Printable View
The United States of America is one of the few countries where theoretically, at least, the people rejected being the "subjects" of a monarchy at the inception of the country. Despite all of it's imperfections (such as realizing that rights require responsibility), the USA is still better than most countries in protecting the individual rights of its citizens (at least on paper).Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ_Asia
Well Falrune I stand corrected but I think my interpretation still holds true. They put in a new policy once they realized that they were going to have a large influx of Asians if AA was removed. A lot of Whites were under the impression that it would help them but it wasn't nearly as beneficial as they thought it would be. My thing is you want it based solely on merit then do so but don't turn around and come up with a "new" policy to make it closer to the way it was. That was all about politics. The school's demographics wouldn't have reflected the state population. They realized the potential backlash of not instituting a new policy. If Cali had been 80% Asian I don't thinking anyone would've made a peep. The politicians getaway with playing both sides. They can say they killed AA but fixed the demographic problem.
Again I agree with you,on paper the New York Knicks should win the title due to their payroll but what is on paper and what is reality are far,far apart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falrune
Freedom of Speech? Ask the "Dont Tase Me Bro" guy about that right.
Right to vote?Sure you can vote,but ask Diebold and Al Gore about that right...
Right to Privacy? Ask the authors & supporters of the Patriot Act about the 4th amendment.
I could go on but my point is clear...AmeriKKKa doesnt come close to delivering what the founding fathers promised so many years ago.
I have so much more respect for a nation that may not deliver many rights but at least they are honest about it.
The Regents of the University of California did the right thing. They eliminated Affirmative Action because it was discriminatory against young people with dreams just as important as those dreams of the children that were favored by affirmative action. AA was a racist policy and contrary to the spirit of equal opportunityQuote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMaster
All men are created equal" was meant to be taken in the context of Justice. I do believe, very strongly(since I spent 26 years fighting for your rights) that everyone regardless of race, color, creed should be treated equally, according to the law, without bias.
People, themselves, however.....Are not equal, and never will be. That is why, as a benevalent society, it is incumbent on those with the means, to provide a little assistance to those not so fortunate. We are, in effect, our brothers keeper.
I agree to some extent. You do put yourself on a somewhat slippery slope, however, when you attempt to put things in the context of justice, rather than in the context of the law. In spirit, I agree with you, but in practice, WHO is to decide what is just? Usually, it turns out to be some rich liberal or rich conservative who tells everyone else what is just.Quote:
Originally Posted by CORVETTEDUDE
I think this is a nice sentiment; but don't spend my money on giveaway programs that foster government dependency rather than independence. Most of these assistance programs have lead to (i) an inefficient self-perpetuating bureaucracy and (ii) a perpetual pool of recipients, where it is financially discouraged for the recipients to get out and attempt to be productive. The problem with this is that it is a burden on the middle class; now if the rich people want to pay for all this, fine. But middle-income families need to put that money away in their own educational trust funds to help their children go to the college of their choice.Quote:
People, themselves, however.....Are not equal, and never will be. That is why, as a benevolent society, it is incumbent on those with the means, to provide a little assistance to those not so fortunate. We are, in effect, our brothers keeper.
I don't think equality is possible within a free-market capitalist society.
I don't think equality is possible when speaking about things like ability or intelligence.
I do think it is possible to rectify egregious historical inequities.
Here you speak of Affirmative Action, but not of genocide, slavery, colonization, and its legacy of poverty, war, and disease.
Whether equality is possible is a little besides the point. The legacy of colonialism and slavery needs to be addressed.
I don't, equal opportunity HAS to involve direct, invasive, oppressive intervention because not everyone can have an equal opportunity for success. The only way someone can be in the top 100 wealthiest American lists with an IQ under 40 is if rich daddy dies and leaves it to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowMaster
Secondary education is unequal as far as opportunities go, college is generally expensive stuff and if you're in the poorest SEC you're not gonna be able to afford to send your kid there even with all the financial aid packages around unless you either take a gamble and burden the kid with loans, or give the school such a sob story that they feel sorry for you and give it away. Even then its not a sure bet, if you're in the lowest SEC you're generally not even making even, the stats show this SEC makes a -1% of the distribution of national income annually. So what about all the costs that even generous schools can't cover?
Sure, we could make secondary complusitory and make it so any random person in the world could afford it; but then the quality of the education decreases, its value decreases and atstead of actually fixing anything; now everyone needs to go to graduate school to make what a 2-yr or 4-yr would have given them in employment earning statistics.
So you're saying that people in the system have bias which will help and hurt people based on meaningless characteristics (discrimination) and this is ok since you might be in the majority and might benefit form it?? When these individual slants collectively result in wholesale systematic discrimination, those in the minority kept down by it will be universally such. It doesn't matter how much you can adapt if no one will hire you, and you can't go just setup your own shop if people will 1- not ever go to it because of who/what you are, 2- unless there is something else involved in the picture you're not gonna have the assets to fund starting such an operation.Quote:
However all systems are inherently flawed because they're created and run by people. Life is inherently unfair. But what keeps you down may bring you up in different situation.
No one?! Are you sure of this? Perhaps so much as most people are so indifferent that they don't care if the system is run into the ground.Quote:
no one is going to knowingly allow you to drive the car in to a ditch without a fight.
Richard Dawkins discusses at some length in The God Delusion the evolutionary force of inequality: that is, that it is beneficial to the survival of the group (and thus of the species) to favor the members of your group and oppose the members of other groups. Over time, this progressed from tribal to city-state to regional to national groups, and there has been a general (and significant) trend towards greater equality (of rights, not of ability or intelligence, as Mandy points out) for all people. We're still a long way from achieving true equality, but consider our progress with a few key notes:
The Magna Carta: the beginnings of modern liberty, though at the time for the noblity only, diminishing the power of the king.
The Amercian Declaration of Independence: "these truths are self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (emphasis mine). Note the this speaks of MEN: not women. And, in fact, in the cultural climate of the 17th century, Blacks and other minorities were not accepted as "men."
Emancipation Proclamation: freeing the slaves in America (see comments above regarding the negatives that followed this, but it was a major step forward).
Women's Suffrage: Beginning in New Zealand in 1898, and then through Canada, the US, GB, and other industrialized nations over the next half century, women gained the right to vote.
Of course, there's more, and there are failings aplenty. But in general, the trend is towards equality, and perhaps in some distant future century we'll actually acheive equality.
Justice is the attempt to establish equality. The angle by which the proverbial playing field is tilted measures how unjust the game.