Affirmative Action

[dianetavegia]

Well stated Scott J.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
Again, those rights that have been given from God were taken away by the people of this nation. So, why can the government return those rights? Is this not protection of those individuals who have been marginalized? The right to not be oppressed is a right that many people in this country do not have, so why can the government not be a change agent in helping to return that right to those who are in need?

Scott,

Rights are given to each individual human being at conception by God. Nobody can take them away. Governments or individuals can violate them, but they are "inalienable", as our founders said, and cannot be given or taken by the government.

It is an important distinction.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Scott J:
AA is a form of racism in and of itself. It says that black people are inferior and need a lower set of standards.

No, it doesn't. That's a straw man argument. AA says that there has been a long history of rigid, social, cultural and legalized discrimination which demeaned, brutalized and destroyed the viability of blacks for over a hundred years, which is what AA is designed to address.

Past discrimination against one group does not warrant current discrimination against another that had nothing to do with the injustice.

How is the majority as a whole being discriminated against?

PAJim is also right about gov't having no right to tell a private business who to hire. No one has the legitimate authority to "empower" one person by violating the rights of another person.

You know as well as I do that there are not completely private businesses. These businesses use a myriad of government service. Again, how does AA as originally intended violate my rights as a white male?

I don't believe that whites are superior to blacks therefore I think AA is a violation of both groups.

That's wonderful for you, but hundreds of years of the past show that many, many, many people did see whites as being superior, and a large number of people still do.

If blacks are to "catch up", I believe that two things must happen:

1) They must start viewing themselves as and behaving like sovereign individuals with rights of their own and not as an oppressed group with shared rights. They, along with many other Americans of all colors, have a vicimized slave mentality.

Oh, please. How racist can you get? Where is your evidence for lumping all African-Americans into such a group. And a few sentences earlier you said you didn't see blacks as being inferior to whites.

2) They must seize opportunities and become entrepeneural. Employment and education do not necessarily lead to success. The best educated masons in colonial Virginia were slaves. Property and business ownership are the keys to success and genuine freedom.

And the reality is that AA helps black-owned businesses, especially when it comes to government contracts. AA actually helps the African-American and Hispanic communities in this area.

At the same time, I do not own property nor do I own a business, and I feel completely free. Why is it that property and business ownership are "keys" to success and freedome? What is your paradigm for such an assertion?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Pennsylvania Jim:
Scott,

Rights are given to each individual human being at conception by God. Nobody can take them away. Governments or individuals can violate them, but they are "inalienable", as our founders said, and cannot be given or taken by the government.

It is an important distinction. [/QB]

If an individual violates a person's right, what is the role of the government to right that wrong?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
If an individual violates a person's right, what is the role of the government to right that wrong?

Punish the individual accordingly.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Daniel David:
What are your thoughts on this issue?

In most cases, I don't favor AA.

Is it right to have a token minority for the sake of AA, even if they are not qualified?

That's not what AA generally does. AA presumes that, if two candidates meet the necessary qualifications, that the person who is a minority should be chosen (the presumption that an unqualified person would be chosen is false).

How does that make minorities feel, knowing they were selected because someone MADE the employer hire them?

Given that, in the past, minorities were often permitted to be summarily excluded from certain situations such as jobs, many feel that AA has managed to level the gap created by past intolerances. However, since sufficient time has passed since those summary exclusions have existed, I see no reason to continue policies of AA, and think we should put an "end date" to all current AA programs. A few years ago, the California State College system did away with AA in their enrollment procedures. A few liberal organizations booed the move, but most of the minority populus agreed with it. Interestingly, the first years afterwards, the number of minorities that qualified for college acceptance increased (instead of decreasing).

Is this another form of slavery the Democrats hold over minorities?

I wouldn't go to that extreme, but I definitely see it as an attempt to resolve an inquity that is presumed to exist, but does not, in order to foster a political agenda.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
If an individual violates a person's right, what is the role of the government to right that wrong?

Punish the individual accordingly. </font>[/QUOTE]What should be done to the victim?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
What should be done to the victim?

The victim holds the right to sue the offender for punitive and compensatory damages.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Past discrimination against one group does not warrant current discrimination against another that had nothing to do with the injustice.

