Atlas Shrugged Day

[alphamale]

This whole thread is ridiculous, not the least of which is the title.

OK! If you say so! :lol:

Let's give evolution a holiday too; we can call it "Jerry Falwell Day." Or let's celebrate the virtues of the free market and call it "Karl Marx Day."

Whhaaaaaaatttttttttt?????????? :roll:

If it makes you feel any better I'm generally against affirmative action in government-funded businesses/schools. But your solution and justification is ridiculous, as well as your implication that Ayn Rand would support this nonsense.

Where are your arguments supporting this - between [invisible]
[/invisible] tags? :2razz:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Kandahar]

There is no college that practices affirmative action for females. We just happen to be more deserving of attendance than white males.

Got a big problem with women's sports, huh? Don't watch it.

Interesting sidenote to that: Some colleges actually have started practicing affirmative action for males.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

You know, I came into this thread for the specific purpose of voting "no" and going into my typical anti-Randroid diatribe.

Instead, I found this. I don't support this idea, either, but this doesn't deserve the special kind of hatred I reserve for most so-called Objectivists.

Yes, I think discrimination against people on the basis of their sex or their skin color is wrong; this includes hiring/admission practices designed to give women and minorities preference. However, "white males" represents too many people to say that we have any sort of special interest in common, and we're not nearly discriminated against enough to create the kind of unity you're looking for.

This is a non-starter.

 

[alphamale]

Got a big problem with women's sports, huh? Don't watch it.

I don't watch it - it's a farce! And give me back my tax money used to put loser females on teams in their special olympics leagues.

 

[Kelzie]

Interesting sidenote to that: Some colleges actually have started practicing affirmative action for males.

That's too bad. Affirmative action is a dumb idea when it is not needed (ie to overcome actual barriers 30 years ago). Maybe of males are faced with the prospect of flipping burgers when they're 45, they'll actually put a little effort into their education.

 

[alphamale]

Interesting sidenote to that: Some colleges actually have started practicing affirmative action for males.

If so, it's ridiculous and should be stopped immediately.

 

[Kelzie]

I don't watch it - it's a farce! And give me back my tax money used to put loser females on teams in their special olympics leagues.

So people actually watch the special olympics? Hmmm, I didn't know.

 

[alphamale]

However, "white males" represents too many people to say that we have any sort of special interest in common, and we're not nearly discriminated against enough to create the kind of unity you're looking for.

What is "discriminated enough"? There's some threshold of discrimination that constitutes too much? A small amount (actually it isn't small) is OK?

 

[alphamale]

So people actually watch the special olympics? Hmmm, I didn't know.

They must - WNBA is on television now and again.

 

[alphamale]

That's too bad. Affirmative action is a dumb idea when it is not needed

"Affirmative action" was never needed.

 

[Kandahar]

Where are your arguments supporting this - between [invisible]
[/invisible] tags? :2razz:

My arguments supporting what? That your solution is stupid?

1. If you don't like government policies, vote for politicians who will change them and convince others to do the same. It's as simple as that. There's no need to organize some massive strike against a democratically-elected government.

2. Unless you work for the government, striking against a private company for the actions of the government will accomplish absolutely nothing. And if you work for a private company that practices discrimination, you'll probably have better luck organizing this strike among your coworkers than among DebatePolitics regulars.

3. It's not in anyone's individual self-interest to forego their paycheck to participate in a strike that has little to no chance of succeeding, and even if it does is unlikely to benefit them to the same degree that receiving their paycheck would.

 

[Kelzie]

"Affirmative action" was never needed.

Says a person obviously content with the fact that minorities were rountinely discriminated against so badly that they stood no prospects. The fact that it is not needed today shows how badly it was needed.

 

[Kelzie]

They must - WNBA is on television now and again.

Now, see a logical person would say "Oh, WNBA. I have a problem with women playing sports, so I'm going to change the channel and through my actions influence the station to drop it." But you just like to complain about your tax dollars. Which is odd, seeing as WNBA isn't funded through tax dollars.

 

[alphamale]

My arguments supporting what? That your solution is stupid?

No, that Ayn rand wouldn't support it.

1. If you don't like government policies, vote for politicians who will change them and convince others to do the same. It's as simple as that. There's no need to organize some massive strike against a democratically-elected government.

An objectivist supporting democracy! Whoooeee - this'll be one to tell the boys!! The democratically elected government has brushed aside my rights. The USSC approved anti-white discrimination in the U of M cases, overturning the Equal Protection Clause with the stroke of a pen. Don't talk to me about democracy.

2. Unless you work for the government, striking against a private company for the actions of the government will accomplish absolutely nothing. And if you work for a private company that practices discrimination, you'll probably have better luck organizing this strike among your coworkers than among DebatePolitics regulars.

It's not just the government - private companies and corporations have completely bought into the idea of anti-white discrimination (which in practice will of course end up mostly anti-WM discrimination), and in fact filed amicus briefs in the U of M cases supporting it. (Look at any of their web sites and see how quickly they picked up the "diversity" mantra.) One strike against one company would accomplish nothing - what's needed is a mass movement of all WMs who aren't white uncle toms, sellouts, or themselves part of the mechanisms of discrimination.

 

[alphamale]

Says a person obviously content with the fact that minorities were rountinely discriminated against so badly that they stood no prospects. The fact that it is not needed today shows how badly it was needed.

An end to discrimination against blacks did not require new discrimination against whites, especially not against those whites who were utterly not responsible for the former discrimination against blacks.

 

[alphamale]

Now, see a logical person would say "Oh, WNBA. I have a problem with women playing sports, so I'm going to change the channel and through my actions influence the station to drop it." But you just like to complain about your tax dollars. Which is odd, seeing as WNBA isn't funded through tax dollars.

Uh, you're muddling posts together, Ms. Attention Deficit.

 

[Kelzie]

An end to discrimination against blacks did not require new discrimination against whites, especially not against those whites who were utterly not responsible for the former discrimination against blacks.

It did for awhile because said minorities had no way of getting a higher education and colleges were still reluctant to accept them. You can make the "isms" illegal all you want, but people still act they way they feel. Affirmative action forced them to give minorities a chance. It has, however, out-lived it's usefulness since that attitude is no longer prevelant. Except for those poor little white boys.

 

[Kandahar]

No, that Ayn rand wouldn't support it.

Since when did Ayn Rand support collective bargaining, or putting the interest of society ahead of my personal interest? She didn't. In fact she'd probably laugh at your stupid idea.

An objectivist supporting democracy! Whoooeee - this'll be one to tell the boys!!

Who said I'm an objectivist? Just because I like some of Ayn Rand's ideas doesn't mean I'm an ideologue...let alone an ideologue who barely understands the ideas he's supposedly defending, like you.

The democratically elected government has brushed aside my rights. The USSC approved anti-white discrimination in the U of M cases, overturning the Equal Protection Clause with the stroke of a pen. Don't talk to me about democracy.

Then what exactly is the purpose of your strike if you don't support democracy? Lead me through the logical chain of events you hope will occur, because I'm guessing you either want to A) draw enough attention to your strike to get the citizens to vote the bums out of office, or B) have the current politicians capitulate to your demands out of FEAR of being voted out of office. Or am I missing something here?

It's not just the government - private companies and corporations have completely bought into the idea of anti-white discrimination (which in practice will of course end up mostly anti-WM discrimination), and in fact filed amicus briefs in the U of M cases supporting it. (Look at any of their web sites and see how quickly they picked up the "diversity" mantra.) One strike against one company would accomplish nothing - what's needed is a mass movement of all WMs who aren't white uncle toms, sellouts, or themselves part of the mechanisms of discrimination.

Well pass me the fried chicken and watermelon, I guess I'm a "white Uncle Tom." Oh lordy massa, you sho' is mighty kind to us po' white folk!

 

[Kelzie]

Uh, you're muddling posts together, Ms. Attention Deficit.

God, it must be so embarrassing to have to have your posts explained to you.

See, you were bitching that your tax dollars are used to fund the special olympics, which in a later post you explained was the WNBA. Ignoring the obvious bigoted nature of your complaint, I kindly pointed out that the WNBA is not funded through your tax dollar. Make sense now?

 

[alphamale]

It did for awhile because said minorities had no way of getting a higher education and colleges were still reluctant to accept them. You can make the "isms" illegal all you want, but people still act they way they feel. Affirmative action forced them to give minorities a chance. It has, however, out-lived it's usefulness since that attitude is no longer prevelant. Except for those poor little white boys.

It was never useful. All that was required was that colleges use objective criteria to accept students. That would be all the "chance" they - or anybody - ever deserves.

 

[Kelzie]

It was never useful. All that was required was that colleges use objective criteria to accept students. That would be all the "chance" they - or anybody - ever deserves.

It is different to be objective when you are an "ist" of any kind. And second of all, due to decades of discrimination, the minorities didn't have resources to attend college.

 

[alphamale]

Originally Posted by alphamale
No, that Ayn rand wouldn't support it.

Since when did Ayn Rand support collective bargaining, or putting the interest of society ahead of my personal interest? She didn't. In fact she'd probably laugh at your stupid idea.

Does EVERYONE here but me have ADS? I never said anything about "collective bargaining" or "society ahead of my personal interest". Why don't you go back and reread - slow down for the 3-syllable words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
An objectivist supporting democracy! Whoooeee - this'll be one to tell the boys!!

Who said I'm an objectivist? Just because I like some of Ayn Rand's ideas doesn't mean I'm an ideologue...let alone an ideologue who barely understands the ideas he's supposedly defending, like you.

There's no such thing as to "like some of Ayn Rand's ideas" - it's a self consistent philosophy that only makes sense as a whole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
The democratically elected government has brushed aside my rights. The USSC approved anti-white discrimination in the U of M cases, overturning the Equal Protection Clause with the stroke of a pen. Don't talk to me about democracy.

Then what exactly is the purpose of your strike if you don't support democracy? Lead me through the logical chain of events you hope will occur, because I'm guessing you either want to A) draw enough attention to your strike to get the citizens to vote the bums out of office, or B) have the current politicians capitulate to your demands out of FEAR of being voted out of office. Or am I missing something here?

A rational man cannot refuse to take account of the fact that he lives in an irrational system like a democracy. That doesn't mean he supports democracy. Blink twice if you get it yet.

Well pass me the fried chicken and watermelon, I guess I'm a "white Uncle Tom."

Like you had to tell me! :lol:

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

What is "discriminated enough"? There's some threshold of discrimination that constitutes too much? A small amount (actually it isn't small) is OK?

You need to read more carefully. I didn't say it wasn't enough to oppose-- I said it wasn't enough to cause white men to view themselves as part of a single, unified group.

I've already noted that I'm opposed to the same admissions practices you're complaining about. I'm just not willing to support a futile gesture against a comparatively minor problem.

 

[Kandahar]

Does EVERYONE here but me have ADS? I never said anything about "collective bargaining" or "society ahead of my personal interest". Why don't you go back and reread - slow down for the 3-syllable words.

A nationwide strike designed to influence public policy is the ultimate example of collective bargaining.

There's no such thing as to "like some of Ayn Rand's ideas" - it's a self consistent philosophy that only makes sense as a whole.

OK, then I reject the self-consistent philosophy and happen to hold many libertarian beliefs while liking Ayn Rand's books.

A rational man cannot refuse to take account of the fact that he lives in an irrational system like a democracy. That doesn't mean he supports democracy. Blink twice if you get it yet.

Nope, not yet. So why do you need a nationwide strike to get people to change their minds in this unjust system you find yourself in? Why can't you intellectually defend them and convince people to vote for the right politicians?

 

[vergiss]

Where's the "get the hell over yourself" option?