Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[Conservative65]

When I say some, I mean morons like you that support the concept of protected classes.

You say you don't mean anything but the dictionary definition but if you support the concept of protected classes, you lie.

As usual, you're just making crap up.

Evidence of a weak argument.

As usual, you can't grasp something on that high of a level so it appears that way to a moron like you. You're lack of understanding is evidence you're uneducated.

 

[Conservative65]

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

According to you, which group/s have been given "protected class" status?

Protected classes are based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, family status, pregnancy, disability.

The first two came about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We both know that things like affirmative action came out of that and affirmative action related to race damn sure doesn't benefit white people because they're white.

Believe what you want but blacks, based on discriminatory programs like AA, have their race used to benefit them in getting jobs. So much for what MLK said about content of character. Maybe those supporting AA had to do so when they realized the level of character (i.e. - qualifications, education, work ethic, etc.) of blacks would never be that of whites.

 

[dblack]

No, because the group/s who are rejected, should have the same civil rights as all the rest, and should be fighting for them.

That's the whole point of the OP, equality for all.

But that's where the equivocation comes in. Saying that everyone should have the same civil rights is obvious. But you're equating that with "equality for all", which is a different concept.

 

[Correll]

The 210 point bonus blacks get for having black skin in ivy league college admissions is a fine example.

Not that it is credible that you have not heard these arguments before.

And this affects you greatly and aversly (sp). Is that what your argument is?

As nothing in my post expressed any personal involvement, there is no reason for you to ask if my argument is that it is personally affecting me.


My point stands.


"Civil Rights" has become reverse discrimination.

You asked for an example, and I gave one.

Do you have any counter, other than misrepresenting my argument?

 

[Chuz Life]

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

According to you, which group/s have been given "protected class" status?

Protected classes are based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, family status, pregnancy, disability.

The first two came about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We both know that things like affirmative action came out of that and affirmative action related to race damn sure doesn't benefit white people because they're white.

Believe what you want but blacks, based on discriminatory programs like AA, have their race used to benefit them in getting jobs. So much for what MLK said about content of character. Maybe those supporting AA had to do so when they realized the level of character (i.e. - qualifications, education, work ethic, etc.) of blacks would never be that of whites.

This reminds me of when I took and passed the postal exam for anew electronics tech position. I don't know how scores are calculated now but back then additional points were added based on race, disabilities etc. So it was possible for some to score above 100%. Especially if you were a disabled non white vet.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[MarcATL]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

My point is all the talk about "civil rights" is nothing more than talk - if any one (or more) groups of human beings can be rejected, disqualified, or are viewed as fair game for violating.

Agree?

No, because the group/s who are rejected, should have the same civil rights as all the rest, and should be fighting for them.

That's the whole point of the OP, equality for all.

What about those who are too young and or too frail to fight for themselves?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What do you suggest happen to them?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

The 210 point bonus blacks get for having black skin in ivy league college admissions is a fine example.

Not that it is credible that you have not heard these arguments before.

And this affects you greatly and aversly (sp). Is that what your argument is?

As nothing in my post expressed any personal involvement, there is no reason for you to ask if my argument is that it is personally affecting me.


My point stands.


"Civil Rights" has become reverse discrimination.

You asked for an example, and I gave one.

Do you have any counter, other than misrepresenting my argument?

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[MarcATL]

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

According to you, which group/s have been given "protected class" status?

Protected classes are based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, family status, pregnancy, disability.

The first two came about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We both know that things like affirmative action came out of that and affirmative action related to race damn sure doesn't benefit white people because they're white.

Believe what you want but blacks, based on discriminatory programs like AA, have their race used to benefit them in getting jobs. So much for what MLK said about content of character. Maybe those supporting AA had to do so when they realized the level of character (i.e. - qualifications, education, work ethic, etc.) of blacks would never be that of whites.

This reminds me of when I took and passed the postal exam for anew electronics tech position. I don't know how scores are calculated now but back then additional points were added based on race, disabilities etc. So it was possible for some to score above 100%. Especially if you were a disabled non white vet.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Do you believe that vets should be rewarded those extra points?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

The 210 point bonus blacks get for having black skin in ivy league college admissions is a fine example.

Not that it is credible that you have not heard these arguments before.

And this affects you greatly and aversly (sp). Is that what your argument is?

As nothing in my post expressed any personal involvement, there is no reason for you to ask if my argument is that it is personally affecting me.


My point stands.


"Civil Rights" has become reverse discrimination.

You asked for an example, and I gave one.

Do you have any counter, other than misrepresenting my argument?

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I've cited a real world example. You've made an empty unsupported statement.

You fail.

 

[dblack]

We can have equal rights, or "equality for all". We can't have both.

 

[kaz]

Do you believe that civil rights needs more attention, or it already have had enough and it's time to move on?

Why/why not?

Move on, all it is now is a political weapon

Describe how it's used as a weapon.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Seriously? I'll go with the butt obvious. Read the endless leftists on the site who go to racism for every issue. We oppose Obama because he is black. Treating a black liberal like a white liberal, it's racism!

You need to open your eyes, and ... think ...

 

[Correll]

Do you believe that civil rights needs more attention, or it already have had enough and it's time to move on?

Why/why not?

Move on, all it is now is a political weapon

Describe how it's used as a weapon.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Seriously? I'll go with the butt obvious. Read the endless leftists on the site who go to racism for every issue. We oppose Obama because he is black. Treating a black liberal like a white liberal, it's racism!

You need to open your eyes, and ... think ...

It is not credible he doesn't know that. He is being dishonest.

 

[Chuz Life]

We can have equal rights, or "equality for all". We can't have both.

Right now we have neither.

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

According to you, which group/s have been given "protected class" status?

Protected classes are based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, family status, pregnancy, disability.

The first two came about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We both know that things like affirmative action came out of that and affirmative action related to race damn sure doesn't benefit white people because they're white.

Believe what you want but blacks, based on discriminatory programs like AA, have their race used to benefit them in getting jobs. So much for what MLK said about content of character. Maybe those supporting AA had to do so when they realized the level of character (i.e. - qualifications, education, work ethic, etc.) of blacks would never be that of whites.

This reminds me of when I took and passed the postal exam for anew electronics tech position. I don't know how scores are calculated now but back then additional points were added based on race, disabilities etc. So it was possible for some to score above 100%. Especially if you were a disabled non white vet.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Do you believe that vets should be rewarded those extra points?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Chuz Life]

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

According to you, which group/s have been given "protected class" status?

Protected classes are based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, family status, pregnancy, disability.

The first two came about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We both know that things like affirmative action came out of that and affirmative action related to race damn sure doesn't benefit white people because they're white.

Believe what you want but blacks, based on discriminatory programs like AA, have their race used to benefit them in getting jobs. So much for what MLK said about content of character. Maybe those supporting AA had to do so when they realized the level of character (i.e. - qualifications, education, work ethic, etc.) of blacks would never be that of whites.

This reminds me of when I took and passed the postal exam for anew electronics tech position. I don't know how scores are calculated now but back then additional points were added based on race, disabilities etc. So it was possible for some to score above 100%. Especially if you were a disabled non white vet.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Do you believe that vets should be rewarded those extra points?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Even as a veteran myself? No.

I do think vets deserve some special considerations but I don't agree with doing that through a point system.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[Correll]

Civil rights means having political/social freedom and equality. If certain groups are given protected class status, that's not social equality. That puts certain groups higher than others.

According to you, which group/s have been given "protected class" status?

Protected classes are based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, family status, pregnancy, disability.

The first two came about as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We both know that things like affirmative action came out of that and affirmative action related to race damn sure doesn't benefit white people because they're white.

Believe what you want but blacks, based on discriminatory programs like AA, have their race used to benefit them in getting jobs. So much for what MLK said about content of character. Maybe those supporting AA had to do so when they realized the level of character (i.e. - qualifications, education, work ethic, etc.) of blacks would never be that of whites.

This reminds me of when I took and passed the postal exam for anew electronics tech position. I don't know how scores are calculated now but back then additional points were added based on race, disabilities etc. So it was possible for some to score above 100%. Especially if you were a disabled non white vet.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Do you believe that vets should be rewarded those extra points?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Even as a veteran myself? No.

I do think vets deserve some special considerations but I don't agree with doing that through a point system.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

As a non vet who has taken similar tests? And possibly lost out good jobs on that basis?


I support points for vets. NO others.

 

[Chuz Life]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

My point is all the talk about "civil rights" is nothing more than talk - if any one (or more) groups of human beings can be rejected, disqualified, or are viewed as fair game for violating.

Agree?

No, because the group/s who are rejected, should have the same civil rights as all the rest, and should be fighting for them.

That's the whole point of the OP, equality for all.

What about those who are too young and or too frail to fight for themselves?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What do you suggest happen to them?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

To them?



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The 210 point bonus blacks get for having black skin in ivy league college admissions is a fine example.

Not that it is credible that you have not heard these arguments before.

And this affects you greatly and adversely (sp). Is that what your argument is?

Bluebloods, With Legacy Admissions, Sponsor Blacks Because Talent Is the Enemy of Both

Your snarky reply means you're trying to pull a fast one. It is undeniable that putting people in positions they don't have the best talent for affects not only those who rationally should be in those responsible positions, but it also affects those who have to suffer beneath incompetent superiors.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

My point is all the talk about "civil rights" is nothing more than talk - if any one (or more) groups of human beings can be rejected, disqualified, or are viewed as fair game for violating.

Agree?

No, because the group/s who are rejected, should have the same civil rights as all the rest, and should be fighting for them.

That's the whole point of the OP, equality for all.

Social Justice Warlords Should Have Tamed Their Pets First

Civil rights for the uncivilized is a contradiction. You can take them out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out of them.

 

[Doc1]

How convenient. I guess it doesn't matter when civil rights actually begin or when they should begin.

Nobody wants to talk about that. HUH

Please follow it through and expound upon the point you're trying to make.

Thanks.

My point is all the talk about "civil rights" is nothing more than talk - if any one (or more) groups of human beings can be rejected, disqualified, or are viewed as fair game for violating.

Agree?

No, because the group/s who are rejected, should have the same civil rights as all the rest, and should be fighting for them.

That's the whole point of the OP, equality for all.

What about those who are too young and or too frail to fight for themselves?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What do you suggest happen to them?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

You still haven't defined what you mean by the term "civil rights".

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The 210 point bonus blacks get for having black skin in ivy league college admissions is a fine example.

Not that it is credible that you have not heard these arguments before.

And this affects you greatly and aversly (sp). Is that what your argument is?

As nothing in my post expressed any personal involvement, there is no reason for you to ask if my argument is that it is personally affecting me.


My point stands.


"Civil Rights" has become reverse discrimination.

You asked for an example, and I gave one.

Do you have any counter, other than misrepresenting my argument?

There's no such thing as "reverse discrimination."

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

I've cited a real world example. You've made an empty unsupported statement.

You fail.

Rules of Order

That disqualifies him from debating.