• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Slew of SCOTUS Decisions.

ashurbanipal said:
The law currently enshrines examples of how to do so. For instance, if a litigant can be shown to have delayed a lawsuit for a sufficient period of time in many jurisdictions, and is ultimately found to be liable, they are responsible to pay not merely the judgement, but also interest.

In this case, we have historical data to give us some guidelines about the rates of acquisition and accrual of property in this country. Had people of African descent been treated in the same way as European colonists from the very start of their being brought to this continent, black people would be about as well-off as white people, on the whole.



Depends on what you mean. I agree it should be that way; you seem to believe it essentially is already that way.
Click to expand...



yes, I do.
 
ashurbanipal said:
You cannot know a proposition that is false. Ergo, you do not know it.



Sure, but who's suffering harm? Harm would be if they're thrown in prison or have their hands cut off or something.

Let me ask you this: suppose two people submit identical applications to a college, but the college has room for only one of them. Should it be forced to admit both?



Decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on how long-lasting the effect is.



I'm not sure I understand the relevance of these questions. No one has said anything about lands so far. In some cases, we absolutely can determine that a wrong was done.



Hmmm? Then what, er, what? What are you asking?
Click to expand...

I don't care if my great someone ****ed your family over. EVERYONES family has at some point in history been ****ed over. Its called life, deal with it. Wallowing in past wrongs leaves youn in the past.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Had people of African descent been treated in the same way as European colonists from the very start of their being brought to this continent, black people would be about as well-off as white people, on the whole.
Click to expand...

Speculation and highly unlikely, had they not been brought here they wouldn't even be here for the most part.
 
ashurbanipal said:
So, imagine that one member of your family is quite a fine artist who has painted portraits of other members of your family. I steal those, and pass them down to my descendants. My descendants should get to keep those? What about, say, your grandmother's wedding ring, which I also steal? That shouldn't be returned to your family, merely because I, the perpetrator of the crime, was never made to put things back?

What if I steal all your stuff, and then sell it to a pawn shop? Since the pawn shop owners didn't do anything wrong (assume they did all they could to ensure I wasn't passing stolen property), they should get to keep all your stuff?

Putting property back with the people who originally had it, and making material circumstances as close as possible to how they were before a crime happened, is not punishment.
Click to expand...

Then you're for giving back all of America to the Native Americans.
 
Josie said:
Well, my great great grandmother was a Native American, so..................
Click to expand...

I'm sure the Native Americans will take your word for it.
 
ludin said:
no what I did was I ask how recently has described your scenario. so far you have yet to provide evidence of your scenario.
Click to expand...

Your posts are making less and less sense. Are you asking about the hypothetical scenario I proposed? Or the real-world analog?

ludin said:
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

so you don't know the definition.
Click to expand...

That's about the definition I would have chosen. Now, show me that anything based on race is discrimination. When, for example, an older black man goes in for a physical, is it discrimination that he gets a diabetes test, when a woman of similar age but of Japanese ancestry does not? Surely not...the reason one gets the test is because diabetes is known to be much more common among older black men than among older Asian women.

ludin said:
it doesn't matter we are talking about criteria.
Click to expand...

Sure it matters. Effect is everything in a situation like this. Discrimination is an effect, not a criterion. It's discrimination when the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

ludin said:
not getting into that program has a profound affect on her life now. not only that but because she is white she is legally discriminated against.
the hypocrisy continues.
Click to expand...

No doubt it does, but the relevant question is whether she would, in a world that had been historically perfectly fair, be any more qualified than the person that was chosen--and the answer is almost certainly negative.

ludin said:
you can't justify discrimination can you or you can as long as they are white right?
who are you to tell me what justification i can use. i am using the same criteria that texas is using.
Click to expand...

Not if you're talking about your nightclub example--you're reversing those criteria.

ludin said:
if it is ok for them to limit people by race then by right any public business should be able to as well if they see fit.
Click to expand...

Nope.

ludin said:
so the next question is why do you continue to support discrimination?
Click to expand...

I do not support discrimination.
 
