Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Affirmative Action

mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 2:36:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The interpretation of this BIG issue is pretty unclear. Is it by race, gender, income, anything? Is it in schools or private businesses? Discuss.
UsafRevenged
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 2:40:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe it is just the general aspect. Like "Do you like the current way Affirmative Action is utilized?" Which currently is mainly race. I say no. If it was income towards the poor, I would say yes. But the more prevalent issue is more likely race, thus, I believe Affirmative Action would have to deal with race.
IM A 7!!!! HA! Take that society!

Unlike ccstateisback who happens to be a 1.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 3:05:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 2:36:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
The interpretation of this BIG issue is pretty unclear. Is it by race, gender, income, anything? Is it in schools or private businesses? Discuss.

Both race and gender.

I feel quite strongly it remains important, and all the "reverse racism" arguments fall flat to me for this simple truth:

If you are born black or female, your chance of even earning an "average" income is significantly lower than if you are born a white male. This is due, in part, to society-wide impression that lingers even generations after legal discrimination ended. The tarnish and damage from slavery and Jim Crow, and from the oppression of women has not gone away even if overt racism and sexism is frowned upon ... otherwise, unless you truly believe a person born black or female is truly less capable, the massive momentum of our society and culture maintains inequality, and to truly eliminate the inequality, those who were disadvantaged by the inequality will not be able to achieve equality on their own without some sacrifice by those who previously had a legally-ordained advantage.

Its a simple principle ... if we vastly over-simplify the issue, imagine you are a black child whose parents were oppressed under Jim Crow and your grandparents were slaves. (Yeah, I know, there are a lot more generations back to slavery, but I'm trying to simplify it for this hypothetical). Your parents were denied work and education. Your family does not have the wealth to send you to college ... and, just as badly, because your parents were denied education, in your formative years you learned to speak from your parents. Children do not learn to speak at school, they learn from their parents ... likewise, other traits are picked up, like reading ability/inability and a general belief that you can't really go as far in the world as a white person.

Is it fair and just to let this generation-to-generation disadvantage continue, when the whole of our society, including our own government, was the root cause even if we stopped the overt discrimination the law itself created? And if it weren't for affirmative action, what would there be to stop an unwritten, hidden conspiracy to intentionally deny opportunities to women and minorities?
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 3:25:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 3:05:02 PM, PervRat wrote:
I feel quite strongly it remains important, and all the "reverse racism" arguments fall flat to me for this simple truth:

If you are born black or female, your chance of even earning an "average" income is significantly lower than if you are born a white male. This is due, in part, to society-wide impression that lingers even generations after legal discrimination ended. The tarnish and damage from slavery and Jim Crow, and from the oppression of women has not gone away even if overt racism and sexism is frowned upon ... otherwise, unless you truly believe a person born black or female is truly less capable, the massive momentum of our society and culture maintains inequality, and to truly eliminate the inequality, those who were disadvantaged by the inequality will not be able to achieve equality on their own without some sacrifice by those who previously had a legally-ordained advantage.

Its a simple principle ... if we vastly over-simplify the issue, imagine you are a black child whose parents were oppressed under Jim Crow and your grandparents were slaves. (Yeah, I know, there are a lot more generations back to slavery, but I'm trying to simplify it for this hypothetical). Your parents were denied work and education. Your family does not have the wealth to send you to college ... and, just as badly, because your parents were denied education, in your formative years you learned to speak from your parents. Children do not learn to speak at school, they learn from their parents ... likewise, other traits are picked up, like reading ability/inability and a general belief that you can't really go as far in the world as a white person.

Is it fair and just to let this generation-to-generation disadvantage continue, when the whole of our society, including our own government, was the root cause even if we stopped the overt discrimination the law itself created? And if it weren't for affirmative action, what would there be to stop an unwritten, hidden conspiracy to intentionally deny opportunities to women and minorities?

That appears to be neither simple nor the complete truth. Especially when you realize that there are middle-class blacks out there, and lower-class whites.

I have NEVER heard a single convincing argument for Pro-Female Affirmative Action.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 3:27:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 3:05:02 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/13/2009 2:36:08 PM, mongeese wrote:
The interpretation of this BIG issue is pretty unclear. Is it by race, gender, income, anything? Is it in schools or private businesses? Discuss.

Both race and gender.

