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

Affirmative Action

Callen13
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:43:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why does it seem like everybody on this site is against this? I thought I knew what it was about and thought it was a good thing, but I'm starting to feel ignorant on the subject. Somebody tell me why their against it?>
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:44:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's racist for one.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:47:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's quite a bit in favor of affirmative action.

A lot of conservatives and libertarians are on this site, and are obviously against it. Even moderates can be against affirmative action. During high school, I was a moderate and was against affirmative action.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:50:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is reverse discrimination, and makes employers hire employees who are not necessarily as best suited for the job. If we had greater economic opportunity, giving everybody a fair shot which is my most important belief that America needs, it would replace much of the need for affirmative action.

A personal example:

My grandpa had put in 10 years as a manager of a Ford dealership. He was going to be promoted to be the head of a dealership itself, so he would own the dealership. He was going to get it, but he was told by his higher boss that because of affirmative action he could not get the job, and someone else got the job.

I stand for the values of responsibility, trust, fairness, and opportunity, Progressive values.

It is not responsible to give people jobs they are not fit for.
It is not honest to preach equality when you violate it.
It is not fairness, by obvious reasons.
Opportunity is best suited by making others legitimately suited for the job. I am extremely supportive of equal opportunity initiatives. AA violates opportunity for others.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basically, it screws with the concept that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, or the to each according to his ability thing.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:52:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 8:43:59 PM, Callen13 wrote:
Why does it seem like everybody on this site is against this? I thought I knew what it was about and thought it was a good thing, but I'm starting to feel ignorant on the subject. Somebody tell me why their against it?>

My opinion is that it's because most people here don't understand the legislation, although I respect your inquiry, and you should assess their opinions for yourself.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 8:58:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Race alone should not be a determining factor in any piece of legislation for any reason. Minority groups in our society are mislabeled by being focused on physical traits, rather than abilities/disabilities.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:00:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 8:58:59 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Race alone should not be a determining factor in any piece of legislation for any reason. Minority groups in our society are mislabeled by being focused on physical traits, rather than abilities/disabilities.

Affirmative action encompasses much more than just race.
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:09:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 9:00:09 PM, Ren wrote:
At 5/24/2012 8:58:59 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
Race alone should not be a determining factor in any piece of legislation for any reason. Minority groups in our society are mislabeled by being focused on physical traits, rather than abilities/disabilities.

Affirmative action encompasses much more than just race.

It may but you cannot deny the fundamental idea of the entire thing. It was meant to serve as a mere apology for slavery.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:18:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 8:50:15 PM, Contra wrote:
It is reverse discrimination, and makes employers hire employees who are not necessarily as best suited for the job. If we had greater economic opportunity, giving everybody a fair shot which is my most important belief that America needs, it would replace much of the need for affirmative action.

A personal example:

My grandpa had put in 10 years as a manager of a Ford dealership. He was going to be promoted to be the head of a dealership itself, so he would own the dealership. He was going to get it, but he was told by his higher boss that because of affirmative action he could not get the job, and someone else got the job.

I stand for the values of responsibility, trust, fairness, and opportunity, Progressive values.

It is not responsible to give people jobs they are not fit for.
It is not honest to preach equality when you violate it.
It is not fairness, by obvious reasons.
Opportunity is best suited by making others legitimately suited for the job. I am extremely supportive of equal opportunity initiatives. AA violates opportunity for others.

I agree with you, but I question your notion that denying AA is a progressive value. If anything, it is a conservative value, hence the equality of opportunity (not outcome) part. The overwhelming majority of leftist are for AA.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:23:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 9:18:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 8:50:15 PM, Contra wrote:
It is reverse discrimination, and makes employers hire employees who are not necessarily as best suited for the job. If we had greater economic opportunity, giving everybody a fair shot which is my most important belief that America needs, it would replace much of the need for affirmative action.

A personal example:

My grandpa had put in 10 years as a manager of a Ford dealership. He was going to be promoted to be the head of a dealership itself, so he would own the dealership. He was going to get it, but he was told by his higher boss that because of affirmative action he could not get the job, and someone else got the job.

I stand for the values of responsibility, trust, fairness, and opportunity, Progressive values.

