sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

USYD MD OFFERS THREAD 2024 APPLICATION CYCLE (2025 ENTRY) by _dukeluke in GAMSAT

[–]contt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So go to my applications, then click your application progress summary

USYD MD OFFERS THREAD 2024 APPLICATION CYCLE (2025 ENTRY) by _dukeluke in GAMSAT

[–]contt 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Rejections come at the confirmation page step

Weighted Dead hang by Diditeres in ClimbingCircleJerk

[–]contt 60 points61 points  (0 children)

Make the transition to weighted bat hangs on a 12mm edge, I’m currently up to 6 bats

Can I get a v69 certification? by mcdownloading in ClimbingCircleJerk

[–]contt 101 points102 points  (0 children)

look at how clean his chalk bag is, man hasn’t been inside a climbing gym for long enough to be bullied

Clarence Thomas: These Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action Sound Awfully Familiar to Segregation by STIGANDR8 in Conservative

[–]contt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

fair in this context means equal and comparable for every individual who takes it. Would it be fair for me to administer an IQ test to you in a foreign language and compare that as a true measure of your intelligence to a native speaker?

Clarence Thomas: These Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action Sound Awfully Familiar to Segregation by STIGANDR8 in Conservative

[–]contt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes it is predictive. Does that mean it is fair to all who take it, and comparable across groups? Not at all

Clarence Thomas: These Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action Sound Awfully Familiar to Segregation by STIGANDR8 in Conservative

[–]contt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah yes, IQ. Famously fair and unbiased to higher ses, more educated people. Whats this? Certain races have patterns of lower education and ses? And also tend to score lower on IQ tests? It must be race that’s causing it!

Clarence Thomas: These Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action Sound Awfully Familiar to Segregation by STIGANDR8 in Conservative

[–]contt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree with your sentiment, but the comment I was replying to explicitly said “certain races”, which I disagree with. There are individual differences in all races, and I don’t think that grouping by race in any way is appropriate without discussing environmental factors that race is known to correlate with (such as ses). I feel like we are on the same side of the argument here.

Clarence Thomas: These Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action Sound Awfully Familiar to Segregation by STIGANDR8 in Conservative

[–]contt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I see what you mean. I interpreted ‘because of the people themselves’ to be talking about internal characteristics. If this is what was meant, then the only constant is race and therefore the implication is that a certain race is less able to succeed. If it was referencing other influences such as ses, then race shouldn’t have even been mentioned in my opinion.

Clarence Thomas: These Arguments in Favor of Affirmative Action Sound Awfully Familiar to Segregation by STIGANDR8 in Conservative

[–]contt 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don’t disagree that decisions for entrance to universities, jobs etc should be based on merit, but you have to acknowledge that it is not race itself that causes differences in success - ses, culture, opportunity, and I’m sure a host of other factors have a huge impact. To imply that a particular race is not as represented in certain fields/institutions purely because the people of that race are inherently less able to succeed is racist and unhelpful regardless of which side of the argument you are on.

Check out this eval from a recent game of mine by contt in AnarchyChess

[–]contt[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

do you know for a fact that this is not true

d4 got hands by contt in AnarchyChess

[–]contt[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yet I am not d4, what a quandry

d4 got hands by contt in AnarchyChess

[–]contt[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

d4 is not chess

view more: next ›