(01-13-2021 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-13-2021 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 08:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 07:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-12-2021 05:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The logic that I’m talking about is exactly what you laid out - that providing an opportunity for group X is discriminatory to group Y.

So your preference is to not provide incentives to support businesses run by disabled military vets, women, and minorities.

I believe that providing built in support for certain classes of individuals makes sense, as it can help create positive change in a number of ways. For example, by designating support for disabled veterans, there is a greater chance that their businesses are able to be successful and support someone who may have a disability that creates a barrier to entry for them in a number of fields (and thus reduces the chance they rely on welfare).

Also, why are you OK with preferencing small businesses over large businesses, if you’re 100% against the same kind of preference based on ownership?

You make a good case for being discriminatory, Lad. I wonder where that path will take you someday. Worked well in 1930's Germany.

Either you discriminate or you don't. I don't. You do.

Goes right back to my previous statements about how Democrats think doing wrong is OK as long as they have a lofty goal with it. I am sure they can rationalize cheating in the election the same way you can rationalize being discriminatory to certain Americans. It's all to the good of everybody, right?

I don't know why you think only handicapped owned businesses will hire handicapped, or only black owned businesses will hire blacks, but that seems to be the basis for your preferred discrimination. I think profitable, well run businesses will hire more PEOPLE, IF they have the money. Losing contracts based on your skin color or national origin seems to me to be a poor way to reward efficiency. But it is the Democratic Way.

If your employer loses a contract due to his ethnicity, and as a result you are released, I am sure that will sit well with you.

Yes, a government program setting aside 5% of the available contracts for women-owned businesses is akin to Nazi Germany. Christ on a cracker, what a horrible and absolutely outlandish comparison.

And your second to last paragraph is off the mark, in a major way, from my thinking. You veered way off course there.

The Nazis discriminated against [Jewish] businesses in favor of [Aryan] businesses. They had a lofty goal of helping Germany.

The only difference between that and the programs you favor is the contents of the brackets.

OTOH, if I were running Germany back then, NO businesses would have been discriminated against. Treat them all the same.

You favor racist and sexist programs, because you think they have a good goal. How does that fit with my second to last paragraph? Describes it perfectly, IMO.

You have stretched the definitions of racism and sexism past their breaking point.

So the Nazis weren't racist?

My definition of racism is the making of decisions about, or the forming of attitudes toward, a person or group of persons based in whole or in part upon their race.

What is yours?