Felony to apply for Same sex marriage in Indiana.

[Deleted]

No YOU missed the point. I understand why the laws first existed. The reasons they existed are irrelevant now for reasons I already gave. Society HAS changed enough and there are LEGAL responses that eliminate the need for further bias against white males. Its racism.

You didn't give any reasons.

Society has changed enough? Do women and non-whites occupy positions of responsibility in ratios that actually represent their ratio among the people with the required or higher skill-level? Do women and non-whites, consequently, occupy positions of power in ratios that exceed the quotas?

I thought not.
So how come you say that society has changed enough?

Anyway, i was the one calling you out. It was my point you were supposed to address. If you want to refer to some imaginary, non-stated point that you want to transform in the real point, then, i don't know what to tell you.

[Adamas102]

ONCE AGAIN
Well you are saying you are ok with racism if it has to exist, as long as its directed towards white males. Right? Then you go on to say that white males have it good. What other conclusion can I reach? Tell me why if there has to be racism that it needs to be against white males.

The better question is how those two suggestions somehow add up to "white males deserve it". The goal was never to deny positions to white males. The point is to increase diversity in school and in the work force that mirrors the diversity in the general population. It's more about classism than racism anyway.

[Kalyyn]

I have a better idea, you tell me:
http://www.isidewith.com/

Your quiz told me that I side with the Republicans. Likely because I had space exploration and defense spending as my highest priorities, which independents and democrats typically don't care about or are against.

If it counts for anything, its says that I side most with Obama on social issues. Although I do sincerely regret voting for him last year.

- - - Updated - - -

the wording was a bit odd, how do you succeed in prohibiting discriminate behaviour in the hiring process?

A: he didn´t hire me because i´m black!

B: sir, is that true?

C: no.

A: yes is!

C: no A did not meet the professional qualifications.

B: allright.

case dismissed

Sometimes you have the polar opposite, in which B just believes A without question. Which is arguably worse.

[Mayhem]

Sometimes you have the polar opposite, in which B just believes A without question. Which is arguably worse.

i wouldn´t say it´s worse, it´s equal wrong, regardless who´s the liar

[Kalyyn]

i wouldn´t say it´s worse, it´s equal wrong, regardless who´s the liar

From a moral standpoint, I completely agree with you. I was thinking more along the lines of practicality. As in... what happens when everyone thinks they can get free money by applying to a job they can't get, then crying discrimination? But past that, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Mayhem]

From a moral standpoint, I completely agree with you. I was thinking more along the lines of practicality. As in... what happens when everyone thinks they can get free money by applying to a job they can't get, then crying discrimination? But past that, I wholeheartedly agree.

allright, yeah i agree