• 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!

National Straight Pride Coalition refused permit to march

RedSunRising said:
Attention forum: I called that response ^ several posts ago. Although Bodhisattva will claim victory for a repeated time, we all know what happened here. I love when I rest peacefully.
Click to expand...

Attention GOD: Red said that I would not even read the quotes or respond to his points... both of which I did... and now here he is crying for some reason. I can not claim victory over such an inept opponent though... but please help him do better... to strive for better... of this I pray.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It doesn't say the most important part... the percentage of applicants by race. So those stats that you just posted are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You do not understand the claim of the study.
What is irrelevant is the figure you ask (percentage of applicants by race).

It does not matter of the break down of white and black applicants is 60-40 or 50-50 or 90-10. If the process of returning calls is not affected by racism, you would expect to have ON AVERAGE the same number of calls for EACH individual regardless of the racial composition of the applicant pool . Notice that such studies typically compare equal in qualifications workers. For example, they send the exact same resume for black and white candidates.

Yes, if white workers are a higher percentage of the applicants, they will receive a higher TOTAL number (and percentage) of calls but this number of calls will be also divided by a higher number of white applicants, so the average number of calls for EACH white applicant will not be affected by the racial composition of the applicants' group.
 
Last edited:
pamak said:
You do not understand the claim of the study.
What is irrelevant is the figure you ask (percentage of applicants by race).

It does not matter of the break down of white and black applicants is 60-40 or 50-50 or 90-10. If the process of returning calls is not affected by racism, you would expect to have ON AVERAGE the same number of calls for EACH individual regardless of the racial composition of the applicant pool . Notice that such studies typically compare equal in qualifications workers. For example, they send the exact same resume for black and white candidates.

Yes, if white workers are a higher percentage of the applicants, they will receive a higher TOTAL number (and percentage) of calls but this number of calls will be also divided by a higher number of white applicants, so the average number of calls for EACH white applicant will not be affected by the racial composition of the applicants' group.
Click to expand...

It just gives totals per race... not individuals.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It just gives totals per race... not individuals.
Click to expand...

It talks about averages and not totals

Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos.

It does not make sense to interpreter the above as a result that is not about the individuals.
 
pamak said:
It talks about averages and not totals

Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos.

It does not make sense to interpreter the above as a result that is not about the individuals.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume that it is talking about individuals when it is clearly discussing demographic groups?
 
dixon01767 said:
They only need to move 10 feet over to the sidewalk to exercise their free speech. Or just roll down your car window and shout your piece out the window as you drive down the street
Click to expand...

Not untrue, but my point stands.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why would you assume that it is talking about individuals when it is clearly discussing demographic groups?
Click to expand...

First the claim about the average number is not clearly about the whole demographic group

Second, because this is the only reasonable explanation.

It makes zero sense to have a summary of a meta-study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that describes the methodology you assumed it does. Your claim requires the belief that these scientists and those who peer reviewed the study before it was published in the journal are all morons who do not understand that bigger groups will also attract on average more calls or that they are illiterate and cannot write a logical summary of their study.
 
Last edited:
Im still waiting for someone to address that they claimed a atraight pride parade could not hapen because of safety concerns.

That implies their is a violent sect of our society that hates straight people. Even if thats true, isnt it the states obligation to provide them a safe demonstration area same as they would for the LGBTQ community or is OK to also deny them the right to demonstrate too? For that matter why cant that same reasoning be applied to evey demonstration?



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Lord of Planar said:
And yes, we heterosexuals are harassed all the times, by the left who assumes we are bigots, when all we want to do is be left alone.
Click to expand...

How would anyone know to 'harass' you?

Are you wearing a sign or something? "Gays need not apply. Or move next door. Or make my willy wake up."
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Do you? Or are you just making an assumption?

If they aren't expressing hateful messages, then why not let them march?
Click to expand...

I gotta say...that does raise the question: what would the parade be like? A bunch of straight people...what? Walking? Holding signs? What would they say? Would there be music? Floats? Marching bands? What would the themes be?

What would their actual message(s) be? I'm curious because I cant imagine it's anything we all dont know already. Would they have been revealing any surprises?
 
Lord of Planar said:
The problem is that straight people are now they only target the left has, and they don't temper their actions against us. They have made all other groups off limits, so straight white males are now the primary target of hatred.
Click to expand...

It's not affecting me at all, I'm straight. What have they targeted me for?
 
VanceMack said:
I think all of the "pride" parades are stupid, and this one especially so. Go golfing. Go fishing. Take in a movie. There HAS to be a better way to spend your afternoon.
Click to expand...

Blacks and women had to march before they/we were accorded our full rights as equals in American society. WHy not gays? How long should you 'ask politely' and be ignored and accept that?

That's how it works...peacefully protest and march for your cause to raise awareness.

There were gay pride parades years before they were accorded protected status and they still dont have that in all states, so they can still be discriminated against in some states. And long before they had gay marriage. They did so in order to just raise enough awareness to be open about their sexual orientation and not get the **** beat out of them.
 
Such a thing would be soooo easy to turn into a farce. What if it turned into a big hookup fest?

