Three different FE’s, three different butchered versions of gravity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2023, 06:04:49 AM

Okay, they fall down because both floating and sinking are factors of buoyancy.

Objects lighter than water sink, objects lighter than water float. Most objects are heavier than air. A balloon filled with helium is not. Simple as that.

Other things like propulsion are involved too. A unraked pile of leaves is not only light, but has sufficient wind to become aloft. When propulsion stops... it is heavier than air and falls down.

There is no "force acting on objects". It's just heavier than the air!

"Air"
Let's talk about air for a second.

Air molecules are more densely packed, close to Earth's surface, and become less densely packed, the higher you ascend in altitude. To the point, that a human being cannot breathe from a certain height and above.

So, briefs, do you think this is because all air molecules are not the same, and the air molecules close to the Earth, are heavier than the air molecules 5km up?

Well, this is what your buoyancy belief dictates, isn't it?

The problem is, air molecules are air molecules. The explanation is due to a force called Earth's gravity, which is strongest, the closer you get to Earth's surface.

It has nothing to do with buoyancy.

They're not all the same and that is why there are layers.
Do you think helium molecules are the same as air molecules?
Obviously not but you do see helium molecules being crushed up to take their place in a higher stacking system.

They're not all the same and that is why there are layers.

They aren't the exact same molecules, but their structure is the same.
That is why they are continually mixing.

The molecules of air at the bottom of the stack are not magically restricted to the bottom.
They travel up and down.
The only difference is when you have quite different molecules where the mass of the molecule itself starts to play a big role.

Otherwise, we would have the lower layer be almost pure CO2, with O2 on top, followed by N2 above.

The composition of the air at 10 km is basically the same as the composition of air at sea level. The big difference is the pressure.

Obviously not but you do see helium molecules being crushed up to take their place in a higher stacking system.

No, we see gravity create a pressure gradient which results in an upwards force which pushes the helium molecules up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 08:46:32 AM

They're not all the same and that is why there are layers.

They aren't the exact same molecules, but their structure is the same.
That is why they are continually mixing.

The molecules of air at the bottom of the stack are not magically restricted to the bottom.
They travel up and down.

Nothing to do with magic and all to do with simple stacking and molecular make-up.

The only difference is when you have quite different molecules where the mass of the molecule itself starts to play a big role.
Otherwise, we would have the lower layer be almost pure CO2, with O2 on top, followed by N2 above.

In a way you're right but layers of equal molecular density will also become ever so slightly less with each stack and that's based on the end of the horizontally stacked line actually losing individual molecular layers.
Basically just like the layering vertically offering more pressure with each horizontal layer towards the centre of the dome, it becomes less towards the outer along the horizontal.

The composition of the air at 10 km is basically the same as the composition of air at sea level. The big difference is the pressure.

Sort of.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 26, 2023, 08:46:32 AM

Obviously not but you do see helium molecules being crushed up to take their place in a higher stacking system.

No, we see gravity create a pressure gradient which results in an upwards force which pushes the helium molecules up.

You can't have it both ways.

Nothing to do with magic

Entirely to do with magic, as you can't explain why the atmosphere stacks and why this stack causes it to push most things down but some things up.

In a way you're right but layers of equal molecular density will also become ever so slightly less with each stack and that's based on the end of the horizontally stacked line actually losing individual molecular layers.
Basically just like the layering vertically offering more pressure with each horizontal layer towards the centre of the dome, it becomes less towards the outer along the horizontal.

If that was the case we would observe a quite substantial pressure gradient across the dome.

But that is ignoring the point, the atmosphere high up has the same molecular make up as the atmosphere down low, with the exception of the number of molecules.

You can't have it both ways.

You are the one trying trying to have it both ways, with the air magically pushing up or down as needed.
I just have the air push up, so I don't need to have it both ways.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2023, 06:04:49 AM

Okay, they fall down because both floating and sinking are factors of buoyancy.

No it isn't.
Buoyancy is an upwards due to a pressure gradient.
If you want to discard that, you need to explain buoyancy.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2023, 06:04:49 AM

Objects lighter than water sink, objects lighter than water float. Most objects are heavier than air. A balloon filled with helium is not. Simple as that.

Not as simple as that.
Why should something being denser than water make it sink? (I assume you meant density, not weight).
Why should something being less dense than water make it float?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2023, 06:04:49 AM

There is no "force acting on objects". It's just heavier than the air!

If there is no force acting, then it wouldn't move.

The object accelerates so it is clear that there is a force acting.

We can even have these falling objects spin wheels.

That's the oversimplification produced by round Earthers who need there to be "gravity" in order to justify their rotating orbiting tilting "planet". Earth is a world, not a planet.

If I were to toss a thin log and a brick, weighing roughly the same, into a body of water then I would see the force of buoyancy (if you can call it a force, you seem to have fast and loose definition of what is and isn't force, judging from past experience) in both. The brick however has more density in a smaller space and is less hydrodynamic. Sinks like, well, a brick. The log tends to float.

