The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative action?

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

That is a sad story. The white male is screwed, I feel bad for you. Can you find some kind of minority in your history you can cling onto? The game sucks, its not fair...so cheat!

Yeah....that always works....

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

We fix discrimination based on race by discriminating based on race? That makes no sense... Oh wait... Progressives came up with that idea.

Yeah....right....Progressives ran/owned the Plantations, in The Old South.

​

"It's very interesting when you think about it, the slaves who left here to go to America, because of their steadfast and their religion and their belief in freedom, helped change America." — George Bush, Dakar, Senegal, July 8, 2003

 

[top gun]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

[/color]
That's for sure! I'm just a little worried that the actual differences, had slavery not happened, are a little difficult to precisely ascertain, because there are vast differences in class even within the African-American community. This doesn't really matter though.

It may not be a welfare check, but it is not all that much more permanent than a welfare check; as I said, affirmative action is treating the symptoms of the disease (lower qualifications for jobs) rather than the cause of the disease (lower educational potential).

It is also too much of an oversimplification to define affirmative action as "the opportunity to work at school and be a productive tax paying citizen," because that makes it seem like there is no downside to it, even though there is, for the other citizens that are hurt as a result of AA.

I understand your frustration. But look at what has actually occurred. You can't dispute the fact that because of affirmative action there are hundreds of thousands of highly trained and now extremely qualified Blacks in highly professional positions then their would have been without it. And there are hundreds of thousands (probably millions over all these years) of others that just got that basic degree that opens many financial opportunity doors in the workplace as well.

The hurt you feel by being turned down at Stanford is not nearly as big in comparison to the overall good affirmative action has done. Remember an entire race of people were crushed for years. From slavery until sometime after the Civil Right movement. You remember the TV show All IN THE FAMILY? Well that show ran all the way until 1979 and they were still talking about real estate companies RED LINING so that Blacks couldn't move into certain neighborhoods.

You're upset but you're not blocked from going to college. With your record you'll go to a very good college I have absolutely no doubt.

Oh god no I'm not saying that! Come now!

Didn't you even read the other parts of my post? I said, very clearly, "I suggest that, rather than treating the symptom through affirmative action, we treat the disease itself." and then I listed three (3) specific ways in which we could directly treat the disease. If you equate those 3 specific ways, minus affirmative action, as "We've stopped abusing them, we don't need to do anything more to help them," well then.......

Yes of course, I read it all. And I'm not chastising you personally. I'm simply explaining that your ideas to address the problem simply would not. I'm disagreeing with your analogy and taking it out a ways to try and show what actually would have been the case if affirmative action wasn't chosen as a type of remedy.

But if affirmative action does indeed play a part in the decision to accept them to a college (pushes them over the edge to acceptance), that would mean that he/she is less academically qualified than the school would accept otherwise, which makes it much more likely that he/she would not be able to keep up, and makes it much more likely that he/she would drop out and not be able to fully take advantage of the education available (whereas a more qualified student would be more likely to). Again, this is treating the symptom instead of the disease itself, and is too temporary, for the injustice inflicted on others.

I don't believe (and as smart as you are I don't think you truly believe) that this is the case. All these candidates Black or White are qualified to attend college. You make it sound like here we have the White guy with a great SAT score, captain of the football team and and a humanitarian charity volunteer... and over here we have Snoop Dog with a terrible SAT score, bad high school attendance record and a few misdemeanor arrests. Come on buddy...

They may not be at the very tip top of applicants as you may be... but Stanford is not letting in Snoop Dog and you know it.

How could we possibly rectify the original wrongs? Do you think the NAACP would ever say that it would be possible to fix the wrongs done by slavery? That would be like a Jew saying that it would be possible to fix the wrongs caused by the Holocaust. It's simply not possible.

No, I don't think the NAACP will probably ever say it because that's their whole purpose to lobby for the Black community. And you did hear me say I think that the time is fast approaching where affirmative action will be phased out, correct? Your position is that it was never helpful or just... and that is simply not true my friend.

On the Jews: There were GREAT efforts made at retrieving stashed Nazi money, property rights and other things of great value and returning it to the Jews.

I'm not convinced. Look at the statistics, you can easily see that African-Americans are greatly lagging behing America's averages. Look at the "one standard deviation behind" widely documented. It will likely take decades to achieve a semblance of normalcy. Why? Partially because things like affirmative action are temporary and do not do anything to address the root of the problem.

