HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Do you support affirmative action or not?

View Poll Results: Do you support affirmative action?
Yes 25 37.31%
No 42 62.69%
Voters: 67. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-14-2013, 05:34 PM
  #76
Hnidy Hnight
Registered User
 
Hnidy Hnight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
I'm just assuming that you're like 99.9% of modern Republicans.
Sounds fair

Hnidy Hnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 05:49 PM
  #77
Tubby Tuke
Drafting my Overalls
 
Tubby Tuke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Yet they have very little to say about the much greater instances of obvious discrimination - against gays/lesbians, or how minorities and women are consistently paid less than white males for doing the same jobs
Because being a doctor at a private hospital is obviously not going to pay the same amount as working for a charity hospital.

Working for the government as a lawyer won't net you as much as working for a giant firm in say Boston, Washington, New York.

It's not all the gap but this "Women make 2/3s of what men make" is incredibly misleading and the majority of the gap can be explained by stuff that is not sexism.

Tubby Tuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 06:03 PM
  #78
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reg Season SC View Post
Because being a doctor at a private hospital is obviously not going to pay the same amount as working for a charity hospital.
You missed the part where I said doing the same job. Not as in the same profession; studies have shown that women and minorities are, on average, paid a little less for doing the same tasks as males.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 06:10 PM
  #79
Kevin Malone
Registered User
 
Kevin Malone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,343
vCash: 500
Progressives love AA because in their eyes the biggest villain of all time is the white Anglo-Saxon (preferably protestant) male. The Anglo-Saxon male is to blame for all of the worlds ills. Their belief is that all off the Anglo-Saxons males advancements through the past 500 years has been accomplished solely by taking advantage of women and minorities. If only the white male was held back the world would be a much better place.

In order for any women or minority to succeed the WASP bust be held back at all costs. Progressives will argue that children from families of responsible parents where mom and dad stayed together and lived frugal lives should be held at a disadvantage to those whose parents have choosen to have children out of wedlock. Instead of addressing the root cause of the majority of problems(fatherless homes) they conjure up misguided government programs which do little in the long run to address the real issue these communities are facing.

Progressives completely ignore the fact that the cushy lives we live today are owed to the hard work of many white men. When you ask a progressive what if Da Vinci, Einstein, Newton, Edison, Tesla, Salk, Banting, Franklin etc. were all passed over for less deserving candidates all in the name of equality where would the world be today, they are left speechless.

AA is one of the most irrational and misguided programs of all time. When you ask a progressive at what point which do we no longer need AA you are left with a blank stare. When you ask them why an immigrant who escaped the economic collapse of Eastern Europe and fall of communism should be held at a disadvantage for someone who's family has resided in N.A. for generations they are again left speechless.

AA has never been about equality. It has always been about addressing the issues of white guilt that progressives seem unable to deal with. This is why you see so many progressives post sayings like "white people problems". In their skewed view of life any white person who has succeeded in life has done so because of "privilege" or at the expense of minorities. The biggest problem with AA is that it says to minorities that they are incapable of competing with white men and the government must hold white men back to even the playing ground. Instead of addressing the real problems minorities face (fatherless homes and terrible inner city schools) they hold AA up as some magic elixir to provide harmony amongst the races and sexes.

I won't even get in to the argument the feminists bring up and the amount of men who died in warfare, worked 14-16 hour days in the most dangerous working conditions and many who never reached the age of 40. Staying home with the children was so much worse than what men had to go through...

Kevin Malone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 06:17 PM
  #80
Howard Beale
Registered User
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,378
vCash: 500
I support affirmative action. Unfortunately it is still necessary, although over time it could shift to being based more on economic factors than racial ones.

That said, I think equalizing grade school funding in the US is more essential than post-secondary AA, if we really want to reduce racial and economic inequities. Schools in poor neighbourhoods currently receive far less funding than schools in wealthier neighbourhoods, because funding is based on the tax base of their specific county, instead of being equally funded state-wide. Changing this would really help those born into impoverished, crime-ridden neighbourhoods, earlier on in life than AA presently does. By the time they're graduating from high school, it's already too late for a lot of kids.