Renae said:
I don't care if my great someone ****ed your family over. EVERYONES family has at some point in history been ****ed over. Its called life, deal with it. Wallowing in past wrongs leaves youn in the past.
Click to expand...

You might care if you were suffering enough due to that ****ing over. That you don't care is not surprising, I suppose.

Anyway, you didn't answer my questions or actually respond to my post.
 
blaxshep said:
Speculation and highly unlikely, had they not been brought here they wouldn't even be here for the most part.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, they wouldn't be here. But we know there were wealthy empires in Africa before Europeans plundered it. We know that people there made a decent living before being brought over as slaves. So it's not all that speculative.
 
Josie said:
Then you're for giving back all of America to the Native Americans.
Click to expand...

Actually no, even though I'd benefit from that personally (my family would be due most of Northern Georgia, including all the land on which Atlanta currently sits). The problem is that we cannot actually give the property back in most cases. Europeans have plundered Africa so thoroughly, for example, that there isn't much left to give back. The property has been transformed into other stuff, and a lot of it is now worthless.

With the Native American example, what do you do with people who aren't full blood?

These difficulties do not mean the principle at work in the wedding ring example can just be ignored. Affirmative action is one of the ways to right the wrongs done.
 
Hypothetical said:
if there is one good reason to vote for Trump, it's that we know EXACTLY the type of SCOTUS appointments we will get with Clinton.
Click to expand...

there's 0 chance dems would confirm any trump appointment after what the repubs pulled on obama's nominee, and obama threatening as much. Better come up with another reason
 
chromium said:
there's 0 chance dems would confirm any trump appointment after what the repubs pulled on obama's nominee, and obama threatening as much. Better come up with another reason
Click to expand...

ya ok.... so we don't get Hillary's nomination anywhere near the appointment.

how's that work for ya?
it works for me ;)
 
Hypothetical said:
ya ok.... so we don't get Hillary's nomination anywhere near the appointment.

how's that work for ya?
it works for me ;)
Click to expand...

lol at that point i suspect SCOTUS would issue a ruling that the senate MUST confirm her appointment by X date as the constitution mandates, or else hold its members in contempt of court
 
ashurbanipal said:
Your posts are making less and less sense. Are you asking about the hypothetical scenario I proposed? Or the real-world analog?



That's about the definition I would have chosen. Now, show me that anything based on race is discrimination. When, for example, an older black man goes in for a physical, is it discrimination that he gets a diabetes test, when a woman of similar age but of Japanese ancestry does not? Surely not...the reason one gets the test is because diabetes is known to be much more common among older black men than among older Asian women.



Sure it matters. Effect is everything in a situation like this. Discrimination is an effect, not a criterion. It's discrimination when the rubber meets the road, so to speak.



No doubt it does, but the relevant question is whether she would, in a world that had been historically perfectly fair, be any more qualified than the person that was chosen--and the answer is almost certainly negative.



Not if you're talking about your nightclub example--you're reversing those criteria.



Nope.



I do not support discrimination.
Click to expand...

My post makes perfect sense. You think someone is owed for something that happened 200 years ago. Take your complaint to the people that did it. No one today has done that so we owe nothing.

It just did. Texas is committing discrimination simply by looking at race and promoting one race over another.
When the criteria involves boosting one race over another then the criteria is discrimintory

Historically fair is irrelevant she should not be punished for being white.

Nope I am using the same criteria that Texas gets to use. I am just seeing if you are being consistent. You are not and are supporting discrimination.

Yep. Equal protection remember. If Texas can legally discriminate then so can other public businesses.

You are in this very thread.
 
ludin said:
My post makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

No doubt it makes sense to you. That doesn't mean it's correct.

ludin said:
You think someone is owed for something that happened 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

And for stuff that happened 50 years ago. And for stuff that happened last year. And for stuff that continues to happen now. See wedding ring example--there's no time limit on that principle.

ludin said:
Take your complaint to the people that did it. No one today has done that so we owe nothing.
Click to expand...

