Racist Cup Cake Sale!

[quote name='Soodmeg']Here is what I dont understand AT ALL about this whole argument.

Even with the most aggressive affirmative action in place, it still only results in being what? 94% white male instead of 99%? I just dont understand it you still have as many white people that you can shake a stick at why do people bitch so hard about the 15 minorities (and women) that show up? Again, I am in the camp of working hard is the only way to rise up...I just still dont understand why its such a big deal to some of you. You cry a river over the 6 whites that you feel got passed over while ignoring the 55k whites that got in (if we are talking about lets say school admissions)

Once again, I am in the camp that minorities have to stop letting the man oppress them by working that much harder but this is one of those situations were it feels like you have everything already and you want us to have even less than we do.[/QUOTE]Don't ask me, man. I don't get it either. I think maybe part of it is the desire to forget about the past, they feel that we should just forget and move on. I've been told this by multiple people. They see things like affirmative action as being discriminatory, ignoring events of the past. They don't understand that the point is to level the playing field that is already slanted in our favor to begin with. Then folks like me get labeled as some sort of race traitors because we actually understand the issue.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I know you're just being an asshole, but golf is one of the few sports that offer something called a handicap. Funny how that works![/quote]
Ah, but you see that the handicap creates an uneven playing field? Let's say you have to spot me 2 strokes per hole because I suck at golf. Turns out I'm on fire that day and par or bogey every hole. You play your average game and yet I somehow beat you because you gave me the strokes. That sir, is BS. You'll of course turn it around to show how the white guy is better off and gets the strokes spotted to him and the minority did their best but lost (though actually won) because of the handicap system. That's not even what it means in the first place for crying out loud because using that parable the handicap system in golf is supposed to create an enjoying and competitive experience for all players, but you say that's not the way the world is setup so you've essentially shat on your own analogy while attempting to make me look the fool. Congrats, point to you this round!


Actually, those few years mean a lot in regards to how you and your brother interpreted and experienced things. And any parent that tells you that you were treated the same as your brother is bullshitting you.
Click to expand...
All nature and no nurture, certainly no chance that I'm simply better at some things than my brother despite the nurture that you do put into the 2nd part. Guess what, he was really good at football but I think it's a silly game, I was good at hockey and he can't even comprehend the offsides rule. So, our different skill sets come from what? Or is it that you get to pick and choose if it's environment or individual as it suits your position and to the detriment of mine. Goal posts in motion perhaps?


Yeah...poor whitey...it's like reverse racism!:roll:
Click to expand...
Oh boy a term! Unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I said. Good try though! My point there was that there's always an excuse or blame to an outside factor when minorities fail. When they succeed, it's like your crabs in a barrel deal where it's just shear luck. Further you propose a conspiracy that the barrel is somehow aligned against the crabs when it is simply a barrel.


Culture doesn't develop in a vacuum and the social phenomena you describe was born out of something. Let's see you expend some effort on figuring out why instead of some poorly executed snark. I was zinged better by some nobody in the Jobs thread.
Click to expand...
Why is it that minority success is seen as selling out and joining the man? I asked you to explain that before and your retort was that you're not an expert on black culture (further bullshittified by asking "what is black culture?"), quite honestly I have no clue why minority success is shunned by other minorities. It's the most absurd thing I can possibly think of beyond sentient bananas.

Black Americans shouldn't complain because they could've been born as a starving kid in Somalia...yup...you sure solved racism there, fella.
Click to expand...
Oh good, I solved it! I suppose you can get off your soapbox now!
Or was it that my statement had nothing to do with your reply and you're just being a dick again?
If the man is keeping the black guy down, who is keeping the other white guys down? Still the man? But, then it's white on white racism? The fuck what? Oh that's right, it's racism if a black guy fails, but it's just that this particular whitey sucks and couldn't figure out how to deal with all the advantages of the world being handed to him on a silver platter.

A white kid born with down syndrome will still have better outcomes than a black kid born with down syndrome especially if born in a more affluent area. But thanks for trolling anyways.
Click to expand...

