Pro-Life School Walkout

[Anastasis 23393]

Strengthening NICS actually has the potential to keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Age limits to a lesser extent, but I don't see a compelling reason for the inconsistency between handguns and long guns. The point about military service is a reasonable one,  but not particularly compelling in light of the age restrictions already in place on handguns and a variety of other activities such as alcohol purchases.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Strengthening NICS actually has the potential to keeps guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. Age limits to a lesser extent, but I don't see a compelling reason for the inconsistency between handguns and long guns. The point about military service is a reasonable one,  but not particularly compelling in light of the age restrictions already in place on handguns and a variety of other activities such as alcohol purchases.  

Just got back from basic and can't buy a deer hunting rifle because an older guy decided my fundamental freedoms are an easy sacrifice to align seeming logical incongruities that bother him for some unknowable reason.

This is the problem with having no actual values or beliefs and living only to react to the values and beliefs of others. A walking, breathing middle ground fallacy.

[Anastasis 23393]

Tropheus proposed the age restriction. I said I'm willing to compromise. You apparently are not.  You should take it up with her. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Tropheus proposed the age restriction. I said I'm willing to compromise. You apparently are not.  You should take it up with her. 

Your defense of a ridiculous position is, "Hey I just like to compromise!"? lol

[Anastasis 23393]

This discussion is really going places. 

[DixonHur 11171]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

They're much easier things for you to compromise on because they don't affect you. Your position isn't about efficacy, either in the short term or long term, it's about making sure your ox isn't the one getting gored. You're fine with people being old enough to die for the country but not able to enjoy the same freedoms as you when they get back from service? That isn't compromise, that's distraction.

Why would dead people need guns? 

Just kidding.  Not taking sides on this issue, but your argument is a total strawman.  Only about 0.4% of the US population serves in the military at any time.  Right now there about 6% of the adult (18+) population are either veterans or active duty.  Of those, 23% served during peace time, so we're left with about 4.5% of the population serving during war.  Further, only 20% of military jobs are combat related. So all told, less than 1% of the US adult population has served in a combat roll.

And when these 18,19 & 20 year old men and women come home, do you know what else they can't do?  Drink alcohol, or rent a car.  Where's the uproar over those age restrictions?

Personally, I'm not for gun restrictions, but the "old enough to die" argument is silly, IMO.

[TahoeHorn 107]

On 3/30/2018 at 8:23 AM, bad_teammate said:

Do you need to be told how much your assurances are worth? Not much. I'm not sure I know of someone whose insight into the minds of kids is less valuable or interesting.

But assuming your insight into kids is valuable, which it certainly is not, why do student populations not already do this? Why are kids not skipping en masse all over the nation?

...

Because if they walk out to protest the lack of free ice cream at lunch there will be a price to pay that is too high.  If the walk out to protest "school violence", the NRA and GOP politicians there are school systems where there is no price.  In fact there is a reward.  Get it?

Protest school violence:  reward

Protest abortion; Penalty

Protest no free ice cream: Pennalty

Protest killing baby seals: Penalty

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

Because if they walk out to protest the lack of free ice cream at lunch there will be a price to pay that is too high.  If the walk out to protest "school violence", the NRA and GOP politicians there are school systems where there is no price.  In fact there is a reward.  Get it?
Protest school violence:  reward
Protest abortion; Penalty
Protest no free ice cream: Pennalty
Protest killing baby seals: Penalty

My daughter is (with others) leading one of these walkouts. It’s an unexcused absence. That’s exactly what it would be for no free ice cream or abortion.
And yet there is no free ice cream and they don’t walk out to protest the lack of free ice cream. Or the availability of abortion.

Your point is dumb and your assumptions are false, QED.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

13 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My daughter is (with others) leading one of these walkouts. It’s an unexcused absence. That’s exactly what it would be for no free ice cream or abortion.
And yet there is no free ice cream and they don’t walk out to protest the lack of free ice cream. Or the availability of abortion.

Your point is dumb and your assumptions are false, QED.
 

Yeah I don't know what he's going on about. I've said like 15 times already in this thread that policies already exist for unexcused absences.

[workswithseed 2035]

On 3/29/2018 at 2:24 PM, Brisketexan said:

Same suggestion I have for all you Boomers.

When you become 55 will you take yourself out? Is this how it works?

[TahoeHorn 107]

36 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My daughter is (with others) leading one of these walkouts. It’s an unexcused absence. That’s exactly what it would be for no free ice cream or abortion.
And yet there is no free ice cream and they don’t walk out to protest the lack of free ice cream. Or the availability of abortion.

Your point is dumb and your assumptions are false, QED.
 

Some school systems are treating it with penalties; some aren't.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

Some school systems are treating it with penalties; some aren't.

Weird, it’s like local communities do things locally.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

2 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

Because if they walk out to protest the lack of free ice cream at lunch there will be a price to pay that is too high. 

That's about the same. 

And Dear God yes, the ramifications of No Free Ice Cream walk outs sends a shudder to me bones. Good scout work!

[Jive Turkey 12568]

17 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Some school systems are treating it with penalties; some aren't.

But Hillary New York!

If there ever was ever a pro-life walkout, are you saying every school district would treat it with penalties? Because that’s absolute horseshit. I guarantee you several school districts in southern states, including your home state, would allow it to be an excused absence. Maybe we will find out one day. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Jive Turkey

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

But Hillary New York!
If there ever was ever a pro-life walkout, are you saying every school district would treat it with penalties? Because that’s absolute horseshit. I guarantee you several school districts in southern states, including your home state, would allow it to be an excused absence. Maybe we will find out one day. 

We have a lawyer from New York, and we fellowship with him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bad_teammate 13132]

12 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Personally, I'm not for gun restrictions, but the "old enough to die" argument is silly, IMO.

To you it's silly because (1) they're in the statistical minority and (2) they also lack other liberties. That is a pair of very shitty arguments.

The premise of the gun ownership right is that we need them to defend ourselves and our families, yes? A 20-year-old man in (or out) the military with a wife and kid should or should not be able to buy a pump-action shotgun to protect his family? Yes or no, very simple.

The idea that people want to take away freedoms not because it's a good idea in itself but because it gives the appearance of compromise is disturbing. When it's a blatant "I'll give it up because it doesn't affect me" move then it's just pathetic.

[TahoeHorn 107]

8 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

But Hillary New York!

If there ever was ever a pro-life walkout, are you saying every school district would treat it with penalties? Because that’s absolute horseshit. I guarantee you several school districts in southern states, including your home state, would allow it to be an excused absence. Maybe we will find out one day. 

I won't argue that.  But it would be wrong and it would get my criticism. 

But there is a difference between the New York school system and the Possum Hollow school system.  It's TV.  And people behave differently in front of the TV.  The problem is less likely in Possum Hollow, not because they are more fair minded, but because when there is no TV the incentive to protest goes down.  A lot.

[DixonHur 11171]

9 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

To you it's silly because (1) they're in the statistical minority and (2) they also lack other liberties. That is a pair of very shitty arguments.

The premise of the gun ownership right is that we need them to defend ourselves and our families, yes? A 20-year-old man in (or out) the military with a wife and kid should or should not be able to buy a pump-action shotgun to protect his family? Yes or no, very simple.

The idea that people want to take away freedoms not because it's a good idea in itself but because it gives the appearance of compromise is disturbing. When it's a blatant "I'll give it up because it doesn't affect me" move then it's just pathetic.

Bolded #1:

No, it's a consistent position I have across all areas.  I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population.

I cite the examples, because those were a couple of the things I found frustrating while I was serving.  

Along with paying taxes...I thought it was strange that we essentially had to help pay our own wages...but I digress.

Bolded #2:

Already answered.  I'm not in favor of any gun restrictions.  But my stance has nothing to do with whether or not they were/are in the military.  

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

No, it's a consistent position I have across all areas.  I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population.

That's a fairly disturbing way to look at government and its power. To say an individual's rights are less valuable because they are in a minority is, frankly, un-American.

I think all legal adults should be able to buy physical-interaction long guns (and cigarettes, and alcohol, and marijuana). Specifying an under-21 veteran is merely an attempt to take the temperature of Anastasis's argument and see how deep his conviction actually goes (it's Anastasis, so it's only as deep as the next "BOTH SIDES!" opportunity).

When someone's politics extend no further than their own door, and they're happy to "compromise" the rights of others (or, in your case, openly state there is no need to protect minorities), then it's hard to take them seriously.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

I won't argue that.  But it would be wrong and it would get my criticism. 
But there is a difference between the New York school system and the Possum Hollow school system.  It's TV.  And people behave differently in front of the TV.  The problem is less likely in Possum Hollow, not because they are more fair minded, but because when there is no TV the incentive to protest goes down.  A lot.

But what is “the problem” you refer to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bad_teammate 13132]

He is changing his argument from "kids walk out because they want to skip school" to "kids walk out because they want to be on TV". It's Tahoe; he's flailing.

[TahoeHorn 107]

51 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But what is “the problem” you refer to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

School systems that don't have a consistent treatment of unexcused absences for political protest - the point of the thread.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

School systems that don't have a consistent treatment of unexcused absences for political protest - the point of the thread.

Why doesn't possum hollow have a consistent policy? 

[DixonHur 11171]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

That's a fairly disturbing way to look at government and its power. To say an individual's rights are less valuable because they are in a minority is, frankly, un-American

Exactly which rights are being violated by basing policy decisions on majority rule...i.e. democracy?  And how is that "un-American"?

I'm really not sure what part of, my NOT being for any gun restrictions you're having difficulty understanding.  I'm pretty sure we're on the same side of the issue.  My point was simply that I think the "old enough to die" argument is irrelevant. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Exactly which rights are being violated by basing policy decisions on majority rule...i.e. democracy?  And how is that "un-American"?

You're conflating two very different things.

1) "Majority rule"

2) "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the 'needs' of less than 1% of the population."

The first is about voting majorities making law, the second is an outright rejection of the freedom of the individual. To say a man's rights are not worth protecting if he is in a minority is antithetical to the basic premise of individual freedom that is the fundamental basis of our nation. There needs to be a compelling reason to take that man's rights away and, "fuck it, there are only a few of you" is not a compelling reason.

[DixonHur 11171]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

You're conflating two very different things.

1) "Majority rule"

2) "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the 'needs' of less than 1% of the population."

The first is about voting majorities making law, the second is an outright rejection of the freedom of the individual. To say a man's rights are not worth protecting if he is in a minority is antithetical to the basic premise of individual freedom that is the fundamental basis of our nation. There needs to be a compelling reason to take that man's rights away and, "fuck it, there are only a few of you" is not a compelling reason.

I'll ask again.  What rights are being taken away by not making global policy decisions based on what 1% of the population wants?

[TahoeHorn 107]

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Why doesn't possum hollow have a consistent policy? 

They should.  But people make mistakes.  People with strong political biases are especially prone to mistakes of inconsistent policy.

Different government institutions are populated with different kinds of people.  Some institutions, like  media and schools, are especially liberal.   The military and law enforcement are more conservative, although the presence of liberals is permitted.

Some institutions are able to do a good job controlling their biases.  Most in fact.  The one I see going nuts is education.  Many don't understand the rules as I do.  The letter from the New York City school system on this issue, the letter from Berkeley following Trump's election, and the disparate treatment of offensive conservative speakers versus offensive liberal speakers at Berkeley are three of many examples where an educational institution dealt with an issue unfairly.

My school system also did so 55 years ago.  (They pushed evangelical Christianity VERY hard.) And they got pounded for it.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

What rights are being taken away by not making global policy decisions based on what 1% of the population wants?

It depends on the policy decision. In this particular case, the right would be the right to keep and bear arms as afforded to law-abiding citizens.

Jews make up less than 2% of the US Population. Would it be acceptable by your lights to allow housing discrimination against Jews since they are such a small minority?

 

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

... the disparate treatment of offensive conservative speakers versus offensive liberal speakers at Berkeley are three of many examples where an educational institution dealt with an issue unfairly.

Be specific. The universities in question spent hundreds of thousands trying to secure a venue for these Mercer-funded trolls.

[Bozo_Casanova 26277]

 

On 3/29/2018 at 2:33 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

There have to be consequences. That's the point. That's the power of protest and civil disobedience. People sacrificing their own well being for a cause by calling on a greater moral urgency. 

I led a student walkout in 1991, knowing full well we were going to get in deep shit potentially. If there hadn't been the potential for deep shit, there would have been no leverage on the school district to rehire the teachers they let go and focus cost-cutting efforts elsewhere. 
 

When my daughter and her fellow students were planning their walkout, she asked for my advice and I told her that the most important thing they could do was not rely on the school district or the public or their parents for permission- to let the people participating in the protest  know the risks and consequences in advance, and proceed with eyes wide open.

@TahoeHorn A little more on "consistent policies". In the 1991 walkout, the public got on our side pretty quickly. Turns out a hundred kids spontaneously marching up Ross Avenue in the middle of the day to protest teacher layoffs is pretty compelling television and made other kids want to come downtown, which meant several times that number showed up the next school day, not to mention something like a third (IIRC) of all high school students in the district not showing up to school. We love teachers in Dallas. 

A few district officials initially grumbled in public about who was putting the kids up to it, but that dog didn't hunt for obvious reasons. It's also worth mentioning that teachers and principals across the district didn't seem super motivated on an individual level to take attendance in a thorough and scientific way. Maybe their attitude would have been different if we had left to protest the lack of free ice cream, pervasive even in those halcyon days of plenty. The tipping point was in the third day of the protest when crowd control at district HQ became an issue and things became disorderly with police police present, and local malls experienced an uptick in public french kissing and mid-morning skateboard traffic.

Anyway, the district bent to public pressure, especially from parents, and ended up hiring most of the teachers back and finding other areas to cut. Kids who missed school got unexcused absences to the extent that their absence was noted, consistent with policy. The leaders of the protest got unexcused absences and a stern warning. The only person who got in serious trouble was a moron who hit a police horse with his car when trying to peel out at the stop light at Ross and Washington. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Bozo_Casanova

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Tahoe has brain worms. He can't understand context. You're wasting your energy. 

[DixonHur 11171]

29 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It depends on the policy decision. In this particular case, the right would be the right to keep and bear arms as afforded to law-abiding citizens.

Jews make up less than 2% of the US Population. Would it be acceptable by your lights to allow housing discrimination against Jews since they are such a small minority?

Now I'm really intrigued.  What part of my statement that there should be NO gun restrictions, is in violation of the 2nd Amendment?  If anything your statement saying "the right to keep and bear arms as afforded to law-abiding citizens," could be construed as unconstitutional since the Constitution makes no mention of "law-abiding citizens" in the 2nd Amendment.

As for your second point, let's say our good buddy Ben Carson made a policy decision today saying landlords can now discriminate against Jews.  If the Jews have a problem with that rule, then they can take it up in federal court. 

Neither the executive nor the legislative branch are legally precluded from enacting unconstitutional policies because only the courts can determine what is or is not constitutional.  That's why we have the checks and balances in place.  The only way to screw it up is to politicize the Supreme Court...which unfortunately seems to be happening.

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by DixonHur

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

As for your second point, let's say our good buddy Ben Carson made a policy decision today saying landlords can now discriminate against Jews.  If the Jews have a problem with that rule, then they can take it up in federal court.

I'm not asking the Supreme Court, I'm asking you.

You said, "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population."

I am asking if you actually believe what you said. Would you support legislation that allowed for housing discrimination against Jews as long as they were less than 1% of the local population?

[DixonHur 11171]

31 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I'm not asking the Supreme Court, I'm asking you.

You said, "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population."

I am asking if you actually believe what you said. Would you support legislation that allowed for housing discrimination against Jews as long as they were less than 1% of the local population?

So in your world there are only 2 branches of government?  How can you just discount the Judiciary?

Anyway, I think you've answered your own question. If I'm against policies that are crafted around the"needs"of less than 1% of the population, why would I support a policy aimed at a group who's numbers represent less than 1% of the population?

You're talking in circles.  Your original point was that an age limit for guns set at 21 was bad because 18 year olds can fight for their country. My point is that using the age military service members to craft a policy that effects over 99%of Americans who don't serve is a bad idea.

Not sure how that turned into a debate about Jewish housing, but here we are.

[bad_teammate 13132]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

If I'm against policies that are crafted around the"needs"of less than 1% of the population, why would I support a policy aimed at a group who's numbers represent less than 1% of the population?

It's very weird that you can't answer a simple yes/no question.

Would you support legislation that allowed for housing discrimination against Jews as long as they were less than 1% of the local population? Should a guy who owns a rental home be allowed to deny housing to Jews if Jews are less than 1% of the local population?

The question exists because you made a statement that I think you made in bad faith. I do not think you actually believe what you said when you said, "I don't believe in making global policy decisions based on the "needs" of less than 1% of the population."

Getting people away from their bad faith arguments can be very tedious and time-consuming, but if people started out being honest it wouldn't be so annoying.

[DixonHur 11171]

I'm starting to think you have a reading comprehension issue.

I 100% believe in what I said, and I have answered your question to the best of my abilities.  I'm unaware of any group of Jewish people lobbying for housing discrimination against themselves. 

Nor am I aware of any global policy  being considered that would only negatively impact the Jews, or any other group  that accounts for less than 1% of the population.

But if there were, I would be against it because...say it with me...that group would represent less than 1% of the population.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Should a non-Jewish guy who owns a rental home be allowed to deny housing to Jews if Jews are less than 1% of the local population?

Yes or no. Simple question.

[DixonHur 11171]

55 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Should a non-Jewish guy who owns a rental home be allowed to deny housing to Jews if Jews are less than 1% of the local population?

Yes or no. Simple question.

You realize that's an entirely different question than you were asking before, and has nothing to do with my statement about public policy, right?

But, I'm in a sporting mood, so I'll indulge you.  Assuming the property in question is not receiving public funding, I'd say yes, but it has nothing to do with the potential tenant's race, or religion.  I believe it is a fundamental right of property ownership to choose who you allow to occupy it. 

Similar to a recent case in Seattle that the judge deemed unconstitutional.

[bad_teammate 13132]

3 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Assuming the property in question is not receiving public funding, I'd say yes, but it has nothing to do with the potential tenant's race, or religion.  I believe it is a fundamental right of property ownership to choose who you allow to occupy it. 

Thank you for finally answering. If you're so uncomfortable with what you believe that you have to dodge straightforward yes/no questions you should examine your beliefs instead of trying to dance and dodge so much.

Cool, good, you believe that it's OK to oppress minorities since they're in the minority. Good, I have the information I need to figure out how much attention to pay to your arguments.

Thank you.

[DixonHur 11171]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Thank you for finally answering. If you're so uncomfortable with what you believe that you have to dodge straightforward yes/no questions you should examine your beliefs instead of trying to dance and dodge so much.

Cool, good, you believe that it's OK to oppress minorities since they're in the minority. Good, I have the information I need to figure out how much attention to pay to your arguments.

Thank you.

Finally answering?  I answered your original question twice and your most recent one I answered immediately.  It's not my problem that you're incapable of understanding even the most basic logical arguments. 

You've not once shown a concrete example of a minority losing their constitutional rights because of my position.  I'd love to hear your unicorn, sunshine proposal for a law or governmental policy that wouldn't have the potential to negatively effect someone or some group.  Some of us live in the real world.

Sorry for wanting to uphold the Constitution and not kowtow to special interests. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by DixonHur

[Brian Fantana 6667]

It's fun to hide behind the Constitution but...

5 hours ago, DixonHur said:

You realize that's an entirely different question than you were asking before, and has nothing to do with my statement about public policy, right?

But, I'm in a sporting mood, so I'll indulge you.  Assuming the property in question is not receiving public funding, I'd say yes, but it has nothing to do with the potential tenant's race, or religion.  I believe it is a fundamental right of property ownership to choose who you allow to occupy it. 

Similar to a recent case in Seattle that the judge deemed unconstitutional.

...this is an assumption, and a bad one. Perhaps for you and me, personally, it would have nothing to do with those things, but this type of discrimination absolutely has and does happen, so this is a pretty naive position to take. Seeing as this type of discrimination is explicitly covered under the Fair Housing Act, I'm not sure how you are claiming with a straight face that being part of a protected minority class is a "special interest". The case you linked is irrelevant. Obviously, landlords should be able to carefully choose who they rent to, but based on qualities that are not covered in the FHA.

[DixonHur 11171]

28 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's fun to hide behind the Constitution but...

...this is an assumption, and a bad one. Perhaps for you and me, personally, it would have nothing to do with those things, but this type of discrimination absolutely has and does happen, so this is a pretty naive position to take. Seeing as this type of discrimination is explicitly covered under the Fair Housing Act, I'm not sure how you are claiming with a straight face that being part of a protected minority class is a "special interest". The case you linked is irrelevant. Obviously, landlords should be able to carefully choose who they rent to, but based on qualities that are not covered in the FHA.

Did you read the entire exchange or are you basing your argument on the last one only?  Because if you'd read the whole thing you'd see that I was originally responding to the idea that public policy and laws should be enacted in order to exclusively protect one group of people who make up less than 1% (kinda arbitrary number) of the population at the expense of the 99%.  The Fair Housing Act covers WAY more than 1% of the population.

That's not the same thing as a law that ONLY protects Jewish people against discrimination, but still left the others vulnerable.  That WOULD BE a special interest.  And that's what I'm talking about.

This all started because BT said that having an age restriction (21) for the purchase of wouldn't be fair to 18-20 year olds in the military.  I think that's a weak argument because I don't believe we should base our lawmaking on the potential inconvenience of less than 1% of the population.  No law is going to please everyone.

Now, with that said, as to the question of whether a landlord should be able to choose his tenants based on any criteria he/she wants.  I say absolutely.  The question wasn't "do you think it's legal to..."  Of course I know it's illegal, but so are drugs, but that doesn't stop me from thinking they should be legalized.

I honestly believe that giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them.  There is a significant portion of the population (aka Trump voters) who will never see minorities/women as equals because "we had to work hard and they just had everything handed to them".  My belief is that economics is the best way to effect change.  It might be slower to get going, but I think ultimately it would lead to better results. 

Let's say Adolf's bakery doesn't want to make cakes for Bar/Bat Mitzvahs.  Pretty soon word gets out that Adolf's is anti-Jewish, so the non-Nazis in town start going to Jane's all inclusive bakery instead.  Others join the migration away from Adolf's because they don't want to be lumped in as an anti-Semite.  Pretty soon only hardcore Nazi's are shopping at Adolf's and, unless it's in Alabama, he eventually either needs to apologize and start happily making Bar/Bat Mitzvah cakes or he goes out of business.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Lol. You honestly believe the Civil Rights Act was the worst thing to happen to black people?

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Lol. You honestly believe the Civil Rights Act was the worst thing to happen to black people?

Yes, after a night out drinking with my business partners...both African-American...where explained to me why they thought it was.  I listened, and their argument made sense.

Both are extremely successful...i.e. multi-millionaires, and business owners...we're currently raising equity capital, and they are both super excited about this venture because they will "finally be running a 'business' instead of a 'black owned business'" 

So forgive me if I give their thoughts on the matter a little more weight than your "lol"

[Brian Fantana 6667]

You heard it here, folks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin was the worst thing to ever happen to black people.

Believe him, his black friends totally back him up on it.

[DixonHur 11171]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

You heard it here, folks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin was the worst thing to ever happen to black people.

Believe him, his black friends totally back him up on it.

Ooh, a snarky retort completely lacking in any fact based analysis.  How can I argue with that?  Oh, perhaps with facts...

No Progress for African Americans on homeownership, unemployment and incarceration in 50 years

But yeah, blacks are doing just peachy.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Sick strawman, bruh. Back it up with some more anecdotes.

[DixonHur 11171]

Huh, are you as retarded as you come across?  Have you ever presented an actual fact to back up your claims?  Name an area where African Americans have significantly benefited because of the Civil Rights Act?

I'll hold...

In the meantime...

Quote

But while the fraction of black families with middle-class incomes rose almost 40 percentage points between 1940 and 1970, it has inched up only another 10 points since then.

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by DixonHur

[Brian Fantana 6667]

You honestly think segregation and widespread racial discrimination was a better status quo? Jim Crow laws? The heyday of the KKK?

Edited April 3, 2018 by Brian Fantana

[DixonHur 11171]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You honestly think segregation and widespread racial discrimination was a better status quo? Jim Crow laws? The heyday of the KKK?

Of course not.  What I'm suggesting is that the gains would have been more pronounced if they were gained via economics and societal change as opposed to legislative decree.

Obviously we can't do A/B testing to verify, but I, and my business partners, think would have been better.  You can't legislate morality.

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

What I'm suggesting is that the gains would have been more pronounced if they were gained via economics and societal change as opposed to legislative decree.

Is that what you're very-real-and-not-fake-at-all black friends told you?