I feel quite strongly it remains important, and all the "reverse racism" arguments fall flat to me for this simple truth:

If you are born black or female, your chance of even earning an "average" income is significantly lower than if you are born a white male. This is due, in part, to society-wide impression that lingers even generations after legal discrimination ended. The tarnish and damage from slavery and Jim Crow, and from the oppression of women has not gone away even if overt racism and sexism is frowned upon ... otherwise, unless you truly believe a person born black or female is truly less capable, the massive momentum of our society and culture maintains inequality, and to truly eliminate the inequality, those who were disadvantaged by the inequality will not be able to achieve equality on their own without some sacrifice by those who previously had a legally-ordained advantage.

Its a simple principle ... if we vastly over-simplify the issue, imagine you are a black child whose parents were oppressed under Jim Crow and your grandparents were slaves. (Yeah, I know, there are a lot more generations back to slavery, but I'm trying to simplify it for this hypothetical). Your parents were denied work and education. Your family does not have the wealth to send you to college ... and, just as badly, because your parents were denied education, in your formative years you learned to speak from your parents. Children do not learn to speak at school, they learn from their parents ... likewise, other traits are picked up, like reading ability/inability and a general belief that you can't really go as far in the world as a white person.

Is it fair and just to let this generation-to-generation disadvantage continue, when the whole of our society, including our own government, was the root cause even if we stopped the overt discrimination the law itself created? And if it weren't for affirmative action, what would there be to stop an unwritten, hidden conspiracy to intentionally deny opportunities to women and minorities?

Then that person would benefit from "poor" Affirmative Action.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 4:06:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
That appears to be neither simple nor the complete truth. Especially when you realize that there are middle-class blacks out there, and lower-class whites.

I have NEVER heard a single convincing argument for Pro-Female Affirmative Action.

Certainly there are both, but they are in serious disproportion. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1999, 33.1 percent of black children lived in poverty compared with 13.5 percent of white children. That means a black child is more than twice as likely to come from an impoverished family than a white person. With no other circumstances, this will not go away on its own ... certainly there are few poverty-to-middle-class, but they are few and far between. By and large, economically disadvantaged children will not have equal opportunities as children in families that are better off, and since the historic origins of the inequality lies with our society itself, it is our society that must act to correct this imbalance it created.

Its similar for female affirmative action -- males still make more for the same jobs and skills, and females are still under-represented among medium and large business owners. Men and women still believe, through their upbringing through their parents, that men accomplish things while women merely support them and raise the family.

Its not hard if you try to think instead of react-deny.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 4:19:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 4:06:19 PM, PervRat wrote:
Its similar for female affirmative action -- males still make more for the same jobs and skills, and females are still under-represented among medium and large business owners. Men and women still believe, through their upbringing through their parents, that men accomplish things while women merely support them and raise the family.

So, that leaves us with two choices:
1. Teach people that their beliefs of men being superior are incorrect, allowing women to act on it if they so desire.
2. Give all women additional benefits, regardless of anything else.

"Under-represented." Hah. The under-representation is by their own choice, and affirmative action does nothing to help the root of the problem.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 4:21:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 4:06:19 PM, PervRat wrote:
Certainly there are both, but they are in serious disproportion. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, in 1999, 33.1 percent of black children lived in poverty compared with 13.5 percent of white children. That means a black child is more than twice as likely to come from an impoverished family than a white person. With no other circumstances, this will not go away on its own ... certainly there are few poverty-to-middle-class, but they are few and far between. By and large, economically disadvantaged children will not have equal opportunities as children in families that are better off, and since the historic origins of the inequality lies with our society itself, it is our society that must act to correct this imbalance it created.

So, a middle-class black man should be placed above a middle-class white man, or a lower-class white man? The answer shouldn't be yes, because that would obviously be racism, and if the answer is no, then taking income into account would be more effective than race.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 9:16:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So, a middle-class black man should be placed above a middle-class white man, or a lower-class white man? The answer shouldn't be yes, because that would obviously be racism, and if the answer is no, then taking income into account would be more effective than race.

Right now, a white man is still placed above a black man in salary, career opportunity, a chance to go to a "good" post-secondary school. You're either for changing this, don't care, or against changing it. And given the old addage "silence is acceptance," the latter two are pretty much the same thing.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 9:40:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 9:16:58 PM, PervRat wrote:
So, a middle-class black man should be placed above a middle-class white man, or a lower-class white man? The answer shouldn't be yes, because that would obviously be racism, and if the answer is no, then taking income into account would be more effective than race.

