On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:27:46 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 12:26:22 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 03:27:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

We live in a society. This has obvious benefits, but it also demands
some responsibilities. One of those responsibilites is to make sure
everyone has a reasonable opportunity to succeed and not become a
burden on our society.

No, that is not necessarily true. We have the responsibility as a
society to provide opportunities. But we bare no responsibility to
guarantee success.


I said nothing about a guarantee of success, only the opportunity to
succeed.

No, but by acknowledging that some need the path made easier, you are
in essence promoting a socialistic concept.


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.


Your horse is drinking from the wrong end if you think an
"opportunity" is also a "guarantee".

Opportunity was what one makes by the efforts of their own doing.
Success is capitalizing on that opportunity.


But because there are racist attitudes among
many employers, there are fewer opportunities for people of other
races. It then becomes the responsibility of everyone else to pick up
the slack left by the racists. That's why we have affirmative action.

I think we all understand why AA came to be. The problem is that what
AA does in essence, is to fight discrimination with reverse
discrimination.


Yes it is. The difference is that opportunities are lost when racial
discrimination is based on prejudice; lost opportunities are regained
when discrimination is used to counter the consequences of prejudice.

Wrong. Lost opportunities are not regained, they are simply
transferred to a different group of people who, in most cases, are
more deserving of the opportunity since they worked harder for it.


Is it fair, that someone who is not a part of the recognized minority
(And this is not just blacks. It could be women, latinos, gays, or
anyone who isn't a WASP male), who goes through the right hoops,
studies hard, and works to make his place in society, only to have his
"place" taken from him and given to an arbitrary person of recognized
minority status, who did not work nearly as hard?


I think you switched positions in mid-speech,

No, I don't think so.

but I understood what
you were saying. I lost my job at HP because of AA but I didn't lay
down a die.

But I'd bet you were ****ed. But how does one "lose" a job due to AA?
It isn't legal to lay off one person and hire another for the same
job.

I had a pretty good resume and a fine recommendation. It
wasn't long before I had another job. And it worked out for the best
since the local HP plant turned sour a short time later. I have plenty
of opportunities and I can afford to give up a few for a good cause.

It's not a good cause. It is building a bridge to make a career path
easier for some, while that bridge is built on the backs of more
deserving people, who are usually better qualified.


So don't blame the government and don't blame people "of color". Blame
Canada..... (hehe, just kidding). The problem originates with racist
attitudes which have been around for quite a while and aren't going
away anytime soon.

Minority people share much of the responsibility for their own
situation. Many throw up their hands when things get tough and simply
blame it on the "white folks".


You actually think that kind of projection is exclusive to minorities?

No, it is normally a symptom of people who live on the lower rungs of
the socio-economic scale. The problem is drawn across socio-economic
lines rather than racial ones. The difference is that an unmotivated
poor white guy is told "too bad", while an equally unmotivated poor
black guy is given special treatment under the perception that his
predicament is not of his own doing, but rather the fault of perceived
racial prejudice.


Look in the mirror, Dave -- in many of your posts over the years you
have clearly stated that you don't want to share the responsibilities
of society, so you blame all the country's problems on the liberals.
That's prejudice, Dave.

No that's called personal responsibility. I am responsible for MY
contribution to society, no one else's. I don't want the government's
help or hinderance in my pursuit of wealth and happiness. I don't
believe that anyone should have it. You make your own life. If people
are faced with a "do or die" scenario, there would be many less
underachievers by necessity. And illegal immigrants would not be
flocking here in as many droves if there were less "welfare" programs
that pay them to do it.


While racism is still alive and well in
many places, it's a shadow of what it was 50 years ago.

It's just hiding in the shadows.

No, it's really not as bad. I've seen a marked decline in the last 20
years. I used to hear people make racially insensitive comments all
the time back then. I hardly hear it now. It also offends me more now.

And in the airports since the Patriot
Act went into effect. Racial profiling, despite Bush's excuse that it
weeds out terrorists, is nothing more than racial discrimination based
upon prejudice.

No, it is profiling based on statistical probability. How many
terrorist acts have been carried out by 60 year old blonde females?

BTW, ever hear of Mark Fuhrman? He lives in Idaho right across the
state line from here, and just a few miles from where Richard Butler
had his neo-Nazi compound which drew support from anonymous people all
across the nation. But I suppose you're right, racism is pretty much
dead, huh?

Oooohhh You found one example, so that must mean that racism is
rampant through typical communities.

Yes, there are skin-head groups that preach white pride and make
racially insensitive rhetoric. But they are a fringe and a minority
group themselves.



By cooperating with Affirmative Action you are
shouldering the responsibilities that are shirked by racist employers,
and for that you should be commended -- after all, nobody is forcing
you to do business with Issaquah, are they?

I'd be curious as to some of the claims of racism. How many people of
recognized minority status who claim "racism" or discrimination, are
simply playing that card as a cover for simply being inferior to
another potential job candidate?

I'd be curious to know how many people use that argument to justify
their racism?

I'd bet it was far fewer than those who try to use it to their
advantage.

There's a difference between racism- the hatred of another race for
nothing more than superficial attributes, and the dislike of policies
which either extend or deny privileges to any one or few groups of
people over others.

Then you have to consider that the more we make laws and policies that
highlight and call attention to our differences, the more they will
remain? The answer to true equality in not to emphasize our
differences, but to eliminate them.


Just one "master race", huh Dave?

No, a homogeneous blending of all the races. A melting pot if you
will. That's what America had been for many years.

Dave
"Sandbagger"