I have a question for all the equality proponents.

Suppose we achieve true equality--everybody is exactly equal, neglecting for the sake of discussion the near impossibility of achieving that. Where then is incentive to achieve, to innovate, or to take risks? How do progress and improvements happen?

(06-22-2021 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you think that black people still don't face any bias/discrimination in 2021?

They absolutely do to an extent. But wow, I guess that rhetorical, edge case, non-sequitor of question has zero histrionics associated with it.

Again, and this point ahs been made to lad before, there will *always* be bias/discrimination/racism inherent *somewhere* and *somehow* --- and the target isnt exclusively one race.

But please feel free to pose that rhetorical question in all its glory.

It wasn't rhetorical at all. He talked about how CK had never had any doors closed to him due to his race and I asked him to clarify that statement.

What doors were closed to him due to his race?

He was offered a college scholarship to Nevada. He played pro football. he made millions.

Has he ever been denied entrance into ...anyplace...due to his race?

I think few if any blacks under 40 have.

So put up or shut up - give me the doors that were closed.

Your faith will not do - I want facts.

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you think that black people still don't face any bias/discrimination in 2021?

They absolutely do to an extent. But wow, I guess that rhetorical, edge case, non-sequitor of question has zero histrionics associated with it.

Again, and this point ahs been made to lad before, there will *always* be bias/discrimination/racism inherent *somewhere* and *somehow* --- and the target isnt exclusively one race.

But please feel free to pose that rhetorical question in all its glory.

It wasn't rhetorical at all. He talked about how CK had never had any doors closed to him due to his race and I asked him to clarify that statement.

What doors were closed to him due to his race?

He was offered a college scholarship to Nevada. He played pro football. he made millions.

Has he ever been denied entrance into ...anyplace...due to his race?

I think few if any blacks under 40 have.

So put up or shut up - give me the doors that were closed.

Your faith will not do - I want facts.

I can't give you facts specific to CK as I don't know him.

I'm close to more than one black person under the age of 50 who has dealt with plenty of racism/microaggressions over the years.

Let's talk (again) about the study that looked at hiring people with white-sounding vs. black-sounding names. Do you not think that type of bias will cause some doors to shut? Will that sort of unconscious bias lead to some inequalities in our society?

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you think that black people still don't face any bias/discrimination in 2021?

They absolutely do to an extent. But wow, I guess that rhetorical, edge case, non-sequitor of question has zero histrionics associated with it.

Again, and this point ahs been made to lad before, there will *always* be bias/discrimination/racism inherent *somewhere* and *somehow* --- and the target isnt exclusively one race.

But please feel free to pose that rhetorical question in all its glory.

It wasn't rhetorical at all. He talked about how CK had never had any doors closed to him due to his race and I asked him to clarify that statement.

What doors were closed to him due to his race?

He was offered a college scholarship to Nevada. He played pro football. he made millions.

Has he ever been denied entrance into ...anyplace...due to his race?

I think few if any blacks under 40 have.

So put up or shut up - give me the doors that were closed.

Your faith will not do - I want facts.

Wait, we're talking physical doors as opposed to metaphorical doors?

If we are, August didn't have its first black member until 1990 - 31 years ago.

(06-22-2021 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you think that black people still don't face any bias/discrimination in 2021?

They absolutely do to an extent. But wow, I guess that rhetorical, edge case, non-sequitor of question has zero histrionics associated with it.

Again, and this point ahs been made to lad before, there will *always* be bias/discrimination/racism inherent *somewhere* and *somehow* --- and the target isnt exclusively one race.

But please feel free to pose that rhetorical question in all its glory.

It wasn't rhetorical at all. He talked about how CK had never had any doors closed to him due to his race and I asked him to clarify that statement.

What doors were closed to him due to his race?

He was offered a college scholarship to Nevada. He played pro football. he made millions.

Has he ever been denied entrance into ...anyplace...due to his race?

I think few if any blacks under 40 have.

So put up or shut up - give me the doors that were closed.

Your faith will not do - I want facts.

I can't give you facts specific to CK as I don't know him.

I'm close to more than one black person under the age of 50 who has dealt with plenty of racism/microaggressions over the years.

Let's talk (again) about the study that looked at hiring people with white-sounding vs. black-sounding names. Do you not think that type of bias will cause some doors to shut? Will that sort of unconscious bias lead to some inequalities in our society?

Microaggression? Are those the ones where somebody looked at him funny? Or at least, he thought they did?

Oooh, such an oppressive country.

Well I clarified, and you changed the age to 50 and changed it to other people.

