SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 09:22 AM)jj22 Wrote: I have no problem. I said what I said and meant it. If there is a problem it's keeping up with Trump Supporters spin and excuses. Because they support things they know are un-American and Anti Democracy, but try to deflect blame, cover, and excuse it instead of just standing up for their beliefs and sticking to it.

What you have a hard time with is following logical arguments.  Such as why there is no hypocrisy if someone supports the baker's right to not bake the wedding cake, and also supports a boycott of the Red Hen.  when presented with logical arguments you label a person a Trump supporter which allows you to dismiss them.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 09:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: But only whites have the power to oppress people they are  racist against because they control a disproprtionate perceentage of wealth and power.

Only whites have the power to oppress? Tell that to Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge. Tell that to the Tutsis in Rwanda. 

And how is it disproportionate for the majority ethnic group to have more people represented in each economic category from highest to lowest?

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So we agree that racism can be a motivating factor and not just one that causes people to blame others for their failures, excellent. As to the contrived part, well, I think that same way. I don't see it as deliberate but rather something that comes to us naturally and therefore we need to make extra efforts to squash because it is so interwoven into our institutions due to us trying to pretend it wasn't there.

We never disagreed that racism was bad, nor a motivation for change. But it is not "so interwoven into our institutions". The scope of that belief is way too general, and just not the case.

[jj22]

(06-28-2018, 09:31 AM)michaelsean Wrote: What you have a hard time with is following logical arguments.  Such as why there is no hypocrisy if someone supports the baker's right to not bake the wedding cake, and also supports a boycott of the Red Hen.  when presented with logical arguments you label a person a Trump supporter which allows you to dismiss them.

Your hypocrisy isn't my problem. But keep celebrating those you don't like being refused service, while crying crocodile tears when it happens to someone you do like. Shrugs. Let that represent your character if you want. That's on you.

My belief, if you fight for private businesses to have the right to pick and choose who to serve, then you have to accept when it happens to someone you agree with as well. Why attack a business for acting on a right you fought so hard (8 years) for them to have? Either you are for it or against it. But it can't be dependent on who you like or not (or I guess it can if you are a Trump supporter). You can slam me for that stance. I stand by it proudly, and can't be shamed. You won't find me fighting for rights for some and not all dependent on who I like or don't like.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:36 AM)Beaker Wrote: And how is it disproportionate for the majority ethnic group to have more people represented in each economic category from highest to lowest?

If the majority ethnic group comprises 55% of the population but hold 80% of the wealth and power, that is disproportionate. Of course, I just made up those numbers off the top of my head, but that is how it can be disproportionate.

See this study showing the racial wealth divide in America: https://prosperitynow.org/files/PDFs/road_to_zero_wealth.pdf

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:39 AM)Beaker Wrote: We never disagreed that racism was bad, nor a motivation for change. But it is not "so interwoven into our institutions". The scope of that belief is way too general, and just not the case.

If it isn't the case, then we wouldn't see racial discrimination in our institutions all across the country, no matter the political leanings, rural and urban, everywhere. The prevalence with which it occurs is not explainable by single acts by individuals.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If the majority ethnic group comprises 55% of the population but hold 80% of the wealth and power, that is disproportionate. Of course, I just made up those numbers off the top of my head, but that is how it can be disproportionate.

It doesnt follow that 55% of the population should hold 55% of the wealth....or that 10% of the population should hold 10% of the wealth. There are individuals in all categories that will hold more or less. There should be equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If everyone was only allowed to hold a predetermined amount, then where is the motivation for innovation if I am only allowed to retain a given amount?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 09:40 AM)jj22 Wrote: Your hypocrisy isn't my problem. But keep celebrating those you don't like being refused service, while crying crocodile tears when it happens to someone you do like. Shrugs. Let that represent your character if you want. That's on you.

My belief, if you fight for private businesses to have the right to pick and choose who to serve, then you have to accept when it happens to someone you agree with. Either you are for it or against it. But it can't be dependent on who you like or not (or I guess it can if you are a Trump supporter). You can slam me for that stance. I stand by it proudly and can't be shamed.

First of all I was against the baker.  Secondly, your belief is just that.  And it's a pretty dumb one.  It would be akin to saying you can't believe Nazis have the right to free speech and protest said speech.  Your  inability to grasp that is what I'm referring to.  And we are all painfully aware that you can't be shamed.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:46 AM)Beaker Wrote: It doesnt follow that 55% of the population should hold 55% of the wealth....or that 10% of the population should hold 10% of the wealth. There are individuals in all categories that will hold more or less. There should be equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If everyone was only allowed to hold a predetermined amount, then where is the motivation for innovation if I am only allowed to retain a given amount?

The argument over equality of opportunity is fallacious, because there is no equality of opportunity in our current systems. When socioeconomic inequality is too extreme then the opportunity is not there for those at the lower end because those in power are preventing it from happening to protect their wealth. I'm not saying that equality of outcome is the goal, but considering our Gini coefficient indicates more inequality now than in 1774 (including slaves), then we should be looking to address the problem.