Right now, a white man is still placed above a black man in salary, career opportunity, a chance to go to a "good" post-secondary school.
And that's still linked to income.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2009 9:41:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 9:14:59 PM, PervRat wrote:
"Under-represented." Hah. The under-representation is by their own choice ...

You failed to read what I wrote.

You wrote that it is caused by what men and women believe. Naturally, if we correct them, the problem is fixed. Or, of course, they don't want the problem to be fixed, because the problem isn't really a problem at all.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 1:03:33 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 4:21:25 PM, mongeese wrote:

So, a middle-class black man should be placed above a middle-class white man, or a lower-class white man?

Certainly, that's the most effective way to combat institutionalized racism, assuming these men meet qualifications.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 7:30:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 1:03:33 AM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/13/2009 4:21:25 PM, mongeese wrote:

So, a middle-class black man should be placed above a middle-class white man, or a lower-class white man?

Certainly, that's the most effective way to combat institutionalized racism, assuming these men meet qualifications.

So, to combat institutionalized racism, which is scattered throughout in American institutions, you use government-enforced racism? When the racist businesses are already suffering for their racism?
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 7:37:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/13/2009 9:41:25 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/13/2009 9:14:59 PM, PervRat wrote:
"Under-represented." Hah. The under-representation is by their own choice ...

You failed to read what I wrote.

You wrote that it is caused by what men and women believe. Naturally, if we correct them, the problem is fixed. Or, of course, they don't want the problem to be fixed, because the problem isn't really a problem at all.

You can't really correct beliefs. Beliefs are not constrained by logic or rationality.

If that were so, there would never have been a century of Jim Crow after Emancipation, nor the rise of the Klu Klux Klan nor the ongoing militia and white supremacist factions that are seeing an unfortunate rise in popularity since Obama won the election. You cannot erase a lifetime of belief, no matter how wrong that belief is.

Its been four decades since the supposed end of Jim Crow, and yet we only just now have our first black President. Obama is a proof that someone from very meager beginnings can go far, but with the terrible inequity for women and minorities that remains strong as the cold hard statistics from the Census bureau prove, we have to work to balance inequality until we achieve equality. It will not happen on its own.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 7:44:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Society is progressive. Eventually, blacks will be the same as whites. You can't force that on people. Forcing an employer to hire 1black person in every 4 is simply neglecting the achievements others can offer.

Aff. is counter racism unless employers are specifically told to have 'X' whites, 'X' Hispanics, 'X' Asians, etc.

In college, it discourages international studying.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:20:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 7:44:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Society is progressive. Eventually, blacks will be the same as whites.

Not without something to counterbalance the heavy inequality, it won't. Not for hundreds, thousands or even more generations.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:32:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:20:36 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/14/2009 7:44:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Society is progressive. Eventually, blacks will be the same as whites.

Not without something to counterbalance the heavy inequality, it won't. Not for hundreds, thousands or even more generations.

The discrimination isn't a bad as you state it is. And we don't' need a counterbalance like AA which is basically counter racism.Anything to control the work flow of races is Authoritarian Socialism.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:35:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:32:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The discrimination isn't a bad as you state it is. And we don't' need a counterbalance like AA which is basically counter racism.Anything to control the work flow of races is Authoritarian Socialism.

So the Census Bureau statistics are just a liberal conspiracy to force Authoritarian Socialism? And the Apollo moon landings were faked? How's your tin hat?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:41:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:35:07 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/14/2009 8:32:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The discrimination isn't a bad as you state it is. And we don't' need a counterbalance like AA which is basically counter racism.Anything to control the work flow of races is Authoritarian Socialism.

So the Census Bureau statistics are just a liberal conspiracy to force Authoritarian Socialism? And the Apollo moon landings were faked? How's your tin hat?

I never stated AA was authoritarian socialism, I stated completely controlling the work flow of people (i.e. the only real way to stop discrimination) is Authoritarian Socialism.

The state should look out for the poor, but they shouldn't discriminate against one race to simply benefit the other. What happens when more White are poorer then blacks? The blacks would be screaming about slavery when we tried to reverse that effect.

Besides, there are rich African Americans.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
UsafRevenged
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:49:10 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 8:41:08 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 8/14/2009 8:35:07 AM, PervRat wrote:
At 8/14/2009 8:32:50 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
The discrimination isn't a bad as you state it is. And we don't' need a counterbalance like AA which is basically counter racism.Anything to control the work flow of races is Authoritarian Socialism.

