Frustrations of Being a Pompous Jew

[Damocles]

The lists are based on the social phenomenon of race. I will go with your one race theory when there is only one checkbox for race. As it is now, race is something very real, and some individuals are being punished because of their TAN or their gender.


Noahide sellouts like you get into trouble on these issues of logic.

Yes, and basing them on race we have both agreed is wrong. Only one person here sees the continuation of government supported delineation by "race" rather than by need as "fair" because they think they can get past the velvet rope and get some of that.

It is far more probable that the government will agree to a basis of socioeconomic status than it is that they will include you white guys on the list any time soon.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Yes, and basing them on race we have both agreed is wrong. Only one person here sees the continuation of government supported delineation by "race" rather than by need as "fair" because they think they can get past the velvet rope and get some of that.

It is far more probable that the government will agree to a basis of socioeconomic status than it is that they will include you white guys on the list any time soon.

It's the exclusivity of the list that is wrong. Putting all groups on it would certainly eliminate the discriminatory function it serves. Of course, you're opposed to that, because you jew masters want you to be opposed to it.

 

[Damocles]

It's the exclusivity of the list that is wrong. Putting all groups on it would certainly eliminate the discriminatory function it serves. Of course, you're opposed to that, because you jew masters want you to be opposed to it.

And using socioeconomic status would include everybody on the list without maintaining a government sanctioned delineation by a false premise of race.

Your solution: Not probable in our lifetime.
My solution: At least possible.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

And using socioeconomic status would include everybody on the list without maintaining a government sanctioned delineation by a false premise of race.

Your solution: Not probable in our lifetime.
My solution: At least possible.

All people without jobs are poor. Do you mean their family background? How many generations does it go back?

 

[Damocles]

All people without jobs are poor. Do you mean their family background? How many generations does it go back?

But not all people of any one tan line needs a hand up. It would be based on need, current socioeconomic status. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

But not all people of any one tan line needs a hand up. It would be based on need, current socioeconomic status. What part of that is difficult for you to understand?

But all people applying for a job obviously don't have a job. How poor does poor get?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

this thread = damo's bottomless pit of pwnage.

 

[Damocles]

But all people applying for a job obviously don't have a job. How poor does poor get?

That would be incorrect. Most people applying for a job are seeking to improve on the one they already have. Some are married and live with somebody with a job, so forth. Of course, this is only one aspect of AA.

Only to a simple mind like yours are all things equal.

As for who should have a "leg up" for a job. It should be based on capability. AA doesn't only cover jobs. When your kid tries to enter college it is likely he'll have less need than somebody whose parents work at the local gas station.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That would be incorrect. Most people applying for a job are seeking to improve on the one they already have. Some are married and live with somebody with a job, so forth. Of course, this is only one aspect of AA.

Only to a simple mind like yours are all things equal.

As for who should have a "leg up" for a job. It should be based on capability. AA doesn't only cover jobs. When your kid tries to enter college it is likely he'll have less need than somebody whose parents work at the local gas station.

So in your scenario, the one with no job should be preferred over the one looking for a better job, because the with no job has more economic need.


Or are you strictly talking about the careers of their parents?

 

[Damocles]

So in your scenario, the one with no job should be preferred over the one looking for a better job, because the with no job has more economic need.


Or are you strictly talking about the careers of their parents?

No, in my scenario the one with the best capability for doing the job would be given the job.

I think it was clear when I said in my post: "As for who should have a "leg up" for a job. It should be based on capability"

But then direct and clear isn't useful to a white guy with persecution syndrome.

 

[Damocles]

So in your scenario, the one with no job should be preferred over the one looking for a better job, because the with no job has more economic need.


Or are you strictly talking about the careers of their parents?

I am talking about socioeconomic status. It is clearly defined. Since I don't have time to take you through High School social studies and economics in this thread, I prefer you educate yourself before attempting to take part in the conversation.

 

[Damocles]

Here. I hope this helps you understand.

http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-03-08.htm
http://www2.uic.edu/~pjones7/affirmative.shtml

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I am talking about socioeconomic status. It is clearly defined. Since I don't have time to take you through High School social studies and economics in this thread, I prefer you educate yourself before attempting to take part in the conversation.

So people with no job, could potentially be rich. Obviously.

 

[Damocles]

So people with no job, could potentially be rich. Obviously.

And people with no education could potentially be smart.

Read the links and educate yourself before you attempt to build your straw man. I like to nip arguments from ignorance in the bud.

Google socioeconomic status and find out what it means in all its aspects so we can discuss this on an even level.

Even a nice Wiki article would help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_status

It can be well-defined as far more than "looking for a job".

 

[Sammy Jankis]

And people with no education could potentially be smart.


Read the links and educate yourself before you attempt to build your straw man. I like to nip arguments from ignorance in the bud.

You said it Would be based on socioeconomic need in your fantasy world. I say anyone who hasn't a job has economic need. Then you get all snippy and haughty like usual.

You must be unhappy. You fail at ripping my arguments.

Damo = pwned forever

 

[Damocles]

You said it Would be based on socioeconomic need in your fantasy world. I say anyone who hasn't a job has economic need. Then you get all snippy and haughty like usual.

You must be unhappy. You fail at ripping my arguments.

Damo = pwned forever

First you need to understand what socioeconomic status is.

I have given you links, please read up on it so you will have a capacity to understand what has been said.

Since you seem incapable of even attempting to educate yourself even when given the links I think it is far more likely you have poor marketable skills and you like to blame Affirmative Action for your failure than it is that you have been persecuted for being a white guy.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

First you need to understand what socioeconomic status is.

I have given you links, please read up on it so you will have a capacity to understand what has been said.

Since you seem incapable of even attempting to educate yourself even when given the links I think it is far more likely you have poor marketable skills and you like to blame Affirmative Action for your failure than it is that you have been persecuted for being a white guy.

If it means a person with no job might be rich and just not know it, then I'll skip the lesson.

You can sum up the important and relevant parts if you wish. I know they're just another of your many dodges and idiocies, but feel free to prattle on.

 

[Damocles]

If it means a person with no job might be rich and just not know it, then I'll skip the lesson.

You can sum up the important and relevant parts if you wish. I know they're just another of your many dodges and idiocies, but feel free to prattle on.

No, it doesn't mean that. Please read. You sound like a petulant first grader insisting you could not subtract 7 from 4 because 7 is bigger than 4.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No, it doesn't mean that. Please read. You sound like a petulant first grader insisting you could not subtract 7 from 4 because 7 is bigger than 4.

You need to explain someone's background plays into their rights regarding discrimination. It seems like you believe some people need to have discriminatory practices of some kind in place to succeed.

 

[Damocles]

You need to explain someone's background plays into their rights regarding discrimination. It seems like you believe some people need to have discriminatory practices of some kind in place to succeed.

Not particularly, but like you I realize that AA is not going anywhere and am pragmatic enough to put forward an idea that, IMO, is better.

Your problem is the disconnect from "lists are bad" to "lists are bad but get better if I'm included".

The lists are bad, it centralizes in people's minds a divide specifically by and for the same reason they thought to need a law to begin with. You don't fix racism by dividing everybody into "race" and other divisive groups and giving some something special, it creates a "need" for each group to want to be included on the list.