What should colleges do next now that racist Affirmative Action policies are no longer allowed?

Bogan

Hi "just-sayin", our last debate got truncated because the hard drive on my 10 year old computer burned out, and I had to buy another computer.      Anyhoo, I'm ba-a-a-ack.  

The principle of Affirmative action was well intentioned but it was based upon a false premise.    That was, it considered that all races were of equal intelligence.     Sadly, that is simply not so.   While some dysfunctional races do have smart people, the fact remains that the proportions of people with very low, low, average, above average, and gifted, are different within races.    Affirmative Action assumed that the only possible reason why the numbers of people from dysfunctional races were not represented within colleges of higher learning at exactly the same proportions as to their population proportions, was because of discrimination and a system which actively worked against people of these ethnicities.    It was assumed that if Affirmative action was implemented, eventually the differences in dysfunctional minority representation in higher education would disappear.

However, this has not ben the case.    All it has achieved is to allow the enrolment of minority students who's generally IQ and low academic success did not allow them to succeed in higher education.    Instead of STEM subjects, these students opted for trash subjects like "Black studies" and "gender Studies", subjects hardly in demand in industry.

This lead to some interesting outcomes.    For one thing, whereas university students have been renowned throughout history as being a bit radicel, the plethora of time wasting minority students who's job prospects were practically nil simply gacve them time to become even more radical, to the point of being against free speech.

The other, was the push by this new activist class, aided by left wing governments,  to force industry to hire these useless people to perform well paid non jobs like Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training.     The presence of these well paid radicals  in industry has had a disasterous effect on companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Target, Disney, Starbucks, and Nike. 

Affirmative Action was based upon racial discrimination.     Which is just so funny because those who advocated for it were tacitly admitting that racial discrimination could be a good thing.     That kinda destroys their entire woke ideology.    Either racism is utterly wrong or it can be good.    You can't claim to be against racial discrimination and then advocate for it when it suits you.      

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Many liberals are against affirmative action.

Many liberals are against affirmative action. Affirmative action can be a distraction and a way to make disenfranchised groups fight against each other. Do we let the Pacific Islander in or the American Indian?  Affirmative action also angers poor white people.

What we could really use is a raise in minimum wage and a race-blind transfer of wealth. Even Trump supporters are behind a rise in minimum wage.

"But when some Trump supporters stumbled upon the workers of color pushing for higher wages, they shook hands and joined their protest." Sheryll Cashin 2023

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/21/theres-a-path-out-of-poverty-00097399?fbclid=IwAR1

"“A serious and entirely race-blind transfer of wealth to poor people (even just the $15 dollar an hour minimum wage and even though the majority of people working for minimum wage are white) would do more to benefit poor black people than would the most rigorous and effective enactment and enforcement of every possible antidiscrimination law.”" J.C. Pan/

January 7, 2020

https://newrepublic.com/article/156032/diversity-training-isnt-enough-pamela-newkirk-robin-diangelo-books-reviews

I wish I had the time to debunk more of your claims. My circumstances have gotten worse I need to keep posting to a bare minimum, too time consuming.

Barnardot

@Bogan What a loud of racist baloney that is but of coarse your always pushing that sort of dog mess any way by suttely dropping your implication bombs like dysfunctional races. Like what the. What on the earth do you mean by dysfunctional races any way and what races are dysfunctional any way to. Like would I be guessing up the right chanel if these dysfunctional races might be dysfunctional because they get run over a lot because you can only see them when they smile.

just_sayin

@Bogan
I agree with you that Affirmative Action was well intentioned.  The problem with that though is that even well intentioned racism is still racism.  I believe at the heart of many people who support AA is a distorted view of justice.  I believe they see justice as only coming down to the group level.  If you view justice at the group level, then you focus on getting justice for the group, and are willing to discriminate against an individual of a group you don't favor to help the group you do favor.  This is a perversion of justice.  True justice is concerned for each individual.  It is concerned that each individual gets justice, not just if their skin color is the favored one.  

I view the defeat of this racist policy as a tremendous win for Blacks and Hispanics also.  One of the reasons that the drop out rate for Blacks is twice that of whites and that Blacks, and that Blacks are more than twice as likely start in STEM degrees but switch to easier, and lower paying, degree programs is because schools mismatched them.  They were placed in schools where they weren't ready for the academic rigor of that program because the school wanted to meet a diversity quota rather than be concerned about the ultimate educational outcome of the students.  This decision will help to correct this.  If more students attend schools that match their academic skills then there is a much greater likelihood that they will not only graduate, but remain in higher paying degrees like STEM ones.  

To improve Black educational outcomes, more focus has to be given to K-12 grade.  Too many Black students are not adequately prepared for college.  Only 57% of Black students have access to the full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness, compared to 81% of Asian American students and 71% of white students.  Sixty-one percent of Black students who took the ACT in the 2015 high school graduating class met none of the four ACT college readiness benchmarks, nearly twice the 31% rate for all students.  So, rather than dumbing down the curriculum, it is important to expose minority students to the type of education that will prepare them for college.

just_sayin

@Dreamer
I cringe every time I read your posts.

Affirmative action also angers poor white people.

Of course it does.  Poor white people are the victims of Affirmative Action.  If you discriminate against a rich person, they have resources to find work arounds.  The poor, not so much.

and a race-blind transfer of wealth. 

So tell me, what percentage of the wealth that someone else worked for are you entitled too?  Underlying this Marxist idea is greed and envy.  It is unjust to take that from someone which they worked for and you did not.  

What we could really use is a raise in minimum wage

Why do you want poor people to earn less?  You realize that minimum wage increases reduces minimum wage earners work hours, benefits and jobs, right?  From the CBO

According to CBO’s median estimate, under the $15 option, 1.3 million workers who would otherwise be employed would be jobless in an average week in 2025. (That would equal a 0.8 percent reduction in the number of employed workers.) CBO estimates that there is about a two-thirds chance that the change in employment would lie between about zero and a reduction of 3.7 million workers...
On the basis of those effects and CBO’s estimate of the median effect on employment, the $15 option would reduce total real (inflation-adjusted) family income in 2025 by $9 billion, or 0.1 percent.
 Real income would fall by about $16 billion for families above the poverty line; that would reduce their total income by about 0.1 percent.

Why do you support policies that increase unemployment of poor people?  Studies show that minimum wage hikes cut total wages for minimum wage earners.  From USA Today:

A report from the University of Washington (UW), found that when wages increased to $13 in 2016, some companies may have responded by cutting low-wage workers' hours. The study, which was funded in part by the city of Seattle, found that workers clocked 9% fewer hours on average, and earned $125 less each month after the most recent increase. 
“If you’re a low-skilled worker with one of those jobs, $125 a month is a sizable amount of money,” Mark Long, a UW public-policy professor and an author of the report told the Seattle Times. “It can be the difference between being able to pay your rent and not being able to pay your rent.”

The vast majority of the financial benefit of minimum wage hikes don't go to minimum wage earners - so says the CBO.  It also reduces job opportunities for low skilled workers, teens, and those with a prison record.  Why hire an ex-con if you have to pay them the same $15 an hour that you have to pay to someone with no prison record?  The answer is you wouldn't risk your company's reputation if there is no advantage to doing so.  Which is what the Seattle study found.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Excessive economic inequality is wasteful.

@just_sayin

I am not saying the solution is perfect but we gotta try something. There is diminishing returns on wealth and income. The top 1% are incredibly wasteful with their resources. Worse they often make money off of casinos and tobacco profits which harms everyone. Just look at quack tycoons like Robert F Kennedy Jr. worth $50 million by selling disinformation.

"Oxfam argues that wealth inequality is causing poverty and misery around the world." 2019

https://bigthink.com/the-present/oxfam-inequality-poverty/#rebelltitem4

Bogan

@Barnardot

Hi Mr Barnadot.    I can’t remember if I had you on my list of contributors who are just trolls and not worth responding to, because my 10 year old computer’s hard drive burned out and among the data I lost, was my list of such villains.     Tell you what?    I think that you were on that list, but since I can not be sure, I will give you another chance to act adult and debate with me in good faith.

