Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (1174)	12/16/2000 12:21:53 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 6089

OK, thanks. I'm getting a better sense of what you are saying. I'm confused by your 'sexist' argument. If a woman is "pro-life" then she is sexist? I don't get that. I'm unclear on the racist/anti-quota thing. My understanding of racism is a prejudice based on someone's skin color. What am I missing on this? I don't understand your 'hate crimes don't apply to homosexuals' reference. I don't understand how any kind of crime is 'better' or 'worse' than any other kind of crime.

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (1174)	12/16/2000 12:43:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

I maintain that he is racist because he is against "quotas." Affirmative action. Sure, minorities are 'okay.' But we aren't gonna give them any help. Hi. I got tired of trying to make sense of what the right wingers are posting so I though I'd look in on what's going on over here. May I suggest that racist is an awfully strong word to apply to someone who thinks minorities are ok but is opposed to quotas? Seems to me that that word should be reserved for those who dislike minorities on principle or who discriminate against or stereotype individuals based on ethnicity. Reasonable people can disagree on which, if any, legal remedies are appropriate to compensate current minority citizens for past discrimination. Karen

To: bonnuss_in_austin who wrote (1174)	12/17/2000 10:26:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

I maintain that he is sexist because he is pro-life. The issue is that simple to me. I submit sexism has nothing to do with it. If you believe that a fetus is an unborn child that has rights then trying to protect it is not sexist. If they people who hold this belief are assumed to be 100% incorrect with no chance of being right that would make them wrong but they could then be honestly wrong without being sexist. I suppose it would be sexist if they thought that unborn boy children diserved protection but not the girls, but I have never heard anyone state that they have that opinion. I am sure that some pro-life people are in fact sexist but so are some pro-choice people. I maintain that he is racist because he is against "quotas." Affirmative action. Sure, minorities are 'okay.' But we aren't gonna give them any help. I submit that racial quotas are racist. They are treating people differently based on their skin color. Whats worse is it is offical government racism, which IMHO is the worst kind. Tim