Why can't I call....

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

And, finally, Flipx99, your stance on affirmative action is, in my opinion uninformed. I don't believe that it's racism. It's not designed to necessarily put historically disadvantaged groups in a dominant position. It's design is to help level the playing field. Again, this is a Rawlsian sort of justice, based on the Difference Principle. In short, "Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. "

It's a form of distributive justice, easily the most dominant justice paradigm in the United States in the last 30 years.

My understanding of affirmative action is perhaps flawed. My understanding is, as you mentioned to assist previously disadvantaged groups into a more advantageous position. How might one practice affirmative action into indeed level the playing field rather than dumbing down the system by promoting "disadvantaged" members of society. And because this "disadvantage" is lumped into social classes and is not unique to the individual, then the whole system is flawed.

Lastly, how is it just to level a playing field when it is inherently unjust? I see that a type of social engineering that hurts society as a whole. If , say I am a math genious but am denied opportunities because society wants to level the playing field, how is society benefited? By having possibly a less qualified person able to take advantage of those opportunities? I am more of the survivalist point of view, the society advances because the strong survive. Affirmative Action assists those who are not of the strong position (whether race or a test score) be denied opportunities because society wants those of a weaker position to be afforded equal opportunities.

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

The idea is not to put them in an advantageous position, the idea is to put qualified candidates in a sufficient equal position. According to Rawlsian justice, distributive inequalities are only just if they serve to benefit those that are less advantaged; they are just in that they work towards curing unjust situations.

The idea is far more complex than can possibly be explained here. Inequalities created by the state are only just if they serve to benefit a group that is already less well off. The idea is not to put them *ahead*, but equal.

Contentious, I know, but it's the most influential theory of justice in the last 30 years, bar none. The idea is not to simply level the playing field, it is to allow for a fair system, one in which institutionalized historical inequalities and biases are not the basis for furthered discrimination. Humans are equal, and should be afforded equal human rights.

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

To elaborate a little more, Rawls' justice deals with "Primary Goods" - those things any rational person would desire, such as opportunities, liberties, rights, wealth, and the bases of self-respect.

Rawlsian Affirmative action is public policy designed to compensate the victims of injustice, at least in theory.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The idea is not to put them in an advantageous position, the idea is to put qualified candidates in a sufficient equal position. According to Rawlsian justice, distributive inequalities are only just if they serve to benefit those that are less advantaged; they are just in that they work towards curing unjust situations.
The idea is far more complex than can possibly be explained here. Inequalities created by the state are only just if they serve to benefit a group that is already less well off. The idea is not to put them *ahead*, but equal.

Contentious, I know, but it's the most influential theory of justice in the last 30 years, bar none. The idea is not to simply level the playing field, it is to allow for a fair system, one in which institutionalized historical inequalities and biases are not the basis for furthered discrimination. Humans are equal, and should be afforded equal human rights.

I see your point if I accept the assumption that before AA, the system was flawed or possed inequalities. But how does modern practice accomplish equality? Or does it not?

Lastly about the point of humans, equal under the eyes of god and under the law (atleast in theory) but humans are not at all equal in skill. How does creating equality put the person with the highest skill in a particular position?

 

[UndercoverPunk 5,000+ posts]

I've never had any problems with people getting upset when I called a black person black...

Maybe YOU just LOOK like racist... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/tongue.gif.6130eb82179565f6db8d26d6001dcd24.gif

 

[Wonderbread 5,000+ posts]

I see your point if I accept the assumption that before AA, the system was flawed or possed inequalities. But how does modern practice accomplish equality? Or does it not?
Lastly about the point of humans, equal under the eyes of god and under the law (atleast in theory) but humans are not at all equal in skill. How does creating equality put the person with the highest skill in a particular position?

Rawls deals with unequal natural abilities in this way:

Your natural abilities, whether good or bad, are the product of luck. We are not responsible for them and hence should neither benefit nor suffer from them.

According to Rawls, no-one can claim that they deserve to have been born with superior genetic endowments and/ or born into a safe, supportive, and loving family. Therefore no-one can claim to deserve the larger share of resources that talented

people are usually able to obtain.

Again, no one ever said that the practice was ideally implemented //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif The idea is that it's the best system we have found so far to work towards correcting inequalities based on unjust characterizations and institutions. Remember that Rawlsian equality does not necessarily entail fiscal or monetary equality across the board, it simply means the egalitarian distribution of primary goods.

 

[UndercoverPunk 5,000+ posts]

What about the Lawls.... all this serious Rawls stuff... but no LAWLS??!?!??!?!?!

 

[diet snapple]

N Word

...B

...I

...G

...D

...R

...O

...P

...O

...F

...F...................N word.................................

Not that it matters. I've been banned before, I'll just comeback again.

 

[iceteebone 5,000+ posts]

i don't get it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

 

[xpl0it 10+ year member]

He likes penis

 

[PESteele 10+ year member]

why do they care so much i hear it everytime i walk by one

 

[iceteebone 5,000+ posts]

He likes penis

i like my penis too. so do the ladies

 

[diet snapple]

i don't get it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif

He said not to drop the N word. I just dropped it over a big cliff, except it didn't display it like I typed it.

 

[HotCarl 10+ year member]

why do they care so much i hear it everytime i walk by one

lol.

that was so racist sounding its ridiculous

 

[diet snapple]

why do they care so much i hear it everytime i walk by one

idk, PhatTony called me a *igga the other day. I guess that's where it came from.