Nothing to do with gravity, absolutely everything to do with the wood being less dense per sq inch than the water. Certain wood actually does sink, typically because it is hard strong wood that is not porous. Such wood actually can be included in ships to make them sturdy, but said whip has a great deal of spacing out so that it overall floats despite containing material that on its own should sink. If force were really what caused movement, then density should be a force. But I believe you are right when you say it's not. But it isn't gravity that causes objects to sink. The brick and the log I've used are the same weight. Buoyancy is behind both reactions.

And if this can happen in water, then the same thing happens in air. Round Earth science? They explain gravity as being generated from rotation of the Earth. Not from my experience! You see, we yokels live in the country, and this sorta thing isn't far off our experience.

Not that I am a logger, mind you. But I happen to know that when an object rolls, it pushes things OFF itself, rather than holding them on. The theory of gravity is bogus.

So back to buoyancy. You have less dense layers in the sky, and more dense layers in the air. This is why you can build extra large jets weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Weight is dispersed by alot of empty space and the object is aerodynamic. It does in the sky what a boat does in the sea. This plus propulsion keeps it aloft, but if it were built like a brick, it couldn't fly at all.

And you know what? This layer model matches what we know of the atmosphere and the layers of the ocean's depths. Deep underwater, the pressure is well more than enough to crack my head like a walnut. On the other end, were I to climb Everest, I'd probably get the bends and die.

Lastly, this same model provides a reason why airplanes can't just fly into space. They simply aren't aerodynamic enough to overcome extremely thin air. The thinner the air, the heavier a light object is in comparison.
 This is precisely why attempts to make submarine-planes have failed. The plane needs to be light, the submarine needs ballast in order to sink. Oh sure, they've made some models, but with limited success due to contradictory buoyancy needs.

That's the oversimplification produced by round Earthers who need there to be "gravity" in order to justify their rotating orbiting tilting "planet". Earth is a world, not a planet.

No, that is an actual explanation of how things work, something people like you can't produce.
We need gravity to explain observations.
Your delusional nonsense where things magically go down just for being heavier than air works equally well for a FE or a RE.
This is because you have no justification for the directionality.
A magical downwards force with a universal down is no more justifiable than a magical downwards force towards Earth (or the nearest large mass).

If I were to toss a thin log and a brick, weighing roughly the same, into a body of water then I would see the force of buoyancy (if you can call it a force, you seem to have fast and loose definition of what is and isn't force, judging from past experience) in both. The brick however has more density in a smaller space and is less hydrodynamic. Sinks like, well, a brick. The log tends to float.

And the question is why?
Gravity explains it quite simply.
The downwards force on the brick due to gravity is greater than the upwards force due to buoyancy so it sinks.
For the log the opposite is true so it rises to the top of the water, where the buoyant force is then reduced (due to less water displaced) until it matches the downwards force due to gravity.

And the reason the force of gravity is down, is because it is a force of attraction to the large mass of Earth.

Nothing to do with gravity, absolutely everything to do with the wood being less dense per sq inch than the water

Why?
Why should being less dense make it float?
Why should being more dense make it sink?

If force were really what caused movement, then density should be a force.

No, as forces are what accelerates objects, and density is not a force, density cannot be what accelerates objects.
So you need something other than density.

The other big reason why density is not a force is that force needs a direction. Density does not have any direction.

But it isn't gravity that causes objects to sink. The brick and the log I've used are the same weight. Buoyancy is behind both reactions.

Gravity causes objects to sink, but that doesn't mean it is the only force. If you remove the water, removing the buoyant force, the object still sinks. But without the water (or some other fluid to take its place), the object wont float.

Place it in a fluid, and then you have buoyancy, with the buoyant force an upwards force.
The water causes it to float, gravity causes it to sink.
And the reason water causes it to float is because gravity causes the water to go down more.
It is like a see-saw.
If you place the volume of water the brick displaces on one side, and the brick on the other, gravity is pulling the brick down more, so it wins, so it goes down and the water goes up.
But if you do the same with the log, then the water wins, so it goes down and the log goes up.

We also see that the fluid causes an apparent reduction in weight based upon the volume displaced, with that reduction proportional to the density of the fluid.
Even without placing something in an environment without a fluid, we can extrapolate back to no fluid, and see there is still a downwards force, a force that is proportional to mass.
What would cause that in your fantasy?

And this also shows the downwards force due to gravity is proportional to mass, the upwards force due to buoyancy is proportional to the mass of the fluid displaced.

We also see this in other systems, showing what buoyancy is doing, such as if you tie a helium filled balloon to a van on the inside and accelerate. The helium balloon is pushed forwards by the formed pressure gradient in the air.

And that principle is used in centrifuges.

They explain gravity as being generated from rotation of the Earth.

That is a blatant lie that you have already had called out.
Objects would be attracted to Earth due to gravity regardless of it rotated or not.

