 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/6/2010 12:25 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> I think "reverse discrimination" is the idea that two wrongs can make
>> a right.
>
> The proponents claim that it's making up for past wrongs. Since
> economics (amongst other things) has a high level of hysteresis in
> families and cultures, by (for example) giving money to people for
> education who have families that traditionally have been unable to pay
> for education because of lack of education caused by earlier racial
> discrimination, you can get people back on par with the rest of the
> culture.
>
Unfortunately, it doesn't work, since the people involve are often *not*
interested in the help. Taking it is often even considered a betrayal of
their ideals, in some cases. There was a discussion on this a while back
on some MSNBC program, where the non-white brought in to talk about it
said, "We don't mind help, but we need to solve the problems ourselves,
and no one else can do it, so you don't want hand outs." It was clear as
mud as to what the hell she thought "help" would be, in such context, or
how you provide it, especially when the people involved flat out are
*not* solving the problems themselves.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/05/2010 5:29 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>> And yes, there are controversies over that. California keeps flip-flopping
>> between "affirmative action" and not. (AA being where you make it easier for
>> minorities to (say) get into college simply because they're a minority.)
>
> One of the most hilarious terms that some people use is "reverse racism".
>
> That term just doesn't make any sense. What is "reverse racism"? What
> people *mean* by that, and I'm not kidding a bit here, is when a white
> person is the victim and a non-white person is the perpretrator. As if
> regular plain "racism" was only when a white person is prejudiced or
> discriminates a non-white person due to his ethnicity. Just the existence
> of that term and the meaning it's used with is even more telling, IMO.
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> In the UK it is called ???positive discrimination???.
Which is an even worse oxymoron than "free speech zone"... :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/2010 10:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> In the UK it is called ???positive discrimination???.
>
> Which is an even worse oxymoron than "free speech zone"... :P
>
may not agree that it is correct to do so. And what makes "free speech
zone" an oxymoron?
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> And what makes "free speech zone" an oxymoron?
Free speech is the notion that you have the right to express your opinion
without restrictions, wherever you want and whenever you want. A "free
speech zone" in the US is a restriction put to certain protest events.
The restriction is that the protest must be performed within a well-defined
zone. Exercising your right to free speech out of that zone is illegal.
Which kind of makes the whole point of "free speech" quite moot.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/2010 12:07 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> And what makes "free speech zone" an oxymoron?
>
> Free speech is the notion that you have the right to express your opinion
> without restrictions, wherever you want and whenever you want. A "free
> speech zone" in the US is a restriction put to certain protest events.
> The restriction is that the protest must be performed within a well-defined
> zone. Exercising your right to free speech out of that zone is illegal.
> Which kind of makes the whole point of "free speech" quite moot.
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/2010 3:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>
> It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
>
OK then.
My understanding of the term is that it is a "zone" of "free speech".
As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.
BTW in the UK there is no such thing as free speech except in our houses
of parliament.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.
Yes, it's hypocritical to a large extent, along with the "free speech
permits" some places try to enforce.
However, I wouldn't say "free speech is whatever you want to say wherever."
You don't have free speech during a movie in a theater, and you don't get to
stand outside my house with a bull horn shouting that all sinners are going
to hell at all hours of the night, and you don't get to exercise your right
to free speech standing in the middle of the freeway (altho people have done
that too).
The "free" part is the content. You don't get to stand outside my house
with a bull horn telling everyone how nice I am at all hours of the night
either.
It really only became a problem recently because the concept is getting
abused now, because the government currently sucks so bad.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> However, I wouldn't say "free speech is whatever you want to say wherever."
When I said that, I was not referring to the physical act of making sounds
with your mouth. What I meant is that freedom of speech means that you can
express your *opinion*, very especially about things like politics (eg. to
criticize the government), without impediments. It doesn't mean that it
gives you the right to eg. trespass private property: It means that wherever
you are allowed normally to talk and express your opinions, you are allowed
to express *any* opinions, including critique.
The "free speech zone" contradicts this notion because it limits
demonstrations of critical opinions to only certain areas, while in the
rest of public areas you can present any non-critical view you want, even
visible ones (such as waving flags for support/cheering, etc.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
