Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Is Affirmative Action unfair?

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 9:30:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. It merely means to choose this over that. Let me explain: discrimination is defined as "the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgement; to differentiate." Choosing friends of good character, who we invite into our homes, and who we date and marry are forms of discrimination we should all endorse. This positive discrimination should never be regulated by government.
But it is a different matter when it comes to politics. Here is where the word "discrimination" indicates some sin against civic religion. In the public sector banning blatant discrimination in all government programs makes perfect sense; government programs are constructed for public access. In the private sector, however, forcing people to avoid discrimination in all private transactions through affirmative action laws is a different matter.
The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal." The Constitution indicates that the state shall not, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." They do not read, "all men are created equal and have equal protection of the laws, yet some groups of men will have special, better equality." In our nation's founding documents rest the immortal words that when used toward affirmative action arouse suspicion in even the slowest of minds as to its legitimacy. For many years the United States has notoriously written laws that segregated people by race, gender, or sexual orientation. This practice of forced segregation was in place since the civil war until forced association with affirmative action was implemented in private affairs, thus substituting one set of violations of individual rights with another. Voluntary associations are better, more authentic, and longer lasting than associations forced by legislation imposed by bureaucrats. Martin Luther King Jr. once admonished us to "judge a person not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Yet quotas for affirmative action programs are based on certain groups qualifying for special privileges. Reversing the discrimination hasn't brought people together. Whenever groups receive special privileges, resentment will occur, but not where character and talent are the tests of one's ability. This is true in sports, entertainments, finance, politics, and in the professions.
The argument that past injury requires privileges and special favors to compensate is illogical today because those who must offer benefits are not themselves guilty and those who accept benefits were not injured. Furthermore, people who do not fit the criteria for these privileges abuse the system. In conclusion, government force, illegally and illogically used to stop all discrimination, results in a multiplicity of unintended consequences, altered behavior, and fraud.

If anyone would like to contribute the discussion, please feel free and voice your opinion. I'd like to gain a greater understanding of this topic.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2012 9:46:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Affirmative Action stands against the theory of equal opporitunity that America defends.

Affirmative action starts when the government declares a group to be unable to obtain the equal opporitunity that everyone else is exposed to. This is discriminatory in nature in itself. Next the government feels that it is obliged to do something about this injustice or unfairness that it has claimed to see and moves in to do something about it.

It tramples over equal opporitunity and is completely unfair.

No group is below another in America. If you work hard, show intelligence and ingenuity you will move up and the government doesn't need to meddle with that.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 12:07:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It may have served a purpose in the past, but now nobody should be hired simply based on skin colour. If a white guy and a black guy were to apply for the same position I would hire the white guy if he presented himself better and has more relevant experience or vice versa. So yea, I think it's just reverse racism. Besides, most of these young people entering the workforce weren't even alive when their respective groups were being persecuted.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 2:48:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Some non-readers at this site want me to be less "verbose", so in answer to your question, "Is affirmative action unfair?", here's my shortest statement to date, NO!. And to elaborate in an equally succinct fashion, No it's not unfair in the slightest, and only conservative and disgruntled white douche bags think that it is.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 3:49:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 2:48:55 AM, charleslb wrote:
Some non-readers at this site want me to be less "verbose", so in answer to your question, "Is affirmative action unfair?", here's my shortest statement to date, NO!. And to elaborate in an equally succinct fashion, No it's not unfair in the slightest, and only conservative and disgruntled white douche bags think that it is.

Why? Tell me how it is fair that someone who is not as competent as I am get a promotion, job, scholarship ect due to race?
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 4:08:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 9:46:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Affirmative Action stands against the theory of equal opporitunity that America defends.

"social justice is bullsh!t" - Conservativepolitico.

Its funny how you care about equality only when it affects you.

Affirmative action starts when the government declares a group to be unable to obtain the equal opporitunity that everyone else is exposed to. This is discriminatory in nature in itself. Next the government feels that it is obliged to do something about this injustice or unfairness that it has claimed to see and moves in to do something about it.

