Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #631133 > unrolled thread

Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 21:37 +0100
    Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 14:30 -0700
      Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 21:48 +0000
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-28 23:47 +0100
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 22:49 +0000
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 15:01 +0100
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 16:00 -0700
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 15:02 +0100
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 10:42 -0700
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-29 19:07 +0100
                  Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-29 12:23 -0700
        Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 15:51 -0700
          Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 23:00 +0000
            Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 16:10 -0700
              Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-28 23:34 +0000
                Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-28 18:32 -0700

#631133 — Re: Smokers are smarter, I say.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:45:24 +0100,  wrote:

> On 2017-04-19 22:06:46 +0000, Fakey's Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛
> <root@127.0.0.1> said:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017 12:00:47 -0700, LO AND BEHOLD; "Snit
>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>" determined that the following was of
>> great importance and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in
>> <D51D01EF.A0558%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>:
>>
>>> On 4/19/17, 11:46 AM, in article op.yyyg34ivjs98qf@red.lan, "James
>>> Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>> You have a right to demand special entitlements... but others are not
>>>>>>> obligated to give them to you.
>>>>>> Now apply that to wogs.
>>>>> Now apply it to EVERYONE. Where things do get a bit complex is in trying
>>>>> to find some level of balance for those who have clear obstacles in
>>>>> front of them that those in control do not. We know, for example, that
>>>>> just having a name that sounds "black" leads to resumes being less
>>>>> successful. Do we create a preference system to try to balance that...
>>>>> something like affirmative action? Some on the left are very strongly
>>>>> for that but I do not see it as being effective and in practice when do
>>>>> you deem it no longer worth it, how do you balance it fairly, etc.
>>>>> Those on the right just want to pretend the issue of discrimination
>>>>> does not exist (or they focus on absurd things like claims of a war on
>>>>> Christmas). That is also not going to really move things forward in a
>>>>> useful way. No good answers for some of those things... and plenty of
>>>>> room for reasoned debate. But the general principle of equal rights
>>>>> over special entitlements is, to me, a no-brainer.
>>>> Equal rights doesn't work.
>>>
>>> Not for those who insist they want more than "equal", such as those who
>>> demand special entitlements.
>>>
>>>> You end up with companies being required to have a certain percentage of
>>>> blacks, women, etc, even though they aren't necessarily the best for
>>>> the job.
>>
>> what a bunch of snowflake crybaby made-up bullshit.
>>
>> where i grew up, 99.7% of everybody was white.  so were the people
>> working at any company in that town.  they weren't *required* to do
>> shit.
>>
>> all of my teachers over 12 years - white.
>> all of the kids in my school - white.
>> all of the guys working at the feed mill - white.
>> all of the guys selling harleys and corvettes out of showrooms - white.
>>
>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you
>>> have a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>
>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work
>>> to equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid
>>> and leads to problems that last for generations.
>>
>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white privilege".
>
> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites,
> Blacks, Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese,
> Samoans, Chinese, Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays
> of both sexes, religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy
> Christian, Jews, Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and
> mediocre workers from across the ethnicity spectrum.
>
> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent
> folks and total assholes, race knows no boundaries.

The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ who they think will do best.

-- 
We used to have Empires run by Emperors.
Then Kingdoms run by Kings.
Now we have Countries.....

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#631139

On 4/28/17, 1:37 PM, in article op.yze97yayjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

...
>>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you have
>>>> a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>> 
>>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work to
>>>> equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>>> 
>>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid and
>>>> leads to problems that last for generations.
>>>> 
>>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white privilege".
>>> 
>> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites, Blacks,
>> Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Samoans, Chinese,
>> Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays of both sexes,
>> religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy Christian, Jews,
>> Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and mediocre workers from
>> across the ethnicity spectrum.
>> 
>> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent folks and
>> total assholes, race knows no boundaries.
>> 
> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
> who they think will do best.

First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.

Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631145

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:30:25 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
> On 4/28/17, 1:37 PM, in article op.yze97yayjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you have
>>>>> a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work to
>>>>> equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid and
>>>>> leads to problems that last for generations.
>>>>> 
>>>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white privilege".
>>>> 
>>> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites, Blacks,
>>> Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Samoans, Chinese,
>>> Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays of both sexes,
>>> religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy Christian, Jews,
>>> Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and mediocre workers from
>>> across the ethnicity spectrum.
>>> 
>>> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent folks and
>>> total assholes, race knows no boundaries.
>>> 
>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>> who they think will do best.
>
> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.

Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.

>
> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>

Everyone knows that.
Affirmative action is racism.

-- 
SpringSprangSprung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631154

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:48:10 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:30:25 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>> On 4/28/17, 1:37 PM, in article op.yze97yayjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>>>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you have
>>>>>> a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work to
>>>>>> equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid and
>>>>>> leads to problems that last for generations.
>>>>>>
>>>>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white privilege".
>>>>>
>>>> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites, Blacks,
>>>> Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Samoans, Chinese,
>>>> Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays of both sexes,
>>>> religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy Christian, Jews,
>>>> Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and mediocre workers from
>>>> across the ethnicity spectrum.
>>>>
>>>> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent folks and
>>>> total assholes, race knows no boundaries.
>>>>
>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>>> who they think will do best.
>>
>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>
> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>
>>
>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>
> Everyone knows that.
> Affirmative action is racism.

Snit ain't caucasian is he?

-- 
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631157

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:47:57 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote
this:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:48:10 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:30:25 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>>> On 4/28/17, 1:37 PM, in article op.yze97yayjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you
>>>>>>> have a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work
>>>>>>> to equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid
>>>>>>> and leads to problems that last for generations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white
>>>>>> privilege".
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites, Blacks,
>>>>> Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Samoans,
>>>>> Chinese, Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays of both
>>>>> sexes, religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy Christian,
>>>>> Jews, Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and mediocre workers
>>>>> from across the ethnicity spectrum.
>>>>>
>>>>> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent folks
>>>>> and total assholes, race knows no boundaries.
>>>>>
>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>>>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>>>> who they think will do best.
>>>
>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>
>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>>
>>>
>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
>>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>>
>> Everyone knows that.  Affirmative action is racism.
>
> Snit ain't caucasian is he?
>

He ain't isn't a Cracker.

-- 
SpringSprangSprung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631239

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:49:38 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:47:57 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword, after 15 edits, wrote
> this:
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 22:48:10 +0100, Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:30:25 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>>>> On 4/28/17, 1:37 PM, in article op.yze97yayjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you
>>>>>>>> have a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work
>>>>>>>> to equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid
>>>>>>>> and leads to problems that last for generations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white
>>>>>>> privilege".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites, Blacks,
>>>>>> Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Samoans,
>>>>>> Chinese, Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays of both
>>>>>> sexes, religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy Christian,
>>>>>> Jews, Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and mediocre workers
>>>>>> from across the ethnicity spectrum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent folks
>>>>>> and total assholes, race knows no boundaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>>>>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>>>>> who they think will do best.
>>>>
>>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>>
>>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
>>>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>>>
>>> Everyone knows that.  Affirmative action is racism.
>>
>> Snit ain't caucasian is he?
>>
>
> He ain't isn't a Cracker.

Ambiguous double negative.

-- 
Why were so many niggers killed in the Vietnam war??
Because when the sergeant said to "get down", they all got up and started dancing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631158

On 4/28/17, 3:47 PM, in article op.yzff97dljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

... 
>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>>>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>>>> who they think will do best.
>>> 
>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>> 
>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
>>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>> 
>> Everyone knows that.
>> Affirmative action is racism.
> 
> Snit ain't caucasian is he?

I sincerely do not know if I am or if I am not, which some people have told
me is functionally equivalent to being so.

But regardless of race, I am very much pro equal rights and against special
entitlements. I also understand, though, that it is not always black and
white, such as with the question of affirmative action. I am not for it but
I can see where good people would be.  But the naïveté of the special
snow-flake common worldview of "just don't break the law and work hard and
things will go well for you" is not something I can support. NOT that I do
not support (largely) following the law and working hard (I do) but the idea
that this somehow fixes the issues we face is clearly very, very naïve.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631240

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:00:21 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/28/17, 3:47 PM, in article op.yzff97dljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>>>>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>>>>> who they think will do best.
>>>>
>>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>>
>>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
>>>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>>>
>>> Everyone knows that.
>>> Affirmative action is racism.
>>
>> Snit ain't caucasian is he?
>
> I sincerely do not know if I am or if I am not,

Impossible.