What the rotation does is vary the apparent acceleration due to gravity, and as a consequence make Earth's surface oblate, bulging at the equator.

So it isn't gravity that is bogus, it is your blatant lie about it that is bogus.

This is why you can build extra large jets weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Weight is dispersed by alot of empty space and the object is aerodynamic. It does in the sky what a boat does in the sea.

No, it doesn't.
With a boat in the sea, if you stop it it stays afloat.
With a plane in the sky, if you stop it it falls out of the sky.

A plane flies due to lift, not buoyancy.

And you know what? This layer model matches what we know of the atmosphere

The issue is explaining it.
What is causing this layering? What is maintaining this pressure gradient?

The amount is relatively much less than the thin log.
But yes
The birck has buoyancy even though it sinks being rhe downward gravity is more.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 25, 2023, 02:25:27 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2023, 06:04:49 AM

Okay, they fall down because both floating and sinking are factors of buoyancy.

No it isn't.
Buoyancy is an upwards due to a pressure gradient.
If you want to discard that, you need to explain buoyancy.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2023, 06:04:49 AM

Objects lighter than water sink, objects lighter than water float. Most objects are heavier than air. A balloon filled with helium is not. Simple as that.

Not as simple as that.
Why should something being denser than water make it sink? (I assume you meant density, not weight).
Why should something being less dense than water make it float?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 25, 2023, 06:04:49 AM

There is no "force acting on objects". It's just heavier than the air!

If there is no force acting, then it wouldn't move.

The object accelerates so it is clear that there is a force acting.

We can even have these falling objects spin wheels.

That's the oversimplification produced by round Earthers who need there to be "gravity" in order to justify their rotating orbiting tilting "planet". Earth is a world, not a planet.

If I were to toss a thin log and a brick, weighing roughly the same, into a body of water then I would see the force of buoyancy (if you can call it a force, you seem to have fast and loose definition of what is and isn't force, judging from past experience) in both. The brick however has more density in a smaller space and is less hydrodynamic. Sinks like, well, a brick. The log tends to float.

Nothing to do with gravity, absolutely everything to do with the wood being less dense per sq inch than the water. Certain wood actually does sink, typically because it is hard strong wood that is not porous. Such wood actually can be included in ships to make them sturdy, but said whip has a great deal of spacing out so that it overall floats despite containing material that on its own should sink. If force were really what caused movement, then density should be a force. But I believe you are right when you say it's not. But it isn't gravity that causes objects to sink. The brick and the log I've used are the same weight. Buoyancy is behind both reactions.

And if this can happen in water, then the same thing happens in air. Round Earth science? They explain gravity as being generated from rotation of the Earth. Not from my experience! You see, we yokels live in the country, and this sorta thing isn't far off our experience.

Not that I am a logger, mind you. But I happen to know that when an object rolls, it pushes things OFF itself, rather than holding them on. The theory of gravity is bogus.

So back to buoyancy. You have less dense layers in the sky, and more dense layers in the air. This is why you can build extra large jets weighing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Weight is dispersed by alot of empty space and the object is aerodynamic. It does in the sky what a boat does in the sea. This plus propulsion keeps it aloft, but if it were built like a brick, it couldn't fly at all.

And you know what? This layer model matches what we know of the atmosphere and the layers of the ocean's depths. Deep underwater, the pressure is well more than enough to crack my head like a walnut. On the other end, were I to climb Everest, I'd probably get the bends and die.

Lastly, this same model provides a reason why airplanes can't just fly into space. They simply aren't aerodynamic enough to overcome extremely thin air. The thinner the air, the heavier a light object is in comparison.
 This is precisely why attempts to make submarine-planes have failed. The plane needs to be light, the submarine needs ballast in order to sink. Oh sure, they've made some models, but with limited success due to contradictory buoyancy needs.

I see you're fresh out of class at the Turbonium, Sceptimatic, and Chikljamas School of Flat Earth Science. (Can you find the oxymoron in my last sentence? Tip: It isn't a person)

I see also, you were deprived as a child from making a paper aeroplane and flying it through the air. The plane flies due to the forward motion from your throw and the shape of the plane creating lift.

Buoyancy has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Also, regardless of a plane size and weight, if you reduce the density of the air, it will cease in its ability to ascend. A paper aeroplane would have exactly less chance of getting to outer space, as a jumbo jet.

Again, buoyancy has nothing to do with it.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

It’s not when you keep saying it’s stealing.

The first time the word stealing appears in this context in this thread, is in this post by you:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91148.msg2398827#msg2398827

So it seems you intentionally brought that word in, to build a straw man and attack it.

Again, it is semantics and deflecting from the issue.

The issue is not if it is literally stealing.
The issue is if such blatant racism is ever justifiable.
And for some people the issue is if it is possible to be racist against white people.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

I’ll agree it’s “racist” in that a race is identified.
But that’s alll you got.