It is not responsible to give people jobs they are not fit for.
It is not honest to preach equality when you violate it.
It is not fairness, by obvious reasons.
Opportunity is best suited by making others legitimately suited for the job. I am extremely supportive of equal opportunity initiatives. AA violates opportunity for others.

I agree with you, but I question your notion that denying AA is a progressive value.

No, I explained how I formed my positions, with my progressive values.

If anything, it is a conservative value, hence the equality of opportunity (not outcome) part.

Progressives/ Liberals are for equality of opportunity, that's why some of our main points involve giving everybody a fair shot, a level playing field, broad prosperity, etc.

The overwhelming majority of leftist are for AA.

Unfortunately, the heads are. Most Democrats that I know don't support it, but I'm talking about the average voters, not the politicians for the most part.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:25:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 9:23:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/24/2012 9:18:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 8:50:15 PM, Contra wrote:
It is reverse discrimination, and makes employers hire employees who are not necessarily as best suited for the job. If we had greater economic opportunity, giving everybody a fair shot which is my most important belief that America needs, it would replace much of the need for affirmative action.

A personal example:

My grandpa had put in 10 years as a manager of a Ford dealership. He was going to be promoted to be the head of a dealership itself, so he would own the dealership. He was going to get it, but he was told by his higher boss that because of affirmative action he could not get the job, and someone else got the job.

I stand for the values of responsibility, trust, fairness, and opportunity, Progressive values.

It is not responsible to give people jobs they are not fit for.
It is not honest to preach equality when you violate it.
It is not fairness, by obvious reasons.
Opportunity is best suited by making others legitimately suited for the job. I am extremely supportive of equal opportunity initiatives. AA violates opportunity for others.

I agree with you, but I question your notion that denying AA is a progressive value.

No, I explained how I formed my positions, with my progressive values.

If anything, it is a conservative value, hence the equality of opportunity (not outcome) part.

Progressives/ Liberals are for equality of opportunity, that's why some of our main points involve giving everybody a fair shot, a level playing field, broad prosperity, etc.

The overwhelming majority of leftist are for AA.

Unfortunately, the heads are. Most Democrats that I know don't support it, but I'm talking about the average voters, not the politicians for the most part.

This.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Callen13
Posts: 52
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 9:25:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ah ok. See I was under the assumption that it just protected you from being discriminated against for things like race and gender. Like on a resume, an employer couldnt ask if you were black..
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:10:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 9:23:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/24/2012 9:18:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 8:50:15 PM, Contra wrote:
It is reverse discrimination, and makes employers hire employees who are not necessarily as best suited for the job. If we had greater economic opportunity, giving everybody a fair shot which is my most important belief that America needs, it would replace much of the need for affirmative action.

A personal example:

My grandpa had put in 10 years as a manager of a Ford dealership. He was going to be promoted to be the head of a dealership itself, so he would own the dealership. He was going to get it, but he was told by his higher boss that because of affirmative action he could not get the job, and someone else got the job.

I stand for the values of responsibility, trust, fairness, and opportunity, Progressive values.

It is not responsible to give people jobs they are not fit for.
It is not honest to preach equality when you violate it.
It is not fairness, by obvious reasons.
Opportunity is best suited by making others legitimately suited for the job. I am extremely supportive of equal opportunity initiatives. AA violates opportunity for others.

I agree with you, but I question your notion that denying AA is a progressive value.

No, I explained how I formed my positions, with my progressive values.

You spouted out a bunch of rhetoric about how progressive support some kind of "fair" stuff. Not exactly an explanation.

If anything, it is a conservative value, hence the equality of opportunity (not outcome) part.

Progressives/ Liberals are for equality of opportunity, that's why some of our main points involve giving everybody a fair shot, a level playing field, broad prosperity, etc.

Liberals generally focus more on equality of outcome, ex. reducing economic inequality, taxing richer people.

The overwhelming majority of leftist are for AA.

Unfortunately, the heads are. Most Democrats that I know don't support it, but I'm talking about the average voters, not the politicians for the most part.

You cannot prove what the average voter thinks. On the other hand, I can prove what politicians think.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:16:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 10:10:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 9:23:25 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/24/2012 9:18:22 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/24/2012 8:50:15 PM, Contra wrote:
It is reverse discrimination, and makes employers hire employees who are not necessarily as best suited for the job. If we had greater economic opportunity, giving everybody a fair shot which is my most important belief that America needs, it would replace much of the need for affirmative action.

A personal example:

My grandpa had put in 10 years as a manager of a Ford dealership. He was going to be promoted to be the head of a dealership itself, so he would own the dealership. He was going to get it, but he was told by his higher boss that because of affirmative action he could not get the job, and someone else got the job.

I stand for the values of responsibility, trust, fairness, and opportunity, Progressive values.

It is not responsible to give people jobs they are not fit for.
It is not honest to preach equality when you violate it.
It is not fairness, by obvious reasons.
Opportunity is best suited by making others legitimately suited for the job. I am extremely supportive of equal opportunity initiatives. AA violates opportunity for others.

I agree with you, but I question your notion that denying AA is a progressive value.

No, I explained how I formed my positions, with my progressive values.

You spouted out a bunch of rhetoric about how progressive support some kind of "fair" stuff. Not exactly an explanation.

Progressive thought, which basically is composed of the nurturant family model as a metaphor for political beliefs on the whole, has the main values of responsibility, fairness, opportunity, and trust. These values allow one to have self-nurturance and help others be nurtured to become productive citizens.

If anything, it is a conservative value, hence the equality of opportunity (not outcome) part.

Progressives/ Liberals are for equality of opportunity, that's why some of our main points involve giving everybody a fair shot, a level playing field, broad prosperity, etc.

Liberals generally focus more on equality of outcome, ex. reducing economic inequality, taxing richer people.

Not really true. We favor both ends.

Example is improved education. Improved education gives equality of opportunity, while also focuses on the outcome of reducing income inequality and requires taxation of the wealthy.

The overwhelming majority of leftist are for AA.

Unfortunately, the heads are. Most Democrats that I know don't support it, but I'm talking about the average voters, not the politicians for the most part.

You cannot prove what the average voter thinks. On the other hand, I can prove what politicians think.

I haven't really met a Democrat face to face that supports AA.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:21:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 9:25:24 PM, Callen13 wrote:
Ah ok. See I was under the assumption that it just protected you from being discriminated against for things like race and gender. Like on a resume, an employer couldnt ask if you were black..

That would be part of the Civil Rights Act. While I do oppose discriminating based on race, I oppse the government making it illegal. I support it morally, but not legally.
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.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:25:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 10:21:13 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/24/2012 9:25:24 PM, Callen13 wrote:
Ah ok. See I was under the assumption that it just protected you from being discriminated against for things like race and gender. Like on a resume, an employer couldnt ask if you were black..

That would be part of the Civil Rights Act. While I do oppose discriminating based on race, I oppse the government making it illegal. I support it morally, but not legally.

Why don't you support it legally?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:27:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 10:25:29 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/24/2012 10:21:13 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/24/2012 9:25:24 PM, Callen13 wrote:
Ah ok. See I was under the assumption that it just protected you from being discriminated against for things like race and gender. Like on a resume, an employer couldnt ask if you were black..

That would be part of the Civil Rights Act. While I do oppose discriminating based on race, I oppse the government making it illegal. I support it morally, but not legally.

Why don't you support it legally?

My real guess is that because it infringes to a degree on property rights, which would thus be considered "immoral".

I support the common good by asking this small thing by infringing on property rights by an ever so slight degree.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2012 10:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/24/2012 10:27:26 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/24/2012 10:25:29 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/24/2012 10:21:13 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 5/24/2012 9:25:24 PM, Callen13 wrote:
Ah ok. See I was under the assumption that it just protected you from being discriminated against for things like race and gender. Like on a resume, an employer couldnt ask if you were black..

That would be part of the Civil Rights Act. While I do oppose discriminating based on race, I oppse the government making it illegal. I support it morally, but not legally.

Why don't you support it legally?

My real guess is that because it infringes to a degree on property rights, which would thus be considered "immoral".

That would be correct.

I support the common good by asking this small thing by infringing on property rights by an ever so slight degree.

That could become difficult to define. We don't have free speech to talk about the weather. What if it was deemed in the common good to ban certain types of speech? It's best to deny the government the ability to regulate it at all. Any time a racial minority is denied, they can charge with racism. Even if the results are simply due to external factors, and have nothing to do with racism, if the minority is underrepresented based on the population, then it can be deemed "racist."
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.