Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Against Affirmative Action - Then What?

Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Currently, I'm undecided in my opinion of affirmative action. It's a worn out topic, so forgive me. Many suggest that it no longer applies because we've overcome many struggles. Have we? We have a minority in the White House, is that an indication that racism has ended?

Others are severely antagonistic against this policy citing that it is unfair to whites or that all people should be treated equally. Isn't affirmative action a response to inequality?

I've seen people sum affirmative action up as a policy meant to force companies to choose minorities to fill quotas. Is this really true?

So you're against affirmatice action. Do you value diversity?

What one can't deny is that inequality persists. There are organizations, companies, institutions, etc. where entire classes of people for whatever reason (systemic, hatred, planned or unplanned) have no access. Is this fair?

For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 8:53:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?

Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:13:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.

So do you suggest we ignore the human element here? Or are you insinuating that every individual will act impartially?

I work for a company where the CEO's childrens' friends are basically guaranteed internships out of college simply because of the old saying "it's not what you know, it's who you know." People make fun of them, because when asked how they joined the company, they proudfully cite having been friends with the CEO's kids.

This (it's who you know) saying permeates the business world. So, does the "best person for the job always get the job?" What happens when you weren't born "in the know?" Are we really choosing the best person for the job? What about the other college graduates looking for internships? They were interested in the company, maybe even more qualified and capable. But they never had a shot because they weren't friends with the CEO's children. Is that fair? Multiply such an instance across companies, then across people and we have one way in which people of all classes can be denied opportunities.

Might I remind you, the "company" does not decide, individuals decide. Individuals with varying life experiences, views, opinions and an unlimited number of biases who represent the "company" and have been given decision-making power to make the ultimate decision. Can you really govern an individuals biases and or measure/track its influence over their decision making processes?

Not all companies are equipped with objective employees with its best interest in mind. That's utopia.

It's irresponsible to assume against this.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:14:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 9:13:12 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.

So do you suggest we ignore the human element here? Or are you insinuating that every individual will act impartially?

I work for a company where the CEO's childrens' friends are basically guaranteed internships out of college simply because of the old saying "it's not what you know, it's who you know." People make fun of them, because when asked how they joined the company, they proudfully cite having been friends with the CEO's kids.

This (it's who you know) saying permeates the business world. So, does the "best person for the job always get the job?" What happens when you weren't born "in the know?" Are we really choosing the best person for the job? What about the other college graduates looking for internships? They were interested in the company, maybe even more qualified and capable. But they never had a shot because they weren't friends with the CEO's children. Is that fair? Multiply such an instance across companies, then across people and we have one way in which people of all classes can be denied opportunities.

Might I remind you, the "company" does not decide, individuals decide. Individuals with varying life experiences, views, opinions and an unlimited number of biases who represent the "company" and have been given decision-making power to make the ultimate decision. Can you really govern an individuals biases and or measure/track its influence over their decision making processes?

Not all companies are equipped with objective employees with its best interest in mind. That's utopia.

It's irresponsible to assume against this.

Who's more qualified to make those decisions?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:22:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 9:18:20 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Who's more qualified to make those decisions?

Good question. You tell me.

Thats what I'm saying, the company is best to judge whose most qualified, if they get someone less qualified because of some arbitrary reason they are only hurting themselves.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:32:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Thats what I'm saying, the company is best to judge whose most qualified, if they get someone less qualified because of some arbitrary reason they are only hurting themselves.

Qualified: What happens when the more qualified candidate was afforded an opportunity that the less qualified candidate may have never received for the same reasons that he/she may not receive the job (race, sex, etc.)?

There are instances when choosing a "less qualified" candidate is more beneficial to the company. You are aware of these factors correct?

How is hiring one's friends and not considering a diverse pool of qualified candidates effective or fair hiring?

What happens when the individuals making the decision are purposely excluding qualified people based on uncontrollable factors (race, sex, etc.)? How do you effectively manage against such issues as racism without government intervention?

You ignored my original questions and hence the circle begins. Shall we dance?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:39:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 9:32:31 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Thats what I'm saying, the company is best to judge whose most qualified, if they get someone less qualified because of some arbitrary reason they are only hurting themselves.

Qualified: What happens when the more qualified candidate was afforded an opportunity that the less qualified candidate may have never received for the same reasons that he/she may not receive the job (race, sex, etc.)?

Attack that problem where it begins, schools, home life etc. don't make up for it by allowing the less qualified people the better jobs. That's nonsensical.

There are instances when choosing a "less qualified" candidate is more beneficial to the company. You are aware of these factors correct?

By qualified I thought it was understood they are best for the position.

How is hiring one's friends and not considering a diverse pool of qualified candidates effective or fair hiring?

who are you to decide if its effective or fair? The company can do what it wants and what it thinks is best.

What happens when the individuals making the decision are purposely excluding qualified people based on uncontrollable factors (race, sex, etc.)? How do you effectively manage against such issues as racism without government intervention?

Like I said, companies will do what is in their best interest. Companies wanting the best employee for the job is how you "manage against racism".
If a company chooses the poorer employee based on arbitrary factors, that company fails and the one that doesn't practice discrimination does well.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:53:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 8:53:02 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?

Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.

History seems to show otherwise.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:55:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 9:53:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:53:02 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?

Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.

History seems to show otherwise.

Really? Where did companies benefit in employing the lesser of qualified candidates?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 9:58:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Attack that problem where it begins, schools, home life etc. don't make up for it by allowing the less qualified people the better jobs. That's nonsensical.


Hmm... in many cases, that is exactly what affirmative action sets out to do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this policy extends beyond the private, corporate sector.

What do you mean by "better jobs?" We're speaking in generalities here. You seem to have some prejudices of your own. Noted.

By qualified I thought it was understood they are best for the position.

Exactly. Qualified is qualified. A set of criterion are publicized, candidates apply. A qualified candidate meets all of the criterion preferred by organization X. A more qualified candidate surpasses preferences (meets criteria and offers more). Oft-times there are consequences with hiring "more" qualified candidates. Your previous assertions allude to a loss when hiring a "less" qualified candidate. But you miss vital points, companies can lose when they hire "more" qualified candidates and often do. Second, all candidates meet the criteria, which is the basic point in establishing qualifications. You have a non-argument here.

How is hiring one's friends and not considering a diverse pool of qualified candidates effective or fair hiring?

who are you to decide if its effective or fair? The company can do what it wants and what it thinks is best.

Wrong, a company can't do what it wants and what it thinks is best. Companies do not think - people do. Specifically, people can't decide that they will not hire entire groups of people because of their race or gender or sexual preference. Maybe in Sudan, but not in America. Are you not aware of how destructive this has been and would be to our democracy? Companies are governed by laws, by the constitution. Are you familiar with these doctrines?

I had no idea this was the foundation you were working with. Noted.

Like I said, companies will do what is in their best interest. Companies wanting the best employee for the job is how you "manage against racism".
If a company chooses the poorer employee based on arbitrary factors, that company fails and the one that doesn't practice discrimination does well.

Wrong. Companies do not act. Companies are institutions created to facilitate business matters. People act. People do not always act in the best interest of the company.

Supporting racism and discrimination does not guarantee failure. Great idea, but success is not a guard against racism.

You seem to lack the understanding of the many instances when businesses will choose the "less" *qualified* candidate. This does not equate to incapable candidates. Qualified is qualified.

Hmm... I think I'll go for my run.
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:05:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Really? Where did companies benefit in employing the lesser of qualified candidates?

I was hoping you would ask this question. What benefit does a company get from hiring the lesser qualified candidate?

- Save money: more qualified individuals cost more money, companies save money when they are working on a budget.

- Training: hiring a candidate with fewer credentials allows the company to train the individual in a manner that is conducive to their brand and their way of operating (see the rise of recent graduates being scouted into Fortune 500s across the nation and chosen over "more qualified and seasoned" candidates). Experts or more qualified candidates, are more likely to be highered for very specialized roles or, managerial positions where their expertise will be invaluable.

- Age: this is a form of discrimination, but sometimes more qualified means older. Older means the retirement clock is ticking, not to mention benefits are costly. This could play a role in hiring a lesser qualified candidate.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:06:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You convinced me.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:09:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 9:55:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 9:53:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:53:02 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?

Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.

History seems to show otherwise.

Really? Where did companies benefit in employing the lesser of qualified candidates?

They don't have to. You don't have to do what benefits the most in order to do well. And optimum benefit does not have that big of a sway in companies.

If the marginal benefit for a white guy was $3.50 an hour and his services cost $1.00 an hour, while the black guy had a marginal benefit of $3.75 at the same cost. The company can hire whichever they want and still make a profit.

Even though the black guy is "technically" better. The established mind set in some areas would prevent the black guy for getting a job at any company (including local competition) and since the companies are still making a profit from their choices, they are not hurt by it.

You're not really going to argue that there was never any racial hiring practices between 1866 and 1962 are you?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:13:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:09:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 9:55:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 9:53:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:53:02 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?

Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.

History seems to show otherwise.

Really? Where did companies benefit in employing the lesser of qualified candidates?

They don't have to. You don't have to do what benefits the most in order to do well. And optimum benefit does not have that big of a sway in companies.

If the marginal benefit for a white guy was $3.50 an hour and his services cost $1.00 an hour, while the black guy had a marginal benefit of $3.75 at the same cost. The company can hire whichever they want and still make a profit.

Even though the black guy is "technically" better. The established mind set in some areas would prevent the black guy for getting a job at any company (including local competition) and since the companies are still making a profit from their choices, they are not hurt by it.

You're not really going to argue that there was never any racial hiring practices between 1866 and 1962 are you?

I didn't say there weren't, I said the companies (and you confirmed with your example) who employ the better employees make more money.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:13:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:05:10 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Really? Where did companies benefit in employing the lesser of qualified candidates?

I was hoping you would ask this question. What benefit does a company get from hiring the lesser qualified candidate?

- Save money: more qualified individuals cost more money, companies save money when they are working on a budget.

- Training: hiring a candidate with fewer credentials allows the company to train the individual in a manner that is conducive to their brand and their way of operating (see the rise of recent graduates being scouted into Fortune 500s across the nation and chosen over "more qualified and seasoned" candidates). Experts or more qualified candidates, are more likely to be highered for very specialized roles or, managerial positions where their expertise will be invaluable.

- Age: this is a form of discrimination, but sometimes more qualified means older. Older means the retirement clock is ticking, not to mention benefits are costly. This could play a role in hiring a lesser qualified candidate.

completely tangential to the issue of racism. "qualified" in this context should be taken to mean "possessing the qualities the company sees as ideal for the performance of the job" not "possessing the highest level of education/experience in a given field."

the best counter to racism is getting to know individuals of the so called "inferior" race and learning that they are equally human as compared to one's favored group. this is most easily done by an individual learning to see the two groups as more similar than different and this is harmed by the advocacy of policies that stress the differences between groups.

affirmative action policies imply that discrimination is ok as long as the individual discriminated against belongs to a group that is on average better off than other groups. this type of policy already requires the acceptance of the basic racist premise: that identifiable group membership has some bearing on ones abilities or experiences. of course, this is true insofar as racism still exists. but accepting the premise of racism and trying to fight fire with fire leads, at best, to a stalemate. if people are to see one another as equals ultimately they must be treated as such under the law.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:21:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:13:13 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:09:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 9:55:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 9:53:56 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:53:02 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?

Nothing has to be put in place to ensure companies higher the best person for the job.

History seems to show otherwise.

Really? Where did companies benefit in employing the lesser of qualified candidates?

They don't have to. You don't have to do what benefits the most in order to do well. And optimum benefit does not have that big of a sway in companies.

If the marginal benefit for a white guy was $3.50 an hour and his services cost $1.00 an hour, while the black guy had a marginal benefit of $3.75 at the same cost. The company can hire whichever they want and still make a profit.

Even though the black guy is "technically" better. The established mind set in some areas would prevent the black guy for getting a job at any company (including local competition) and since the companies are still making a profit from their choices, they are not hurt by it.

You're not really going to argue that there was never any racial hiring practices between 1866 and 1962 are you?

I didn't say there weren't, I said the companies (and you confirmed with your example) who employ the better employees make more money.

You originally said that nothing needs to be put in place to ensure that companies don't discriminate. I'm not saying that they don't make their maximum potential, but that they are fine with that to fulfill their racist desires.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:25:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:21:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

You originally said that nothing needs to be put in place to ensure that companies don't discriminate.

nothing does

I'm not saying that they don't make their maximum potential, but that they are fine with that to fulfill their racist desires.

their racist desires lol come on now.
Racist companies have just as much right to exist and just as much right to not do as well as non-racist companies.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:59:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:25:32 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:21:12 PM, OreEle wrote:

You originally said that nothing needs to be put in place to ensure that companies don't discriminate.

nothing does

I'm not saying that they don't make their maximum potential, but that they are fine with that to fulfill their racist desires.

their racist desires lol come on now.
Racist companies have just as much right to exist and just as much right to not do as well as non-racist companies.

If racism is a rejected idea, non-racist companies have an overwhelming advantage and a good stock buy. There is no better way to strip down and take advantage of racists than to allow them to have a place in the competitive market.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:02:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Isn't affirmative action a response to inequality?
So? shooting myself in the nuts is a response to blueballs, that doesn't mean it's a GOOD response.


I've seen people sum affirmative action up as a policy meant to force companies to choose minorities to fill quotas. Is this really true?
Affirmative action is too broad a label to say that. Though that policy and worse are practiced de facto in certain areas, it's not inherent to affirmative action. Heck, some affirmative action is wholly private, and though I disagree with it, well within the rights of the private entities that engage in it.


So you're against affirmatice action. Do you value diversity?
No.

There are organizations, companies, institutions, etc. where entire classes of people for whatever reason (systemic, hatred, planned or unplanned) have no access. Is this fair?
Did they make the companies? If not, then yes. It is fair that the preferences of the creator of a company rule in how that company distributes its benefits, other things equal.


For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?
Nothing. Equal opportunity is incoherent, as is the promotion of diversity by imposing centralized policy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:04:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To be precise, if you value diversity, LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE SO THEY'LL DO DIFFERENT S***.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:08:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 11:04:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
To be precise, if you value diversity, LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE SO THEY'LL DO DIFFERENT S***.

If diversity was a value, why even screen applicants for a job? True diversity means the incompetent has just as much value as a competent employee.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:09:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 11:08:22 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:04:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
To be precise, if you value diversity, LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE SO THEY'LL DO DIFFERENT S***.

If diversity was a value, why even screen applicants for a job? True diversity means the incompetent has just as much value as a competent employee.

Oh hells yeah.

But you have to seek people out to force them to work for you. Bit of a contradiction there, but that's diversity's fault not mine, only one way to get rid of self-selection bias.

And dig some of them out of graves.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 1:29:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Have we? We have a minority in the White House, is that an indication that racism has ended?

Despite the last election, 1 in 5 Americans still refuse to vote for a black person. The president is not decided by the majority of Americans anyway.

Do you know when bi-racial marriage was made legal in the last state to do so? 2000. I believe it was Alabama.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 1:42:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/6/2011 1:29:35 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Have we? We have a minority in the White House, is that an indication that racism has ended?

Despite the last election, 1 in 5 Americans still refuse to vote for a black person. The president is not decided by the majority of Americans anyway.

Do you know when bi-racial marriage was made legal in the last state to do so? 2000. I believe it was Alabama.

20% of Americans are racist? where you get that
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 10:35:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find that any statistic on racism cannot really be accurate, since people are not going to go to the survey taker and say "yes, I'm a racist." or "no, I'm not a racist." with 100% accuracy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 11:34:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
giant wall of text in

3

2

1
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 11:34:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 8:46:22 PM, Outspoken wrote:
Currently, I'm undecided in my opinion of affirmative action. It's a worn out topic, so forgive me. Many suggest that it no longer applies because we've overcome many struggles. Have we? We have a minority in the White House, is that an indication that racism has ended?

Others are severely antagonistic against this policy citing that it is unfair to whites or that all people should be treated equally. Isn't affirmative action a response to inequality?
If you consider racism inequality then how can affirmative action be an appropriate response to inequality since affirmative action is racist? The problem with affirmative action is that it requires the very type of discrimination it is trying to destroy.

I've seen people sum affirmative action up as a policy meant to force companies to choose minorities to fill quotas. Is this really true?
No idea, I hope not. I don't think you should force any company to hire anyone for any reason that they see fit. For example, if Person A wishes to represent his company in a certain way that he sees fit, and Person B isn't representing the company that Person A wishes for it to be represented, then yes I think you should allow the employer to hire/not hire any person he sees fit or that he wishes his company be represented. I am especially implying this for private businesses.

So you're against affirmatice action. Do you value diversity?
So your essentially saying that if one were to be against affirmative action, they wouldn't value diversity? Interesting...tell that to Howard Connely.
However, I personally have seen and noticed a lot of negative aspects of diversity. While it is true that there are some positive effects of diversity, I believe that the negatives overshadow the positives. Keep in mind that this is from my personal perspective.

What one can't deny is that inequality persists. There are organizations, companies, institutions, etc. where entire classes of people for whatever reason (systemic, hatred, planned or unplanned) have no access. Is this fair?
Ok, since churches are considered a private institution, they would be included under this. That being said, they have a right to deny 'entire classes' of people that do not fit under a certain 'criteria' that the church and/or synagogue, or mosque or whatever religious institution wants attending there. I think this is fair, and it is also legal. I don't think this is inequality.

For arguments sake, let's say something has to be put in place to promote diversity and ensure all classes of people have equal opportunity for resources and jobs. If not affirmative action, then what?
If not affirmative action, well then nothing! And that is very good indeed! I always find it interesting that people who want affirmative action are against racial profiling. When in effect, it is technically 'profiling' someone for a job by their race. Except that in most cases affirmative action is benefiting the minority and racial profiling is not benefiting the minority. Double standard eh?
Outspoken
Posts: 85
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2011 2:53:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
completely tangential to the issue of racism. "qualified" in this context should be taken to mean "possessing the qualities the company sees as ideal for the performance of the job" not "possessing the highest level of education/experience in a given field."


Many positions require experience in a given field, credentials as evidence of formal training, experience understanding a particular industry, dealing with a particular service, product or client type. Measuring each candidate "subjectively" and without some standard qualifications would set the recruitment process back decades.

A hospital does not hire a doctor because he was a smooth talker, pretty good looking, knew fancy tricks with his scalpel, etc. A hospital hires a doctor because he is educated and has the credentials to prove it. They will hire a doctor with a proven track record, which equates to experience. They will hire a doctor with specialized training based on the organizations needs. Character and personality are also important but not nearly as important as experience and credentials. Therefore, if one candidate does not meet those qualifications and one does, choosing the candidate with the highest level of education and experience in the field prevents numerous lives loss and malpractice suits.

As it relates to this discussion, choosing a candidate of lesser qualifications in a pool of qualified candidates does not result in an unqualified candidate.

the best counter to racism is getting to know individuals of the so called "inferior" race and learning that they are equally human as compared to one's favored group. this is most easily done by an individual learning to see the two groups as more similar than different and this is harmed by the advocacy of policies that stress the differences between groups.


How does one even begin to mandate that individuals undergo such learning? How do you deal with non-compliance?

People are taught right and wrong throughout their lives. Many still choose to make the wrong choice.

Leaving it up to individuals to educate themselves is predicated by their desire to learn. When the desire doesn't exist, we're back to square one.

The bottom line is that no system, law or individual is capable of governing the mental faculties of another. What do you propose is done to overcome such a challenge?

You assert that learning about each individual beyond the concept of "the inferiority" of their race is harmed by the advocacy of policies that "stress" the difference between the groups. My question is:

1) How does affirmative action stress the differences between groups?
2) What do you propose is done to counter the "stress" entities in power place on these groups when allocating resources? It's ironic to me that you appear more concerned with the supposed negative effects of the policy than the issues that the policy sets out to address.
3) How is one's learning of another race harmed by policies like affirmative action?

affirmative action policies imply that discrimination is OK as long as the individual discriminated against belongs to a group that is on average better off than other groups. this type of policy already requires the acceptance of the basic racist premise: that identifiable group membership has some bearing on ones abilities or experiences. of course, this is true insofar as racism still exists. but accepting the premise of racism and trying to fight fire with fire leads, at best, to a stalemate. if people are to see one another as equals ultimately they must be treated as such under the law.

In what way does affirmative action imply discrimination is acceptable?
Where in the policy are "groups that are on average better off" targeted for discrimination as you claim?

You say, "this type of policy already requires the acceptance of the basic racist premise..." I appreciate you sharing your personal opinions, unfortunately you are wrong. Racism is:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. - English Dictionary

In reviewing the Affirmative Action policy, there is no distinction the abilities of different races. Furthermore there is no indication of antagonist against any group of people. In fact, the policy sets out to combat issues of racism and discrimination.

Most of what you've put forth seems to be the collective opinion of the groups opposing this policy ineffectually. Much of their arguments are not derived from intellectual discussion based on factual evidence. Instead, these opinions are the result of individuals who have little to no understanding of the policy; more than likely have never read the policy in its entirety; and have shot from the hip while having a beer after work. Much of their complaints are due to personal experiences that they've coupled with a misconstrued understanding of this policy. While their points are valid within respect to their right to express themselves and be emotional, their also highly biased to a particular group of individuals those not being covered by this policy.

Apparently, the notion here is that because this policy sets force to protect classes of people who are being (in numerous proven cases) mistreated and denied opportunities based on factors that are (arguably) beyond their control a crime is being committed against those that have not experienced the same mistreatment and rejection. Is a crime really being commitment? Or a more appropriate question, is this policy guilty of promoting wrongdoing?

Furthermore, in supporting these underrepresented groups, the notion is that the policy is mistreating those not covered by the policy. If that is the real argument here, maybe someone can provide me with examples of this policy mistreating the classes of people that are not protected by it. Anyone?