Which is more evil, meat, soy, gluten, or southpaws?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Isn't gluten a Biblical sin?

There are those 5 cereals which consumption in any fermented form (bread, beer, whatever) is forbidden for Jews during Passover, and they all have gluten. Wheat, oats, barley, rye and spelt.

[Xist]

I watched "Hidden Figures" with my roommate and he said "Man! I wish that I was black in the 60s! That looks like a superpower!"

I briefly dated a gorgeous black girl that was way younger than me. She initiated contact and it seemed that I only ever had a chance because I did not care that she was black--but everyone else did.

Apparently, Northern Arizona University has special funding for Native Americans, and Native American applicants do not need to compete against everybody, just other Native Americans. I know a young lady in a competitive grad program that says she did not apply herself while earning her Bachelor's and did not study for the GRE.

When I was at a convention in L.A. there were representatives from black and female colleges. I thought that it was kind of funny that I had even less of a chance of being accepted there than anywhere else.

Maybe one employer does not look past the name of an applicant. Perhaps there is an actual reason, like only hiring people with simple names like Bob, Sue, and Lee, because their clientele struggle with names. Maybe they leave burning crosses in people's yards. I honestly do not know.

If a company needs an employee that speaks Spanish, are they wrong to hire a native speaker? What if some verbose gringo speaks better Spanish?

Maybe a company sees better results sending employees of one race or ethnicity into certain neighborhoods than others. Not sending a black individual into a rich white neighborhood is racist, but not sending a white guy into a poor black neighborhood is smart?

Some people discriminate against certain people. Others may favor them. Does it balance out? Not for this guy: Surprise man charged with DUI; documents show drug recognition experts said no impairment present - ABC15 Arizona

[Surprise is a city near Phoenix]

What do we do?

[Ecky]

Clearly it's a complex problem. Would that equal treatment for everyone was also fair.

[Xist]

Perhaps the reason that special education is the first example of fair, not equal has something to do with my thirty year-old autistic brother and the fact that I have worked with individuals with special needs for most of my life. Who knows?

From a purely academic standpoint, one could argue special education should only invest an amount less than or equal to the financial return.

Special needs kids can be expensive.

I have never heard anyone argue we should stop funding things like my job and I hope nobody ever brings it up.

Now, to bring balance to the Force: Cop Holds on to Dangling Van to Save Driver

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Xist

Are love crimes better than hate crimes?

Not touching that one.

Originally Posted by Ecky

EDIT: I suppose it's hard to come to a consensus on what's fair, if you're not going to insist on equal treatment for everyone.

It's gets easier if you choose equality of opportunity over equality of outcome.

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then
I'm younger than that now.

Robt. Zimmerman

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/mybackpages.html

It's hard to pick a verse, I went with the last one. I didn't download this PDF, but the title is on-topic:

https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu:Equality, I Spoke That Word/ As If a Wedding Vow: Mental Disability Law and How We Treat Marginalized Persons

I have never heard anyone argue we should stop funding things like my job and I hope nobody ever brings it up.

That was Ronald Reagan. He be dead now.

[Xist]

IN a final admission of defeat, Terrel H. Bell, the Secretary of Education, recently withdrew the Reagan A dministration's most controversial changes to the regulations g overning education for the handicapped. ''Repeatedly,'' he said, ' 'we have heard from mothers how they've struggled to have their c hildren educated. In response to hundreds of parents, several of thep roposed changes are withdrawn for further study.''

You need to stop watching Fox News!

There is something seriously wrong with several of the spaces in that quote.

"Leave it to the internet to ignore the comment and focus on the typing errors."

I wondered what Turnip may have said about special education and found this instead:

"Those with emotional, physical, cognitive or sensory disabilities face a 43 percent probability of arrest compared to just 30 percent for others."

Thirty percent of adults have been arrested?

I definitely understand emotional disabilities being on that list, I was a substitute teacher for a while, and was put in emotional\behavioral classes several times, and when I drove a school bus I drove kids to a special school for kids like that, but the rest? Is that like arresting Sheldon Cooper for streamlining the cheese section?

[freebeard]

https://gizmodo.com/yea-not-one-of-m...ern-1768213562==>Transparent Wood Could Replace Glass, Become Coolest Building Material Ever



Somebody somewhere must have left this to an intern.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

Perhaps the reason that special education is the first example of fair, not equal...

Unfortunately (or perhaps not) the world isn't fair, no matter how you define fair. You can put your "special needs" kids in costly special classes, which isn't really fair to the kids who are isolated, or the people who have to pay. You can mainstream them, which isn't fair to the average kids who have their education disrupted. And what about the kid who breezes through all the classes? Is it fair to hold that one back?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Xist

Apparently, Northern Arizona University has special funding for Native Americans, and Native American applicants do not need to compete against everybody, just other Native Americans.

Maybe one employer does not look past the name of an applicant.

What do we do?

Native Americans are among the most abused group of US citizens. First their land was taken from them, then their self-sufficient culture was replaced with a welfare culture. The more "assistance" that is provided to a group, the less likely they are to "succeed".

I had a sociology professor skip the "culture of poverty" section of the textbook because it differed from her political religion. I studied it of my own volition, especially after seeing how opposed the professor was to sharing the idea with students.

Wealth disparity is a complex phenomenon, and the culture of poverty and welfare are not the only factors contributing to it, but they are certainly significant. Telling people they don't have it within themselves to succeed and giving just enough resources for them to get by deprives them of the confidence they need to try (repeatedly and continually) and makes them just comfortable enough to become complacent.

What I would do if I employed people or ran a university admissions process would be to hide the irrelevant information about each applicant and only consider the relevant criteria. That is, I would hide name, age, gender, ethnicity, religion from the application and admit the best applicants based on objective criteria. Anything else is actual "discrimination". Ironically, the only example of institutionalized racism, sexism, otherism I'm aware of comes in the form of affirmative action. If there are other specific examples of recent unjust institutional bias, I'm truly interested to be made aware of it.

[Fat Charlie]

Um, read a paper.

Many examples of institutionalized racism, sexism and otherism are hiding in plain sight. Sometimes they're not explicitly codified, but they can be clearly seen. Sometimes they don't bother to hide it and only give their policies the tiniest of fig leaves in legalese to make it look like something else.

Surgery is never as quick or easy as inflicting the initial injury. Pretending that a societal injury never happened is a lie, and pretending that it doesn't matter because it wasn't "recent" is a more damaging lie. If some remedies that were belatedly and halfheartedly given in the face of vicious opposition haven't corrected the wrongs, does that mean that we were wrong to try or does it just mean that we have more work to do and could use a little less pushback?