You have asked me what do I mean by dysfunctional races?    What I mean is those races of people who’s communities, regardless of where they are in this modern world, are always dysfunctional.    The countries that they come from are dysfunctional and all of them can not survive without western aid.    When the people of these dysfunctional countries immigrate into western countries, whether legally or illegally, they form ghettoes of dysfunctional people like themselves, with very high rates of welfare dependency and serious criminal behaviour.

Now, you may be passionate in your beliefs, but try and act adult and reply to me in a polite way like a person who has functioning brain cells.      According to my British heritage culture, angry people have low intelligence.     One reason why English is the lingua franca of the world is because of the English dictum “If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs…”

Don’t get angry.    Keep your head.    When you get angry, you stop thinking and that is bad.   Being passionate and angry is also a clear indicator to low IQ.   Unable to verbalise their own emotions, people with low IQ reactively lash out without thinking.    Remember Voltaire’s assessment of the English as his nations most dangerous enemy, “Because the English never get angry.”

Okay, now comes the warning.   If you can not control your emotions, can not post reasonable replies, and simply wish to reply to my posts with insults and sneery one liners, then you will find yourself back on my sheet list and I will not respond to your posts again.    If you disagree with me that dysfunctional races and ethnicities do not exist, then try to write at least a paragraph explaining politely why I am wrong.     I won’t waste my time fencing with angry people with low IQ.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

I am not saying the solution is perfect but we gotta try something. There is diminishing returns on wealth and income. The top 1% are incredibly wasteful with their resources. Worse they often make money off of casinos and tobacco profits which harms everyone. Just look at quack tycoons like Robert F Kennedy Jr. worth $50 million by selling disinformation.

"Oxfam argues that wealth inequality is causing poverty and misery around the world." 2019

https://bigthink.com/the-present/oxfam-inequality-poverty/#rebelltitem4

You are saying "their resources" at the same time as "we gotta try something". Buddy, if it is their resources, then it is none of your business how wasteful they are with them.

I do not need any handouts from the rich (or those who rob them at the gunpoint and then do "charity" with the stolen goodies), nor do I want any beggars at my doorstep. You little men with small ideas never come up with anything more inventive than the ancient "take and redistribute", but the better part of humanity constantly innovates and creates far better solutions to old problems. Upwork or Uber has done far more for the poor than all of you looters put together throughout the whole history of humanity. Go out there and build something; you have stolen enough already. And then, when you have accumulated a lot of resources via trade with others, use your resources more efficiently than "the top 1%".

As for casinos and tobacco, nobody forces you to do those. I have never played a single round in a casino and never smoked a single cigarette, and everyone is free to do the same. The reason some people smoke and gamble is because of certain psychological needs they have that these activities fulfil. But, of course, Dreamer knows far better than other people what is good for them. I am sure Dreamer has never partaken in any "wasteful" activities himself and now gets to teach others how to be like him.

Something that the world could have a use for is more people who lead by example, rather than preach. I am much more inspired by Jeff Bezos' or Bill Gates' success, than I am by a hippie who has never done anything more difficult in his life than flap his mouth. What have you done in your life that gives you the authority to decide how the 1% most productive humans in the world live their lives? Someone who has built a casino in Las Vegas letting a hundred thousand people unwind after a hard day at work is so evil, but what have you done that has contributed something comparable?

Your philosophy is the one that leads exactly to things like racist college admission policies. Someone grew up in China and went through their hardcore multi-tier education system, putting in a sleepless night after a sleepless night while some spoiled American watched Netflix and played Call of Duty all day long - and then some equally spoiled administrator in a college who has never done anything warranting even a passing mention in a small local newspaper looks at the two people's skin color and says, "Eh, the girl from China is a little too light-skinned to my taste. The spoiled guy it is!" This kind of thing happens when you start thinking in groups and assuming that everyone from a certain group is automatically entitled to something, regardless of what he individually has done. "The 1%"... What does Bill Gates exactly have in common with Roman Abramovich other than the size of their assets? Not much, but hey, let us not allow any complexity: the net worth is all that matters. Time to loot!

Bogan

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote.    I agree with you that Affirmative Action was well intentioned.  The problem with that though is that even well intentioned racism is still racism. 

Oh, I agree.    But I think that you are missing the point?    People who believe in Affirmative Action consider themselves staunch anti racists.   To such people, racism is an absolute evil.    But since Affirmative Action itself is racism, then they are forced to consider the awful prospect that racism is not necessarily a bad thing.     This is a contradiction in their thinking, and forcing your opponents to examine the contradictions in their own logic is very helpful to people like myself, who think that racism is not necessarily a bad thing.  

 It is a bit like self interest.    Everybody on planet earth is self-interested.    But at what stage does self interest become greed?    Every thinking person knows that they live within societies where sublimation of self interest is important to create a functioning society.   An entirely self interested (psychopathic) person is no use to a functioning community.     So too, racism can be good or bad according to circumstance.   Racism can simply mean loyalty to one’s own people, and loyalty is supposed to be a virtue.    Racism can also simply be bad manners, according to circumstance.    My contention is, that is not an absolute evil. 

  Just-sayin quote      I believe at the heart of many people who support AA is a distorted view of justice.  I believe they see justice as only coming down to the group level.  If you view justice at the group level, then you focus on getting justice for the group, and are willing to discriminate against an individual of a group you don't favor to help the group you do favor.  This is a perversion of justice.  True justice is concerned for each individual.  It is concerned that each individual gets justice, not just if their skin color is the favored one. 

You are partially correct.    But it all boils down to the fact that we in the western world are trying to create an egalitarian society without considering that people are just not equal.    Mother nature is no egalitarian.    People are born short or tall, beautiful or ugly, smart or du-mb, and for the most part, they are born that way.    We in western societies get around that fact by at least trying to create a society that has equal opportunities, regardless of class or race.    But when we refuse to acknowledge that some ethnicities are dysfunctional because most of them have low IQ’s, then equal opportunities means that most of them are on the bottom of society and they will stay there.

 So what these dysfunctional, low IQ ethnicities do (who’s population proportions keep increasing in western societies through immigration or birth rate differentials) is to redefine the western concept of “equal opportunities” into “equal outcomes.”   That is, to shy away from meritocracy where the best and brightest usually get to the top, to a society of political patronage and cronyism, and where access to the corridors of power and prestige are obtained through racial quotas.     Such a system is essentially left wing socialism, and it is doomed to fail because it always fails.

 Just saying quote    I view the defeat of this racist policy as a tremendous win for Blacks and Hispanics also. 

I can not agree with that.    Whereas there are smart blacks and Hispanics, the proportion of such people within those communities is very low.    Unless Affirmative Action continues, you will see the proportion of students in ivy league universities drop from the present 10% to around 2-3%, which was what they were at before Affirmative Action.

 Just sayin quote    One of the reasons that the drop out rate for Blacks is twice that of whites and that Blacks, and that Blacks are more than twice as likely start in STEM degrees but switch to easier, and lower paying, degree programs is because schools mismatched them. 

Which tends to reinforce my premise that most blacks and Hispanics admitted to universities through Affirmative Action, simply do not have the mental capacity to cope with difficult subjects.    They start STEM courses but soon drop out when they realize that the subject is beyond them.   So, they switch to bum courses like “Gender Studies” and “African studies”, which are taught by committed left wing professors.   These professors radicalise them and pander to their ego, explaining to them that the reason why they could not handle STEM courses was not because they were not bright enough, but because of “systemic racism.”    This led to the ridiculous claim that “mathematics is racist”, because advanced maths is almost devoid of people of African descent.

Just-saying quote    They were placed in schools where they weren't ready for the academic rigor of that program because the school wanted to meet a diversity quota rather than be concerned about the ultimate educational outcome of the students. 

