Talk Elections

Option 2 for me. Although class-based AA is not a bad idea, race-based AA is still preferable since lower-class blacks are victims of racism that lower-class whites don't have to face.

Class or income based affirmative action.  The government should not be looking if I'm black or white.

Against Affirmative Action

Class or Income.

option 5.

Toughie...think I'm gonna go with the last option, but I'm not entirely sure. It should probably be left to the market-place and change as attitudes in society change.

Final option.

class-based.

So long as consumers don't discriminate based on race(say, for instance, a customer who refuses to go to restaraunts that hire blacks), the market in general tends to go against employment discrimination. If a lot of employers discriminate, the wages for the group discriminated against goes down(simple law of supply and demand of labor) and people who capitalize on these lower wage rates will have lower costs and therefore lower prices - effectively putting the other guys out of business, or at least taking a bigger share of the pie. I say let anyone foolish enough to discriminate do it.

As far as class based affirmative action - it's a stupid, communistic idea. Think about it - by hiring the poor, you might just be forcing someone else into a lower income bracket, possibly even making them poor. Defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

If I was an employer, I would hire the best people for the job - I'm a capitalist, I don't give a damn about race, class, or gender.

Affirmative action is wrong.  Schools and employers should take the best person for the job.  period.  Giving a minority a job over a white person based on skin color is just racism the other way around.

No to any government supported racist policies!

I'm agaisnt Affirmative action.

I support race based affirmative action at present, but would support quotas if a critical mass cannot be met. I picked option one.

Brown v. Board of Education is fifty. The Civil Rights Act is forty. Before then, there were 350 years of brutal and ugly history, spanning from the first slaves brought to our shores, to Jim Crow's obnoxious prescence. Considering that the barriers to overcome that tragic legacy only fell within living memory, and racial discrimination still lives in the hearts and minds of many, I cannot expect the situation to be the same for people, regardless of race. That is why affirmative action is not yet obsolete.

It never fails to mystify me how some will insist on rigid, pure equality in one area, and ignore the broader inequalities it remedies. That shows a complete failure to see the forest for the trees. In order to treat some people equally, we must treat them differently. It doesn't work in any other fashion. We cannot let the spirit of equality give license to a long and sorry history of bigotry. We mustn't let our society's materialists forget that no matter how abject their poverty, the burden of being a minority is not one they will ever have to bear. Because of all of that, the work continues.

That's a logical fallacy if I've ever heard one. Rich people are our equals, so we should tax them a greater percentage of their earnings. Eqaul, right? Perfect equality is a pipe dream, it shall never be attained, especially economically.

There's only one equality I care about - equality under the law. It shouldn't matter what race, class, or gender you are - the law should treat you the same. Privately owned businesses are not the law - they are privately owned, and the private owners should be allowed to set whatever policy they damn well please. As I said, as a general rule discrimination will make their competitors more profitable and themselves less profitable - let the free market weed them out.

Exactly

There should be equality of opportunity, within the confines of what the government can control, but nobody can guarantee equality of outcomes.  People don't possess equal amounts of ambition, intelligence, etc. and some will always do better than others.  We shouldn't discriminate in favor of or against people based on factors irrelevant to job performance.

Equality of outcome can only be assured at a subsistence level, if that.  The greater good is served by permitting economic inequality, with some type of safety net for those who are unable (but not unwilling) to take care of themselves.

There are two separate points you raise. The first point is easily stated. Discrimination on the basis of race is wrong, and the law should make that clear. I wholeheartedly agree.

The second point is also easy to state, but does not so easily follow. Your statement could be that "certain racial groups should be punished for the reason that unrelated members of their group acted wrongly and went unpunished in the past". On this I must disagree. I feel that rights belong to the individual not to groups. If some person has done wrong then they should be responsible. Races become arbitrary classifications that unfairly group people.

