|
|
Affirmative Action
 Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-10-09 22:10:40
Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is. Insofar as you appear to be sincere in trying to better your speech, I will critique your paper without regard to my personal opinion on affirmative action. First and foremost, ANY speech or paper on affirmative action SHOULD address the supreme court ruling on the matter. Second, your viewpoint will alienate a portion of those you are trying to persuade in and of itself, you shouldn't bring up unnecessarily divisive issues such as your personal political feelings; i.e., Bush is dumb, Obama is this or that etc. Adding these things will only dilute your point. Further, in the beginning you refer to what the founding fathers thought. If any of your audience has a background in political science you will immediately lose their esteem. It is widely accepted in the academic community that the founding fathers were a group distinct and divided enough that it makes no sense to say they thought this or they thought that because as a rule there were founding fathers on both sides of any issue. Lastly your tone is far to informal; you should not be using words like pissed or contractions in something like this. Also your grammar needs serious work. Oh and this is a bit of an after thought, but lumping all the pro-affirmative action people together and saying they believe something is argumentative fallacy. It's both ad hominem and a sweeping generalization. Attack the principle not the people or you will lose credibility.
I'm not sure where there are any grammar mistakes. Yea, I agree; I wrote the speech when I was pissed and I've already rewritten most the paper. The founding fathers point was still correct; regardless of who was on what side of the issue its obvious which view point won out at the end of the convention. You may say that it was simply to make sure the constitution would be ratified, but that's still backing down from a fight. They chose to be complacent, which was smart considering the circumstances. The supreme court case is also irrelevant. The court ruled that affirmative action could not include quotas, which they technically don't. However, quota systems are still used but its on the "down low". Either way its a losing argument to quote the supreme court unless I can prove quotas.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 482
By Odin.Gosuapple 2010-10-09 22:25:41
Phoenix.Excelior said: As much as I like the idea of telling people to suck it up I am concerned about one question:
At what point do we as a society need to pick others up so that we can grow stronger to achieve that next level of society?
The obvious solution is a dramatic overhaul on the education system K-12 and college. We need to find a way to send almost everyone to some form of college or technical school. Once we increase our population's skills we'd create more jobs, we'd have a better quality of living, and we'd definately be more healthy.
Nobody ever wants to address this issue but the solution to education issues is not governmental or institutional. We can mandate policy changes to help, but at best they're a drop in the bucket that is the solution.
Blacks come from all socio-economic backgrounds but on average have lower test scores and don't go as far in their education. Jews also come from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds but have test scores and education levels that are well above average.
I don't believe for a minute that blacks are inherently dumb or that Jews are inherently smart. What I do believe though is that they have two different cultures. Jewish kids come home and their parents tell them that education is important and make them do their homework, and as a result they go far.
Quite simply, family is the real issue. If we ha a country filled with parents who took a proactive role in the education of their children and teens, we would be far better off as a society. The kids who grow up and don't go to college, the kids who turn to drugs, etc-- they are almost exclusively drawn to their problems that stem from family issues.