That is the most pointless thing you've said yet. Honestly, you should be ashamed for yourself. That's not addressing what I said at all and oddly enough is in conflict with your golf analogy.
You state that we need equal beginnings to have equal outcomes. I make a pretty clear suggestion (while hyperbolic to enhance the point, and be silly because I think it's fun) that equal beginnings are impossible and to enforce an equal outcome despite that is unfair to all involved. The DS kid won't have the ability to do what the non-DS kid can do and the non-DS kid is given a ceiling of achievement if held by the DS kid.

Again, do you think handicapping everyone to an equal outcome despite natural ability otherwise is some form of utopia? Note, you're bringing down the top to satisfy the woe of the incapable. If you could raise the floor, you'll still end up raising the ceiling (i.e. you stance that the GI Bill helps whites more, simply because they are a larger portion of the population). However if you simply lower the ceiling to make the floor appear closer, you've solved nothing and made everyone more miserable.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Man said **** about a good friend of mine ... he deserved it.[/QUOTE]

Gee what happened to the guy who is always preaching about the first amendment.
 
Gee, what happened to common sense and the fact that the First Amendment protections applies to force from the government.

Do I think ****heads like this guy should be locked away? No.
Would I cry if someone punched him in the face? Maybe if the guy who did the punching hurt his hand.

PS: Would I be against the guy who did the punching going to jail/having assault charges brought against him... not at all. Would I chip in on his bail/be a witness in his defense? Yup.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Gee, what happened to common sense and the fact that the First Amendment protections applies to force from the government.

Do I think ****heads like this guy should be locked away? No.
Would I cry if someone punched him in the face? Maybe if the guy who did the punching hurt his hand.

PS: Would I be against the guy who did the punching going to jail/having assault charges brought against him... not at all. Would I chip in on his bail/be a witness in his defense? Yup.[/QUOTE]

I think it's fucked up that you would approve of punching an old guy in the mouth because he said something you disagree with.
 
[quote name='nasum']especially when it's not that guy's fault, he's just a product of his environment![/QUOTE]
I know you're trying to be cute, but this is true even for the racist old coot.

Punching one overtly racist fuck in the face isn't going to make racism go away; it'll just drive it underground and evolve into something else. Is there some responsibility there? Of course, but in the grand scheme of things, it's the environment that fosters that type of thinking.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Are you saying that schools prefer kids that aren't from the local neighborhoods? It sounds like you're talking about a specialized school and not a university or liberal arts college because I'm not quite following this last part.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I live in California and this is a standard practice amongst nursing programs run by CSU and UC (state-run) schools. I am unsure if it applies to general admission, but either way it's complete bullshit.
 
It doesn't surprise me that the type of people that UB would financially support and appear as a character witness for are the type of people who use violence to supress opinions that UB doesn't agree with.

For all his fancy grandstanding about freedom, UB would be just fine in a world where voicing an opinion he doesn't agree with gets you a swift punch to the face.
 
[quote name='victimsofadown']That's exactly what I'm saying. I live in California and this is a standard practice amongst nursing programs run by CSU and UC (state-run) schools. I am unsure if it applies to general admission, but either way it's complete bullshit.[/QUOTE]
WTF are you talking about, the greatest number of acceptances to almost every general admission csu and uc come withing about 100 mile raduis of the school. There are elc programs to allow people from smaller schools a chance to get admitted, mainly based on the fact that those schools can not afford to make their students fully competitive (no honors classes, or community college dual classes or even ROP programs and very little in the way of acceptable or funded clubs) to allow some one with no extra curricular or from an area where a really low number of students apply from (such as more than a few school districts in the central valley). But when I was in Davis 70 plus percent were accepted in to davis after graduation. Hell, most people in UC Davis lived less than 100 miles from home, most of them 30 or so away. As for nursing programs aren't they all based on the lottery system?
 
Only one of the schools I looked at was still lottery for nursing. The rest were points based with an "extra" point going to students who lived in specific regions. I'm not saying that the majority of alumni are from far away, I'm saying that it is asinine to have your physical location play a role in your application (positively or negatively).
 
You say that because you don't understand (or don't want to, who knows) why they might do that in the first place.
 
[quote name='camoor']For all his fancy grandstanding about freedom, UB would be just fine in a world where voicing an opinion he doesn't agree with gets you a swift punch to the face.[/QUOTE]

Let's say this man ran a business and posted a sign on the door that said "No ****ers Allowed". What would you suggest be done?