I agree.    Most of the African, and to a lesser extent, Hispanic students accepted into university were just not bright enough to be selected.     They were only chosen because of racial quotas.     Unfortunately, such students were easy converts to left wing socialism, and they became radicalised , because it explained away their failure to perform by blaming white society.   Which is racism. 

 

Just-saying quote    This decision will help to correct this.  If more students attend schools that match their academic skills then there is a much greater likelihood that they will not only graduate, but remain in higher paying degrees like STEM ones.  

What it means is that those few African and Hispanic students who are accepted into university because of either their high IQ, or their capacity to work hard, or both, will probably succeed in whatever STEM courses that they choose to excel in in.    But since such high IQ people are under represented in the dysfunctional races, then the proportion of such people in university will drop.     This is no bad thing, as it will reduce the number of rabid leftists in universities using the authority of academia to advocate for potty ideologies.

 

Just-sayin quote    To improve Black educational outcomes, more focus has to be given to K-12 grade.  Too many Black students are not adequately prepared for college.  Only 57% of Black students have access to the full range of math and science courses necessary for college readiness, compared to 81% of Asian American students and 71% of white students.  Sixty-one percent of Black students who took the ACT in the 2015 high school graduating class met none of the four ACT college readiness benchmarks, nearly twice the 31% rate for all students.  So, rather than dumbing down the curriculum, it is important to expose minority students to the type of education that will prepare them for college.

 Sorry, ma-a-a-a-te. (oops, I mean bud-dy)    Your well intentioned solution has been tried before and it has failed.    In the mid 20th century, the 15 point gap in IQ between whites and blacks in the USA was already well known in academic circles.     At that time, there was not an academic around who thought that the cause of this IQ gap was caused almost entirely by segregated education.    That was the reason for the desegregation of US schools.    Another solution, was that academics in the USA convinced state and federal government to fund special schools full of dedicated and committed teachers to not only provide quality education to minorities (which is racism, once again), but also free, nourishing food for the students.

 These programs went on for decades and they were almost a complete failure.  I say “almost” because there were smart minority kids in these programs who did profit from these programs.     But for the overwhelming majority of minority kids, it did not help at all.    These programs foundered upon the rock that people of different races have different proportions of people who are smart or du-mb.     And no amount of education can turn a basically du-mb person into a Mensa.

 IQ seems to be mainly geared to the length of civilisation (although some civilisations like the Arabs regressed back into barbarism).     Civilisations can be complex so civilisations need smart people.    Over generations, education and living in a complex society makes people smarter.     Maybe in a hundred, or a few hundred years, people from races with low IQ will become smart enough to function in western style societies.    But today we are dealing with the here and now.    Failure to recognise that some ethnicities are simply not smart enough to compete in western societies is destroying our own civilisation.    Continuing to import low IQ races into western societies through immigration, subsidising these people’s unacceptably high birth rate differentials with welfare money, and inventing a system of Dei (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) into all aspects of western commerce and education, will accelerate that trend.  

just_sayin

@Bogan

This is a contradiction in their thinking, and forcing your opponents to examine the contradictions in their own logic is very helpful to people like myself, who think that racism is not necessarily a bad thing.  

I just don't think racism is appropriate - period.  I think favoring someone because of their race or even their financial status is wrong.  I freely admit that this is a biblical conviction of mine.  

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.  But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.  - James 2:8-9
"Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." - Leviticus 19:15
Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.- Exodus 23:2-3

Bogan said

Unless Affirmative Action continues, you will see the proportion of students in ivy league universities drop from the present 10% to around 2-3%, which was what they were at before Affirmative Action.

I don't think the highest level of universities will see huge dips in Black and Hispanic students.  They get first pick of the most elite students.  I do think you will see a drop off in the next few highest tiers (well that is if the schools don't try to covertly use race).  I think what will happen is a student won't get into as elite a school as he would have, but will still get into a respectable school where he will be more on the level with the student body academically.  This should result in higher graduation rates for minorities and fewer minority students in the bottom of their classes and switching out of STEM degrees to lower paying degrees.  For instance HBCU make up 3 percent of colleges and universities, but represent 10 percent of all Black college students and 20 percent of all Black college graduates.  HBCUs have produced 40 percent of all Black engineers and 50 percent of all Black lawyers in America.  These schools don't employ Affirmative Action and are not necessarily the most elite schools.  But they are producing Black college graduates in the STEM field at an exceptional rate.  I don't agree with the idea that Black people are biologically deficient or need to be segregated from others.  I am pointing out that Black students can succeed without AA.  

 Sorry, ma-a-a-a-te. (oops, I mean bud-dy)    Your well intentioned solution has been tried before and it has failed.    In the mid 20th century, the 15 point gap in IQ between whites and blacks in the USA was already well known in academic circles.  

I think you will find the same IQ gap among my people - Appalachian Americans, and the general population.  I don't think Blacks or Hispanics are mentally inferior.  I think there are several factors at play - the quality of the schools, the surrounding neighborhood, the expectations of teachers, attitudes toward education, poverty level, whether or not the child comes from a single parent home, the homelife of the child, truancy, drug addiction, gangs, teen pregnancy, etc.  

Barnardot

@Bogan ; I won’t waste my time fencing with angry people with low IQ.

Well thats okay because Im not black any way.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

I am not saying the solution is perfect but we gotta try something. There is diminishing returns on wealth and income. The top 1% are incredibly wasteful with their resources. Worse they often make money off of casinos and tobacco profits which harms everyone. Just look at quack tycoons like Robert F Kennedy Jr. worth $50 million by selling disinformation.

I could tell you that in the year I was born I lived in the poorest town in the poorest county in the US. But that would not be technically true.  My town was too poor to incorporate into a formal town, so that distinction went to a richer town (true story).  Anyway, I have seen a lot of poverty, though nothing like some of my travels to 2nd and 3rd world countries, I have never found it helpful to be envious of the rich.  I don't think it is an empowering message to suggest that the only way to succeed is to take what someone else earned.  I have this debate with my family who still live in Appalachia all the time.  They see themselves the victims of the rich man and the only way they can make it is to "be on the doll" (live off government handouts).  Now I doubt the rich have ever been in the hollers of Appalachia.  Their limousines would never make it up the mountain.  As much as I love my family, they make bad decisions that adversely impact their finances.  

As the ultra-liberal Brookings Institute has said, there is a 98 percent chance that someone can move out of poverty and into the middle class within a decade if they do just 3 things: 1) Finish high school - the more the better, but at least finish high school, 2) get a job - any job to start - and 3) don't have kids till you are least 21 - preferably married.  Most people can do things.  They are doable for most people.  Now getting a job for an Appalachian American may mean a long drive or moving out of the mountains, but even they can climb out of poverty - provided they do not see themselves hopeless victims.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I agree about getting out of poverty on an individual level.

@just_sayin

Here's the article you were referring to, some liberals hate this article.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/

I don't know much about Appalachia but that does make sense, you have to go where the jobs are. Still some people are stuck with sick family members, brothers, sisters, etc.

More importantly rich grifters really do cause some of the poor people's problems. Tobacco is just one example. Do you remember Joe Camel?

https://theconversation.com/tobacco-killed-500-000-americans-in-2020-is-it-time-to-control-cigarette-makers-153611

 

Bogan

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote    I just don't think racism is appropriate - period. 

 It can be appropriate.   My favourite racist quote is from the reverend Jesse Jackson, leader of the NAACP in the USA.   Jackson was quotes as saying “when walking through the streets of Washington at night, I feel much safer knowing that a white man is behind me, than a black.”      In addition, all of those who believe in Affirmative Action must disagree with you that racism is inappropriate if it is in a good cause.

Just-saying quote    I think favoring someone because of their race or even their financial status is wrong. 

