Online Now 2015

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

On this Board 83
Record: 3425 (1/27/2013)

Online now 2021
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Let's hear out the conservatives and ask questions

  • Dear all,

    I would like to propose an idea for this thread. Hopefully there won't be too much bickering. This is a genuine attempt at civil discourse.

    People can post questions for conservatives about their views on various political or social topics. Then the conservatives can answer and provide their reasoning.

    There's just one kicker, though - the answers/responses can't include "God", "the Bible", or any references to those things. Certainly one can reference personal beliefs, but those beliefs should be grounded in something tangible or demonstrable.

    I'll start the ball rolling with a couple of questions.

    - Why should homosexuals not be afforded the same civil rights as heterosexuals?
    - What benefits are there to individuals and to society as a whole for denying evolution?

    Ted Brogan

  • Ted Brogan said...

    Dear all,

    I would like to propose an idea for this thread. Hopefully there won't be too much bickering. This is a genuine attempt at civil discourse.

    People can post questions for conservatives about their views on various political or social topics. Then the conservatives can answer and provide their reasoning.

    There's just one kicker, though - the answers/responses can't include "God", "the Bible", or any references to those things. Certainly one can reference personal beliefs, but those beliefs should be grounded in something tangible or demonstrable.

    I'll start the ball rolling with a couple of questions.

    - Why should homosexuals not be afforded the same civil rights as heterosexuals? - What benefits are there to individuals and to society as a whole for denying evolution?

    - I have no problem with homosexuals being afforded any and all civil rights as heterosexuals

    - I don't deny evolution. I don't deny creation either. Evolution seems more likely to me, but I wasn't there, so I won't dismiss anything.

    Is that all?

    Compound 2

  • I would like to ask conservatives why they think it is okay for a business or employer to enforce a contract against an individual or employee, but think they have the right to ignore the contract as it applies to themselves?

    Madhatter536

  • Compound 2 said...

    - I have no problem with homosexuals being afforded any and all civil rights as heterosexuals

    - I don't deny evolution. I don't deny creation either. Evolution seems more likely to me, but I wasn't there, so I won't dismiss anything.

    Is that all?

    Same answers as his^

    Carolina Sparty

  • I would like to ask conservatives why a college being able to factor race or ethnicity into the college admissions process in a way that does not make it a disproportionate influence is a practice that must be put to an end but wealth and legacy being a deciding factor in admissions is ok (one top 10 school, for example, sets aside 30% of their admissions spots for wealth, legacy and celebrity and nobody says a thing about that)?

    Also, why shouldn't a college be able to give preference to an applicant based upon race or ethnicity in the interest of having a diverse student body as they would someone with a particular talent or skill, things that are often taken into account when deciding between candidates with similar credentials?

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

    Enrico Palazzo

  • Enrico Palazzo said...

    I would like to ask conservatives why a college being able to factor race or ethnicity into the college admissions process in a way that does not make it a disproportionate influence is a practice that must be put to an end but wealth and legacy being a deciding factor in admissions is ok (one top 10 school, for example, sets aside 30% of their admissions spots for wealth, legacy and celebrity and nobody says a thing about that)?

    Also, why shouldn't a college be able to give preference to an applicant based upon race or ethnicity in the interest of having a diverse student body as they would someone with a particular talent or skill, things that are often taken into account when deciding between candidates with similar credentials?

    Many people use the term reverse racism to describe the practices you are advocating for, I personally prefer the term racism for those practices. By giving preferential treatment to a minority is implying that minorities are less worthy and need extra help to do the things that people in the majority can accomplish. One of the most if the not most influential and prominent Americans of the 20th century once had a dream that all men can be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

    Also if a school has a certain standard they require for accepted applicants a person who does not meet those requirements would not be as likely to succeed as a person who met those requirements.It must be noted there are exceptions not all people who meet the standards succeed and those who don't still could as well just not as likely to happen. Why put a person in a situation where they are less likely to succeed? It's not fair to them or the applicants that would turned down because of the racist admission policy.

    A good example is why should an African american who comes from a good home with parents who are successive in their professionalism get admitted over a white kid who live's in a tailor, his dads an abusive alcoholic and the family makes a combined 30k a year and is also taking numerous government assistance?

