timmyrotter
06-23-2006, 02:02 PM
hey, i just want to know all ya'lls take on affirmative action, you know when you apply for a job or a scholorship they ask you 'are you disabled, or anything other than european background' cause by doing this, having a diverse workforce our wonderful government gives them a break. and we can talk about diversity in general i suppose.

i think AA is a load of crap, that makes us assumed "Rich" whites minorities by giving them special rights. this is also a loophole for illegal immigrants to get more from uncle sam! it needs to be abolished, just cause i am white AA makes me a minority?

disciple
06-23-2006, 03:12 PM
I do believe Affirmative Action is detrimental to white males. America's too busy trying to add too much counterweight to the "minorities"...

timmyrotter
06-24-2006, 10:56 AM
wow we agree!

disciple
06-24-2006, 11:47 AM
I know, *shock and awe* and all that jazz.

:P

asparagus
06-24-2006, 12:23 PM
Affirmative Action is about more than just race. It was first put in place in education because education is such a significant factor in class improvement and because education had been and continues to be a place of racial discrimination against young kids.

I often hear the oppenents of affirmative action complain that it itself is racist. Timmyrotter implied the same here. These remarks ignore the multifaceted approach a majority of affirmative action programs now take.

I have many white friends that insist that they are not racist and make statements about how "all blacks get to be lazy because they get to rely on affirmative action." I quickly counter to my friends reminding them that if they spent less time making excuses about affirmative action, then maybe they would be a little more successful (I find my friends to be rather lazy themselves at times.)

On a final note, affirmative action programs don't assume whites to be rich, and they don't give benefits to illegal immigrants. Most affirmative actions programs that take race into account also take into account a number of other factors, such as living conditions, parent's education, annual income, and more. And I certainly don't see such programs somehow aiding and abetting fugitives.

timmyrotter
06-24-2006, 12:36 PM
well assuming illegal immigrants are fugitives... you said it doesnt help illegal immigrants, but illegal immigrants being dark skinned and so much different and inferior to whites, get special privelidges. (and for anyone who wants to jump on me for that, i am be sarcastic about the inferiority)
what im saying is that if it helps people of other races, then it would be aiding immigrants, correct?

the only affirmative action i have experienced is when applying for a job or a scolorship. i am asked, what race are you? if we are truly equal what does it matter? and if blacks are lazy, or anyone for that matter, let em! i believe you reap what you sow. so depending on how hard you want something, and how hard you work to get it, determine the outcome. so if there are people who are poor or minorities or lazy or whatever, if they dont want to try. dont help them, they are the people who will not amount to anything. if they dont make the choice to work at something themselves, then thats the way they should be, and Big Brother doesnt need to step in and try to make them change.

disciple
06-24-2006, 12:40 PM
(and for anyone who wants to jump on me for that, i am be sarcastic about the inferiority)
I was really worried there for a moment, though I don't even think you should be sacrastic about it, you'll get people jumping down your throat anyway.

1nonlyjen
06-24-2006, 05:38 PM
I think AA is a load of crap. I don't want any special privaliges because of my race. Do you know the handouts I can get because of my American Indian heritage? Its ridiculous. I have a "white" last name but my mom is mexican and in school, I was never offered any privledges until the teachers and principals saw me. Then they all assumed I spoke spanish and needed more help than everyone else.

Isildur9473
06-24-2006, 08:09 PM
I don't agree with it, or state sponsored diversity. There's more to life than racial quotas and everyone of different races holding hands under the smiling sun.

alorian
06-25-2006, 09:15 AM
I'm ust going to ditto Greg's comment and leave it at that.

disciple
06-25-2006, 10:07 AM
Greg could say it far better than me even when he's tired.

skynes
06-26-2006, 12:44 AM
Employee - I'm sorry, but as you're a member of the Protestant community and we have to hire so many Catholics, we cannot give you this job.


AA&D - Legalised Discrimination

amodman
06-26-2006, 02:17 AM
Affirmative Action, essentially, is legalized discrimination. Do you know that some Ivy League schools have placed caps on the # of Asian students to keep them from overruning the campus? Or of course the many stories of "typical white male" losing a spot a college or job to someone else solely due to race or gender. If it was due to qualifaication, that'd be another thing, but we know of many cases where it's not (it's clearly stated in the institution's "quotas"). People don't need baby'ing to get ahead. America and other modern societies should be encouraging everyone to get ahead on their own steam. Diversity is something, when approached unbiasedly, that will work itself out.

asparagus
06-26-2006, 08:28 AM
I don't agree with it, or state sponsored diversity. There's more to life than racial quotas and everyone of different races holding hands under the smiling sun.
I think this is rather typical of the campaign against affirmative action. A lot of it seems to be based off mis-information and rumor. So many of the posts on the last page act as if AA deals only with race. Race isn't even a considereation in some affirmative action policies.

Finally, it should be noted that quotas in affirmative action policies have been ruled unconstitutional 30 YEARS AGO. So before we all jump on the band wagon on Isildur's comments, let's get our facts right.