Human beings are tribal and territorial.    Every group of human beings prefer to live among their own race, cultural group, or linguistic group.    People feel safer among people who look and act like they do.    No amount of state propaganda or religious instruction can change human nature.   It is part of our DNA.

Just-sayin quote    I freely admit that this is a biblical conviction of mine.  

Where does it say in the Bible that all races are equal?

 Just-sayin quote      If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.  But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.  - James 2:8-9

"Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." - Leviticus 19:15
Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.- Exodus 23:2-3

 

I have to hand it to you that there are some very good pacific philosophic statements made by the man Jacob bar Joseph (who the Christians call “Jesus Christ” which try to encourage tolerance and understanding between people.     It is one reason why Christian countries are generally more peaceful internally than those of other faiths.    But the fact remains that nowhere in the Bible does God or His so called “son” claim that all races are equal.

 

Just-sayin quote     I don't think the highest level of universities will see huge dips in Black and Hispanic students.  They get first pick of the most elite students.  I do think you will see a drop off in the next few highest tiers (well that is if the schools don't try to covertly use race).  I think what will happen is a student won't get into as elite a school as he would have, but will still get into a respectable school where he will be more on the level with the student body academically.  This should result in higher graduation rates for minorities and fewer minority students in the bottom of their classes and switching out of STEM degrees to lower paying degrees.  For instance HBCU make up 3 percent of colleges and universities, but represent 10 percent of all Black college students and 20 percent of all Black college graduates.  HBCUs have produced 40 percent of all Black engineers and 50 percent of all Black lawyers in America.  These schools don't employ Affirmative Action and are not necessarily the most elite schools.  But they are producing Black college graduates in the STEM field at an exceptional rate.  I don't agree with the idea that Black people are biologically deficient or need to be segregated from others.  I am pointing out that Black students can succeed without AA.  

 

That is not what I understand at all.      According to recent news stories about this subject on Fox, what Asian students are complaining about is that even if they ace their examinations and are in the top 1% of students, they can still be rejected from universities by Africans who are in only the 50% level of students, because of racial quotas.     The proof is in the pudding.    Most African students in STEM courses drop out and do worthless courses like Artz degrees,  “gender studies” and “African studies” which gives them no leeway for employment outside of being a teacher or a DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) officer in a woke company.     That is why DEI is being pushed with such fanaticism by Artz grad university students, who often become teachers.   Unless they can change the Anglosphere culture from one of merit to racial and gender quotas, they are out of a job.    And then they have to pay back their student loans with no job.   They are desperate, and that is why they are so militant and violent. 

Just-sayin quote   I think you will find the same IQ gap among my people - Appalachian Americans, and the general population.  I don't think Blacks or Hispanics are mentally inferior.  I think there are several factors at play - the quality of the schools, the surrounding neighborhood, the expectations of teachers, attitudes toward education, poverty level, whether or not the child comes from a single parent home, the homelife of the child, truancy, drug addiction, gangs, teen pregnancy, etc.  

 

Gee, I hardly know where to start demolishing your idealistic beliefs, but here goes.

Human intelligence is measurable.     For almost a hundred years, cognitive metricians have IQ tested people and according to the book “The Bell curve”, have found that the “Bell Curves” of IQ is different among races.     If the cognitive metricians are wrong, why has nobody taken the raw data to “prove” that all races have equal “Bell curves” of IQ?    A Nobel Prize awaits anybody who can do that.   But it is never going to happen.     Scientists know that different races have different IQ’s.     But they also know it is catastrophic to their careers and reputations  to tell the public and the politicians what they do not want to hear.  

 The best example of that was Nobel Laureate James Watson, co discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, and head of the prestigious Human Genome Project, when Watson made an offhand comment about Africans not being smart enough to ever create functioning counties, he was publicly pilloried, sacked from his job, and tossed out of his university.     The Pope showed Galileo the instruments of torture to shut him up, but today our civilised society is much more humane with our leading scientists who dare to tell us what so many of us don’t want to know.    We just “cancel” them.    I suppose that is progress?

 As for “poverty” being a factor.   In every society there is a spectrum of intelligence with the smartest people usually being at the top and the people with the lowest IQ at the bottom.     People who are smart and who through circumstance may find themselves at the bottom of society, are usually upwardly mobile because they are smart and they work hard.    People at the bottom who have low IQ will stay there.    Such low IQ people usually engage in serious criminal behaviour, and they are impulsive thrill seekers and often have poor self control.   They abuse alcohol, cigarettes, and take controlled substances.   They eat too much fatty food, don’t exercise, and usually die early.  if they are young females, they get pregnant outside of marriage and perpetuate the cycle of poverty until it becomes intergenerational.    They do not value education because they know that they are not smart enough to understand or take advantage of it.

If you believe in genetic egalitarianism, a flat earth, or that Mohammad was a nice guy, then I suggest that you pick up a few books and start taking baby steps into reality.

 Blacks dominate the realm of American professional sports.    The proportion of blacks in American sports is grossly disproportionate to that of whites and Asians.

Perhaps we need "affirmative action" to compel sporting organisations to employ more whites and Asians to redress this imbalance?  Or should we simply concede that the physical attributes of blacks is generally superior to whites and Asians?

 An IQ of 120 is considered essential in understanding engineering concepts and applying them abstractly to create new principles of engineering.

 Race IQ of 120 in USA

White             9.18%

Hispanic         2.28%

Black              0.98%

Asian              9.18%

Bogan

@Barnardot ;   quote  Well thats okay because Im not black any way. 

Another well thought out, well reasoned, lengthy submission by Barnadot utilizing devastating logic.   

 If you can't debate for nuts, what are you doing here?

jack

@just_sayin

Hello j:

If one believes, as I do, that having an educated public is GOOD for America, we should throw open the doors to higher education for all.  Clearly, if one believes the above, as I do, paying for it is NOT an expense.  It's an investment.

excon

just_sayin

@Bogan

Bogan said: It can be appropriate.   My favourite racist quote is from the reverend Jesse Jackson, leader of the NAACP in the USA.   Jackson was quotes as saying “when walking through the streets of Washington at night, I feel much safer knowing that a white man is behind me, than a black.”      In addition, all of those who believe in Affirmative Action must disagree with you that racism is inappropriate if it is in a good cause.

First I am sure that some say Affirmative Action is good and holy racism because it helps a certain group of races.  The problem with that though is its still racism.  Throughout history those who supported racism would point to those who were helped by their racism as "proof" it was good and holy.  Truth be told, it was just racism.

I can honestly say I would rather walk the streets of Havana at night than parts of LA.  I felt a lot safer in Havana, even though I am easy to spot as a white American.  I don't think it is racism that drives people's fears.  We take precautions about what we don't know and about the visual ques we see.  Now as scary as it is to walk in the "hood" at night, I wouldn't dare walk through the "holler" at night, or day time for that matter.  If I happened to be walking through the woods in the holler and happened on a group of white guys sitting around a still, I wouldn't say "hey guys, whatcha doin'?"  I would run as fast as I could.  Now call me racist against white Appalachians, but my instincts say "hall a$$".  I ain't waiting for the banjo music to play before I run.

Bogan said: Where does it say in the Bible that all races are equal?

The only race the Bible recognizes is the human race.  People in the Bible are grouped by family, tribe, geographic location, job, religious practice, and even clothing, but never race.  So here's some verses that say we are all equal and should be treated as such:

a) external differences are irrelevant.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. - Acts 17:26

All of mankind are made in the image of God

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis 1:26-27

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:34

b) God accepts people who follow him from all nations

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. - Acts10:34-35

c) people from all nations, languages and tribes will be in heaven

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.  And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." - Revelation 7:9-10

d) no difference between groups as far as God is concerned

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, - Romans 10:12

e) we aren't to show favoritism

 For God does not show favoritism. - Romans 2:11

I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. - 1 Timothy 5:21

Bogan

@just_sayin

Just-sayin quote    First I am sure that some say Affirmative Action is good and holy racism because it helps a certain group of races.  The problem with that though is its still racism.  Throughout history those who supported racism would point to those who were helped by their racism as "proof" it was good and holy.  Truth be told, it was just racism.

