What's new
By:
Filters

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (democratic socialist) wins NY primary

Bulletproof said:
Yeah, he has said a few times there's value in diversity and the different perspectives of certain minorities, which is why it makes sense to select them preferentially, while at the same time claiming it has nothing to do with race. I've seen some impressive mental gymnastics over the years, but this is right up there.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I only said "I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why black applicants, with equivalent MCAT and GPA scores, would be accepted at a higher rates, that are not race-related". I never claimed race was not also a factor.

It's true I hope to make my mind so flexible and strong it could be a metaphorical gymnast, but I am not as successful as I would wish.
 
One Brow said:
To be clear, I only said "I can think of three reasons off the top of my head why black applicants, with equivalent MCAT and GPA scores, would be accepted at a higher rates, that are not race-related". I never claimed race was not also a factor.

It's true I hope to make my mind so flexible and strong it could be a metaphorical gymnast, but I am not as successful as I would wish.
Click to expand...
What three reasons could there be that specifically black applicants should be selected over someone with the same test scores that have nothing to do with race? How can the attributes be specific to race while the reason for selecting people with those attributes is not related to their race?
 
Siro said:
Just the facts. But I know religious people don't care about facts, so I don't see why you'd even respond.
Click to expand...
What you think are facts. I've seen "facts" change so often that your "facts" are pretty much opinion. Just like my opinion and others. It may be your opinion that it is fact. I find it interesting that there are things you think religious people don't care about, but it is very clear as well that there are things irreligious people don't care about as well.

To me the existence of God is a fact. I know this. To you it is not. No need to be rude.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
What you think are facts. I've seen "facts" change so often that your "facts" are pretty much opinion. Just like my opinion and others. It may be your opinion that it is fact. I find it interesting that there are things you think religious people don't care about, but it is very clear as well that there are things irreligious people don't care about as well.

To me the existence of God is a fact. I know this. To you it is not. No need to be rude.
Click to expand...

I was talking about the origin of the Israelites. There is no evidence to support the story, and nobody would've ever suggested it had it not appeared in the Bible.

The part of god not being real is just my opinion.
 
One Brow said:
Individually, but not in the aggregate.
Click to expand...
Do you know these 3 things about the black/white/hispanic applicants to know it is not in the aggregate?
Is this just assuming that black applicants don't mainly come from the more well off families but are spread out? I would think the bulk of all applicants come from more well off families in general.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
How would you explain this data?
medschool.jpg
Click to expand...


I don't really buy OB's arguments, but I have one that could explain it possibly.
If there are higher numbers of white and asian applicants than hispanic and black applicants, the acceptance rates could be higher for those groups assuming there is some sort of obligation to maintain some sort of ratio of accepted students from the different groups. I don't think it explains the low number of asian acceptance. I find it hard to believe that there would be that many more applicants that are asian versus white, but possibly the other 2.

I don't know if this is correct, but possible.

Thoughts?
 
Siro said:
I was talking about the origin of the Israelites. There is no evidence to support the story, and nobody would've ever suggested it had it not appeared in the Bible.

The part of god not being real is just my opinion.
Click to expand...
Ok. You haven't seen evidence to support it doesn't bother me at all. I haven't researched it to be able to point to possible sources to support it using methods or types of evidence you could agree with.

I don't claim it's all as it says in the Bible and other scripture exactly, but for me I know there is truth to much of it, but unfortunately a source of validation that works for me is not something you are open to or would use as validation of truth.

It's tough to have a full discussion of something when key points and ways to validate are not agreed upon. I get it, and it's fine, but it does lead to a pretty big separation of what is fact and what is not from the different perspectives.

Because of what I believe/know for myself and what I have seen over the years, I see that as science progresses, what is seen as fact shifts as new things are discovered and as advancements happen. What was once fact gets disproven and a new fact takes it's place. I enjoy the advancements and find many things amazing, I rarely if ever view things as "fact", and I don't reserve that for science, I do the same for many things in my religious beliefs as well.

Thanks for your response, and sorry (sortof) for the tldr response of mine.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
Ok. You haven't seen evidence to support it doesn't bother me at all. I haven't researched it to be able to point to possible sources to support it using methods or types of evidence you could agree with.

I don't claim it's all as it says in the Bible and other scripture exactly, but for me I know there is truth to much of it, but unfortunately a source of validation that works for me is not something you are open to or would use as validation of truth.

It's tough to have a full discussion of something when key points and ways to validate are not agreed upon. I get it, and it's fine, but it does lead to a pretty big separation of what is fact and what is not from the different perspectives.