> which some people have told me is functionally equivalent to being so.
>
> But regardless of race, I am very much pro equal rights and against special
> entitlements. I also understand, though, that it is not always black and
> white, such as with the question of affirmative action. I am not for it but
> I can see where good people would be.  But the naïveté of the special
> snow-flake common worldview of "just don't break the law and work hard and
> things will go well for you" is not something I can support. NOT that I do
> not support (largely) following the law and working hard (I do) but the idea
> that this somehow fixes the issues we face is clearly very, very naïve.

What I'm against is companies having to employ say 15% blacks because the local population is 15% black.  Blacks will be good at different jobs than whites, so making every company have the "correct" percentage is insane.

-- 
Why were so many niggers killed in the Vietnam war??
Because when the sergeant said to "get down", they all got up and started dancing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631256

On 4/29/17, 7:02 AM, in article op.yzgmm20njs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:00:21 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 4/28/17, 3:47 PM, in article op.yzff97dljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they
>>>>>> require companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex,
>>>>>> regardless of how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the
>>>>>> companies employ who they think will do best.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>>>> 
>>>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with
>>>>> supporting a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>>>>> 
>>>> Everyone knows that. Affirmative action is racism.
>>>> 
>>> Snit ain't caucasian is he?
>>> 
>> I sincerely do not know if I am or if I am not,
> 
> Impossible.

I have no real opinion on the topic but there are many with very strong
opinions... both ways. It is far more of a political distinction than
anything else. 

>> which some people have told me is functionally equivalent to being so.
>> 
>> But regardless of race, I am very much pro equal rights and against special
>> entitlements. I also understand, though, that it is not always black and
>> white, such as with the question of affirmative action. I am not for it but
>> I can see where good people would be.  But the naïveté of the special
>> snow-flake common worldview of "just don't break the law and work hard and
>> things will go well for you" is not something I can support. NOT that I do
>> not support (largely) following the law and working hard (I do) but the idea
>> that this somehow fixes the issues we face is clearly very, very naïve.
> 
> What I'm against is companies having to employ say 15% blacks because the
> local population is 15% black.

I have never said I am for that. What I asked is if you had any suggested
solutions to the related issues. You do not. Fair enough -- as I admitted I
have no full solution either. It is not an easy issue to solve, and cannot b
solved fully no matter what we do.

> Blacks will be good at different jobs than whites,

Er?

> so making every company
> have the "correct" percentage is insane.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631259

On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 18:42:50 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:

> On 4/29/17, 7:02 AM, in article op.yzgmm20njs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Apr 2017 00:00:21 +0100, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/17, 3:47 PM, in article op.yzff97dljs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they
>>>>>>> require companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex,
>>>>>>> regardless of how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the
>>>>>>> companies employ who they think will do best.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with
>>>>>> supporting a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone knows that. Affirmative action is racism.
>>>>>
>>>> Snit ain't caucasian is he?
>>>>
>>> I sincerely do not know if I am or if I am not,
>>
>> Impossible.
>
> I have no real opinion on the topic but there are many with very strong
> opinions... both ways. It is far more of a political distinction than
> anything else.

It's your race, you can tell by looking in the mirror.

>>> which some people have told me is functionally equivalent to being so.
>>>
>>> But regardless of race, I am very much pro equal rights and against special
>>> entitlements. I also understand, though, that it is not always black and
>>> white, such as with the question of affirmative action. I am not for it but
>>> I can see where good people would be.  But the naïveté of the special
>>> snow-flake common worldview of "just don't break the law and work hard and
>>> things will go well for you" is not something I can support. NOT that I do
>>> not support (largely) following the law and working hard (I do) but the idea
>>> that this somehow fixes the issues we face is clearly very, very naïve.
>>
>> What I'm against is companies having to employ say 15% blacks because the
>> local population is 15% black.
>
> I have never said I am for that. What I asked is if you had any suggested
> solutions to the related issues. You do not.

Stop the above.

> Fair enough -- as I admitted I
> have no full solution either. It is not an easy issue to solve, and cannot b
> solved fully no matter what we do.

Nothing to solve.  Employers should employ who they want to employ.

>> Blacks will be good at different jobs than whites,
>
> Er?

