While I’ve been discussing this with you, the point I made was to Ozman, who wrote
I’m sure that he is unaware that rich people already have their own AA program. If you look at my last post to you, I’m not advocating ending legacies -
Dave
My only disagreement with you, is that while I would like to see the end of Capitalism, I regard that as a Utopian goal. In the meantime, we live in a Capitalist Society, and that does not inherently mean that it can’t be a decent place to live in.
Racism is the means that keep the people on the bottom rungs of society from working together. Race based Affirmative Action is fuel to the fire of racism. It cannot be viably denied that it is needed. Poverty breeds a legacy of poverty. There is a need to help those who are unable to break the chains of poverty -
Poverty has its own culture, where people are taught that they will always be poor, that education is for the wealthy, that they are doomed to be poor. Obviously, some people with gumption, get ahead anyway - Nonetheless AA programs are, in and of themselves a MESSEGE, that there is an opportunity out there, and all you have to do is take it. In an of itself is is an incentive program - because affirmative action or not, you’re not getting into college if you’re an illiterate self created moron.
Saying all the above, an income based AA program will unite all people who are poor, to keep it, and make it viable.
The wealthy already have their programs, and it’s time for working people to benefit from the prosperity they have brought to the wealthy. Just because it’s not a “Solution” to the problems of the world, means nothing to me. Social Security is not a solution to the problems of the world, but it made a profound difference to millions and millions of people who otherwise would have nothing. The same for programs like Medicare.
That they are only “reforms,” is no argument.
Dave
I am going to clear up some misinformation posted here on this site. In Ivy League Schools, the tuition for a student that his/her parents make under $60K/year is free, for those that make $60K to $120K/year the annual tuition is capped at 10% of their income and for those that make over $120K/year the full tuition is due (around $45K/year).
Legacy students are admitted without an entrance exam, unlike other students. But they are the ones paying for the education at full price. These are the same ones that make large contribution as an alumnus to the university that allow the poor student a free education.
Chato, I am full aware of offers given to some from their background but they are done with strings attached or prior commitments completed. If you don’t thing strings are attached then you are gravely mistaken. The ones I oppose are the ones based on color, sex or other criteria.
Those such as Bush and Kerry had families that provided these opportunities, sure they did nothing. But their families did this for them. Sure it is not fair, but news flash- life isn’t fair, equal or any of that other illogical nonsense. A person did what they did to create these opportunities for their offspring, to remove this from them is unethical and immoral. It is unethical and immoral to grant these opportunities to those that have not done anything to provide them for themselves.
I really don’t think you’ve thought this through.
When I was a kid, I could get into a damn good college and pay NO Tuition. That was the City University System. Most States have decent schools, and when I was a kid, residents of these states paid a few hundred bucks for tuition. Today, cost of tuition are difficult to make for a middle class family, let alone poor people.
Ten to fifteen percent of Ivy League admissions are legacies. Did George Bush earn his admission? Did his father? Grandfather, Great Grand Father?
Well fine, they have money - fine. But this is STILL the richest country in the world, and one would think that the cost of higher education would be going DOWN not UP. Especially since good paying unskilled or semi-skilled jobs are heading south at an accelerating rate.
Life is not fair? Damn right, the game is loaded.
The wealthy have made their money off the backs of working people, and now that they feel that the only use they have for us, is to join the military to protect THEIR WEALTH; they no longer feel they need an educated work force. Sorry no, this is called theft, anyway you want to put it.
What was your point about helping the victims of this oppression:
“To start with it undermines the whole concept of opportunity. Forcing or granting opportunities to people who have done nothing to achieve it will cause moral bankruptcy.”
Well, then, I assume you mean that all these lagacy students are demoralised, and suffering from moral bankruptcy?
And I guess helping thise who are economically oppressed will destroy theier lives? 
Really?
I don’t want to be offensive, but when a society acts justly, the result is not demoralisation.
Dave
Chato - you’re just not getting it. We live in a capitalist economy. It makes no sense to blame people for being capitalists. Your beef is not with legacy students or their parents - it’s with capitalism. But it is what it is. I understand the metaphor about the rich having their own AA. But it is not an exact analogy - which makes your point a purely rhetorical one. It sounds nice. But true AA and “legacy students” are two different things, in the end. We have tried to point this out to you. To no avail. One doesn’t justify the other. They are just two different things.
Chato and Faust, I do not think it is about capitalism entirely. It has a deeper aspect. It involves the value and opportunity of an individual. I believe Chato is under the impression that all humans have value, thus all deserve this opportunity. The problem with that impression is that it is false in my belief. Those like Bush and Kerry are born with a certain value as a human being that the ones in poverty do not have, commonly called legacy. It is because of this value that opportunities are already available to them. An opportunity is nothing more than a condition favorable for attainment of a goal. Their value they are born into offers them this favorable condition.
Those not born into this favorable condition must achieve this condition on their own. If it is granted to them or given to them without them creating this condition on their own, then the moral concept of opportunity is destroyed.
A person born without this value as a human being must create this value through their life. If they do not create this value for their life, then Chato is correct, the ones with value will make their money off their backs and use them to protect their wealth. This is not immoral or unethical because they lack the value as a human being. The ones with value are now required to create value for them. One of the values they can create for them is the value to protect their wealth or means to create more wealth. That is their value as a human being.
The idea to change the morality of opportunity to accommodate all people will morally bankrupt the people. If you change the conditions to provide favorable situations for all people to acquire the goal, then you have ignored the value of the human. You have removed the value of a human to a substandard that makes all people equal. This is not only immoral and unethical but against the very nature of existence. It maybe a shock to Chato but not all people have value, especially equal value. This also includes that some people are born with great value and others with no value at all. For those born with no value as a human then it is up to the individual to manifest their value in their lives or they will have their value assigned to them by those that do.
Before you commence on using a contextomy or any other logical fallacy these forums so dearly love. I am sure you are itching to respond because I have some how irritated you with my comments. I will help you out.
If I have upset you or you disagree with me stating that some humans do not have value and others are born with it. Explain on a basic level that all humans have value. Only stating it does, does not constitute a logical argument, give a fundamental belief why and how all humans have value.
If you have a problem with my comments on opportunity, then explain how opportunity is something that can be for all and not compromise the idea of opportunity. Explain how creating a favorable condition for everyone does not diminish the concept of favorable condition.
Hopefully, you get my point. If you disagree and want to comment on what I have said, refer to it in its context. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Or explain thoroughly your belief system and how AA is good or bad with that belief system as the backdrop.
As always Izzy, your logic is in fallible.
By ‘Utopian’ do you mean ‘unachievable’?
It does, but it doesn’t mean you can’t have a decent life while living in a capitalist society.
There are several means.
There are no chains of poverty. This is classic American liberal (read: pseudosocialist) politics - to pretend to be spreading the solution when actually propagating the problem (and thus ensuring a role for those pretending to be spreading the solution as time goes on). It’s a circular, self-sustaining politics. The irony being that it’s just as conservative as the Christian right wing in the Republican party.
And by affirmative action do you mean the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor using the state apparatus of taxation? Because if that is what you mean then at least be honest and call it state socialism.
You said yourself that they ‘couldn’t’ break the ‘chains of poverty’. Who is teaching the poor that they must remain poor? Is is the poor themselves, or is it middle class white liberals like yourself? Or is it both.
Of course I’m assuming you are middle class and white. I could be wrong.
Indeed, they are a message, the message being that if you want an easy ride to success then surrender your self-control to the state and they’ll tax someone to pay for your way.
In and of itself, it is nothing but words on a screen.
Unite them under the banner of spongers from the state as people who are too weak willed to sort themselves out and too stupid to settle their differences. Hardly a proud position for the working classes.
Saying that without these they’d have nothing is a huge leap based on no evidence. It’s the same leap the capitalist propagandists make when they say that without capitalism we wouldn’t have modern technology.
That wasn’t my counterargument.
Look , Affirmative action exists, its not going away. So use it. Even the average white male can use affimative action to his benifit if he uses his brain. There are ways around any law or rule.
Get a minority partner, you front the money and or knowledge they front their name minority and or money and knowledge.
As far as education, change your name and or physical appearance. Get creative, this is the USA, we are supposed to be a bit of rule breakers. Find those laws use them for your purpose. Don’t sit around and whine about them.
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
Aristotle
The plain facts are that all humans are not equal, and that is just the manner of life. AA is an attempt to supercede genetics with “social justice” and the bottom line is that it is bad for everyone.
Everyone cannot be high intellect, high physical aptitude, physically attractive with all the attritbutes which help one garner wealth.
Some humans, just flat suck, and it is their lot to be sad and pathetic, and amount to nothing. Some are poised for more domination in the world.
Eugenics is the cure. Either that or genocide … guess it just depends upon which flavor you prefer.
The flick was inane, I remember it. But, you know if done right, it would work. Might as well try, what have you got to lose?
Its only American to get one over on the man.
No, I mean unatainable in the present mindset of the population. Unatainable now, and for at least the near future - meaning the next fifty years. To get to the point where people will democratically choose a Communist/Anarchist society would require a society where the mass of people are not fighting EACH OTHER over bones.
The Scandanavian countries, and others in Europe are both Capitalist and “decent.”
Yes of course - But racism is the primary one. It has replaced focusing on ethnic divisions to keep the people on the bottom fighting each other.
I absolutely and totally disagree. And it is why those who created the Union movement of the 30’s focused on cultural and intellectual teaching, as well as just organising in a factory.
You read quite a bit into a simple reformist program, which is aimed an giving people incentive to break the chains of poverty, and seek a better life - A simple reformist idea which will unifiy those in poverty, instead of dividing them.
I also said that some with more gumption DO break the chains of poverty. But cultures have their own dead weight. As for assuming, I assume you know where that leads?
Sorry, no, I was brought up in the projects and make my ready cash as a Boiler Mechanic.
It’s true, that I’ve worked hard to educate myself. Other than a high school diploma I have no “credentials.”
Indeed, self education was easy enough for me, since my wants are relatively small, and since I take off four or five months of the year. This was my particular “plan” on how to live my life. It’s worked for the last 42 years.
You’re confusing “RIGHTS” and “CHARITY.” For example, why does the left oppose “Means Tests” for Social Secuirty? If you have means tests, it becomes a charity, and can be taken away, if it’s a right, then it is for everyone.
Just as Public Housing was converted from being a RIght, into a Charity. And so on.
We have a right to an education, IF you’re ready to take it. If you’re ready to work hard to use it.
So you say.
If you choose to define what government does as inhernently flawed, evil, manipulative. But government is not the rule of a particular group, even if that is what it is now. While ultimately I would like to do away with all government, what does that have to do with the question?
I see, so Social Security really benefits no one? That the historical evedence means nothing? That old people used to starve in the street can safely be denied form your computer desk? “That if you don’t come in on Sunday, don’t come in on Monday,” is all propaganda with no historical evidence? Hmm?
And what is your argument? Sounds pretty much like the above - Reforms don’t do anything because they are charity? They weren’t charities until they were made so. People have to learn, that government SHOULD serve their interest, not the other way around. That as simple societies inevitably give way to more complex ones; as a normal product of growth; rights that we took for granted are being taken away. We have a right to an education. That Right is embedded in law. No one Needed a higher education until relatively recently.
We have Public education because People FOUGHT for public education. Those who think that my argument about education is some sort of attack on THEIR rights should remember that we take public education up to High School for granted. Very few would oppose public education - Yet they oppose the logical need for higher education.
And in fact the same arguments are being used. People forget very quickly.
Like you, no one is thinking this through.
Dave
What’s wrong with Affirmative Action? It needlessly discriminates on the basis of race, without even giving equity for damages necessarily incurred by racism to the same individuals who incurred them at the cost of the actual violator. Ironically enough, it actually violates the principles set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It’s a completely misguided effort at accomplishing a false public good. A quota or certain ratio of races in certain positions has nothing inherently good to it, as it says nothing about the merits of the individuals, their skill academically or in doing a certain trade, or the fact they deserved it as a result of the aforementioned merit. It should be scrapped.
To address your class based idea, you seem to be operating under the idea that what is in the best interest of a certain class necessarily is in the best interest of the whole of society. If a person comes from a rich family and has earned the same qualifications, obviously they are then just as qualified as a poorer person. Funding and the availability of corresponding opportunities are different questions entirely.
Economic based Affirmative Action is simply a recognition that the poor and the working class do not have the same opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills as those who are born wealthy.
They are in effect deprived of opportunity based on their class. As it happens a large minority of those deprived are also Black and Woman - So an economic based Affirmative action would accomplish two important things. It would give ALL those who are deprived by society of opportunity - an opportunity to succed - Such an opportunity doesn’t guarrantee sucess, it merely provides the opportunity. The wealthy of course will “succed” whether they fail in school or not. Daddy after all will provide.
The Second thing is does, is unify the poor and will make themselves see what they have in common as oppposed to what divides them.
Ultimately the country is best served by offering oppportunity to ALL it’s members.
You could simply extend your argument above, and ask us why we have ANY public education? Or for that matter ANY laws that protect people against arbitrary discrimination.
Are we a “better” country because we have recognised for 150 years that Public education should be available to all? Extending your point to it’s logical conclusion would eliminate public education - Let the wealthy who can afford it have it?
This is in fact the argument of those who opposed public eduation.
And why have laws against discrimination? No wealthy person needs them…
Dave
You’re still treating people differently based on their class background. What should be provided is a minimum of the opportunity necessary for success. The fact that certain people have a better opportunity still says nothing about the fact that everybody does have the necessary opportunity.
My argument could not be extended to abolishing public education, since then many people would be missing the aforementioned minimum needed for success. Aside from that, it is dependent upon the will of the individual in both scenarios. The wealthy lout can fail and the motivated person born into a lower class environment may still succeed – and do. It happens without any need for affirmative action. But, to get back to your point, it’s not an all or none proposition. Certain policies are of potential benefit to any citizen. Laws against discrimination obviously do not have to be cancelled just because one disagrees with discriminating on the basis of class… I don’t see any consistency in that idea. There does not have to be an existential crisis for each proposition and there is none here which would logically mandate affirmative action.
Complete and absolute equality (and even attempts at striving materially toward it) is irrelevant past a certain benchmark. Ultimately it boils down to a couple questions:
Do the citizens have access to the necessary conditions for success?
Are the citizens human persons and thus rational actors?
If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then there is no need for affirmative action. It only serves to hinder others despite their choices, on account of either their success or the conditions in which they were born. On principle, that is counterproductive to exactly its claimed intent.
(awesome dog, by the way)
When I was a kid, I could at least in theory go to a fine school of higher education for free. While most State schools around the country weren’t THAT cheap, tuition was a few hundred bucks. Of course when I was a kid, you could still make decent money with an unskilled or semi-skilled job…
Why? No one would be stopping them from going to a private school, anymore than anyone is stopping them from going to college. - What you’re really saying is that the argument doesn’t make sense to you. But in fact, if one wants a decent career, higher education is almost mandatory.
Obviously I disagree. With entire industries and professions being exported ASAP, many people have a choice of starving or working for a “fine” company like Walmart.
Most of the people I grew up with had low opinions of their intellectual worth. This was in fact systamised by the education system. While I came out of a similar economic background, and for that matter had parents who didn’t even have a high school diploma, I was taught that I was just as smart as anyone in the world. This gave me an edge. And if I haven’t taken advantage of it, I blame only myself.
On the other hand, people who are inherently just as bright as I, didn’t have that edge. They were routed into manual labor, and that’s where they stayed. And if society has now fucked them good - sorry, I don’t blame them. Is it not absurd to talk about the ecomomic conditions and opportunities that existed when I was a kid, and compare them to today? Times change, do they not?
Ethnic or “race” based AA programs do indeed harm those who are Just as poor, but of the wrong skin color. But that is not to say that AA programs are aimed at ATTACKING the rich, they are NOT! They are aimed at helping the poor, and giving them that opportunity you talk about. An opportunitiy that will make the difference between a life of drudgery at less than $10 an hour, and a life of fulfillment at a decent income.
Come on Modern Ancient, times change, and what was once a meaninful playing field (which was actually rigged anyway) has now become a matter of life and death.
More than you can imagine. A Kuvasz, is a Cat in dog clothing. I’m one of the few people with a “trained” Kuvasz, and actually he’s not trained, we merely have an on-going “business” arrangement…
As you can see, he’s a born killer. In this image he is all of four months old. Kinda large… 
Dave
Well, Chato – I believe you have good intentions. The problem is your solution happens to be unjust despite not being specifically aimed at harming those who happen to be rich. This is because it still does by favoring those who are born into poor backgrounds by default for a finite number of positions. If these rich people’s parents wish not to pay their way through life or if they end up going bankrupt somehow, then they are left without a high class service or professional job in that same do-or-die world you’ve depicted. What then of the more qualified man jobless over the man fortunate enough, in this oddity of a scenario, to have been born poor?
If the necessary conditions for success are not met in our public schools, this means only that we need to improve our education system. I say we begin by getting rid of No Child Left Behind and its lowering of educational standards across the board in favor of dubious feel-good statistical reports.
I’m not sure if you understand the concept of “class.” A good IT person might make 150K a year, but if he/she loses their health, they are out of luck. If the owner of a corporation loses their health, the money should simply keep coming in.
“Equal opportunity” is no longer accessible in the US. And when I say that I am referring to the mass of people. It was this recognistion that prompted the creation of the Public School System in the First Place. This was a long struggle to achieve. It was not until AFTER the Civil War that it became recogised as a necessity.
Today, higher education is just as important. Some public schools, at least those in the affluent suberbs are just fine. But if you stop at High School, you have no future in America. So, it’s not just a question of improving the lower grades. Second of course, public schools are being starved, as ideologues are getting the State to support private schools, and taking away money from the already inadaquite budgets of public schools.
Poverty and a culture of poverty are in every way being institutionalised. We are in fact witnessing the “Walmartisation” of America. Such things don’t occur in an eye blink, and most of us, especially those who are young, have no reference for comparison.
It’s time to level the playing field, not by attacking the wealthy, (unless you consider raising their taxes so that they pay their fair share to be “attacking” the wealthy) but by providing simple programs of aiding those prepared to WORK for a better opportunity a hand. Which was in fact the basis of Public education in the first place.
To say, or point out that SOME of those born poor need no such help is not saying anything at all. There always have been and always will be, “exceptions that prove the rule.”
(My dog wished you and yours a happy New Year! )
Dave
I would agree with you that our country needs total education reform, and for reasons redundant to mention. The whole re-teaching of material already learned in past grades/classes and low standards have got to go. I could also complain now about the quality of food kids usually are served, and the lack of moral/ethical philosophy classes in most curricula but I think I’ll spare my fingers the vigorous thrashing that would undoubtedly ensue. =P
haha my dachshunds would either be thankful or cowering in fear at the good wishes from your huge beast of a dog.