[quote name='dohdough']Punching one overtly racist fuck in the face isn't going to make racism go away;[/quote]
Agreed. He'd still be a racist jerk, I'd be out of a job and in jail and my friend would still be black. Thus, no punching.
 
[quote name='victimsofadown']Only one of the schools I looked at was still lottery for nursing. The rest were points based with an "extra" point going to students who lived in specific regions. I'm not saying that the majority of alumni are from far away, I'm saying that it is asinine to have your physical location play a role in your application (positively or negatively).[/QUOTE]
Then you brought out you point in an underhanded way, your not upset that they don't choose local kids, but more upset that schools give some thought to where their students might practice at, and as such give a small leg up in the hope that those people may go back to low income/remote areas to find jobs. Got it.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']WTF are you talking about, the greatest number of acceptances to almost every general admission csu and uc come withing about 100 mile raduis of the school. There are elc programs to allow people from smaller schools a chance to get admitted, mainly based on the fact that those schools can not afford to make their students fully competitive (no honors classes, or community college dual classes or even ROP programs and very little in the way of acceptable or funded clubs) to allow some one with no extra curricular or from an area where a really low number of students apply from (such as more than a few school districts in the central valley). But when I was in Davis 70 plus percent were accepted in to davis after graduation. Hell, most people in UC Davis lived less than 100 miles from home, most of them 30 or so away. As for nursing programs aren't they all based on the lottery system?[/QUOTE]

I think it boils down to people who just get it and people who dont. For some people no matter how much of an obvious advantage they are given they will always feel like they are being cheated if any type of help is given to anyone other than themselves. Which is funny because in most instances you have been given decades of help.

Where are the demonstrations protesting the kids who got in just because their alumni parents give thousand of dollars back to the school each year? I will bet my house that more favor acceptances happen every year than affirmative action.

The bottom line is this...at any given time there are about 100 thousand wrongdoings, unethical practices and flat out robbery by any system. Why target a program that tries to give people a chance to improve their lives when in all likelihood they would have no other option.

For fuck sakes its not like their entire college life is paved in gold or something. Its just given them a chance to better their lives. Just a note...I do 100 percent feel for very poor white people because for them....their poor, minorities are poor, whats the difference? I would hope that there are programs that are similar to affirmative action so that those people can also have a chance. (The only difference being if they got into a school no one would bitch about it)
 
[quote name='Clak']You say that because you don't understand (or don't want to, who knows) why they might do that in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Please enlighten me.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps leaning on the location aspect benefitting the disenfranchised... as previously stated I have been benefitted from it and I am far from disenfranchised.

It seems pretty silly to assume that one needs a benefit due to their geographical location. If you think that lower-income families or families of a specific race need an edge then SAY IT (note: I am talking about lawmakers/ school policy officials. Those in this thread have made it clear they support this). If they believe in helping the disenfranchised then why don't they do it instead of BSing everyone with geographical aid?

Don't get me wrong, I would still be against it, but at least it would be honest.

And as a note to a poster above I completely agree that alumni families getting an edge into college, or those who have donated large sums of money getting an edge (in most cases a SIGNIFICANT edge) is complete bullshit, as I stated previously.

edit: did a little research to find that my county has higher % of high school graduates and bachelor's degree holders, as well as a higher per capita income, median household income, and less people below the poverty line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']I think it boils down to people who just get it and people who dont. For some people no matter how much of an obvious advantage they are given they will always feel like they are being cheated if any type of help is given to anyone other than themselves. Which is funny because in most instances you have been given decades of help.

Where are the demonstrations protesting the kids who got in just because their alumni parents give thousand of dollars back to the school each year? I will bet my house that more favor acceptances happen every year than affirmative action.

The bottom line is this...at any given time there are about 100 thousand wrongdoings, unethical practices and flat out robbery by any system. Why target a program that tries to give people a chance to improve their lives when in all likelihood they would have no other option.

For fuck sakes its not like their entire college life is paved in gold or something. Its just given them a chance to better their lives. Just a note...I do 100 percent feel for very poor white people because for them....their poor, minorities are poor, whats the difference? I would hope that there are programs that are similar to affirmative action so that those people can also have a chance. (The only difference being if they got into a school no one would bitch about it)[/QUOTE]
Most of your sentiment is correct, but the problem with focusing on classism is that the racism ingrained in that concept also manifests itself. For example: A poor white person will still have better outcomes and treatment than a poor black person and so on and so forth as you go up the economic ladder for both parties. This is seen in relation to weath, income, health, infant mortality, etc. Which means that even with income-based affirmative action, you'll still need a strong race based one because history has shown us that whenever there are colorblind or income-based aid, they disproportionately* help whites more.