Because of what I believe/know for myself and what I have seen over the years, I see that as science progresses, what is seen as fact shifts as new things are discovered and as advancements happen. What was once fact gets disproven and a new fact takes it's place. I enjoy the advancements and find many things amazing, I rarely if ever view things as "fact", and I don't reserve that for science, I do the same for many things in my religious beliefs as well.

Thanks for your response, and sorry (sortof) for the tldr response of mine.
Click to expand...

I use the same criteria for evidence and facts as everyone else as long as it doesn't involve their personal religious faith. But ya, if a conversation on empirical evidence will involve discussion of feelings, then it's not for me.
 
Jazz Spazz said:
Do you know these 3 things about the black/white/hispanic applicants to know it is not in the aggregate?
Is this just assuming that black applicants don't mainly come from the more well off families but are spread out? I would think the bulk of all applicants come from more well off families in general.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I have not researched the actual national applicant pool for medical schools. As I said, those were just what came from the top of my head.
 
One Brow said:
That read to me as you saying that since America's rich people have more disposable income than those of Western Europe, (and possibly the middle class as well, though you did not say that), this means the American middle class "outperforms" the Western European middle class. I'm not sure what "outperform" means here (not to claim dalamon's "stronger" was more specific).
Click to expand...

Americans outperform our counterparts in all 3 segments. Some countries, such as Germany, are doing poorly and have been in decline comparatively. The metric is usually 66-200% of median disposable income (this includes transfer payments) as middle class.

Slamming the US income disparity does nothing to capture the true picture and needs to be called out for the outright ignorance that it usually is. For example, much of our "declining" middle class problem turns out to be upward mobility swelling the ranks of the upper middle and upper class. That's a bad thing why? Attacking success to support shrinking the income gap comes across as overly socialistic, and does a disservice to those who support more redistribution for more philosophical reasons.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
For example, much of our "declining" middle class problem turns out to be upward mobility swelling the ranks of the upper middle and upper class. That's a bad thing why?
Click to expand...

It might be a bad thing. How "much of"?

To over-simplify things, let's use three general categories lower class-middle class-upper class, and list percentage that add up to 100. If we go from 40-30-30 to 42-20-38, I would agree that is on whole a good thing. If it is 48-20-32, while the upper class may have "swelled", it is overall a bad thing. In either case, if income mobility is reduced, it is likely a bad thing.
 
One Brow said:
It might be a bad thing. How "much of"?

To over-simplify things, let's use three general categories lower class-middle class-upper class, and list percentage that add up to 100. If we go from 40-30-30 to 42-20-38, I would agree that is on whole a good thing. If it is 48-20-32, while the upper class may have "swelled", it is overall a bad thing. In either case, if income mobility is reduced, it is likely a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go that far. I don't know if there is a hypothetically perfect equilibrium point to reach for, and I expect any economy to fluctuate around one anyway. I wouldn't automatically call an undershoot or overshoot bad as long as one is expected to revert to the mean, or we have sufficient justification to establish a new normal baseline.
 
Siro said:
The 'Israelites' were never slaves in Egypt. It's just a fictional story from a fictional book.
Click to expand...
Eh, last I seriously looked into it there was some evidence that there were indeed Hebrew slaves in Egypt, although Egypt was never really a heavily slave-based society. However, this is more accurately stated that there has been little archaeological evidence discovered to support that claim that the Hebrews in general were enslaved in Egypt, especially in the numbers claimed in Genesis and Exodus. Doesn't mean there isn't any evidence, or it didn't happen, just that we haven't found the proof one way or the other. (as in, we have not found anything that said "yes, there was a large group of hebrews enslaved in egypt" nor anything that said "no, for the entire history of egypt there were never any Hebrew slaves", absence of one does not prove existence of the other)

My opinion is that there was likely a contingent of Hebrews, or "proto-Hebrews" (perhaps the Habiru people) if you will, enslaved in Egypt and then "freed" in some way by a religious leader that constitutes the basis of the stories in Genesis and Exodus. I tend to think that the biblical accounts, especially in the old testament, are likely exaggerated stories or mis-translations or embellished accounts of actual events. More like "based on a true story" rather than literal happenings.
 
Ben Shapiro challenged her to a debate and offered 10k for her campaign and she didn't accept it. I wouldn't want to debate Shapiro either.



 
That tweet interaction doesn't make Shapiro look great.

I don't know very little about these two but she owned him in those tweets.

With his poor twisted logic response I wouldn't want to debate him either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top