Affirmative Action

[Winchester]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305086262' post='2239951']
A Spanish Surname is not a race, and how is that racist anyway? Please explain how believeing that someone with a Spanish surname first language is Spanish is racist. If someones last name is williams I assume their firt language is English... is that racist?

[/quote]
Shut up, you White Devil.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305085378' post='2239946']

" I'm perfectly fine with the state decreeing that it's not okay for me to kill someone"

I am not, killing people is not necessarily morally wrong. I hope you meant [i]to murder[/i] someone. [/quote]

Well, actually, involuntary manslaughter is still a bad thing. If you strike a pedestrian with your car by accident, you can still go to jail. And yes, I'm fine with that, because what pedestrian wants to be struck and killed? One who jumps out in front of the car...which is why if you can demonstrate it's a suicide, there's an exception.

So, while murder is obviously more seriously wrong, accidental death can still have legal ramifications. If a company failed to install/use mandatory safety equipment, you can bet they're going to be faced with legal fallout when someone gets killed on the job.

My point is that the cases where killing another person are acceptable are the exceptions to the law, not the starting point. The starting point is that robbing a fellow human being of their life is not a good thing. [And bad for society as a whole, if you're taking that angle.]


[quote]Racism is a belief, an attitude, the state should not be addressing it at all.[/quote]

Well, true enough. You can be as racist as you want, as long as you hire people anyway. You could conceivably think everyone else is scum and not break any laws. 'Hate speech' laws are on such tenuous grounds because of freedom of speech. The government can't really tell you what to think. But...what you think often influences what you say and what you do, so the division isn't always an obvious clear-cut distinction.

What the state is attempting to do is to protect the rights of groups of people that (as minorities) are in a more vulnerable position in society. Not all societies protect the vulnerable, and ours does not protect vulnerable people uniformly. But we do have laws that inconvenience some people to preserve equal access. Public buildings all have to have ramps and elevators and handicap bathrooms so that [i]if[/i] a person confined to a wheelchair wanted to enter...they could. You can argue that your company has no handicapped employees or clients, but it doesn't matter - you have to have that available so that you [i]could[/i].

Yes, it's more expensive and takes up more space and is potentially a 'waste' to make a building accessible to wheelchairs. You could say 'won't they just lose business if they fail to comply?' But the reality is that there are few people out there in wheelchairs, so you could be quite successful without catering to that population. The laws...force the issue. Suddenly, you can't get the building inspector to sign off if you don't comply.

I'm not saying that the laws focusing on the disabled are exactly the same as Affirmative Action laws...but the idea behind them is similar. Ensuring that everyone has access by preventing minorities from being 'overlooked.'

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='cmariadiaz' timestamp='1305081506' post='2239899']
I completely disagree that the pay gap is a thing of the past; and I am taking experience and seniority into account ... but I'll leave it at that.

The fact that someone even *thought* that I was not a native speaker based on last name is inherent racism, which unluckily we do deal with in this country.
[/quote]


Is it racism to say that you appear to be hispanic? Would it also be racist to say that most illegal immigrants are hispanic? Can you understand why people might think something like that?

[Socrates]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1305031897' post='2239608']
With that much latent distrust in day to day interactions, it's bound to affect hiring decisions. And black people know that they have to 'act white' at work if they want to have a professional job in a mostly-white office building. That's just how things are.
[/quote]
What exactly do you mean by "act white"?

Is it racist to expect that black people live up to the same standards of professional behavior in their jobs as people of other races?

After all, white people in white-collar professional jobs are generally expected not to behave like rednecks or white trash yahoos while on the job.


Unfortunately, I've heard that in many neighborhoods, people, especially young men, who take getting an education seriously or are serious about bettering themselves with an honest career, are ridiculed and ostracized for "acting white."
There are plenty of problems in segments of black culture which can't be blamed entirely on white racism, and are just as responsible for holding black people back.

AA, which in practice means holding blacks to lower standards than other people, is not going to fix those problems, which can ultimately only be solved by action within black communities themselves.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1305131587' post='2240108']
So hispanics are racist against hispanics?
[/quote]


Yes. I have been on the receiving end. Apparently, they feel I am a traitor to the race because I do not speak Spanish. Oddly some people seem to think that the ability to speak a language is genetic. Wish it was...I would speak Spanish, French, and Scot as well....

[cmaD2006]

Ok I'm out of this discussion -- its too personal.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305060821' post='2239790']
By leaving the problem unfixed, you are naturally condoning it by your lack of action in fixing the injustice.
[/quote]

Don John, you were right to take offense to this statement, but you forgot that you are on a Catholic board.

Here's a better way to answer this:

Amppax, what you are saying is that God, because He has the capacity to stop every sin, is obligated to fix every injustice. Otherwise, He is condoning sin.

Clearly, God doesn't do this. Why not? Because we are to be given a choice to do what is right. If we don't have the option to do wrong, we don't have the option to do right either.

Taken to its logical conclusion this seems to imply that laws of man (as opposed to laws which merely uphold natural law) are completely unnecessary and actually hinder God's plan. I'm not certain that this is accurate, but it seems plausible.

Peace,
Joe

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Well, actually, involuntary manslaughter is still a bad thing. If you strike a pedestrian with your car by accident, you can still go to jail. And yes, I'm fine with that, because what pedestrian wants to be struck and killed? One who jumps out in front of the car...which is why if you can demonstrate it's a suicide, there's an exception.

So, while murder is obviously more seriously wrong, accidental death can still have legal ramifications. If a company failed to install/use mandatory safety equipment, you can bet they're going to be faced with legal fallout when someone gets killed on the job.

My point is that the cases where killing another person are acceptable are the exceptions to the law, not the starting point. The starting point is that robbing a fellow human being of their life is not a good thing. [And bad for society as a whole, if you're taking that angle.] [/quote]

Well I don't know where you live, but in Texas, if you were not doing anything wrong at all and you kill someone in an accident, you are not [i]criminally[/i] liable in any way. And that is the way it should be. If you do something that is negligent and someone dies that is completely different, but then that is being punished for the behavior of criminal negligence which led to some ones death, not for killing them, but because your negligence killed them. Not the same thing at all.

[quote]Well, true enough. You can be as racist as you want, as long as you hire people anyway. You could conceivably think everyone else is scum and not break any laws. 'Hate speech' laws are on such tenuous grounds because of freedom of speech. The government can't really tell you what to think. But...what you think often influences what you say and what you do, so the division isn't always an obvious clear-cut distinction. [/quote]

Hate speech laws are on tenuous grounds becuase they are evil and violate the basic human rights of human beings. They also violate the first amendment of the U.S Constitution and numerous State Constitutions. If dealing with your own property you should be able to be as racist as you want anyway, its yours, if your a racist #(&$(#&$ well you have the inalianable right to dispose of your property as you see fit, so long as it is otherwise within the law. Ex. If it is legal to sell your house, then it should be legal tosell it to whomever you want, if it is legal to hire someone to do a job it should be legal to hire whomever you want, for whatever reason you want.

Corporations and Government however are not personal property, they are corporately owned and should therefore be obliged to treat everyone equally. Affirmative action laws do not do that, they racially discriminate based on a particular state of society measured by current outcomes. They are manifestly no different than the Jim Crow las of old.

[quote]What the state is attempting to do is to protect the rights of groups of people that (as minorities) are in a more vulnerable position in society. Not all societies protect the vulnerable, and ours does not protect vulnerable people uniformly. But we do have laws that inconvenience some people to preserve equal access. Public buildings all have to have ramps and elevators and handicap bathrooms so that [i]if[/i] a person confined to a wheelchair wanted to enter...they could. You can argue that your company has no handicapped employees or clients, but it doesn't matter - you have to have that available so that you [i]could[/i]. [/quote]

No the state is succeding in giving, by legal fiat, an advantage to one certian persons based on their skin color, or the color of their parents, or their sex organs, or thier last name. If this was a law forcing corportations and goverment to hire white men with anglosaxon last names, we wouldn;t be havingthis discussion, becuase somehow being racist one direction is bad, but being racist, or sexist, or namist against white men with anglo lat names is okay.

[quote]Yes, it's more expensive and takes up more space and is potentially a 'waste' to make a building accessible to wheelchairs. You could say 'won't they just lose business if they fail to comply?' But the reality is that there are few people out there in wheelchairs, so you could be quite successful without catering to that population. The laws...force the issue. Suddenly, you can't get the building inspector to sign off if you don't comply. [/quote]

This too is ridiculous, if aprivate buisness owner does not want to put ramps in he shouldn't have too, Governemnt and corporations however are corporatly owned and should be forced to make things equally accessable to all.

Everything should be equally accessable, dining areas, bathrooms , and jobs.

[Amppax]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305149021' post='2240217']

Well I don't know where you live, but in Texas, if you were not doing anything wrong at all and you kill someone in an accident, you are not [i]criminally[/i] liable in any way. And that is the way it should be. If you do something that is negligent and someone dies that is completely different, but then that is being punished for the behavior of criminal negligence which led to some ones death, not for killing them, but because your negligence killed them. Not the same thing at all.



Hate speech laws are on tenuous grounds becuase they are evil and violate the basic human rights of human beings. They also violate the first amendment of the U.S Constitution and numerous State Constitutions. If dealing with your own property you should be able to be as racist as you want anyway, its yours, if your a racist #(&$(#&$ well you have the inalianable right to dispose of your property as you see fit, so long as it is otherwise within the law. Ex. If it is legal to sell your house, then it should be legal tosell it to whomever you want, if it is legal to hire someone to do a job it should be legal to hire whomever you want, for whatever reason you want.

Corporations and Government however are not personal property, they are corporately owned and should therefore be obliged to treat everyone equally. Affirmative action laws do not do that, they racially discriminate based on a particular state of society measured by current outcomes. They are manifestly no different than the Jim Crow las of old.



No the state is succeding in giving, by legal fiat, an advantage to one certian persons based on their skin color, or the color of their parents, or their sex organs, or thier last name. If this was a law forcing corportations and goverment to hire white men with anglosaxon last names, we wouldn;t be havingthis discussion, becuase somehow being racist one direction is bad, but being racist, or sexist, or namist against white men with anglo lat names is okay.



This too is ridiculous, if aprivate buisness owner does not want to put ramps in he shouldn't have too, Governemnt and corporations however are corporatly owned and should be forced to make things equally accessable to all.

Everything should be equally accessable, dining areas, bathrooms , and jobs.
[/quote]

i'm feeling like i disagree with you on just about everything here... not really sure if i'm going to continue in this debate

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305163383' post='2240304']
i'm feeling like i disagree with you on just about everything here... not really sure if i'm going to continue in this debate
[/quote]



What you think that people should go to jail for killing someone in an accident, when they didn't do anything negligent?


Or do you think people do not have the right to dispose of there own property as they see fit? Where exactly does that end? is it discriminitory to not give out equal Christmas gifts? Should the government intervene?

If something is yours, you have the right to do with it as you will, how exactly is it not a violation of the basic human right of property to tell people how they must dispose of those things that are theirs?

Ordo you think that the government really should be telling people what they can and cannot say, and punishing people for saying things deemed "hate speech"? Do you not see how dangerous that is?

Or do youthink that private buisness owners sould have to spend thousands, perhaps tens of thousands to retrofit buildings so a fraction of a percent of people can access thier stores? What aboutthe people that this put out of buisness? what about thier rights?
Again where does that end? Should builders have to make all new homes handicap friendly? Perhaps home owners should have to retrofit their home in order to sell it? The idea is again a violation of the right of property.


Perhaps you don't like that I called AA what it is, prejudical discrmination against white men with non-spanish names.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305165743' post='2240328']



Or do youthink that private buisness owners sould have to spend thousands, perhaps tens of thousands to retrofit buildings so a fraction of a percent of people can access thier stores? What aboutthe people that this put out of buisness? what about thier rights?
Again where does that end? Should builders have to make all new homes handicap friendly? Perhaps home owners should have to retrofit their home in order to sell it? The idea is again a violation of the right of property.


[/quote]


a business shouldn't be forced to alter their business buildings... although if they refuse to make is accessible by government standards, then they should not get ONE single tax break. if they are a small business, they should not get a single small business tax break and not be able to write stuff off on thier taxes.

its a to way street. the government wants business to be accessible to everyone. if a business refuses to make is handicap accessible or refuse to serve a certain race, religion or color, they should be allowed to. although they should not be able to get government money for tax breaks. its only fair. if the government are going to give you money via tax breaks, then you have to adhere to their rules. if not, then pay the full amount of taxes without a single tax break.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305213141' post='2240472']
a business shouldn't be forced to alter their business buildings... although if they refuse to make is accessible by government standards, then they should not get ONE single tax break. if they are a small business, they should not get a single small business tax break and not be able to write stuff off on thier taxes.

its a to way street. the government wants business to be accessible to everyone. if a business refuses to make is handicap accessible or refuse to serve a certain race, religion or color, they should be allowed to. although they should not be able to get government money for tax breaks. its only fair. if the government are going to give you money via tax breaks, then you have to adhere to their rules. if not, then pay the full amount of taxes without a single tax break.
[/quote]

So essentially you're in favor of small mom and pop stores too small to make major upgrades subsidizing larger stores that can afford to upgrade their facilities?

Down with the little guy!

[Nihil Obstat]

In theory government regulations are actually barriers to entry for smaller businesses. The big ones can afford it, and the small ones can't, so they don't get up and running in the first place.
Any of you who are distributists should be against it too, because it favours the big corporations. I'm against it because it favours interventionism and cronyism, which is not at all to do with a market conducive to freedom.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305215498' post='2240488']
In theory government regulations are actually barriers to entry for smaller businesses. The big ones can afford it, and the small ones can't, so they don't get up and running in the first place.
Any of you who are distributists should be against it too, because it favours the big corporations. I'm against it because it favours interventionism and cronyism, which is not at all to do with a market conducive to freedom.
[/quote]
Not only in theory, but practice too!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1305215498' post='2240488']
In theory government regulations are actually barriers to entry for smaller businesses. The big ones can afford it, and the small ones can't, so they don't get up and running in the first place.
Any of you who are distributists should be against it too, because it favours the big corporations. I'm against it because it favours interventionism and cronyism, which is not at all to do with a market conducive to freedom.
[/quote]


I am a distributist so that might color some of my views on the subject.