*For anyone that's looking to troll me on that one, disproportionately means that the programs helped more whites according to their percentage in the population and helped far less black people in relation to their percentage of the population as well.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's say this man ran a business and posted a sign on the door that said "No ****ers Allowed". What would you suggest be done?[/QUOTE]

I would handle it in a nonviolent and rational manner. I'd go to the nearest policeman and point out the obvious racism. If that doesn't work I'd keep going up and up (through news media and local politicians) until I got this noticed. That sign and any enforcement is illegal and would get him thrown in jail.

I don't think you understand reason UB. You only understand reacting with your emotions or your fists.
 
[quote name='victimsofadown']Please enlighten me.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps leaning on the location aspect benefitting the disenfranchised... as previously stated I have been benefitted from it and I am far from disenfranchised.

It seems pretty silly to assume that one needs a benefit due to their geographical location. If you think that lower-income families or families of a specific race need an edge then SAY IT (note: I am talking about lawmakers/ school policy officials. Those in this thread have made it clear they support this). If they believe in helping the disenfranchised then why don't they do it instead of BSing everyone with geographical aid?

Don't get me wrong, I would still be against it, but at least it would be honest.

And as a note to a poster above I completely agree that alumni families getting an edge into college, or those who have donated large sums of money getting an edge (in most cases a SIGNIFICANT edge) is complete bullshit, as I stated previously.[/QUOTE]
It's never as simple as just favoring a certain area for no reason. Different neighborhoods have different resources according to income. A well-to-do suburb will have a better school system with better preporatory tools to enable their students to succeed/persist in higher education. Unfortunately, a lot of these neighborhoods breakdown into racial enclaves due to a legacy of denied economic mobility and property taxes that keep the poor, poor and uneducated.

Another point that you brought up was why they try to hide it. To be honest, I've already answer this question: eventhough we use colorblind language, we're still talking about race. Even you think that talking about race perpetuates racism, which is really faulty logic to be honest, but anyone can plainly see that coded language is very transparent.

edit: just saw your edit. Are you starting to understand the problem and see how racism is part of a system?
 
[quote name='victimsofadown']Please enlighten me.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps leaning on the location aspect benefitting the disenfranchised... as previously stated I have been benefitted from it and I am far from disenfranchised.

It seems pretty silly to assume that one needs a benefit due to their geographical location. If you think that lower-income families or families of a specific race need an edge then SAY IT (note: I am talking about lawmakers/ school policy officials. Those in this thread have made it clear they support this). If they believe in helping the disenfranchised then why don't they do it instead of BSing everyone with geographical aid?

Don't get me wrong, I would still be against it, but at least it would be honest.

And as a note to a poster above I completely agree that alumni families getting an edge into college, or those who have donated large sums of money getting an edge (in most cases a SIGNIFICANT edge) is complete bullshit, as I stated previously.

edit: did a little research to find that my county has higher % of high school graduates and bachelor's degree holders, as well as a higher per capita income, median household income, and less people below the poverty line.[/QUOTE]
I would assume it's the hope that people from those areas will be lured to the school. I got aid to go to an out of state school because my county straddles the county that the out of state school is in.Why did they do that? They must want to encourage people form this area to come there for one reason or another. Maybe a school feels that there are areas in the state that are under represented? That they want to encourage more people from those areas to go to school.
 
[quote name='camoor']I would handle it in a nonviolent and rational manner. I'd go to the nearest policeman and point out the obvious racism. If that doesn't work I'd keep going up and up (through news media and local politicians) until I got this noticed. That sign and any enforcement is illegal and would get him thrown in jail.[/quote]
So, for you, when you disagree with someone, it's better to use the force of government to deprive someone of their right to liberty than to think about punching them in the face?

I don't think you understand reason UB. You only understand reacting with your emotions or your fists.
Click to expand...

Obviously, this is false. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Emotionally, yes, I thought about punching this guy in his face. Reasonably and logically, I mentally stepped back from the situaion and did not take that action. Weird how that works, eh?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, for you, when you disagree with someone, it's better to use the force of government to deprive someone of their right to liberty than to think about punching them in the face?[/QUOTE]

I expect people to follow the law, and when I see racists or fascists doing something illegal then you better believe I'm going to get the law involved.

I don't know where this "deprive someone of their right to liberty" crap came from.
 
[quote name='victimsofadown']Only one of the schools I looked at was still lottery for nursing. The rest were points based with an "extra" point going to students who lived in specific regions. I'm not saying that the majority of alumni are from far away, I'm saying that it is asinine to have your physical location play a role in your application (positively or negatively).[/QUOTE]

in state vs out of state tuition premiums? I'm only guessing here of course...

Well you see camoor, you're just supposed to let the establishment be because the invisible hand of the free market will eventually lead to the closing of the store because seriously, who wants to shop there right? I mean you can only tattoo 88 on so many heads...
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't know where this "deprive someone of their right to liberty" crap came from.[/QUOTE]

You.

[quote name='camoor']That sign and any enforcement is illegal and would get him thrown in jail.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't know where this "deprive someone of their right to liberty" crap came from.[/QUOTE]

Right wingers only care about Liberty in a very narrow sense.

Such as the liberty to deny someone life saving health care, historically it meant the liberty to not let black people in your business or own slaves.

In other words, it is just bullshit to make an odious idea sound good.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Such as the liberty to deny someone life saving health care[/QUOTE]

Do you mean health insurance? Isn't denying someone health care illegal?

[quote name='nasum']in state vs out of state tuition premiums? I'm only guessing here of course...

Well you see camoor, you're just supposed to let the establishment be because the invisible hand of the free market will eventually lead to the closing of the store because seriously, who wants to shop there right? I mean you can only tattoo 88 on so many heads...[/QUOTE]

Not tuition, actual acceptance. And it's all in-state.
 
[quote name='victimsofadown']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

That's weird.[/QUOTE]

It isn't weird. I find it perfectly normal for people like you to post about things they have zero idea about and defend themselves with wiki links they haven't read.

FYI hospitals have to stabilize you in the event of an emergency, they do not for example have to provide someone with medication they need to stay alive or for chemotherapy or the like.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Right wingers only care about Liberty in a very narrow sense.

Such as the liberty to deny someone life saving health care, historically it meant the liberty to not let black people in your business or own slaves.

In other words, it is just bullshit to make an odious idea sound good.[/QUOTE]

The implication is that it is an emergency, I guess that's my bad :roll:

edit: I did a little research on chemotherapy costs, and it is definately unaffordable to the common person when factoring in hospital costs. I see that many of the newer drugs alone cost upwards of $10,000 (per dose). Definately life-ruining for someone without insurance. I did see that there are MANY hospital-run, foundation-run, and drug-company-run benefit programs which is nice.

I agree with you guys that this is awful, I personally take the gamble of not having personal insurance and I understand that at any moment for a reason beyond my control my entire life could be ruined by debt due to hospital bills that I cannot pay. However, on a serious note, I do wonder who would pay the bills?

The cost of the treatment doesn't go away just because someone can't afford it. So unless the hospital, foundation, or drug-store foots the bill who is supposed to pay it? (note: for once I'm not being a dick, that's a serious question. I'm actually on board w/ you guys that having cancer w/o insurance is a death sentence.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='victimsofadown'] However, on a serious note, I do wonder who would pay the bills?

The cost of the treatment doesn't go away just because someone can't afford it. So unless the hospital, foundation, or drug-store foots the bill who is supposed to pay it? (note: for once I'm not being a dick, that's a serious question.[/QUOTE]

Do you know how healthcare works in other wealthy industrialized countries?

Are you willing to read a book on the subject?

Because I can recommend a decent one.
 
Dohdough, assuming troll bit in you last bit a few posts ago is directed at me since I challenge that based on population and such.

I'm honestly curious, why is participation low? Quasi follow up, why is low participation blame placed outside?

On phone so typing in shorthand.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You.[/QUOTE]

So do have a problem with it being illegal for shop owners to deny service to customers based on their race? Really?
 