They are not identical.  Different races have different levels of intelligence, different physical strength etc.  So do women and men.  Imagine if the road works department had to employ 50% women.  Can you imagine them digging all day?  They wouldn't want to.

>> so making every company
>> have the "correct" percentage is insane.

-- 
Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said
"It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631272

On 4/29/17, 11:07 AM, in article op.yzgxzju2js98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:

...
>>>>> Snit ain't caucasian is he?
>>>>> 
>>>> I sincerely do not know if I am or if I am not,
>>> 
>>> Impossible.
>> 
>> I have no real opinion on the topic but there are many with very strong
>> opinions... both ways. It is far more of a political distinction than
>> anything else.
> 
> It's your race, you can tell by looking in the mirror.

A mirror does not show me the political distinctions. I have done DNA
testing and there is NOTHING there to indicate if I am "white". Seriously,
what criteria are you using? My ancestors were from Europe, but only for
2-3000 years and before that the Middle East. Does that make me European or
Middle Eastern? If you go with my skin, hair, and eyes that would be odd --
they are quite different than my siblings and parents (even though I am not
adopted... and not only is there no reason to think I have a different
father my genetic tests prove I do not).

If you have two siblings, with both parents the same, and one is light
skinned with fairly straight hair and blue eyes and a smaller nose and
another is darker skinned with darker and far more curly hair and brown eyes
and a larger "Middle Eastern" nose, then are you suggesting the two siblings
are of different races?

Again, while I know there are some with very strong opinions on if I am or
am not white, I really do not know, do not care much, and have never really
thought about it much in my life. Some say that in itself means I am, at
least in terms of how society treats me, but I have also faced significant
discrimination based on my heritage (though far less than many in the US).

> 
>>>> which some people have told me is functionally equivalent to being so.
>>>> 
>>>> But regardless of race, I am very much pro equal rights and against special
>>>> entitlements. I also understand, though, that it is not always black and
>>>> white, such as with the question of affirmative action. I am not for it but
>>>> I can see where good people would be.  But the naïveté of the special
>>>> snow-flake common worldview of "just don't break the law and work hard and
>>>> things will go well for you" is not something I can support. NOT that I do
>>>> not support (largely) following the law and working hard (I do) but the
>>>> idea
>>>> that this somehow fixes the issues we face is clearly very, very naïve.
>>> 
>>> What I'm against is companies having to employ say 15% blacks because the
>>> local population is 15% black.
>> 
>> I have never said I am for that. What I asked is if you had any suggested
>> solutions to the related issues. You do not.
> 
> Stop the above.

But you have no real idea what TO do, just know you do not like that. OK, I
am with you there.

>> Fair enough -- as I admitted I
>> have no full solution either. It is not an easy issue to solve, and cannot b
>> solved fully no matter what we do.
> 
> Nothing to solve.  Employers should employ who they want to employ.

Ah, your "solution" is to deny the problem and even to limit it just to
employment and ignore the societal problems as a whole. That is what a lot
of people who are not impacted strongly do... just want to sweep it under
the rug.

I think that is as bad as quotas. Maybe worse. At least with quotas there is
an acknowledgement of the problem and an attempt to move forward in a more
equitable way... but it leads to a LOT of problems and creates its own
inequities. 

>>> Blacks will be good at different jobs than whites,
>> 
>> Er?
> 
> They are not identical.

No two people are.

> Different races have different levels of intelligence, different physical
> strength etc.  

Hard to show support for this... especially with the IQ side of it.

> So do women and men.  Imagine if the road works department had
> to employ 50% women.  Can you imagine them digging all day?  They wouldn't
> want to.

I agree the best person for the job should get the job. But your "solution"
of ignoring the problem of discrimination does not more toward that.

>>> so making every company
>>> have the "correct" percentage is insane.


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631155

On 4/28/17, 2:48 PM, in article oe0daq$d55$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
<spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:30:25 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>> On 4/28/17, 1:37 PM, in article op.yze97yayjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>>>>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> leads to problems that last for generations.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white
>>>>> privilege".
>>>>> 
>>>> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites, Blacks,
>>>> Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Samoans, Chinese,
>>>> Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays of both sexes,
>>>> religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy Christian, Jews,
>>>> Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and mediocre workers from
>>>> across the ethnicity spectrum.
>>>> 
>>>> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent folks
>>>> and
>>>> total assholes, race knows no boundaries.
>>>> 
>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>>> who they think will do best.
>> 
>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
> 
> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.

