or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle - Page 26

post #1001 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Ya know they still have this entire group of schools that is very, very segregated and they don't even try to hide it. There's actually over 100 of them...

Which school exhibit niggardliness against civil rights by refusing to allow racial mixing?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1002 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.

Legal challenges are already being prepared, I think they are just waiting for the remaining 2 million votes to be counted.

What you say about 'the will of the people' is also correct. It goes without saying that we wouldn't be seeing the election of a black American today had the civil rights battles of the 1960s been decided by public referenda.

According to exit polls, age was a key factor, with the exit polls showing voters under 30 opposing the ban by a 2-to-1 ratio, while most voters of 60 and older supported the ban. 81% of UCLA students voted against Proposition 8.

The opposition to gay marriage is softening and as the closeness of the vote suggests, once the dinosaurs have become extinct it will be accepted
post #1003 of 1350
[QUOTE=solipsism;1335947]Which school e

Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.
post #1004 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.

That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1005 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Unlike in a game of 'tag', America is supposed to use the Constitution as our guide, and 'minority' groups, including homosexuals are supposed to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Legal challenges will be filed, and I think these anti-gay marriage laws will be overturned. "The will of the people" has often been at odds with the words and intent of the Constitution.


Just because gay marriage is not allowed it doesn't mean that gays are being picked on. Show me in the Constitution where it says that gays have a "right" to re-define marriage. I love the way you put this, because the majority voted not to allow gay marriage then that is an example of tyranny. The victors are tyrannical because you don't agree with their position on the issue.
post #1006 of 1350
[QUOTE=zinfella;1335964]
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Which school e

Any school that does not accept federal funds is free to do as they please with their enrollment policies.

Actually no, they aren't. If that were true there would be at least 1 all-white private college in America. In fact there isn't and never will be. It's the conundrum of it's only racist if it's against the minority - feel free to discriminate against the majority, that's ok...

And actually there are quite a number of public colleges that are exclusionary not only in name but in practice. Making people of other races feel alienated ON PURPOSE but for the sake of "tradition" yet no one runs around screaming racism. Talk about a double standard...
post #1007 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Just because gay marriage is not allowed it doesn't mean that gays are being picked on. Show me in the Constitution where it says that gays have a "right" to re-define marriage. I love the way you put this, because the majority voted not to allow gay marriage then that is an example of tyranny. The victors are tyrannical because you don't agree with their position on the issue.

— Show me in the Constitution where it says women have the right to redefine who has the right to vote?
— Show me in the Constitution where it says "negros" have the right to abolish slavery?
— Show me in the Constitution where it says that freedom of religion, speech or the press is unalienable?

It doesn't, which is why these are Amendments that were added later to establish and protect civil liberties. Eventually, the bigoted old gays who have had to painfully deal with their bitter secrets of same sex desires for 70 years will die off. leaving the younger non-homophobic generations able to vote for civil liberties. You have to know that it's inevitable, just by the virtue that it is even a proposition on election ballots.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1008 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.

That's actually what he's saying. If you don't accept funds you're by definition private and thus can have whatever admission standards you want (theoretically)

EDIT: Side note - I can't believe we actually made it to 1000! impressive... And naturally you had it! Dang it! :-P
post #1009 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

That's actually what he's saying. If you don't accept funds you're by definition private and thus can have whatever admission standards you want (theoretically)

EDIT: Side note - I can't believe we actually made it to 1000! impressive... And naturally you had it! Dang it! :-P

He said federal, not government, which implies that schools that get funding from local or state governments can segregate as much as they wish. The 14th clearly stipulates that no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1010 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

That isn't true. The result of Brown v. Board of Education, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, stipulates that no public school is allowed to institute racial segregation.


Name one public school that does not accept federal funds. You are ignoring private schools, and our basic right of freedom of association. That does not have to be race based.

Earlier you accused me of being a racist, and you have absolutely nothing to back that up with, EXCEPT, it fits with your little tantrum over being on the losing end of the gay marriage issue. It shows just how misinformed you are.
post #1011 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Name one public school that does not accept federal funds. You are ignoring private schools, and our basic right of freedom of association. That does not have to be race based.

Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.

Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1012 of 1350
The people have spoken!!!
post #1013 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.

Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.

Actually you're both saying the same thing in different ways. Zin's saying all public school accept federal funds and thus have to abide by the rules so the argument about state's making the law is moot. You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment. The end result is exactly the same for both. He says no public schools can discriminate and you say no public schools can discriminate.

But again there are public colleges that encourage racism and they are very well loved and encouraged...
post #1014 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Private schools aren't public schools. Public schools are schools that are paid for by the public. Thus, no public school in the US is allowed, by law, to disallow students or faculty based on the color of their skin.

Your assertion that ONLY schools that receive Federal funding must adhere to the 14th is a fallacy as the 14th clearly states that lower government funded schools can't segregate. This was probably down so states like Alabama, where George Wallace persistently tried to prevent black students from attending public schools, could not disassociate themselves Federal funding of public schools by relying only on lower government funding in order to maintain their racist agenda.