It tramples over equal opporitunity and is completely unfair.

No group is below another in America. If you work hard, show intelligence and ingenuity you will move up and the government doesn't need to meddle with that.

This is the ignorant perception of modern day opportunity that prevents us from advancing as a society. Corporations unregulated are not entities dedicated to humanity, they are entities that strive and work for self-benefit at the smallest cost possible. As a result, they often exploit the general public and end up harming those in need. A person that is poor in the United States does not have simple or clear avenues of escape up the social ladder. Even one prone to being sick would be dropped off of insurance coverage.

The government is what the people have created to do 2 things, protect the freedom of the people, and protect fair opportunity for the people. A government is but a useless figurehead if it is too much to intervene in the immoral business practices of the corporate world, ....how then is the state serving its purpose?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 4:23:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 4:08:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/17/2012 9:46:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Affirmative Action stands against the theory of equal opporitunity that America defends.

"social justice is bullsh!t" - Conservativepolitico.

Its funny how you care about equality only when it affects you.

Affirmative action starts when the government declares a group to be unable to obtain the equal opporitunity that everyone else is exposed to. This is discriminatory in nature in itself. Next the government feels that it is obliged to do something about this injustice or unfairness that it has claimed to see and moves in to do something about it.

It tramples over equal opporitunity and is completely unfair.

No group is below another in America. If you work hard, show intelligence and ingenuity you will move up and the government doesn't need to meddle with that.

This is the ignorant perception of modern day opportunity that prevents us from advancing as a society. Corporations unregulated are not entities dedicated to humanity, they are entities that strive and work for self-benefit at the smallest cost possible. As a result, they often exploit the general public and end up harming those in need. A person that is poor in the United States does not have simple or clear avenues of escape up the social ladder. Even one prone to being sick would be dropped off of insurance coverage.

The government is what the people have created to do 2 things, protect the freedom of the people, and protect fair opportunity for the people. A government is but a useless figurehead if it is too much to intervene in the immoral business practices of the corporate world, ....how then is the state serving its purpose?

Did you read my Student Congress speech? If we stand for individual liberty, we treat everyone equally under the law; we don't grant special privileges to certain groups or deprive other groups of rights.

I made a clear distinction between private sector and public sector jobs.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 7:21:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 2:48:55 AM, charleslb wrote:
Some non-readers at this site want me to be less "verbose", so in answer to your question, "Is affirmative action unfair?", here's my shortest statement to date, NO!. And to elaborate in an equally succinct fashion, No it's not unfair in the slightest, and only conservative and disgruntled white douche bags think that it is.

Omg, you're awesome when you're succinct. Please, do continue.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 7:22:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 9:30:15 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
There is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination. It merely means to choose this over that. Let me explain: discrimination is defined as "the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgement; to differentiate." Choosing friends of good character, who we invite into our homes, and who we date and marry are forms of discrimination we should all endorse. This positive discrimination should never be regulated by government.
But it is a different matter when it comes to politics. Here is where the word "discrimination" indicates some sin against civic religion. In the public sector banning blatant discrimination in all government programs makes perfect sense; government programs are constructed for public access. In the private sector, however, forcing people to avoid discrimination in all private transactions through affirmative action laws is a different matter.
The Declaration of Independence states, "that all men are created equal." The Constitution indicates that the state shall not, "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." They do not read, "all men are created equal and have equal protection of the laws, yet some groups of men will have special, better equality." In our nation's founding documents rest the immortal words that when used toward affirmative action arouse suspicion in even the slowest of minds as to its legitimacy. For many years the United States has notoriously written laws that segregated people by race, gender, or sexual orientation. This practice of forced segregation was in place since the civil war until forced association with affirmative action was implemented in private affairs, thus substituting one set of violations of individual rights with another. Voluntary associations are better, more authentic, and longer lasting than associations forced by legislation imposed by bureaucrats. Martin Luther King Jr. once admonished us to "judge a person not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Yet quotas for affirmative action programs are based on certain groups qualifying for special privileges. Reversing the discrimination hasn't brought people together. Whenever groups receive special privileges, resentment will occur, but not where character and talent are the tests of one's ability. This is true in sports, entertainments, finance, politics, and in the professions.
The argument that past injury requires privileges and special favors to compensate is illogical today because those who must offer benefits are not themselves guilty and those who accept benefits were not injured. Furthermore, people who do not fit the criteria for these privileges abuse the system. In conclusion, government force, illegally and illogically used to stop all discrimination, results in a multiplicity of unintended consequences, altered behavior, and fraud.