Well, it is the ultimate "snowflake" worldview... you can decide for
yourself if that is good or bad. For me: bad. Period.

>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
> 
> Everyone knows that.
> Affirmative action is racism.

I personally am not a fan of it but I can understand the ideals behind it...
namely working to correct clear societal disadvantages. I do not have a
great solution to that problem but do support working to equalize education,
etc. and understand that it is multi-generational "fix" that will never be
perfect (and cannot be). What I disagree with is people who are so blind as
to the plight of others or the impact of history that they foolishly deny
their even is an impact or who deny that many minorities are still facing
significant racism today. That goes back to the "snowflake" mentality which
I do not support.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631162

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:51:06 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
> On 4/28/17, 2:48 PM, in article oe0daq$d55$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 14:30:25 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>>> On 4/28/17, 1:37 PM, in article op.yze97yayjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson
>>> Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>>>>>> Did you read my comments, above? I talked about this challenge. If you
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> a good solution for it I would love to hear it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I do think we can look at those who are from poor neighborhoods and work
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> equalize things there ... black, white, or green, does not matter.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And stop funding school districts with property taxes... that is stupid
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> leads to problems that last for generations.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> clearly, he wants to keep his "unequal" rights intact AKA "white
>>>>>> privilege".
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Hell! Working with, and for me before I retired there were Whites, Blacks,
>>>>> Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, Samoans, Chinese,
>>>>> Japanese, one Pakistani, men, women, straights & gays of both sexes,
>>>>> religious faithful (normal Christian, off the wall crazy Christian, Jews,
>>>>> Muslims, & Budhists), athiests, good workers, and mediocre workers from
>>>>> across the ethnicity spectrum.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Among that American melting pot of co-workers you could find decent folks
>>>>> and
>>>>> total assholes, race knows no boundaries.
>>>>> 
>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless of
>>>> how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies employ
>>>> who they think will do best.
>>> 
>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>> 
>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>
> Well, it is the ultimate "snowflake" worldview... you can decide for
> yourself if that is good or bad. For me: bad. Period.

Remember... you're the snowflake.
Wrong is bad?
So Right is good?
Careful, liberal, you'll loose your invitation to the next climate change seminar.

>
>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with supporting
>>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>> 
>> Everyone knows that.
>> Affirmative action is racism.
>
> I personally am not a fan of it but I can understand the ideals behind it...
> namely working to correct clear societal disadvantages. I do not have a
> great solution to that problem but do support working to equalize education,
> etc. and understand that it is multi-generational "fix" that will never be
> perfect (and cannot be). What I disagree with is people who are so blind as
> to the plight of others or the impact of history that they foolishly deny
> their even is an impact or who deny that many minorities are still facing
> significant racism today. That goes back to the "snowflake" mentality which
> I do not support.
>

I don't judge based on skin colour, as you do.
Character is all that matters.
Being a liberal fish, you'll bite any hook in the water.

-- 
SpringSprangSprung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631167

On 4/28/17, 4:00 PM, in article oe0hja$qf7$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
<spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:

... 
>>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless
>>>>> of how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies
>>>>> employ who they think will do best.
>>>>> 
>>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>> 
>>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>> 
>> Well, it is the ultimate "snowflake" worldview... you can decide for
>> yourself if that is good or bad. For me: bad. Period.
> 
> Remember... you're the snowflake.
> Wrong is bad?
> So Right is good?
> Careful, liberal, you'll loose your invitation to the next climate change
> seminar.

I am the one who argues for equal rights. How do you see that as being a
"snowflake"? 

>>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with
>>>> supporting
>>>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>>> 
>>> Everyone knows that.
>>> Affirmative action is racism.
>> 
>> I personally am not a fan of it but I can understand the ideals behind it...
>> namely working to correct clear societal disadvantages. I do not have a
>> great solution to that problem but do support working to equalize education,
>> etc. and understand that it is multi-generational "fix" that will never be
>> perfect (and cannot be). What I disagree with is people who are so blind as
>> to the plight of others or the impact of history that they foolishly deny
>> their even is an impact or who deny that many minorities are still facing
>> significant racism today. That goes back to the "snowflake" mentality which
>> I do not support.
> 
> I don't judge based on skin colour, as you do.

