SCOTUS rules on Travel Ban

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 10:02 AM)jj22 Wrote: 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.

Now I get it.  You don't understand how rights work.  The Nazis have a right to free speech.  I also have the right to free speech to protest them.  I am not calling on the government to stop them.   

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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?

I understand your argument, but I'm not sure if it has to work out that way.  I mean is that a statistical certainty?  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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.

I'm sorry, this level of playground "debate" isn't really going to work out for you.  Kindly stick to responding to points made instead of making baseless accusations.  You have my thanks in advance.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 10:22 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I understand your argument, but I'm not sure if it has to work out that way.  I mean is that a statistical certainty?  

The premise of equality of opportunity is that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. It is as close to a statistical certainty that you can get that if this is true, then over time, with a large enough n, the distribution among the strata should represent the overall population. This does make a couple of assumptions, though, and I would get to that in my argument if there would be some acknowledgement of this.

The biggest assumption would be that people started off equal. We know this isn't true, though. Think of this as a 400m race. Equality of opportunity would mean that everyone has the same starting place and has to run the same distance. Think of the start line as 1607, the founding of Jamestown and the finish line as 2007, so we have a nice even 400 years to work with. I am going to focus on two runners only for simplification. What has happened is that because of policies in place, the white runner had at least a 258m head start on the black runner. That is the conservative placement, because effects from Jim Crow and other racist policies up until the CRA (and beyond) could cause an argument to be made for a head start of nearly 360m.

So we have a runner that only needs to run 142m or less, and a runner that needs to run 400m. We are calling this equality of opportunity.

This was what the whole idea of 40 acres and a mule was all about. At the time we could've afforded it because of the expansion of the country. It would have at least moved the black runner up a few dozen meters to try to make it closer to the idea of equality of opportunity. But this never happened. We dropped the ball and because we have never made meaningful efforts to fix it, in fact often making it worse, we are currently in the situation we are in now where the average black person would have to live out three to four lifetimes to accumulate the wealth the average white person would.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2018, 10:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The premise of equality of opportunity is that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. It is as close to a statistical certainty that you can get that if this is true, then over time, with a large enough n, the distribution among the strata should represent the overall population. This does make a couple of assumptions, though, and I would get to that in my argument if there would be some acknowledgement of this.

The biggest assumption would be that people started off equal. We know this isn't true, though. Think of this as a 400m race. Equality of opportunity would mean that everyone has the same starting place and has to run the same distance. Think of the start line as 1607, the founding of Jamestown and the finish line as 2007, so we have a nice even 400 years to work with. I am going to focus on two runners only for simplification. What has happened is that because of policies in place, the white runner had at least a 258m head start on the black runner. That is the conservative placement, because effects from Jim Crow and other racist policies up until the CRA (and beyond) could cause an argument to be made for a head start of nearly 360m.

So we have a runner that only needs to run 142m or less, and a runner that needs to run 400m. We are calling this equality of opportunity.

This was what the whole idea of 40 acres and a mule was all about. At the time we could've afforded it because of the expansion of the country. It would have at least moved the black runner up a few dozen meters to try to make it closer to the idea of equality of opportunity. But this never happened. We dropped the ball and because we have never made meaningful efforts to fix it, in fact often making it worse, we are currently in the situation we are in now where the average black person would have to live out three to four lifetimes to accumulate the wealth the average white person would.

Or, more true...

[jj22]

(06-28-2018, 10:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

I'm sorry, this level of playground "debate" isn't really going to work out for you.  Kindly stick to responding to points made instead of making baseless accusations.  You have my thanks in advance.

I don't need or care for any thanks. I said what I said.

[jj22]

(06-28-2018, 10:19 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Now I get it.  You don't understand how rights work.  The Nazis have a right to free speech.  I also have the right to free speech to protest them.  I am not calling on the government to stop them.   