Of course, if equality of opportunity were true, then you should see equal distribution of the races in each socioeconomic tier. We do not. Which is really the point that was being made and is evidence of the falsehood of the equality of opportunity myth.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 09:44 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If it isn't the case, then we wouldn't see racial discrimination in our institutions all across the country, no matter the political leanings, rural and urban, everywhere. The prevalence with which it occurs is not explainable by single acts by individuals.

Single acts by racist individuals are exactly why it still exists, and can definitely speak to the prevalence. And we still see racial discrimination of all types, not just discrimination against blacks by whites. Addressing those individual acts is a real good place to start if you want to begin to affect change. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 09:55 AM)Beaker Wrote: Single acts by racist individuals are exactly why it still exists, and can definitely speak to the prevalence. And we still see racial discrimination of all types, not just discrimination against blacks by whites. Addressing those individual acts is a real good place to start if you want to begin to affect change. 

It's easier to address racist policies than it is to change an individual's behavior.

Edit to add: And no, single acts by individuals definitely cannot account for the prevalence.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 09:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Of course, if equality of opportunity were true, then you should see equal distribution of the races in each socioeconomic tier. 

Why?

Equality of opportunity rests on the individual's willingness to put in effort and work. And we know that that level of willingness is different in individuals of every race. Therefore, it follows that those distributions would not be equal.

[jj22]

(06-28-2018, 09:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: First of all I was against the baker.  Secondly, your belief is just that.  And it's a pretty dumb one.  It would be akin to saying you can't believe Nazis have the right to free speech and protest said speech.  Your  inability to grasp that is what I'm referring to.  And we are all painfully aware that you can't be shamed.  

I wouldn't protest said speech. Why would I, I understand they have the right for them to say what they want. I'm not the one to be fine with rights for some and not all. Now you say you were against the Baker. I have to take your word for it, but there are plenty who support the Baker who have spent the last week crying over SHS being refuse service.

But yea, my rights for all and not just those I agree with is a "pretty dumb" belief. To a Trump supporter I suppose. Sorry you disagree.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's easier to address racist policies than it is to change an individual's behavior.

Edit to add: And no, single acts by individuals definitely cannot account for the prevalence.

It is illegal to discriminate based upon race. That policy has been addressed. Why does it still occur? Individuals. 

And yes, single acts, when added up and taken as a whole are exactly what account for the prevalence.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 10:01 AM)Beaker Wrote: Why?

Equality of opportunity rests on the individual's willingness to put in effort and work. And we know that that level of willingness is different in individuals of every race. Therefore, it follows that those distributions would not be equal.

The only way your argument holds water is if you are claiming that certain races are more willing than others to seek opportunity. If equality of opportunity were true, and you hold onto the idea of racial equality, then if the racial makeup of a country is 55%, 30%, 10%, and 5%, then the wealthiest top 20% should match that racial makeup. If the opportunity is equal to all people in the country, including based on race, then each socioeconomic strata should contain a nearly identical racial makeup to society. That is unless you believe certain races are more likely to succeed for some other reason.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 10:04 AM)Beaker Wrote: It is illegal to discriminate based upon race. That policy has been addressed. Why does it still occur? Individuals. 

And yes, single acts, when added up and taken as a whole are exactly what account for the prevalence.

It is illegal do discriminate explicitly and primarily on race. SCOTUS allows for racial discrimination if it isn't explicit or primary.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 10:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The only way your argument holds water is if you are claiming that certain races are more willing than others to seek opportunity.

No, it hold water when individuals of any race are willing to seek opportunity and work to achieve it. Equality of opportunity.

[Beaker]

(06-28-2018, 10:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:  If equality of opportunity were true, and you hold onto the idea of racial equality, then if the racial makeup of a country is 55%, 30%, 10%, and 5%, then the wealthiest top 20% should match that racial makeup. If the opportunity is equal to all people in the country, including based on race, then each socioeconomic strata should contain a nearly identical racial makeup to society. 

That would be equality of outcome. You are assuming the motivational level of all individuals within each group would be an identical distribution also. And we know that is not the case.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 10:10 AM)Beaker Wrote: No, it hold water when individuals of any race are willing to seek opportunity and work to achieve it. Equality of opportunity.

I don't know how else to explain this to you, because this seems like some very simple statistics to me. If all people are afforded equality of opportunity, then each strata should reflect a distribution of race, gender, religion, etc., as overall society. The poorest 10% would have nearly the same racial makeup at the top 10%. Equality of opportunity doesn't result in equality of outcome, but it does result in equal distribution among demographics. There is no equal distribution among demographics, which means that equality of opportunity is not in effect.

Am I getting too technical in my argument? Does this make sense to other people?

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 10:15 AM)Beaker Wrote: That would be equality of outcome. You are assuming the motivational level of all individuals within each group would be an identical distribution also. And we know that is not the case.

So you're saying that the races are not equal then. Gotcha.