Most people who support Affirmative Action do not see it as racism at all.    Many of them even think that it is impossible for dysfunctional minority groups to be racist towards white people, which is a racist idea in itself.    The smarter ones among them who know that Affirmative Action is racism will never admit it.    What they really want is special privileges for their own particular race and they pretend that their cause is idealistic and noble.  

 

Just-sayin quote     I can honestly say I would rather walk the streets of Havana at night than parts of LA.  I felt a lot safer in Havana, even though I am easy to spot as a white American.  I don't think it is racism that drives people's fears.  We take precautions about what we don't know and about the visual ques we see.  Now as scary as it is to walk in the "hood" at night, I wouldn't dare walk through the "holler" at night, or day time for that matter.  If I happened to be walking through the woods in the holler and happened on a group of white guys sitting around a still, I wouldn't say "hey guys, whatcha doin'?"  I would run as fast as I could.  Now call me racist against white Appalachians, but my instincts say "hall a$$".  I ain't waiting for the banjo music to play before I run.

 Black ghettoes in the USA are dangerous places.   Black ghettoes in any western country are dangerous places.    London was once the safest city on planet earth.    But with multiculturalism, especially the importation of “yardie” Africans from Jamaica, in one year it’s homicide rate exceeded that of New York.    There are two racist explanations for this.    The first is, of course, “It’s all the white guys fault” (also known as Critical race Theory).   The second racist explanation is, that races are different.     Dysfunctional ethnicities within once peaceful and law abiding western countries have created growing crime problems because of their generally low IQ and probably a genetic predisposition to violence which is much greater than within more civilised races.

 I prefer the second racist theory myself.

 

Just-sayin quote    The only race the Bible recognizes is the human race.  People in the Bible are grouped by family, tribe, geographic location, job, religious practice, and even clothing, but never race.  So here's some verses that say we are all equal and should be treated as such:

a) external differences are irrelevant.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28

From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. - Acts 17:26

All of mankind are made in the image of God

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis 1:26-27

The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. - Leviticus 19:34

b) God accepts people who follow him from all nations

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. - Acts10:34-35

c) people from all nations, languages and tribes will be in heaven

After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.  And they cried out in a loud voice: "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb." - Revelation 7:9-10

d) no difference between groups as far as God is concerned

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile-the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, - Romans 10:12

e) we aren't to show favoritism

 For God does not show favoritism. - Romans 2:11

I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. - 1 Timothy 5:21

 

Yeah, I was afraid that you were going to toss religious arguments at me.      Sorry, I prefer not to go down that track.     I prefer science and critical thinking over the (sometimes relevant) declarations of sundry Gods, sons of Gods, Mothers of Gods, Brother in laws of Gods, ghosts, angels, elves, or fairies.

just_sayin

@Bogan

Bogan said: Most people who support Affirmative Action do not see it as racism at all.    Many of them even think that it is impossible for dysfunctional minority groups to be racist towards white people, which is a racist idea in itself.    The smarter ones among them who know that Affirmative Action is racism will never admit it.    What they really want is special privileges for their own particular race and they pretend that their cause is idealistic and noble.  

I agree that those who support Affirmative Action are unlikely to admit that it is racism.  They will rationalize it in their minds.  They will think that because it is well-intentioned and helps some races that it is OK.  They will minimize that it is unjust to those who are discriminated against.  They may even use the fabricated, non-legal definition of racism as "Black people can't be racist".  That is a made up definition that does not reflect the legal definition, which does not exclude anyone from being racist based on their race.  

They often have a wrong understanding of justice.  For some justice, like social justice, goes only down to the group level.  So if it helps a group that you favor, it is then OK to discriminate against an individual from a group you don't favor because it is ultimately helping the group you favor.  This would be what the Bible labels a "perversion of justice".  True justice goes down to the individual level.  It seeks justice for each and every individual.  Do you believe that it is OK to favor a person based on their race or to penalize someone based on their race?  I don't.  

Bogan said:  Yeah, I was afraid that you were going to toss religious arguments at me.   

You specifically asked what the Bible said about race.  I answered your question.  I get that you are not religious and I don't think you need to be religious to see that it is unjust to discriminate against someone based on their race.  I do suspect that your view of justice is distorted though in that you seem to believe, like SJWs, that it is OK to discriminate based on race.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: That's a very good argument about investment as opposed to cost.

@jack

I definitely think primary education k-12 can improve quality of life and is a great investment. Small children need the personal attention. In contrast adults can learn on their own via a book. I just wish we spent more on the bottom 20% to get them a high school diploma and associates degree. Even a certificate from college. 

just_sayin

@Dreamer

I definitely think primary education k-12 can improve quality of life and is a great investment. Small children need the personal attention.

I think to reduce the disparities at the college level education will have to improve at the k-12.  I don't think it really is about money, as some of the poorest school systems in America spend huge amounts per student.  In my neck of the woods in DC, $23,828 is spent per student.  In contrast voucher schools in DC receive  $10,204 for K–8 students and $15,307 for students in grades 9–12 for 2021–22. and see 25% more kids attend college.  The real issues are with the methodologies and policies of the public school systems themselves.

According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a sector of the U.S. Department of Education, 84 percent of Black students lack proficiency in mathematics and 85 percent of Black students lack proficiency in reading skills..So greater time and attention needs to be placed on these topics.  KIPP schools, which are charter schools that have produced tremendous results in places like NYC, have 2 sessions of math a day - the also have extended days, and go part of the day on Saturdays.

Many of the bad public schools that Black kids are trapped in have been bad public schools for 50 years or more.  It is unlikely that public school educators following their standard plans will turn any of these schools around.  So, kids need options - school choice and charter schools have greater freedom and can be life saving options for poor kids stuck in horrible public schools.  Not only do voucher schools result in higher educational outcomes for the kids who attend them, but over 60 studies show that when there is competition, public schools improve also.  

Many of the issues in poor educational results are associated with high single parent households.  Studies show that kids who come from single parent homes are more likely to drop out of school, be truant, perform poorly in school, have psychological issues, have a teenage pregnancy, be part of a gang, go to prison, and 20 other negative things.  Policies can't change the number of parents in a child's life, but the issue has to stop being a taboo topic and the importance of a two parent home needs to be discussed openly.  About 67 percent of black children are born into a single parent household. And more than half (51.2%) of all Black children lived with one parent in 2022, compared with about one in five (21.3%) of white children.  As I heard a Black minister put it "it is not the presence of the white man that is the greatest hindrance to a Black child's success, it is the absence of a Black father."  For the record, that applies to any race - a single parent home is not only to produce kids who grow up in poverty, but they are more likely to have kids who will live in poverty also.

Barnardot

@Bogan ;Another well thought out, well reasoned, lengthy submission by Barnadot utilizing devastating logic. 
 
Well thats okay because Im not black any way. 
 

Well come on any way thats what you call sarcasim. because you said I won’t waste my time fencing with angry people with low IQ. Because you dribbled on with your racialist baloney by saying dysfunctional races and we all know that you hate your abos any way so you just make up codded words to say that any way. Well thats okay but you cant expect to biff stones on glass houses especially when your debating is so racialist any way. Any way there so dysfunctional any way not because of who they are but because the limmy criminals went over there and started treating them like animals and making them live on use less land so they end up drinking and sniffing gas and super glue out of plastic bags. Like hello but I bet you would end up being dysfunctional if some one did that to you.

 Any way the realty is that they are more superior to whites because they have better eye site than any race because they evolved that many thousands of years ago so that they could see the kangaroos jumping down the street in the next town and then do them in with there boomerangs. And they invented those to and were much smarter than the bogin white men with there dum guns. because they could wop a bird out of the sky and it would come back to them and land at there feet. And that was long before uber food deliveries was invented. So if you start actually listening and learning from the abos instead of making them dysfunctional then every one wont keep calling Aussies un cultured racialists waring hats with corks hanging off them because they keep wondering why the flys are hanging a round them all the time.