Let me go one step further. To current science, race is not a very meaningful concept since it is based on ideas from the 16th-19th centuries. I believe that the use of race as a descripion for someone only reinforces that distinction with each generation. If we truly wanted a more equal society, we would avoid the use of race entirely.

You're right, Muon2. Our concept of race has very little factual foundation. In fact, it is primarily social. But that is how virtually every person in our nation understands race. Since affirmative action is addressed to the society at large, it must be in reasonable conformity with how society views race. It would otherwise be incompatible. I have optimism that for many people, exposure to other races will show to them that they're really not that much different from you and me, and the old ideas about race will lose their powerful hold.

But the labels we use become the tool for discrimination. As long as the law supports racial labels in any capacity, their use in wider society will result in people making generalizations based on those labels. The law should be written without regards to race, even if some might think there is a social good from it.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.

Blacks are a greater percentage of the NFL, and NBA players than their distribution in the general population.

If we merely use such statistic evidence of 'discrimination' by race and the basis for 'affirmative action,' then do we need to force the professional teams to hire more whites and fire more blacks?

Thanks again,

I would really  appreciate feedback on my posting in the 200 U.S. Presidential election board, 2004 User Prediction - Discussion thread, page 157.

Apparently the lefties either haven't read it, or don't know how to respond to that post.

Well, the left is so indoctrinated on racial issues that they can't hold any kind of discussion on it. Waste of time.

For the record, whites that have a lot of contact with blacks are more likely to dislike them in general, so 'mixing' people up doesn't solve any problems. Giving people things they don't deserve is likewise futile.

I agree with that.

Carl,

Yeah, that pretty much sums up Migrendel's logic, but you have to remember that incoherent logic and hypocrisy are not legitimate restraints on left wing ideology....those limitations only seem to apply to our side of the political spectrum.

I strongly support class-based AA because I feel that everyone deserves equal opportunity. People who come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are at a fundamental disadvantage when it comes to getting a job as opposed to someone from a wealthy background. In addition, society will be better off with the poor getting more jobs than if the wealthy get those same jobs, because the poor need the good job more.

I opposed race-based AA because the government should not discriminate on the basis of race. Yes, there was discrimination in the past, but two wrongs don't make a right. In addition, there is no scientific or biological definition of race. If I decide to say I'm black, there is, technically speaking, nothing anyone can do to argue with me. So if we are going to have race-based AA, I'd think we at least need a law declaring the amount of melanin in your skin that is required in order for you to be considered black...

Ok, you seem a bit confused about how the frikkin world works. First off, the wealthy don't get jobs, not the ones the poor even try to get anyways - if they work at all they are high ranking executives or something that pays a lot(thus making them NOT POOR), they didn't get wealthy by doing low level work(unless they worked their way up the ranks, like most motivated people try to do). The main competition for the low economic class will be themselves and the low-middle class. So, by instituting a policy of class-based affirmative action, you'll only be making some people in the low class into low-middle class and low-middle class into low class(since they can't get a job), thus defeating the entire purpose of the whole frikkin idea. You'll merely shift who is in what class, not to mention I shudder to think of the bureacracy that would be needed to keep track of that information. And you neglect that those who are better qualified for a job getting that job is better for society - reason being they produce more than lesser qualified workers, and higher production can mean cheaper goods for all. Since this idea pretty much just shifts who is in a class around and it produces less than is optimal, this idea is BAD for society.

I know you just wanted to be obnoxious, Carl Hayden, but you accidentally raised a fairly serious point. Does the perception of superior athletic talents among minorities incline those who recruit potential athletes to scout those populations more vigorously? The only problem with answering that question is that no one has really studied that issue.

I think that a mild form of class-based affirmative action could be good in helping ambitious and intelligent people from lower class backgrounds, regardless of color, to work themselves up into better paying jobs.