Well even more Crips & Bloods won't help the Black community or society. Education is a safe way out and many have taken that path. And let's face it if your "solution" was used Whites would still call it preferential treatment and be against it just as much as now. It would just be on the next level down.

You can hear it... Well my son Johnny doesn't get all that free intensive tutoring and extra prep classes provide free while he's in high school because he's "White".

While Snoop Dog over there is getting all this preferential college prep training & extra intense treatment just because he's Black and it's not fair.

You simply can't help right a wrong committed specifically against a particular race and not at some point provide extra help to that race more than the others.

I never said it was a "terrible burden." All I am saying is that affirmative action is wrong

Well this whole post is in regard to your contention that affirmative action put an unfair "terrible burden" on YOU... and you are complaining about it.

Furthermore the fact simply is that affirmative action has helped greatly to enroll and graduate hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of qualified Black professionals.

When you say that's wrong and Blacks aren't helped by that... I'm saying you are incorrect.

You're a good young man that will go far if you keep looking forward and not let yourself get caught up in the blame game.

Whether you think you can or think you can't... you're right.

Get out there and just do it... success is the best revenge.

 

[Andy]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

I consider myself an independent, although I generally lean more to the left than to the right. Important exceptions include the economy and the free market, generally, and cultural issues.

I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not. You lean more to the left, except for the economy, free-market, and cultural issues? So if you are right leaning on economic issues, and social issues... what does that leave out?

But it was created on a premise of altruism, "the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest," which, by your own definition, would be progressive.

I apologize for jumping in here, but we're talking about the US Post Office? My understanding of USPS history, is that it was neither altruistic, nor progressive. The post office was created for purely national security reasons, and they have been extremely politically based up to this point.

First, it was a continuation of a prior system under colonizations. Second, it was because we needed to have open lines of communication to the rest of country. If Mexico attacked Texas, without an established form of communication, the entire state could be overthrown before the government knew about it.

It was not there for the welfare of the public, unless you count general protection of the country, in which case every ICBM is as much about altruism as the USPS.

Yes, there are deficits sometime (probably a lot in the future tbh), but my point was that its goal is completely nonprofit with no government interference.

Then it failed. And BTW, that was never a goal. Originally the General Post Master was actually in the line of succession from the president. Again, why do you think it was Postmaster "General", and appointed by the president? It was considered a national security position. Further, the USPS has constantly been a revolving door for political paybacks. It's routine for a president to appoint political beneficiaries to the board of directors at the USPS.

I haven't read every post up to this point, so I'm guessing on the context. I hope you are not citing USPS as an example of successful socialism from any perspective. USPS has been, and remains, a miserable failure. From poor service, to never reaching a profit. USPS has been so bad, that they even have competition in a market that is supposed to be a federally enforced monopoly.

If anything, the United States Postal Service, is a massive warning that government can't do anything right. What other company has ever increasing revenues, and yet has ever increasing deficits?

Of course, I never said otherwise. Still, it's still tax money being spent for an altruistic purpose, to help people move themselves and their things around for whatever reason they wish, which, using your definition, would be called progressive.

Actually I would still disagree. In fact I would suggest that it's nearly impossible for anything government does, to truly be altruistic.

Generally the public doesn't vote in favor of something, or push any specific view, unless they believe that they themselves will benefit from such a purpose. Many years ago, there was a huge controversy over taxation for the funding of a sport arena in my home town. Without question, those in favor cited either a self desire to go to games there, or that it would benefit them economically by attracting potential customers to the city.

Further, it is completely impossible for a politician to do anything "self-less". A politician never gives of himself to whatever policy he enacts. Instead he gives of others. He takes your money, and gives it out, under the guise of 'altruistic' purposes.

There is nothing "altruistic" about this, but this is what politics is about.

 

[asur]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

CN - you can always tell your story to your friends, and let them know STANFORD
UNIVERSITY supports RACISM!

- go to forums and spread the word.
- It's never OK to discriminate based on color regardless.

Remember the white lacrosse players unjustly accused at Duke?

Ivy Duke judged those white boys based on their skin color, nothing more.

It's not a good thing to be a white boy in the US colleges today!

 

[Bob the Builder]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

CN - you can always tell your story to your friends, and let them know STANFORD
UNIVERSITY supports RACISM!

- go to forums and spread the word.
- It's never OK to discriminate based on color regardless.

Remember the white lacrosse players unjustly accused at Duke?

Ivy Duke judged those white boys based on their skin color, nothing more.