Bogan

@just_sayin ;    Just-sayin quote    Do you believe that it is OK to favor a person based on their race or to penalize someone based on their race?  I don't.  

 Interesting question.    That question,  like so many moral questions, is subject to circumstance.    People who think religiously want morality to be black and white, and caved in stone.   But unfortunately, situations keep cropping up which involve moral dilemmas and moral priorities.     So while in principle I would agree with the idea that a person’s skin colour should have no bearing on their rights and responsibilities, situations crop up in which such a noble idea does not apply.

Take for instance alcohol consumption and the Australian aboriginal people.     Since Australian Federation in 1901, state and Federal governments had laws in place forbidding alcohol consumption by aboriginal people.    These governments, from both the Left and the Right, knew that to allow aboriginal people to drink alcohol would devastate remote aboriginal communities leading to their complete dysfunction.

With the election of the Socialist Whitlam government in 1972, aboriginal people were given absolute equality with whites, which meant that they could consume alcohol.    The stage was set for the complete dysfunction and devastation of aboriginal settlements which can be seen today.      In remote areas of Australia with high aboriginal population proportions, publicans still refused to serve aboriginal people, because these socially responsible (racist red neck) publicans knew what would come if they did.

What happened next was that young and idealistic Labor party staffers travelled from Canberra to these remote areas threatening the publicans with prosecution if they did not serve aboriginal customers.     What resulted was the total dysfunction of aboriginal people that we see today.    Like in the USA, crime among drunken aboriginal teenagers and adolescents has become a hot political issue which is devastating not only remote towns, but well coastal established cities.      So yes, I think that there is a time and place for racism.      And as a matter of fact, a lot of people in Australia agree with me, because most people in Australia agree with special laws to help aboriginal people.    

  Because you see, Australia has no end of “Affirmative Action” programs ourselves.   Activists for aboriginal people (many of whom claiming "aboriginality" are not aboriginal at all)  claim that there must be special laws to benefit aboriginal people in Australia, given that so many of them are completely dysfunctional and unable to cope with modern life.    The list of “aboriginal only” benefits is quite breathtaking, so much so that white girls in country towns prefer to marry “aboriginal” descended men to get their hands on the “aboriginal” welfare benefits.

My point is, since most people in Australia agree with the idea of aboriginal people being treated as a special group, with special privileges and special laws, why can’t governments pass laws like preventing “aboriginal” people from consuming alcohol for their own collective benefit?   (As a plus, if such a law was passed, it would weed out a lot of “white aboriginals”, who claim “aboriginal” benefits because their great -great grandmother was half aboriginal.)

just-sayin quote    I get that you are not religious and I don't think you need to be religious to see that it is unjust to discriminate against someone based on their race.

I am not religious in any way, and I can not think in absolutes, other than the absolute right of a free people in a democratic country to free political and social speech.  

Just sayin quote     I do suspect that your view of justice is distorted though in that you seem to believe, like SJWs, that it is OK to discriminate based on race.

I agree with SJW's that it is okay to discriminate based upon race if a good enough reason can be found to do so.    The problem then becomes, what moral situations warrant discrimination based upon race?     I have given you a very good example of one in my above post, and I would be interested in what you think about that?      Where I differ from SJW'sis where they claim that Affirmative Action is not racism, instead, claiming that those who oppose AA are racists.

Bogan

@Barnardot

Barnadot quote    Well come on any way thats what you call sarcasim. because you said I won’t waste my time fencing with angry people with low IQ.

 This is a debate site, Mr Barnadot.    I addressed your post to me and I gave you a lengthy and considered reply.    Instead of explaining why you think that your position is right, and my position is wrong, you instead replied to my lengthy post with a sneery one liner.     There is a time and place for sneery one liners, we all do it from time to time.    But if sneery one liners is all you have got when replying to polite and well reasoned', lengthy  contributions from your opponents, then it makes your opponent think that your IQ level is double digit.

 

Barnadot quote    Because you dribbled on with your racialist baloney by saying dysfunctional races….

You asked me what I meant by “dysfunctional races” and I told you so.    If you disagreed with me, then you should have written a paragraph or two explaining why your position is right, and my position is wrong.      That is called “debating.”    If you can not debate for nuts, what are you doing on a debate site?

Barnadot quote     …and we all know that you hate your abos any way so you just make up codded words to say that any way.

 I do not “hate abos” at all.    I have much admiration for those aboriginal activists who do not spew hate at Australia and Australians, and who genuinely want to help their own race using reasonable arguments.  But I must admit that I do hate those three quarter white “aborigines” who are entirely self serving Elmer Gantry's possessing sticky palms, and who theatrically hate my country, my flag, my culture, and white people generally.

Barnadot quote  Well thats okay but you cant expect to biff stones on glass houses especially when your debating is so racialist any way.

 But you have written on another topic that you do not agree with ALL of my “racialist ideas” which seems to indicate that you agree with SOME of my “racialist ideas”.    That makes you a racist yourself, unless you can explain away your own words.    So, don’t throw stones yourself.

 

Barnadot quote      Any way there so dysfunctional any way not because of who they are but because the limmy criminals went over there and started treating them like animals and making them live on use less land so they end up drinking and sniffing gas and super glue out of plastic bags. Like hello but I bet you would end up being dysfunctional if some one did that to you.

 “Limey” (actually, you mis spelled it as “limmey”) is a racist pejorative term.    Calling somebody racist names is racism.    You can not be opposed to racism and then grandstand about it, if you do it yourself.   That is called “hypocrisy.”

 

Barnadot quote   Any way the realty is that they are more superior to whites because they have better eye site than any race because they evolved that many thousands of years ago so that they could see the kangaroos jumping down the street in the next town and then do them in with there boomerangs. And they invented those to and were much smarter than the bogin white men with there dum guns. because they could wop a bird out of the sky and it would come back to them and land at there feet. And that was long before uber food deliveries was invented. So if you start actually listening and learning from the abos instead of making them dysfunctional then every one wont keep calling Aussies un cultured racialists waring hats with corks hanging off them because they keep wondering why the flys are hanging a round them all the time.

 If you can not debate seriously, then what on earth are you doing on a debate site?       Your post to me today was very poor, and not worthy of considering you a thinking person.    It was full of spelling mistakes and bad grammar.      The best thing about being on a written debate site is that it can give you time to give considered replies.    Please ensure that your brain is in gear before you engage "keyboard."     Your post has all the indications of a very rushed response by a very confused person, who has no idea about how he can justify in words the beliefs he holds so passionately.

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

I just wish we spent more on the bottom 20% to get them a high school diploma and associates degree. Even a certificate from college. 

And how would it benefit "us"? It is the most basic piece of knowledge that one benefits more from investing in profitable endeavors than in unprofitable ones. When choosing which phone to buy, will you be more inclined (assuming the same price) to buy the top model functionality wise or the bottom model? I do not understand how one could ever come to the conclusion that bootstrapping the failures is how one achieves prosperity.

If one is to spend some amount of money on kids' education, it better target the top performing kids, ones that tomorrow will design technology that will revolutionize our lives. On the other hand, if you invest all of it into kids struggling with the most basic material, then you will get slightly smarter construction workers, cashiers and bathroom cleaners... what a great outcome.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Errr, this may be my fault I meant the 20% bottom economically.

@MayCaesar

When you got a destitute rat and coach-roach ridden schools it is difficult to learn.

MichaelElpers

@jack

What makes something a good investment?
Typically I think it is something I make money from.

If high education is a good investment to those choosing to take it, why do they need your or my money?  Those who receive degrees that cannot pay student loans off in a reasonable amount of time didnt make a good investment.  It is not my duty to bail them out of it.

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

What makes something a good investment?
Typically I think it is something I make money from.