But here is a man who articulates it far better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Pk13FfFow
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-10-09 22:29:09
Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: As much as I like the idea of telling people to suck it up I am concerned about one question: At what point do we as a society need to pick others up so that we can grow stronger to achieve that next level of society? The obvious solution is a dramatic overhaul on the education system K-12 and college. We need to find a way to send almost everyone to some form of college or technical school. Once we increase our population's skills we'd create more jobs, we'd have a better quality of living, and we'd definately be more healthy. Nobody ever wants to address this issue but the solution to education issues is not governmental or institutional. We can mandate policy changes to help, but at best they're a drop in the bucket that is the solution. Blacks come from all socio-economic backgrounds but on average have lower test scores and don't go as far in their education. Jews also come from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds but have test scores and education levels that are well above average. I don't believe for a minute that blacks are inherently dumb or that Jews are inherently smart. What I do believe though is that they have two different cultures. Jewish kids come home and their parents tell them that education is important and make them do their homework, and as a result they go far. Quite simply, family is the real issue. If we ha a country filled with parents who took a proactive role in the education of their children and teens, we would be far better off as a society. The kids who grow up and don't go to college, the kids who turn to drugs, etc-- they are almost exclusively drawn to their problems that stem from family issues. But here is a man who articulates it far better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Pk13FfFow
I agree with all of that, I just don't know how you can make bad parents give a ***.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 482
By Odin.Gosuapple 2010-10-09 22:29:40
Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is. Insofar as you appear to be sincere in trying to better your speech, I will critique your paper without regard to my personal opinion on affirmative action. First and foremost, ANY speech or paper on affirmative action SHOULD address the supreme court ruling on the matter. Second, your viewpoint will alienate a portion of those you are trying to persuade in and of itself, you shouldn't bring up unnecessarily divisive issues such as your personal political feelings; i.e., Bush is dumb, Obama is this or that etc. Adding these things will only dilute your point. Further, in the beginning you refer to what the founding fathers thought. If any of your audience has a background in political science you will immediately lose their esteem. It is widely accepted in the academic community that the founding fathers were a group distinct and divided enough that it makes no sense to say they thought this or they thought that because as a rule there were founding fathers on both sides of any issue. Lastly your tone is far to informal; you should not be using words like pissed or contractions in something like this. Also your grammar needs serious work. Oh and this is a bit of an after thought, but lumping all the pro-affirmative action people together and saying they believe something is argumentative fallacy. It's both ad hominem and a sweeping generalization. Attack the principle not the people or you will lose credibility.
I'm not sure where there are any grammar mistakes. Yea, I agree; I wrote the speech when I was pissed and I've already rewritten most the paper. The founding fathers point was still correct; regardless of who was on what side of the issue its obvious which view point won out at the end of the convention. You may say that it was simply to make sure the constitution would be ratified, but that's still backing down from a fight. They chose to be complacent, which was smart considering the circumstances. The supreme court case is also irrelevant. The court ruled that affirmative action could not include quotas, which they technically don't. However, quota systems are still used but its on the "down low". Either way its a losing argument to quote the supreme court unless I can prove quotas.
The quota thing is not what is important. The supreme court (1) has dissenting opinions which will support your argument and (2) the Supreme court gave their reason for not getting rid of affirmative action out right AND mentioned that it was an issue that they would want to revisit at a later date. Many of those who are pro-affirmative action are familiar with the court's decision and use it to support their view, as such it is something you should address.
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-10-09 22:34:12
Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is. Insofar as you appear to be sincere in trying to better your speech, I will critique your paper without regard to my personal opinion on affirmative action. First and foremost, ANY speech or paper on affirmative action SHOULD address the supreme court ruling on the matter. Second, your viewpoint will alienate a portion of those you are trying to persuade in and of itself, you shouldn't bring up unnecessarily divisive issues such as your personal political feelings; i.e., Bush is dumb, Obama is this or that etc. Adding these things will only dilute your point. Further, in the beginning you refer to what the founding fathers thought. If any of your audience has a background in political science you will immediately lose their esteem. It is widely accepted in the academic community that the founding fathers were a group distinct and divided enough that it makes no sense to say they thought this or they thought that because as a rule there were founding fathers on both sides of any issue. Lastly your tone is far to informal; you should not be using words like pissed or contractions in something like this. Also your grammar needs serious work. Oh and this is a bit of an after thought, but lumping all the pro-affirmative action people together and saying they believe something is argumentative fallacy. It's both ad hominem and a sweeping generalization. Attack the principle not the people or you will lose credibility. I'm not sure where there are any grammar mistakes. Yea, I agree; I wrote the speech when I was pissed and I've already rewritten most the paper. The founding fathers point was still correct; regardless of who was on what side of the issue its obvious which view point won out at the end of the convention. You may say that it was simply to make sure the constitution would be ratified, but that's still backing down from a fight. They chose to be complacent, which was smart considering the circumstances. The supreme court case is also irrelevant. The court ruled that affirmative action could not include quotas, which they technically don't. However, quota systems are still used but its on the "down low". Either way its a losing argument to quote the supreme court unless I can prove quotas. The quota thing is not what is important. The supreme court (1) has dissenting opinions which will support your argument and (2) the Supreme court gave their reason for not getting rid of affirmative action out right AND mentioned that it was an issue that they would want to revisit at a later date. Many of those who are pro-affirmative action are familiar with the court's decision and use it to support their view, as such it is something you should address.
