Of that I am sure -- you can't come up with any logical reasoning. All I see are vague accusations and vague assertions plus the requests that I do your thinking for you.
See what I mean about vague accusations and vague assertions?
toldailytopic: Affirmative action. Should government force companies to hire people o
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Tyrathca
New member
Are you going to discuss things or are you just going to troll?
A bit rich coming from someone who's first post in the thread accused all liberals of supporting affirmative action and of desiring to create divisions in the workplace. Then in subsequent posts you mutter stuff about "progressives".
And what have I asserted anyway? That you have not justified your statement? That is obvious to everyone.
Obviously not, if I wanted you to think for me I'd say "Yes Frank! Of course Frank! Liberals are stupid Frank! What else do you want me to believe Frank? Be a Christian, move to the USA and vote Republican? Yes sir, Frank!"
Instead I asked for your argument and evidence so I can assess the logic and reasoning for myself rather than just take your word on it. In what universe does that count as asking other to "think for me"?
Simply describing the behaviour I see. I leave the door wide open for you to show otherwise but so far you have chosen not to. I ask you a question about what you say and you choose not to respond to it, so I fill in the blanks as best I can myself.
I notice you are yet to actually address the topic of this thread other than obliquely in your swipe at liberals. I've made several posts on it, care to do the same? Perhaps respond to one of them if you are just going to respond to my current questions with further insults, assertions and general trolling?
Early 1900s. The reform wing of the Republican party.
Choleric
New member
Still remember from way back then eh old timer?
Yessirree Bob.
Frankenernest, because he hasn't learned from history, is trying to repeat it.
Choleric
New member
I see ur still voting for murder. Way to live for Jesus Barb :thumb:
Neither, actually. Just playing the "I am superior" game you started.
:rotfl: Wasn't an accusation. It was factual observation, your errant characterization notwithstanding.
You have asserted yourself as some intellectually superior arrogating entity. All you did was deny the premise by using yourself as an example. I have no reason to suspect you are universal in that regard. Your replies are the fairly standard muddling tripe I've come to expect from those who try and pass off obfuscating balderdash as rational thought.
No, you wouldn't. As a liberal you see no difference between dictatorship and rational persuasion. I do agree that some liberals are stupid and thanks for bringing it up. Of course you want someone else to do your thinking for you, preferably someone who will reinforce your bloated self-image.
No, you didn't. You made up a scenario which fits your pre-conceived template.
Pre-conceived arguments, pre-conceived conclusions, not based on anything factual, simply your notion of how your own narrative should proceed.
I addressed it as far as I needed to. You didn't like it which was a "so what" moment for me.
You can either come up with something tangible or continue to flail wildly in the breeze hoping for some overtly emotional response you can pick at.
:rotfl: I counter your Frankenernest with a "The Barboobian."
I am flattered you believe I have the power to repeat history. (The rational basis for that is horrifyingly elusive.) If you should ever open a Bible, read Jeremiah, chapters 23 and 24, for a really great history lesson.
Tyrathca
New member
:troll:
Then why on earth would I ask YOU to think for me? It's not like you'd do anything to flatter my self-image would you? You're not exactly keeping your characterisation of me consistent. :chuckle:
So should I assume you aren't going to comment on anything I have said about the topic then? Pity.
I've been getting tonnes of emotional response, I've been fishing for something intellectual. Something I could sink my teeth into, I guess you don't have that to offer.
Choleric writes:
Actually, since both Obama and McCain endorsed abortion under different conditions, I didn't vote for either of them. I voted for a completely pro-life candidate.
Yep. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're voting for evil.
Who did you vote for, Choleric?
If you're embarrassed to say, just ignore the question; we'll understand.
Frank writes:
I'm surprised you thought I said you did. Reading isn't one of your top accomplishments, um?
So you didn't vote for Bush? He says the states should decide for themselves if they want to kill the unborn, and in any case, it's justified in cases of rape or incest. Or do you agree with him on that, Frank? Again, if you're embarrassed to say, just ignore the question.
Actually, since both Obama and McCain endorsed abortion under different conditions, I didn't vote for either of them. I voted for a completely pro-life candidate.
Yep. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you're voting for evil.
Who did you vote for, Choleric?
If you're embarrassed to say, just ignore the question; we'll understand.
Frank writes:
I'm surprised you thought I said you did. Reading isn't one of your top accomplishments, um?
So you didn't vote for Bush? He says the states should decide for themselves if they want to kill the unborn, and in any case, it's justified in cases of rape or incest. Or do you agree with him on that, Frank? Again, if you're embarrassed to say, just ignore the question.
:darwinsm: Guess that takes care of it.
:rotfl: I doubt if it surprised you, since your perceptions are quite dull.
I voted for Bush in 2000 & 2004. Thanks for asking. If abortion is your singular issue, go for it. I do not have to agree with a candidate on every issue in order to cast a vote. Nor does my vote mean that I agree with a candidate on every single issue.
Let me know when you are finished tap-dancing.
Tyrathca
New member
So so far we only have one person who supports affirmative action, also as Barbarian has shown the USA government does not support affirmative action (what it called affirmative action does not fit with what most posters, including myself, mean when we say it). I think we have a winner then, no affirmative action!
K:Then why do you care?
The Berean
Well-known member
?????? I have no idea what this means. Did you read my subsequent posts? My comment was about the idea of a company limiting its pool of potential employees then that company is putting itself at a major disadvantage. I later used Silicon Valley as an example since a rather large percentage of software/hardware engineers are Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. That's not surprising given that those cultures place a high value on education and human capital.
I jumped to a conclusion and I guess I was due for my once-per-century misjump. :crackup:
The reason the government coerces companies to have AA programs is because hiring based on merit has disparate effect on various races. No company practices racial discrimination unless forced by the government. As you appear to know, competitive pressures severely punish acts of racial discrimination.
No tech company would refuse to hire the most qualified, regardless of race. But, that would mean only whites, Indians, and Asians would be hired. No blacks. However, when the government steps in and forces every business to racially discriminate, the competitive pressure against discrimination is eliminated.
- Status