Hello M:

Me too.  Even if one investment out of ten pays off, we're still ahead..

excon

MayCaesar

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

When you got a destitute rat and coach-roach ridden schools it is difficult to learn.

I do not dispute that. What I did dispute in my comment is the assertion that it is worthwhile for me to invest in bettering those schools.

MichaelElpers

@jack

If their investment pays off what do they need my money for?

The point is if the degree is worthwhile no one should be prevented from pursuing it in the first place.

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

If their investment pays off what do they need my money for?

Hello again, M:

I think you misunderstand..  I'm not suggesting we do this for the benefit of any one person..  We should do this because it's WE, as a nation, who benefit when our populace is educated..   You know, like EVERYBODY benefits when we invest in roads.

excon

MayCaesar

@jack

False. You are for no obvious reason lumping completely different people together. For instance, in my first 4 years of living in the US I did not have a car, and I only used public transportation several times, instead going everywhere by bicycle (mostly riding on non-paved trail roads). How exactly did I benefit from all the roads Mr. Buttigieg was building over there? Of course, there are all the indirect benefits such as the Amazon drivers delivering goodies for me being able to do it quickly and safely - however, I was already paying those drivers for their work by private means, so the taxes I paid for the roads were an overhead I never asked for.

In reality, different individuals' interests are different. Sometimes they intersect; in that case voluntary cooperation is warranted. Other times they do not; in that case investing in one's interests by means of taxing the other one is a net negative for the latter. The idea that there is some entity above the individual which everyone has to contribute to and necessarily benefit from that contribution is bonkers.

Similarly, no one has ever explained to me in what way I benefit from a school in a rundown area far away from me improving. Sure, some of the kids educated there could potentially invent something in the future that would be of benefit to me - however, were it to happen, I would simply pay them for the product. There is zero reason for me to invest in them now based on the tiny probability that 20-30 years down the road I will get my investment back (and still have to pay for the product they produce, yet again).

Nationalists and other kinds of statists have developed intricate arguments over the centuries that attempt to convince the population that it is in everyone's best interest to contribute to the "collective good". All these arguments, however, always run into the wall of reality, and the reality is such that investing in "maybe"-s is, at best, a gamble. And while there are successful investors that have a good eye on talent and potential and can pick a startup out of thousands of startups that has a decent chance of growing into something prominent, the average Joe does not - and the Joe in the White House might even be worse at it than the average Joe.
Instead of all this pretense, it would be much better if you guys just plain said, "We need to invest in everyone's education because I said so". That would be honesty I could respect, at least.

jack

MayCaesar said:

@jack

Similarly, no one has ever explained to me in what way I benefit from a school in a rundown area far away from me improving. Sure, some of the kids educated there could potentially invent something in the future that would be of benefit to me

Hello May:

I wasn't talking about improving schools..  I was talking about educating America.  I see that you can't quite grasp the link between an educated public, and the benefits that inure from it.  Same with your inability to grasp that you benefit from good roads even if you live on a dirt street. 

You need to widen your horizons.

excon

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Diminshing returns means it is always best to invest in the poorest schools.

@MayCaesar

If you can give a free car to someone you can choose.

A. Somebody who has six cars.

B. An individual with none.

Choice B will always yield a greater benefit. Just as donating money to the richest schools so they can get another rock climbing wall is less effective than hiring pest control to get rid of the rats and roaches in a destitute school.

This article explains in more detail.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pulling-through/202003/the-lazy-poor-or-the-entitled-rich

Barnardot

@Bogan ;You asked me what I meant by “dysfunctional races” and I told you so. 

Well i must of missed that bit. So which races are dysfunctional then because I reckon the most dysfunctional race in the world is what you call the whities. Just look at all the whities a round the world. Here we have red necks and all the zombies who walk down kensington avenue and there are more guns than people. Then look at Denmark where they think there so civilized but they all do porno. You should see there birth day cards. They think there funny but there just total porno filth. Then you look at your country which every one calls racialist and has no culture and is totally sexist and weather its true or not is beside the point because you have to listen to what the rest of the world says. And I didn't say that you dont respect the abos but the point that I was pointing out was that they are dysfunctional but not from there own doing. Its the whitie Brits who treated them like dog turds and gave them licker and junk food which made them fight and grow up with big bodies and skinny legs and die young. The sqaws over here get a real rough deal but those abos are a lot worse off by far. 

MayCaesar

jack said:

Hello May:

I wasn't talking about improving schools..  I was talking about educating America.  I see that you can't quite grasp the link between an educated public, and the benefits that inure from it.  Same with your inability to grasp that you benefit from good roads even if you live on a dirt street. 

You need to widen your horizons.

excon

Educating America? Who is that person, America, who is not educated enough?

My "inability to grasp" derives from the fact that there is nothing that has been presented that is graspable. "You need to widen your horizons" on a debate website is a sentence equivalent to "I cannot support my assertion with anything". What I need is an argument I can consider, and that has not been provided.

Dreamer said:

@MayCaesar

If you can give a free car to someone you can choose.

A. Somebody who has six cars.

B. An individual with none.

Choice B will always yield a greater benefit. Just as donating money to the richest schools so they can get another rock climbing wall is less effective than hiring pest control to get rid of the rats and roaches in a destitute school.

This article explains in more detail.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pulling-through/202003/the-lazy-poor-or-the-entitled-rich

There is no such thing as a "free car". In context of taxation we are talking about me giving my car (that I built or bought using my own resources) to someone, and if that is to be done, then I would rather give it to someone who I think can make a good use of it. I would rather give it to my good friend who has a sports car already, but could use a more fuel efficient car to run some errands - than to some poor nobody who, for all I know, might use it to drive to his drug dealer buddy. "Greater benefit"? I do not think so.

We are not talking about cars here though; in context of taxation, we are talking about cash. And if I am to invest $1,000 into someone, I would rather invest it in Bill Gates or his children who I know I will get a positive yield from, than in some poor kid who I have no idea what will become of. You are talking about some abstract "benefit to society" or whatever, while I am talking about a very much measurable benefit to the investor.

If you were to invest $1,000 in a stock, would you pick a stock of a successful and fast growing company, or a stock of a failing startup? I do not know what your investing strategy is, but if it involves a lot of the latter, then I would really like to see your ledger.

jack

MayCaesar said:

Educating America? Who is that person, America, who is not educated enough?

Hello again, May:

If you broadened your horizons, you'd grasp that uneducated America is 99.9% of us.  Some people would like to keep the "uneducated" from being educated..  Sounds like you're one of 'em.

Me?  I'd educate anybody who wanted to be educated.  Certainly, if you grasp, as I do, that a nation benefits from an educated society, I'd educate as many people as I could..  You wouldn't??

excon

Bogan

@Barnardot

If you will not debate seriously then once again I ask the question, what are you doing on a debate site?     You will be pleased to know that although my old computer crashed and I lost a lot of data, I have been able to recover my old "Troll List" and whadayaknow?      You were on that list after all.     I suspected that you were a troll, but since I could not remember, I was willing to give you another chance.    You just blew it.   You can go and sit in the corner with the other trolls like Piloteer, John smith, and Dee, and debate with yourself.

MayCaesar

jack said:

MayCaesar said:

Educating America? Who is that person, America, who is not educated enough?

Hello again, May:

If you broadened your horizons, you'd grasp that uneducated America is 99.9% of us.  Some people would like to keep the "uneducated" from being educated..  Sounds like you're one of 'em.

Me?  I'd educate anybody who wanted to be educated.  Certainly, if you grasp, as I do, that a nation benefits from an educated society, I'd educate as many people as I could..  You wouldn't??

excon

If I broadened my horizons, I would grasp that 99.9% of us are uneducated America? I think I would need to broaden them with a very large portion of psychodelic mushrooms to come to that conclusion.

I do not remember saying anything about keeping anyone from being educated. Laws controlling who gets education how is your proposition, not mine.

MichaelElpers

@jack

What you are saying makes no sense.