How is the majority as a whole being discriminated against? </font>[/QUOTE] I should have said individuals within a group.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />PAJim is also right about gov't having no right to tell a private business who to hire. No one has the legitimate authority to "empower" one person by violating the rights of another person.

You know as well as I do that there are not completely private businesses. These businesses use a myriad of government service.</font>[/QUOTE] So? Use of government service or "general welfare" types of provisions such as roads does not mean that a business owner must surrender their rights.

Again, how does AA as originally intended violate my rights as a white male?

It says that one person is entitled to government support above that available to all in order to give him an advantage over an individual who is not guilty of anything other than being white.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't believe that whites are superior to blacks therefore I think AA is a violation of both groups.

That's wonderful for you, but hundreds of years of the past show that many, many, many people did see whites as being superior, and a large number of people still do.</font>[/QUOTE] Then the best we can do is a level playing field... NOW. I wish I could go back and change history in many respects but I can't. And the fact of the matter is that punishing one person because another person got away with violating someone's rights is ridiculous.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If blacks are to "catch up", I believe that two things must happen:

1) They must start viewing themselves as and behaving like sovereign individuals with rights of their own and not as an oppressed group with shared rights. They, along with many other Americans of all colors, have a vicimized slave mentality.

Oh, please. How racist can you get?</font>[/QUOTE] It isn't racist. I don't say it because I think blacks are incapable but rather specifically because they are capable but too many won't let go of dependency.

Where is your evidence for lumping all African-Americans into such a group.

Blacks are less entrepeneural than other ethnic or racial groups in America. That is simply a fact. Blacks are still disproportionately dependent on government programs.

I am not lumping "all". I am dealing from the same perspective that says that AA applies to "all" members of a group... even if they have a long history of family success. I have personal friends that happen to be black that also happen to be very entrereneural... and successful.

AA lumps people together and makes generalizations. If your contention that I am "lumping" (which I had no intention to do) is racism then how can you deny that AA's generalizations are racist?

And a few sentences earlier you said you didn't see blacks as being inferior to whites.

I don't.

And the reality is that AA helps black-owned businesses, especially when it comes to government contracts.

It isn't racism to take the color of a business owner into account when awarding a contract?

At the same time, I do not own property nor do I own a business, and I feel completely free.

I own property and have voluntarily entered into an employment relationship. I recognize this relationship for what it is: an extension of a privilege by my employer to me. It is not a right.

Why is it that property and business ownership are "keys" to success and freedome? What is your paradigm for such an assertion?

Because that is where real wealth lies, not to mention control.

When blacks achieve the same percentage of business ownership as whites they will possess much of the power that was used to systematically discriminate against those before. Hopefully, they will be more benign but there will exist a balance of power.

Let me illustrate: a pink owned mfr of gidgets discriminates against purple people. So, a purple person starts a business and determines to favor the best employees. How long will the pink owned business be able to stay in afloat? Not long.

Market forces were always more than capable within the right environment of stamping out racism... unless you think I am wrong about whites not being superior to blacks.

 

[billwald]

When the City of Seattle decided to promote on the basis of color and race, many previously white people magically turned into something else.

How can I discriminate against people whom I can't identify?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
If an individual violates a person's right, what is the role of the government to right that wrong?

It is to apply the law and punish the person if it was broken.

...edit...I just noticed Scott J's and JohnV's answers to your question. I agree with them.

 

[church mouse guy]

Originally posted by Biblethumper:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by church mouse guy:

I know here in Indiana there was a case where the judge ruled that a blind man could not fly an airliner.

Is this a bad idea?!?! </font>[/QUOTE]Actually the case started out when a man applied to work installing transformers on utility poles but was not strong enough to lift his share of the work. He was not physically qualified but wanted the job anyway. The state supreme court ruled against the man and in favor of the utility company and stated that it would be like a blind man suing to fly an airliner.

The judge remarked privately that as a short man he wanted to play center for a pro-basketball team but they had discriminated against him--ha, ha!

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
What should be done to the victim?

The victim holds the right to sue the offender for punitive and compensatory damages. </font>[/QUOTE]If the government rules in favor of the victim, and forces the offender to do, well, whatever, how is the state not taking away his or her right?

 

[Johnv]

For example, if you break my car windshield, and I sue you for damages, you will likely be ordered to pay for my windshield, plus a rental car if it is necessary. Your rights are not infringed by being ordered to pay damages.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
What should be done to the victim?

The victim holds the right to sue the offender for punitive and compensatory damages. </font>[/QUOTE]If the government rules in favor of the victim, and forces the offender to do, well, whatever, how is the state not taking away his or her right? </font>[/QUOTE]If a person commits a crime and breaks the law, then they have forfeited a certain ammount of their rights in proportion to the severity of their crime.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Johnv]

Yes, exactly, JB speaketh my mind.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Anytime.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[JesusandGeorge04]

Originally posted by Scott J:
So? Use of government service or "general welfare" types of provisions such as roads does not mean that a business owner must surrender their rights.

Ummm... what it does mean is that they have responsibilities to the state, and by association the public who pays for the services.

It says that one person is entitled to government support above that available to all in order to give him an advantage over an individual who is not guilty of anything other than being white.

And being one who is not discriminated against, and who benefits off of the exploitation of blacks in the past whose labor undergirds our economic strength.

Then the best we can do is a level playing field... NOW. I wish I could go back and change history in many respects but I can't. And the fact of the matter is that punishing one person because another person got away with violating someone's rights is ridiculous.

As whites live in a system which has blood on it's hands, whites share the burden of rectifying the injustices of the past, which make up the present.

It isn't racist. I don't say it because I think blacks are incapable but rather specifically because they are capable but too many won't let go of dependency.

Or perhaps... just perhaps, they are STILL discriminated against, and suffer still from pst discrimination that has harmed multiple generations of their ancestors???

Is causality completely lost on you?

Blacks are less entrepeneural than other ethnic or racial groups in America. That is simply a fact. Blacks are still disproportionately dependent on government programs.

Perhaps because they are impovershed due to exploitation by whites?

It isn't racism to take the color of a business owner into account when awarding a contract?

When race is taken into account all the time in denial of contracts, why not even the uneven field?

Because that is where real wealth lies, not to mention control.

Interesting hearing this from the mouth of a follower of the Lord. Methinks you need to look into your heart some more and examine why you focus on owning things so much... and push away others in need.

When blacks achieve the same percentage of business ownership as whites they will possess much of the power that was used to systematically discriminate against those before. Hopefully, they will be more benign but there will exist a balance of power.

Sigh... why the stance of conflict? Why not right past wrongs???

Market forces were always more than capable within the right environment of stamping out racism... unless you think I am wrong about whites not being superior to blacks.

Why have you so much faith in the material, and not in the Lord's compassion?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

There you have it. JesusandGeorge04 is a racist.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by JesusandGeorge04:
And being one who is not discriminated against, and who benefits off of the exploitation of blacks in the past whose labor undergirds our economic strength.

Presuming that's true, blacks today are benefiting off the same exploitation of blacks in the past, since blacks today are equally a part of society as whites.

As whites live in a system which has blood on it's hands, whites share the burden of rectifying the injustices of the past, which make up the present.

So you're blaming the whites of today, many of whom cannot trace their lineage to people who were in the country until recently. Not to mention the fact that only part of the country was a slave region, and the rest was abolitionist.

Or perhaps... just perhaps, they are STILL discriminated against, and suffer still from pst discrimination that has harmed multiple generations of their ancestors???

Discrimination on account of race is illegal today. Hence, if an INDIVIDUAL of any race is being discriminated against today, he/she can and should use the legal system to seek remedies against the INDIVIDUAL who is discriminating against them. To hold a whole race (in your example, whites) accountable for the illegal actions of individuals is racist in and of itself.

Perhaps because they are impovershed due to exploitation by whites?

Since whites are no longer a significant majority many parts of the US, the chances that any black individual will be discriminated against by a hispanic or asian is as likely as if he were to be discriminated against by a white person. Why not punish those races as well?

When race is taken into account all the time in denial of contracts, why not even the uneven field?

Again, if an INDIVIDUAL is denied a contract due to race, he/she is welcome to seek damages agains the INDIVIDUAL person or business that denied him/her the contract.