One fact of human nature is that people tend to be more comfortable with people similar to themselves.  People making hiring decisions by definition are in higher-level positions, and will favor people for other higher level positions who are like them.  Sometimes it involves children of friends, friends of their children, people from their own social circle or alma mater, and the like.  This will usually produce a perpetuation of previously existing class roles, and make it harder for somebody from a lower economic background who lacks these connections to get into a higher level job.

The only problem with class-based affirmative action is that I really don't know how it would be implemented.  I think the effect of it would be fairly limited for the reasons mentioned by John Dibble.  You really can't take a person who is educated and has the temperment to have a blue collar job, and make that person a white collar professional.  The inclination toward higher level jobs already has to be there in order for it to succeed.  This is the same reason race-based affirmative action has failed.  It ends up helping those who need it the least, and has no impact whatsoever on the people who are failing because they never got an education during their formative years.  Affirmative action does nothing for people like that because they're not capable of meeting even the lower standards that affirmative action imposes for them to qualify for a particular job.

Once again, you missed the point.

Also, your knowledge of intents is fascinating.

Just where do you get you ability to divine intents?

To reiterate my point, previously made in what I consider a pithy and humorous style (which you profess to have misunderstood).

People should be judged on their individual merits, NOT their race.

We should not assume racial discrimination based on percentages nor mandate results based on race.

So, put away your mysticism and subject changing.

Perhaps the line between humorous and annoyingly crass is one that does not reveal itself to you easily, but trust me, when it comes to tossing off the bon mots, you're no Dorothy Parker.

I oppose all Affirmitive Action. Men should get jobs off their own merrits not their class or color.

Again, you do not understand (or at least profess not to understand).

I merely placed your discriminatory program in a context which you do not like because it illustrated the absurdity of your program.

Have you given up your reading of intent yet?

I note no answer on this point.

i absolutely do not support affirmitive action in any form

If I am so far off in what your intent is, why don't you just stop writing post addressed to me? It would save you time that you can spend talking to other posters who would more readily understand what you are trying to convey, and would save me the annoyance of reading whatever pointed grievance you wish to air on that particular day. It's painfully obvious to me, and I would imagine to everyone else, that you have made a sport of heckling me. If you don't like my views, fine, but I see no reason why you need to be as rude as you have consistently been to me.

A piece of wisdom for everyone:

"Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.  It sounds a paradox, but kindness and good intentions can be an insidious path to destruction.  Sometimes doing what seems right is wrong, and can cause harm.  The only counter to it is knowledge, wisdom, forethought, and understanding the First Rule.  Even then, that is not always enough." - Terry Goodkind, 'Stone of Tears'

Migrendel, I may be wrong here but in Brown Vs. Board of Education, Topeka, didn't they rule that separate must always mean unequal.

So, surely if we treat people differently based on their race, we are not being equal as the Supreme Court dictated it?

I may be wrong, I am a little hazy about Brown Vs. Board of Education, Topeka, I haven't read up on it lately.

The whole point of affirmative action is integrating, not segregating. It brings minorities in environments where they can learn and work alongside whites. It causes exposure, promotes understanding, and I feel that it continues the work of the humane legacy left to us by Brown and other cases.

Silly us - we thought the whole point of AA was to give a leg up to a group of people who were economically disadvantaged and less likely to get hired. Of course, if it is your way, it's an even worse law - it's attempting to force tolerance. Not to mention it would have the opposite effect of the intent - if a white man doesn't get a job because a black man got it by affirmative action, do you think he's going to like blacks?

John,

You've got to understand that when you point out the factual inaccuracies, logical inconsistencies and bizarre ethics on which Migrendel posts he has a fit.

You see, Migrendel doesn't work well with logic or facts since he divines intents, and gets 'annoyed' with those who correct him in these matters, alleging that their corrections are simply, 'grievances' and pointing out those problems 'rude' postings.

I frequently ignore his postings as other posters frequently deal very effectively with his posturings.  Vis, Bandit really thrashed him with respect to NAMBA on another thread.