Pure BS.
It is racist in that race is identified and used to discriminate between candidates, providing favourable action towards one race and unfavourable action towards another.

There is a very simple test that most people can use to see if something is racist (but they choose not to).
Consider different races in these positions.
Would it be racist for a company to choose to hire someone because they are white? Favouring the white candidate over an equally qualified black candidate?
Or to really make it comparable with how it has been used, favouring the white candidate over a more qualified black candidate?

Would that be racist?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

Gov’t deals with big numbers.

Again, that doesn't change anything.
You wouldn't approve of the government imprisoning every black person to try and reduce crime rates, so why support such blatant racism?

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

It’s not at the cost of the poor whiteman.
Because on numbers, the overall mass of whiteman will be ok.

Again, this is blatant racism.
You are trying to group together all white people and suggesting that because some white person is making billions of dollars, that means it should be fine to treat other white people like crap.
It is entirely unjustifiable and entirely racist.
Anyone who suggests such an idea is acceptable, that it is fine to disadvantage an individual based upon their race, as overall their race is doing fine, is racist scum.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

By that very nature the racist whiteman who never hires a black woman is punishing the black woman.

And the racist who chooses to hire a black person over a white person, on the basis of their race is punishing the white man in an entirely racist manner.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

By statstical spread on population you would expect equal spread.

Only if every other factor is equal.
What you need to do is look at these other factors.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

The gov’ts job is to balance.

So should they also balance prisons and boost the number of white people incarcerated by just arresting innocent white people?

The government's job is NOT to balance. It is to ensure people are treated fairly, and that means ensuring people are not advantaged or disadvantaged based upon their race.
If they are advocating racism then they are failing at their job.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

Accept it.

I will not accept such blatant racism.
You may as well be telling a black person to just accept slavery.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

They shouldn’t need it – but given racism exists and population demographics exist, then we can correlation over caustaion that they do need it.

No, if you are using correlation rather than causation, then you are being racist scum and should be ashamed of yourself.
Especially considering such racist policies will not stop or counter racism. Instead it will just reinforce racism and increase the divide.

Have you ever considered that a factor towards black people having a slightly chance of being interviewed is due to all this racism where black people are given hand outs for being black so it is assumed they wouldn't be where they were if not for that racism helping them?

What you need to do to fix the problem is actually find the causal relationships and focus on that.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

They need a mechanism to counter the unwritten culture rules.

And that includes countering the unwritten cultural rules from racist scum like you, and instead teaching that racism is never acceptable, regardless of which way it goes.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

Because no policy is black-white.

So a policy declaring all black people to be property, free to be sold as slaves and treated however their master sees fit wouldn't be black and white?
There would be some element of grey to it, and it would require a non-robot to determine the appropriate action?

Plenty of policies are fairly black and white and any decent human being can see they are blatantly discriminatory and entirely unjustifiable.
In some cases, it is the lack of a robotic application which would allow such blatantly racist policies to survive.
For example, the case of the professor, where your objection was primarily to a blatantly racist policy negatively affecting someone of a race the policy was designed to benefit.

A robotic application makes it abundant that the policy is racist and should be opposed.
But you want a racist application, where the policy will only be applied to disadvantage white people.

Any decent human being could see why such a racist application would be entirely unjustifiable and racist.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 09:45:48 AM

If
IF they get a less qualified candidate.
There
You’ve somehow somehow sliped 'less qualifed' back into it.
For some reason…..

Because that is what is happening. You want to keep on ignoring it so you can pretend that your blatant racism is justified.
But again, even if it is truly an equally qualified candidate, if preference is given on the basis of race, it is racist.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:11:25 AM

It’s a nonsense argument.

You not liking exposure of racism doesn't make it a nonsense argument.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:11:25 AM

The brown prof was dinged for not hiring nonwhites – anybody with a brain could see this has no merit.

The policy was blatantly racist as it demands focusing on diversity in hiring rather than merit.
Any decent human being can recognise that and recognise such a policy has no merit.

The simple reality is that the race of the professor doesn't matter at all.
They are a professor, already well established. So they excuse of big numbers trying to help a race based upon causation doesn't work.
The objection to the application of a policy on a non-white professor just demonstrates how much of it is based upon blatant racism; and that the people who support such policies are racist scum that want to disadvantage white individuals because of the success of other white people (especially due to explotation of non-whites).
It is entirely racist and demonstrates these individuals are supporting blatant racism.

If you truly believed in such blatantly racist policies on the grounds of big numbers, then you should be happy with this application and this professor being rejected.
You should respond the same way regardless of the race of the professor.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:11:25 AM

People should be able to redress and say “here are my candidates and here is why I didn’t pick the chinese guy”.

And that should apply regardless of the race of the professor.
That should apply to a white professor as well as a non-white professor.
Yet you keep on appealing to it being a non-white professor.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:11:25 AM

Why would I be fine with discrimination?

You have demonstrated that you are.
You object to the application of this policy to a minority candidate.
You fully support blatantly racist policies, including at the level of government mandates.