    I mean I know plenty of successive and wealthy minorities just like I'v known plenty of white trash who didn't do anything with their lives. To imply that all minorities are unable to succeed and all whites are is just wrong, both factually and morally. And that's what AA policy's imply

    This post was edited by Duke Silver on 4/13/2012 at 2:13 AM

    Duke Silver

  • I saw this on the web. How do conservatives feel about these generalizations and stereotypes?

    Certainly the hard right has exhibited some of these contradictions. What do others think?

    http://i.imgur.com/KkHfc.jpg

    attachment

    Ted Brogan

  • Ted Brogan said...

    I saw this on the web. How do conservatives feel about these generalizations and stereotypes?

    Certainly the hard right has exhibited some of these contradictions. What do others think?

    http://i.imgur.com/KkHfc.jpg

    Well right off the bat #1 should be asked of our President, a Democrat. Why, despite promises of the exact opposite, does Obama continue to defy the laws of California by sending in the Feds to bust pot dispensaries/growing operations?

    And #5, INNOCENT Lives are sacred, capital punishment is both a form of punishment of the guilty and a deterrent to prevent future crime. I don't believe in capital punishment but those views are consistent to me

    #6 I don't think conservatives think that individuals don't have the right to form unions, I believe the thinking is they shouldn't be FORCED to have to join them.

    #7 I'll need further information. How exactly do the rich benefit from the poor?

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by fallenangle on 4/18/2012 at 3:59 PM

    fallenangle

  • Ted Brogan said...

    Dear all,

    I would like to propose an idea for this thread. Hopefully there won't be too much bickering. This is a genuine attempt at civil discourse.

    People can post questions for conservatives about their views on various political or social topics. Then the conservatives can answer and provide their reasoning.

    There's just one kicker, though - the answers/responses can't include "God", "the Bible", or any references to those things. Certainly one can reference personal beliefs, but those beliefs should be grounded in something tangible or demonstrable.

    I'll start the ball rolling with a couple of questions.

    - Why should homosexuals not be afforded the same civil rights as heterosexuals? - What benefits are there to individuals and to society as a whole for denying evolution?

    Good Thread

    Homosexuals should have the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

    There are no benefits to society or individuals in denying evolution.

    Gregoryspartan

  • Madhatter536 said...

    I would like to ask conservatives why they think it is okay for a business or employer to enforce a contract against an individual or employee, but think they have the right to ignore the contract as it applies to themselves?

    All contracts should be enforced equally.

    Gregoryspartan

  • Enrico Palazzo said...

    I would like to ask conservatives why a college being able to factor race or ethnicity into the college admissions process in a way that does not make it a disproportionate influence is a practice that must be put to an end but wealth and legacy being a deciding factor in admissions is ok (one top 10 school, for example, sets aside 30% of their admissions spots for wealth, legacy and celebrity and nobody says a thing about that)?

    Also, why shouldn't a college be able to give preference to an applicant based upon race or ethnicity in the interest of having a diverse student body as they would someone with a particular talent or skill, things that are often taken into account when deciding between candidates with similar credentials?

    If it is a privately funded university they should be able to let anyone in that they want. If it is a publicly funded university, preferences of any type are unconstitutional.

    You will have to elaborate on your second question. I have no clue what that 30% policy is or how it is administered, although my answer above still applies.

    Gregoryspartan

  • Enrico Palazzo said...

    Also, why shouldn't a college be able to give preference to an applicant based upon race or ethnicity in the interest of having a diverse student body as they would someone with a particular talent or skill, things that are often taken into account when deciding between candidates with similar credentials?

    because being of a certain race or ethnicity isn't a talent, skill, or credential. college admissions should be strictly based on who has the best resume/credentials to be there and not based on what skin color you may have been born into.

    spartanfan25

  • Ted Brogan said...

    I saw this on the web. How do conservatives feel about these generalizations and stereotypes?

    Certainly the hard right has exhibited some of these contradictions. What do others think?

    http://i.imgur.com/KkHfc.jpg

    It is unfair to lump all conservatives into the same basket and generalize about them, just as it is unfair to generalize and stereotype people of a particular race.

