Affirmative Action Banned!

My state (Michigan) has wisely followed in the foosteps of California and banned racist/sexist affirmative action programs in Michigan, that would have discriminated against people based on nothing but their gender or the color of their skin, all in the name of promoting equality.  

It passed by a pretty wide margin 58% - 42% of the vote.. or, another way of looking at it: 

2,137,574  ---  YES on stopping AA
1,552,459  ---  NO on stopping AA

Hopefully this'll spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the states. 

Person B has amassed resources for a better environment for child C (better in generally being positive for a human's development necessary to create a stable situation of its own). Person B's resources comes from competing on the job market. B's father A also had done the same for B (create a good environment), which is why the latter can provide the same for C.

 Consider lineage G-H-I, all individuals who could not provide such a good environment for their children. Naw, all individuals discussed can become richer if they want to in a capitalist system, but naturally there is not perfect meritocracy. Perhaps dormant genes of excellence or good ideas and motivations fail to be ignited because of the problematic culture surrounding the G-H-I lineage, that will invariably have effects on their behavior and thought patterns. This limits their power in the market. They could suddenly awaken from even the most intense squalor and become statling billionares, Randian zenith's of excellence - but by undeniable determination either by genes (unavoidable) or environment (avoidable, but a living area is required for survival and beggars can't be choosers) they do not.

Now, no one can account for the genes (although soon even genes can be reliably improved, opening all hell of philosophical and ethical discourses) but what about environment, what about non-meritocratic notions and discrimination based on irrelevant aspects of a person's life? Such forces can be dissapated by education, but it is an investment of time and money that is unaffordable from the start *because of the very forces that limit capacities for self-improvement in the first place*.

So, the G-H-I lineage can not possibly compete with lineage A-B-C. Why? Because of 1) To a degree genes, which are applicable to "tough luck"-principles 2) Environments that reduce chances of being strong in the job market, reduce desire to be strong on the job market and reduce the desirability of the job market, 3) Initial positions that reduce the possibility of the individual to be able to make itself desirable on the market, assuming that conditions listed under 2) have not removed such hopes.

Now, aren't all members of the A-B-C lineage lucky to not have to worry about G-H-I competing with them on the market? Yes, they have more chances of survival and sustaining their quality of life with less competition. Now, it is established that due to cause and effect (action-reaction, a tenet of physics) in conjuncture with the manner in which humans develop behavior and thought patterns there is no such thing as free will, only behaviors and cognitive schemata that create higher degree of survival in the realities of the world in which the organism lives.

Now, the problem is that G-H-I are responsible for causing an environment that fits their schemata and behavior and is likely to impose the same result on J, who will have less chance on the market than D... I mean, to a degree it is certain J will have poorer genes than D, but let us not forget that even when ignoring J's poorer genes and environment the market does not treat him fairly because of the fallibilities of the employers in the market...

Will setting capitalism free eliminate the lack of meritocracy at least? But then what about environment?
To what degree is the determination of all people by environment something a human, or even humanity, has to take responsibility for?

I mean, this is by far an inferior analogy, but these are some of my considerations. I haven't rejected Rand anymore than I have rejected Marx or any economic form or philosophy, so if anyone would like to criticize what's above I won't call you anything or shut my ears.

>>241
I think you are putting a little too much emphasis on the deterministic side of things.  Of course a child's childhood and upbringing has something to do with whether or not he will become successful or not later in life, but the point is is that some individuals can overcome this, and I would say that a significant enough number do overcome this to such a point that I would have little moral/ethical objection to dishing out the responsibility for one's actions. 

>>239
"Again: WHERE IS THE PROOF OF A FREE RIDE?"

He already told you.  Unqualified minorities are getting practically pushed into positions and crowding out more meritable candidates. 

"So was I. White people will do anything to avoid talking about the issue of race, even though they play their part in this debacle everyday of their lives. It's quite sad really."

Bullshit.  I've never racially discriminated against anyone.  Quite the contrary, on several memorable occasions, I've stood up for minorities.  Collective punishment of 'white males' or 'white people' based on the discriminatory actions of a few is not right.

AC. You and I both know you are a man. Am I permitted to perform cunnilingus on your asshole?

>>242

"I think you are putting a little too much emphasis on the deterministic side of things.  Of course a child's childhood and upbringing has something to do with whether or not he will become successful or not later in life, but the point is is that some individuals can overcome this, and I would say that a significant enough number do overcome this to such a point that I would have little moral/ethical objection to dishing out the responsibility for one's actions."

This is fundamentally where your argument has the most flaws; from my perspective and considering my own personal upbringing..."Some" is really more like 5% of the black population. 3% of which were the lucky few born into an environment that is conduit for "success".

You claim that others put too much emphasis on environmental determinism, meanwhile, you seem to put zero emphasis on it and that's pretty much unforgivable. It lumps you in with either the racists or the truly ignorant people who just "don't get it." You can either be racist or completely out of touch with the reality of racial disparity in America. Pick one.

I find it very hard to believe that anyone can look at the recent stats concerning racial disparity, then cross reference it with what's been going on in mainstream culture and society and claim that "a significant enough number do overcome this to such a point that I would have little moral/ethical objection to dishing out the responsibility for one's actions."

That's completely rediculous. Maybe if you're white (though with the gap between the white middle class and the rich middle class widing, I really fucking doubt it)...but sorry, not if you're black.