Here are some graphs that are very relevant to this discussion, to highlight the disadvantaged circumstances that black kids are more often born into.

The first one shows areas where some progress has occurred (mostly education, political power, and life expectancy, although they remain disadvantaged in all regards):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ce-mlks-march/

The second one shows areas with very little progress (mostly economic measures):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-in-50-years/


Last edited by Howard Beale: 12-14-2013 at 06:30 PM.
Howard Beale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 06:52 PM
  #81
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 9,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Malone View Post
Progressives love AA because in their eyes the biggest villain of all time is the white Anglo-Saxon (preferably protestant) male. The Anglo-Saxon male is to blame for all of the worlds ills. Their belief is that all off the Anglo-Saxons males advancements through the past 500 years has been accomplished solely by taking advantage of women and minorities. If only the white male was held back the world would be a much better place.
Thanks for making your first paragraph so stupid that I knew reading the rest of your post would be a colossal waste of time.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 06:52 PM
  #82
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadian Guy View Post
Just to clarify

I'm not opposed to AA on the grounds that it is useless or that racism/sexism/homophobia etc... aren't real problems

I'm opposed to it because I think it's discrimination and you don't help fight discrimination by encouraging it

I'm of the opinion that the things that AA are designed to fight are hard-coded into us, AA only reinforces it

The biggot dbag won't be any less of a biggot because of AA (in fact I'd argue that it's likely to reinforce his biggotery)

That being said I'm sure there are plenty of people who had an opportunity thanks to AA and that's why I'm not strongly opposed, I just don't like the idea behind it

The real world, thankfully, doesn't run on ideas and concepts alone (try telling that to Kadri!) however so just like I won't make a political issue out of abortion or gay marriage the same is true for AA

I do resent the implication that because I'm opposed to AA that it means I'm an idiot (which the post I quoted seems to imply): "economic AA" and "racial AA" are necessarily linked since minorities are more likely to be poor.
Here is the rationale for affirmative action/employment equity per the Canadian government:
This "Equality Rights" section contains protection against discrimination and makes a provision for special affirmative action programs. Subsection 15(2) acknowledges that equality requires conditions of disadvantage to be addressed. This means that the argument that employment equity is 'reverse discrimination' is not legally valid. Employment equity does not target individuals or groups for exclusion, as does discrimination; rather, employment equity seeks to include groups that are proven to have been excluded in the past.
It is all about process and a journey to equality from a historical perspective.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:00 PM
  #83
Howard Beale
Registered User
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
You missed the part where I said doing the same job. Not as in the same profession; studies have shown that women and minorities are, on average, paid a little less for doing the same tasks as males.
Yep, if I recall, when you look control for factors like occupation, education and experience, women's salaries tend to be about 5% to 10% lower than men's.

Overall, without controlling for those factors, on an hourly basis the average woman earns about 80% of what the average man earns in Canada and the United States. The biggest factor is the horizontal segregation of labour, where women tend to get channeled into work thought to be appropriate for women, like retail and food services, which don't pay as well as manual labour jobs that men more often occupy. Though this is a source of economic inequality, it is not necessarily a problem, depending on your viewpoint. However a vertical segregation of labour, where men tend to occupy most management positions and are more likely to get promotions than women, is also a source of inequality, and is more concerning to me.

Howard Beale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:01 PM
  #84
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Probably the biggest determining factor in terms of future success is economic background, so if there's a way to incorporate affirmative action for people from poorer backgrounds, I'm all for it.
Poor persons are not one of the named groups although those named groups would generally be disproportionately lower in income on a group level.

In Canada the named groups to which affirmative action apply are not exclusive and there would be an opportunity to apply affirmative action to such individuals.

Per subsection 15 (2) of the Charter:

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:04 PM
  #85
Howard Beale
Registered User
 
Howard Beale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 651 View Post
Have you?



And whites don't come from poor backgrounds?

I've got news for you: there are more whites in America in poverty than any other race of people.

But they're white, right, so it's of no consequence.
Extremely misleading. That's only because there are many more whites than blacks in America, and I'm sure you know that.

A far higher proportion of blacks are born into poverty than whites, and they are far more likely to be born into neighbourhoods of extreme poverty as well.

And nobody said that impoverished whites are of no consequence. Which government policy changes would you like to see, in order to help people in poverty?

Howard Beale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:14 PM
  #86
Doppler Drift
Registered User
 
Doppler Drift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9,545
vCash: 500
Kevin Malone strikes again!

None of Da Vinci (Italian and Roman Catholic), Einstein (German and Jewish), Tesla (Serbian and Orthodox Catholic), Salk (Irish/American and Jewish) were WASP males.

Doppler Drift is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:31 PM
  #87
651*
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Capital of MN 651
Country: United States
Posts: 2,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Malone View Post
Progressives love AA because in their eyes the biggest villain of all time is the white Anglo-Saxon (preferably protestant) male. The Anglo-Saxon male is to blame for all of the worlds ills. Their belief is that all off the Anglo-Saxons males advancements through the past 500 years has been accomplished solely by taking advantage of women and minorities. If only the white male was held back the world would be a much better place.

In order for any women or minority to succeed the WASP bust be held back at all costs. Progressives will argue that children from families of responsible parents where mom and dad stayed together and lived frugal lives should be held at a disadvantage to those whose parents have choosen to have children out of wedlock. Instead of addressing the root cause of the majority of problems(fatherless homes) they conjure up misguided government programs which do little in the long run to address the real issue these communities are facing.

Progressives completely ignore the fact that the cushy lives we live today are owed to the hard work of many white men. When you ask a progressive what if Da Vinci, Einstein, Newton, Edison, Tesla, Salk, Banting, Franklin etc. were all passed over for less deserving candidates all in the name of equality where would the world be today, they are left speechless.

AA is one of the most irrational and misguided programs of all time. When you ask a progressive at what point which do we no longer need AA you are left with a blank stare. When you ask them why an immigrant who escaped the economic collapse of Eastern Europe and fall of communism should be held at a disadvantage for someone who's family has resided in N.A. for generations they are again left speechless.

AA has never been about equality. It has always been about addressing the issues of white guilt that progressives seem unable to deal with. This is why you see so many progressives post sayings like "white people problems". In their skewed view of life any white person who has succeeded in life has done so because of "privilege" or at the expense of minorities. The biggest problem with AA is that it says to minorities that they are incapable of competing with white men and the government must hold white men back to even the playing ground. Instead of addressing the real problems minorities face (fatherless homes and terrible inner city schools) they hold AA up as some magic elixir to provide harmony amongst the races and sexes.

I won't even get in to the argument the feminists bring up and the amount of men who died in warfare, worked 14-16 hour days in the most dangerous working conditions and many who never reached the age of 40. Staying home with the children was so much worse than what men had to go through...
Excellent post!

651* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:39 PM
  #88
kov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Malone View Post
Progressives love AA because in their eyes the biggest villain of all time is the white Anglo-Saxon (preferably protestant) male. ... In order for any women or minority to succeed the WASP bust be held back at all costs.
Kevin, just for you, I give you this (one of many) news items discussing how males are far more likely to benefit from AA in admissions than women.

Are you a fan of it now?

kov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:42 PM
  #89
Colt45Blast
is in your head
 
Colt45Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: everytime
Country: Mexico
Posts: 25,198
vCash: 500
I don't support affirmative racism or any kind of racism for that matter.

Colt45Blast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:44 PM
  #90
slip
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,690
vCash: 500

slip is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 07:45 PM
  #91
kov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,192
vCash: 500
Sexism is fine by you though?

kov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 08:20 PM
  #92
Vyacheslav
That one guy
 
Vyacheslav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Jackson, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 14,364
vCash: 541
Send a message via AIM to Vyacheslav
Quote:
Originally Posted by 651 View Post
Excellent post!
Kiss of death. Better luck next time Kevin Malone.

Vyacheslav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 08:25 PM
  #93
Led Zappa
Oy vey...
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 32,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vyacheslav View Post
Kiss of death. Better luck next time Kevin Malone.

__________________

"This is not a nick or a scratch, this is an open wound" - Doug Wilson.
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 08:44 PM
  #94
TherapyforGlencross
I'm the Man
 
TherapyforGlencross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,375
vCash: 50
Yes but if a private company wants to only hire people from a certain religion, then I think they have the right to do so.

TherapyforGlencross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 08:47 PM
  #95
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AP View Post
I don't support affirmative racism or any kind of racism for that matter.
So you do support affirmative action. Good to know.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 08:58 PM
  #96
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross View Post
Yes but if a private company wants to only hire people from a certain religion, then I think they have the right to do so.
The law in Canada says otherwise fortunately as such "thinking" has been well and truly rejected.

Welcome to the 21st century.

For example the BC Human Rights Code (other provincial laws are to similar effect):
Discrimination in employment advertisements

11 A person must not publish or cause to be published an advertisement in connection with employment or prospective employment that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age unless the limitation, specification or preference is based on a bona fide occupational requirement.
...
Discrimination in employment

13 (1) A person must not

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or

(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.
And federally per the Canadian Human Rights Act:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Idem

(2) Where the ground of discrimination is pregnancy or child-birth, the discrimination shall be deemed to be on the ground of sex.
...
Employment

7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Employment applications, advertisements

8. It is a discriminatory practice
(a) to use or circulate any form of application for employment, or

(b) in connection with employment or prospective employment, to publish any advertisement or to make any written or oral inquiry
that expresses or implies any limitation, specification or preference based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 09:01 PM
  #97
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: Germany
Posts: 6,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The law in Canada says otherwise fortunately as such "thinking" has been well and truly rejected.

Welcome to the 21st century.

For example the BC Human Rights Code (other provincial laws are to similar effect):
Discrimination in employment advertisements

11 A person must not publish or cause to be published an advertisement in connection with employment or prospective employment that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age unless the limitation, specification or preference is based on a bona fide occupational requirement.
...
Discrimination in employment

13 (1) A person must not

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or

(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.
And federally per the Canadian Human Rights Act:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Idem

(2) Where the ground of discrimination is pregnancy or child-birth, the discrimination shall be deemed to be on the ground of sex.
...
Employment

7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Employment applications, advertisements

8. It is a discriminatory practice
(a) to use or circulate any form of application for employment, or

(b) in connection with employment or prospective employment, to publish any advertisement or to make any written or oral inquiry
that expresses or implies any limitation, specification or preference based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
Indeed. In my perfect world applications would only include credentials and nothing else. No name, no gender, no picture etc.
Doesn't solve the networking/old boys club mentality once the people see who they employed though. But at least it's one less hurdle.

Eisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 09:11 PM
  #98
TherapyforGlencross
I'm the Man
 
TherapyforGlencross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,375
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The law in Canada says otherwise fortunately as such "thinking" has been well and truly rejected.

Welcome to the 21st century.

For example the BC Human Rights Code (other provincial laws are to similar effect):
Discrimination in employment advertisements

11 A person must not publish or cause to be published an advertisement in connection with employment or prospective employment that expresses a limitation, specification or preference as to race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age unless the limitation, specification or preference is based on a bona fide occupational requirement.
...
Discrimination in employment

13 (1) A person must not

(a) refuse to employ or refuse to continue to employ a person, or

(b) discriminate against a person regarding employment or any term or condition of employment

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or because that person has been convicted of a criminal or summary conviction offence that is unrelated to the employment or to the intended employment of that person.
And federally per the Canadian Human Rights Act:
Prohibited grounds of discrimination

3. (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered.