You are stating college educates people while also stating 99.9% of us are uneducated.

Secondly college is supposed to be used to gain a specialty not for general education which it currently sucks at.
If it really educated people than why cant people getting a degree understand that taking $100,000 in student debt or more for a degree that has little to no market value is a financial decision.
I guess they dont learn it from the teaching, they learn from being financially crushed.

You also seem to be under the premise that college is needed to educate when there are a wide array of resources an individual can use. In fact, outside of view degrees in STEM fields often times I think people come out of college dumber than before. They are indoctrinated to an authority fallacy (i heard this at college) rather than being taught critical thinking.  The stupidest questions l have ever heard actually have come from students attending my campus.

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

What you are saying makes no sense.

You are stating college educates people while also stating 99.9% of us are uneducated.

Hello M:

Not to be impolite, but you misunderstand my post..  College degree, or not, I maintain that 99.9% of the people remain uneducated...  It's an opinion.  We can discuss what the word "educated" means, but I don't wanna go down that rabbit hole.  I would think, as a right winger, you'd LOVE my solution..  It's a business solution that gets the government OUT of the Affirmative Action business without penalizing a soul.  It educates anyone who wants to be educated on anything. If you wanna a school that teaches about Jesus Christ, you got it. If you wanna a course about the KKK, you got it..  If you wanna course on trans life, you got it.  If you want a course on the Bill of Rights, you got it..  In short, the decision about what you learn is taken OUT of the hands of people who don't want you to learn stuff, and puts it DIRECTLY into YOUR hands, which is where it should be. .  Here's how that'll work.  

Regarding our previous discussion about "investments", let's continue;  Venture Capitalists, (the most right wing OF the right wing) HOPE that one in ten of their investments pay off handsomely.  If they're right, and they mostly are, they make bank!  Investing in education should look like that.  To wit:  invest in everybody, and when 10% of our investments pay off wildly, they'll more than outweigh the cost of our losses, (if you wanna consider a college education a loss).  

And the nation thrives..  If I'm in error, the worst that'll happen is that we'll ALL be smarter..

Yes...  This is brand new thing that's never been tried before..

excon

MichaelElpers

@jack

You didnt post a solution you just said we should invest. Who is we and where is the investment coming from?

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

You didnt post a solution you just said we should invest. Who is we and where is the investment coming from?

Hello again, M:

I'm just thinking you're missing it..  When I say WE, the NATION will benefit from an educated public, WHO do you think the investors are?  We're the investors.  And WHO do you think will benefit from it?  The investors, of course.  And, who're the investors?  It's US.  

This isn't difficult.. 

excon

Vaulk

jack said:

Not to be impolite, but you misunderstand my post..  College degree, or not, I maintain that 99.9% of the people remain uneducated...  It's an opinion.  

@jack, do you have some sort, any sort, of evidence to support that claim?

jack

Vaulk said:

jack said:

Not to be impolite, but you misunderstand my post..  College degree, or not, I maintain that 99.9% of the people remain uneducated...  It's an opinion.  

@jack, do you have some sort, any sort, of evidence to support that claim?

Hello V:

Didja see the part where I said it was my opinion?  No, huh?  Do you know what an opinion is?  No, huh?

Okee doaky.

excon

MichaelElpers

@jack

Well now youre making it sound like the government which doesnt follow your previous statement.

"would think, as a right winger, you'd LOVE my solution..  It's a business solution that gets the government OUT of the Affirmative Action business without penalizing a soul.  "

This makes the government even a bigger part of the educational system which I gather is part of the reason pur current system indoctrinates and is so expensive.  Government backed loans made tuition run rabbid.

Vaulk

jack said:

Vaulk said:

jack said:

Not to be impolite, but you misunderstand my post..  College degree, or not, I maintain that 99.9% of the people remain uneducated...  It's an opinion.  

@jack, do you have some sort, any sort, of evidence to support that claim?

Hello V:

Didja see the part where I said it was my opinion?  No, huh?  Do you know what an opinion is?  No, huh?

Okee doaky.

excon

Fair point.  I mistakenly treated your statement as part of the debate, on a debate website, where people challenge each other's arguments.  So what I was leaning towards and, maybe I should have just said it to begin with, is what is your opinion based upon?

Bogan

To MichaelElpers and Vaulk.     There are four contributors on this debate site that I will not respond to because they are trolls.     By "trolls" I mean that they have no intention of debating at all, they only come onto this site to stir people up and make nuisances of themselves.    They are, Barnadot, Dee, Piloteer, and John Smith.     Three of these dimwits have gone, either because they were removed by the administrator for being trolls, or because nobody in their right mind would engage with them.    Only Barnadot remains, although how he manages that feat is beyond me?       

Jack/excon is another thing entirely.    I would not class him as a troll, but the guy definitely has only a double digit IQ.      Jack/excon's stock in trade is the sneery one liner and extreme sarcasm.   He thinks that this makes him sound clever.         He can't debate for nuts and he will not even try to.   One tactic he likes to use is when he realises that nobody will respond to him.    So, he responds to one of your posts to another contributor with a well thought out and reasonable paragraph, which makes you think that maybe he has grown a brain and will now debate in good faith.    But if you reply to him in good faith, he just goes right back to his sneery one liners and extreme sarcasm.      I don't bother with jack/excon at all, unless he says something so stu-pid to another contributor that I can throw a well directed kick at him.     But anyhoo, if you want to "debate" with jack/excon because you like bashing your head against a brick wall, then go for it.

Vaulk

Bogan said:

To MichaelElpers and Vaulk.     There are four contributors on this debate site that I will not respond to because they are trolls.     By "trolls" I mean that they have no intention of debating at all, they only come onto this site to stir people up and make nuisances of themselves.    They are, Barnadot, Dee, Piloteer, and John Smith.     Three of these dimwits have gone, either because they were removed by the administrator for being trolls, or because nobody in their right mind would engage with them.    Only Barnadot remains, although how he manages that feat is beyond me?       

Jack/excon is another thing entirely.    I would not class him as a troll, but the guy definitely has only a double digit IQ.      Jack/excon's stock in trade is the sneery one liner and extreme sarcasm.   He thinks that this makes him sound clever.         He can't debate for nuts and he will not even try to.   One tactic he likes to use is when he realises that nobody will respond to him.    So, he responds to one of your posts to another contributor with a well thought out and reasonable paragraph, which makes you think that maybe he has grown a brain and will now debate in good faith.    But if you reply to him in good faith, he just goes right back to his sneery one liners and extreme sarcasm.      I don't bother with jack/excon at all, unless he says something so stu-pid to another contributor that I can throw a well directed kick at him.     But anyhoo, if you want to "debate" with jack/excon because you like bashing your head against a brick wall, then go for it.

Oh I'm aware, I was one of the original 10 or so that started debating on the site, YEARS ago when it first launched.  Excon is something of a veteran debater but yes, he does enjoy snarky comments meant to jab suggesting insults at your arguments instead of just outright debating them but it's par for the course for him.  The rest are muted and I don't see their posts, the trolling was very strong for a while.

jack

Vaulk said:

jack said:

Vaulk said:

jack said:

Not to be impolite, but you misunderstand my post..  College degree, or not, I maintain that 99.9% of the people remain uneducated...  It's an opinion.  

@jack, do you have some sort, any sort, of evidence to support that claim?

Hello V:

Didja see the part where I said it was my opinion?  No, huh?  Do you know what an opinion is?  No, huh?

Okee doaky.

excon

Fair point.  I mistakenly treated your statement as part of the debate, on a debate website, where people challenge each other's arguments.  So what I was leaning towards and, maybe I should have just said it to begin with, is what is your opinion based upon?

Hello again, V:

It's just my observation.  Let's just take your buddy, Bogan..  He ain't real smart.  If he could WIN a debate against me, he would..  Instead he talks about me and hurls insults. 

I am kinda snarky, though..

excon