Oh, I know. But there's another piece of wisdom I like to follow:

"Wizard's Sixth Rule: The only sovereign you can allow to rule is reason.  The Sixth Rule is the hub upon which all rules turn.  It is not only the most important rule, but the simplest.  Nonetheless, it is the one most often ignored and violated, and by far the most despised.  It must be wielded in spite of the ceaseless, howling protests on the wicked." - Terry Goodkind, 'Faith of the Fallen'

I would have responded to John Dibble, but Dazzleman did it quite well. Yes, class-based AA is needed to ensure that those with the talent and drive, but who lack the monetary resources to get a good education or the "connections" to get a good job can still get one.

Wealthy people themselves often do not need these jobs, true, but many children of wealthy parents will enter into white collar professional positions more or less to give them something to do, or apply for high quality schools, probably more for the pure educational value than for the need to get a job (their family is quite wealthy so they don't need the money). Not that there's anything wrong with that at all, but the world as a whole would be better off giving the position to a highly qualified individual who comes from a poorer background, even if their qualifications are not quite as high. I'm not talking about giving the poor a massive advantage, but if someone is only slightly less qualified and comes from a much poorer background, they are more in need of being admitted to the good school or getting the good job, and society as a whole benefits more than they would if they admitted or hired the slightly more qualified individual who doesn't need the money.

Let me get this straight, because someone's parents have money, they should not get a job because someone else from a lower economic class applies, even if they are more qualified? Once you are in the workforce, the money your parents have is not generally going to you - they own it, you don't.

Also, you need to understand something - there really aren't that many wealthy people. Rich is not the same thing as wealthy - Bill Gates is wealthy, a millionaire is not. A millionaire can lose his money easily, so isn't going to be likely to let his kids mooch when they are at working age - they'll get jobs to support themselves. You make the assumption that Let's also not forget the fact that the wealthy and the rich do not make up a majority population - they are a minority and are a very small portion of the job market.

Also consider there are many, many scholarships for poorer students who excel, while for rich kids at any level scholarships are virtually non-existant. Many of these are privately funded, by *gasp* the wealthy and *dare I say it* corporations. The reason is is that the wealthy and corporations all normally have workers, and they want high quality workers, they don't care what class those workers come from. This allows poor students who have high potential to receive training on a similar level to students of rich parents. There's tons and tons of college money out there for poor students to get if they apply themselves in high school, which only takes a little talent and drive as you said. Plus there are student loans, which anyone can get and pay pack once they are employed.

On implementation - how do you know that just because the person has rich parents that they don't need the job. Maybe the parents don't give the person money unless they do work, or maybe the parents disinherited them. The entire idea of class based AA as you are suggesting it is punishing people for being born to rich families. You can't judge people by their parents, that's stupid. A person can be more successful or less successful than their parents, it is not set in stone. When students are fresh out of college, potential employers look at both what schools the person went to and their performance at the school - and if a rich kid was lazy and got bad grades he is not likely to be hired, but if he got good grades from a prestigious school(which usually have high academic standards) then he is not lazy and may be deserving of the job.

Oh, and if you didn't notice, Dazzleman acknowledged that implementation of class based AA would be difficult and likely have limited effects due to the problems I mentioned before. Don't read selectively.

Let me ad another piece of wisdom:
"There is no crueler tyranny that that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." – Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755), The Spirit of the Laws, 1748

And by the way, why should middle class be discriminated against low class?
Oh, I'm midle class and so guilty.
Bah. Merit is the only thing that matters,a and if we allow anything but merit to get in the way of admissions to public colleges and public jobs(just for not talking about the ideous intromission on emplyers' rights), we are going down the slipery path of coruption.

Haha, cool to see another Goodkind-fan. :D

"We can be only what we are, nothing more, nothing less"

Against AA and pleasantly suprised to see so many Democrats also oppose it.

last one

No affirmative action. Race based affirmative action is unconstitutional.