Case referenced: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978.

amodman
06-26-2006, 10:05 AM
I think this is rather typical of the campaign against affirmative action. A lot of it seems to be based off mis-information and rumor. So many of the posts on the last page act as if AA deals only with race. Race isn't even a considereation in some affirmative action policies.

Finally, it should be noted that quotas in affirmative action policies have been ruled unconstitutional 30 YEARS AGO. So before we all jump on the band wagon on Isildur's comments, let's get our facts right.

Case referenced: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978.

My facts are completely up to daye, thank you very much. It's kind of like patronage. It's "illegal"...as long as it's not too blatant.

amodman
06-26-2006, 10:05 AM
I think this is rather typical of the campaign against affirmative action. A lot of it seems to be based off mis-information and rumor. So many of the posts on the last page act as if AA deals only with race. Race isn't even a considereation in some affirmative action policies.

Finally, it should be noted that quotas in affirmative action policies have been ruled unconstitutional 30 YEARS AGO. So before we all jump on the band wagon on Isildur's comments, let's get our facts right.

Case referenced: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978.

My facts are completely up to daye, thank you very much. It's kind of like patronage. It's "illegal"...as long as it's not too blatant.

timmyrotter
06-26-2006, 11:09 AM
woohoo! Gregs Bad wagon! hop aboard!!!

asparagus
06-26-2006, 12:57 PM
My facts are completely up to daye, thank you very much. It's kind of like patronage. It's "illegal"...as long as it's not too blatant.
Do you know that some Ivy League schools have placed caps on the # of Asian students to keep them from overruning the campus?I couldn't find anything about Asian quotas in Ivy League schools being constitutional.

Isildur9473
06-26-2006, 02:17 PM
I think this is rather typical of the campaign against affirmative action. A lot of it seems to be based off mis-information and rumor. So many of the posts on the last page act as if AA deals only with race. Race isn't even a considereation in some affirmative action policies.

Race is a pretty big factor though. Granted gender and disabilities also come to mind, race is the biggest part of it.

Affirmative Action as a concept is wrong. Regardless if it caters to race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything of the sort.

Problems with affirmative action as seen by Thomas Sowell-

- They encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiary of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies.

- They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. black millionaires), oftentimes to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites).

- They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole.

- They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who — without preferences — consistently outperform them.

Other interesting thoughts:

- What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action — and has barely changed since then.

- Minority students are systematically mismatched with institutions due to racial preferences, where they underperform relative to the student body. Had they gone to an institution without the help of affirmative action, to a less selective school, they would have received better grades and graduated at higher rates.

- When the top-level schools recruit black students who would normally be qualified to succeed at the level next to the top, then the second tier of institutions faces the prospect of either being conspicuously lacking in minority students or (2) dipping down to the next level below to bring in enough minority students for a statistically respectable "representation." Usually they end up mismatching students. Once begun at the top, this process continues on down the line.


Affirmative Action is also wrong due to the fact that it treats individuals as groups. "Regardless of whether he is guilty of racism, a person is to be punished for racism carried out by other members of his racial group. Regardless of whether he is a victim of racism, a person is entitled to benefits for racism carried out against other members of his racial group."

Finally, it should be noted that quotas in affirmative action policies have been ruled unconstitutional 30 YEARS AGO. So before we all jump on the band wagon on Isildur's comments, let's get our facts right.

Perhaps you should read into what I say more. I never mentioned the legality of racial quotas, and I never said they were used today. I simply said that there's more to life with them, which implied that I don't agree with them. I don't agree with murder, which is illegal. I don't agree with racial quotas which are also illegal.

If you agree with racial quotas, you don't have to jump on my "bandwagon" though.















To sum my entire point up, many affirmative action policies are beneficial to one group, while not beneficial to another. That's not how policies in a country based off of equality should work.

Look at the Europeans that immigrated here in the 1870's to early 1900's during the Gilded Age. They were very ignorant to the standards that the middle and upper class judge intelligence by, and poor according to economic standards. Many rose out from their standings as poor workers and became the middle and upper class. That goes to show that if a group of people want change, they'll get it. Many African Americans or Asians have gone on to become middle and upper class members of society. Those that want to will, and those that don't want to won't. The last thing we need is the government offering a helping hand to one group, while letting another group fend for itself.

Isildur9473
06-26-2006, 02:31 PM
As for diversity, I'm more on the side of competence. I was at a seminar for High School journalism in San Francisco earlier this year. The speaker I wanted to see was full, so I went to see the one that discussed diversity and multi-culturalism. Basically, her point was this-

"Your newspaper staff should represent the minority breakdown your school has. For example if your school was half white, and half African American, your staff should be half white, and half African American."

I don't agree with that at all. I'm all for diversity as long as the people on my newspaper staff are competent. My school is about 70% White, and 30% Hispanic. If our newspaper staff reflected that, we would have 60% competent whites, and 10% competent Hispanics.