If anyone would like to contribute the discussion, please feel free and voice your opinion. I'd like to gain a greater understanding of this topic.

1. You do not understand the legislation.
2. You made no reference to the legislation.
3. Your grievances are the contrived paranoia of racists.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 7:41:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Affirmative action in the context of race should not be permitted. It should, however, be permitted in the context of socio-economic status in order to correct for differences in the starting positions of individuals in society. It is unfair that children of wealthy parents are able to graduate from excellent high schools and attend decent colleges even though they may have equal merit as an individual who attended an underfunded, overattended school in the ghetto. Affirmative action should be permitted in order to correct for the aristocratic trends that arise from "capitalism".

Affirmative action in the context of race can be particularly detrimental to the individuals who need it the most. African American candidates who are relatively well off can receive benefits at the expense of their poorer peers, which harms them by limiting their access to the positions and creating stigma against affirmative action.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 7:44:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 7:41:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Affirmative action in the context of race should not be permitted. It should, however, be permitted in the context of socio-economic status in order to correct for differences in the starting positions of individuals in society. It is unfair that children of wealthy parents are able to graduate from excellent high schools and attend decent colleges even though they may have equal merit as an individual who attended an underfunded, overattended school in the ghetto. Affirmative action should be permitted in order to correct for the aristocratic trends that arise from "capitalism".

Affirmative action in the context of race can be particularly detrimental to the individuals who need it the most. African American candidates who are relatively well off can receive benefits at the expense of their poorer peers, which harms them by limiting their access to the positions and creating stigma against affirmative action.


Can you give me a real-life example of this?

So, are you saying that Affirmative Action should protect people of any "gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, belief, or handicap," yet, with the stipulation that it does not protect Black people and it does protect the poor?
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 7:45:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
And, by the way -- how, please explain, is it supposed to protect the poor, based on how it's written?

What about all of the other ethnicities that receive hate (although, clearly, not nearly as much as Black people, GOD DAMN.)
bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 8:15:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/17/2012 9:46:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

It tramples over equal opporitunity and is completely unfair.

No group is below another in America. If you work hard, show intelligence and ingenuity you will move up and the government doesn't need to meddle with that.

Hey, I got an idea, since you think that's true. Why dont you go down to compton and tell them that? How about Wounded Kneee Sioux Reservation? How about the Muslims in Dearborn? The hispanics in East L.A.? You gotta inform them of this wonderful thing.......
Understand this, If you've got a White man from Beverly Hills, and a black man from Compton, you'd pick the white guy, don't you lie now.
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 10:29:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 8:15:53 AM, bhatti1020 wrote:
At 1/17/2012 9:46:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

It tramples over equal opporitunity and is completely unfair.

No group is below another in America. If you work hard, show intelligence and ingenuity you will move up and the government doesn't need to meddle with that.

Hey, I got an idea, since you think that's true. Why dont you go down to compton and tell them that? How about Wounded Kneee Sioux Reservation? How about the Muslims in Dearborn? The hispanics in East L.A.? You gotta inform them of this wonderful thing.......
Understand this, If you've got a White man from Beverly Hills, and a black man from Compton, you'd pick the white guy, don't you lie now.

And if the black guy is the better candidate, you'd be punishing yourself.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 10:38:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 7:44:12 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/18/2012 7:41:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Affirmative action in the context of race should not be permitted. It should, however, be permitted in the context of socio-economic status in order to correct for differences in the starting positions of individuals in society. It is unfair that children of wealthy parents are able to graduate from excellent high schools and attend decent colleges even though they may have equal merit as an individual who attended an underfunded, overattended school in the ghetto. Affirmative action should be permitted in order to correct for the aristocratic trends that arise from "capitalism".