It's a weird concept to me. Not giving someone something is the same as taking something they have away from them. I don't know if that's something I can get used to.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's a weird concept to me. Not giving someone something is the same as taking something they have away from them. I don't know if that's something I can get used to.[/QUOTE]
What would you call not giving someone the right to vote?

It's really not that complicated. All it takes is to think about it on a deeper level.
 
[quote name='dohdough']What would you call not giving someone the right to vote?

It's really not that complicated. All it takes is to think about it on a deeper level.[/QUOTE]

That came out of left field. "Giving" someone the "right to vote" doesn't mean taking that away from someone else.

The government could go out and decide that all illegal immigrants will be able to sign up for a lotto for a chance of one of 100,000 voter registration cards. They don't have to counter act this by taking 100,000 votes away from someone else.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That came out of left field. "Giving" someone the "right to vote" doesn't mean taking that away from someone else.

The government could go out and decide that all illegal immigrants will be able to sign up for a lotto for a chance of one of 100,000 voter registration cards. They don't have to counter act this by taking 100,000 votes away from someone else.[/QUOTE]
Giving someone the right to vote that didn't have it before takes away the power of someone else to speak for them by already being able to vote.

Didn't I JUST say to think about it on a deeper level?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Giving someone the right to vote that didn't have it before takes away the power of someone else to speak for them by already being able to vote.

Didn't I JUST say to think about it on a deeper level?[/QUOTE]

So... you're simply empowering people to go out and make their own choices and be their own voices... and "taking away" the something completely intangible from someone else. Heck, you're not even really taking it away.... the individuals who couldn't vote before could still simply allow that "someone" to continue speaking "for" them. It's not as if the government is going to force you to vote.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... you're simply empowering people to go out and make their own choices and be their own voices... and "taking away" the something completely intangible from someone else. Heck, you're not even really taking it away.... the individuals who couldn't vote before could still simply allow that "someone" to continue speaking "for" them. It's not as if the government is going to force you to vote.[/QUOTE]
You're assuming that the two parties have aligned interests or are on equal standing. If one group wasn't allowed to vote in the first place, then they obviously weren't equally enfranchised as the ones that were already able to vote.

And the government also has a long history of voter suppression, so forcing someone to vote is a stupid argument. You're so drunk on pseudo-libertarian kool-aid that you can't get past the concept of negative rights. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with positive rights along with marginal utility.

I mean seriously, would it really kill you to do some goddamned thinking?
 
I get where your argument is coming from... what it's not really germane to to the point I was making above. Which is partially my fault, as I could have phrased it better. Let me rephrase that slightly and try it again.

[quote name='UncleBob']It's a weird concept to me. Not giving someone property that belongs to someone else is the same as taking something they have away from them. I don't know if that's something I can get used to.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It's a weird concept to me. Not giving someone something is the same as taking something they have away from them. I don't know if that's something I can get used to.[/QUOTE]

You can give stuff to whooever you like. But what kind of store gives stuff away?

We were talking about commerce. The act of buying and selling.

If a business denies service to someone based on race it is illegal - however apparently you disagree with these laws.

I'd like to know why? Why do you think this kind of thing should get fixed in the streets instead of the courts? That didn't work in the 60s, why do you think it would work now?
 
[quote name='camoor']You can give stuff to whooever you like. But what kind of store gives stuff away?[/quote]

Different subject, bro.

If a business denies service to someone based on race it is illegal - however apparently you disagree with these laws.
Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree with them - thus I speak out against them.

I'd like to know why? Why do you think this kind of thing should get fixed in the streets instead of the courts? That didn't work in the 60s, why do you think it would work now?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, when you start off a question with "Why do you think...", you're probably going into a territory that you really aren't very educated in or interested in hearing.

I don't think this kind of thing should be "fixed in the streets". As I said, if someone had punched the old man in this case, I would support the assailant being brought into custody and charged with a crime (i.e.: "in the courts".) As I've said many times before, read what I post instead of making up what you think I've posted. We can have a better conversation that way.

Punching the guy in this case should not be accepted, rational behavior. However good it might make those who witnessed the entire situation feel.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I get where your argument is coming from... what it's not really germane to to the point I was making above. Which is partially my fault, as I could have phrased it better. Let me rephrase that slightly and try it again.[/QUOTE]
You assume that the two parties had equal opportunity and resources to "earn" property. It doesn't matter how the hell you phrase it; you still have the same problem.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Different subject, bro.



