France has a lot of African Muslim immigrants. Their numbers keep increasing. The French are nervous, and aren't exactly a people known for their tolerance. Though I will give them that the headscarf thing is a real problem. You may act like headscarves are innocuous but they are not. Just ask the Turks who have been having major problems over headscarves ever since Ataturk banned them in the '20s in an attempt to seperate religion from public life... they are a very religious symbol and stand in place of veils, so seeing them as a symbol of the subjugation of women under men is quite appropriate. Banning them I don't have a big problem with in the context of France where there are more bans of civil liberties than is possible in America (like how many European nations ban video games that are too violent unless they cut it back, something that couldn't happen today here without new legislation that would be very contraversial... or think Britain, when it switched to the Metric System, and how they banned Standard and made it illegal to sell anything in Standard or even to have a Standard scale in your store... that wouldn't happen here...)... they see the headscarves as a threat and act to stop them. They just brought this law way too far and this talk of extending it seems absurd. Beards? Come on... and as for other religious headgear I don't think that Sikh turbans or yarmukles are really in the same category as headscarves... bandannas? Interesting, given that there is talk of Muslim people using them has headscarf replacements, but you really can go too far. What are they going to do, ban anyone from ever wearing headgear in school? Seems a bit absurd to me, and a definite over-reaction...

Quote:they are a very religious symbol and stand in place of veils, so seeing them as a symbol of the subjugation of women under men is quite appropriate. Banning them I don't have a big problem with in the context of France where there are more bans of civil liberties than is possible in America

The muslim headscarf is a symbol of modesty for that religion, The Muslim women ware it to please Allah and show that they are modest and morally clean. We cannot claim that the Taliban views are anything like the real Koranic view on woman. This law was made out of ignorance and intolerance of other peoples beliefs and has nothing to do with the seperation of church state and more to do with a way of persecuting the muslim minority.

It's more than just a symbol of modesty, come on. It is a symbol of strong religious faith and of subjugation. Turkey banned them 80 years ago when they were trying to seperate church and state, because they were such a strong religious icon and so hurtful at chances for a truly secular state...

Yes, ignorance and intolerance are a big part of it. But for both sides of this issue, not just the French. Again, France has large minorities and definite problems between them and the French. I've heard of all kinds of bad things going on in French schools... intolerance? Some. But the Muslims seem to be just as bad in return... banning headscarves might help cool things down and lessen some tensions (while admittedly making others worse).

And it's more than just a symbol of modesty.

I think it will make matters worse. Muslims aren't the type of people that like being told 'no'.

Worse on the Muslim side, better on the French?

Expecting majority groups to not dislike minority groups is unrealistic, of course.

It's hardly a liberal move. Chirac's likely just doing it to please the Front National xenophobes and steal votes away from Le Pen and his far-right brethren.

I must say the reactionary in me is quite pleased with the Muslims being told where they can shove it, but if anybody asks, I said it's an evil attack on civil rights and etc.

Yes, calling this "liberal" is quite misguided, as I said. It does have some basis for why they should try it, but still... it is not liberal. You say it's seperation of church and state? In a way, but it's more because of fear and lack of understanding (going both ways), and the fact that the Muslim world is more backward (politically) than the Western one and is more religious -- which is a problem, definitely, in a secular nation like France...

This is what happens when a country is filled with Darunian atheists.


Eat me.

Takes a Bite!

If that is your perception of liberal, Weltall, it's no wonder you hate liberals so much.

Well, when I look at my own country, I see similar, though (for now) less radical actions taken against the freedom of religion, forcing secular humanism down our throats one spoonful at a time. Some of these are directed at religion in general, some at Christianity in particular.

Such actions offend me, and I sure don't see conservatives doing it. I might be wrong about France, but in America, it's liberals who are attempting to slowly kill religion every chance they get. The title of the post indicates how it applies to America.

It also indicates how we probably should have left France to the Germans.

For France the people doing this are conservative, not liberal, I'm pretty sure... remember Europe is not strongly religious. They've gotten over it. They are just somewhat religious and the numbers of people that go to church is small... and I'd think that such laws as this, which target some smaller, minority, and mostly immigrant, groups would more be conservative than liberal... I wouldn't think that liberals would usually ban freedom of expression like that... the headscarves? Maybe. Doubtful but maybe. But the rest of that stuff? Doesn't seem it to me, no...

It's targeting everyone. The article mentions Christians, Jews and Muslims.

This latest one is mostly Muslim-oriented though.

Yeah, they target everyone. That is, I think, because they probably think that a law specifically targetted at Muslims would not pass and would be called discriminatory... by making everyone subject to it they probably protect themselves from (legal at least) criticizm. But Muslims are the reason the law exists.

freedom of religion is in important right to be defended even if your a atheist , Countries were that right is denied usually deny alot of other essential rights so if you kill freedom of religion you kill freedom of speech and freedom of choice and you have the soviet union and china as examples of what happens when people dont have the right to believe what they want.
Its true that the goverment shouldnt endorse a religion or impose that on anyone ,but to deny a person his right of practicing his beliefs weither that be having a long beard or waring a Turbin that is his freedom and as long as he doesnt cause harm to any other it is perfectly exceptable.

