Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

You might want to forget about them, because they don't exist.

Dvergar /
Quisling

um yeah, they do. quotas exist.

I don't think he's questioning the quotas. I think he means that tax breaks for those don't exist.

buisnesses get incentives for hiring X amount of minorities and women.

http://www.wolterskluwer.com/Press/Late ... p2011.aspx



http://www.ehow.com/how_8060183_become- ... iness.html



Bam. That's victimization. "You stand an increased chance of losing if you are not a woman." "If you have boobs, you get free stuff, if you have a dick, you don't, but have to compete head-to-head against those that do, whose free stuff is paid for with the taxes you pay."

Dvergar is either ignorant or brainwashed or both. He says one thing, the facts say something else. What is really the kicker is how he talks down to people even though he's provably ignorant and wrong.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I said there are no tax breaks for hiring women and minorities based on their sex/race. That is true. I said nothing regarding woman-owned businesses, you're straw-manning.

Likewise when the argument was alimony (and I was sure to be specific of the argument) and you were shown to be wrong, you changed the subject to act as though the argument was about custody instead (you being the general opposition this time, not Aestu specifically).



Funny you should use those words because:



Actually, I am questioning the quotas, because they don't exist either. They're right-wing rhetoric trotted out in the early 90s to scare white people.

Quotas could be used in specific cases of hiring racism (SC: US v Paradise) , but were ruled unconstitutional when used to correct a perceived imbalance (SC: Richmond v. Croson)

Businesses often have diversity plans which may include efforts to hire a certain percentage of minorities, but that's entirely the decision of the private business.

But hey, you guys just keep spouting the same shit you've heard but never bothered to research.

p.s. nice google

Dvergar /
Quisling

So you think that "diversity plans" don't involve quotas? How about minority scholarships? Are those fair too? HEY WE NEED MORE PEOPLE OF ARBITRARY RACE AND OR GENDER? It wasn't ok when it was white males. it's not ok when it's X/Y's. That's equality.

Don't forget the differences in domestic violence issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

even though half of all domestic violence is women beating men:
http://www.eworldwire.com/pressrelease/17670

not to mention that a man accused of rape is treated by society as guilty until proven innocent, you all might not remember the duke lacrosse bullshit but it was big news around here. Plus, almost half of all rape accusations are false.

http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php

Frankly I'm surprised you haven't been called a white knight by aestu yet, dvergar. I'm sure its coming though.

Quota =/= statutory 51%?

And no, the fact that male alimony is theoretically possible doesn't change the fact that it's forbiddingly rare due to bias, just like blacks voting under Jim Crow. Being obtuse is not the same as proving something.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Diversity plans aren't government mandated quotas.



Colleges (state funded institutions) don't give out scholarships based on race, private institutions are able to use whatever criteria they want to.

As to the rest of your unrelated diarrhea:

You should read the links you provide. You mention vawa, but offer no criticism of the act and show no understanding of what it does. Your ignorance becomes clearer when you mention men being abused, as if the fact that men are more likely to choose not to report abuse means we shouldn't offer mechanisms to protect both sexes.

Your rape statistics are also misleading, given that the link you provided didn't show 50% false accusations. This is without considering the estimated 60% of cases that are never reported to begin with.




Men are significantly less likely to ask for alimony, on top of the fact that there are less men who qualify. All you've done is make up percentages and claim bias with no support. Try harder.

Dvergar /
Quisling

So in other words, it's men's fault they don't ask the impossible?

You haven't cited a single fact in this thread (or most others) than a few court decisions that are irrelevant because they are easily circumvented through minor changes in wording. Everyone else has cited direct quotes from current and relevant documents and our own experiences.

Oh yes, and doing what most self-serving bureaucrats do when they're trying to make some disingenuous claim, officiously throwing around random terms and acronyms, instead of proving claims with facts and logic. It's a variation of the Chewbacca defense: random eclectic facts followed by a circular assertion.



BS. See what I posted on page one. Whether you want to call it a "scholarship" or something else, it adds up to the same thing as women-owned businesses vs employment which is institutionalized bigotry and conveyance of wealth based on race/sex/ethnicity.

Besides that, many colleges have schools of "ethnic studies" or "black/womens/latino studies". The enrollment of those schools is overwhelmingly of that race and the faculty intensely and unapologetically hostile and racist.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

from the article on VAWA(as if the title wasn't biased enough) it says the government is offering more money to investigate and prosecute violence acts against women.

not men, not everyone, just specifically women. thats fair and unbiased how?

and again the article i linked that you didn't read.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/10/05/north-carolina-courts-odd-interpretation-of-equal-protection-clause/



tell me how that's fair.

You have yet to show a bias. Men are getting alimony. When more men ask for alimony, even more men will be getting alimony.



Nothing that you posted refuted my claim that state-funded colleges don't give out scholarships based on race.



Clearly generalizations are flawlessly logical. I took a few woman's studies courses in college, and two african-american studies (and a number of russian studies, electives are cake when you're an education major), I never saw racism, and the only hostility came out of actions of the past. My woman's studies prof was one of the nicest professors I had and was exceptionally un-biased when dealing with woman's issues.



Because that's not the reality of it. There were programs that were funded to research violence against women (which at the time was worse and more common than it was now), just as there were and are male based programs. Again, the act worked to reduce violence against woman, but in every aspect of that violence (domestic, date, stalking) the act benefited men equally. No domestic violence case against a woman was thrown out because some provision of vawa didn't apply equally. No matter what the bill aimed to do, they couldn't skirt the 14th amendment.



It's not fair, did the US SC refuse to rule on it?

Edit: And look at you USD, doing some reading and researching before just looking like a fool. This is a big day for you buddy!

Dvergar /
Quisling

Whatever you say. This is pretty much a "what color is the sky" argument at this point.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I accept your surrender.

Dvergar /
Quisling

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/24/the-feminists-guide-to-debate-tactics/

you're number 2.

Even though I'm not name calling or dicking around or anything like that, you still have to throw in that childish jab? I'm surprised I wasted my time discussing with you.