If you were not fine with race based discrimination you would be opposing the policy entirely rather than merely opposing the "robotic application" of the policy.
You would be opposing things like affirmative action.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:11:25 AM

But affirmative action only asks that the population demographic matches the work place demographic.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:11:25 AM

another nonsense argument - "your raising up the poor as caused me to become more racist!  you MADE me do this!"

You sure love dismissing things as nonsense and not even attempting to refute it. And you again respond in such a racist manner, where you ignore the racism in it.
It isn't raising up the poor, it is raising up black people.
If it was actually targetting poor people, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that it isn't.

It is quite simple, if black people are being given hand outs on the basis of their race, then if you get 2 equally qualified candidates, the question arises of if the black person only got to where they were because of those hand outs? And likewise, if a black candidate appears slightly more qualified than the white candidate, is that because of opportunities they were given because they were black?

For example, did the black person get a scholarship for university, so they didn't need to worry about getting enough money to live, and could spend loads of time studying, while a poor white person had to work during their non-uni hours, so they had less time to study and less time for sleep etc? Was the black person given leadership opportunities the white person was denied? Was the black person given the chance to present their work while the white person was denied? Where they given a work experience opportunity because they were black while the white person was denied because they were white? Where they previously hired because they were black while the white person had a longer period of unemployment due to racist hiring practices, and so on?

So no, it is nothing like your pathetic strawman.
It is not that they are raising up the poor.
It is that they are giving advantages to people of a particular race, based upon them being that particular race.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:11:25 AM

more nonsense argument
i've already explained why i'm not happy about the professor.
why would i be happy if it were a white professor?
if he can't defend his position then he has no position.
very simply - the world is grey.
further clarified - application of policy was bad.
exception should be had when exception can be justified.

I assumed you would be happy if it was a white professor because you repeatedly appealed to the professor not being white and claimed the problem was on the application of the policy.

Part of the policy was to hire based upon diversity rather than merit.
If you think they should be allowed to hire based upon merit that isn't objecting to the application of the policy, that is objecting to the policy itself.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:25:28 AM

punishing a company for not having enough black people on the payroll?
that's nonsense.
that's...racist.

What part is nonsense?
And yes, punishing a company for not having enough black people on the payroll is racist.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:25:28 AM

there's no written rule.
that's why it's 'systemic'.

Pure nonsense.
Systemic is a very simple world to understand:
system-ic.
Systemic racism is when a system is racist.
This includes when policies are in place which are racist.

What makes it systemic is that is is throughout an entire organisation/country/society/whatever, rather than being individuals.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:25:28 AM

by forcing people to watch gays on the tv normalizes their flamboyance.

No one is forced to watch homosexuality on TV.

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 04, 2023, 10:25:28 AM

what's next?
you gonna get angry you're not allowed to work at women's only gyms?

I think any location which only permits people of a certain sex or a certain race and so on to enter is blatantly discriminatory and shouldn't be permitted.
It is based upon absolutely atrocious and bigoted ideas.

If you think something is so private that it can't be done in front of the opposite sex, then it should be considered so private it can't be done in front of a stranger.

Otherwise, you are just a sexist or racist POS.

Without appealing to blatant sexism or racism, can you justify the existence of female only gyms? And that means you can't claim the males would be checking the women out and making them uncomfortable.

Would you be fine with places that only white people can enter or only males can enter?

And do you not notice the massive contradiction?
You think it should be fine to force black people to work along side white people to normalise their presence as nothing to fear, but now want to defend female only spaces as opposed to opposing that to normalise the presence of men as nothing to fear?

Mostly repetative so ive decided not going to get into it.

Our positions have been stated.
Clearly some purposeful obfussing.


So in summary a short article:

https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-myths-about-affirmative-action.aspx





The world is grey.

So in summary a short article:
https://www.usf.edu/compliance-ethics/equal-opportunity/ten-myths-about-affirmative-action.aspx

That isn't a summary. That is just another collection of baseless claims.

1 is not a myth.
While you continue to have blatantly racist policies, the world will continue to be blatantly racist.
It relies upon a reference from over 30 years ago, so does not necessarily reflect the world today.
It also provides a simple non-racist way:
"Unless pre-existing inequities are corrected or otherwise taken into account"

It also ignores another important factor, how other people view those hired based upon affirmative action, or presumed to be.

2 not relevant as I never brought it up.

3 It doesn't even bother to provide references this time.
Likely because a claim it uses is a myth based upon very poor data handling.

4 The public supporting something doesn't make it good. Would you defend slavery if the majority of the public wanted it?

5 The issue is what constitutes a "large percentage". It is using large numbers to ignore those who are discriminated against by such policies and suffer from them.

6 This "refutation" actually ignores an example of what happened in the past. The Greenwood district in Tulsa was quite well off, until racially motivated riots destroyed it.

7 No, it uses the word discrimination to describe exactly the same thing. Discrimination on the basis of race. Both are treating someone more or less favourably depending on their race. Both are bigoted. Trying to make excuses about it being for inclusion doesn't change that fact.

8 So 10% of respondents said that it did lower their self esteem? So it doesn't do it for the majority (likely those who could get the job without such blatant discrimination), but for a small group, it does.

9 Never said anything like that.

10 Plenty do not oppose such blatant discrimination. There are clear examples of such discrimination. The very article supports such discrimination. And they claim that even 25% of the public recognise that discrimination in which equal candidates are chosen based upon such discrimination is discriminatory.

Checkered shirt thinks affirmative action is racist.

Checkered shirt thinks affirmative action is racist.

And it is racist. Your point?

It is!
But the point, which you cant seem to grasp, it also isnt beucase it is not a put down.
Racism in its "bad" form has been used to put down a group.
Not to raise up a group.
But its all been said before... so im not going to start that again.


Either way

The actual point is, jackB, the robot santa from futurama, is your complaint that me and unco called you the racist is because you side with the racists who also use your absurd talking points.

Checkered shirt thinks affirmative action is racist.

It is.

Let's create a scenario.

I am a white person who pays for a fancy college, I get the  managerial job everyone wants.

Someone decides that I have privilege because I have a silver spoon in my mouth. They overlook that unless my family was crooked rich, I still had to study my way through that expensive college, and that nice managerial job involves long hours that the part-timer doesn't have to put up with. Hell, if I run the business, it may seem as though I have privilege but (much like a swan looking graceful above water while kicking steadily below it) actually I have unpaid hours of work whereas the worker can go home and have a life.

Boil down talk of privilege long enough, you get jealousy.

So, here's the problem with the notion of privilege. You are sure that just because someone's skin is a different color, they automatically get all the breaks. Suppose now I am born in rural West Virginia. I'm white again, but they tell me I have privilege because of the color of my skin. But actually, I have a farm that I work to get my children through school, I have government people push screwy welfare plans to help blacks, Hispanics, etc so that each year my taxes are a little higher. And the government wants to give my job to unqualified blacks or women (not that there aren't farmers that happen to be black or female, but these are people picked to farm solely on the basis of such things), while giving black or female students that are my kid's peers preferential treatment in being picked for schools, jobs, etc. Even when my kid works his ass off to make the grade, they fill a quota with a C-student or less qualified quota.

Yes, this is racist, because ultimately these little handouts don't help anything. The poor white works through it (or they give up, like me), blaxk that gets the handout never gets anywhere because deep down, they know they didn't earn that, and they blow their chances somehow. Despite years of affirmative action, the black people live in lousy, crime-infestsd areas where they still ask for reparations. Black on black violence is common because handouts are expensive. They get money, but like a lottery winner, they blow it before the taxes set in, then their friends all want what they have (only they haven't got it anymore). When you have things handed to you, they don't last.

Affirmative action doesn't help blacks and women, just look at the lines at welfare centers. The poor white never get anything handed to them, so they work all the time. Those on affirmative action never actually earn what is handed to them, they win a quota lottery. Only when the money runs dry, they have no skills and can't take pride in work. It impoverishes them and makes them dependent while convincing them that they have been helped.

So, here's the problem with the notion of privilege. You are sure that just because someone's skin is a different color, they automatically get all the breaks. 

whooosh
another simple tidbit right over your head.

didnt you hear?
the man ranked lvl2 out of a potential 5.
but checkered shirt assumed the black man didn't deserve to be at harvard because of affirm action.
and jackB will have assumed the black man STOLE the seat from the prequalified better white man.

sorry, but the premise and contingency was they're all qualified.
white farmer boy didn't lose out to a black boy.
he lost to another white boy who's dad was richer or who's mom paid off a recuirter.




the point of affirmative action economics is to counter the racism of NOT hiring black people.
so your point is... well stupid.
be less stupid.
the point that this black man sits at a high salaried position affirms it works.
his family is better off.
the point that more NFL head coaches are now black, just on the basis they were alloewd to interview affirms it works.


works in all cases?
required in all cases/
no.
that takes a non robot to do policy.
but... well that's been all talked about before.
so lets don't start that again.

you
you're a stupid person who doesn't understand how circles and triangle work.
but let's hear your theories on complex social economics.

It is!
But the point, which you cant seem to grasp, it also isnt beucase it is not a put down.

No, the point you seem to fail to grasp is that racism is bad regardless of which direction it goes.

To "punch up" without it being racist, you target specific individuals who have been advantaged because of their race. As soon as you target an entire race you are no better than any other racist scum.

"Raising up" a group is just as bad as "putting down" a group.
Especially as it is a 0 sum game.

Would you be fine with just "raising up" a group of white people? Where white people were given loads of advantages for being white to "raise them up"?

Or would you recognise that as racist and bad because you can't "raise up" white people without "putting down" everyone else?