So the Census Bureau statistics are just a liberal conspiracy to force Authoritarian Socialism? And the Apollo moon landings were faked? How's your tin hat?

I never stated AA was authoritarian socialism, I stated completely controlling the work flow of people (i.e. the only real way to stop discrimination) is Authoritarian Socialism.

The state should look out for the poor, but they shouldn't discriminate against one race to simply benefit the other. What happens when more White are poorer then blacks? The blacks would be screaming about slavery when we tried to reverse that effect.

Besides, there are rich African Americans.

Such as Barack Obama.
IM A 7!!!! HA! Take that society!

Unlike ccstateisback who happens to be a 1.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 8:50:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The state should look out for the poor, but they shouldn't discriminate against one race to simply benefit the other. What happens when more White are poorer then blacks? The blacks would be screaming about slavery when we tried to reverse that effect.

Besides, there are rich African Americans.

Disproportionately far lower among the African American population than rich Caucasians among the Caucasian American population.

If you are born black, your chances for having an opportunity to attend a good school and have a good-paying job are still a fraction of the chances of a person born white.
USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 10:10:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Perv, though you criticized the Nixon administration in another thread, it's nice to see you supporting one of its products in this one.

(Although I'm against quotas.)
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 11:24:29 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 7:30:29 AM, mongeese wrote:
At 8/14/2009 1:03:33 AM, tribefan011 wrote:
At 8/13/2009 4:21:25 PM, mongeese wrote:

So, a middle-class black man should be placed above a middle-class white man, or a lower-class white man?

Certainly, that's the most effective way to combat institutionalized racism, assuming these men meet qualifications.

So, to combat institutionalized racism, which is scattered throughout in American institutions, you use government-enforced racism? When the racist businesses are already suffering for their racism?

No, it's simply the realization that a system of white privilege exists in America. It is the realization that racism has become institutionalized. Employers and colleges have nothing to worry about if they're not racist in their hiring or admissions process. It is the other employers and colleges that have to demonstrate they are taking strides to employ more minorities and women. It is not racism, as the policy is designed to combat racism.
tribefan011
Posts: 106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 11:27:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 7:44:31 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Society is progressive. Eventually, blacks will be the same as whites. You can't force that on people. Forcing an employer to hire 1black person in every 4 is simply neglecting the achievements others can offer.

Aff. is counter racism unless employers are specifically told to have 'X' whites, 'X' Hispanics, 'X' Asians, etc.

In college, it discourages international studying.

I can never understand why people don't realize that affirmative action is not a quota system. I don't know what the case is in Ireland, but there is no racial quota system enforced by the government here.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 11:37:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 10:10:22 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Perv, though you criticized the Nixon administration in another thread, it's nice to see you supporting one of its products in this one.

(Although I'm against quotas.)

???

Affirmative action came into play under Kennedy, not Nixon. http://en.wikipedia.org...
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:17:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 3:08:02 PM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
And having it mandated and regulated, and establishing quotas---basically stuff actually getting done---happened under Nixon.

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

That and the Clean Air Act don't justify the hundreds of thousands who have died under his refusal to act for universal health care.

I'm sure I could find things that Bush did that I liked, but they could never overcome the overturn of Florida's state constitution which demanded the will of the people be assured thanks to his brother's promise of the state being handed to him, the hypocricy of putting spies to death whilst demanding the safe return of our spies caught in foreign countries, considering Hussein to be the biggest threat even after being briefed about an al-Qaeda plot to hijack planes a month before 9/11, the torture-beaten-"slam dunk"-evidenced-confessions to justify shifting the "war on terror" to Iraq where al-Qaeda had no presence until we destroyed Hussein who had kept al-Qaeda out, the dismantling of the U.S. constitutional protections of due process to allow wiretaps and effectively render the executive branch as being immune from judicial process, the crony appointments like Michael Brown, the promotion of exporting jobs to countries with no environmental, labor or even decent human rights protections.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:18:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Institutionalizing racism seems an effective way to combat institutionalized racism, apparenty.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2009 3:29:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/14/2009 3:18:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Institutionalizing racism seems an effective way to combat institutionalized racism, apparenty.

Oh wait, you're right, its evil, just like taking money from a thief to recompense the victim is itself thievery.