(06-22-2021 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:50 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-22-2021 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  They absolutely do to an extent. But wow, I guess that rhetorical, edge case, non-sequitor of question has zero histrionics associated with it.

Again, and this point ahs been made to lad before, there will *always* be bias/discrimination/racism inherent *somewhere* and *somehow* --- and the target isnt exclusively one race.

But please feel free to pose that rhetorical question in all its glory.

It wasn't rhetorical at all. He talked about how CK had never had any doors closed to him due to his race and I asked him to clarify that statement.

What doors were closed to him due to his race?

He was offered a college scholarship to Nevada. He played pro football. he made millions.

Has he ever been denied entrance into ...anyplace...due to his race?

I think few if any blacks under 40 have.

So put up or shut up - give me the doors that were closed.

Your faith will not do - I want facts.

I can't give you facts specific to CK as I don't know him.

I'm close to more than one black person under the age of 50 who has dealt with plenty of racism/microaggressions over the years.

Let's talk (again) about the study that looked at hiring people with white-sounding vs. black-sounding names. Do you not think that type of bias will cause some doors to shut? Will that sort of unconscious bias lead to some inequalities in our society?

Microaggression? Are those the ones where somebody looked at him funny? Or at least, he thought they did?

More like telling them the only reason they were in a certain program was because of affirmative action and not because they deserved it. Or being pulled over frequently for driving a nice car.

Quote:Oooh, such an oppressive country.

Well I clarified, and you changed the age to 50 and changed it to other people.

Changed it to other people?! Did you really expect me to have intimate knowledge of what Kaepernick has been through? In terms of age 50 most of my black friends/acquaintances are aged 40-50. Sorry.

(06-22-2021 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  More like telling them the only reason they were in a certain program was because of affirmative action and not because they deserved it. Or being pulled over frequently for driving a nice car.

Micro-aggressions /= acts of racism. That's an entirely different issue. Isn't the entire point of affirmative action that because they DON'T (on paper, based on established metrics) deserve it (because we denied them opportunities for education etc)?? Is it RUDE?? Perhaps. It can also be true.

Hence the argument about wanting to help the kid from the poor school, regardless of race ahead of the 20th 'minority' from Kinkaid. The latter hasn't been denied the opportunity.. the former has.

The conversation about Kaepernick is more on point than I think you realize.

CK is a poor example of someone who has been oppressed, regardless of his race. iirc, he went to great schools, went to college on a scholarship and became a millionaire. The kid he likely 'bullied' because he wasn't as good at sports as CK was also oppressed.... MAYBE it was a white kid... 'white men can't jump'.... The guy who needs the support is the kid who didn't have access to sports, got himself involved in a bad crowd, made a childhood indiscretion that hampered his opportunities, and he lacks CKs exceptional athletic skills to allow him to close the gap.

That doesn't mean CK hasn't ever faced any oppression... I'm sure he has. Its just that as someone who had superior (well above average) academic opportunities and now lives like the 2%, he has greatly overcome it. MOST of the people (even in your example of 'pulling over people for driving too nice a car') sounds to me more like the jealousy of the 2% vs the 98% than 'racism'. Is it possible that it is ALSO racism? SURE! Is it possible that jealousy manifests itself as racism?? SURE! But is racism the driver, or merely the trigger? What I mean is, isn't it 'the nice car' that makes him pull the guy over? If he were driving a 2014 Accord, would he have pulled him over?? I ASK because it was you who suggested that he was pulled over for driving a nice car. If what you're saying is that a jealous jerk found a reason to screw with somebody, welcome to life!

How about the micro-aggression that athletes like me face when people assume that because we're athletes, we don't really deserve to be at Rice?? I imagine its only worse for minority athletes.... but it's still a micro-aggression. I have to remind people that I walked on... so I was accepted under the same conditions as every other student, and I was FAR from the brightest athlete on the team. This forum is named after a guy who clepped out of 30+ hours and scored perfectly on the SAT... and attended Rice on a football scholarship. He was about 6'5 and 300. You don't think people at Rice assumed he was a 'big dumb jock'? I had a professor who gave me A's on my paper until I had to miss an optional student 'lab' because of football.... I never got an A again from him. I also played in band in high school. I got ribbed by both jocks AND musicians.

My point being that NOBODY is guaranteed a life free of micro-aggression and race is one of many 'reasons' why people do it... That is not about equality... even if it is wrapped up that way.

And again, while certainly one could MAKE it ugly... mean it ugly... why is it oppression to note that affirmative action can sometimes accomplish EXACTLY THE PURPOSE of affirmative action? If someone is demonstrably the best person for the job, affirmative action isn't needed. Colin Kaepernick (Deshawn Watson etc) is a perfect example of that.