    Do all liberals share the views of Farakhan and Sharpton?

    Gregoryspartan

  • Gregoryspartan said...

    It is unfair to lump all conservatives into the same basket and generalize about them, just as it is unfair to generalize and stereotype people of a particular race.

    Do all liberals share the views of Farakhan and Sharpton?

    Right. I said these generalizations have been exhibited by the very hard right. Certainly they don't apply to everyone, but that is the overwhelming perception from the majority of non-conservatives (whether right or wrong).

    It seems like the conservative base is torn between the religious right and the true fiscal, small government right.

    But in the mainstream we mostly see and hear from the hard, religious right conservatives. Other groups within the conservative base don't agree with the current GOP leadership, which seems to embody most of the contradictory principles in that image I linked.

    This post was edited by Ted Brogan on 4/18/2012 at 4:48 PM

    Ted Brogan

  • but money and wealth is? Where you are from is? (geographic considerations are taken into account. A 3.8/2200 kid from Idaho will get into Yale before a 3.8/2200 kid from New York).

    Schools want to create a diverse student body with diversity meaning more than skin color, it includes geography, life experiences, an old, old wooden ship used during Civil War times, special talents, accomplishments, etc. What's wrong with part of that diversity being someone of a different ethnicity? What's wrong with saying "there are more than just grades we're concerned about" if the kid falls into the academic range and the school believes they will succeed? Remember, the law is that race cannot have a disproportionate affect on admissions but can be a factor, like geography can, but no connie groups are filing lawsuits demanding schools no longer consider geographic location in admissions.

    Hell, money, wealth, legacy, etc is a determinative factor in admissions. If 4 generations of Doucheington's have attended Harvard and donated substantial amounts over time, it doesn't matter if Winston Doucheington V had a 2.5/1600, he's getting in, yet the people who support that get pissed off that the black kid from Detroit Pershing who was President of his class and 4 year member of the track team with a 3.75/2100 got in over the kid from Red Bank Catholic with a 3.8/2200 and file affirmative action law suits.

    But, we have conservatives who are adamant that a minority can never be more qualified than a white and thus they file these suits against schools.

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

    Enrico Palazzo

  • In your example, how would a kid with a lower GPA and lower test scores be more qualified?

    This post was edited by MSUx2 on 4/18/2012 at 5:26 PM

    MSUx2

  • Gregoryspartan said...

    All contracts should be enforced equally.

    Like when Obama decided to break bond holder contracts and give ownership of auto companies to unions (who under contract law are not entitled to supersede bond holders liens).

    lars

  • Enrico Palazzo said...

    but money and wealth is? Where you are from is? (geographic considerations are taken into account. A 3.8/2200 kid from Idaho will get into Yale before a 3.8/2200 kid from New York).

    Schools want to create a diverse student body with diversity meaning more than skin color, it includes geography, life experiences, an old, old wooden ship used during Civil War times, special talents, accomplishments, etc. What's wrong with part of that diversity being someone of a different ethnicity? What's wrong with saying "there are more than just grades we're concerned about" if the kid falls into the academic range and the school believes they will succeed? Remember, the law is that race cannot have a disproportionate affect on admissions but can be a factor, like geography can, but no connie groups are filing lawsuits demanding schools no longer consider geographic location in admissions.

    Hell, money, wealth, legacy, etc is a determinative factor in admissions. If 4 generations of Doucheington's have attended Harvard and donated substantial amounts over time, it doesn't matter if Winston Doucheington V had a 2.5/1600, he's getting in, yet the people who support that get pissed off that the black kid from Detroit Pershing who was President of his class and 4 year member of the track team with a 3.75/2100 got in over the kid from Red Bank Catholic with a 3.8/2200 and file affirmative action law suits.

    But, we have conservatives who are adamant that a minority can never be more qualified than a white and thus they file these suits against schools.

    Despite your rambling hooha dribble drabble, I stand by my original comment. If a school is publicly funded it should not discriminate in any way for or against any group. If the school is privately funded, it is none of my business who they let in and why.

    Gregoryspartan

  • MSUx2 said...

