| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
13 Oct 2004 03:59:22 PM |
| Object: |
'Value in Diversity' |
'Value in Diversity'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28384-2004Oct12.html
Page A20
ON ITS WEB SITE, the Board of Education of Charles County, in Southern
Maryland, affirms its belief that "there is value in diversity." That
credo is in danger of being distorted by several members of the board.
Among the ideas they are advancing: to have science classes offer
instructional materials that teach creationism and cast doubt on
evolution; to require books that stress America's history as "a
Christian nation"; and to revamp sex education so it is informed by
"theological perspectives of the Founders." Board members would also
invite Gideons International to provide Bibles to students, and cull
school reading lists to ban books offering "a neutral or positive view
of immorality or foul language."
Maryland evolution
http://news.google.com/news?q=Maryland%20evolution&num=100&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=Maryland+evolution&num=100&hl=en&lr=&tab=nw&ie=UTF-8&sa=N
http://www.google.com/search?q=Maryland+evolution&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search&cat=gwd/Top
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Maryland%20evolution&safe=images&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 10:08:11 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87k6ttrlgz.fsf@drizzle.com:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
You already have equality. You want superiority.
How so?
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 12:40:45 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87ekk0ggm4.fsf@drizzle.com:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> writes:
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87k6ttrlgz.fsf@drizzle.com:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the
darkies knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
You already have equality. You want superiority.
How so?
Elf
Sorry, I overstepped my bounds in anger there.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 06:35:12 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 07:13:53 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gloyun.ckt18v1ax1rjqN%:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the
darkies knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
I have to diagree with you John, those I have run across that dislike AA
have definite racist attitudes, even if they can't see it of themselves.
Living with an aboriginal for 27 years in a society that treats them so
poorly I have become sensitive to the nuances of racism. I have
frequently had to show those that hate Employment Equity, as it's called
here, that their attitudes are negative about non-whites.
I have found that many change the way they think about EE after I give
them a few personal experience stories that show why it is necessary.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 07:39:06 PM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gloyun.ckt18v1ax1rjqN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the
darkies knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
I have to diagree with you John, those I have run across that dislike AA
have definite racist attitudes, even if they can't see it of themselves.
Living with an aboriginal for 27 years in a society that treats them so
poorly I have become sensitive to the nuances of racism. I have
frequently had to show those that hate Employment Equity, as it's called
here, that their attitudes are negative about non-whites.
I have found that many change the way they think about EE after I give
them a few personal experience stories that show why it is necessary.
I am not rejecting AA. I am saying that the argument that it is not good
does not automatically make the objector a racist, and I haven't seen
Elf say anything that would either indicate he was one, or justify the
vitriol in Matt's comment.
It is, prima facie, a reasonable point to make that EO is all that is
justifiable in a society under rule of law. This does not overcome the
comment that the law forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep on
park benches, of course, which is the practical issue with AA, but there
remains a *reasonable* and *non-racist* objection to it on the grounds
of equality before the law.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 09:23:35 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1glp1c7.alusylu52cpN%:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1gloyun.ckt18v1ax1rjqN%:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the
darkies knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want
is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is
not between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
I have to diagree with you John, those I have run across that dislike
AA have definite racist attitudes, even if they can't see it of
themselves. Living with an aboriginal for 27 years in a society that
treats them so poorly I have become sensitive to the nuances of
racism. I have frequently had to show those that hate Employment
Equity, as it's called here, that their attitudes are negative about
non-whites.
I have found that many change the way they think about EE after I
give them a few personal experience stories that show why it is
necessary.
I am not rejecting AA.
I didn't think you were.
I am saying that the argument that it is not
good does not automatically make the objector a racist,
This is the argument I was responding to.
My experience shows me otherwise. Or rather that although the objector
may not be a blatant racist he\she still harbours some racially based
biases. Granted, my experience certainly isn't proof that the attitude
is universal but I have been correct every time I have encountered it in
my particular society.
and I haven't
seen Elf say anything that would either indicate he was one, or
justify the vitriol in Matt's comment.
I can't speak for Matt, but I can understand his reaction. Whenever I
hear someone speak to AA as Elf did, and considering his intellect I
assume he understands the justifications for AA, my first reaction is
similar to Matt's.
It is, prima facie, a reasonable point to make that EO is all that is
justifiable in a society under rule of law. This does not overcome the
comment that the law forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep on
park benches, of course, which is the practical issue with AA, but
there remains a *reasonable* and *non-racist* objection to it on the
grounds of equality before the law.
Possibly, if you are a philosopher. If not then emotion is more likely
the rationale behind the objections. I suspect most carry with them some
racist attitudes that at times need to be brought to the surface to be
dealt with.