It's not a good thing to be a white boy in the US colleges today!

Just accuse the minorities of RACISM! Any time they try to accuse you of "racism", throw it right back in their face and accuse THEM of being racists!

 

[CNHander]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

That's impossible... Your views fit into one or more categories of philosophy/ideology.

None of the ideologies I know about I fit into well at all, except for Third Way, but I disagree with some of that as well. Either way this is completely irrelevant to whether affirmative action is a good policy or not, and I'm happy you agree with me that it's not a good idea.

Either you're a altruist or you're not. If you think concerning yourself with the needs of others is a moral obligation or social duty, then you are an altruist. If you concern yourself with the needs of others but feel no obligation to do so, then you're not.

I just consider the needs of others to be somewhere on my priorities list, definitely not at the top, but not at the bottom either. Sometimes there seems to be an obligation if it requires no great exertion (ex. holding the elevator door open), but often there is not.

I consider myself an independent, although I generally lean more to the left than to the right. Important exceptions include the economy and the free market, generally, and cultural issues.
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal?

Not quite, some liberal economic policies I support (not welfare though), and some conservative cultural policies I support (equality of opportunity; not affirmative action).

I definitely do not support socialism; the free market is nearly always better.
Nearly? When is Socialism better?

Socialism as such is rarely (if ever) better, but the free market is not always the best. For instance, many argue that there exists a "medical industrial complex" which is primarily responsible for the skyrocketing costs of health care, by encouraging physicians to prescribe unneeded or too expensive new drugs, by infiltrating the classroom and encouraging professors to teach sympathetic to corporate interests, by influencing doctors to recommend very expensive surgery which is sometimes unnecessary and often only temporarily effective, and so on. Perhaps those who argue that have a point.

But it was created on a premise of altruism, "the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest," which, by your own definition, would be progressive.
Altruism was just one part of the definition I offered. 99% of people who are religious are altruists, but they are not all progressives. Its a fallacy of sampling to reach the conclusion you did.

Well, your original definition was only a list of three words, not even a sentence, so understanding exactly how you meant those three words was a little difficult.

You can't just pick and choose what you want your definition to apply to.

But the actual ending of slavery also had some altruistic intentions to it, wouldn't you think? People weren't THAT callous back then.
Had the emancipation proclomation hurt the north more so than the south in the midst of the civil war, do you really think Lincoln would have passed it? Any good intentions were strictly a side benefit that would have been trumped if the act stood to hurt the north in its time of civil war.

Well, if you want to define the ending of slavery as non-progressive, suit yourself.... although if you do that I'm not sure how many people will take you seriously.

 

[CNHander]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

You can't dispute the fact that because of affirmative action there are hundreds of thousands of highly trained and now extremely qualified Blacks in highly professional positions then their would have been without it.

AA has not been all that widespread; "hundreds of thousands" I'm sure is an overestimate of whatever the true number is.

The hurt you feel by being turned down at Stanford is not nearly as big in comparison to the overall good affirmative action has done.

I would not make that comparison; that's comparing MY disadvantage to thousands of other people's advantages, which is of course not an accurate portrayal. The "hurt" I feel is insignificant and meaningless to the higher issue of whether AA is a just policy or not.

But if affirmative action does indeed play a part in the decision to accept them to a college (pushes them over the edge to acceptance), that would mean that he/she is less academically qualified than the school would accept otherwise, which makes it much more likely that he/she would not be able to keep up, and makes it much more likely that he/she would drop out and not be able to fully take advantage of the education available (whereas a more qualified student would be more likely to). Again, this is treating the symptom instead of the disease itself, and is too temporary, for the injustice inflicted on others.

I don't believe (and as smart as you are I don't think you truly believe) that this is the case.

I most certainly do believe this is the case, although you are free to persuade me otherwise. It seems completely logical to me. Instead of saying "I don't believe you believe this" it would be much more helpful if you said "This is wrong because this particular premise is incorrect." Then we could get some productive discussion!

All these candidates Black or White are qualified to attend college.

But college is very demanding (so it seems, for most people), and especially at the higher colleges, the minimum educational standard is quite high. Those that do not meet the minimum educational standard do not get admitted because they would likely not do well at all. However, if the applicant happens to be black, they may be admitted anyway if the school practices AA.

You can't simply send a mediocre to average high school student to a top, demanding school, and expect him or her to do well.

You know, the national graduation rate is only around 42% for African-Americans.