Quote where you think I said or implied that? Or are you just trolling for
attention.

> Character is all that matters.
> Being a liberal fish, you'll bite any hook in the water.

Other than noting you want attention do you have a point? I think it is
pretty clear the answer is "no" but I am willing to listen.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631173

On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:10:07 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
> On 4/28/17, 4:00 PM, in article oe0hja$qf7$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>
> ... 
>>>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they require
>>>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless
>>>>>> of how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies
>>>>>> employ who they think will do best.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>>> 
>>>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>>> 
>>> Well, it is the ultimate "snowflake" worldview... you can decide for
>>> yourself if that is good or bad. For me: bad. Period.
>> 
>> Remember... you're the snowflake.
>> Wrong is bad?
>> So Right is good?
>> Careful, liberal, you'll loose your invitation to the next climate change
>> seminar.
>
> I am the one who argues for equal rights. How do you see that as being a
> "snowflake"? 

Liberals are the snowflakes.

>
>>>>> Second: you are confusing supporting equal rights in general with
>>>>> supporting
>>>>> a form of affirmative action. The two are not the same.
>>>> 
>>>> Everyone knows that.
>>>> Affirmative action is racism.
>>> 
>>> I personally am not a fan of it but I can understand the ideals behind it...
>>> namely working to correct clear societal disadvantages. I do not have a
>>> great solution to that problem but do support working to equalize education,
>>> etc. and understand that it is multi-generational "fix" that will never be
>>> perfect (and cannot be). What I disagree with is people who are so blind as
>>> to the plight of others or the impact of history that they foolishly deny
>>> their even is an impact or who deny that many minorities are still facing
>>> significant racism today. That goes back to the "snowflake" mentality which
>>> I do not support.
>> 
>> I don't judge based on skin colour, as you do.
>
> Quote where you think I said or implied that? Or are you just trolling for
> attention.
>

Read your own damn posts.
You save, organize, and regurgitate them.

>> Character is all that matters.
>> Being a liberal fish, you'll bite any hook in the water.
>
> Other than noting you want attention do you have a point? I think it is
> pretty clear the answer is "no" but I am willing to listen.
>

I made my points.
Looks like you're getting skunked. :)

-- 
SpringSprangSprung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#631193

On 4/28/17, 4:34 PM, in article oe0jib$vmk$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
<spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 16:10:07 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this:
>> On 4/28/17, 4:00 PM, in article oe0hja$qf7$2@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> ... 
>>>>>>> The problem with the anti-racist left wing morons of today is they
>>>>>>> require
>>>>>>> companies to employ the correct numbers of each race and sex, regardless
>>>>>>> of how well they will do at the job.  For fuck's sake let the companies
>>>>>>> employ who they think will do best.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First: there is NOTHING wrong with being against racism.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then there should be NOTHING *wrong* with being for it.
>>>> 
>>>> Well, it is the ultimate "snowflake" worldview... you can decide for
>>>> yourself if that is good or bad. For me: bad. Period.
>>> 
>>> Remember... you're the snowflake.
>>> Wrong is bad?
>>> So Right is good?
>>> Careful, liberal, you'll loose your invitation to the next climate change
>>> seminar.
>> 
>> I am the one who argues for equal rights. How do you see that as being a
>> "snowflake"? 
> 
> Liberals are the snowflakes.

Ah, so you just are posting for attention and have no examples of ME being a
snowflake in any way. Got it.

In other words: you are being a special snowflake who thinks you deserve
attention without offering anything of value.

...
>> Quote where you think I said or implied that? Or are you just trolling for
>> attention. 
> 
> Read your own damn posts.
> You save, organize, and regurgitate them.

Ah, you think you are a special snowflake who thinks the burden of proof
does not apply to you. Got it!
 
>> Character is all that matters.
>>> Being a liberal fish, you'll bite any hook in the water.
>> 
>> Other than noting you want attention do you have a point? I think it is
>> pretty clear the answer is "no" but I am willing to listen.
> 
> I made my points.
> Looks like you're getting skunked. :)

Well, you are not the biggest snowflake I have run into, but clearly you
think you are one. As quoted, above.

-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web