If me believing in rights for all and not just those I agree with (because that's all I've said) is not understanding how rights work then so be it.... My problem is an always has been with those who fought for the rights of the Baker but spent the week crying when someone they loved were denied service. I personally think that's lame. You don't and are fine with it. Ok you are entitled to your opinion. But just say it. Don't deflect to some Nazi scenario to cover for it. This isn't two parties protesting, this is one party fighting for the rights of private businesses but clearly only ones they agree with.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 10:51 AM)jj22 Wrote: If me believing in rights for all and not just those I agree with (because that's all I've said) is not understanding how rights work then so be it.... Spinning it to talk about protesting Nazi's to deflect from an act that became a right because folks took it to court and fought for it to become one (denying service) to free speech a constitutional right, at the heart of our Democracy just won't work with me.

Ok then so be it, because that's exactly what you are demonstrating.  You don't understand how they work, and I don't want to remove you from your bliss.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 11:00 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Ok then so be it, because that's exactly what you are demonstrating.  You don't understand how they work, and I don't want to remove you from your bliss.

To be fair, most people don't really understand how rights work. The concept of civil liberties (what most people call rights) and civil rights isn't the most intuitive thing and many people get the stuff confused.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-28-2018, 11:04 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: To be fair, most people don't really understand how rights work. The concept of civil liberties (what most people call rights) and civil rights isn't the most intuitive thing and many people get the stuff confused.

And I admit I use the words interchangeably for convenience sake although I'll just say rights and not civil rights when referring to civil liberties.  

But yeah a lot of people seem to have a difficult time understanding our liberties and what constitutes a violation of them.

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 10:43 AM)GMDino Wrote:

I never liked that infographic. I've always felt the better labels would be, from left to right, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equity.

[GMDino]

(06-28-2018, 11:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I never liked that infographic. I've always felt the better labels would be, from left to right, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equity.

Still works for me with either labels.  Infographics aren't meant to be in depth.

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 09:36 AM)Beaker Wrote: Only whites have the power to oppress? Tell that to Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge. Tell that to the Tutsis in Rwanda. ghest to lowest?

I am talking about here in the United States.

No matter what country you talk about the group that controls a majority of the wealth and power has the power to oppress.

[fredtoast]

(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?

Do you know what "proportionate" means?

Non-Hispanic white people make up about 65% of the population but control over 90% of the wealth and power (elected officials, CEO's etrc)

[fredtoast]

(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.

So you are saying that white people hold a higher percentage of the wealth because they are the superior race?   

Sure it doesn't have anything to do with the huge head start they had in this country?

[fredtoast]

(06-28-2018, 10:01 AM)Beaker Wrote: Equality of opportunity rests on the individual's willingness to put in effort and work.

No it does not.

When I graduated from college in Knoxville the most exclusive country club (Cherokee Hills) was all-white and refused to admit even wealthy successful black people.  And it was the same all over the country.  Just look at when Augusta National admitted their first black member.  These country club members were not rednecks with rebel flags on their pick up trucks.  They were the power brokers who control hiring, firing, promotions, and handing out contracts.


Can you say with a straight face that black people who worked as hard as I did and graduated with me had "equal opportunity" to get a job under those conditions?


This is not from history.  This is from my current generation.  I am only 55.  And the privilege of my generation will be passed on to the next due to intergenerational wealth elasticity.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-27-2018, 05:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF?

Link to me saying anything like this or STFU.  This is getting absurd.

It's quite simple: what is the reason for Leroy Williams having a hard time becoming an interviewer if most of the people in charge are white? It sure looks like you're implying that most of the people in charge being white is the reason. If so, what does that have to do with Leroy becoming an interviewer? Unless you're saying that the mostly white people in charge are racist.

[*PhilHos*]

(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.

No, they don't. Not anymore. At least, not in America anyways.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-28-2018, 10:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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?

I get what you're saying and I think Beaker does, too. What I thnk Beaker's trying to tell you is that you and the statistics don't seem to count for people's individuality. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-28-2018, 03:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I get what you're saying and I think Beaker does, too. What I thnk Beaker's trying to tell you is that you and the statistics don't seem to count for people's individuality. 

It does, though, if you think races are equal. It accounts for their being individual differences within the races, and even some variability between races. The difference between races currently seen in this country, though, cannot be accounted for if we truly have equality of opportunity in this country.