Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sftig.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!dr_d From: dr_d@sftig.UUCP (D.Donahue) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The net's favorite form of argument Message-ID: <532@sftig.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-May-85 23:02:05 EDT Article-I.D.: sftig.532 Posted: Tue May 28 23:02:05 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 29-May-85 15:51:00 EDT Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ Lines: 115 > I disagree. Affirmative action IS rascist (sexist, etc.) in theory, > because the money to pay for outreach programs, etc. is extracted > coercively by the gov't. Thus, affirmative action entails the > gov't. forcing all groups to pay for the ostensible advancement of > one group. > > Mike Sykora > >>This is the sort of rubbish bred from ignorance! Not to mention the >>inaccuracy of the statement, but the underlying inuendos make my blood boil. >>Don't you ever watch 60 minutes or 20/20 even? Try reading up on it and >>getting the facts before trying to such this sort of falaciously opinionated >>rhetoric of on those who read the net. > >From sftig!nebula (Doug Donohue): >[believe me, *what* he's replying to is irrelevant to my point] > > > ...And as the Sun sinks slowly in the West, we see yet another >political airhead hoisted high on his own petard. The above was the *entire >contents* of Mr. Donohue's posting, apart from an included quote he was >responding to. Oh, well, back to net.religion for some reasoned debate. >:-) (-: > >- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > NASA-Ames Research Center > Moffett Field, CA >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry > EXXCCUUSSSSSSEEEEEEEE MMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! I didn't read your article Kern, so I don't know what your point was. I was replying to the M. Sykora posting. I must say however, that I was a little perturbed when I read the Sykora posting (see above). I was upset because the words "in theory" didn't quite sink in; my mistake. I was under the imp- ression that the reply was being made as a statement in fact, not as a statement with theoretical reference. So, if you, or anyone else on the net were a little bent after reading the reply that I posted, I can understand that. In any case, chill out, in this light, the reply WAS a bit misdirected. I'm still disturbed by the concluding sentence in the post. Granted AA, IN THEORY, is racist, sexist and probably a few other ~~~ist's beside. Mr. Sykoras final statement in the posting was what threw me off. AA in practice DOES NOT, I repeat this point for claritys sake, DOES NOT entail the the gov't having to force all groups to pay for the "ostensible" advancement of one group (with the implication that the advancement is at the expense of "all" other groups). AA is aimed at bringing racial and gender balance into the American work force. Therefore, the primary goal of AA is to bring the ratio of women and non- caucasian americans in line with their respective instances (as groups) in the american populus. I, for one, find this concept to posess radically desirable qualities. Therefore, I was amazed to find after reading the said posting to find : 1) the inaccuracy that AA is designed to perpetuate the advancement of one group ONLY 2) The seeming "rightously" resentfull attitude with reference to the collec- tion/distribution of revenue by the U.S. Gov't The methods employed by the U.S. Gov't in implementing AA may be questionable, this is true. Quotas will not NECESSARILY guarantee gender or racial balance in the american work force. There are probably ways to circumnavagate the man- dates. Quotas will, in the short term, acheive their objective however. Given any argument, pro or con, quotas will achieve the immediate goal of bringing racial and gender inequalitiies more in line with their respective populus instances. I feel that it should be stressed at this point that quotas are a "short term", "quick fix" sort of sollution. I would venture to say that the concievers and installers of AA were/are very aware of the short term nature of quotas. Therefore the idea of quotas is "to get the ball rolling", so to speek. Once a more "just" balance is established, a natural progression can then take place. So much for quotas! Aside from implementation strategies, the idea that AA is, by design, aimed at the perpetuated advancement of ONLY ONE group, is blatantly ridiculous!!! This statement is really what prompted me to post such "an emmotional" reply. As far as I'm concerned, people who believe that such (a) statement(s) are valid are total morons (= ignorant)! If nothing else, one should be able to at least discerne the logistical falacy in such a statement. If an argument was being made in support of such argument(s) then, if nothing else, get your facts straight. > Now don't all of you wish you could argue with such finesse. > Perhaps Mr. Donahue would like to open a debate school, for > those of us not quite as skilled as he in the subtle art of > argument. > > Note that Mr. Donahue is true to his word -- he doesn't mention the > inaccuracies! > > Mike Sykora > > > P.S. -- How does Mr. Donahuue know that this "rubbish" was bred from > ignorance? Perhaps it was born of maliciousness or stupidity! I "like" the "P.S." the best, I think this reply speaks for itself! #2 is a can of worms in itself, so I won't open it. Although, I to am not too happy about having 30-40% dissappear annually. Finally, as far a being a "political airhead" is concerned, I'd just like to quote Eddy Murphy: Git the **ck outa hee-ih! (-:) Doug Donahue AT&T Information Systems 190 River Rd. Summit, NJ 07901 ..!ihnp4!attunix!dr_d