>>243

He told me one story and left me a wiki-link for a trial that is barely relevant to my argument. You idiots have spent the last 100 posts bungling my message because you have a difficult time understanding or responding to it. It's call cognitive dissonance and you are guilty as charged. Here's a primer.

1. There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action when you don't live in a 100% meritocratic state free of any type of discrimination or corruption. You don't get ahead in America by playing by the rules. Turner, Microsoft, Enron, Hollywood and our political system have proven this 1,000 times over. You're never going to be able to convince me, a 25 year old black man, that Hard Work is the cure for everything. I'm sorry, but I've simply experienced FAR too much to the contrary.

2. There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action if a meritable black candidate is chosen over a white one. But, what is to be done about all the white unmeritables that have been chosen over black candidates? "Civil Rights Enforcement" is not an acceptable answer because "Civil Rights Enforcement" has been going on for the last 40 years and since then the racial disparity has GROWN.

3. What I call for is an end to white privilege that is prevalent in our culture and disproportionate to our population. Any person who says it doesn't exist needs to gain some fucking perspective; and are a part of the problem.

4. If AA can be tweaked so that a poor black meritable candidate can be chosen over a middle class white meritable canidate, then we do what offers the most help from a pure moral and ethical perspective.  We should be a society that offers helps based on need (not want) and evens the playing field at any cost even if that means discriminating against "America's favorite most hardworking (LOLZ!) race."

>>244
Go pvt?

Hey I just thought of something. Wouldn't it be simpler just to stop non-whites having children? If race doesn't matter it shouldn't matter what race the next generation is and if they are all the same race it makes it harder for people to be racist.

Anti-chan pwns this thread.

>>247

I really don't understand the tactic of using our names. This happens everytime a certain someone (>>247) lacks the ability to confront my argument head-on. I really don't mind, since all I have to do is launch into a violent profane word-string to prove that you're just another fucktard with a ocean of jizz where his brain should be.

It's just that it does nothing but confuses my point. I've been sitting here the last couple of posts re-explaining my stance over and over. For a change of pace- can you directly address what's said in >>245? Without glossing over the points your wee-baby mind isn't comfortable with?

>>249
Hey, don't use my name! I spend hours each day trying to fool... i mean prove my point to others on this thread that will probably be dead in a month (or however long it takes to reach 1000 posts). Don't you think I at least deserve the credit?

>>250
Oh you nerds! So caught up in this Anon-bullshit. This isn't about credit, but identification. I resent the fact that there are people here posting the same bullshit over and over acting as if they are a different poster. It's especially sad when you've basically got their silly little idiosyncrises down and you know it's "A Wyatt Man" posting as a "Gay Black Libertarian", LULZ.

and oh lawd is that some DODGING THE DEBATE? I thought so.

hey and here's another tip- you cum-swirled shitstain...SAGE GOES IN THE EMAIL FIELD

>>251
You keep telling yourself that.

>>252

You keep telling yourself that.

>>245
"He told me one story and left me a wiki-link for a trial that is barely relevant to my argument."

It was entirely irrelevant.  You had asked him to give an example of how AA discriminated against candidates for a given position, and he posted that story, which was an example of exactly that.

"There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action when you don't live in a 100% meritocratic state free of any type of discrimination or corruption."

Wrong.  Affirmative action only means more people get discriminated against based on nothing but race - which should not be a factor at all.  Nothing should be considered for employment but merit.

"You don't get ahead in America by playing by the rules."

Yes you do.  There are plenty of success stories.  There are, even today, poor as shit immigrants who come here from a hell of a lot more disadvantaged a position than many minorities already here, and build successful lives for themselves.  Guess what? Many of them are black.  Millions upon millions of people are able to make good lives for themselves here playing by 'the rules'.

"2. There's nothing wrong with Affirmative Action if a meritable black candidate is chosen over a white one."

There is something wrong with government programs that give preference based on race.  Race does not equate to merit, and has no place at all in the decision of whether or not a person gets a position.

I don't give a fuck if the employer wants to do that, that's fine.  If both candidates are equal in terms of merit, then it doesn't matter who gets the position really, since... both have equal qualification.  

"But, what is to be done about all the white unmeritables that have been chosen over black candidates?"

There are already laws on the books pertaining to hiring practices. 

""Civil Rights Enforcement" is not an acceptable answer because "Civil Rights Enforcement" has been going on for the last 40 years and since then the racial disparity has GROWN."

So what? Racial disparity doesn't equate to discrimination.  There are already laws on the books regulating hiring practices.

"4. If AA can be tweaked so that a poor black meritable candidate can be chosen over a middle class white meritable canidate, then we do what offers the most help from a pure moral and ethical perspective."

Nothing matters except qualification.

"We should be a society that offers helps based on need (not want)"

As long as the most qualified candidate gets the position, that's all that matters.  If both candidates are equally qualified, it doesn't matter who gets picked. 

>>253
Keep telling myself to keep telling AC to keep telling itself that anonymous is all 1 person and that there is no such thing as a non-liberal black person?

>>255
Of course there is no such thing as a non-liberal black person.  If you disagree, you must be racist. 

>>256
Wouldn't it be racist too believe that all blacks are liberals?

>>256
Wouldn't it be racist to believe that all blacks are liberals?

da