[guessthejuice]

> Yes. One practice is honest and one is dishonest. Do you really not see a difference?

Both are equally dishonest.

> "We invited you in with your lower score because we recognize it is more difficult for you to achieve that score, and as such are more likely to succeed" versus "We didn't like how smart we were so we lied to you about passing the exam to hide the fact that we're biasing entry standards."

That's just rationalizations to justify your bias. The japanese made similar rationalizations. Female candidates are likely to get pregnant and society is better off with females getting pregnant because japan has a low birth-rate problem.

Their justification is just as "good" as yours. Both are discriminatory and evil.

[KirinDave]

> Female candidates are likely to get pregnant and society is better off with females getting pregnant because japan has a low birth-rate problem.

This is a value judgement, and a tedious one at that. You cannot compel women in a free society to have children to meet your expectations. If you want to encourage women to have children, you need to create an environment where it is equitable for them to do so without being unduly penalized.

Again: if your approach worked then Japan would not have a birthrate decline. This is, and has been, already their stance. Women are effectively removed from the workforce upon pregnancy. They are declining that proposition because it's unfair, and society COULD structure to redress that.

[guessthejuice]

> This is a value judgement, and a tedious one at that.

Yes. Discrimination is a value judgment and tedious one at that. We are agreed. Not sure why you support discrimination though.

> If you want to encourage women to have children, you need to create an environment where it is equitable for them to do so without being unduly penalized.

Actually, we already know that "equitable" society leads to lower birth rates. The more equal the society, the lower the birth rates.

> Again: if your approach worked then Japan would not have a birthrate decline.

You missed my point. It's not my approach. It's japan's approach. And I'm against that.

If you had paid attention, you'd realize that I am against discrimination, no matter what the ends. I don't believe the ends justify the means.

I just offered japan's rationale for discriminating against women, just like you offered your rationale against discriminating against people in the US.

I think all people should be treated fairly.

[isostatic]

Depends what you think the entry criteria is. If you think the absolute mark is an appropriate criteria then yes, that should be it. If you are looking at ability to apply oneself as being the criteria you have to examine a lot more.

[guessthejuice]

> If you think the absolute mark is an appropriate criteria then yes, that should be it.

Not absolute mark. Just the same standards.

> If you are looking at ability to apply oneself as being the criteria you have to examine a lot more.

Which is fine with me as long as the same criteria is applied equally.

Equal being the key here.

[KirinDave]

Show us where graduation criterion is skewed.

An effort is being made to provide opportunity to those with less access to it, but painting affirmative action as a free ride is a malicious category error that needs no debunking, it's simply a garbage argument that involves talking as fast as possible and hoping no one notices.

[guessthejuice]

> Show us where graduation criterion is skewed.

What? Who is talking about graduation criteria?

> An effort is being made to provide opportunity to those with less access to it

That's fine, as long as the criteria is the same.

> but painting affirmative action as a free ride is a malicious category error that needs no debunking

That's called straw man. I said it is discrimination. This is called fact.

> simply a garbage argument that involves talking as fast as possible and hoping no one notices.

As far as I can tell, you are the one talking as fast as possible and hoping no one notices. This is something called projection.

I'm making fairly straightforward assertions. Discrimination is wrong. Simple as that. The japanese shouldn't discriminate against women. We shouldn't discriminate against asians and whites.

[KirinDave]

> Discrimination is wrong. Simple as that. The japanese shouldn't discriminate against women. We shouldn't discriminate against asians and whites.

Then why is it okay to have admisisons standards at all? Don't they inherently discriminate amongst people in such a way as to favor rich people who can afford to give their child the necessary nutrition, time and stability to perform all the rituals that college campuses look for?

> We shouldn't discriminate against asians and whites.

We also have to undo the generation's of economic and social harm principle perpetrated by white people against other ethnic minorities in the US. You can't simply wave away the US's obligations.

I do agree that Asian Americans face a lot of issues in the US and it's unfair how they're treated as a managed ethnic minority that schools like Harvard can keep in a separate managed bucket.

[guessthejuice]

> Then why is it okay to have admisisons standards at all?

Because we want the best and brightest attending these universities? People most capable of actually performing and graduating? Is this a serious question?

> Don't they inherently discriminate amongst people in such a way as to favor rich people who can afford to give their child the necessary nutrition, time and stability to perform all the rituals that college campuses look for?

No. No more than the NBA discriminates.

> We also have to undo the generation's of economic and social harm principle perpetrated by white people against other ethnic minorities in the US.

We have. It's called evening the playing field by ending discrimination. Punishing asians ( who haven't done anything ) or young white students ( who haven't done anything ) is the definition of evil.

> You can't simply wave away the US's obligations.

Once again, we have. It's called ending discrimination.

> I do agree that Asian Americans face a lot of issues in the US and it's unfair how they're treated as a managed ethnic minority that schools like Harvard can keep in a separate managed bucket.

Yes. Discrimination is evil. I'm glad we are agreed. Using your logic, in 20 years, are we going to have to discriminate against blacks to make up for the discrimination against asians/whites today? The neverending cycle of discrimination?

The condescending affirmative action ideology is a new form of "supremacy". The idea that minorities are incapable of overcoming and need "help" is another form of white supremacy. Only this time, it's leftist faction looking down on minorities for social cred.

Discrimination is wrong. Simple as that. You don't achieve equality by removing hurdles from one group of people and putting them in front of another group of people. That's illogical and it's wrong. No amount of rationalization is going to make it right.