Pawn shop example: I steal your stuff, pass it off as my own to a pawn shop, and spend the money. The pawn shop did everything possible to ensure I wasn't passing stolen goods. Your stuff--and let's say its' valuable stuff, worth millions of dollars, representing basically your whole fortune--is discovered in the possession of the pawn shop. That they did nothing wrong means they get to keep your stuff? Obviously not, which means that the principle you are proposing is false. Merely because no one did something wrong doesn't mean they get to keep what they possess, when what they possess was never rightfully theirs.

ludin said:
It just did. Texas is committing discrimination simply by looking at race and promoting one race over another.
When the criteria involves boosting one race over another then the criteria is discrimintory
Click to expand...

Nope. The discrimination occurs when, day after day, non-whites are turned down for jobs for which they are otherwise qualified, pushed into marginal housing situations, etc. We know that sort of stuff goes on all the time.

You seem to have some view that the woman in question was somehow more entitled to a position in college than the person who actually got in. But even if she has better grades or SAT scores, that doesn't follow.

ludin said:
Historically fair is irrelevant she should not be punished for being white.
Click to expand...

Obviously relevant, since we are talking about effects, not criteria. History is the story of all the effects that led to now. Someone who was treated unfairly in the past will have a worse position now than they would otherwise have had, and a worse position than they should have. If we're interested in fairness (and we should be), then we have to do something about that history.

ludin said:
Nope I am using the same criteria that Texas gets to use. I am just seeing if you are being consistent. You are not and are supporting discrimination.
Click to expand...

It only seems that way to you because you don't understand the principles and argument at play.

ludin said:
Yep. Equal protection remember. If Texas can legally discriminate then so can other public businesses.
Click to expand...

Nope.

ludin said:
You are in this very thread.
Click to expand...

Uh, sure. Here I am, in this very thread.
 
Paraphrasing Roberts: The way to end racial discrimination is to end racial discrimination.
 
We already gave them casinos and fire water.



Josie said:
Then you're for giving back all of America to the Native Americans.
Click to expand...
 
Righting a wrong by doing the same thing is the logic of a 3rd grader.


ashurbanipal said:
Actually no, even though I'd benefit from that personally (my family would be due most of Northern Georgia, including all the land on which Atlanta currently sits). The problem is that we cannot actually give the property back in most cases. Europeans have plundered Africa so thoroughly, for example, that there isn't much left to give back. The property has been transformed into other stuff, and a lot of it is now worthless.

With the Native American example, what do you do with people who aren't full blood?

These difficulties do not mean the principle at work in the wedding ring example can just be ignored. Affirmative action is one of the ways to right the wrongs done.
Click to expand...
 
blaxshep said:
No its racism, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

People who think things are "plain and simple" are almost always wrong. Life is complicated; if you think otherwise, you probably haven't really thought things through.
 
TobyOne said:
Righting a wrong by doing the same thing is the logic of a 3rd grader.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I don't recall ever thinking that way when I was in third grade. Nor do I recall ever meeting a third grader who thought that way. So, some questions:

1. How in the world do you think Affirmative Action is the same thing as kidnapping people, stripping them of possessions, making them work for free, and then legally discriminating against them for generations after they are technically "freed"? How in the world do you think Affirmative Action is the same as nearly wiping out an entire race of people and driving them off their land? How in the world do you think Affirmative Action is the same as not hiring someone for a job for which they are qualified, paying someone less than a white person for the same job because of the color of their skin, etc? It's only "the same thing" at a very high level of generalization (sort of like how making a margarita and reading a book are the same thing because they're both actions).

2. What would you do instead?
 
ashurbanipal said:
1. How in the world do you think Affirmative Action is the same thing as kidnapping people, stripping them of possessions, making them work for free, and then legally discriminating against them for generations after they are technically "freed"? How in the world do you think Affirmative Action is the same as nearly wiping out an entire race of people and driving them off their land? How in the world do you think Affirmative Action is the same as not hiring someone for a job for which they are qualified, paying someone less than a white person for the same job because of the color of their skin,
Click to expand...

:violin Racism is Racism no matter the excuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom