Nothing, no one, no idea, is equal to any other or all others, excepting pure abstractions. Humans are not pure abstraction. Get over your Judeo-Christian dogma.
The concept is not that everyone has equal talents or abilities. Not that all people are the same. It is that all people should have equal opportunities. Opportunities should be based solely on ability, not gender, race, religion, sexual preference or any other factor. This SHOULD apply to both denying equal consideration AND offering preferential treatment.
This is a mistake. You are confusing what might be called simple different treatment with discrimination. (All) instances of discrimination are instances of different treatment, but not all instances of different treatment are instances of discrimination. There can be good reasons for taking sex or race into consideration and there can be bad reasons or no reasons whatsoever. What differentiates affirmative action/preferential treatment from discrimination is that the reasons for taking sex or race into consideration in the former are good ones-- to further a desirable social end, for example. You may disagree with whether or not the reason is a good one, and/or you may disagree with whether or not preferential treatment will achieve the desired end, but the distinction remains. Hugh Nose
Well said one_raven! As as for you Hugh Nose, will you fuck off: Of course they are! That's exactly what discrimination is, and if you don't beleive me then look it up in the dictionary; 'show prejudice, distinquish between'!! It's still discrimination! Exactly!! The distinction remains.
Hugh Nose = moron "Equality of opportunity" is a fallacy - since people are not equal, they make different things out of the same starting point.
prozak: Yes, but they don't have the same starting point. Is this such a bad thing? Since a true "level playing field" is impossible, should we give up the effort entirely, or should we make some effort to meliorate the grossest cases of poverty? Hugh Nose: The racist thinks that his differential treatment of, say, a black candidate furthers a desirable social end - keeping the niggers in their place, keeping his workplace 'pure', whatever. Why is his desirable social end "discrimination" and a liberal's desirable social end "preferential treatment"?
Since all starting points are unlikely to be equal, then maybe individual judgements are what is required! Having an objective judging point is what America seems to have tried, and look where that has got them.
Heh, good job, there, Xev. I knew when I started reading this that prozak was probably going to start turning this into some sort of perverted discussion about some people being inherently better or worse than others, but I think that what you just said here gives that Idea a pretty good kick in the face before it's bought up.
Same reason we don't support affirmative action: artificially boosting some who can't take advantage of those resources promotes inequity on a systemic scale. A level playing field is impossible; it was level almost a half-million years ago, but then evolution started. That evolution preserves most of human learning of the unquantifiable kind, and should be upheld. Mystech: No surprise you chose to bypass evidence for praise of rhetoric. That's the type of person you are.
I don't see any evidence in any post you've made, only more idiotic raciest rhetoric and hasty generalizations.
Not sure how a discussion on sexism turned into affirmative action but I shall duly respond. ---> This is the underlying concept behind affirmative action,yes. --->correct -->Huh? The denial of 'equal consideration' is why "preferential treatment"-- a perversed nick for affirmative action-- exists. It precisely because classifying 'ability' is not as easy as a 4.0 GPA; that in some instances subjectivity/prejudice inhibits/mutilates the determination of 'ability'; that social stratification pre-determines (better) access to certain resources pertinent to gaining 'ability', etc. ---> What does opportunity have to do with the end? The purpose is to grant the same starting point, as you put it 'people are not equal'. Or do u wanna say 'races are not equal?' If you can grant similar/equal starting points, then job well done. Where is the damn fallacy??? Equality of same/similiar start---not a same/similiar end. ----> Once again an illogical, uneducated, et etc statement in reference to affirmartive action. THE WHOLE BASIS IS THAT THERE ARE UNEQUAL RESOURCES!!!!! Why can't you see that? If you had equal resources, affirmative would not be needed. --> A likewise illogical statement; and further, non-sequitur! Natural selection is not comparable to social stratification. If I must explain this to you then fuck I give up. The fact that Blacks in this country have been enslaved, repressed, and denied throughout their history, access to the same resources as Whites does not 'preserve most of human learning'; the fact that females have been likewise repressed, and designated second class citizens and still suffer numerous unwarranted stereotypes and their accompanying discrimmations does NOT 'preserve most of human learning'; the fcat that homosexuals are repressed .....does NOT 'preserve most of human learning'. Instead all the instances STALL most of human learningand must not be upheld. They are also not processes of evolution, but rather of societies. It is purported that this is a democracy. Rigid social stratification without the chance for advancement is a caste system,--- it creates a royalty. The main reasons for democracy are equal opportunity and rights. When groups within that society are not allowed those, then the democracy is not serving its function. One vote per person constitutes their equality in the face of that system. When a democracy ignores the lack of upward mobility within certain groups and it does not address them, the whole notion of a democratic society dies. Noone is saying INDIVIDUALS are not different in 'ability'; what I am saying and what is fact is: races, sexes, those of 'abnormal' sexuality, etcetc differ most in terms of 'ability' within themselves--amongst individuals, than amongst themselves. Therefore, if certain social constructs disallow certain groups the chance the for same opportunity, then asociety is not doing its job.
