On October 01 2015 03:19 whatisthisasheep wrote: Is affirmative action racist against asians? when asians have to study twice as hard so they can score 500 more points the SAT than a Black or Latino student, it doesn't seem very fair.
Discrimination =/= racism.
Discrimination based on race = racism
True. Last time I checked though, positive discrimination was in most countries based on a group's living conditions and wealth, not on their race.
On October 01 2015 03:19 whatisthisasheep wrote: Is affirmative action racist against asians? when asians have to study twice as hard so they can score 500 more points the SAT than a Black or Latino student, it doesn't seem very fair.
Discrimination =/= racism.
Discrimination based on race = racism
True. Last time I checked though, positive discrimination was in most countries based on a group's living conditions and wealth, not on their race.
He's asking specifically to Affirmative Action which is specific program in the US based on race, not on living conditions nor wealth, nor any other socioeconomic factor (race is being used as a proxy for that). It would be much more reasonable if they actually used socioeconomic status.
On October 01 2015 03:19 whatisthisasheep wrote: Is affirmative action racist against asians? when asians have to study twice as hard so they can score 500 more points the SAT than a Black or Latino student, it doesn't seem very fair.
Discrimination =/= racism.
Discrimination based on race = racism
True. Last time I checked though, positive discrimination was in most countries based on a group's living conditions and wealth, not on their race.
He's asking specifically to Affirmative Action which is specific program in the US based on race, not on living conditions nor wealth, nor any other socioeconomic factor (race is being used as a proxy for that). It would be much more reasonable if they actually used socioeconomic status.
Oh ok, my mistake then. Well then yes, if it takes race as a basis and not socioeconomic status, it is racist.
On October 01 2015 03:19 whatisthisasheep wrote: Is affirmative action racist against asians? when asians have to study twice as hard so they can score 500 more points the SAT than a Black or Latino student, it doesn't seem very fair.
Discrimination =/= racism.
Discrimination based on race = racism
True. Last time I checked though, positive discrimination was in most countries based on a group's living conditions and wealth, not on their race.
He's asking specifically to Affirmative Action which is specific program in the US based on race, not on living conditions nor wealth, nor any other socioeconomic factor (race is being used as a proxy for that). It would be much more reasonable if they actually used socioeconomic status.
Oh ok, my mistake then. Well then yes, if it takes race as a basis and not socioeconomic status, it is racist.
Well it is slightly more complicated than I presented it, but that is the core of the pending SCOTUS case.
EDIT: Here is a brief description of how big an issue and why it matters: www.aei.org
Why are feminists and sjw's jumping over this commercial so much? Hardees has been marketing this way for decades but for some reason this commercial has received significant backlash in the US
On October 01 2015 04:28 Ghostcom wrote: Are you just trying to stir the pot or are you actually curious about these questions? Unrelated, why don't we have a Carl's Jr. in Denmark?!
I dont post these just to hear myself type. I like receiving objective third party opinions on topics I am interested in like the stoics.
Well you would have to ask the (I'm guessing radical) feminists why they are upset with that video. Considering there supposedly is an out roar, wouldn't you already be informed? I doubt the feminists literally just went "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH". But to answer: I'm guessing it is simply the time rather the the style of advertising that has changed - being offended and a victim has gotten in style.
As a SJW and feminist, I can tell you that my daily "what to be outraged at" email didn't include this commercial. We only act collectively world wide, so I don't think the outrage is real. We must be bullying someone else today.
On October 01 2015 04:38 KwarK wrote: I'm not convinced there is any outcry beyond the usual people who will protest anything to get search engine hits.
Are you telling me that being outraged at things on you-tube and other sites is a good way to get hits? You mean all those men making endless anti feminist videos might be doing for the money?
On October 01 2015 04:28 Ghostcom wrote: Are you just trying to stir the pot or are you actually curious about these questions? Unrelated, why don't we have a Carl's Jr. in Denmark?!
Despite what the commercial may promise, you really don't want Carl's Jr. in Denmark. Carl's Jr. is like an Arby's and a Burger King had a sad, bastard love child that is some how even worse for you than its parents.
Ironically I just learned that we actually have one - which happens to be located in the same city as the hospital where I had a 30 minute consultation with an obese family about proper nutrition which started with me explaining why McDonald 3 times a day didn't qualify even though you order from their breakfast menu in the morning.
On October 01 2015 05:12 Ghostcom wrote: Ironically I just learned that we actually have one - which happens to be located in the same city as the hospital where I had a 30 minute consultation with an obese family about proper nutrition which started with me explaining why McDonald 3 times a day didn't qualify even though you order from their breakfast menu in the morning.
Why is McDonald 3 times a day a nutritional problem?
On October 01 2015 05:12 Ghostcom wrote: Ironically I just learned that we actually have one - which happens to be located in the same city as the hospital where I had a 30 minute consultation with an obese family about proper nutrition which started with me explaining why McDonald 3 times a day didn't qualify even though you order from their breakfast menu in the morning.
Why is McDonald 3 times a day a nutritional problem?
Well, plethora of reasons really, but the most obvious is that it is rather calorie-dense and doesn't satiate very well. That is an issue when no one in the family, including the kid, has a BMI below 35 (and none of them were weightlifters).
Why do they even do that special breakfast menu in McDonalds? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just slap a "you eat it at your own risk" warning on burgers handed out before 12 am?