Affirmative action in the context of race can be particularly detrimental to the individuals who need it the most. African American candidates who are relatively well off can receive benefits at the expense of their poorer peers, which harms them by limiting their access to the positions and creating stigma against affirmative action.


Can you give me a real-life example of this?

I can give you anecdotal evidence based on individuals that I have dealth with, but I would need to research this more to give you credible sociological evidence.
So, are you saying that Affirmative Action should protect people of any "gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, belief, or handicap," yet, with the stipulation that it does not protect Black people and it does protect the poor?

No, that was not my argument. I only said that it should correct for economic matters. I do not want other things to be taken into account when it is used because the people who actually need it, namely the proletarian classes, are put at a disadvantage when their wealthier peers steal the spots that were designed to aid them.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 10:46:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 7:45:00 AM, Ren wrote:
And, by the way -- how, please explain, is it supposed to protect the poor, based on how it's written?

Aff action was designed to help A.A.s and other minorities based on the fact that they tend to be less wealthy than the Caucasian overlords. Thus, it used wrongful means to protect the poor.
What about all of the other ethnicities that receive hate (although, clearly, not nearly as much as Black people, GOD DAMN.)

Affirmative Action has created a standard of diversity that is detrimental to Asian Americans. Asian Americans, including myself, have to score signficantly higher than their Caucasian peers to be accepted at an excellent university because colleges are attempting to promote "diversity" (utter nonsense, considering that at least 50% of the population at every college EXCEPT Berkeley is Caucasian. There have been numerous studies published about this; I can give some to you if you like.) I finished high school with a G.P.A. of 4.15 (out of an unweighted 4.33 system with an A+ being worth a 4.33) and a total of twelve "5's" on AP examinations. In addition, I was a top-ranked debater at the state level, a top-ranked Science Olympiad competitor at the state level, a National Merit Scholar, etc. I even tried to diversify my academic portfolio by winning awards in the humanities. However, I was rejected from my top three choices for college (Harvard, Yale, and Staford) while a Caucasian friend of mine who did litte outside of school and had a G.P.A. of 3.7/4.33 was accepted into Harvard. Why? Because I fit the stereotype of a typical "overachieveing" Asian applicant, so to "promote diversity" the college decided to accept my friend instead of me even though over 50% of the students at Harvard are already Caucasian.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2012 7:07:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 10:38:47 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/18/2012 7:44:12 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/18/2012 7:41:07 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Affirmative action in the context of race should not be permitted. It should, however, be permitted in the context of socio-economic status in order to correct for differences in the starting positions of individuals in society. It is unfair that children of wealthy parents are able to graduate from excellent high schools and attend decent colleges even though they may have equal merit as an individual who attended an underfunded, overattended school in the ghetto. Affirmative action should be permitted in order to correct for the aristocratic trends that arise from "capitalism".

Affirmative action in the context of race can be particularly detrimental to the individuals who need it the most. African American candidates who are relatively well off can receive benefits at the expense of their poorer peers, which harms them by limiting their access to the positions and creating stigma against affirmative action.


Can you give me a real-life example of this?

I can give you anecdotal evidence based on individuals that I have dealth with, but I would need to research this more to give you credible sociological evidence.
So, are you saying that Affirmative Action should protect people of any "gender, sexual orientation, religion, age, belief, or handicap," yet, with the stipulation that it does not protect Black people and it does protect the poor?

No, that was not my argument. I only said that it should correct for economic matters. I do not want other things to be taken into account when it is used because the people who actually need it, namely the proletarian classes, are put at a disadvantage when their wealthier peers steal the spots that were designed to aid them.

It literally states that those things are not to be taken into account. That's the legislation. Anyone taking it into account is guilty of a civil crime and can be sued.

If you see someone benefitting anyone due to their "race," then sue them. Do it tonight; call a lawyer. If they're really doing that, you'll win.

True story.

So, clearly, you simply do not understand the legislation.