Sometimes it's necessary to mitigate the application of the law in
order to observe the intent rather than the strict letter of
the law.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
14 Oct 2004 08:35:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:12 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
This was not an argument about affirmative action. Elf made the
assertion that *all* of the civil rights acts were wrong. He wanted to
go back to the days when in the American South Blacks effectively had
no rights. They could not vote, for example. Not because of laws that
said black could not vote, but other color-neutral laws that
effectively stopped them from voting. I am sorry, but I do not have
the patience to try to educate him on the realities of life. If his
argument is not based on racism then he is either grossly ignorant or
grossly unconcerned about other people.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 12:04:49 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:12 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
This was not an argument about affirmative action. Elf made the
assertion that *all* of the civil rights acts were wrong. He wanted to
go back to the days when in the American South Blacks effectively had
no rights. They could not vote, for example. Not because of laws that
said black could not vote, but other color-neutral laws that
effectively stopped them from voting. I am sorry, but I do not have
the patience to try to educate him on the realities of life. If his
argument is not based on racism then he is either grossly ignorant or
grossly unconcerned about other people.
As usual I have stepped into a puddle of steaming runny dogpoo...
I *know* about the past history of the US and racial discrimination, as
well as anyone can who was and is not there. I also know that the civil
rights laws were necessary - so long as they established explicitly in
law what had been implicit but overlooked or ignored, that all citizens
had equal rights. Any civil rights law that asserted only that anyone
had a right of some kind is not, to my mind, objectionable (if Elf
thinks it is, then I would like to see the rationale). Any law that says
of a particular subset of society that it has, or does not have,rights
that others do not have or do, is prima facie contrary to the principles
of common law.
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 10:55:00 AM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1glp9va.16o6ngh1j68kscN%:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:12 +0000 (UTC),
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the
darkies knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want
is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
This was not an argument about affirmative action. Elf made the
assertion that *all* of the civil rights acts were wrong. He wanted
to go back to the days when in the American South Blacks effectively
had no rights. They could not vote, for example. Not because of laws
that said black could not vote, but other color-neutral laws that
effectively stopped them from voting. I am sorry, but I do not have
the patience to try to educate him on the realities of life. If his
argument is not based on racism then he is either grossly ignorant or
grossly unconcerned about other people.
As usual I have stepped into a puddle of steaming runny dogpoo...
Welcome John. There is still plenty of room if anyone else wants to
join.
I *know* about the past history of the US and racial discrimination,
as well as anyone can who was and is not there. I also know that the
civil rights laws were necessary - so long as they established
explicitly in law what had been implicit but overlooked or ignored,
that all citizens had equal rights. Any civil rights law that asserted
only that anyone had a right of some kind is not, to my mind,
objectionable (if Elf thinks it is, then I would like to see the
rationale). Any law that says of a particular subset of society that
it has, or does not have,rights that others do not have or do, is
prima facie contrary to the principles of common law.
The problem is that laws do not necessarily reflect reality. Its up to
our vaunted intelligence to find and properly execute the exceptions to
those laws. Unfortunately in some cases human attitudes preclude the
application of law as it's written.
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a
problem in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you
both establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for
special treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions
under which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself
with entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages
some other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of
powers in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more
efficient, dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
I'm unsure of how AA works in the US but EE here is set up so the racial
makeup of businesses are to mirror the racial makeup of society as a
whole. This shouldn't lead to the problems you mentioned.
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
16 Oct 2004 03:32:59 AM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1glp9va.16o6ngh1j68kscN%:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:12 +0000 (UTC),
(John Wilkins) wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the
darkies knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want
is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
This was not an argument about affirmative action. Elf made the
assertion that *all* of the civil rights acts were wrong. He wanted
to go back to the days when in the American South Blacks effectively
had no rights. They could not vote, for example. Not because of laws
that said black could not vote, but other color-neutral laws that
effectively stopped them from voting. I am sorry, but I do not have
the patience to try to educate him on the realities of life. If his
argument is not based on racism then he is either grossly ignorant or
grossly unconcerned about other people.
As usual I have stepped into a puddle of steaming runny dogpoo...
Welcome John. There is still plenty of room if anyone else wants to
join.
I *know* about the past history of the US and racial discrimination,
as well as anyone can who was and is not there. I also know that the
civil rights laws were necessary - so long as they established
explicitly in law what had been implicit but overlooked or ignored,
that all citizens had equal rights. Any civil rights law that asserted
only that anyone had a right of some kind is not, to my mind,
objectionable (if Elf thinks it is, then I would like to see the
rationale). Any law that says of a particular subset of society that
it has, or does not have,rights that others do not have or do, is
prima facie contrary to the principles of common law.
The problem is that laws do not necessarily reflect reality. Its up to
our vaunted intelligence to find and properly execute the exceptions to
those laws. Unfortunately in some cases human attitudes preclude the
application of law as it's written.
It is not about perfect or consistent laws. It is about the principle
that once you make exceptions, *im*perfect laws will accrete and cause
major discriminations. The principle to which I refer is the one that
laws shall not refer to named individuals or to specified sub-groups of
individuals. You cannot legislate to remove the rights of, say, Spanish
speakers in ways that do not equally apply to speakers of all other
languages. [You can make laws for older people, because they are not a
defined subgroup over their lifetimes, and anyone who gets older can
expect the same prescriptions to apply to them.]
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a
problem in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you
both establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for
special treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions
under which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself
with entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages
some other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of
powers in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more
efficient, dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
I'm unsure of how AA works in the US but EE here is set up so the racial
makeup of businesses are to mirror the racial makeup of society as a
whole. This shouldn't lead to the problems you mentioned.
Equality is not AA. In my country there are special provisions for
aboriginals under the law - that is AA. But there are no laws to give
women special rights not held by men (or at least I should hope not -
they would not, I think, survive a High Court challenge). That is
equality. The civil rights movement here was largely aimed at
*extending* rights not previously held by some subclasses of society to
all. That is not affirmative action.
But both Canada and Australia are quite distinct from the US. Because
the US recognises race as legal categories, it can legislate special
treatment for these social categories.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 12:38:44 PM |
|
|
(John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1glqocr.wfsrphnt0tcfN%:
<snip>
The problem is that laws do not necessarily reflect reality. Its up
to our vaunted intelligence to find and properly execute the
exceptions to those laws. Unfortunately in some cases human attitudes
preclude the application of law as it's written.
It is not about perfect or consistent laws. It is about the principle
that once you make exceptions, *im*perfect laws will accrete and cause
major discriminations.
Is it guaranteed that imperfect laws accrete? Is it not possible that
once society has gone past racial prejudices the laws would be changed
once again?
The principle to which I refer is the one that
laws shall not refer to named individuals or to specified sub-groups
of individuals. You cannot legislate to remove the rights of, say,
Spanish speakers in ways that do not equally apply to speakers of all
other languages. [You can make laws for older people, because they are
not a defined subgroup over their lifetimes, and anyone who gets older
can expect the same prescriptions to apply to them.]
Are we talking about removal of rights, or equalisation of rights? At
some point it's probable that the rights of two seperate groups will
conflict and one or the other will have to take a restriction (not
removal) in their rights to create a level playing field. Most people
will complain if any privledges they currently hold are restricted no
matter how much that restriction will improve society.
<snip>
Equality is not AA. In my country there are special provisions for
aboriginals under the law - that is AA. But there are no laws to give
women special rights not held by men (or at least I should hope not -
they would not, I think, survive a High Court challenge). That is
equality. The civil rights movement here was largely aimed at
*extending* rights not previously held by some subclasses of society
to all. That is not affirmative action.
But both Canada and Australia are quite distinct from the US. Because
the US recognises race as legal categories, it can legislate special
treatment for these social categories.
IS AA not a subset of equality?
What special provisions are given to aboriginals and what did they give
up to gain those privledges? In Canada the aboriginals have special
privledges as well but gave up much to gain them, so are not considered
AA (or EE).
--
apatriot #23, aa #1779, Grand Poobah (Pubbah)(Hell! head honcho), EAC
Department of Oxygen Deprivation Responsible for brain damage
everywhere!
Gary Bohn
Conservatism is the political philosophy that it ain't broke so don't
try to fix it. Therefore, if that is indeed how it is, that is what
ought to be.
The Wilkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 06:19:20 PM |
|
|
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au (John Wilkins) wrote in
news:1glqocr.wfsrphnt0tcfN%johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au:
<snip>
The problem is that laws do not necessarily reflect reality. Its up
to our vaunted intelligence to find and properly execute the
exceptions to those laws. Unfortunately in some cases human attitudes
preclude the application of law as it's written.
It is not about perfect or consistent laws. It is about the principle
that once you make exceptions, *im*perfect laws will accrete and cause
major discriminations.
Is it guaranteed that imperfect laws accrete? Is it not possible that
once society has gone past racial prejudices the laws would be changed
once again?
It is not guaranteed, but we accrue laws at a faster rate than we revise
or reject them. Many laws stay in the books, unenforced but as fodder
for lawyers to mine, to mix a metaphor, for decades if not longer.
The problem here arises when a law sets up an institutional behaviour
that generates its own self-interest. For example, the prohibitionist
experiment resulted in prohibition of all kinds of social drugs - in
large part the existing situation of drugs is due to this mistake in the
1930s in the US. The world thanks you...
The principle to which I refer is the one that
laws shall not refer to named individuals or to specified sub-groups
of individuals. You cannot legislate to remove the rights of, say,
Spanish speakers in ways that do not equally apply to speakers of all
other languages. [You can make laws for older people, because they are
not a defined subgroup over their lifetimes, and anyone who gets older
can expect the same prescriptions to apply to them.]
Are we talking about removal of rights, or equalisation of rights? At
some point it's probable that the rights of two seperate groups will
conflict and one or the other will have to take a restriction (not
removal) in their rights to create a level playing field. Most people
will complain if any privledges they currently hold are restricted no
matter how much that restriction will improve society.
Rights involve access to the same provisions of the law. They are not
the same thing as equal access to jobs, etc. Equality in employment is
not a right, but equal treatment in the emplyment laws is. That said, I
would like to see major positive campaigns to encourage people to behave
equally towards social subgroups, but I do not think this is,
intellectually (the only way I can engage this), a matter of *rights*.
But you can legislate that someone who is unfairly treated - for
whatever reason - in employment, has been injured in law, so long as
this applies equally for all members of society (including middle class
white males). You can legislate that all people should have equal access
to a minimum legal representation (so long as it applies to MCWMs), etc.