Gobbledegook! There are no public schools that don't accept federal funds. Every public school has their hand out for fed money. Are you just being obtuse? We all know that public schools are not private schools. Shessh!

Private schools are not bound by the same laws as publicly funded schools, period.
post #1015 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Actually you're both saying the same thing in different ways. Zin's saying all public school accept federal funds and thus have to abide by the rules so the argument about state's making the law is moot. You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment. The end result is exactly the same for both. He says no public schools can discriminate and you say no public schools can discriminate.

But again there are public colleges that encourage racism and they are very well loved and encouraged...

Bob Jones University.
post #1016 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

You're saying some don't accept funds and still can't discriminate because of the amendment.

I never said some don't accept funds. I only tried to clarify that Zinfella's statement about it being Federal funds was not accurate, as it applies to non-Federal government funding, too.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1017 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I never said some don't accept funds. I only tried to clarify that Zinfella's statement about it being Federal funds was not accurate, as it applies to non-Federal government funding, too.

right, guess I left out the word Federal. That was my intent - strictly talking about federal funds. But, you're right. Accepting federal funds isn't really the gotcha - it's accepting any find of public funds. But Zin says they all accept federal funds so, moot.

Or "Mooo point" as Joey would say
post #1018 of 1350
In addition to Apple's donation being in vain, they've also angered a lot of people. Obviously this applies to google as well. I for one am overjoyed that Prop. 8 passed. Marriage is between a man and a woman only. It is both a lie and a perversion to advocate marriage between the same sex. You can label me a bigot all you want but two people of the same sex cannot have a child together. A family can only come from the union of a man and woman.

It's a sick and backwards society that condones and accommodates a perverted lifestyle like homosexuality, child molestation, pornography and sex before marriage.
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
Switching From Windows on Nov. 30th 2007
-------------------------------------
MacBook Pro 13" 2011
Reply
post #1019 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

Private schools are not bound by the same laws as publicly funded schools, period.

There are some rules they are bound to if they wish to get a tax break as private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies are not entitled to federal tax exemption per the IRS. This tax exemption was dropped from BJU in 1970. They tried to fight it and failed, but have since allowed blacks into their schools and as of 2005 allow interracial dating, but have no refilled for the exemption despite the likelihood of it being reinstated.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1020 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7 View Post

In addition to Apple's donation being in vain, they've also angered a lot of people. Obviously this applies to google as well. I for one am overjoyed that Prop. 8 passed. Marriage is between a man and a woman only. It is both a lie and a perversion to advocate marriage between the same sex. You can label me a bigot all you want but two people of the same sex cannot have a child together. A family can only come from the union of a man and woman.

It's a sick and backwards society that condones and accommodates a perverted lifestyle like homosexuality, child molestation, pornography and sex before marriage.

Aww, come on! We had just moved on!!! Now we're going to get pulled back on subject - d2mn!
post #1021 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There are some rules they are bound to if they wish to get a tax break as private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies are not entitled to federal tax exemption per the IRS. This tax exemption was dropped from BJU in 1970. They tried to fight it and failed, but have since allowed blacks into their schools and as of 2005 allow interracial dating, but have no refilled for the exemption despite the likelihood of it being reinstated.

You made my point for me - it's only racism if it exempts the minorities. Nobody gives a d2mn if it exempts the majority which is, still, by definition, racism.
post #1022 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

But Zin says they all accept federal funds so, moot.

He may be correct on that as I have no way to verify it. But the reason I was clarifying that it was any government funding, not just Federal, is because if it were just Federal there would have been many schools that would have rejected such funding in favour of only local/county/state so they could maintain their supremacist agenda.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1023 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

You made my point for me - it's only racism if it exempts the minorities. Nobody gives a d2mn if it exempts the majority which is, still, by definition, racism.

Huh? That isn't true. The KKK excludes all non-whites and whites who feel non-whites should have equal rights. That makes the KKK the minority, yet they are racist.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1024 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

You made my point for me - it's only racism if it exempts the minorities. Nobody gives a d2mn if it exempts the majority which is, still, by definition, racism.

No, racism is defined by social and institutional power of one group over another group. The minority does not hold power over the majority.
post #1025 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Huh? That isn't true. The KKK excludes all non-whites and whites who feel non-whites should have equal rights. That makes the KKK the minority, yet they are racist.

Nooo - the KKK is white so, therefore, majority and they are excluding ANYONE of color so, racist. There's plenty of organizations founded by minorities for minorities that don't explicitally prohibit whites but make sure they aren't at all welcome or encouraged and that's considered ok... It's a double standard...
post #1026 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Huh? That isn't true. The KKK excludes all non-whites and whites who feel non-whites should have equal rights. That makes the KKK the minority, yet they are racist.