Yes, I disagree with them - thus I speak out against them.



Generally speaking, when you start off a question with "Why do you think...", you're probably going into a territory that you really aren't very educated in or interested in hearing.

I don't think this kind of thing should be "fixed in the streets". As I said, if someone had punched the old man in this case, I would support the assailant being brought into custody and charged with a crime (i.e.: "in the courts".) As I've said many times before, read what I post instead of making up what you think I've posted. We can have a better conversation that way.

Punching the guy in this case should not be accepted, rational behavior. However good it might make those who witnessed the entire situation feel.[/QUOTE]

You disagree with the laws that forbid a business to deny service to a customer based on their race. If I'm reading this correctly, you think that because you speak out against such behavior it will get fixed. If that's the case I don't have time to discuss your delusional fantasies, take it up with a trained psychiatrist on Wally World's dime.
 
[quote name='camoor']You disagree with the laws that forbid a business to deny service to a customer based on their race. If I'm reading this correctly, you think that because you speak out against such behavior it will get fixed. If that's the case I don't have time to discuss your delusional fantasies, take it up with a trained psychiatrist on Wally World's dime.[/QUOTE]

I don't think speaking out against racist behavior will stop racist behavior.

Likewise, I don't think laws against racist behavior will stop racist behavior.

Again, you should consider stopping the "you think that..." line of thought. You've clearly demonstrated a complete lack of insight as to what I think.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Likewise, I don't think laws against racist behavior will stop racist behavior.[/QUOTE]

They will and they do. Business owners may not always want to do the right thing, but fines and jailtime are powerful motivators.
 
[quote name='camoor']They will and they do. Business owners may not always want to do the right thing, but fines and jailtime are powerful motivators.[/QUOTE]

Which, of course, is why racism has stopped and no longer exists.

Also, why prohibition was so successful and why laws prohibiting abortion will stop people from seeking abortions.
 
[quote name='camoor']They will and they do. Business owners may not always want to do the right thing, but fines and jailtime are powerful motivators.[/QUOTE]

Bingo. If someone is personally racist for lavk of a better term it is a completely different ballpark from institutonal racism that really effects equality.
 
[quote name='victimsofadown']The implication is that it is an emergency, I guess that's my bad :roll:

edit: I did a little research on chemotherapy costs, and it is definately unaffordable to the common person when factoring in hospital costs. I see that many of the newer drugs alone cost upwards of $10,000 (per dose). Definately life-ruining for someone without insurance. I did see that there are MANY hospital-run, foundation-run, and drug-company-run benefit programs which is nice.

I agree with you guys that this is awful, I personally take the gamble of not having personal insurance and I understand that at any moment for a reason beyond my control my entire life could be ruined by debt due to hospital bills that I cannot pay. However, on a serious note, I do wonder who would pay the bills?

The cost of the treatment doesn't go away just because someone can't afford it. So unless the hospital, foundation, or drug-store foots the bill who is supposed to pay it? (note: for once I'm not being a dick, that's a serious question. I'm actually on board w/ you guys that having cancer w/o insurance is a death sentence.)[/QUOTE]

It's usually not a death sentence because you can still get care via "charity care" or at county facilities, which are usually affiliated with University based teaching institutions. If you are a veteran, you can go to the VA. A lot of times the newfangled therapies are either equivalent to or less tested than older and cheaper therapies... so you can essentially still get equivalent care. If you are homeless or don't have an SS number, no one can successfully come after any of your assets. If you do have some assets, then they will go after those, but then you'll become poor and will qualify for MediCAL or charity care...

The problem with our health care costs are several fold:
* A large amount of costs occur in the last months of life where people get admitted to ICUs and get numerous invasive procedures until either the physicians are able to convince the family or patient that this is all futile and make them comfort care or until they PEA arrest. Did I mention that I'm a big advocate of early hospice? ;) But, if one says that... he or she gets accused of promoting death squads, which is bogus :roll:
* Payment is turfed to a third party (insurance companies and the gov't), so on the one hand the total amount of money in the pot is increased leading to inflation. On the other hand, people are insulated from the cause/effects of spending money, leading to overutilization of services by both physicians and patients (of course, legal issues also contribute to that).
* Paperwork and licensing is onerous and costly... this gets passed on to the patient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top