Lol I was actually hoping you'd address the grammar issue. I've always been a good writer in substance but I hated my english classes, I know I fail at some concepts.
Hmm. I'll review the case law. In all the debates I watched it was done by lawyers who never once mentioned anything law related. I assumed it was a poor approach to the issue because I'm not actually fighting whether it's constitutional or not. I'm more or less arguing on whether its morally, ethically, and pratically needed.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 482
By Odin.Gosuapple 2010-10-09 22:36:56
Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is. Insofar as you appear to be sincere in trying to better your speech, I will critique your paper without regard to my personal opinion on affirmative action. First and foremost, ANY speech or paper on affirmative action SHOULD address the supreme court ruling on the matter. Second, your viewpoint will alienate a portion of those you are trying to persuade in and of itself, you shouldn't bring up unnecessarily divisive issues such as your personal political feelings; i.e., Bush is dumb, Obama is this or that etc. Adding these things will only dilute your point. Further, in the beginning you refer to what the founding fathers thought. If any of your audience has a background in political science you will immediately lose their esteem. It is widely accepted in the academic community that the founding fathers were a group distinct and divided enough that it makes no sense to say they thought this or they thought that because as a rule there were founding fathers on both sides of any issue. Lastly your tone is far to informal; you should not be using words like pissed or contractions in something like this. Also your grammar needs serious work. Oh and this is a bit of an after thought, but lumping all the pro-affirmative action people together and saying they believe something is argumentative fallacy. It's both ad hominem and a sweeping generalization. Attack the principle not the people or you will lose credibility. I'm not sure where there are any grammar mistakes. Yea, I agree; I wrote the speech when I was pissed and I've already rewritten most the paper. The founding fathers point was still correct; regardless of who was on what side of the issue its obvious which view point won out at the end of the convention. You may say that it was simply to make sure the constitution would be ratified, but that's still backing down from a fight. They chose to be complacent, which was smart considering the circumstances. The supreme court case is also irrelevant. The court ruled that affirmative action could not include quotas, which they technically don't. However, quota systems are still used but its on the "down low". Either way its a losing argument to quote the supreme court unless I can prove quotas. The quota thing is not what is important. The supreme court (1) has dissenting opinions which will support your argument and (2) the Supreme court gave their reason for not getting rid of affirmative action out right AND mentioned that it was an issue that they would want to revisit at a later date. Many of those who are pro-affirmative action are familiar with the court's decision and use it to support their view, as such it is something you should address.
Lol I was actually hoping you'd address the grammar issue. I've always been a good writer in substance but I hated my english classes, I know I fail at some concepts.
Hmm. I'll review the case law. In all the debates I watched it was done by lawyers who never once mentioned anything law related. I assumed it was a poor approach to the issue because I'm not actually fighting whether it's constitutional or not. I'm more or less arguing on whether its morally, ethically, and pratically needed.
You had lots of them, most of which you'll pick up on if you just have a friend read it allowed to you.