Quote:Well, when I look at my own country, I see similar, though (for now) less radical actions taken against the freedom of religion, forcing secular humanism down our throats one spoonful at a time. Some of these are directed at religion in general, some at Christianity in particular

Er, it's not like anybody is burning down our churches. Our beating on us for practicing our religion, so how hard is it to just forget all of those people wanting a world without religious beliefs? Yeeesh. It's not hard to just IGNORE them.

Banning religion is like banning culture. While they're at it, why not just change their government to communism and call it a day? (/sarcasm)

There is a big difference between banning religion in private or in private places like churches and banning it in public schools!

Fittisize Wrote:Er, it's not like anybody is burning down our churches. Our beating on us for practicing our religion, so how hard is it to just forget all of those people wanting a world without religious beliefs? Yeeesh. It's not hard to just IGNORE them.

How can you ignore them? They're in the court systems all the time. They're doing things that go beyond trivial just to bring down faith.

It's not so hard to ignore the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, yet there are screwball athiests filing lawsuits trying to remove those two words. No one is forced to recite the pledge, but they don't even want to hear it. The very act of it being there offends them, so they sue to remove it. Our God is the deity of the world's three major religions, so it's not as though one belief is represented and all others excluded.

These same people fight to ban Christian and Bible Study groups in public school. These groups are by no means mandatory, totally optional, and since most are after school, most kids aren't even exposed to them. Yet, in their relentless pursuit of making sure the extreme minority isn't offended, they have to bastardize the legal system in order to enforce their will over everyone.

Why should I ignore a small, crazy minority of people using the law as a tool to force their secular humanism on a majority that does not want it?

More importantly, Why can't they ignore God if they don't believe in Him?

I think the thing is, world politics are much more complicated than the bipolar vision of Liberalism and Conservatism, especially when you consider each continent's particular issues. Parties generally seen as fiscally conservative are pushing the socially conservative (anti-immigrant) stance in Europe, whereas in America liberal groups are taking over stances historically held by conservative groups (opposition to free trade and foreign intervention, racial discrimination) while maintaining their support of leftist economic policies. This would be fine, except the names don't change, royally fucking up any comparisons you can make between American and European political parties/organizations.

Personally I use a (very approximative) cartesian graph to figure out where parties stand vs. my views, instead of the traditional left-right line. IMHO it makes for a clearer view of the political world. I don't think it can be called biased even though it's focused on a personal value (individual freedom); however, it can be thoroughly useless to someone whose principles are greatly different.

As I said, European Conservatives are quite different from American ones... they aren't highly religious like ours are, for the biggest difference. And yes, they push anti-immigrant legislation... though it's the same here -- it's Pat Buchanan, not Ralph Nader, who wants to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans... but they go farther, actually banning and greatly limiting immigration into their countries. This step seems in line with those limitations so it's definitely a move by conservatives... it's limiting civil liberties, and that isn't usually something liberals support unless there's very good reason. Yes, the fact that this is about religion puts it into a somewhat grey area where you could see some liberals supporting it if given good reason... but still, banning things to supress opinions is more a conservative thing than liberal. Yes, headscarves are a symbol of a more radical kind of Islam than the French are comfterble with, but I don't think banning them will really help there... actually if anything it'll probably just harden Muslim opposition to changing to accept the modern world...

Oh, and you just need to remember that by your standards European Conservatives aren't especially "conservative"... similar with Canadians I think.

Quote:whereas in America liberal groups are taking over stances historically held by conservative groups (opposition to free trade and foreign intervention, racial discrimination)

Liberals do not support racial discrimination. Absolutely not.

And before someone starts, Affirmative Action is in no way racial discrimination! But I don't want to argue that again, we've been through that arguement several times now...

At the risk of re-opening an old can of worms, when you give someone preference over another, in any matter, on the basis of skin color, it is racial discrimination. It is the very definition of racial discrimination, and racial discrimination it is, no matter why you think it's right or necessary, and no matter what creative name you give it.

A hundred years ago, it was in reverse. People called it "Jim Crow". And no one denies it was racial discrimination.

Liberals definitely do support and encourage it. They're just very creative at making deceptive names for it. And, of course, blaming it on conservatives.

Once again, in reference to the original topic, I am aware now of the differences between liberals and conservatives on different continents. The point was to show which of the two would like to pursue the same thing in America.

In canada conservatives and liberals are relatively the same as in the U.S ,For example the Alliance party (right wing) was for sending troops and joining the U.S in invading Iraq while the two liberal parties opposed it,But since the Liberals controled the country we did not go into Iraq since we were afraid of what might happen (vietnam masacre) and also thought the war was Imoral. The issue of gay rights is another example all Conservative elected provinces oppose same sex marriage and go with the original definition between a man and a woman ,while you got the Liberals who dont give a shit that they are changing the basic fundamental parts of are constitution.

Quote:Once again, in reference to the original topic, I am aware now of the differences between liberals and conservatives on different continents. The point was to show which of the two would like to pursue the same thing in America.

If it was in America... hmm, I don't know. It could be either liberals complaining about religion in schools or conservatives hating the Muslims, you know... I could see either one going down the path of banning headscarves... and going farther, probably too far, like France seems to? I don't know. I'd like to think that people would restrain themselves to the sensible. :)

Quote:At the risk of re-opening an old can of worms, when you give someone preference over another, in any matter, on the basis of skin color, it is racial discrimination. It is the very definition of racial discrimination, and racial discrimination it is, no matter why you think it's right or necessary, and no matter what creative name you give it.

A hundred years ago, it was in reverse. People called it "Jim Crow". And no one denies it was racial discrimination.

Comparing Jim Crow to aid programs that try to help the black people recover fromthe hundreds of years of discrimination represented by Jim Crow is totally insane, but exactly the kind of insanity I'd expect from you... totally baseless and without a shred of logic...

Discrimination is when you give one group an advantage over another that it shouldn't have. It isn't discrimination to give things to disadvantaged groups when those things will try to bring them to equality with the main group! It's the opposite of that... discrimination would be NOT having AA!

Quote:In canada conservatives and liberals are relatively the same as in the U.S ,For example the Alliance party (right wing) was for sending troops and joining the U.S in invading Iraq while the two liberal parties opposed it,But since the Liberals controled the country we did not go into Iraq since we were afraid of what might happen (vietnam masacre) and also thought the war was Imoral. The issue of gay rights is another example all Conservative elected provinces oppose same sex marriage and go with the original definition between a man and a woman ,while you got the Liberals who dont give a shit that they are changing the basic fundamental parts of are constitution.
__________________

I've read several of articles about Canadian politics of late, and how they are so different from our contentious politics of the last few years... there is a lot more agreement and a lot less tolerance for the extreme polarization we have, and all the parties are (while definitely different) a whole lot closer together than the American parties are. Yes they have differences, I would think they would, but it just isn't on the same level as the American political system now with it's 'probably the most polarized ever' style.

Conservatives are much more mellow in Canada than in the US. A large amount of Tories are in fact "Red Tories" more akin to libertarians than actual conservatives. What you have to watch out for up here are the rabid unionists... the province's been on and off strike recently because the unions don't like how the newly-elected Liberals are cutting funding and otherwise trying to save up money to fix the budget, which the Parti Québecois pretty much savaged. Thus, the Liberals are seen as the evil right-wingers over here. Make sense? Thought not.

Affirmative Action is racial discrimination incarnate. It makes the son pay for the sins of the father, which is ridiculous as of itself; and it puts the people which it's supposed to help to shame by insisting that they need help to make it in life. It's more than racial discrimination, it's outright racism. I don't agree with having others decide who an employer can hire, but if you absolutely must, do it based on income or something that makes sense at all, not skin colour.

Huh? Affirmative Action isn't just because of what people before did, it's because those groups are still quite definitely not equal to the majority... it's not nearly as bad in Canada, obviously, but in the US it's a big issue and Affirmative Action is a great way to try to improve things for a whole lot of people who are severely disadvantaged.

Well, obviously there's a "we did them wrong x hundred years ago and need to fix that" attitude to it. Otherwise why are specific races being targeted, and not just "disadvantaged" people in general?

In general though, the concept just disgusts me because it reeks of paternalism. I swear, if I was black and you said I belonged to a "disadvantaged group", I would smack you square in the jaw.

Yes, there are plenty of black people who aren't disadvantaged. Same with the other groups AA targets, like Native Americans. But those groups on the whole are definitely disadvantaged... not just economically but, I'd say, in their attitudes -- these groups have been behind for so long that a lot of them seem to have given up... this can't solve that problem, but there's only so much the government can do about attitude.

They just give 'em cash. And don't make 'em pay taxes.

When given cash people will likely as not waste it... you need to focus the money.

I think I've done this before but here's a comparison of the Canadian and American Political Parties from left to right

New Democratic Party of Canada - Liberal Party of Canada - Progresive Conservitive Party of Canada / American Democrats(they are about the same) - Canadian Alliance - Republicans

As of yesterday the Progressive Conservitive Pary and the Canadian Alliance no longer exist however and have formed the Conservitve Party of Canada, this new party will most likely be closer to the American Republicans than the Democrats because a large protion of the Progressive Conservatives jumped ship once the merger happened (including a former Prime Minister among other high profile deserters) and are either now independent or have joined the Liberal Party

In addition since the departure of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin becoming the Prime Minister the Liberal Party has taken a shift to the right and now occupy a position much closer to that of the American Democrats than during the Chretien era, now that the last remanents of the Trudeau-Pearson era have left politics.

It is expected that in the next federal election the Liberals will strengthen their majority now since they will be atracting many former PC suporters and for some reason Paul Martin, and anglo from Quebec has more support from fracophones in Quebec then Jean Chretien. While the new conservative party is expected to lose all credibility in eastern and central Canada now due to their more extreme conservative views and the image that they are a regionaly based western party rather than a true national party. The NDP are also expected to make gains as many of the more liberal supporters of the liberal party don't agree with the new more conservative positions of Paul Martin.

Quote:Discrimination is when you give one group an advantage over another that it shouldn't have. It isn't discrimination to give things to disadvantaged groups when those things will try to bring them to equality with the main group! It's the opposite of that... discrimination would be NOT having AA!

Not giving them an advantage is discrimination? Eh. Who is to decide who deserves what advantages? Who decides when blacks will finally be equal to whites?

Affirmative action should be totally economic, and have nothing to do with skin color. Since it is ONLY skin color, it is racial discrimination. Again, it doesn't matter how noble you mistakenly think it is. It's discrimination based on skin color.

Dictionary.com:
dis·crim·i·na·tion n.
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice:

By that definition, Affirmative action is undoubtedly discrimination.

It's no different than how only minorities are victims of hate crimes, and how no minority is capable of being racist.

What I want to know is how long I, as a white male, have to be held accountable for the actions of others that share the same skin color as myself, most of said actions happening long before I was born and long before anyone in my family ever stepped foot on American soil?

Quote:New Democratic Party of Canada - Liberal Party of Canada - Progresive Conservitive Party of Canada / American Democrats(they are about the same) - Canadian Alliance - Republicans

As of yesterday the Progressive Conservitive Pary and the Canadian Alliance no longer exist however and have formed the Conservitve Party of Canada, this new party will most likely be closer to the American Republicans than the Democrats because a large protion of the Progressive Conservatives jumped ship once the merger happened (including a former Prime Minister among other high profile deserters) and are either now independent or have joined the Liberal Party

In addition since the departure of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin becoming the Prime Minister the Liberal Party has taken a shift to the right and now occupy a position much closer to that of the American Democrats than during the Chretien era, now that the last remanents of the Trudeau-Pearson era have left politics.

It is expected that in the next federal election the Liberals will strengthen their majority now since they will be atracting many former PC suporters and for some reason Paul Martin, and anglo from Quebec has more support from fracophones in Quebec then Jean Chretien. While the new conservative party is expected to lose all credibility in eastern and central Canada now due to their more extreme conservative views and the image that they are a regionaly based western party rather than a true national party. The NDP are also expected to make gains as many of the more liberal supporters of the liberal party don't agree with the new more conservative positions of Paul Martin.

Ah, for the "problem" that the main party is too close to the left side of center...

Quote:dis·crim·i·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-skrm-nshn)
n.

1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

#3 is clearly the relevant one. And two can play your game, Weltall... it's discrimination to not give people in the category of 'lower class' treatment that would help to improve their chances of attaining equal status.

And your sad belief that there is not racial discrimination to any significant degree anymore in this country is a big part of the problem. People think that, but if you look at society it's painfully obvious that no statement could be further from the truth. The latest immigrant group -- in our case Hispanics -- is disliked by many. They are lazy, don't work, are criminals (hmm how many dozen times have we heard THOSE statements aimed at the latest immigrants to this country before? Dozens, at least?)... and as for blacks, well, just look at the jails! A significantly larger number of blacks than whites are in them compared to population. That isn't an accident. The different races still just aren't treated fairly. And as I said it's not just the fact that the targetted minorities are poor (which they undoubtedly are in dramatically higher numbers than whites), but that as much as it would be great if race would vanish it IS still relevant. Setting percents for different racial groups based on how many would be there if it was all equal? That is an attempt to make up for centuries of (continuing in a somewhat lesser fashion) opression... if all were equal, we wouldn't need AA. But it isn't.

Maybe poor white people should have some additional benifits too, I don't know... though they would be helped a lot if we'd just do other things, such as tax reform that would actually help (by lessening the burden on the lower classes and raising it on the upper ones), free health care for everyone (that would help dramatically in these categories of people), more help lowering college bills from the government... more money and more actual attempts to improve schools in poor districts and not just tests which really are not a good indicator of how well the district is doing (especially when they can manipulate things to make themselves look better, as is possible), etc...

Quote:#3 is clearly the relevant one. And two can play your game, Weltall... it's discrimination to not give people in the category of 'lower class' treatment that would help to improve their chances of attaining equal status.

No it isn't. In reality, the only way not to discriminate is to not give anyone any advantage, to let things happen as they may. In fact, it would appear to me that giving the lower class special treatment goes right along with "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit". That line sums up PERFECTLY what Affirmative Action is: Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit.

You need to read a little more carefully. I will not argue the merits and demerits of affirmative action. I've made my stance crystal clear. But you cannot say it is not discrimination, you make yourself look stupid by repeatedly doing so. The very definition of the word proves it.

Category. Such as poor people, especially minority poor people. Such as how it's discriminatory to do things to them that lower that status further, such as AA.

Giving no one an advantage is giving some people a disadvantage when one group is in a worse state. A very similar case is gay rights... the only way to insure equality is to protect gays from being fired or harrassed like we do for religion, skin color, gender, etc. I know you'll disagree vehemently, but your attempts to make it look like "fact" that giving disadvantaged people some things that help them to try to attain equality (it doesn't make them equal, not yet, but in time it will) is actually giving them advantages over others which they should not have (a very flawed idea if you actually believe in true equality, as in that all groups should be represented equally -- something that will never happen because of the bad state of some groups (pn the whole) unless we give them help --)... absurd.

You completely misunderstand me, boy. My only point is that the practice is discrimination. And it is.

I believe in true equality, by means of assimilation. Liberals believe in equality by division. If you look at American history, there are many ethnic groups that were once in the same boat that blacks and hispanics are in today, but no longer are. Italians, Jews, Orientals, Irish... they assimilated themselves into mainstream society, and now they are equal. They are no less successful than anyone else, despite centuries of discrimination.

They got over it. They got over it without reverse-discrimination programs. They did it by way of hard work, and by giving up their overt ties to their ethnicity. They are, except in the eyes of ever-divisive liberals, unhyphenated-Americans.

On the other hand you have blacks and hispanics, the beneficiaries of Affirmative action. Liberal division tactics are making things worse for them. They are eternal victims, so you say.

I think if you libs kept your damn hands out of the process, and allow blacks and hispanics to assimilate into American culture properly, affirmative action would be totally unnecessary.

Again, many ethnic groups achieved equality without it, so to say it is the only way blacks and hispanics will is a lie.

So because they suffered (and BTW blacks are quite different from hispanics in this regard given how they've been here a lot longer and are still near the bottom...) it's fine to make everyone else suffer too? So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.

Or not.

And as for equality... again... for some it required legislation -- otherwise I'm sure that some people would be fired for their religious beliefs (if it wasn't illegal to discriminate on religion)... or racists would on color...

A Black Falcon Wrote:So because they suffered (and BTW blacks are quite different from hispanics in this regard given how they've been here a lot longer and are still near the bottom...) it's fine to make everyone else suffer too? So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.

Or not.

And as for equality... again... for some it required legislation -- otherwise I'm sure that some people would be fired for their religious beliefs (if it wasn't illegal to discriminate on religion)... or racists would on color...

The problem is that categorization isnt always realistic ,Blacks are not all disadvantaged nore are all Hispanics some make big income just as much as the white majority, I think labeling people is wrong, "This guy is black he must be poor and barely educated" I think people would be offended if they had that said to them.

I think the idea of equality is equal opportunity and thats the matter of being protected from racism.but I dont see why a poor black student should be given a leg up from a poor white student just because of his skin color alone.

A Black Falcon Wrote:So because they suffered (and BTW blacks are quite different from hispanics in this regard given how they've been here a lot longer and are still near the bottom...) it's fine to make everyone else suffer too? So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.

What a stupid thing to say. You're a lily-white liberal college boy in Maine. What the hell do you know about how blacks and hispanics 'suffer'? How often do you even SEE blacks and hispanics up there?

Yes, blacks are near the bottom, and it's your failed social experiments responsible for it. You people have transformed blacks into the ultimate victim race, you have sapped their will to achieve, and you constantly bombard them with lies and free money to keep their loyalty. Blacks as a people are selling their souls to you people, and that's why after all these years of Affirmative Action, black culture is very distinct but also very corrupt and ruined. Back in the Civil rights era, blacks as a whole were industrious, hard-working people who wanted to better themselves. Now, the current generation commercially glorifies criminal behavior and degeneracy. They have completely forgotten what their fathers and grandfathers struggled for, and now they idolize glamour thugs who make millions of dollars making songs about drugs, murder, and sex. This has helped ruin black families (how many still have two parents?), black culture, and black life. As standards of living increased, the new generation of Americans are FAR more tolerant, far less racist than previous. Jobs and educations are easier to get than ever, yet blacks are even WORSE off now than forty years ago. Your social programs are the very definition of the word 'failure'. Congratulations, you stole their souls.

And you have no one to thank but yourselves for this.

Quote:And as for equality... again... for some it required legislation -- otherwise I'm sure that some people would be fired for their religious beliefs (if it wasn't illegal to discriminate on religion)... or racists would on color...

If there was any legislation at all, it was weak and unenforced. Whatever there might have been didn't even begin to compare with the monster we have on our hands today for blacks and hispanics. Discrimination happened all the time. But still, these people overcame their obstancles and now have none. They assimilated. They don't have ethnic distinctions anymore.

If liberals had gotten an early start and told these people they were victims and that their ethnicity was a free ticket to all sorts of legal advantages, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, all these groups would be in the same bad position you put blacks in today.

Liberals paved the road to hell with their supposedly good (but equally self-serving) intentions. The old sayings are true.

Quote:What a stupid thing to say. You're a lily-white liberal college boy in Maine. What the hell do you know about how blacks and hispanics 'suffer'? How often do you even SEE blacks and hispanics up there?

3% of the Maine population is minorities. However, it's a poor (and rural) state and there are a lot of poor white people...

Quote:Yes, blacks are near the bottom, and it's your failed social experiments responsible for it. You people have transformed blacks into the ultimate victim race, you have sapped their will to achieve, and you constantly bombard them with lies and free money to keep their loyalty. Blacks as a people are selling their souls to you people, and that's why after all these years of Affirmative Action, black culture is very distinct but also very corrupt and ruined. Back in the Civil rights era, blacks as a whole were industrious, hard-working people who wanted to better themselves. Now, the current generation commercially glorifies criminal behavior and degeneracy. They have completely forgotten what their fathers and grandfathers struggled for, and now they idolize glamour thugs who make millions of dollars making songs about drugs, murder, and sex. This has helped ruin black families (how many still have two parents?), black culture, and black life. As standards of living increased, the new generation of Americans are FAR more tolerant, far less racist than previous. Jobs and educations are easier to get than ever, yet blacks are even WORSE off now than forty years ago. Your social programs are the very definition of the word 'failure'. Congratulations, you stole their souls.

And you have no one to thank but yourselves for this.

Blaming current black culture on social programs is just so utterly idiotic that there isn't much I can say... the two have nothing in common. And programs like AA are the very things that if allowed to work as they should will eventually help blacks out of their current condition. Doing nothing and letting them suffer is cruel and it is prototypical conservativism that wants the people on the bottom to suffer. That is such an immoral position that I can't even begin to say how wrong it is! Helping poor and disadvantaged groups is the only way we can get it so that eventually they are not poor or disadvantaged anymore. Nothing else will actually help them.

Quote:If there was any legislation at all, it was weak and unenforced. Whatever there might have been didn't even begin to compare with the monster we have on our hands today for blacks and hispanics. Discrimination happened all the time. But still, these people overcame their obstancles and now have none. They assimilated. They don't have ethnic distinctions anymore.

If liberals had gotten an early start and told these people they were victims and that their ethnicity was a free ticket to all sorts of legal advantages, Italians, Irish, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, all these groups would be in the same bad position you put blacks in today.

Liberals paved the road to hell with their supposedly good (but equally self-serving) intentions. The old sayings are true.

I make a new point and you ignore it and repeat yourself... typical.

So I'll repeat mine.

Quote:So because in the past we never could cure cancer I guess we shouldn't allow chemotherapy because before people just had to tough it out.

I think that sums up why your "it was fine before" arguement is total idiocy.

Hispanics and Blacks, again, are quite different. Hispanics are indeed in the 'latest opressed immigrant' group like Irish were at one point, or Chinese, or myriad other groups. Given enough time they probably will Americanize and blend in as well as a group that has a distinct identity (and isn't all white) can... but Blacks? They've been here since the beginning and on the bottom the whole time. It's in the interest of conservatives like you to keep them there, so you try to kill all the programs that might get them out. Simple.

Why is it in the Kobe Bryant Case they brought up the issue of racism? The Guy admited to cheating on his wife, yet when the woman acusses him of rape he runs to Shout Racist and infact just about very law suite with a black person in it the issue of racism is brought up weither it is relevant are not.You wouldnt see that if it was a latino or Oriental.

A Black Falcon Wrote:3% of the Maine population is minorities. However, it's a poor (and rural) state and there are a lot of poor white people...

So how does that give you better insight into the 'suffering' of black people?

Quote:Blaming current black culture on social programs is just so utterly idiotic that there isn't much I can say... the two have nothing in common. And programs like AA are the very things that if allowed to work as they should will eventually help blacks out of their current condition. Doing nothing and letting them suffer is cruel and it is prototypical conservativism that wants the people on the bottom to suffer. That is such an immoral position that I can't even begin to say how wrong it is! Helping poor and disadvantaged groups is the only way we can get it so that eventually they are not poor or disadvantaged anymore. Nothing else will actually help them.

This is hilarious shit. You are so not on planet earth.

The fact that black culture's decline started after the civil rights movement is no coincidence. But don't let the facts distract you from your little dreamworld. I suppose you just missed the whole part about the myriad of ethnic groups that thrived despite not having affirmative action. Hell, it seems like only those that DO benefit from it are bad and getting worse.

Quote:I make a new point and you ignore it and repeat yourself... typical.

So I'll repeat mine.

I ignored that point. It was so stupid that it didn't warrant a response. It still doesn't.

[/quote]I think that sums up why your "it was fine before" arguement is total idiocy.[/quote] The only thing it sums up is how stupid it is to compare racial relations to cancer. But I'll play your game.

Affirmative action is supposed to be a cure but in the end makes things worse. Ethnic groups achieved more success without it than with. Again, I provided several good examples of this.

Happy?

Quote:Hispanics and Blacks, again, are quite different. Hispanics are indeed in the 'latest opressed immigrant' group like Irish were at one point, or Chinese, or myriad other groups. Given enough time they probably will Americanize and blend in as well as a group that has a distinct identity (and isn't all white) can... but Blacks? They've been here since the beginning and on the bottom the whole time. It's in the interest of conservatives like you to keep them there, so you try to kill all the programs that might get them out. Simple.

This is crazy. What gain would I have keeping blacks poor? Who could possibly gain from that?

Liberals.

Keeping blacks poor and destitute ensures that liberals have a very safe voter base. To keep them poor, they create social programs, disguise them as beneficial, and the scam plays on. Blacks stay poor, Liberals not only have a loyal fanbase but something to blame Conservatives on.

In our last argument you said the same bullshit, that conservatives wanted to keep the poor poor. I asked you to show me how welfare made poor people stop being poor. You never provided me this information.

Now, I show you how assimilation benefits ethnic groups better than affirmative action has. You say I'm wrong. So, in what will almost certainly prove futile, I ask you to prove how Affirmative action helps minorities become equal moreso than the non-intrusive, non-discriminatory assimilation methods that brought practically every ethnic group that isn't black or hispanic to equality.