I'm not meaning to be racist here, but that's how it goes. Out of every 7 or 8 white kids on staff, we get 1 that is there to waste time and screw off. As for the Hispanics, none of them care enough in the school to be on staff. We have 3 or 4 that were on staff last year, they made up an entire 5% of our staff. If we were to force other Hispanics in there in order to reach that breakdown, the results would have been disasterous.

Multi-cultralism also encourages a mixed sense of national identity. At school, they fly the Mexican flag and subject us to cultural activities of Mexico, namely Cinco De Mayo. This is the United States, not Mexico. In the United States, you follow the cultural holdidays that the US has. If you want to celebrate Cinco De Mayo in the comfort of your own home, or with a group of people somewhere go for it. But a state run high school is not the place to do it. In Mexico, they don't celebrate the 4th of July in their schools, why do we celebrate their holidays in ours? Part of moving to another country is embracing the cultural traditions that it has, and not trying to bring the entire culture you left to the new place.

Diversity also encourages people to view other people as groups, and not individuals. When they told me to "seek out friends that are of a different race or perspective," on the morning announcements during diversity week, that caused me to view Hispanic people as a group, and white people as a group. No longer did I view people as individuals, I saw them according to what racial group they were a member of, which was completely ridiculous.

Diversity is never something that can be attained through methods that benefit everyone. I'm no less of a person for only hanging out with cacausion people, then you are for having friends of all different "racial groups". I don't limit myself to only caucasions, but they're the only friends I've made. The Hispanics stay to themselves, so I don't bother them.

amodman
06-26-2006, 02:40 PM
I couldn't find anything about Asian quotas in Ivy League schools being constitutional.

No offense, but no fricking duh. I already told you, it's like patronage. It's "illegal" as long as nobody notices or cares. It happens every day, we have plenty of examples of it. The thing I referenced was from a 2005 article in my English journal last semester. It's fact. The purposely accept on a certain # of Asians so as not to by "overrun." It's idiotic, any form fo discrimination be it racial, gender, social status, etc. is idiotic. I actually agree with Greg's whole post(s) previous to mine here.

asparagus
06-26-2006, 03:54 PM
Problems with affirmative action as seen by Thomas Sowell-
- They encourage non-preferred groups to designate themselves as members of preferred groups [i.e. primary beneficiary of affirmative action] to take advantage of group preference policies.
- They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. black millionaires), oftentimes to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g. poor whites).
- They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole.
- They engender animosity toward preferred groups as well as on the part of preferred groups themselves, whose main problem in some cases has been their own inadequacy combined with their resentment of non-preferred groups who without preferences consistently outperform them.

Other interesting thoughts:
- What about the notion that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of poverty? The black poverty rate was cut in half before affirmative action and has barely changed since then.
- Minority students are systematically mismatched with institutions due to racial preferences, where they underperform relative to the student body. Had they gone to an institution without the help of affirmative action, to a less selective school, they would have received better grades and graduated at higher rates.
- When the top-level schools recruit black students who would normally be qualified to succeed at the level next to the top, then the second tier of institutions faces the prospect of either being conspicuously lacking in minority students or (2) dipping down to the next level below to bring in enough minority students for a statistically respectable "representation." Usually they end up mismatching students. Once begun at the top, this process continues on down the line.
If you wanted me to read Wikipedia, you could have just said so, instead of copying it all down word-for-word and then not mentioning where you got it from. Going beyond that, you also conveniently decided not to mention that it came from an article that had been flagged as violating the neutral point of view policy.

Just because something is collaborative, doesn't mean that you don't still cite it.

Perhaps you should read into what I say more. I never mentioned the legality of racial quotas, and I never said they were used today. I simply said that there's more to life with them, which implied that I don't agree with them. I don't agree with murder, which is illegal. I don't agree with racial quotas which are also illegal.Huh? Here's what you said: "I don't agree with it (Affirmative Action), or state sponsored diversity. There's more to life than racial quotas and everyone of different races holding hands under the smiling sun." I've read that post half a dozen times now, and everytime I read it, I have the sensation that one reason why you don't like Affirmative Action is because you don't like quotas. If that's not what you were trying to say, then I don't know why you posted or what you were trying to convey.

Original post:http://http://www.panheads.org/boards/showpost.php?p=288512&postcount=9

To sum my entire point up, many affirmative action policies are beneficial to one group, while not beneficial to another. That's not how policies in a country based off of equality should work. I still think you are speaking to generally about affirmative action. For the most part, your arguments seem to be exclusively directed against race-based affirmative action, but when you exclude the race factor, it seems many of your arguments no longer apply.

I think for the sake of future discussion, we should perhaps make a distinction between the different types of affirmative action that we are discussing.

Look at the Europeans that immigrated here in the 1870's to early 1900's during the Gilded Age. They were very ignorant to the standards that the middle and upper class judge intelligence by, and poor according to economic standards. Many rose out from their standings as poor workers and became the middle and upper class. That goes to show that if a group of people want change, they'll get it. Many African Americans or Asians have gone on to become middle and upper class members of society. Those that want to will, and those that don't want to won't. So the reason such a disproprtionate number of blacks still live in poverty is because they want to live in poverty? This seems to be the logical end to what you are arguing here. They aren't middle class because they don't want to be? Hmmm...

Isildur9473
06-26-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally I had a reply directed towards asparagus that would try to disagree with what he said. Instead, I came to the realization that he's right about everything, and we're wrong about everything. Whatever asparagus says, I'm going to believe.

The reasoning behind this is simple. I know what I believe, but it doesn't matter since he can find a way to prove it wrong using logic that makes sense. So it goes.

On a further note, I believe that citing sources makes for better arguments than not citing sources. If you don't cite your sources, you're no better than the people who are cannibals, or the people who respect Abba as a serious band.

skynes
06-27-2006, 12:12 AM
Well in Northern Ireland AA&D isn't just legal it's enforced.

All companies MUST have a certain percentage of their workforce from the different groups. They must then turn down other fully qualified people who might fit the job even better, because they have to hire another guy due to whatever

timmyrotter
06-27-2006, 06:57 AM
its a load of crap!

dawn of light
07-04-2006, 07:52 AM
In Canada it's not enforced but it is encouraged. In Winnipeg, specifically, we have one of the largest populations(percentage based) of Native Americans (Aboriginals). We have countless social programs that benefit natives (just because they're native, not social status). Sometimes it makes me really upset when I see so many people benefit from government policies when they don't need it, or they waste it.

One example is university scholarships. Last year my boyfriend (native american) won over $8000 in scholarships. He has decent grades, not outstanding though. It's easy for him to win scholarships because all he has to do is get better grades than other aboriginals rather than the whole student body. He is eligible for about twice as many scholarships as I am (white european).

I think AA should be based upon social standing, income, living situation and NOT race.

asparagus
07-04-2006, 06:09 PM
I think AA should be based upon social standing, income, living situation and NOT race.As I've mentioned several times now, income and living situation are already included in many affirmative action programs here in the states, and I suspect the same is found in Canada.

doormonkey
07-10-2006, 07:29 PM
Ok, someone give me one good reason why scholarships/college admissions/employment should NOT be based purely on who is most qualified? Why should race, religion, background, etc enter into the equation at all? If one person has better "stats" (ie, grades, recommendations, etc) they get the job/slot/scholarship. Period. Don't like it? Tough. That's the real world. Study harder. I have no problem with setting up special scholarships (ie, low-income students, certain races) BUT they should be funded by private parties...NOT students' tuition or the school's coffers.

theelectric3
07-10-2006, 09:34 PM
i completely agree with you. it doesn't make sense. especially if you're pretty well off fincially (middle to upper middle class) tends to disqualify you for scholarships. that's crazy!

every hard working, qualified student deserves a break in scholarships.

md4j
07-25-2006, 07:39 AM
Affirmative Action is about more than just race. It was first put in place in education because education is such a significant factor in class improvement and because education had been and continues to be a place of racial discrimination against young kids.

I often hear the oppenents of affirmative action complain that it itself is racist. Timmyrotter implied the same here. These remarks ignore the multifaceted approach a majority of affirmative action programs now take.

I have many white friends that insist that they are not racist and make statements about how "all blacks get to be lazy because they get to rely on affirmative action." I quickly counter to my friends reminding them that if they spent less time making excuses about affirmative action, then maybe they would be a little more successful (I find my friends to be rather lazy themselves at times.)

On a final note, affirmative action programs don't assume whites to be rich, and they don't give benefits to illegal immigrants. Most affirmative actions programs that take race into account also take into account a number of other factors, such as living conditions, parent's education, annual income, and more. And I certainly don't see such programs somehow aiding and abetting fugitives.The unprove assumption that education can even be racist is seemingly ignorant of education. Education relies solely on the person learning, whether they choose to learn or not. I have yet to hear of a teacher who racially discriminate in regards to their teaching method.

asparagus
07-25-2006, 08:14 AM
The unprove assumption that education can even be racist is seemingly ignorant of education. Education relies solely on the person learning, whether they choose to learn or not. I have yet to hear of a teacher who racially discriminate in regards to their teaching method.
Mike,
What you say is 100% correct, though it completely misses the issue. No one is saying that educators are racist. Not at all. What is at issue is the discrepancy in the quality of education between urban (or rural) and suburban schools. Urban schools, which are much more likely to enroll greater numbers of minority populations also tend to be schools that, for a myriad of reasons, are not at the same par as their urban counterparts. These are generalities of course, and I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb, urban public schools tend to run into some pretty serious problems.

Urban teachers report higher levels of violent crimes being committed against them by students than suburban teachers. Urban and rural students also report higher levels of bullying than students in suburban schools. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_violence)

In the end, these factors and others account for an education gap between suburban middle class students (which are more likely to be white), and urban students, which are more likely to be black or other minority.

asparagus
07-25-2006, 08:32 AM
Ok, someone give me one good reason why scholarships/college admissions/employment should NOT be based purely on who is most qualified? Why should race, religion, background, etc enter into the equation at all? If one person has better "stats" (ie, grades, recommendations, etc) they get the job/slot/scholarship. Period. Don't like it? Tough. That would be all fine and good if everyone had the same opportunities and was on the same footing. Unfortunately that's not the case. Studing harder won't do you any good if your urban school can't afford basic things like books. In Detroit schools, at one point, statistics indicated that 1 out of every 28 black males would be murdered by the time they graduate. When your trying that hard just to survive in a 3rd world like urban environment, simply the fact that you graduate from high school alive shows some talent. In scenarios like these, GPAs and recommendations don't tell half the story, and so more aught to be considered to show just how talented these students are. That's the real world. Study harder. I have no problem with setting up special scholarships (ie, low-income students, certain races) BUT they should be funded by private parties...NOT students' tuition or the school's coffers.Your last sentence just described what is by and large the status quo.

asparagus
07-25-2006, 08:35 AM
Plight Depends for Black Men

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html?ex=1300510800&en=57e0d1ceebcbc209&ei=5090

md4j
07-28-2006, 08:20 AM
Mike,
What you say is 100% correct, though it completely misses the issue. No one is saying that educators are racist. Not at all. What is at issue is the discrepancy in the quality of education between urban (or rural) and suburban schools. Urban schools, which are much more likely to enroll greater numbers of minority populations also tend to be schools that, for a myriad of reasons, are not at the same par as their urban counterparts. These are generalities of course, and I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb, urban public schools tend to run into some pretty serious problems.

Urban teachers report higher levels of violent crimes being committed against them by students than suburban teachers. Urban and rural students also report higher levels of bullying than students in suburban schools. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_violence)

In the end, these factors and others account for an education gap between suburban middle class students (which are more likely to be white), and urban students, which are more likely to be black or other minority.But for your assumption that it is somehow racist there must be clear proof that the reason these urban schools do worse is solely because of their race. That is not true. The reason the best teachers don't want to go there is proven in your statistics that show violent crimes are higher in urban areas. I know my wife wouldn't work at an "urban" school that had a great deal of violent crimes. So the reason these students do worse is not because of the education system but rather because of their own choices.

md4j
07-28-2006, 08:23 AM
That would be all fine and good if everyone had the same opportunities and was on the same footing. Unfortunately that's not the case. Studing harder won't do you any good if your urban school can't afford basic things like books. In Detroit schools, at one point, statistics indicated that 1 out of every 28 black males would be murdered by the time they graduate. When your trying that hard just to survive in a 3rd world like urban environment, simply the fact that you graduate from high school alive shows some talent. In scenarios like these, GPAs and recommendations don't tell half the story, and so more aught to be considered to show just how talented these students are. Your last sentence just described what is by and large the status quo.Statistics show that the reason they don't have the best teachers is because of their own fault. I haven't seen anything that shows schools can't afford basic things like books. That is an asumption that is unproven. Graduating high school in urban areas isn't a "talent" it's something that should happen. If they graduate with a high GPA then that's talent, but to let your surroundings determine who you are doesn't take any talent.

asparagus
07-29-2006, 04:29 PM
I can't exactly understand what you are arguing. On one hand, you seem to agree that kids in the poorer urban areas are getting sub-par education, but on the other hand, you seem to be unsympathetic and blame those same kids for being under educated?

Several times you used the term "their." We're you referring to the kids in the school district, the urban communities, the people who run the school district, the teachers, or something else? I'm just trying to understand what you are arguing.

Thanks. : - )

md4j
08-03-2006, 07:25 AM
I can't exactly understand what you are arguing. On one hand, you seem to agree that kids in the poorer urban areas are getting sub-par education, but on the other hand, you seem to be unsympathetic and blame those same kids for being under educated?

Several times you used the term "their." We're you referring to the kids in the school district, the urban communities, the people who run the school district, the teachers, or something else? I'm just trying to understand what you are arguing.

Thanks. : - )You are right, I am unsympathetic when the reason they don't get the best teachers is because people don't want to work there because of the violent crime rate. How can I be sympathetic when the problem isn't education but the people.

dawn of light
08-03-2006, 07:41 AM
Isn't that what sympathy and compassion is all about? People?

NightCrawler
08-03-2006, 08:00 PM
Well, sympathy for the people because it is happening to them is one thing. But sympathy for the people because they do it to themselves is another. I think that is what he is trying to say.

But yeah, sympathy is about the people.

md4j
08-04-2006, 06:56 AM
Well, sympathy for the people because it is happening to them is one thing. But sympathy for the people because they do it to themselves is another. I think that is what he is trying to say.

But yeah, sympathy is about the people.You got it. That's what I was trying to say.

asparagus
08-04-2006, 07:34 AM
You are right, I am unsympathetic when the reason they don't get the best teachers is because people don't want to work there because of the violent crime rate. How can I be sympathetic when the problem isn't education but the people.So how do you explain all the problems these people have? Apparently, you think they bring it on themselves? But if you think that, then how do you explain why it happens to such a large percentage of urbanites?