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 482
By Odin.Gosuapple 2010-10-09 22:38:10
*out loud rather
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-10-09 22:38:24
Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is. Insofar as you appear to be sincere in trying to better your speech, I will critique your paper without regard to my personal opinion on affirmative action. First and foremost, ANY speech or paper on affirmative action SHOULD address the supreme court ruling on the matter. Second, your viewpoint will alienate a portion of those you are trying to persuade in and of itself, you shouldn't bring up unnecessarily divisive issues such as your personal political feelings; i.e., Bush is dumb, Obama is this or that etc. Adding these things will only dilute your point. Further, in the beginning you refer to what the founding fathers thought. If any of your audience has a background in political science you will immediately lose their esteem. It is widely accepted in the academic community that the founding fathers were a group distinct and divided enough that it makes no sense to say they thought this or they thought that because as a rule there were founding fathers on both sides of any issue. Lastly your tone is far to informal; you should not be using words like pissed or contractions in something like this. Also your grammar needs serious work. Oh and this is a bit of an after thought, but lumping all the pro-affirmative action people together and saying they believe something is argumentative fallacy. It's both ad hominem and a sweeping generalization. Attack the principle not the people or you will lose credibility. I'm not sure where there are any grammar mistakes. Yea, I agree; I wrote the speech when I was pissed and I've already rewritten most the paper. The founding fathers point was still correct; regardless of who was on what side of the issue its obvious which view point won out at the end of the convention. You may say that it was simply to make sure the constitution would be ratified, but that's still backing down from a fight. They chose to be complacent, which was smart considering the circumstances. The supreme court case is also irrelevant. The court ruled that affirmative action could not include quotas, which they technically don't. However, quota systems are still used but its on the "down low". Either way its a losing argument to quote the supreme court unless I can prove quotas. The quota thing is not what is important. The supreme court (1) has dissenting opinions which will support your argument and (2) the Supreme court gave their reason for not getting rid of affirmative action out right AND mentioned that it was an issue that they would want to revisit at a later date. Many of those who are pro-affirmative action are familiar with the court's decision and use it to support their view, as such it is something you should address. Lol I was actually hoping you'd address the grammar issue. I've always been a good writer in substance but I hated my english classes, I know I fail at some concepts. Hmm. I'll review the case law. In all the debates I watched it was done by lawyers who never once mentioned anything law related. I assumed it was a poor approach to the issue because I'm not actually fighting whether it's constitutional or not. I'm more or less arguing on whether its morally, ethically, and pratically needed. You had lots of them, most of which you'll pick up on if you just have a friend read it allowed to you.
Ahh, I just did grammar check on word and didn't read it allowed or anything. Do you know any student reference handbooks for grammar or anything? I should probably pick one up.
The funny thing is when I give speeches I don't even read the paper. I write them as a reference point and I follow the same line of progression but I never look at it. (I think it's annoying when people just read a paper)
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 482
By Odin.Gosuapple 2010-10-09 22:45:28
Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is. Insofar as you appear to be sincere in trying to better your speech, I will critique your paper without regard to my personal opinion on affirmative action. First and foremost, ANY speech or paper on affirmative action SHOULD address the supreme court ruling on the matter. Second, your viewpoint will alienate a portion of those you are trying to persuade in and of itself, you shouldn't bring up unnecessarily divisive issues such as your personal political feelings; i.e., Bush is dumb, Obama is this or that etc. Adding these things will only dilute your point. Further, in the beginning you refer to what the founding fathers thought. If any of your audience has a background in political science you will immediately lose their esteem. It is widely accepted in the academic community that the founding fathers were a group distinct and divided enough that it makes no sense to say they thought this or they thought that because as a rule there were founding fathers on both sides of any issue. Lastly your tone is far to informal; you should not be using words like pissed or contractions in something like this. Also your grammar needs serious work. Oh and this is a bit of an after thought, but lumping all the pro-affirmative action people together and saying they believe something is argumentative fallacy. It's both ad hominem and a sweeping generalization. Attack the principle not the people or you will lose credibility. I'm not sure where there are any grammar mistakes. Yea, I agree; I wrote the speech when I was pissed and I've already rewritten most the paper. The founding fathers point was still correct; regardless of who was on what side of the issue its obvious which view point won out at the end of the convention. You may say that it was simply to make sure the constitution would be ratified, but that's still backing down from a fight. They chose to be complacent, which was smart considering the circumstances. The supreme court case is also irrelevant. The court ruled that affirmative action could not include quotas, which they technically don't. However, quota systems are still used but its on the "down low". Either way its a losing argument to quote the supreme court unless I can prove quotas. The quota thing is not what is important. The supreme court (1) has dissenting opinions which will support your argument and (2) the Supreme court gave their reason for not getting rid of affirmative action out right AND mentioned that it was an issue that they would want to revisit at a later date. Many of those who are pro-affirmative action are familiar with the court's decision and use it to support their view, as such it is something you should address. Lol I was actually hoping you'd address the grammar issue. I've always been a good writer in substance but I hated my english classes, I know I fail at some concepts. Hmm. I'll review the case law. In all the debates I watched it was done by lawyers who never once mentioned anything law related. I assumed it was a poor approach to the issue because I'm not actually fighting whether it's constitutional or not. I'm more or less arguing on whether its morally, ethically, and pratically needed. You had lots of them, most of which you'll pick up on if you just have a friend read it allowed to you.
