For someone who can't even decide if they're absolutely alive, you seem to be pretty sure about what's "very dangerous."


Are you absolutely sure about that?




.

 

anyway moving forward..

You'll see that a majority are against any affirmative action, even in terms of financial assistance (which I honestly don't understand why); but at least a good bit of votes went to that. Then there are some who believe that race is an issue, and I can see how arguments can be made either for or against, due to the fact that some people are going to be racist no matter how the rest of us are... finally it seems like of some 70 votes, nobody things a woman should get preferential treatment..

Odd since the majority of the recipients of AA are white women from middle and upper middle classes, just look at your Fire and Police depts to see how that works.

 

As tempted as I am to post the text of a Private Message here, I absolutely believe in ethics, so I won't.



A320fumes has informed me via Private Message that he has chosen to not answer my question because it is, in his words, "stupid."


He also seems to have a bit of a problem with folks that flew "135's". Now he sees.


Read my Signature Line, A320fumes.






.

 

TonyC, while I agree with you on this (I think), I don't think we need to get personal... From what I've read on A320Fumes posts in this thread, he's only trying to make sense of this.. and much of what he said is true.. Politicians do divide us.. many of us have to choose:

a) Republican

b) Democrat

But the fact is many of us (myself included) are with one party on somethings, and the other on others.. In my case (and sure, I'll let it all out here)..


Pro-Gun ownership
Pro-Union
Pro-Faith based initiatives
Pro-Veterans Affairs
Pro-Limited AA (based solely on financial situation)
Pro-Environment (with in reason)
Pro-Small Business (no to be confused with SBA)
Pro-War On Terror and Afghanistan/Taliban
Pro-Flat Tax (exempting below $45K/yr family of 4)
Pro-Mimimum wage hike even if SBA is against it!

Anti-Big Oil / Big business lobby (this is a big one for me)
Anti-Gay Marriage
Anti-Abortion (except to save mother)
Anti-Iraq war (it's intent, and it's execution)
Anti-Eminent domain
Anti-prayer in public schools
Anti-Foreign Aid to Israel and other nations
Anti-NAFTA and Free trade with China/Vietnam

I probably fit closest in with Pat Buchanan, who's no friend of the political establishment as you all surely must know.

I doubt anyone here agrees with me down the line, or even mostly.. but the fact is I know a lot of people that don't fall into either party, and don't see it as "Black and White" when they vote for one over the other. It's only my strong faith in God and my Church that keeps me from voting for a lot of otherwise good candidates due to certain stands on life issues in my case, but at the same time it's frustrating to throw my vote away on a party that's more interested in union breaking, and shipping jobs to China than it is in the welfare of the "average" American..

So you see, in the end it's not always black or white, even if on certain things like Abortion is clearly is.


well, now that I've gone way off topic.. let's see if anyone here can get us back on..

 

CE750:

I would say it depends on whether that test is an appropriate measure of the candidates performance in the particular job. Even then, it could be prejudiced against what would otherwise be a superior candidate. Should a woman be required to lift the same weight as a man for example? Well if it was for a position as a weightlifter, I guess so! Most jobs are too dynamic to be reduced to a single parameter. I went to a High School that required a special test to enter. I passed and as a result was accepted into the school. Entering as a freshman, I met a girl that had failed the test, but was allowed to take a special summer program and still enter. Well she graduated near the top of the class, much highter than me.

In a nutshell, these tests are usually not an indicator of performance. Affirmative action requires first of all that the applicant is qualified. Granted, the devil is probably in the details of the meaing of "qualified".

 

I'm confused now days. Use to be the Republicans helping us farmers out. Now it's shifting to the Dems.

 

Nor do I, and that's why I decided to refrain from engaging him in a PM exchange. He's the one that attempted to impugn me because of 135 experience. That's not only personal, it's petty and irrelevant.


OK, well let's review. (Condensed for ease of reading)

A320Fumes has equated Affirmative Action to just another "topic" whose sole purpose is to get people re-elected. Flag-burning is just another "topic" whose purpose is to get people re-elected. Abortion is just another "topic" whose purpose is to get people re-elected?

These people who refuse to acknowledge the existance of a wrong and a right make me nauseous. Flag-burning was not a "topic" invented to get people re-elected. Flag-burning is either wrong or right, it's not in between. You and I might disagree on which it is, but it's not both. Abortion is not a topic that was invented to get someone re-elected. It's either right to vacuum a mass of tissue from a woman's uterus, or it's wrong to extact an unborn fetus from a mother's womb. It's either right for two persons of the same gender to marry, or it's wrong.


Now, you and I may disagree on which is which, or under what certain conditions one is right and the other is wrong, but we won't languish in some morally bankrupt ooze of uncertainty, vacillating (my tribute to President Carter for adding the word to our vocabulary) between one this hour, and the other the next hour. A320Fumes can't even decide if he's really alive or dead, so it doesn't surprise me that he can't take a stand on the more complex issues.



If we're talking about politicians, it's unlikely we'll ever find one that shares each and every view that we personally hold. We'll always have to pick the one that affords the better match. But we weren't talking about politicians, we were talking about issues, specifically the issue of Affirmative Action.

(See there, we're back on topic.)

You took a black or white stand on 18 issues without even batting an eye. A320Fumes implied that all those issues are invented to re-elect politicians, and we are wrong to take a black or white stance on any of them. He said it's very dangerous for you to think you have a handle on that truth.

Do you agree with that?





Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything.








.

 

Well TonyC:

I didn't take A320fumes comments to say that. I understood it to mean that politicians use these issues to get votes. As to the validity of the issues...well that's unimportant to them. As to how they actually feel about these issues who knows. But for many of them, taking a side; walking the party line; or bringing division among the peope is all a means to an end. Power!

I don't believe that this is the case will all politicians, but certainly too many.

Onfinal

 

Point very well made, and accepted... Was just trying to keep things civil as we're engaged in a decent discussion on a topic that brings the worse out of people.


>carry on.

 

valid points made, however consider that in seleciton of pilots in the military, or more relevantly, Fire Depratment or Police Dept., there are always far more "qualified" applicants than slots... and in the end, if we're to be objective in picking who gets in... and we're to use phsyical fitness/strenght as factors, then a 100% score should be the same for man or women, correct? But the reality is that it's impossible for a women to score the same as a man, so they "gender norm" these tests...

I say that this is unfair at best, and unsafe at worse.