The best way to avoid being told one is an Affirmative Action hire is to be hired on merit, without regard to race.

maybe somebody needs to explain what a microaggression is. My understanding is that it is things like people looking at you funny. Well, I have been looked at funny. BFD.

I haven't been watched by store security, that I know of, because of my race. But I have had a gun drawn on me because I am male. I have been the target of muggers because of my race.

I really wish this clown show would get its narrative straight.

Actual quote here: BIDEN: "Those who say the blood of Patriots, you know, and all the stuff about how we’re gonna have to move against the government... If you think you need to have weapons to take on the government, you need F-15s and maybe some nuclear weapons."

Previously: A guy dressed like a Burning Man reject in a buffalo head and his motley crew of Red Dawn LARPers almost overthrew the entire government.

Now: You can’t own a semi-auto because the mighty government will nuke you into next week.

Even punch drunk, stoned, and wasted, you could never make this **** up.

After Biden's comment on ARs and nukes, I saw this:

AR-15 --- Schrodinger's Weapon. Simultaneously useless against a military *and* a "weapon of war that no one should own."

(06-24-2021 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After Biden's comment on ARs and nukes, I saw this:

AR-15 --- Schrodinger's Weapon. Simultaneously useless against a military *and* a "weapon of war that no one should own."

Not very clever, to be honest.

People say the AR-15 shouldn't be owned because of how deadly it is against unarmed populations (i.e. schools, movie theaters, etc.) not armed and trained personnel.

(06-24-2021 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After Biden's comment on ARs and nukes, I saw this:
AR-15 --- Schrodinger's Weapon. Simultaneously useless against a military *and* a "weapon of war that no one should own."

Not very clever, to be honest.
People say the AR-15 shouldn't be owned because of how deadly it is against unarmed populations (i.e. schools, movie theaters, etc.) not armed and trained personnel.

And what gun (other than perhaps a BB gun or cap pistol) is not deadly against unarmed populations?

And just how deadly is it really? Consider that there are something like 3 million AR-15s in circulation today, and they account for fewer than 100 deaths per year, if their only use is to attack unarmed populations (as some opponents suggest) then they are a damned inefficient tool for the purpose.

(06-24-2021 02:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After Biden's comment on ARs and nukes, I saw this:
AR-15 --- Schrodinger's Weapon. Simultaneously useless against a military *and* a "weapon of war that no one should own."

Not very clever, to be honest.
People say the AR-15 shouldn't be owned because of how deadly it is against unarmed populations (i.e. schools, movie theaters, etc.) not armed and trained personnel.

And what gun (other than perhaps a BB gun or cap pistol) is not deadly against unarmed populations?

And just how deadly is it really? Consider that there are something like 3 million AR-15s in circulation today, and they account for fewer than 100 deaths per year, if their only use is to attack unarmed populations (as some opponents suggest) then they are a damned inefficient tool for the purpose.

I was pointing our how shallow and rather unclever that comment was, not to try and debate the validity of banning AR-15s. Clearly gun control advocates are not focused on AR-15s being used against the military but against children, unarmed civilians, etc.

Do you actually want to debate whether or not, say a .22, is going to be more deadly in a mass shooting type of event than an AR-15? Or even a high caliber bolt-action that is more powerful but requires someone to physically chamber each bullet prior to firing?

(06-24-2021 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you actually want to debate whether or not, say a .22, is going to be more deadly in a mass shooting type of event than an AR-15? Or even a high caliber bolt-action that is more powerful but requires someone to physically chamber each bullet prior to firing?

No that wasn't my point, and you know that. My point is that any time you have a person with one or more guns attacking an unarmed population you have a major problem, regardless of what gun. The most deadly school shooting ever in the USA was with pistols, by the way, as are the vast majority of killings in the USA today. Please resist the urge to twist my words in future posts. Thank you in advance.

(06-24-2021 02:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Do you actually want to debate whether or not, say a .22, is going to be more deadly in a mass shooting type of event than an AR-15? Or even a high caliber bolt-action that is more powerful but requires someone to physically chamber each bullet prior to firing?

No that wasn't my point, and you know that. My point is that any time you have a person with one or more guns attacking an unarmed population you have a major problem, regardless of what gun. The most deadly school shooting ever in the USA was with pistols, by the way, as are the vast majority of killings in the USA today. Please resist the urge to twist my words in future posts. Thank you in advance.

You did the exact same thing to me - you started the "word twisting" by asking what gun is not deadly against unarmed populations.

It was clear that my point wasn't related to AR-15s being the only gun capable of violence against unarmed populations, and you know that.

