Lets talk specific laws and solutions to Racism

What do you mean “parts”? The concept is discriminatory by definition.

 

How so? Please be specific. As I said, my experience has been that people who think it's discriminatory don't actually know anything about it.

 

Let’s try this. You post the definition of what you think affirmative action is, and we’ll go from there. I get bored quickly with people that infer I don’t know anything about a subject, but can’t present any evidence to back it up.

 

You're the one making claims about a policy, but sure ... In general, affirmative action is intended to combat, counter, and otherwise make up for the types of discrimination that have led to a significant lack of diversity in education and various industries. Sounds like the concept is intended to be the opposite of discrimination.

 

Aren’t you forgetting to include the actual policy in the definition? Your definition includes only intent. You have formed a purely emotional argument by excluding the reality of what happens to individuals when affirmative action is used.

I like facts. The fact is, affirmative action favors individuals based on their membership in a generic group such as race or sex. Discrimination favors individuals based on membership in a genetic group such as race or sex. The only difference is the completely subjective claim affirmative action is intended to help an individual or group and discrimination conversely has negative connotations. The problem is the same injustice is being done to individuals in both cases, discrimination and affirmative action. If we are going to be consistent intellectually we must conclude injustice should not stand simply because our stated intentions are “good”. To support one (affirmative action)and not the other (discrimination) does not pass the logic test.

Do you support quotas? Do you think Supreme Court rulings are correct or incorrect on quotas?

 

You said the concept itself was discriminatory. I told you the concept, which is the opposite of discrimination, and now you suddenly want to talk about the facts of affirmative action. Then you post some unsourced claims about what affirmative action supposedly does.

I don't support quotas. In the US, as far as I know, quotas aren't part of affirmative action. So I guess I'll just repeat my earlier post: feel free to quote the parts of affirmative action that you consider to be discriminatory.

 

I simply added the missing parts of the actual definition of affirmative action you left out. Look it up. It turns out you are the one who doesn’t know anything about the subject. I specifically asked for your definition for this reason. I knew your position was not based on a sound premise. The fact you only provide the a partial definition proves this. Here is the definition so you can maybe learn something from this.

af·firm·a·tive ac·tion
/əˈfərmədiv ˈakSHən/

noun
NORTH AMERICAN

1. (in the context of the allocation of resources or employment) the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously.

Again, you only supplied the part of the definition dealing with intent and emotion. You left out the concrete action of favoring based on inclusion in a group. By definition affirmative action is discrimination, just against different groups and individuals.

Ah, so you are admitting again you are the one who knows little about the subject. Quotas by that name are unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court. That’s why “as far as you know” they aren’t part of affirmative action here any more.

Now you need to tell me why you are opposed to quotas. Apparently not because they have been deemed unconstitutional, so it must be something else. That is actually encouraging because now you can’t cop out by saying “because they are unconstitutional, or the SC says we can’t use “quotas”.

I’ve answered twice. Because you didn’t pick up on it the first time, I’ve included the definition above in this post. The definition of affirmative action contains the definition of discrimination. There is language added to try and justify the discrimination, but the only way you can ignore the discrimination is if you stick your head in the sand as you did by omitting the core language describing in detail the discrimination component.

Repeating questions based on premises already demonstrated to be false isn’t an argument. You are the proclaimed expert. You need to do better making an intellectual argument.

 

That's not a legal or policy definition. It's colloquial. It's the equivalent of trying to attack evolution by calling it "just a theory." In other words, it's a misconception about what AA is as a policy and in practice. Maybe try the definition used by the people who wrote and passed related laws, and that are written into the regulations themselves.

Still no quotes from actual affirmative action policies. You need to do better at supporting your claims. I don't have time to wade through post after post of unsourced claims about what affirmative action is or does. Te remind you, you made the claim that affirmative action is discriminatory. You've now failed multiple times to quote even one part of it that supports your claim. If your next post doesn't have a sourced quote from an actual AA regulation, we're just going to have to agree to disagree and you can consider this my last response to this thread.

 

In Oklahoma whatever education taxes are collected by cities and counties is subtracted from the allocation from State. So all education funding comes from cities, counties and the state. My question remains; why doesn't every school receive the same funding? Why are some schools ****-holes while others are not? Public education as well as all other issues today are the result of the failure of society to equitably manage these programs. There are two issues; how much money overall is needed and how to equitably distribute this money? Until we fix those who manage our governments...we can never fix our overall problems...

 

Taxpayers pay for everything!

There is a pool of money for education...why isn't this money distributed equally among all schools?

 

Are you saying that 25 billion is whites only money?

 

Martin likely would have been convicted if zimm had died.

 

Provide evidence the definition provided is incorrect. If you do not, I will graciously accept your concession.

There is no need to quote individual policies as that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing affirmative action in general and whether it is discriminatory or not. I have proven that it is, by definition. If you reject the definition I’ve provided you may show where it is in error. Or not. If not, you have conceded the point.

You have provided nothing but accusations of ignorance and denial of facts. Racism is ironically supported by these two pillars of thought process.

I expect you to slink away, but please do consider the question of why you oppose quotas in the context of my provided definitions. Hopefully someday that reflection will lead you to reject all discrimination. That is my goal and my hope.

 

I get the point that you are trying to make, but all culture doesnt flow from the government, nor the laws of the government.

 

No it isn't. And I've already explained that. The state money only supports teacher pay to the state minimum at time in grade. You're on your own for everything else.

 

So if you don't use either, neither the difference in the drug or the sentence matters, does it? Problem solved.

 

But Minnesota taxpayers dont pay for Indianapolis schools

 

Well...please explain this:

School Funding 101
First, it’s important to understand that Oklahoma schools are supported through a combination of state, local and federal funds. Tulsa Public Schools, for example, receives 37 percent of its budget from the State of Oklahoma, 27 percent from local revenue like property taxes, 20 percent from the building and bond fund, 13 percent from the federal government, and 3 percent from private grants. Some funding sources place restrictions on how money gets used, while other funds are unrestricted and leave spending to the discretion of the district.

The funds that are appropriated by the State Legislature to support education are referred to as state aid. The amount of state aid a district qualifies for is based primarily on student headcount and attendance, with a few other factors weighed into the calculation, such as the number of special education students, bilingual students, gifted students, and economically disadvantaged students in the district. For many districts, state aid represents a big portion of the overall budget, but according to the Oklahoma Policy Institute, Oklahoma’s state aid spending per pupil has fallen by a staggering 26.9 percent since 2008.

 

There is a pool of money for Minnesota...is this money distributed equally among all public schools in Minnesota?

 

Racism is so yesterday!
When are skinny people going to start apologizing to fat people? Got to do some reparations too, like free gym membership, free salads, diet soft drinks, etc? Also, each fatty should be entitled to one extra large meal per week at McDonalds for “I’m fat!!!” moments! Ain’t nothing better than forgetting about your weight problems when burying your face in that Big Mac!

 

As I said the state and federal funds are generally restricted in various ways mainly to guarantee minimum teacher pay in grade. Teacher pay is the primary cost in a lot of smaller districts.

 

You're just in complete denial here...fact is federal, state and county taxes fund schools! It is you and other citizens who decide how to allocate the funds. When society refuses to treat all citizens equitably the results are what we have today. This relates to all issues no matter if education, or health care, or infrastructure, etc. Bottom line; society and it's citizens are failures!! Until this can be changed, don't expect any wholesale productive changes...

 

Regarding your auto-signature;
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys -

Fact #1; Government is required because people and business are incapable of governing themselves.
Fact #2; Governments must be appropriately funded by those who require governing.