Why not be honest with yourself for once?
You don't think racism is bad when it disadvantages particular groups or advantages other particular groups.

You only think racism is bad when the groups you want to be promoted are disadvantaged by it, or the groups you want put down are advantaged by it.

is your complaint that me and unco called you the racist is because you side with the racists who also use your absurd talking points.

You are the one siding with racists.
You are the one advocating for racism.
You are the one defending racism.
You are the racist.

I am the one opposing racism. But because it is racism you love, you need to vilify me to pretend I am the bad one.

the point that this black man sits at a high salaried position affirms it works.

No it doesn't.
Did they get in based upon race at all? Or did they get in on their own merit?

But the question is not if it works. The question is if it is fair to unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of race, to give people advantages on the basis of race.
Any decent human being would recognise that is not acceptable. On racists think such blatant racism is acceptable.

It "working" in no way means it is good.

that takes a non robot to do policy.
but... well that's been all talked about before.

Yes, where you didn't oppose a blatantly discriminatory policy which supports blatant discrimination, and instead opposed it being used to reject someone for a grant because of their minority status.

If you don't want to start things again, you should have just left it, and not tried to defend such discrimination.

Repetitive...

No ones stealing a job from a white man.



Stalemate

Repetitive...

You most certainly are.
And still no rational defence of such blatant racism.

No ones stealing a job from a white man.

Semantic pedantry.
The simple fact is there are cases where a white person would have gotten the job, if not for such blatant racism.

Checkmate.

The whitemans golf buddys white son stole the job from another whiteman

King me.
Touch down.

The whitemans golf buddys white son stole the job from another whiteman

So now you jump to stealing jobs?
You are behaving just as bad as a flat Earther now.

The simple fact is there are cases where a white person would have gotten the job

I didnt jump to anything.
You continue to say it.


So what if the whiteman didnt get the job?
The employer got a qualified employee.
Remember - we prerequestied that in the premise.


So if a whiteman got rhe job, then a different whiteman didnt get the job.
So whiteA stole from whiteB.

So?
What?
If he?
 didnt get the job?



The pojnt was to uplift the black demographic.
Not to perpuetuate the disproportion.

I didnt jump to anything.
You continue to say it.

Again, you are the one who brought up stealing jobs. Not me.
I brought up people not be employed in favour of less qualified diversity candidates.
This is not saying all "diversity candidates" are less qualified, but instead appealing to the fact that some places take diversity into consideration and higher those who are less qualified on the basis of diversity rather than higher a more qualified candidate that is not a diversity candidate.

So what if the whiteman didnt get the job?
The employer got a qualified employee.

Again, so does this mean you would be fine if employers didn't hire any black people, or any women, because they still got a qualified employee?

So if a whiteman got rhe job, then a different whiteman didnt get the job.
So whiteA stole from whiteB.

Did they? Or was whiteA more qualified than whiteB?
Regardless, in that hypothetical they didn't miss out on a job because of racism as happens with what we are discussing.

The pojnt was to uplift the black demographic.

By being blatantly racist.
Again, target what the factors truly are, with poverty being a big one.

No
Im paraphrasing
You said takes a job away from a whiteman.
As if the black man ddint deserve it.


Mossout on job because of racism?
Yes
Thats the point.
The blackman or woman wasnt invited to because of racism sexism.
Sheesh




Affirmarive action is hirig a %.
Not ALL positons.
%
You know how to math right?

You said takes a job away from a whiteman.
As if the black man ddint deserve it.

Which is exactly the kind of situation I have been discussing.
People being hired not because they are qualified, but because they are black.
With the black candidate being hired in preference to an equally or more qualified white candidate just because they are black.

Mossout on job because of racism?

And that is exactly what you are supporting, people missing out on jobs because of racism.
But you don't want to admit it is racism, because you support that racism.

Affirmarive action is hirig a %.

So you are fine with a % of racism?

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2023, 08:10:13 PM

You said takes a job away from a whiteman.
As if the black man ddint deserve it.

Which is exactly the kind of situation I have been discussing.
People being hired not because they are qualified, but because they are black.
With the black candidate being hired in preference to an equally or more qualified white candidate just because they are black.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2023, 08:10:13 PM

Mossout on job because of racism?

And that is exactly what you are supporting, people missing out on jobs because of racism.
But you don't want to admit it is racism, because you support that racism.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2023, 08:10:13 PM

Affirmarive action is hirig a %.

So you are fine with a % of racism?

For the first time ever, I agree with you.

It's a miracle...lol

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2023, 08:10:13 PM

You said takes a job away from a whiteman.
As if the black man ddint deserve it.

Which is exactly the kind of situation I have been discussing.
People being hired not because they are qualified, but because they are black.
With the black candidate being hired in preference to an equally or more qualified white candidate just because they are black.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2023, 08:10:13 PM

Mossout on job because of racism?

And that is exactly what you are supporting, people missing out on jobs because of racism.
But you don't want to admit it is racism, because you support that racism.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 20, 2023, 08:10:13 PM

Affirmarive action is hirig a %.

So you are fine with a % of racism?

1.
Well there we go.
The white man somehow more qualified by nature.
So... why do you keeo saying that?

If the qualification was to be diverse, then by nature the blackman woman becomes qualified.
Scotus tunji brown is now the most qualified for her positikn



2. And 3.
Riggt
"Stolen" according to you.
You didnt say the word but used its definition as your argument....

A whiteman missed out on A job.
But A whiteman and B whiteman somehow NOT stolen.
But given 100jobs, the mandate was hire 5.5blackpeople and we have craig robinson hoping for a midget to show up.

What a nonsense argument.

Heres nonsense


War is bad.
So therefore the allied forces battling hitler are bad.

Oil is bad.
So thereforethe green peace using motor boats is bad.

No
Instead your plan is "the banks dont need regulation, theyll self police themselves and we ll avoid another bug short" and resolve the by-policy racism and systemic racism themselves.

Riiiight.

Well there we go.
The white man somehow more qualified by nature.
So... why do you keeo saying that?

Because I am appealing to cases where that is the fact.

The reason for why isn't important. Again, if you want to target the underlying issues, then target them to make these black people as qualified or more qualified.

"Stolen" according to you.

According to you. You were the one who brought it up first.

What a nonsense argument.

That does appear to be all you have. Nonsense.

The most qualified candidate should be selected/hired for a position.  Race, ethnicity, sex, nor age should be a condition nor hinderance to the process.

Applying any qualifying conditions based on race, ethnicity, sex, age, or any other protected status is discrimination.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

Well there we go.
The white man somehow more qualified by nature.
So... why do you keeo saying that?

Because I am appealing to cases where that is the fact.

The reason for why isn't important. Again, if you want to target the underlying issues, then target them to make these black people as qualified or more qualified.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

"Stolen" according to you.

According to you. You were the one who brought it up first.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

What a nonsense argument.

That does appear to be all you have. Nonsense.

1.
And there are MORE cases showing discrikination against the blackman woman.
Forbthe umpteenth time - Its an equalizing policy.
How many cases you got is like comparing the covid vax adverse cases to the covid plus cases - the math is not on your side.

The ubderlying issues is racism.
How else do you force someone to accept more blackman woman if they are being boxed out?

Just forcing the opporuntity to INTERVIEW gave them more selection.

What is the Rooney Rule? The original Rooney Rule, coming up on its 20th year in the league, dictates that all NFL teams must interview at least one minority candidate for head coaching positions. It has since been expanded to include other positions and more provisions.Jan 9, 2023

This is application of policy.
People need to look at each sector and apply thought and consideration.




2.
I named the word.
You used the definition.
So no.
You brought it up first.



3.
Pulling a sceppy?
Undefensible appears undefensible.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 22, 2023, 04:31:49 AM

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

Well there we go.
The white man somehow more qualified by nature.
So... why do you keeo saying that?

Because I am appealing to cases where that is the fact.

The reason for why isn't important. Again, if you want to target the underlying issues, then target them to make these black people as qualified or more qualified.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

"Stolen" according to you.

According to you. You were the one who brought it up first.

Quote from: Themightykabool on May 21, 2023, 05:37:00 PM

What a nonsense argument.

That does appear to be all you have. Nonsense.

1.
And there are MORE cases showing discrikination against the blackman woman.
Forbthe umpteenth time - Its an equalizing policy.
How many cases you got is like comparing the covid vax adverse cases to the covid plus cases - the math is not on your side.

The ubderlying issues is racism.
How else do you force someone to accept more blackman woman if they are being boxed out?

Just forcing the opporuntity to INTERVIEW gave them more selection.

What is the Rooney Rule? The original Rooney Rule, coming up on its 20th year in the league, dictates that all NFL teams must interview at least one minority candidate for head coaching positions. It has since been expanded to include other positions and more provisions.Jan 9, 2023

This is application of policy.
People need to look at each sector and apply thought and consideration.




2.
I named the word.
You used the definition.
So no.
You brought it up first.



3.
Pulling a sceppy?
Undefensible appears undefensible.

The Rooney Rule is discriminatory.

If 15 people apply for a single position, and you have 10 that are qualified of which 5 are highly qualified (exceed qualifications).  You interview the highly qualified candidates.

If a minority isn't in the qualified group at all, they still get an interview.  What about the other 4 who weren't qualified or the 5 that were qualified, but not highly qualified?

If a minority is qualified, but isn't highly qualified, they still get an interview.  What about the other 4 who were qualified?

If a minority is highly qualified, but another minority of the same or different minority group is just qualified, does they get an interview?  Why or Why Not?

If a minority is highly qualified, but another minority of a different minority group isn't qualified, do they get an interview.  Why or Why Not?


The point I'm making is that even if the rule is done in the name of equality, if the rule isn't applied equally in all circumstances, it's discriminatory.