I'm impressed you responded this way given your initial response to me.

Please resist the urge to twist my words in future posts. Thank you in advance.

(06-24-2021 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You did the exact same thing to me - you started the "word twisting" by asking what gun is not deadly against unarmed populations.
It was clear that my point wasn't related to AR-15s being the only gun capable of violence against unarmed populations, and you know that.
I'm impressed you responded this way given your initial response to me.
Please resist the urge to twist my words in future posts. Thank you in advance.

Not quite sure how I twisted anything. Sorry you took offense.

In future I will say whatever the f-k I want to say. Thank you.

(06-24-2021 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After Biden's comment on ARs and nukes, I saw this:

AR-15 --- Schrodinger's Weapon. Simultaneously useless against a military *and* a "weapon of war that no one should own."

Not very clever, to be honest.

People say the AR-15 shouldn't be owned because of how deadly it is against unarmed populations (i.e. schools, movie theaters, etc.) not armed and trained personnel.

It actually is pretty clever, my friend.

An AR is just as deadly against armed and trained personnel as unarmed.

Please do tell -- does the AR have different muzzle velocities based on the two? How does that hunk of metal do that? Or, how is is not as deadly depending on population? This is highly interesting. Please expand.

People 'might say that', that much is true. The veracity contained in that statement is pretty hollow, mind you.

(06-24-2021 02:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You did the exact same thing to me - you started the "word twisting" by asking what gun is not deadly against unarmed populations.
It was clear that my point wasn't related to AR-15s being the only gun capable of violence against unarmed populations, and you know that.
I'm impressed you responded this way given your initial response to me.
Please resist the urge to twist my words in future posts. Thank you in advance.

Not quite sure how I twisted anything. Sorry you took offense.

In future I will say whatever the f-k I want to say. Thank you.

Sure can dish it out, but not a fan of having the same thing said right back to ya...

My initial point was clear when I respond to Tanq's post - the joke was shallow and didn't make any sense when you actually thought about it.

Gun control advocates who focus on restricting access to AR-15s are focused not on their use against the military, but unarmed populations. So their position is not connected to their opinion on AR-15s' effectiveness against trained military personnel.

Furthermore, when we think about it, a weapon could be highly effective at killing/maiming a lot of unarmed individuals but not effective against military personnel. So yes, the hypothetical "Schrodinger's Weapon" exists, likely in multiple iterations.

(06-24-2021 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After Biden's comment on ARs and nukes, I saw this:

AR-15 --- Schrodinger's Weapon. Simultaneously useless against a military *and* a "weapon of war that no one should own."

Not very clever, to be honest.

People say the AR-15 shouldn't be owned because of how deadly it is against unarmed populations (i.e. schools, movie theaters, etc.) not armed and trained personnel.

It actually is pretty clever, my friend.

An AR is just as deadly against armed and trained personnel as unarmed.

Please do tell -- does the AR have different muzzle velocities based on the two? How does that hunk of metal do that? Or, how is is not as deadly depending on population? This is highly interesting. Please expand.

People 'might say that', that much is true. The veracity contained in that statement is pretty hollow, mind you.

I'm thinking much more about how military personnel can defend themselves - from body armor, to training or how to take cover or how to return fire.

Not just strictly the spec's of the gun - much more the training people receive in the military of how to engage in a fire fight.

(06-24-2021 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 02:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 01:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-24-2021 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  After Biden's comment on ARs and nukes, I saw this:

AR-15 --- Schrodinger's Weapon. Simultaneously useless against a military *and* a "weapon of war that no one should own."

Not very clever, to be honest.

People say the AR-15 shouldn't be owned because of how deadly it is against unarmed populations (i.e. schools, movie theaters, etc.) not armed and trained personnel.

It actually is pretty clever, my friend.

An AR is just as deadly against armed and trained personnel as unarmed.

Please do tell -- does the AR have different muzzle velocities based on the two? How does that hunk of metal do that? Or, how is is not as deadly depending on population? This is highly interesting. Please expand.

People 'might say that', that much is true. The veracity contained in that statement is pretty hollow, mind you.

I'm thinking much more about how military personnel can defend themselves - from body armor, to training or how to take cover or how to return fire.

Not just strictly the spec's of the gun - much more the training people receive in the military of how to engage in a fire fight.

I get it -- you are expanding the idea common across the use of any firearm whatsoever into a rationale to ban specifically the AR, and only the AR. Sounds fun.

And yes, the veracity in that avenue is pretty hollow as well.

But then again, the entire idea and ideal of 'banning assault rifles' suffers from that.