You make it sound like here we have the White guy with a great SAT score, captain of the football team and and a humanitarian charity volunteer... and over here we have Snoop Dog with a terrible SAT score, bad high school attendance record and a few misdemeanor arrests.

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said it was like that. All that matters is that I was somewhat more qualified than my friend and yet he was accepted while I was rejected.

They may not be at the very tip top of applicants as you may be... but Stanford is not letting in Snoop Dog and you know it.

I'm not quite the tip top of applicants. I could definitely have done more. Of course Stanford would not be letting in a Snoop Dog, but it would be reasonably plausable for them to admit an above-average student with an extracurricular activity, like my friend, in light of them practicing affirmative action.

And you did hear me say I think that the time is fast approaching where affirmative action will be phased out, correct?

Yes, and I disagreed on your premises, which seemed to be that equality was quickly normalizing. It isn't. It's going, but it will take much more time.

Your position is that it was never helpful or just... and that is simply not true my friend.

While I did say that the policy as a whole was not just, I never said that it was never just or helpful, because it is. Maybe 10 more motivated African-Americans got into Stanford than before, and maybe 10 idiot white jocks with trumped-up resumes were rejected as a result of AA. AA has also, to a limited extent, slightly reduced the racial wealth gap. But not by much. But the benefits are vastly outweighed by the costs.

On the Jews: There were GREAT efforts made at retrieving stashed Nazi money, property rights and other things of great value and returning it to the Jews.

Of course, but the wrongs of the Holocaust can't actually be put straight; when people die, you can't really fix that. (Yet.) Same kind of thing for slavery. We can't help the original slaves regain their rightful assets and dignity; what we CAN do is to help their decendants and treat what has resulted from slavery and discrimination, and improve their educational potential.

And let's face it if your "solution" was used Whites would still call it preferential treatment and be against it just as much as now. It would just be on the next level down.

Of course some whites would call it preferential treatment, because it would be. But at least in this case (whichever one you're referring to) it would be justified, and no one would really have to suffer for the recipient to get the benefit. Yes, Stormfront would probably call foul anyway. But that's inevitable. But it's better to treat the cause, and further equality of opportunity, than to treat the symptom, and to further equality of outcome.

You simply can't help right a wrong committed specifically against a particular race and not at some point provide extra help to that race more than the others.

Which is why I suggested things like the peer mentor organization. Due to no fault of their own, African-Americans on average have lesser academic credentials than others. We need to fix that.

Well this whole post is in regard to your contention that affirmative action put an unfair "terrible burden" on YOU... and you are complaining about it.

I never, ever said it was a "terrible burden," nor am I protesting about it very personally. My own experience is close to irrelevant; however, the policy remains unjust.

Furthermore the fact simply is that affirmative action has helped greatly to enroll and graduate hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of qualified Black professionals.

Were it not for the fact that
(1) those who were only admitted as a result of affirmative action were less qualified than others
(meaning they would be less likely to learn as well and to graduate)
(2) affirmative action is quite uncommon, and systematic forms of it in public schools have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court
(3) even if it did help "millions" of blacks, it must have also prevented "millions" of whites from being admitted and getting the job

You're a good young man that will go far if you keep looking forward and not let yourself get caught up in the blame game.

Don't "play the blame game?" Well, then, I guess I'll never be able to be involved with politics at all. Bush could have said "Yes, Iraq was invaded, but let's not play the blame game," for instance. Assigning blame and coming up with solutions is one of the integral components of politics and political forums. If I see a significant injustice, I will declare it unjust, even if the defenders of the injustice would prefer me not to point it out. If everytime something unfortunate happened in the political sphere and the citizens were told "Don't blame anyone, just keep going on with your daily lives, don't worry about it, don't dwell in the past," and the citizens obeyed, our nation would be in much, much worse shape.

Pointing out injustices is the first step to correcting injustices. Do not discourage me from that.


You seem to disagree with my assertion that AA treats the effect (fewer acceptances to jobs and such) rather than the root cause (lower educational potential at beginning of life), but you've never said why...

 

[CNHander]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not. You lean more to the left, except for the economy, free-market, and cultural issues? So if you are right leaning on economic issues, and social issues... what does that leave out?

I am only right-leaning on some of them; on most issues I am most sympathetic to the left's view but see defects in the left's proposed solutions, and occasionally the right has better solutions (however inadvertently or accidentally).

This is getting way too off topic. My own political preferences bear no relevance to whether affirmative action is a just policy or now. I'm just going to respond to the on-topic posts.

CN - you can always tell your story to your friends, and let them know STANFORD UNIVERSITY supports RACISM!
- go to forums and spread the word.

It's not a good thing to be a white boy in the US colleges today!

Yeah, um, encouraging things like that, to go around and yell to everyone that a highly respected university is RACIST just like that is what exactly NOT to do. People like you who encourage such things are why people like me are often not taken seriously in a left-leaning discussion, because it is often assumed that someone actively against AA is just another racist loudmouthed Limbaugh and O'Reilly fanboy.

Even if their policies may, strictly speaking, be racist, going around saying that first is not the way to win people over to your cause.

 

[asur]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

CN - you don't have to yell to everyone that a highly respected university is RACIST.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY has been a racist institution for a long time, well before you were born.
- You can speak softly but with facts. But it seems you don't know where you stand yet.

If you try to cry out that you were wronged because you couldn't get into some expensive Ivy league and RACIST school, nobody much cares. You actually have no real loss here, for all your crying. There are plenty of other colleges you can apply to.

Real problems start later in life for a white boy, when you do get a job. Maybe at McDonalds, maybe at Walmart, maybe not right away either, because you will be last in line. You will find that you don't get the raise or promotion that your fellow employees get just because their skin is darker. Don't bother applying for a stimulus job either, because you ain't qualified, your skin is the wrong color. Let me know if you can even find one of those mythical jobs, OK.

Others can slack off and be unproductive and get theirs. Most white people never even object to this, yet they see it. You will learn this over time, because the boy scouts doesn't prepare you for the real world. By the way, the Democratic party has been trying to destroy Boy Scouts for years. For years!

Why would you even mention an organization that the Democratic party hates? If I saw Boy Scouts on a college application and I was a liberal, college admissions person, I would throw it in the garbage and fast. That's what happens usually, so I know you are naive or just playing games.

Being trustworthly and loyal has nothing to do with advancement in many US companies today. It's all about your skin color, race and other factors first.
In the US government they always judge a man by the color of his skin.
This is why many US companies are failing today, by trying to be politically correct, rather than economically smart.

You doubt me? well just watch as the US decays.

 

[top gun]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

AA has not been all that widespread; "hundreds of thousands" I'm sure is an overestimate of whatever the true number is.
I would not make that comparison; that's comparing MY disadvantage to thousands of other people's advantages, which is of course not an accurate portrayal. The "hurt" I feel is insignificant and meaningless to the higher issue of whether AA is a just policy or not.

Well it's either not that big a deal or it is... pick one. The fact is over all the years of affirmative action there's been a great number of people that as a specific race that were intentionally held back my another specific race that were given an opportunity to go to college, work hard to get the grades & stay in school hence bringing up not only them but their entire families way of life... and that my friend is a very fair and just thing indeed.

You can't simply send a mediocre to average high school student to a top, demanding school, and expect him or her to do well.

And trust me that's not what's happening at Stanford... and you know it.

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said it was like that. All that matters is that I was somewhat more qualified than my friend and yet he was accepted while I was rejected.

Then there's no great disparity. If he were that close to you and was one lucky enough to get a chance due to affirmative action that's the intended purpose. It's certainly not like just because you're Black you're guaranteed getting into college... come on.

While I did say that the policy as a whole was not just, I never said that it was never just or helpful, because it is. Maybe 10 more motivated African-Americans got into Stanford than before, and maybe 10 idiot white jocks with trumped-up resumes were rejected as a result of AA. AA has also, to a limited extent, slightly reduced the racial wealth gap. But not by much. But the benefits are vastly outweighed by the costs.

You know I never here rich White guys whining how wrong, unfair and racially unjust Legacy Acceptance is... why do you suppose that is? You know when just because you're the White son or daughter of an alumni you get preferential standing. This is a situation where people with THE MOST OPPORTUNITY to be at the top on their own get special privilege even when they are not. And they're mostly White, correct?

Of course, but the wrongs of the Holocaust can't actually be put straight; when people die, you can't really fix that. (Yet.) Same kind of thing for slavery. We can't help the original slaves regain their rightful assets and dignity; what we CAN do is to help their decendants and treat what has resulted from slavery and discrimination, and improve their educational potential.

But at one time there were great attempts TO actually help those directly effected by the Holocaust. Rampant and the racism of purposefully keeping a particular race down continued and that abuse was drawn out for decades. Which made it harder to address. But affirmative action was decided by Whites to be a way to TO help educate Black people.

You must remember that Blacks were not welcome at schools of higher learning. A Black man could've been a freakin' Einstein and he'd still not get in in many circumstances. Affirmative action opened up doors and gave young Black men & women hope that if they worked hard they would get an opportunity to go to college... a very reasonable, fair and just remedy to attempt to bring up a race that was intentionally and wrongly kept down and out.

Of course some whites would call it preferential treatment, because it would be. But at least in this case (whichever one you're referring to) it would be justified, and no one would really have to suffer for the recipient to get the benefit...

Well of course they would! Little White Johnny didn't get the extra help and so he didn't get the grades & scores he needed to even get into college. Simply a White tragedy where another historically oppressed and disadvantaged White child was once again cheated. PLEEEEASE!

All you are really saying is do nothing and trying to make it appear a solution which it is not.

Pointing out injustices is the first step to correcting injustices. Do not discourage me from that.

And that's exactly what Whites did in coming up with affirmative action programs.

You seem to disagree with my assertion that AA treats the effect (fewer acceptances to jobs and such) rather than the root cause (lower educational potential at beginning of life), but you've never said why...

I say that the problem could be addressed in several ways now. But couldn't be addressed in your way back when "separate but equal" was the alloted mind set.

I'll gladly make you this deal. When every intercity school or school in a minority community gets all the exact same overall funding and quality of facilities and teachers that the most wealthy school district in the land gets K-12... that to me would help make the case that all is equal and all admissions should be strictly point by point... Oh, and that Legacy thing... pitch that out too.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

None of the ideologies I know about I fit into well at all, except for Third Way, but I disagree with some of that as well.

Are you by chance a Pragmatist?

I just consider the needs of others to be somewhere on my priorities list, definitely not at the top, but not at the bottom either.

Do you feel a moral obligation or duty to the welfare of others?
If you don't feel its your duty or obligation, then you're not an altruist. If you feel it is, then you are.

For instance, many argue that there exists a "medical industrial complex" which is primarily responsible for the skyrocketing costs of health care...

Government is responsible for the skyrocketing cost of healthcare. Its regulations did away with affordable insurance plans such as catastrophic care and mandated that all insurance be the equivilent of buying a Rolls Royce with full coverage on all operational costs, maintainence and repairs.

Compare your medical insurance to your car insurance, if your car insurance covered everything, gas, belts, hoses, oil changes, tires and all other expenses for operation and maintainence of your vehicle, the cost would be astronomical - This is what government has done with Healthcare insurance.

Additionaly, government refuses to enact tort reform (e.g. loser pays) to protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits, this forces them to order more tests, screenings and drugs than necessary as a way to cover their rears and avoid litigation. Lawsuits also drive up the cost of insurance for doctors to practice medicine and they have to spread out any losses by charging more for their service.

Well, your original definition was only a list of three words, not even a sentence, so understanding exactly how you meant those three words was a little difficult.

My appologies. I was looking at it from the perspective of a logical equation.

Altruism, Collectivism, Statism = Progressive

As a logic equation:

A + C + S = P

You were using the individual parts as though they were equal to the sum of the parts:

A = P , C = P , S = P

That is why I pointed out that it was a logical fallacy to be using my definition as you were.

Well, if you want to define the ending of slavery as non-progressive, suit yourself.... although if you do that I'm not sure how many people will take you seriously.

You seem to be under the common misconception that Progressive = Good and that's simply fallacious. Individual rights (Liberalism) prevailed with the Eman Proc and, if you would take the time to look closely, Progressivism denies individual rights and substitutes collective rights in their place: Affirmative Action is just such an example of Progressivism in practice.

My three word definition for Progressive was too broad and I've come to realise that I left out an integral part of the equation: Paternalism. Progressives built the Welfare State and they want to see it expanded to enth degree. Protecting you from yourself seems more important to them than protecting you from foreign threats.

Despite any shortfalls in my explanation, I did post about the roots of Progressivism and and a link to my thread about Progressives being anti-liberals in order for you to have a better understanding of where I was coming from.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

Here's another.........Old Europe style.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

It's not a good thing to be a white boy in the US colleges today!

Why....you're Gay??

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Re: The just and the unjust ways to address modern racial inequality: affirmative act

Just accuse the minorities of RACISM! Any time they try to accuse you of "racism", throw it right back in their face and accuse THEM of being racists!

WHEW!!!

You wouldn't want to follow-up such a strong-argument with a few NYAH! NYAH!! NYAHs??!!!

​