Affirmative action - Kva er det med venstreorienterte?

[jjkoggan]

 

Nop. Det kan hun ikke.

Les deg litt om post-reconstruction perioden i amerikansk historie

[Skatteflyktning]

And this justifies letting some die because of the color of their skin? Try again.

It justifies letting people die, no matter the colour of their skin.

Besides denial of services is very rare in wealthy nations

Incorrect, happens all the time in Norway, depends on the value the State places on your continued survival

 

If minorities are denied education and forced into poverty through racist denial of resources from banks, etc.. There would be few if any minority employers to work for.

Neither education, nor bank loans are sine quo non for employing others.

 

You need to study a little American history - rampant racism led to slave-like conditions and open murder and hangings even though existing laws forbade it

I am aware of a number of crimes committed in the US, both by individuals and the State, but I am by no means a historian specialized in the US so most certainly there is more to be learned (but so little time left before I myself shall be denied service ). Endret 3. januar 2014 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

It justifies letting people die, no matter the colour of their skin.

 

That you think there is moral equivalency here is astounding. In a world of limited resources, difficult choices have to be made, but not treating a dying child because of their race is light years away from being morally equivalent. It approaches the threshold of negligent homicide.

 

 

 

Neither education, nor bank loans are sine quo non for employing others.

 

 

Neither does being blind, deaf and quadriplegic, but being refused access to everything necessary to run a business does.

 

 

I am aware of a number of crimes committed in the US, both by individuals and the State, but I am by no means a historian specialized in the US so most certainly there is more to be learned (but so little time left before I myself shall be denied service ).

 

Let's just say that slaveowners found new ways to keep slavery alive and well for many decades after emancipation through racial harassment, none of which would be seen as criminal behaviour in your perfect world.

[Skatteflyktning]

That you think there is moral equivalency here is astounding. In a world of limited resources, difficult choices have to be made, but not treating a dying child because of their race is light years away from being morally equivalent. It approaches the threshold of negligent homicide.

So, it would be OK to let a child die if you are not aware of it's colour, but once you become aware of that the child is black it becomes unacceptable? Affirmative action would likely lead you to save the child based on race, if black then save, if white let die. What that says about morals of affirmative action is truly baffling.

 

 

Neither does being blind, deaf and quadriplegic, but being refused access to everything necessary to run a business does.

Racist cannot deny you access to what is necessary to run a business, unless they happen to be in government.

 

Let's just say that slaveowners found new ways to keep slavery alive and well for many decades after emancipation through racial harassment, none of which would be seen as criminal behaviour in your perfect world.

I see slavery as criminal, both the private version of yesterday and the government version of today.

 

I think though we ought to keep in mind that slavery and racism are to completely different issues, although in the US they did coincide it is far from any requisite that the slaves be black.

Endret 3. januar 2014 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

So, it would be OK to let a child die if you are not aware of it's colour, but once you become aware of that the child is black it becomes unacceptable?

You appear to be purposefully ignorant

1. You refuse treatment because you have limited resources, the terminal patient would require expensive treatments that would deplete resources for more treatable patients. You chose not to treat terminal patient because you will save more patients that are treatable

2. Child is black, just let them die

 

Not morally equivalent.

Affirmative action would likely lead you to save the child based on race, if black then save, if white let die. What that says about morals of affirmative action is truly baffling.

There's no affirmative action for health care but the same principal might apply-more black children are dying because racist doctors are refusing to treat. You reward doctors who treat black children with extra funds so that survival rates approach those of privileged whites

 

Racist cannot deny you access to what is necessary to run a business, unless they happen to be in government.

Racist raw material suppliers, customers, bankers, could cripple any business

I see slavery as criminal, both the private version of yesterday and the government version of today.

 

I think though we ought to keep in mind that slavery and racism are to completely different issues, although in the US they did coincide it is far from any requisite that the slaves be black.

Racism can and has led to permanent poverty and suffering for many. That you refuse to see widespread racism as criminal abuse and loss of individual rights is quite disappointing

[norskgoy]

Les deg litt om post-reconstruction perioden i amerikansk historie

 

Fremdeles kan hun ikke skade meg ved at hun er rasist. Foruten om jeg skulle ha dårlig psyke og la livet mitt styres av hva andre måtte mene.

[jjkoggan]

 

Fremdeles kan hun ikke skade meg ved at hun er rasist. Foruten om jeg skulle ha dårlig psyke og la livet mitt styres av hva andre måtte mene.

Og hvis du ikke kan finne jobb, bosted eller få kjøpe mat PGA rasisme skades du ikke?

[norskgoy]

Og hvis du ikke kan finne jobb, bosted eller få kjøpe mat PGA rasisme skades du ikke?

 

Den ene kan da ikke ha noe ansvar ut over sin egen virksomhet. Du har en sak hvis du f.eks, som en arbeidsgiver, krever dine regler skal gjelde andre enn deg selv.

Endret 4. januar 2014 av norskgoy

[Skatteflyktning]

 

You appear to be purposefully ignorant

1. You refuse treatment because you have limited resources, the terminal patient would require expensive treatments that would deplete resources for more treatable patients. You chose not to treat terminal patient because you will save more patients that are treatable

2. Child is black, just let them die

 

Not morally equivalent.

There's no affirmative action for health care but the same principal might apply-more black children are dying because racist doctors are refusing to treat. You reward doctors who treat black children with extra funds so that survival rates approach those of privileged whites

Hmm, those extra funds come out of the pockets of whom?

 

Black and white children die because they are sick, their parents (or government) cannot afford to treat them and doctors cannot afford to work without pay.

 

 

 

Racism can and has led to permanent poverty and suffering for many. That you refuse to see widespread racism as criminal abuse and loss of individual rights is quite disappointing

Sorry to disappoint, but your arguments seem incoherent to me. Not that I cannot see the perceived predicament, if indeed it it real, it is the solution that seems to me far worse than your problem. It is using racism to compensate for the evils of racism. Endret 4. januar 2014 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

 

Den ene kan da ikke ha noe ansvar ut over sin egen virksomhet. Du har en sak hvis du f.eks, som en arbeidsgiver, krever dine regler skal gjelde andre enn deg selv.

Hvis du lar barna dine sulter og doer fordi du ikke gir dem mat har du ingen ansvar da ogsaa?

[jjkoggan]

 Hmm, those extra funds come out of the pockets of whom?

 

Black and white children die because they are sick, their parents (or government) cannot afford to treat them and doctors cannot afford to work without pay.

 

 

 

 

Do we apply the same concept to your own children, you bear no responsibility for neglect if they die, if it is inaction, not action that caused their death?

 

Sorry to disappoint, but your arguments seem incoherent to me. Not that I cannot see the perceived predicament, if indeed it it real, it is the solution that seems to me far worse than your problem. It is using racism to compensate for the evils of racism.

I don't expect you to agree and I do not support affirmative action.

[Skatteflyktning]

 

I don't expect you to agree and I do not support affirmative action.

 

If you do not support affirmative action I am suddenly uncertain about exactly what we disagree about.

[jjkoggan]

 If you do not support affirmative action I am suddenly uncertain about exactly what we disagree about.

You believe oppression of others based on race is ok

[Skatteflyktning]

 

You believe oppression of others based on race is ok

Nope I don't believe goverment racial discimination is OK, and I do consider it a crime even if legally sanctioned. If you call the laws Jim Crow, or Affirmative Action is irrelevant.

Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

 

Neither do I believe racial discrimination by private individuals is ok, however I see no grounds to outlaw it as long as it does not involve violence against another person or his property. (Which in any case is outlawed, hence no additional laws are required).

Endret 4. januar 2014 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

 Nope I don't believe goverment racial discimination is OK, and I do consider it a crime even if legally sanctioned. If you call the laws Jim Crow, or Affirmative Action is irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

 

Neither do I believe racial discrimination by private individuals is ok, however I see no grounds to outlaw it as long as it does not involve violence against another person or his property. (Which in any case is outlawed, hence no additional laws are required).

Oppression can be exercised by anyone having the power to do so, even individuals. When a person has restricted access to all necessary goods and services such as education, health care and food it forces bare subsistence or death and is clear oppression

 

This is one way whites kept former slaves working on their plantation, the former slaves knew that only the white owner would provide food and shelter, since they could not ever buy the goods themselves in the wider community.

[Skatteflyktning]

 

Oppression can be exercised by anyone having the power to do so, even individuals.

Sorry to say I do not see how that would be possible outside government, and without use of violence (or threath thereof)

 

 

This is one way whites kept former slaves working on their plantation, the former slaves knew that only the white owner would provide food and shelter, since they could not ever buy the goods themselves in the wider community.

... because they had no money, since they got no restitution for the years of slavery endured. The end of slavery did not go according to my book.

[jjkoggan]

 Sorry to say I do not see how that would be possible outside government, and without use of violence (or threath thereof)

 

... because they had no money, since they got no restitution for the years of slavery endured. The end of slavery did not go according to my book.

Money would not have saved them if they still would have been refused access to education or capital and goods and services. Even wealthy blacks were oppressed until about 40 years ago they would still be 2nd class citizens, unequal to whites

 

What you fail to see is that not having access to things is oppression, you do not have the same rights to get what you want, suffering humiliation wherever you go

Endret 4. januar 2014 av jjkoggan

[Skatteflyktning]

 

Money would not have saved them if they still would have been refused access to education or capital and goods and services. Even wealthy blacks were oppressed until about 40 years ago they would still be 2nd class citizens, unequal to whites

 

What you fail to see is that not having access to things is oppression, you do not have the same rights to get what you want, suffering humiliation wherever you go

I want $1Bn, and since I do not have that, I do not have the same rights as billionaires to get what I want and suffer humiliation wherever I go.

[jjkoggan]

 I want $1Bn, and since I do not have that, I do not have the same rights as billionaires to get what I want and suffer humiliation wherever I go.

If your behaviour largely dictates your wealth itis not oppression because you can change your behaviour and earn more money. When your skin color sentences you to poverty it is oppression because you cannot change your skin color.

 

Your world is not a meritocracy and would allow oppression based on skin color

[Skatteflyktning]

Your world is not a meritocracy and would allow oppression based on skin color

It would allow discrimination based on skin colour (or any other feature that takes your fancy), not oppression.