Ahh, I just did grammar check on word and didn't read it allowed or anything. Do you know any student reference handbooks for grammar or anything? I should probably pick one up.
The funny thing is when I give speeches I don't even read the paper. I write them as a reference point and I follow the same line of progression but I never look at it. (I think it's annoying when people just read a paper)
If you're at the college level, I really like Writing & Speaking for Business by William H. Baker. Also you should go in and manually set what you have word checking for. You can have it check for style issues like use of passive voice or ending a sentence with a split infinitive. Your first few papers written with the options on will take you forever as you revise them over and over trying to make sure that everything is active voice and such but it will slowly become ingrained in your writing style.
Phoenix.Excelior
サーバ: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2093
By Phoenix.Excelior 2010-10-09 22:47:02
Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Odin.Gosuapple said: Phoenix.Excelior said: I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is. Insofar as you appear to be sincere in trying to better your speech, I will critique your paper without regard to my personal opinion on affirmative action. First and foremost, ANY speech or paper on affirmative action SHOULD address the supreme court ruling on the matter. Second, your viewpoint will alienate a portion of those you are trying to persuade in and of itself, you shouldn't bring up unnecessarily divisive issues such as your personal political feelings; i.e., Bush is dumb, Obama is this or that etc. Adding these things will only dilute your point. Further, in the beginning you refer to what the founding fathers thought. If any of your audience has a background in political science you will immediately lose their esteem. It is widely accepted in the academic community that the founding fathers were a group distinct and divided enough that it makes no sense to say they thought this or they thought that because as a rule there were founding fathers on both sides of any issue. Lastly your tone is far to informal; you should not be using words like pissed or contractions in something like this. Also your grammar needs serious work. Oh and this is a bit of an after thought, but lumping all the pro-affirmative action people together and saying they believe something is argumentative fallacy. It's both ad hominem and a sweeping generalization. Attack the principle not the people or you will lose credibility. I'm not sure where there are any grammar mistakes. Yea, I agree; I wrote the speech when I was pissed and I've already rewritten most the paper. The founding fathers point was still correct; regardless of who was on what side of the issue its obvious which view point won out at the end of the convention. You may say that it was simply to make sure the constitution would be ratified, but that's still backing down from a fight. They chose to be complacent, which was smart considering the circumstances. The supreme court case is also irrelevant. The court ruled that affirmative action could not include quotas, which they technically don't. However, quota systems are still used but its on the "down low". Either way its a losing argument to quote the supreme court unless I can prove quotas. The quota thing is not what is important. The supreme court (1) has dissenting opinions which will support your argument and (2) the Supreme court gave their reason for not getting rid of affirmative action out right AND mentioned that it was an issue that they would want to revisit at a later date. Many of those who are pro-affirmative action are familiar with the court's decision and use it to support their view, as such it is something you should address. Lol I was actually hoping you'd address the grammar issue. I've always been a good writer in substance but I hated my english classes, I know I fail at some concepts. Hmm. I'll review the case law. In all the debates I watched it was done by lawyers who never once mentioned anything law related. I assumed it was a poor approach to the issue because I'm not actually fighting whether it's constitutional or not. I'm more or less arguing on whether its morally, ethically, and pratically needed. You had lots of them, most of which you'll pick up on if you just have a friend read it allowed to you. Ahh, I just did grammar check on word and didn't read it allowed or anything. Do you know any student reference handbooks for grammar or anything? I should probably pick one up. The funny thing is when I give speeches I don't even read the paper. I write them as a reference point and I follow the same line of progression but I never look at it. (I think it's annoying when people just read a paper) If you're at the college level, I really like Writing & Speaking for Business by William H. Baker. Also you should go in and manually set what you have word checking for. You can have it check for style issues like use of passive voice or ending a sentence with a split infinitive. Your first few papers written with the options on will take you forever as you revise them over and over trying to make sure that everything is active voice and such but it will slowly become ingrained in your writing style.
I'll look that up, thanks.
I'm giving a speech to the President's Advisory Council of my college to end affirmative action in my school. This is my speech, tell me what you think and if you find disagreements. I'm curious what opinion is.
