[bethany1982]

Originally posted by KSig RC
You missed my point, ace - and I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, so sorry if this has already been addressed, but let me restate:

Their right to voice dissenting opinions on ANYTHING - whether it be politics, racial equality, sports, or the heliocentric theory of the solar system, should always be protected.

"Protected" here should be read as, "allowed to exist, as long as it is limited to stating an opinion."

My point was that this portrayal didn't even get to the point of the issue, and thus didn't represent any sort of dissenting opinion on actual Affirmative Action policy - their example did NOT, in my opinion, fit what they were trying to fight.

Affirmative Action scenarios seek to promote diversity equivalent to the overall population distribution - if you want to euphemize this as "giving minorities advantages," you're missing the point, to my mind, but you're free to play semantic games all you want. It's just that - a semantic link. It is not a literal advantage; it is merely (IDEALLY) the partial elimination of a disadvantage. While these sound equivalent, you should be able to see that they are not.

When you then set up a scenario in which you give literal advantages based on race, you are now two steps removed from the policy you are attacking. This is NOT an effective way to convey your anti-AA point.

And what would be a more direct way? How about only a certain number of cookies could be sold to white kids before one must be sold to a black kid, and another number for an asian kid, etc, reflecting the distribution of society. Here, you're hoping to have a huge line of white kids waiting for cookies, proving somehow that they are being left behind - and even then, I'm not sure it holds water, but it's a lot better than "You pay less because you're black."

It's a tenuous link - but at least it addresses the frigging topic.

YES - AA programs generally suck in many ways.

NO - these guys did not prove that.

Protect speech - don't protect stupidity, there are actual important battles available to fight. I'm not saying these guys shouldn't be able to do this sort of example - I'm saying they did it poorly, and I wanted you to realize you're defending retards.

I missed your point. The sponsors of the bake sale miss the point of AA. No one seems to understand the issue, except perhaps, you. Calling these individuals idiots based upon a disagreement is ridiculous, ace.