Idem

(2) Where the ground of discrimination is pregnancy or child-birth, the discrimination shall be deemed to be on the ground of sex.
...
Employment

7. It is a discriminatory practice, directly or indirectly,
(a) to refuse to employ or continue to employ any individual, or

(b) in the course of employment, to differentiate adversely in relation to an employee,
on a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Employment applications, advertisements

8. It is a discriminatory practice
(a) to use or circulate any form of application for employment, or

(b) in connection with employment or prospective employment, to publish any advertisement or to make any written or oral inquiry
that expresses or implies any limitation, specification or preference based on a prohibited ground of discrimination.
I guess my post came out wrong. I meant to say that if a religious company doesn't want to hire another person who isnt part of that religion, then i think that's fine. But in all other cases I think someone shouldn't hire someone based on colour, race, religion, sex, ect.

TherapyforGlencross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 09:44 PM
  #99
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TherapyforGlencross View Post
I guess my post came out wrong. I meant to say that if a religious company doesn't want to hire another person who isnt part of that religion, then i think that's fine. But in all other cases I think someone shouldn't hire someone based on colour, race, religion, sex, ect.
There is provision to accommodate religion if it is a bona fide occupational requirement - such as a Catholic private school that hires only Catholics as teachers.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-14-2013, 10:40 PM
  #100
PredsV82
Puckaroni and cheese
 
PredsV82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Outside
Country: Scotland
Posts: 12,341
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Malone View Post
Progressives love AA because in their eyes the biggest villain of all time is the white Anglo-Saxon (preferably protestant) male. The Anglo-Saxon male is to blame for all of the worlds ills. Their belief is that all off the Anglo-Saxons males advancements through the past 500 years has been accomplished solely by taking advantage of women and minorities. If only the white male was held back the world would be a much better place.

In order for any women or minority to succeed the WASP bust be held back at all costs. Progressives will argue that children from families of responsible parents where mom and dad stayed together and lived frugal lives should be held at a disadvantage to those whose parents have choosen to have children out of wedlock. Instead of addressing the root cause of the majority of problems(fatherless homes) they conjure up misguided government programs which do little in the long run to address the real issue these communities are facing.

Progressives completely ignore the fact that the cushy lives we live today are owed to the hard work of many white men. When you ask a progressive what if Da Vinci, Einstein, Newton, Edison, Tesla, Salk, Banting, Franklin etc. were all passed over for less deserving candidates all in the name of equality where would the world be today, they are left speechless.

AA is one of the most irrational and misguided programs of all time. When you ask a progressive at what point which do we no longer need AA you are left with a blank stare. When you ask them why an immigrant who escaped the economic collapse of Eastern Europe and fall of communism should be held at a disadvantage for someone who's family has resided in N.A. for generations they are again left speechless.

AA has never been about equality. It has always been about addressing the issues of white guilt that progressives seem unable to deal with. This is why you see so many progressives post sayings like "white people problems". In their skewed view of life any white person who has succeeded in life has done so because of "privilege" or at the expense of minorities. The biggest problem with AA is that it says to minorities that they are incapable of competing with white men and the government must hold white men back to even the playing ground. Instead of addressing the real problems minorities face (fatherless homes and terrible inner city schools) they hold AA up as some magic elixir to provide harmony amongst the races and sexes.

I won't even get in to the argument the feminists bring up and the amount of men who died in warfare, worked 14-16 hour days in the most dangerous working conditions and many who never reached the age of 40. Staying home with the children was so much worse than what men had to go through...
The problem with your Davinci/Edison comment is we have no idea how many George Washington Carvers and Madam Curies the world was deprived of due to prejudice. Its retarded to think there weren't intelligent minorities until the 20th century....


As I said way back at the first of this thread, AA, at the time it was conceived, was absolutely necessary to allow minorities to get the opportunity to prove that they can function as professionals as well as whites. Once society got used to minority physicians, judges, professors, etc., I think AA had outlived its usefulness. When it changed from helping equally (or better) qualified minorities to get in the door and became a quota system where the goal was to guarantee that the makeup of a given profession matched the population, regardless of whether the minorities were qualified or not, it was time for AA to go

PredsV82 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.