Affirmative Action
The writers of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that “All men are created equal”. Do you think that they honestly believed that? Many of the same men allowed for the perpetuation of slavery in our US Constitution, this is evident in the clauses such as the 3/5ths compromise. To claim that America was founded on the basis of equality at all is simply fallacious. Furthermore, it is naive to believe that that all men and women are born with the same intellectual ability or advantages. The tendency for the intelligent and skilled to transcend their lesser intelligent and lesser skilled peers is a natural fact. This means that true equality is unrealistic and unachievable without true physical equality and genetic equality. This means that the best way to promote equality in America is to make all children test tube babies and genetically engineer them. I have a feeling that people would be pissed if we tried to do that. Sadly this type of artificial creation of equality exists in many government programs one of which is affirmative action.
America has had a history of discrimination against blacks and women and we can’t dismiss this injustice. I think it would be nonsensical to believe that racism and discrimination do not exist today, however, it is equally nonsensical to think that it exists in the same capacity and to the same degree as it did many years ago. The question today is, “How do we differentiate between discriminatory actions and de facto inequality”. For this purpose we shall look at the definitions of discrimination:
1. To discriminate is to recognized or perceive the difference.
2. Discriminatory means being biased or having a belief or attitude about a subject beforehand; Prejudice.
3. Discrimination means the unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of Prejudice.
People who promote affirmative action would like you to believe that they fighting to end discrimination. That is to say they are fighting to end the unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice. This is true in the same way as the concept of “Fighting fire with fire”. Indeed, I submit that we end violence on campus by beating up some kids. Their logic is that, “We can end discrimination by using discrimination as a tool against discrimination”. That very concept is extremely counter-intuitive. This logic basically brings us to the conclusion that the goals of affirmative action are not ending discrimination but promoting discrimination for blacks and women.
These people who promote affirmative action say that due to different backgrounds, blacks and women are disadvantaged in a “white man’s world”. This is amazing to me because the white population is less than half of the world population. I suppose that believe that women and blacks are just too stupid and too poor and too ignorant to succeed without the help of the white man. God bless the white man we’re just so good at elevating people, usually with a rope around the neck. They do all of this while trying to carry the flag of non-discrimination which is pathetically ironic considering the facts.
Let us assume for a moment that all blacks and women are of inferior intelligence, and that the white man has the genetic monopoly on brain power. If this were the case, I would then ask why bother helping blacks and women? If they are indeed dumber than white men why would we send them to college so they can flunk out or appoint them to jobs so they can fail? Does being of a certain race qualify you more for a job than sheer ability and experience? These people seem to think so.
Now let us assume that blacks, women, and whites all have the same intellectual potential upon birth. That is to say that all races have an equal chance of having a gifted or talented child. I know this is hard for some of you to believe but I think Barack Obama is a tad bit smarter than George W. Bush. How do you think affirmative action specialists would address him? He’s black so he’s dumb, but he’s also white so he’s smart. He’s black so he’s disadvantage but he’s white so he’s also rich. He’s blacks so he’s done drugs but he’s white so he hasn’t. He’s black so he’s committed crimes but he’s white so he hasn’t. Could it be that Barack Obama was a man of high intelligence and ability who just happened to be black? Could it be that Barack Obama wasn’t the genetic lottery winner and somehow the Keanu Reeves of black people sent here to free us from the domination of machines? The truth is that individuals each possess their own level of intelligence and ability. Individuals each possess their own potential for success. We should then address the issue based on individuals and not on race, because race is theory and a stereotype not a scientific law. Affirmative action is obsolete and fundamentally flawed because it has never addressed the true question that this nation needs to answer, “How can we get our talented and gifted citizens into college so they can graduate and get a job to help the community?” Instead affirmative action addresses this question: “How can we get blacks and whites into our schools and jobs so we can exploit their status as a minority as some form of pro bono and act of charity?” Affirmative action is fundamentally racist, sexist, intolerant, bigoted and counter-productive.
I want to add that I dont neccessarily support this position as radically as it is addressed. However, for the purpose of the councils we have a speech pro and con for affirmative action.
|
|
