OK, I can get back to this for a bit now. Too bad we're having a discussion about discussion instead of a discussion about the topic, but hey, whereever you want to take things, I guess.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
So again: what are you so surprised about? Why are you making such a big deal about this?
|
I'm not suprised about anything. My statement was that AA discussions typically focus on race even while AA is typically applied based on gender. That the thread is race based only bolsters my statement. That my tangenital discussion, being non-exclusive to race, was twisted back to exclusivity to race bolsters my statement.
In essence, my statement is an accurate description of how society approaches discussions about AA: the discussions focus on race.
Quote:
So we can't answer good, questions about what AA means, in the most basic fundamental terms, until we have unanimous acceptance of AA? How can we know what we're accepting unless we first know what it is composed of? Isn't good social policy based on open, rational debate?
I'm sorry that you think fundamental questions about what "race" is is not relevant to race-based AA.
|
You did not ask "basic fundamental" questions. You asked highly specific, detailed questions. If you cannot agree on the philosophical need for AA, there is no point in discussing the practical minutiae.
Quote:
|
And you are incorrect in believing that my mind is made up on this. My mind is always open to argument.
|
You have not demonstrated that to be true.
Quote:
|
If you want to convince me of your position, then you are going to have to argue it well and convincingly.
|
I have argued it well and convincingly. You have both ignored the argument and attempted to alter the discussion. That I refused to accept your approach to the discussion is not a sign of a weakness in my argument.