So I'm to be kicked out of a leper colony for having too many fingers?
Don't be silly. You were going to be kicked from a place that doesn't tolerate argument-by-groundless-assertion, especially when your response to being asked questions about your groundless assertions is to make more groundless assertions, while adding insults.
It is an assertion that Affirmative Action deserves to be grouped with such things as, say, busing,
Well, yes. It's an assertion that legislated desegregation of workplaces is, in fact, similar to legislated desegregation of schools and public facilities.
You insist that it's NOT similar to those things, but have yet to explain how it's different.
But you did, finally, manage to clarify one of the seemingly-quite-stupid things you said. It's a wonderful start, so now that you've actually staked out a position - "employment equity is materially different from other desegregation efforts, and so I support those and not it", it's time to *defend* the position. Think you can manage that? Start with *what makes it* different, preferably using something other than argument-from-misremembered-preteen-anecdata that alleges that a position must be bad because someone you don't like once, supposedly, liked it.
While you're at it, let's go back to the rest of the argument that you ran away from: * a dearth of diversity in hirings despite a diversity of available workers indicates a biased hiring process, because it has a biased outcome, True/False? (If false: You've failed the laugh test already, but sure, explain how "only hires white people" doesn't indicate a racial bias. This I gotta see.) * assuming "true, a process that produces X-only outcomes is biased towards X ", how is "you are legally required to correct for your biased process and include outcomes that your clearly-biased process would have rejected" *not* a desegregation effort? Given that it forcibly desegregates a segregated environment?
And please, FOR ONCE try to avoid "I once knew someone who I will say is a bad person and they said they liked it therefore it is bad, no you cannot confirm any of this", "the lurkers support me in email", "I read it in a Larry Niven book once therefore it is true" or any other terrible non-arguments.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-04-25 06:52 pm (UTC)Don't be silly. You were going to be kicked from a place that doesn't tolerate argument-by-groundless-assertion, especially when your response to being asked questions about your groundless assertions is to make more groundless assertions, while adding insults.
It is an assertion that Affirmative Action deserves to be grouped with such things as, say, busing,
Well, yes. It's an assertion that legislated desegregation of workplaces is, in fact, similar to legislated desegregation of schools and public facilities.
You insist that it's NOT similar to those things, but have yet to explain how it's different.
But you did, finally, manage to clarify one of the seemingly-quite-stupid things you said. It's a wonderful start, so now that you've actually staked out a position - "employment equity is materially different from other desegregation efforts, and so I support those and not it", it's time to *defend* the position. Think you can manage that? Start with *what makes it* different, preferably using something other than argument-from-misremembered-preteen-anecdata that alleges that a position must be bad because someone you don't like once, supposedly, liked it.
While you're at it, let's go back to the rest of the argument that you ran away from:
* a dearth of diversity in hirings despite a diversity of available workers indicates a biased hiring process, because it has a biased outcome, True/False? (If false: You've failed the laugh test already, but sure, explain how "only hires white people" doesn't indicate a racial bias. This I gotta see.)
* assuming "true, a process that produces X-only outcomes is biased towards X ", how is "you are legally required to correct for your biased process and include outcomes that your clearly-biased process would have rejected" *not* a desegregation effort? Given that it forcibly desegregates a segregated environment?
And please, FOR ONCE try to avoid "I once knew someone who I will say is a bad person and they said they liked it therefore it is bad, no you cannot confirm any of this", "the lurkers support me in email", "I read it in a Larry Niven book once therefore it is true" or any other terrible non-arguments.