If it benefits those who are presently disadvantaged unfairly, it may
also benefit those who are not. That cannot be helped.
<snip>
Equality is not AA. In my country there are special provisions for
aboriginals under the law - that is AA. But there are no laws to give
women special rights not held by men (or at least I should hope not -
they would not, I think, survive a High Court challenge). That is
equality. The civil rights movement here was largely aimed at
*extending* rights not previously held by some subclasses of society
to all. That is not affirmative action.
But both Canada and Australia are quite distinct from the US. Because
the US recognises race as legal categories, it can legislate special
treatment for these social categories.
IS AA not a subset of equality?
No, it is not. It is an attempt to enforce a level playing field, but it
is not playing on that field. By definition, AA advantages some subgroup
relative, individually, to members of other groups. [At least, the AA I
am familiar with, that sets quotas for employment, places in uni, etc.]
This may be, as I said, practically necessary, but it ought not to be
legislated without a sunset clause and a solid and public review.
What special provisions are given to aboriginals and what did they give
up to gain those privledges? In Canada the aboriginals have special
privledges as well but gave up much to gain them, so are not considered
AA (or EE).
They are not given much, I know. At best they are exempted from
compulsory voting, and offered places at university. They had an
indepedently elected representative body, but it was wound up on the
(slightly tenuous) grounds that it was corrupt. There are also special
welfare provisions, but it is my opinion this is detrimental to
aborigines. The Canadian model is a better one.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 07:40:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:19:20 +0000 (UTC),
John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
What special provisions are given to aboriginals and what did they give
up to gain those privledges? In Canada the aboriginals have special
privledges as well but gave up much to gain them, so are not considered
AA (or EE).
They are not given much, I know. At best they are exempted from
compulsory voting, and offered places at university. They had an
indepedently elected representative body, but it was wound up on the
(slightly tenuous) grounds that it was corrupt. There are also special
welfare provisions, but it is my opinion this is detrimental to
aborigines. The Canadian model is a better one.
Part of the basis of the modern treatment of native peoples in Canada dates
back to the document that was partially responsible for the American
Revolution (though not really for the sections involving Indians); King
George III's Proclamation of 1763. It basically set up terms by which the
Indian peoples must be dealt with, naming them nations. Now it took over
two centuries for things to wind around, but basically the view that has
evolved over the last couple of decades (particularly after the repatriation
of our constitution), that this forces the federal government and the
provinces to make good on the treatment of native peoples.
Here in British Columbia, where British interests like the Northwest Company
simply took the land from the Indians without even the good graces to bribe
and threaten tribes into signing the land away in treaties. With court
decisions in the last decade, it's basically created a situation where
Federal and Provincial governments now have to do what Mad George said was
supposed to have been done from the very beginning; negotiate treaties for
land taken. The problem for the inheritors of the British title to these
lands is that the native peoples now have lawyers and a keen understanding
of their rights, and some of the land is extremely valuable. Giving away
rifles and guns won't do the job any more.
There are major problems to be overcome. Creating democratic structures
hasn't translated into greater democracy for many tribes. There is
corruption, though quite frankly when you look at the conduct of the "white
man's" government, it's hard to see how all these social conservative
right-wing politicians who really seek to eliminate any legal meaning to the
word "Indian" can make any legitimate noise about it. Poverty is still rife
on many reserves, and there is still quite a bit of racism. I live in an
area with many natives, and I've seen how they are treated, and I've driven
through the reserve and seen how many live. The land claims negotiations
have also created a whole new industry for lawyers, and some native bands
are now so heavily in debt to lawyers that some doubt is being cast on
whether any settlement will cover it, meaning that there is little interest
in settling.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
18 Oct 2004 08:05:21 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:19:20 +0000 (UTC),
John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
Gary Bohn <garybohn@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
What special provisions are given to aboriginals and what did they give
up to gain those privledges? In Canada the aboriginals have special
privledges as well but gave up much to gain them, so are not considered
AA (or EE).
They are not given much, I know. At best they are exempted from
compulsory voting, and offered places at university. They had an
indepedently elected representative body, but it was wound up on the
(slightly tenuous) grounds that it was corrupt. There are also special
welfare provisions, but it is my opinion this is detrimental to
aborigines. The Canadian model is a better one.
Part of the basis of the modern treatment of native peoples in Canada dates
back to the document that was partially responsible for the American
Revolution (though not really for the sections involving Indians); King
George III's Proclamation of 1763. It basically set up terms by which the
Indian peoples must be dealt with, naming them nations. Now it took over
two centuries for things to wind around, but basically the view that has
evolved over the last couple of decades (particularly after the repatriation
of our constitution), that this forces the federal government and the
provinces to make good on the treatment of native peoples.
Well it took us over two centuries to realise that Australia was not
"terra nullius" - an empty land - when we discovered it. Sometime in the
next fifty years, this might improve the indigenous condition...
Here in British Columbia, where British interests like the Northwest Company
simply took the land from the Indians without even the good graces to bribe
and threaten tribes into signing the land away in treaties. With court
decisions in the last decade, it's basically created a situation where
Federal and Provincial governments now have to do what Mad George said was
supposed to have been done from the very beginning; negotiate treaties for
land taken. The problem for the inheritors of the British title to these
lands is that the native peoples now have lawyers and a keen understanding
of their rights, and some of the land is extremely valuable. Giving away
rifles and guns won't do the job any more.
We used the exigency of declaring native title void where adverse
possession had occurred (i.e., where Europeans had taken the land...).
Only Crown land and leases were open to native title challenges.
There are major problems to be overcome. Creating democratic structures
hasn't translated into greater democracy for many tribes. There is
corruption, though quite frankly when you look at the conduct of the "white
man's" government, it's hard to see how all these social conservative
right-wing politicians who really seek to eliminate any legal meaning to the
word "Indian" can make any legitimate noise about it. Poverty is still rife
on many reserves, and there is still quite a bit of racism. I live in an
area with many natives, and I've seen how they are treated, and I've driven
through the reserve and seen how many live. The land claims negotiations
have also created a whole new industry for lawyers, and some native bands
are now so heavily in debt to lawyers that some doubt is being cast on
whether any settlement will cover it, meaning that there is little interest
in settling.
Pretty much what we have experienced, then...
But you have made indigenes able to run their own birthing centres and
health care. And that is having a good effect.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 11:22:44 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins John Wilkins <> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:12 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
This was not an argument about affirmative action. Elf made the
assertion that *all* of the civil rights acts were wrong. He wanted to
go back to the days when in the American South Blacks effectively had
no rights. They could not vote, for example. Not because of laws that
said black could not vote, but other color-neutral laws that
effectively stopped them from voting. I am sorry, but I do not have
the patience to try to educate him on the realities of life. If his
argument is not based on racism then he is either grossly ignorant or
grossly unconcerned about other people.
As usual I have stepped into a puddle of steaming runny dogpoo...
I *know* about the past history of the US and racial discrimination, as
well as anyone can who was and is not there. I also know that the civil
rights laws were necessary - so long as they established explicitly in
law what had been implicit but overlooked or ignored, that all citizens
had equal rights. Any civil rights law that asserted only that anyone
had a right of some kind is not, to my mind, objectionable (if Elf
thinks it is, then I would like to see the rationale). Any law that says
of a particular subset of society that it has, or does not have,rights
that others do not have or do, is prima facie contrary to the principles
of common law.
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
They do set up problems in the long term. But they may still
be necessary and the lesser evil. There is nothing approaching
equality in employment in this country. Or housing.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
16 Oct 2004 03:46:37 AM |
|
|
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins <johnSPAM@wilkins.id.au>
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
....
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
They do set up problems in the long term. But they may still
be necessary and the lesser evil. There is nothing approaching
equality in employment in this country. Or housing.
Purely pragmatic justifications are, I believe, acceptable; but then you
*must* have a sunset clause and a practical re-evaluation if you aren't
to establish an institutionalised form of government-sponsored
racism/sexiam/etcism.
--
John S. Wilkins
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
God cheats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
16 Oct 2004 03:51:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:46:37 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
(John Wilkins):
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins < >
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
...
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
They do set up problems in the long term. But they may still
be necessary and the lesser evil. There is nothing approaching
equality in employment in this country. Or housing.
Purely pragmatic justifications are, I believe, acceptable; but then you
*must* have a sunset clause and a practical re-evaluation if you aren't
to establish an institutionalised form of government-sponsored
racism/sexiam/etcism.
You're correct, but unfortunately any such
government-sponsored system quickly develops an entrenched
bureaucracy which will fight bitterly to oppose the
elimination of the system, whether or not the system has
outlive its usefulness or whether it may have become
actively inimical (by doing its best to keep its clients
dependent on it, for instance) to the welfare of those it
was originally created to help. It's one of the things
which, in my more pessimistic moments, makes me wonder
whether society above the tribal level isn't basically
unworkable over the long term, given average human nature.
Anyway, *I* sure as hell don't have any generally-applicable
solutions to the problem.
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
16 Oct 2004 09:29:18 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:46:37 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
(John Wilkins):
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins < >
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
...
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
They do set up problems in the long term. But they may still
be necessary and the lesser evil. There is nothing approaching
equality in employment in this country. Or housing.
Purely pragmatic justifications are, I believe, acceptable; but then you
*must* have a sunset clause and a practical re-evaluation if you aren't
to establish an institutionalised form of government-sponsored
racism/sexiam/etcism.
You're correct, but unfortunately any such
government-sponsored system quickly develops an entrenched
bureaucracy which will fight bitterly to oppose the
elimination of the system, whether or not the system has
outlive its usefulness or whether it may have become
actively inimical (by doing its best to keep its clients
dependent on it, for instance) to the welfare of those it
was originally created to help. It's one of the things
which, in my more pessimistic moments, makes me wonder
whether society above the tribal level isn't basically
unworkable over the long term, given average human nature.
Anyway, *I* sure as hell don't have any generally-applicable
solutions to the problem.
_I_ do, but y'all completely refuse to accept my whole
"God-Emperor" plan.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
17 Oct 2004 04:15:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:29:18 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com>:
In talk.origins Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:46:37 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
(John Wilkins):
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins < >
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
...
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
They do set up problems in the long term. But they may still
be necessary and the lesser evil. There is nothing approaching
equality in employment in this country. Or housing.
Purely pragmatic justifications are, I believe, acceptable; but then you
*must* have a sunset clause and a practical re-evaluation if you aren't
to establish an institutionalised form of government-sponsored
racism/sexiam/etcism.
You're correct, but unfortunately any such
government-sponsored system quickly develops an entrenched
bureaucracy which will fight bitterly to oppose the
elimination of the system, whether or not the system has
outlive its usefulness or whether it may have become
actively inimical (by doing its best to keep its clients
dependent on it, for instance) to the welfare of those it
was originally created to help. It's one of the things
which, in my more pessimistic moments, makes me wonder
whether society above the tribal level isn't basically
unworkable over the long term, given average human nature.
Anyway, *I* sure as hell don't have any generally-applicable
solutions to the problem.
_I_ do, but y'all completely refuse to accept my whole
"God-Emperor" plan.
"Vote for me for Emperor and you'll never have to vote
again!"?
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
17 Oct 2004 09:08:59 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:29:18 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com>:
In talk.origins Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:46:37 +0000 (UTC), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
(John Wilkins):
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins John Wilkins < >
sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
...
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
They do set up problems in the long term. But they may still
be necessary and the lesser evil. There is nothing approaching
equality in employment in this country. Or housing.
Purely pragmatic justifications are, I believe, acceptable; but then you
*must* have a sunset clause and a practical re-evaluation if you aren't
to establish an institutionalised form of government-sponsored
racism/sexiam/etcism.
You're correct, but unfortunately any such
government-sponsored system quickly develops an entrenched
bureaucracy which will fight bitterly to oppose the
elimination of the system, whether or not the system has
outlive its usefulness or whether it may have become
actively inimical (by doing its best to keep its clients
dependent on it, for instance) to the welfare of those it
was originally created to help. It's one of the things
which, in my more pessimistic moments, makes me wonder
whether society above the tribal level isn't basically
unworkable over the long term, given average human nature.
Anyway, *I* sure as hell don't have any generally-applicable
solutions to the problem.
_I_ do, but y'all completely refuse to accept my whole
"God-Emperor" plan.
"Vote for me for Emperor and you'll never have to vote
again!"?
that's the plan. I'm just here to help.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 05:49:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 05:04:49 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35:12 +0000 (UTC), (John
Wilkins) wrote:
Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
It is not often you see someone longing for the days when the darkies
knew their place.
That's rude, insulting, and blatantly false. All I want is
equality before the law. Is that too much to ask?
Elf
I'm with Elf, here. Matt, that was wrong.
The argument over equal opportunity versus affirmative action is not
between those who are racists and those who are enlightened...
This was not an argument about affirmative action. Elf made the
assertion that *all* of the civil rights acts were wrong. He wanted to
go back to the days when in the American South Blacks effectively had
no rights. They could not vote, for example. Not because of laws that
said black could not vote, but other color-neutral laws that
effectively stopped them from voting. I am sorry, but I do not have
the patience to try to educate him on the realities of life. If his
argument is not based on racism then he is either grossly ignorant or
grossly unconcerned about other people.
As usual I have stepped into a puddle of steaming runny dogpoo...
I *know* about the past history of the US and racial discrimination, as
well as anyone can who was and is not there. I also know that the civil
rights laws were necessary - so long as they established explicitly in
law what had been implicit but overlooked or ignored, that all citizens
had equal rights. Any civil rights law that asserted only that anyone
had a right of some kind is not, to my mind, objectionable (if Elf
thinks it is, then I would like to see the rationale).
Depends on what you mean by right. Is separate but equal equal? Is it
my right to eat at on lunch counter or the proprietor's right to
decide who can eat there.
Elf has given you his rational and either did not bother to think it
through or hopes you won't notice. He does not think that the
government should be involved in things like who can eat where. But
notice the trap, he probably also does not think that bus systems
should be run by the government. So the bus systems should have been
private, not government. And if that private system wanted to keep
blacks in the back, well, that is fine by Elf.
Any law that says
of a particular subset of society that it has, or does not have,rights
that others do not have or do, is prima facie contrary to the principles
of common law.
Really? So laws that attempt to return property to Aboriginals, or
laws that recognize 100 years of discrimination against Aboriginals,
or laws that try to fix the education system which has discriminated
against Aboriginals for 100 years, well those are wrong. We tell them
"Yes, we have deprived you for years, we have transferred all the
assets in the country to us, but now the field is level."
The arguments for AA are laudable but I wonder if they set up a problem
in the longer term - if you can specially treat one group, you both
establish that group as a legal entity and set a precedent for special
treatment (it can be positive or negative). If the conditions under
which it was a laudable program change, you can find yourself with
entrenched and hard to revise favouritism that now disadvantages some
other group. It is, in my view, a similar issue to the balance of powers
in government - while a benevolent dictatorship may be more efficient,
dictatorships aren't always benevolent...
This all implies that the situation pre-AA (and it is not just AA that
Elf objects to, let's remember that) was equitable and benign. If AA
leads to a problem then blame the earlier discrimination or propose a
better redress. Don't wring your hands and say that discrimination is
so bad that you just can't accept engaging in it via AA.
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 10:07:43 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
Depends on what you mean by right. Is separate but equal equal? Is it
my right to eat at on lunch counter or the proprietor's right to
decide who can eat there.
The proprietors. Which has nothing to do with race, religion,
or creed, and everything to do with rights one has over property. Which
is my primary objection to the notion of "affirmative" action on the
part of the state.
This all implies that the situation pre-AA (and it is not just AA that
Elf objects to, let's remember that) was equitable and benign.
Not at all. I would simply point out that there are a large
number of "inequalities" that, when their legal supports were pulled
from underneath them, declined over time without additional
redress-by-law having to be imposed. There are more women in college
now than men, despite there being little in the way of "affirmative
action" on their behalf.
The law simply has no business telling people what to think. I
dislike all discriminatory practices, but I'm especially unfond of those
backed up with the threat of police action.
Don't wring your hands and say that discrimination is so bad that you
just can't accept engaging in it via AA.
AA *is* discriminatory, if by "discriminate" you mean to
distinguish between differences. AA is a form of institutionalized
racism; it makes distinctions between people based upon arbitrary
qualities that have nothing to do with their capabilities.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Mathers" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 03:27:49 PM |
|
|
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
Depends on what you mean by right. Is separate but equal equal? Is it
my right to eat at on lunch counter or the proprietor's right to
decide who can eat there.
The proprietors. Which has nothing to do with race, religion,
or creed, and everything to do with rights one has over property. Which
is my primary objection to the notion of "affirmative" action on the
part of the state.
This all implies that the situation pre-AA (and it is not just AA that
Elf objects to, let's remember that) was equitable and benign.
Not at all. I would simply point out that there are a large
number of "inequalities" that, when their legal supports were pulled
from underneath them, declined over time without additional
redress-by-law having to be imposed. There are more women in college
now than men, despite there being little in the way of "affirmative
action" on their behalf.
The law simply has no business telling people what to think. I
dislike all discriminatory practices, but I'm especially unfond of those
backed up with the threat of police action.
Don't wring your hands and say that discrimination is so bad that you
just can't accept engaging in it via AA.
AA *is* discriminatory, if by "discriminate" you mean to
distinguish between differences. AA is a form of institutionalized
racism; it makes distinctions between people based upon arbitrary
qualities that have nothing to do with their capabilities.
Elf
Elf,
Do you think that some one deserves recompense for past discrimination
whether by state or public entity?
RAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
15 Oct 2004 04:05:30 PM |
|
|
Rich Mathers <R-Mathers@wiu.edu> wrote in news:ckpc6o$ipl$1
@mail1.wiu.edu:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
Depends on what you mean by right. Is separate but equal equal? Is it
my right to eat at on lunch counter or the proprietor's right to
decide who can eat there.
The proprietors. Which has nothing to do with race,
religion,
or creed, and everything to do with rights one has over property.
Which
is my primary objection to the notion of "affirmative" action on the
part of the state.
This all implies that the situation pre-AA (and it is not just AA
that
Elf objects to, let's remember that) was equitable and benign.
Not at all. I would simply point out that there are a large
number of "inequalities" that, when their legal supports were pulled
from underneath them, declined over time without additional
redress-by-law having to be imposed. There are more women in college
now than men, despite there being little in the way of "affirmative
action" on their behalf.
The law simply has no business telling people what to think.
I
dislike all discriminatory practices, but I'm especially unfond of
those
backed up with the threat of police action.
Don't wring your hands and say that discrimination is so bad that you
just can't accept engaging in it via AA.
AA *is* discriminatory, if by "discriminate" you mean to
distinguish between differences. AA is a form of institutionalized
racism; it makes distinctions between people based upon arbitrary
qualities that have nothing to do with their capabilities.
Elf
Elf,
Do you think that some one deserves recompense for past discrimination
whether by state or public entity?
Yes, if they themselves personally were the one discriminated against by
that particular state or public entity.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
17 Oct 2004 12:13:47 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:05:30 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Rich Mathers <R-Mathers@wiu.edu> wrote in news:ckpc6o$ipl$1
@mail1.wiu.edu:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> writes:
Depends on what you mean by right. Is separate but equal equal? Is it
my right to eat at on lunch counter or the proprietor's right to
decide who can eat there.
The proprietors. Which has nothing to do with race,
religion,
or creed, and everything to do with rights one has over property.
Which
is my primary objection to the notion of "affirmative" action on the
part of the state.
This all implies that the situation pre-AA (and it is not just AA
that
Elf objects to, let's remember that) was equitable and benign.
Not at all. I would simply point out that there are a large
number of "inequalities" that, when their legal supports were pulled
from underneath them, declined over time without additional
redress-by-law having to be imposed. There are more women in college
now than men, despite there being little in the way of "affirmative
action" on their behalf.
The law simply has no business telling people what to think.
I
dislike all discriminatory practices, but I'm especially unfond of
those
backed up with the threat of police action.