While having a straight pride parade is a great idea in theory, one has to wonder what it would turn into in practice. This is especially true given that parades are supposed to be fun. What if it became a version of Brazilian Carnival with no homosexuals allowed? It goes beyond the off the charts participants. Often for the attendees, the tradition is that all relationships are suspended and it's OK to hook up with whomever one desires.

Also, drug laws are generally not enforced. People dying is considered collateral damage for all the fun.

Lursa said:
I gotta say...that does raise the question: what would the parade be like? A bunch of straight people...what? Walking? Holding signs? What would they say? Would there be music? Floats? Marching bands? What would the themes be?

What would their actual message(s) be? I'm curious because I cant imagine it's anything we all dont know already. Would they have been revealing any surprises?
Click to expand...
 
SDET said:
Such a thing would be soooo easy to turn into a farce.
Click to expand...

Well that would be up to them, wouldnt it?

What if it turned into a big hookup fest?
Click to expand...

What if it did? Maybe it would be a great way for those straight people to meet. :shrug:

They'd all have something in common..."straight pride."

While having a straight pride parade is a great idea in theory
Click to expand...
Is it?

one has to wonder what it would turn into in practice. This is especially true given that parades are supposed to be fun. What if it became a version of Brazilian Carnival with no homosexuals allowed? It goes beyond the off the charts participants. Often for the attendees, the tradition is that all relationships are suspended and it's OK to hook up with whomever one desires.
Click to expand...

See? Now that is something I was wondering. In Gay Pride parades, straight people are welcome to join in.

So you think that gays would be excluded? Why? That seems less like a celebration and more like...bigotry.

They wouldnt want to be joined by other people that supported them?

But really, my post was more about my curiosity about their message(s). What would their banners, signs, floats, say? "Go hetero go!"?
 
Last edited:
TheGoverness said:
The Help was a good movie! That's the movie that got me into Viola Davis. So is Hidden Figures. Even though the latter isn't historically accurate entirely (the whole bathroom thing), it gets the point across pretty well. Those movies are great, and they help paint a good picture of how terrible **** like that was back when.
Click to expand...
Love that movie. Driving Miss Daisy too. The accurate pictures of history that they portray just make me cringe sometimes.
 
JasperL said:
This group tells us they are:
The purpose of the California Straight Pride Coalition is to defend the children noted above. This is inclusive of preventing the current and future generations of all races and colors from being destroyed by the inherent malevolence of the Homosexual Movement toward our founding principles below.
Click to expand...
National Straight Pride Coalition |
Click to expand...

Now that would be a fun parade to attend! What a fun bunch!

:2dancing::2dancing::ind::2party:
 
Lursa said:
When do the 'left' protest against 'proud straight people?'
Click to expand...
So why did they cite safety concerns as one of the reasons they denied the permit?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
So why did they cite safety concerns as one of the reasons they denied the permit?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I dont know. Because there were safety concerns?

That doesnt answer my question.
 
JustHanging said:
:roll:

Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time | PNAS
Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos. We observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos. Accounting for applicant education, applicant gender, study method, occupational groups, and local labor market conditions does little to alter this result. Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire. (bolding mine)
Click to expand...

A few comments:

First, the question of relevance is not whether there is 'equal opportunity' based on field tests but whether or not their is discrimination THAT MATTERS to the end results. For example, if there is a paradox between the reality of the growth of a larger black middle class as well as greater intergenerational wealth passing WHEN discrimination supposedly was unchanged then clearly such discrimination as tested was irrelevant to the success of skilled and better educated blacks; i.e. no correlation.

Second, another notable change has been that the significance of race (and therefor discrimination) is now secondary to the significance of class, whereas in previous generations race easily trumped class as a determinative for the black minority.

Third, it is very difficult to separate rational discrimination from pure prejudicial animosity. There are logical economic and workplace efficiency reasons for using race or ethnicity as a crude "first pass" on worker selection; not the least of which it is an handy tool to weed out the many workers seeking fewer jobs (an employer than gets three applications reacts differently than one getting 300 applications). Hiring ethnicities known for lower IQs, or with a likihood of making race based legal claims of work privilege, or having unusually low class origins or raw ethnic unassimilated names has its risks. Hence "Latifa Kwanna Washington" and "Maca Chelo Maria Gomez" are flags of less professional enculturation and/or more troublesome behavior than "Linda Karen Washington" or "Katherine Elizabeth Gomez".

Last, Meta-analysis is, by nature, somewhat iffy because it takes disparate studies and attempts to combine their data and methods. As the author says scholars disagree, I'd like to read some of those scholars whose names and papers he didn't cite (which is kinda unusual).
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
I dont know. Because there were safety concerns?

That doesnt answer my question.
Click to expand...
I think the implication is pretty straight forward but i would perfer a direct answer from them describing exactly what this safety concern is. I imagine if a pro-choice parade was denied a permit for a parade based on safety concerns you would be singing a different tune.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
OlNate said:
Re the bolded...yes...yes you are.
Click to expand...

So is that your final answer? NBA players are almost all black because of racial discrimination against whites?
 
The gays are annoying.
 
Sheepdog said:
The gays are annoying.
Click to expand...

source.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom