vault123 said:

koods said:

So we should give potential immigrants IQ tests?

---

No I just don’t think we should be taking people at random, and I certainly don’t think we should be taking MS-13 gang members, if you would like to retrace all of those steps.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Not sure you’re using mutually exclusive correctly.

---

This will not turn into mindless bickering. We will settle this with evidence.

Let's review:



Taking this into consideration, I think you can answer this yourself. Am I using it correctly based on this definition and in the original context which I stated it?

The Ecstatic said:

Either way, nobody is arguing for equal outcomes.

---

When you say nobody...There are these 16 companies. It is stupid how they "couch" the headline as the popular phrase goes here. Hiring and Pay are not the same, but Pay is obviously an outcome. The outcome of all of your life choices up until that period.

Hiring is both an opportunity and an outcome. Either way I think this would qualify as "arguing for equal outcomes" since they've made it their mission to discriminate based on outcomes (Pay and Hiring).

Let's get back to the definition though because I think that is where the crux of the matter comes in. When I refer to "equality of outcome" what I am referring to is the JBP definition which refers to "equity". Which from what wikipedia says is just "making things fair" which sounds great, unless it's the results that you think should be fair, which is what I mean by "impossible" here's a quick explanation of why it is impossible.

But you're telling me that "nobody" is arguing for equal outcomes. There is no way that you haven't heard of

What do you think a law like that is designed to do? Provide better equality of opportunity? By discriminating against who gets selected based on immutable characteristics that people are born with? It is designed to correct "systemic injustices" like all such rules and laws which disproportionately affect Asians believe it or not.

So when you say "no one" is arguing for equal outcomes I think a better way of putting it would be "no one is dumb enough to say they want equal outcomes across the board because its fucking impossible unless there's some existential crisis which no one wants in the first place."

The Ecstatic said:

This is just standard pablum for the people who think we already have equal opportunity. We don’t.

---

koods said:

vault123 said:

koods said:

So we should give potential immigrants IQ tests?

---

No I just don’t think we should be taking people at random, and I certainly don’t think we should be taking MS-13 gang members, if you would like to retrace all of those steps.

---

We don’t take people at random. Why would you even think that? Do you have a clue what you have to go through to get a green card?

---

Quote:

o enter the lottery, applicants must have been born in an eligible country. If selected, to qualify for the immigrant visa, they must have completed at least a high school education or at least two years of work experience in an occupation which requires at least two other years of training or experience.[18] They must also satisfy general immigration requirements, such as means of support, no criminal background, and good health.

---

ballsalsa said:

awfully trusting, aren't you?

---

koods said:

About the same as the average trump supporter, except the trump supporter isn’t bilingual.

The NUMBER ONE  predictor of whether someone was a trump supporter was educational attainment.

---

The Ecstatic said:

qman said:

Asante said:

qman said:

First world nations only exist by the grace of borders!!!!  So why in the world would I want no borders, so I can start living a third world standard of living?

---

We could have a world where no one would have to struggle like the bottom 80% of the world population does.

But you celebrate that inequality and kick downhill as hard as you can to keep them away.

---

So it appears you have solved world poverty just by eliminating national borders, why didn't anyone else think of that before?

Also, I don't celebrate inequality, what I do support is maintaining a first world standard of living for myself and my fellow US citizens. That means I value citizenship, national borders and sovereignty. I don't believe that involves kicking anyone downhill.

---

1. Plenty of people have thought of this before.
2. You absolutely celebrate inequality.  You just couch it in white supremacy.

---

The Ecstatic said:

They’re different, but not mutually exclusive.

As far as the white supremacy bit goes, qman has claimed on multiple occasions that whites are simply better at this whole civilization thing, that blacks destroyed Africa and would destroy Europe if they were in charge of it. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

---

split_by_nine said:

koods said:

About the same as the average trump supporter, except the trump supporter isn’t bilingual.

The NUMBER ONE  predictor of whether someone was a trump supporter was educational attainment.

---

lol sounds about right

---

split_by_nine said:

which state is that?

---

qman said:

split_by_nine said:

koods said:

About the same as the average trump supporter, except the trump supporter isn’t bilingual.

The NUMBER ONE  predictor of whether someone was a trump supporter was educational attainment.

---

lol sounds about right

---

Not in my experience, the most highly educated and affluent towns had more Trump voters in my state. That includes the town I live in as well.

All the poor and highly uneducated cites had Clinton winning in my state. 

Again, this was just my state, but it clearly shows that the generalization isn't accurate.

---

koods said:

qman said:

split_by_nine said:

koods said:

About the same as the average trump supporter, except the trump supporter isn’t bilingual.

The NUMBER ONE  predictor of whether someone was a trump supporter was educational attainment.

---

lol sounds about right

---

Not in my experience, the most highly educated and affluent towns had more Trump voters in my state. That includes the town I live in as well.

All the poor and highly uneducated cites had Clinton winning in my state. 

Again, this was just my state, but it clearly shows that the generalization isn't accurate.

---

It’s not a generalization. The difference between college educated trump vs Clinton voters was 40%. All urban areas are liberal leaning but they are also much more highly educated. Wealthy low educated area, which I suspect you are actually in, voted for trump

---

koods said:

The bigger the trump sign the lower the IQ

The richest part of your town are only 1-5 million? You must be in the middle of nowhere.

---