I know you won't do it, I just challenge you like this because your refusal to follow up shows that your words are meaningless lies.

Quote:So how does that give you better insight into the 'suffering' of black people?

Didn't say it did. And anyway it's not like I'm the one coming up with these ideas...

Quote:This is hilarious shit. You are so not on planet earth.

The fact that black culture's decline started after the civil rights movement is no coincidence. But don't let the facts distract you from your little dreamworld. I suppose you just missed the whole part about the myriad of ethnic groups that thrived despite not having affirmative action. Hell, it seems like only those that DO benefit from it are bad and getting worse.

I won't bother trying to dissuade you from delusions you believe so ardently... sure black culture has decayed in recent years (especially the last ten or so, with gangster rap), but what are these other groups that are down? American Indians? No, they're about the same as they've been for quite some time... but blame that on the rappers who invented this stuff... once it gets out there it starts to influence people, but it had to come from somewhere. And blaming it on welfare is insane. For one thing before the Civil Rights movement none of this could have happened... blacks wouldn't be allowed to do things like they are...

Quote:I ignored that point. It was so stupid that it didn't warrant a response. It still doesn't.

It's a great proof for why you are deluded!

Quote:The only thing it sums up is how stupid it is to compare racial relations to cancer. But I'll play your game.

Affirmative action is supposed to be a cure but in the end makes things worse. Ethnic groups achieved more success without it than with. Again, I provided several good examples of this.

Cancer was just an example I came up with when I was writing... I could have used just about anything and had it make just as much sense... because by the means I can see, like cancer treatment, welfare and affirmative action and other programs for the disadvantaged are proving a lot of good...

And those ethnic groups that got over it took a LONG time to get over it. The Chineese, Irish... they were persecuted for generations! It is insane to say that that was okay. It was absolutely and totally not okay. Just like the current hatred of hispanics is not okay. Condoning that kind of behavior is, I'd say, racist.

Quote:This is crazy. What gain would I have keeping blacks poor? Who could possibly gain from that?

Liberals.

Keeping blacks poor and destitute ensures that liberals have a very safe voter base. To keep them poor, they create social programs, disguise them as beneficial, and the scam plays on. Blacks stay poor, Liberals not only have a loyal fanbase but something to blame Conservatives on.

In our last argument you said the same bullshit, that conservatives wanted to keep the poor poor. I asked you to show me how welfare made poor people stop being poor. You never provided me this information.

Now, I show you how assimilation benefits ethnic groups better than affirmative action has. You say I'm wrong. So, in what will almost certainly prove futile, I ask you to prove how Affirmative action helps minorities become equal moreso than the non-intrusive, non-discriminatory assimilation methods that brought practically every ethnic group that isn't black or hispanic to equality.

I know you won't do it, I just challenge you like this because your refusal to follow up shows that your words are meaningless lies.

Your insane consiracy theories sound more crazy every time you repeat them, you know... and the idea that by not helping people that will suffer badly and needlessly you are helping them is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

A Black Falcon Wrote:Didn't say it did. And anyway it's not like I'm the one coming up with these ideas...

Obviously. The ones that are don't really seem to have any more insight than you do.

Quote:I won't bother trying to dissuade you from delusions you believe so ardently... sure black culture has decayed in recent years (especially the last ten or so, with gangster rap), but what are these other groups that are down? American Indians? No, they're about the same as they've been for quite some time... but blame that on the rappers who invented this stuff... once it gets out there it starts to influence people, but it had to come from somewhere. And blaming it on welfare is insane. For one thing before the Civil Rights movement none of this could have happened... blacks wouldn't be allowed to do things like they are...

...what? I don't really get what angle you're trying to get at here. It seems like you're almost saying "You're wrong, I agree with you."

Clarify.

Quote:It's a great proof for why you are deluded!

History vindicates me. I've shown why, and you haven't denied it.

Quote:Cancer was just an example I came up with when I was writing... I could have used just about anything and had it make just as much sense... because by the means I can see, like cancer treatment, welfare and affirmative action and other programs for the disadvantaged are proving a lot of good...

Again, this is the priveleged college kid speaking. What the priveleged college kid thinks is that these do-gooder programs work. What the priveleged college kid can never explain is why more and more black families are broken, why more and more black kids fail school, why violence among blacks is increasing, why black culture is disintegrating, why other ethnic groups surpassed them, and how affirmative action and welfare are doing a damn thing about fixing these problems.

It's like, you don't care that the problems exist and are getting worse. The only thing you care about is that you people attempted to do something about it, even if it was the wrong thing to do. You think that gives you some imaginary moral high ground, and that everyone who disagrees is racist and intolerant.

I am intolerant. I'm intolerant of lying morons taking credit for helping people while only making their situation worse.

Quote:And those ethnic groups that got over it took a LONG time to get over it. The Chineese, Irish... they were persecuted for generations! It is insane to say that that was okay. It was absolutely and totally not okay. Just like the current hatred of hispanics is not okay. Condoning that kind of behavior is, I'd say, racist.

