Government-Sanctioned Discrimination - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***tanked_as_usual*** · 06-23-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

Humans are more complicated than that. Testing is only one measure of a person, and it's not always accurate. It needs to play a role. For instance, if you got 98% on a test and someone else got 75%, you'd probably make the better commander. But, if you got 98% and had a weak and high pitched voice and slumped shoulders, and someone else got 90% an had a strong voice and commanding presence, I think the person who scored 90% might be the better commander. There are countless examples like that. You have to look at the whole person. I don't know of one good company that relies on tests to hire people. Tests are only factor.

I knew it......according to Patters, deep voice and broad shoulders takes precedence over intellect.........that guy will be handy with his deep voice when he explains to the families that his stupidity killed.......it'll sure make them feel better.....

Patters, I really didn't think you could come up with something this dumb

***Patters*** · 06-23-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanked_as_usual

I knew it......according to Patters, deep voice and broad shoulders takes precedence over intellect.........that guy will be handy with his deep voice when he explains to the families that his stupidity killed.......it'll sure make them feel better.....

Patters, I really didn't think you could come up with something this dumb

Yeah, you have to weigh everything. Do you think Einstein would be better than Eisenhower? Would Marilyn Vos Savant be a better than Patraeus? And do you really believe that someone who scores 98% is better than someone who scores 90%? Why do you have such blind faith in testing? I've studied testing, and even the people who create the tests and believe in tests don't have the kind of faith you have. Testing is generally seen as supplementary to other forms of evaluation.

Your faith in testing tells me that you do not understand what testing provides. In the best case it is a snapshot of a person at a particular hour on a particular day. But in most cases, the test itself has a standard deviation. For instance, on the IQ test, a person scoring 85 may have an IQ anywhere between about 70 and 100.

Holy Diver · 06-23-2009, 04:15 PM

do our mercinaries fall under these same guidelines?

godef · 06-23-2009, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Which exactly why we should judge them based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

The accidents of birth aren't noteworthy--it's what we do with our potential that is; what we put into our minds.

The bean counters don't seek true diversity--diversity of mind--they're just, well, bean counters, who want everyone to look, act, and think like Clair and Cliff Huxtable and their family.

This is where the enlightenment project, manifested in its present form as liberalism, breaks down: the abdication of standards.

Do you want to fly a plane piloted by an affirmative action pilot?

On the other hand, if you leave it up to the "good old boys", only whites would ever be hired. Is that better than working with quotas? Because in fact such quotas ARE NEEDED to force the GOBs to even take a serious look at a minority candidate. No, it's not a perfect solution, but thanks to the GOBs, it is necessary. The righties are the racists, we're only trying to correct a bad situation. And you are a hypocrite for turning MLK's famous words against EEO.

State · 06-23-2009, 11:22 PM

Here's a thoughtful, interesting exchange about the invidious practice by Lawrence Auster and Paul Gottfried, both intelligent paleoconservatives: Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants

Main thought: Jews blame white Christians; white Christians blame _themselves_, and wish themselves out of existence.