Slavery

If it's been wrong for so long, why hasn't it been fixed? 

Fat Stalin wrote: If it's been wrong for so long, why hasn't it been fixed?

Like I said, the program isn't wrong.

Fat Stalin wrote: But if nobody is following the 'program' correctly, then why use it?

I'm pretty sure you aren't reading my posts. Not everybody is doing it wrong. In fact, many organizations that use the method have not had problems with it. The publicized ones are a minority, not the program's fault.

Yes, but many are still not following it. And nothing has happened. I say get rid of it completely because nothing is being done to stop organizations that are doing it incorrectly.

That made me giggle. ^


Edited by Fat Stalin

"Affirmative" action originally began as a government remedy for past government and social injustices. Affirmative action exists to change the distribution of jobs, education, wealth, or other things, based on characteristics that usually include race, sex or gender, or ethnicity. A certain minority group or gender may be less proportionately represented in an area, often employment or education, due predominantly, in the view of proponents, to past or ongoing discrimination against members of the group. The theory is that a simple adoption of meritocratic principles along the lines of race-blindness, gender-blindness, and so forth would not suffice to change the situation: regardless of overt principles, people already in positions of power were likely to hire people they already knew, and/or people from similar backgrounds; also, ostensible measures of merit might well be biased toward the same groups who were already empowered. In such a circumstance, proponents believe government action giving members of the minority group preferential treatment is necessary in order to achieve a proportionate distribution. From its outset, affirmative action was seen as a transitional strategy, with the intent that in a period, variously estimated from a generation to a century, the effects of past discrimination would be sufficiently countered that such a strategy would no longer be necessary: the power elite would reflect the demographics of society at large. Though affirmative action in the U.S. is primarily associated with racial issues, the American civil rights movement originally gave as its purpose the correction of a history of oppression against all working-class and low-income people, and women have figured as prominently as ethnic minorities among its beneficiaries.

I think I understand it.

Dune wrote: If you understand it, then why against it? It's purpose and most of it's use throughout the country is helpful. It is not the fault of the program.

I'm against it because I have seen more examples of it's faults than how it has helped people. I believe in equality, completely. Race/Gender should not be a consideration.

That's the thing. Where society is today, race and gender have to be used in order to equal the playing field even before we start to live in an equal society. When minorities and women are on the same pay scale, employment rate, and educational level as white men, then we can worry about if every single person is being treated fairly.

Fat Stalin wrote: Why do we have to 'equal the playing field'? Everybody has a chance to go to school in America and do well. It is somebody's own fault if they choose to flunk out or do drugs in America because everybody else does it.

Schools are not equal, so no, not everyone has the same chances. It's phenomenal that you actually believe that all people have the same chances in life. That's wrong, hence the need for Affirmative Action until the field is leveled.

Edited by Dune

Yes, it may be harder for some people to do well in school but everybody has a chance. There are many whites and asians who live in poverty and go to bad schools, but this does nothing to help them 

I didn't say they had an equal chance but they have a chance. Many choose not to put forth effort and resort to drugs and crime.

• According to the latest US Department of Justice survey of crime victims, more than 6.6 million violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and robbery) are committed in the US each year, of which about 20 per cent, or 1.3 million, are inter-racial crimes.

   

• Most victims of race crime—about 90 per cent—are white, according to the survey "Highlights from 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims", published in 1993.

   

• Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.

   

• Blacks thus committed 7.5 times more violent inter-racial crimes than whites even though the black population is only one-seventh the size of the white population. When these figures are adjusted on a per capita basis, they reveal an extraordinary disparity: blacks are committing more than 50 times the number of violent racial crimes of whites.

   

• According to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks.

Now those are facts. There are many poor whites and asians who you don't seem to give a damn about because there are more blacks that are poor.



Edited by Fat Stalin