It did take a long time. But it happened. And after almost four decades of liberal social programs, two generations by some people's reckoning, blacks still aren't 'over it'. Their lot doesn't improve at all. No progress.

It's not that I can't see how affirmative action and welfare could succeed. They could very well have achieved the intended result. They just haven't. Miserably haven't. Another good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.

Quote:Your insane consiracy theories sound more crazy every time you repeat them, you know... and the idea that by not helping people that will suffer badly and needlessly you are helping them is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard.

Translation for the audience: "I still have no proof whatsoever to back up anything I say, therefore everything I say is irrelevant."

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft97.../mead.html - A decent read regardless of position...

Quote:Translation for the audience: "I still have no proof whatsoever to back up anything I say, therefore everything I say is irrelevant."

Doing the required research is NOT worth the time to not convince one person who won't listen regardless.

Quote:It did take a long time. But it happened. And after almost four decades of liberal social programs, two generations by some people's reckoning, blacks still aren't 'over it'. Their lot doesn't improve at all. No progress.

It's not that I can't see how affirmative action and welfare could succeed. They could very well have achieved the intended result. They just haven't. Miserably haven't. Another good idea in theory, bad idea in practice.

I would say that blacks have gone somewhere from before civil rights, obviously -- note that they can vote... since then? No not as much progress, but given how little has happened to change that it's hardly surprising... oh, and both are definitely helping a lot of people.

Quote:Again, this is the priveleged college kid speaking. What the priveleged college kid thinks is that these do-gooder programs work. What the priveleged college kid can never explain is why more and more black families are broken, why more and more black kids fail school, why violence among blacks is increasing, why black culture is disintegrating, why other ethnic groups surpassed them, and how affirmative action and welfare are doing a damn thing about fixing these problems.

It's like, you don't care that the problems exist and are getting worse. The only thing you care about is that you people attempted to do something about it, even if it was the wrong thing to do. You think that gives you some imaginary moral high ground, and that everyone who disagrees is racist and intolerant.

I am intolerant. I'm intolerant of lying morons taking credit for helping people while only making their situation worse.

The main thing making the situation worse is the constant actions of conservatives like you to get rid of the system of laws that help those people... there's a reason most all blacks are Democrats -- they know that your idea of "help" would be the precise opposite and that the Democrats can help them if they were able. People like you stop most help from actually getting to people, of course, so we'll have to wait.

And your standard tactic of saying that all poor people are lying scum mooching off the poor rich people who shouldn't have to deal with such trash because they couldn't help themselves do the impossible sure doesn't ingratiate you among any group other than the wealthy and the stupid, that's for sure. Because you'd have to be in one of those groups to believe something that dumb. It is just simply not true in any sense.

Quote: History vindicates me. I've shown why, and you haven't denied it.

History proves how totally wrong your ideas are, that's what it proves.

Quote:...what? I don't really get what angle you're trying to get at here. It seems like you're almost saying "You're wrong, I agree with you."

I agree gangsta rap culture is bad, but not about the cause...

A Black Falcon Wrote:http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft97.../mead.html - A decent read regardless of position...

Agreed.

Quote:Doing the required research is NOT worth the time to not convince one person who won't listen regardless.

Translation: "I repeat what my liberal college professors tell me to believe, but I don't know why."

Quote:I would say that blacks have gone somewhere from before civil rights, obviously -- note that they can vote... since then? No not as much progress, but given how little has happened to change that it's hardly surprising... oh, and both are definitely helping a lot of people.

The right for blacks to vote was established in the 15th amendment, a hundred years before the civil rights movement.

The thing is, there has been a lot of change. Again, our generation is more tolerant and accepting than any other before... and yet, things get worse.

As for it helping a lot of people, stop saying nonsense you can't prove. If you can't the time to show me, then don't bother telling me.

Quote:The main thing making the situation worse is the constant actions of conservatives like you to get rid of the system of laws that help those people... there's a reason most all blacks are Democrats -- they know that your idea of "help" would be the precise opposite and that the Democrats can help them if they were able. People like you stop most help from actually getting to people, of course, so we'll have to wait.

How are the helping people? Again, don't say what you can't prove.

Quote:And your standard tactic of saying that all poor people are lying scum mooching off the poor rich people who shouldn't have to deal with such trash because they couldn't help themselves do the impossible sure doesn't ingratiate you among any group other than the wealthy and the stupid, that's for sure. Because you'd have to be in one of those groups to believe something that dumb. It is just simply not true in any sense.

What about the middle class? Liberals so often forget it exists, even though it's the largest economic class, the one that bears much of the tax burden.

My family was poor once. We aren't now. We're not rich but we're comfortable. And we never used government subsidies to get here. My parents worked hard and saved scrupulously. So no, I don't think all poor people are stupid and lazy, but I do think quite a few are and I think a good reason some are is because of free handouts. This is why I also know that poor people CAN in fact succeed without government handouts. It takes hard work and smarts. And if my family can do it, why can't anyone else?

Quote:History proves how totally wrong your ideas are, that's what it proves.

Don't say what you can't prove, Part III.

[quote]I agree gangsta rap culture is bad, but not about the cause...

It's not a cause, just a very unfortunate effect.