It seems to me there are two options here. Either one believes the government services provided in urban areas are sub-par and result in poorer education, higher unemployment, and as a result, more drug use and violence, OR one believes that urbanites (which are mostly minorities) are too lazy and bring them upon itself. If one believes the second option, they need to be able to explain what makes minorities so much more likely to "bring it upon themselves."

asparagus
08-04-2006, 07:36 AM
Well, sympathy for the people because it is happening to them is one thing. But sympathy for the people because they do it to themselves is another. I think that is what he is trying to say.
Jesus always showed sympathy to people who "brought it upon themselves." I can think of countless examples.

Let's also not forget, that if we are honest, there are countless times where WE brought it upon ourselves, and Christ graciously did not give us what we deserve. As a result, we should obviously "pay it forward."

md4j
08-04-2006, 08:24 AM
So how do you explain all the problems these people have? Apparently, you think they bring it on themselves? But if you think that, then how do you explain why it happens to such a large percentage of urbanites?

It seems to me there are two options here. Either one believes the government services provided in urban areas are sub-par and result in poorer education, higher unemployment, and as a result, more drug use and violence, OR one believes that urbanites (which are mostly minorities) are too lazy and bring them upon itself. If one believes the second option, they need to be able to explain what makes minorities so much more likely to "bring it upon themselves."No my opinion is that the lack of education is brought on by "urbanites" through drug use and violence. This drug use and violence also brings about higher unemployment. There are several reasons why "urbanites" are more likely to "bring it upon themselves" none of which is the governments fault.
One reason is because of parents teaching their children the wrong way to do things. In any circumstance it's not the lack of education that brings about drug use and violence. It's the drug use and violence that brings about a lack of education.

asparagus
08-05-2006, 02:11 PM
No my opinion is that the lack of education is brought on by "urbanites" through drug use and violence. This drug use and violence also brings about higher unemployment. There are several reasons why "urbanites" are more likely to "bring it upon themselves" none of which is the governments fault.
One reason is because of parents teaching their children the wrong way to do things. In any circumstance it's not the lack of education that brings about drug use and violence. It's the drug use and violence that brings about a lack of education.Yes, but why are they so much more prone to drug use and violence? It's because they don't have an education to rely on. It's a self-perpetuating cycle that is unfair to those that are born into it.

disciple
08-05-2006, 09:47 PM
Yes, but why are they so much more prone to drug use and violence? It's because they don't have an education to rely on.
Really? 'Cause around here they just do drugs 'cause they're bored and wanna get high. I dunno what the rest of the world is like about that, but from what I've seen, I've gathered the same. Most kids nowadays don't seem to want an education, they just want life and their deepest, greatest pleasures and desires handed to them on a gold platter.

john316
08-06-2006, 05:24 AM
Jesus always showed sympathy to people who "brought it upon themselves." I can think of countless examples.

Let's also not forget, that if we are honest, there are countless times where WE brought it upon ourselves, and Christ graciously did not give us what we deserve. As a result, we should obviously "pay it forward."


I agree with this 100% but it doesn't go far enough. yes Jesus always showed sympathy to people but he also made them accountable for their actions.

Take the women at the well for instance...Jesus showed her sympathy and compassion but her also made her very aware that she was accountable for her actions..He could have used the the fact that she was from Samaria as a excuse for the state she was in but he didnt....he simply told her to "go and sin no more"

Holding people accountable for their actions does not mean you dont care for them....quite the opposite...its lets them know that despite the circumstances they can change with Gods help.

asparagus
08-06-2006, 06:56 AM
Really? 'Cause around here they just do drugs 'cause they're bored and wanna get high. I dunno what the rest of the world is like about that, but from what I've seen, I've gathered the same. Most kids nowadays don't seem to want an education, they just want life and their deepest, greatest pleasures and desires handed to them on a gold platter.There is a significant difference between the recreational drug use that is seen among teens in suburbs, and the expansive drug use seen in the inner cities. High unemployment rates combined with poor education make it much more likely for people to seek alternative methods to support their family.

asparagus
08-06-2006, 06:58 AM
I agree with this 100% but it doesn't go far enough. yes Jesus always showed sympathy to people but he also made them accountable for their actions.

Take the women at the well for instance...Jesus showed her sympathy and compassion but her also made her very aware that she was accountable for her actions..He could have used the the fact that she was from Samaria as a excuse for the state she was in but he didnt....he simply told her to "go and sin no more"

Holding people accountable for their actions does not mean you dont care for them....quite the opposite...its lets them know that despite the circumstances they can change with Gods help.So how, in a practical sense, does this affect the issue at hand?

john316
08-07-2006, 02:10 PM
So how, in a practical sense, does this affect the issue at hand?

Well unless i misunderstood you were saying that urbanites weren't responsible for their actions because of their social class and that Jesus wouldn't have held them accountable because of that.

My point was that the woman at the well was a Samaritan (half Jew-half Gentile) and was a social outcast of that time. Jesus didnt let that be a excuse for her sins.

And although i agree we need to have compassion on these people it still doesn't excuse them to commit crimes.

I hope i have explained myself better now...with my poor typing skills sometimes i have trouble getting my point across in as few as words as possible:)

md4j
08-08-2006, 09:19 AM
Yes, but why are they so much more prone to drug use and violence? It's because they don't have an education to rely on. It's a self-perpetuating cycle that is unfair to those that are born into it.
Wrong, it's because of the parents not teaching them what is right and wrong. It isn't about the government, it's about the people. It's not the cycle, it's the lifestyle that is CHOSEN by these people.

asparagus
08-08-2006, 03:31 PM
But what makes parents in urban areas so much more likely to be worse than parents in other areas?

skreamline
08-08-2006, 06:51 PM
Personally, I believe that AA, while important many years ago, is now becoming more of a formality. For example, two people go in for an interview, one a minority. The workplace has a certain 'diversity quota', and if they don't meet this, then they are financially penalized. They are both coming from solid backgrounds, but the nonminority is a bit more qualified.

Thusly, the minority is hired not because of his qualification, per se, but rather to meet a figure.

I dislike it more than I like it.

asparagus
08-08-2006, 08:14 PM
Brett,
It's been more than 30 years since the highest US court ruled that quotas in affirmative action are illegal.

asparagus
08-08-2006, 08:39 PM
On the issue of quotas, I have now mentioned four times on this thread that for more than a generation, quotas have been ruled unconstituional. I have also said, just as many times, that affirmative action is not just about race...only to be ignored.

All I'm doing is repeating myself. Take a look:

Over a month ago, on 6/24, I wrote:Affirmative Action is about more than just race. ... I often hear the oppenents of affirmative action complain that it itself is racist. Timmyrotter implied the same here. These remarks ignore the multifaceted approach a majority of affirmative action programs now take.
Two days later, on 6/26, I wrote:I think this is rather typical of the campaign against affirmative action. A lot of it seems to be based off mis-information and rumor. So many of the posts on the last page act as if AA deals only with race. Race isn't even a considereation in some affirmative action policies.

Finally, it should be noted that quotas in affirmative action policies have been ruled unconstitutional 30 YEARS AGO...
Later that day, I would once again be involved in some fact-checking:I still think you are speaking too generally about affirmative action. For the most part, your arguments seem to be exclusively directed against race-based affirmative action, but when you exclude the race factor, it seems many of your arguments no longer apply.

I think for the sake of future discussion, we should perhaps make a distinction between the different types of affirmative action that we are discussing.

And finally, on 7/4 I wrote:7/4As I've mentioned several times now, income and living situation are already included in many affirmative action programs here in the states, and I suspect the same is found in Canada.

Bottom line: I'm interested in having a real discussion and I'm willing to consider that some affirmative action policies aren't helpful. But sofar, all I've heard is media soundbytes thrown at me, only to have the poster ignore my responses.

Please, I want to have a real discussion where each side listens to the other side. In all honesty, affirmative action does probably have some problems, but no one has been able to convince me of that. 70% of what I have heard starts with some comment about QUOTAS! It drives me mad friends, it drives me mad...

For the other 30% that have been in discussion with me, I just want to thank you for taking time to read my posts; and I have enjoyed your company on this thread.

animeraven34
08-08-2006, 10:04 PM
On the issue of quotas, I have now mentioned four times on this thread that for more than a generation, quotas have been ruled unconstituional. I have also said, just as many times, that affirmative action is not just about race...only to be ignored.

All I'm doing is repeating myself.

Bottom line: I'm interested in having a real discussion and I'm willing to consider that some affirmative action policies aren't helpful. But sofar, all I've heard is media soundbytes thrown at me, only to have the poster ignore my responses.

Please, I want to have a real discussion where each side listens to the other side. In all honesty, affirmative action does probably have some problems, but no one has been able to convince me of that. 90% of what I have heard starts with some comment about QUOTAS! It drives me mad friends, it drives me mad...

For the other 10% that have been in discussion with me, I just want to thank you for taking time to read my posts; and I have enjoyed your company on this thread.
Did you ever stop to think that no one here listens to what you say because you don't listen to anyone else?


Personally I think affirmative action is a load of crap, from both an employer's point of view and from an applicants. Why should an employer give special consideration to someone who is less qualified for the job than another applicant just because they're in a minority or a woman? I'd hire the most qualified applicant, I don't care who they are.

From the other point of view, how do you think it feels to be a single white male trying to get a job and make a life for his future wife and family but everywhere you go you get turned away because employers want to comply with affirmative action? Because they hire so called minorities, bored housewives, and old farts instead? How do you think it would feel to get a job that you're not really qualified for? That's not fair to the employer or the worker or the other applicants.

How about complaining about something important for once? If you keep repeating the same point over and over, that's your fault, no one elses. Not everyone is going to listen. Accept it, move on.

asparagus
08-09-2006, 12:19 AM
Personally I think affirmative action is a load of crap, from both an employer's point of view and from an applicants. Why should an employer give special consideration to someone who is less qualified for the job than another applicant just because they're in a minority or a woman? I'd hire the most qualified applicant, I don't care who they are.The idea behind affirmative action is that you ARE picking the truly most qualified applicant.

Say you are a human resources director and there are two applicants in front of you. They both went to Harvard, maintained a 3.5 GPA, and have equal job experience. The ONLY difference between these two white men is that one grew up a son in a billionaire family full of Harvard alums and had his education handed to him, while the other grew up on a farm, had his father die when he was young, and has had to fight for every ounce of education he could get his hands on.

Who would you choose? If you choose the farmboy like me because you think he'll be a harder worker (among other things), then you are using affirmative action.

It's not about race. It's about considering more than GPAs and test scores so you can make a better guess at who's truly the most qualified.

From the other point of view, how do you think it feels to be a single white male trying to get a job and make a life for his future wife and family but everywhere you go you get turned away because employers want to comply with affirmative action? Well, you pretty much described my life in a nutshell. White. Married. Bachelor's degree. Student loans. Unemployed. But just because it's bad news for me doesn't mean I don't think its right.

How do you think it would feel to get a job that you're not really qualified for? That's not fair to the employer or the worker or the other applicants.Of course not. But AA is not about feeling sorry for someone or giving it to someone underqualified. Greatness is not just defined by GPAs and test scores, don't you agree?

Did you ever stop to think that no one here listens to what you say because you don't listen to anyone else?I didn't want to ignore this comment, because I do want to show that I am listening. If there was something specific that I did, I'm sorry and I'd like to talk about it over a PM.

md4j
08-09-2006, 06:35 AM
But what makes parents in urban areas so much more likely to be worse than parents in other areas?
That's a good question, but the answer is not the government or the educational system. Possibly peers, or even their parents. I don't know, but I do know that a system isn't the cause of peoples problems.

animeraven34
08-09-2006, 10:24 AM
Say you are a human resources director and there are two applicants in front of you. They both went to Harvard, maintained a 3.5 GPA, and have equal job experience. The ONLY difference between these two white men is that one grew up a son in a billionaire family full of Harvard alums and had his education handed to him, while the other grew up on a farm, had his father die when he was young, and has had to fight for every ounce of education he could get his hands on.

Who would you choose? If you choose the farmboy like me because you think he'll be a harder worker (among other things), then you are using affirmative action.
That's not affirmative action. That's common sense, that's simple logic. The farm kid is more qualified becuase of the amount of work that they've already had to do to reach that point.

I still think affirmative action is a load of crap. You and I both know it's not about race, but try telling that to some of the people I've come across in trying to get a job. Tell that to the african american manager at UPS back in my old home town; who took one look at me right before my interview and sneered. And btw, she ended up hiring a, probably illegal, Mexican immigrant who couldn't read. I'm not being racist; illegal immigrants are a fact of life in that town, 60% of the town is hispanic and more than half of them got there illegaly. I think it's great that guy got a job; but what do you think probably happened on the first day of work when he had to sort packages based on name and address? AA may have been a good idea in the beginning, but, like always happens, people have screwed it up.

I never said that GPA's and test scores make someone more qualified than another. If I were hiring someone, I'd look more at their work ethic and if they make every attempt to finish what they start.

asparagus
08-09-2006, 10:38 AM
You still seem to think AA is all about race. It's not. Effective policies take in a wide range of factors; race is just one of them.

What I described in my scenario IS affirmative action.

disciple
08-09-2006, 12:32 PM
It does not matter that racial quotas have been deemed unconstitutional, don't you see? I live in Iowa, and a couple years back a detasseling crew fired almost all of their white people and hired a bunch of black people that was unfit for the job. What did the people fired do? Go somewhere else looking for jobs (equivalent to nothing at all). Some joined the army, even.

There are other aspects to AA, but I hardly (read as: never) hear about those other aspects being a problem.

asparagus
08-10-2006, 08:49 AM
Disciple.
We live in a capitalist system. There are several beauties to such a system. One such element is that affirmative action is never forced on a commercial enterprise. Businesses small and large choose to use affirmative action in their hiring processes. If they didn't think they resulted in the best candidates being choosen, they wouldn't use it.

A lot (if not a majority) have no affirmative action policies. But for those select companies that do, they are either truly getting the best candidates or they are hurting their own business.

If some business wants to hurt itself by selecting sub-par candidates, why would that upset you? It's not your business, and if they're really hurting themselves already, what are we to do about it? They're already being punished.

In time, if AA is as harmful as you think, American businesses will naturally abandon it. It's not a place for the government to intervene (it'd be downright liberal) when the capitalist system will work it out in the end.

NightCrawler
11-11-2006, 04:05 PM
Proposal 2: To amend the ban of Affirmative Action in Michigan.

November 7th, 2006.
Proposal 2 was passed.