01-01-2013, 02:31 PM
Although I was swept away with school finals and the holidays, I would now like to return and make possibly a few more posts here.
Maybe this thread is dead as a doornail, but Iâd like to reply anyway.
This is in response to Sanantone,
I donât think itâs necessarily a discredit to someone in a debate if they have their opponent break things down.
I think the reason someone should break down their thoughts depends on their purpose. If you only want to win an argument then no one should care whether you break down everything for me or not. However, if your purpose is to try and reason with me to bring me to another point of view, you should be glad to break things down.
Iâll tell you right out, that my goal in arguing this is to bring you to another point of view.
I believe I understand your point now, about proportional representation. Correct me if Iâm wrong, but you meant that if a minority is 30% of a population then in any given business in that population, 30% of the business should be made up of a minority. If thatâs correct Iâd like to ask how that fits in with free enterprise or freedom? I mean you canât guarantee that an open-minded business manager will hire 30% of his work force from a minority. You canât even guarantee that enough of the minority will apply and be available to that business for hiring. So if the opportunities are not guaranteed available naturally, in an already free society, why do we need affirmative action to correct this âproblemâ of disproportionality? After all, there is freedom. Anyone can apply and hire/fire who they want, and I would assume you can agree that you canât punish or regulate hatred or racism unless you want to be the thought police.
All that affirmative action does is cut down more personal freedoms in an attempt to regulate irregulateable things such as thoughts, emotions etc.
The fact that the Jim Crow laws were made is only the same example of affirmative action. They are both sides of the same coin. You canât outlaw racism because its an emotion, but when you try to regulate it with affirmative action you are only empowering one person above another and creating an imbalance that can promote the same issue once again, racism. Itâs like over-correcting a car. Democracy is a wild ride and when you try to curb its excesses with laws you canât go too far and over correct. The civil rights movement was good because it brought to light the mal-functions of our current laws. But the civil rights movement was aimed at upholding the freedoms and rights for black folks that every American already had. Affirmative action is an over-correcting of the car of democracy. When the car of democracy slid off the road with Jim crow, Martin Luther King guided it back into the lane of the law. I believe that anything more would be right back off the road into racism. Affirmative action by the definition of racism, is just another form of such.
A vehicle is one thing but people are another. A car is not sentient but people are. By âprotectingâ other people from âdiscriminationâ by insuring they will always have a âfairâ shot is all based on trying to regulate peopleâs free thoughts and choices and trying to create a perfect world when there is none. As long as someoneâs free choices donât contradict another personâs rights then they should retain the freedom to make those choices. Americans have never been assured that they will always have a job. The Pilgrims didnât land on Plymouth and demand England to provide for them because they had a right to survive. They knew the risks of freedom and assumed the responsibility to take care of themselves.
Finally, you havenât given me any real proof of the military being discriminated against, until then your question is irrelevant.
Discrimination is an attitude. Is it right to make laws against attitudes in a free country?
Maybe this thread is dead as a doornail, but Iâd like to reply anyway.
This is in response to Sanantone,
I donât think itâs necessarily a discredit to someone in a debate if they have their opponent break things down.
I think the reason someone should break down their thoughts depends on their purpose. If you only want to win an argument then no one should care whether you break down everything for me or not. However, if your purpose is to try and reason with me to bring me to another point of view, you should be glad to break things down.
Iâll tell you right out, that my goal in arguing this is to bring you to another point of view.
I believe I understand your point now, about proportional representation. Correct me if Iâm wrong, but you meant that if a minority is 30% of a population then in any given business in that population, 30% of the business should be made up of a minority. If thatâs correct Iâd like to ask how that fits in with free enterprise or freedom? I mean you canât guarantee that an open-minded business manager will hire 30% of his work force from a minority. You canât even guarantee that enough of the minority will apply and be available to that business for hiring. So if the opportunities are not guaranteed available naturally, in an already free society, why do we need affirmative action to correct this âproblemâ of disproportionality? After all, there is freedom. Anyone can apply and hire/fire who they want, and I would assume you can agree that you canât punish or regulate hatred or racism unless you want to be the thought police.
All that affirmative action does is cut down more personal freedoms in an attempt to regulate irregulateable things such as thoughts, emotions etc.
The fact that the Jim Crow laws were made is only the same example of affirmative action. They are both sides of the same coin. You canât outlaw racism because its an emotion, but when you try to regulate it with affirmative action you are only empowering one person above another and creating an imbalance that can promote the same issue once again, racism. Itâs like over-correcting a car. Democracy is a wild ride and when you try to curb its excesses with laws you canât go too far and over correct. The civil rights movement was good because it brought to light the mal-functions of our current laws. But the civil rights movement was aimed at upholding the freedoms and rights for black folks that every American already had. Affirmative action is an over-correcting of the car of democracy. When the car of democracy slid off the road with Jim crow, Martin Luther King guided it back into the lane of the law. I believe that anything more would be right back off the road into racism. Affirmative action by the definition of racism, is just another form of such.
A vehicle is one thing but people are another. A car is not sentient but people are. By âprotectingâ other people from âdiscriminationâ by insuring they will always have a âfairâ shot is all based on trying to regulate peopleâs free thoughts and choices and trying to create a perfect world when there is none. As long as someoneâs free choices donât contradict another personâs rights then they should retain the freedom to make those choices. Americans have never been assured that they will always have a job. The Pilgrims didnât land on Plymouth and demand England to provide for them because they had a right to survive. They knew the risks of freedom and assumed the responsibility to take care of themselves.
Finally, you havenât given me any real proof of the military being discriminated against, until then your question is irrelevant.
Discrimination is an attitude. Is it right to make laws against attitudes in a free country?
![[-]](https://www.degreeforum.net/mybb/images/collapse.png)