With The World Environment Day Conference.....

Disgruntled Customer wrote:


If you didn't have a history of past discrimination, you wouldn't found your future decisions constrained. Or do you really expect to be allowed to continued discrimination forever?


Speak for yourself. I have no personal history of discrimination and oppression. My

Boo hoo. There must be some reason for the administration to push a sub group on you.

Yes, there is. Until close to 200 years ago people in another country had slaves. It seems that I had something to do with that. Up until 40 years ago the country to the south of me had
segregated schools and other overt forms of discrimination. It seems I am also somehow responsible for that too. Previous generations in my country were reluctant to allow large scale
immigration of other racial groups into my country, but after reversing that more than 30 years ago I am part of a group that has to pay for past discrimination by previous generations here
and in other countries.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


Disgruntled Customer wrote:

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...

"Jack May" enscribed:


These meeting also prove one of my pet unproven theories that
beautiful
women tend to be much smarter than average looking women.

You got a lot of pet, unproven theories.

So do you, starting with the one that says if a group of people isn't
hired
in the same proportion as the population or applicant pool, somebody
must be
discriminating against them... :O|


It's real simple. You have two sample S and P. The question is are they
drawn from the population Q. If |S| and |P| are large enough, then you can
compute the whether S and P are both in Q to confidence level R.

If there's a high confidence that the samples are different, there
aren't a lot of alternatives. It could be 2/3 Congress and 3/4 of the states
were wrong and some sub-populations are naturally inferior. Or it could be
there was an unconscious bias and, having seen it, the company managers
being motivated to being better human beings will want to correct their
behavior. Or they could be racist scum that caught with their pants down.

Math doesn't lie. Scum does.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.


The problem comes when there is a rating of the applicants and a clear
difference between some sub groups.

Ah, the issue that DC chooses to ignore...

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Frank F. Matthews" enscribed:

The problem comes when there is a rating of the applicants and a clear
difference between some sub groups. When someone insists that you

Congress has decided that such things as a race, color, creed, previous
condition of servitude, national origin, etc will produce no clear, nor even
signficant, difference in any employment in the US, except for creed and
clergy. Why not explain to Congress why they are wrong.

consider the eighth to tenth over the second or third then I have a
problem whatever the reason. There was simply too much difference.

Racists can always find an excuse.

So can idiots - and BTW, hiring on the basis of merit is NOT racism...

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

I see your problem, DC. You're one of those holier-than-though,
hypersensitive assholes who thinks that any outcome other than what YOU
think
should occur in your little utopian world MUST be the result of
intentional
discrimination and bigotry. Apparently the concept that some groups are

It's not always intentional. Companies dedicated to EEO and AA because its
the Right Thing
use the mechanisms because they realize they could have unconscious
biases.

No, they are "dedicated" to EEO and AA because their HR and Legal staffs are
constantly harping on them to avoid potential lawsuits and government
sanctions by making sure they keep a paper trail showing they are going
through all the hoops. BTW, that INCLUDES putting qualified job candidates
that they would otherwise be happy to hire right away on "hold" until they
can shop around for more "minorities" to keep people such as yourself from
whining and crying. Thanks for sharing that you have NO clue how the real
world works...

Everyone has their prejudices.

And you're no exception...

"underrepresented" because perhaps they are not as likely to have the
skills
or training to land a particular job is too much for your little
one-track
mind to handle. :O(

The difference whether you control your prejudices, or they control you.

I guess being prejudiced against people who are not qualified is wrong, so
in essence you're arguing that competence should not be used as a criteria
for hiring, right?

Your "concept" is explicitly racist.

YOUR concept is definitely idiotic. You ignore the fact that there are
different levels of aptitudes, abilities, and even interest in given areas
among different groups, then scream "racism" when the outcome isn't
"representative". We once had an administrator at a community college who
had a similar mentality to yours. She decried that blacks were
"underrepresented" in students transferring to math and science programs in
the UC and CSU systems, and one of the instructors asked her how she
expected 12% of the students accepted to these schools to be black when only
2-3% of the students in those programs were black to begin with? I recall
that out of nearly 1000 students in the natural sciences department
(Chemistry, Physics, Biology) there were maybe a dozen black students - and
half of those were Africans. Fact of the matter was that black students
simply weren't intrested in that academic track, despite the effort of the
CC to offer all sorts of minority "outreach" programs to minorities.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Jack May" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...

I've heard evidence like this before. It's the same evidence that
blacks
can't be intelligent. I am amazed, though, at your ability to keep
talking
with your boots jammed all the way down your esophagus.

I assumed some one would take a cheap shot by playing the race card to
try
and squelch an honest discussion and free speech.

I've noticed this new tactic among bigots over the last....well, since
Bush was selected.

Nice to know that you Lefties haven't changed - you're still a bunch of
bitter, whining, malcontents... :O|

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Jack May" enscribed:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

Or it's indicative that the women may not be qualified - you're in
effect

And that ladies and gentlemen, is what bigotry is all about. Claiming
a
class of people is less qualified simple because they are in that
class.
Thank you for demonstrating how statistical evidence can root out the
scum
suckers.

More political correctness bigotry trying to squelch all forms of free
speech and discussion that are not PC. The only PC idea allowed is
that

Exactly where do I attempt to suppress your speech? You're the one talking
about censorship, so you are the one doing the censorship.

You're running around trying to smear everyone who disagrees with you as a
"bigot", and in effect trying to stifle open discussion...

everyone is born to be exactly the same with no advantages or
disadvantages.

Another nice bit of exaggeration and diversion there. Nobody claims
everyone is born exactly the same. But only bigots only claim that certain
classes of people are inherently inferior due to irrelevant physical
features.

Yet nobody claimed that, retard. What was pointed out is that there are
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT variations among GROUPS in the areas of talent,
aptitude, and abilities, often due to ENVIRONMENTAL and CULTURAL factors -
how many Puerto Rican Iditarod champions, or Eskimo salsa musicians, do you
personally know of? Are the owners of Latin dance clubs racist because they
employ more Puerto Ricans, Colombians, and Cubans then Eskimos, Aleuts, or
Inuits? Or are they hiring from a talent pool that happens to be
"overrrepresented" in some groups and "underrepresented" in others?

BTW, in business you are constantly being judged by you strength and
weaknesses to do your job and to be promoted. Those weakness and
strength
are commonly discussed by decision makers for individuals If you don't
understand that, you are living in a total fantasy world.

And those strengths and weaknesses are distributed randomly throughout the
population, occurring equally likely regardless of race, color, creed,
country of origin, or previous state of servitude.

Bull****.

That means if a company is being fair the distribution of promotions will
show no bias towards race, color, creed, etc.

If it is fair, it will ignore the protestations of retards such as yourself
and hire in INDIVIDUAL competence instead.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...

The problem comes when there is a rating of the applicants and a clear
difference between some sub groups.

Ah, the issue that DC chooses to ignore...

Why not explain it to Congress and get them to change the law?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

So can idiots - and BTW, hiring on the basis of merit is NOT racism...

According to Congress merit does not coincide to race, color, creed, national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc. Which means that if hiring practice do indeed hire solely on merit, the distribution of employees will match the distribution of candidates. And that affirmative action will be unnecessary.

So if the distributions do not match, then to a computable confidence the hiring is not fair. This is all elementary logic, which undoubtedly why you cannot follow it.

Do you really believe employers should be allowed to continue unfair hiring practices in defiance of the law?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

that they would otherwise be happy to hire right away on "hold" until they

Which often happen to be people who look like them. Hence the problem.

can shop around for more "minorities" to keep people such as yourself from

God forbid you consider all qualified candidates instead of just the ones that look like you.

I guess being prejudiced against people who are not qualified is wrong, so

How come people who don't look like you are never qualified?

YOUR concept is definitely idiotic. You ignore the fact that there are
different levels of aptitudes, abilities, and even interest in given areas
among different groups, then scream "racism" when the outcome isn't

Congress doesn't agree with you. The only people who agree with you are other bigots.

"representative". We once had an administrator at a community college who

Colleges face a different situation than employers. You keep diverting by bringing up college issues to rationalize employment discrimination.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

And those strengths and weaknesses are distributed randomly throughout the
population, occurring equally likely regardless of race, color, creed,
country of origin, or previous state of servitude.

Bull****.

And that is the creed of the racist. Thanks.


--
Feh. Mad as heck.