RE: Is tolerance intolerant?
December 28, 2018 at 10:59 am
(This post was last modified: December 28, 2018 at 11:59 am by Angrboda.)
I'll respond to your post later, if at all, but off the top I'll note two things. First, you didn't provide citations for all the claims that they were requested for. And second, you claimed that Asian test scores were an order of magnitude better than that of black affirmative action recipients, not that it is only a fair bit better than those recipients. So, first of all, you've moved the goalposts. And second, it's not clear that the facts in the Harvard case are a consequence of an explicit or even implicit program of affirmative action. More troubling is the fact that African-American acceptance rates being high is not necessarily related to the average SAT score of African-American applicants as a whole, so your citation doesn't even show us what you apparently think it does. The question is whether affirmative action recipients at Harvard have substantially lower scores than Asian acceptees, not whether the average applicant of Asian descent has a higher SAT score than the average applicant of African-American descent. It would appear that, at first blush, you have some reading comprehension issues.
So in the span of two posts, you've dishonestly and disingenuously challenged me to respond to your questions when you already knew that I had an interest in, and reasons for not responding. Then we get this scatter shot response which, from my skimming, seems to cherry pick what it responds to, moves the goalposts, doesn't answer relevant questions posed (the lacking citation), and provides a citation which doesn't show what you seem to be claiming it shows.
Needless to say that I'm far from impressed. I may go back and read your response, and, having read it, I may respond to your arguments, though if I do, that will come later. Probably after I'm done flossing my toes and picking lint out of my belly button, or whatever other higher priority tasks are on my busy schedule.
So in the span of two posts, you've dishonestly and disingenuously challenged me to respond to your questions when you already knew that I had an interest in, and reasons for not responding. Then we get this scatter shot response which, from my skimming, seems to cherry pick what it responds to, moves the goalposts, doesn't answer relevant questions posed (the lacking citation), and provides a citation which doesn't show what you seem to be claiming it shows.
Needless to say that I'm far from impressed. I may go back and read your response, and, having read it, I may respond to your arguments, though if I do, that will come later. Probably after I'm done flossing my toes and picking lint out of my belly button, or whatever other higher priority tasks are on my busy schedule.