Affirmative Action and the CCRI
putnamd at ATLODBS1.HAYES.COM
Wed Jul 31 08:58:27 MDT 1996
> Is your position here that the proportion of blacks that are successful
> exceeds the proportion of blacks in the entire population? If so can you
> give me a source of your info?
No, my position is that there are blacks that have acheived their dream
entirely through their own effort. Therefore if they can do it then anyone
can do it regardless of race, etc.
> This is true only if having a workforce that is representative of teh
> population is discriminatory, a proposition that I have rejected and asked
> you over and over to defend. You have not, please do so. (To clarify my
> position, we are not talking about a workforce that is slightly
> overrepresented by one race or another, we are talking about workforces
> whose bias can ounly be due to chance 5 time in 100 or even 1 time in
> 100, you can choose the confidence interval you wish to use).
I have responded many times and my position is still the same. Discrimination
is discrimination regardless of which way it goes. AA is by definiton nothing
less than basing hiring practices on skin color and that is clearly
discrimination which you claim to abhor.
> Human nature is irrational. We all use heuristics to make decisions, we
> are not perfect little computers. Research has shown that the operation
> of stereotypes operates at an automatic processing level (ie its not a
> conscious process).
And as I said all the laws in the wolrd cannot change one's thinking.
> YOur blind faith in the market, especially given the history of racism in
> the US, the scientific evidence that it still exists, and most especially
> your claim as a conservative to a rational examination of the world is,
> frankly, laughable.
What scientific evidence? The only significant racism that still exists
today is that fomented by those that porport to eliminate it. Yes there is
some racist based decisions being made but I challange you to submit this
so called scientific evidence that it is more than isolated instances and
out of proportion anectdotal evidence provided by those that want to
perpetuate racism for their own agrandizement. I also have noted the typical
liberal debating techinque of attempting to belittle the opponent with that
last ad homenim attack.
> Nothing I disagree with here, all I am asking you to do is to examoine
> your contention of the arbitraryness of quotas. You have yet to say why
> they are discrimitory, aside from a vague claim to their self-evidence.
I can't explain it any better than I have. AA is discrimination which you
claim to reject.
> Again, explain why quotas are discrimitory!!!
You are kidding right?
> Dennis, why do you resort to personal attacks?? I have asked you
> pointedly to explain your position. You claim that words fail you, I
> understand that it is difficult to communicate concepts. I have done the
> best job I can of communicating my position, using examples,
> hypotheticals, scientific evidence, the laws of statistics, and my
> patience. That you have not been able to recipricate is your failure,
> not mine, if you are looking to blame someone -- look to yourself.
> It is your responsibility to express yourself in a manner that is
> understood, nobody else knows what is on your mind.
Will, Will, Will. I give up. How you make the jump from my opinion of liberalism
to a personal attack is beyond my reasoning ability.
> PS Note that I have responded to you off line, if you choose to reply
> through the group I anticipate you will not mis-represent what I have said
> through selective use of this post. However misguided I believe you are
> with respect to your position on... well most anything :) , but most
> recently job discrimination, I respect you as a gentleman.
Unfortunately, the way my mailer works (it is broken until we can get our
own MX working) is that I cannot tell whether your post is from the list
or personal without a lot of effort. To releive that problem I automatically
reply to the list for posts from members of the list. To my knowledge I have not
misrepresented your position, however I have repeated what I thought you are
saying in my words to be sure I understand your position with the expectation
that you will correct my understanding and it is not intended to mis-represent
what you have said. But that should be obvious from the context and if it is
not I apologize. This is what got me into trouble with Bruce a while back. He
couldn't seem to distinguish between the two so I now avoid replying to his
posts to prevent angering him. It is a common technique in discussions for the
listener to repeat what the speaker has said in the listener's own words to be
sure the listener understands what the speaker means. I appreciate the last
sentence and the sentement is mutual, however, as much as I may respect any
person they shouldn't confuse that with my disagreement of their position.
A good example you should appreciate is that I have no respect for Clinton
at all and I also disagree with what he does (can't disagree with what he says
because he doesn't mean it) on the other hand I have the utmost respect for
George McGovern (the most extreme leftist I know :) ) but I think his positions
Dennis Putnam, Manager
Technical Planning and Services
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
Opinions expressed are mine and should not be viewed as an official positon of
Hayes or its management.
"Our Founding Fathers did not create our civil liberties ... They safegarded
them." Tanya Mataksa, NRA-ILA Executive Director.
More information about the Rushtalk