Don't wring your hands and say that discrimination is so bad that you
just can't accept engaging in it via AA.
AA *is* discriminatory, if by "discriminate" you mean to
distinguish between differences. AA is a form of institutionalized
racism; it makes distinctions between people based upon arbitrary
qualities that have nothing to do with their capabilities.
Elf
Elf,
Do you think that some one deserves recompense for past discrimination
whether by state or public entity?
Yes, if they themselves personally were the one discriminated against by
that particular state or public entity.
So if it was your father who was robbed you have no claim. So if you
discriminate long enough and steal enough you can then put in "fair"
laws and not have to worry about the results. Fred, are you really
going to stand up for the "fairness" of pre-Civil Rights voting laws?
--
Matt Silberstein
Stones taught me to fly
Love taught me to lie
Life taught me to die
So it's not hard to fall
When you float like a cannonball
Damien Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
17 Oct 2004 02:33:50 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:9da5n0h59f7a5u7g0ti0ohrfk2s8v5q42u@4ax.com:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:05:30 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Rich Mathers <R-Mathers@wiu.edu> wrote in news:ckpc6o$ipl$1
@mail1.wiu.edu:
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
writes:
Depends on what you mean by right. Is separate but equal equal? Is
it my right to eat at on lunch counter or the proprietor's right to
decide who can eat there.
The proprietors. Which has nothing to do with race,
religion,
or creed, and everything to do with rights one has over property.
Which
is my primary objection to the notion of "affirmative" action on
the part of the state.
This all implies that the situation pre-AA (and it is not just AA
that
Elf objects to, let's remember that) was equitable and benign.
Not at all. I would simply point out that there are a
large
number of "inequalities" that, when their legal supports were
pulled from underneath them, declined over time without additional
redress-by-law having to be imposed. There are more women in
college now than men, despite there being little in the way of
"affirmative action" on their behalf.
The law simply has no business telling people what to
think.
I
dislike all discriminatory practices, but I'm especially unfond of
those
backed up with the threat of police action.
Don't wring your hands and say that discrimination is so bad that
you just can't accept engaging in it via AA.
AA *is* discriminatory, if by "discriminate" you mean to
distinguish between differences. AA is a form of institutionalized
racism; it makes distinctions between people based upon arbitrary
qualities that have nothing to do with their capabilities.
Elf
Elf,
Do you think that some one deserves recompense for past
discrimination whether by state or public entity?
Yes, if they themselves personally were the one discriminated against
by that particular state or public entity.
So if it was your father who was robbed you have no claim. So if you
discriminate long enough and steal enough you can then put in "fair"
laws and not have to worry about the results.
Matt, you're going to have to come up with some better strawmen than
those.
Fred, are you really
going to stand up for the "fairness" of pre-Civil Rights voting laws?
Last I noticed this thread is about Affirmative Discrimination under the
current liberal disguise of "diversity". Are you going to tell me that
it is still fair to discriminate against certain races even after two
generations of "leveling the playing field?"
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
17 Oct 2004 07:28:14 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:9da5n0h59f7a5u7g0ti0ohrfk2s8v5q42u@4ax.com:
Last I noticed this thread is about Affirmative Discrimination under the
current liberal disguise of "diversity". Are you going to tell me that
it is still fair to discriminate against certain races even after two
generations of "leveling the playing field?"
I dunno Fred. Is the playing field level now? Can a black man get
voted president of the United States? Hell, for that matter, could a
black man even win the nomination of either of the two major parties?
People are talking about amending the Constitution to let an ex-body
builder from Austria with some successful movies under his belt run for
the highest office, but no one in the Democratic or Republican parties
seem very interested in putting an African American to the public as
their candidate for the White House (ditto for women). Both parties
nominate people who say that African Americans are equals, and to their
credit, put African Americans in high positions, but neither party has
the balls to actually present America a black candidate.
That things are better for African Americans now than they were fifty
years ago is rather indisputable. That actual equality exists is very
disputable. AA is an evil, and I'll fully admit it. However, it
appears to be the lesser of the evils, but if you have a solution that
will get African Americans past that last mile, then I'm all ears.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
"My illness is due to my doctor's insistence that I drink milk, a
whitish fluid they force down helpless babies." - WC Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Value in Diversity' |
17 Oct 2004 07:56:19 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:2tghebF1usplhU1@uni-berlin.de:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:9da5n0h59f7a5u7g0ti0ohrfk2s8v5q42u@4ax.com:
Last I noticed this thread is about Affirmative Discrimination under
the current liberal disguise of "diversity". Are you going to tell me
that it is still fair to discriminate against certain races even
after two generations of "leveling the playing field?"
I dunno Fred. Is the playing field level now? Can a black man get
voted president of the United States? Hell, for that matter, could a
black man even win the nomination of either of the two major parties?
Would one want to? If they happened to be Republican they could expect
even worse treatment than Condi Rice or Colin Powell gets from the black
leadership, courtesy of Democratic partisans.
People are talking about amending the Constitution to let an ex-body
builder from Austria with some successful movies under his belt run
for the highest office, but no one in the Democratic | | | | | | | | | | | |