I would say what made the KKK racist is that they held power in their community over people they did not like. They were able to harass, torture, and kill free from punishment because they held the power structure in their community.

Other than that its just prejudice and bigotry.
post #1027 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

No, racism is defined by social and institutional power of one group over another group. The minority does not hold power over the majority.

I said by definition not what the socially acceptable definition is.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
post #1028 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by internetworld7 View Post

A family can only come from the union of a man and woman.

So you define a family as ONLY being between the genetic offspring? So kids should never be adopted? How about infertile individuals? Should they not be allowed to get married because they can't produce offspring? How exactly do you recommend that eliminate all the orphans and sterile human abominations?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1029 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Nooo - the KKK is white so, therefore, majority and they are excluding ANYONE of color so, racist. There's plenty of organizations founded by minorities for minorities that don't explicitally prohibit whites but make sure they aren't at all welcome or encouraged and that's considered ok... It's a double standard...

Okay, the Black Panthers. Racism is not a one way street. Racism is a prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1030 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Okay, the Black Panthers. Racism is not a one way street. Racism is a prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

Exactly my point...
post #1031 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

I said by definition not what the socially acceptable definition is.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

Each dictionary defines it a bit differently. But originally racism is a macro concept of one groups power and control over another group. Generally based ethnic and cultural differences.
post #1032 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

He may be correct on that as I have no way to verify it. But the reason I was clarifying that it was any government funding, not just Federal, is because if it were just Federal there would have been many schools that would have rejected such funding in favour of only local/county/state so they could maintain their supremacist agenda.

That's right, I just used federally funded money instead of public funded money, but it's all the same pot in the end, since no public school is going to turn down federal funds. States are always looking for more federal money for education, and they would have to fund the federal portion if a school turned it down. The state isn't going to let that happen. But, that leaves private schools that do not accept public funds to do as they please.
post #1033 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Okay, the Black Panthers. Racism is not a one way street. Racism is a prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

That's not really what racism is.

Here is the United Nations definition of racial discrimination, which is the more traditional definition.

The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
post #1034 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinfella View Post

That's right, I just used federally funded money instead of public funded money, but it's all the same pot in the end, since no public school is going to turn down federal funds. But, that leaves private schools that do not accept public funds to do as they please.

It's the same pot if your crackpot. There are clear reasons why the 14th covers more than just Federal funding, which I have already stated twice. To have not stated that way would have allowed a loophole which wold have perpetuated segregation. Not seeing the difference does not mean their isn't one.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1035 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Each dictionary defines it a bit differently. But originally racism is a macro concept of one groups power and control over another group. Generally based ethnic and cultural differences.

That's the social definition not the text book definition. Social definition are, by their nature, adjusted to reflect social situations. I'm talking about the word, not what society has to come to equate it with. Racism - as sol' said - is blind to race. Any race can be racist against any other race and it hasn't a single thing to do with how many or who is in charge. Saying it can only be done by the majority oppressing the minority is nothing but a cop-out and does nothing but to perpetuate racism for generations to come.

EDIT: The UN doesn't define words - they politicize them... Find a real dictionary not some socio-political junk.
post #1036 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

Nooo - the KKK is white so, therefore, majority and they are excluding ANYONE of color so, racist. There's plenty of organizations founded by minorities for minorities that don't explicitally prohibit whites but make sure they aren't at all welcome or encouraged and that's considered ok... It's a double standard...

The Congressional Black Caucus
post #1037 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's not really what racism is.

Here is the United Nations definition of racial discrimination, which is the more traditional definition.

The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

I like the UN defintion better, but I see the I posted from the OED as being the same, thought not nearly as complete or as well presented.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1038 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So you define a family as ONLY being between the genetic offspring? So kids should never be adopted? How about infertile individuals? Should they not be allowed to get married because they can't produce offspring? How exactly do you recommend that eliminate all the orphans and sterile human abominations?


Gays cannot adopt in Arkansas.
post #1039 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

EDIT: The UN doesn't define words - they politicize them... Find a real dictionary not some socio-political junk.

I'd agree with that, but I do like the UN definition.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #1040 of 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000 View Post

That's the social definition not the text book definition. Social definition are, by their nature, adjusted to reflect social situations. I'm talking about the word, not what society has to come to equate it with. Racism - as sol' said - is blind to race. Any race can be racist against any other race and it hasn't a single thing to do with how many or who is in charge. Saying it can only be done by the majority oppressing the minority is nothing but a cop-out and does nothing but to perpetuate racism for generations to come.

EDIT: The UN doesn't define words - they politicize them... Find a real dictionary not some socio-political junk.

Well socio-political environment is what comes up with definitions for socio-political concepts and theories. The current definition in dictionaries was changed. The primary reason being is that in America "racism" in its traditional definition described the dominant group. They don't want to be considered racist so you change the definition of who can be racist. Traditionally it was about power and suppression.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple contributes $100,000 to fight California's No on 8 battle