    In your example, how would a kid with a lower GPA and lower test scores be more qualified?

    because GPA and test scores are not the sole arbiters of qualifications for admission.

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

    Enrico Palazzo

  • Gregoryspartan said...

    Despite your rambling hooha dribble drabble, I stand by my original comment. If a school is publicly funded it should not discriminate in any way for or against any group. If the school is privately funded, it is none of my business who they let in and why.

    so you oppose letting athletes in who do not meet the same qualifications as all other applicants? Who knows, when you apply your spot may be taken by an athlete with a SAT score 300 points lower than your. And, it could be a black kid! panic

    Besides, as a public, taxpayer funded institution it should be more inclusionary than a private schools, particularly as it pertains to in-state applicants (one of my big issues with UM). Just because you don't think urban black kids shouldn't go to college doesn't mean they don't deserve an opportunity for a college education doesn't mean they should be shut out when their parents have been paying the same taxes yours have to fund it.

    But I glad to know you oppose athletes being given special consideration and admitted with lower standards than non athletes. That is very big of you to say that.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Enrico Palazzo on 4/18/2012 at 9:00 PM

    "If you have the right to be offended I have the right to offend you." - Ricky Gervais

    Enrico Palazzo

  • Ted Brogan said...

    Dear all,

    I would like to propose an idea for this thread. Hopefully there won't be too much bickering. This is a genuine attempt at civil discourse.

    People can post questions for conservatives about their views on various political or social topics. Then the conservatives can answer and provide their reasoning.

    There's just one kicker, though - the answers/responses can't include "God", "the Bible", or any references to those things. Certainly one can reference personal beliefs, but those beliefs should be grounded in something tangible or demonstrable.

    I'll start the ball rolling with a couple of questions.

    - Why should homosexuals not be afforded the same civil rights as heterosexuals? - What benefits are there to individuals and to society as a whole for denying evolution?

    1. Homosexuals are citizens, heterosexuals are citizens. Citizens have rights, sexual orientation has nothing to do with those rights.

    2. There are no benefits in denying Evolution. There are no benefits in denying Creation.

    MasonDelhiGuy


  • Enrico Palazzo said...

    I would like to ask conservatives why a college being able to factor race or ethnicity into the college admissions process in a way that does not make it a disproportionate influence is a practice that must be put to an end but wealth and legacy being a deciding factor in admissions is ok (one top 10 school, for example, sets aside 30% of their admissions spots for wealth, legacy and celebrity and nobody says a thing about that)?

    Also, why shouldn't a college be able to give preference to an applicant based upon race or ethnicity in the interest of having a diverse student body as they would someone with a particular talent or skill, things that are often taken into account when deciding between candidates with similar credentials?

    1. Race or ethnicity should never be a criteria for college admission. Legacy should be an influencing factor but wealth and celebrity should not.

    2. Race and ethnicity should never be a criteria for college admission regardless of rationale.

    MasonDelhiGuy

  • Ted Brogan said...

    I saw this on the web. How do conservatives feel about these generalizations and stereotypes?

    Certainly the hard right has exhibited some of these contradictions. What do others think?

    http://i.imgur.com/KkHfc.jpg

    I am tired of generalizations and stereotypes. They fit and they don't. If you cling to them you become less effective and less responsible as a citizen. Besides, if you can't put together your ideas based on your own reality, you won't have much influence.

    MasonDelhiGuy

  • Enrico Palazzo said...

    because GPA and test scores are not the sole arbiters of qualifications for admission.

    But race, gender or ethnicity are a qualifications?

    lars

  • MasonDelhiGuy said...

    1. Homosexuals are citizens, heterosexuals are citizens. Citizens have rights, sexual orientation has nothing to do with those rights.

    2. There are no benefits in denying Evolution. There are no benefits in denying Creation.

    This begs the question, why do many people seek to deny marriage benefits to homosexual couples? And why do people deny evolution and seek to teach creationism in science classes?

    Regarding the stereotypes, what can the conservative base do to move away from these perceptions? How much of these stereotypes is due to misleading coverage and how much is due to the actual policies?

    Ted Brogan

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports