5 ms·

Is 75% fraud not enough for you? “75 percent of the black students at Harvard were of African or Caribbean descent or of mixed race. According to Professor Gat

by slt2021 3y ago

Is 75% fraud not enough for you? “75 percent of the black students at Harvard were of African or Caribbean descent or of mixed race. According to Professor Gates, more than two thirds of all Harvard's black students were either the children or grandchildren of West Indians or Africans and very few of Harvard's black students were the descendants of American slaves. ” I presented facts that >75% of AA recipients have nothing to do with inner city crimes and poor blacks. If you think this is ok, I dont agree with this, and neither does Supreme Court

lern_too_spel 3y ago
> Is 75% fraud not enough for you? Are you unable to do math? If the net effect of the fraud is -1 per person and the net effect of the non-fraud is 5 per person, is the policy net beneficial or not? You have to show net negative benefit, not >50% fraud for a complete argument. > If you think this is ok, I don't think this is OK. I'm actually somewhat disinclined to believe AA for college admissions is good policy, preferring earlier interventions like better schooling and childcare in these communities. I am merely explaining what a complete argument looks like. > I dont agree with this, and neither does Supreme Court The Supreme Court didn't rule on whether the level of fraud is OK. It ruled on whether it violates the equal protection clause. Please read more carefully, both the comments here and the Court's opinion, both of which you have failed to understand.
- slt2021 3y ago
  Net benefit is not my argument, it is your argument so it is on You to provide proof that few percentage of native born Blacks at ivy league create any benefit (that exceeds the damage caused by fraudulent 75% )
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    > Net benefit is not my argument Exactly. Your argument is incomplete and therefore wrong. If you were denied admission to a university you applied to, it is because you are incapable of making a complete argument, not just due to AA. > it is on You to provide proof that few percentage of native born Blacks at ivy league create any benefit (that exceeds the damage caused by fraudulent 75% ) Why? I am not arguing for AA. Once again, please read and understand the comments.
    - slt2021 3y ago
      Your baseless claim that my argument is incomplete is itself without ground. I need to see proof to be convinced that your claim has any merit And your ad hominem attacks do not make your claim any more credible (I did go to ivy btw)
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > I did go to ivy btw One of the lower ones, not the one you wanted, if your comments are representative of your thought processes. > Your baseless claim that my argument is incomplete is itself without ground. All policies are evaluated based on net benefit to society. I explained why your argument didn't meet that standard. If you didn't understand it, I can't help you. There is no simpler way to state it.
        slt2021 3y ago
        Again your ad hominem and baseless assumptions are irrelevant. Net benefit - is your made up argument. Is this “net benefit” in the room with you right now? Perhaps you could quantify it, if you could find any
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > Net benefit - is your made up argument. I already explained that this is how all policies are evaluated, not on arbitrary fraud thresholds. I cannot make you understand it any more than I can make you smart enough to have been accepted at your preferred university.

lern_too_spel 3y ago

> Is 75% fraud not enough for you? Are you unable to do math? If the net effect of the fraud is -1 per person and the net effect of the non-fraud is 5 per person, is the policy net beneficial or not? You have to show net negative benefit, not >50% fraud for a complete argument. > If you think this is ok, I don't think this is OK. I'm actually somewhat disinclined to believe AA for college admissions is good policy, preferring earlier interventions like better schooling and childcare in these communities. I am merely explaining what a complete argument looks like. > I dont agree with this, and neither does Supreme Court The Supreme Court didn't rule on whether the level of fraud is OK. It ruled on whether it violates the equal protection clause. Please read more carefully, both the comments here and the Court's opinion, both of which you have failed to understand.

slt2021 3y ago
Net benefit is not my argument, it is your argument so it is on You to provide proof that few percentage of native born Blacks at ivy league create any benefit (that exceeds the damage caused by fraudulent 75% )
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  > Net benefit is not my argument Exactly. Your argument is incomplete and therefore wrong. If you were denied admission to a university you applied to, it is because you are incapable of making a complete argument, not just due to AA. > it is on You to provide proof that few percentage of native born Blacks at ivy league create any benefit (that exceeds the damage caused by fraudulent 75% ) Why? I am not arguing for AA. Once again, please read and understand the comments.
  - slt2021 3y ago
    Your baseless claim that my argument is incomplete is itself without ground. I need to see proof to be convinced that your claim has any merit And your ad hominem attacks do not make your claim any more credible (I did go to ivy btw)
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      > I did go to ivy btw One of the lower ones, not the one you wanted, if your comments are representative of your thought processes. > Your baseless claim that my argument is incomplete is itself without ground. All policies are evaluated based on net benefit to society. I explained why your argument didn't meet that standard. If you didn't understand it, I can't help you. There is no simpler way to state it.
      - slt2021 3y ago
        Again your ad hominem and baseless assumptions are irrelevant. Net benefit - is your made up argument. Is this “net benefit” in the room with you right now? Perhaps you could quantify it, if you could find any
        lern_too_spel 3y ago
        > Net benefit - is your made up argument. I already explained that this is how all policies are evaluated, not on arbitrary fraud thresholds. I cannot make you understand it any more than I can make you smart enough to have been accepted at your preferred university.