Scotty

Do you believe there is no common sense of morality in the world, no generally understood concept of what is right and just?

I don't believe any such evidence has been presented, merely opinions similar to the ones you deride... However, I look forward, with anticipation, to your presenting such evidence.

I don't think the UAE even acted in the UAEs best interests. I think they acted out of spite, because the UAE does not actually have a government so much as a ruling family, and one of them got his nose out of joint. I think their spiteful response was silly, childish and crude, and not the way civilized nations behave. It might be the way politics is played among banana republics with self-styled dictators for life and bombastic leaders with small-man syndrome, but it isn't the way civilized nations act.

I was clearly asking about the morality of doing something simply because you are able to do it.

Forgive me. I thought you claimed to have read the thread... I realize that several people have, for whatever reason, veered off into talking about parental income and how this influences childrens economic success but I fail to see how that in any way impacts affirmative action programs.

I am generalizing on the origins of single mothers. But my acknowledging that generalities contain exceptions is not 'deriding' that point.

I acknowledge that evidence was presented that there are visible minority people in Canada who are members of various racial groups. I don't think anyone here is actually denying that. But what about the evidence which supports the need for and value of affirmative action?

I see that as an avoidance of the obvious answer. There is no reason to believe any of them is more knowledgeable or experienced than any other based on the information I gave you. There is no reason to believe all won't be sufficiently trained at the various police training academies. My uncle was a fireman. He used to entertain us with the stories about the immensey heavy hoses that had to be shifted and carried up flight after flight of stairs, about the people you had to carry out and the doors you had to break down. I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm afraid you know little or nothing about firefighting.

Well, that may be the point you prefer to discuss. But in actual fact this discussion has been about affirmative action programs designed to aid in the hiring and promotion of lesser qualified people based on their skin colour and gender. Canada has no affirmative action programs based on poverty. So I'm not at all sure why that even crept into the discussion.

That's not missing. In a meritocracy, which those arguing in support of affirmative action oppose, whichever one was the better person would get the job. Under Affirmative Action, Joe gets the job even if Jim is better. We've see this routinely in Affirmative Action programs. In fact, because of the obvious injustices involved what deapartments and agencies have been tending to do now is to establish a qualified pool which is completely unrated. That is, if you got 51% on the test, you're in the pool, along with the people who got 99%. And all are considered "equally qualified". This allows the selecton of visible minority and female candidates who finished with very low marks to be selected instead of those who finished with very high marks. And since the actual marks themselves aren't published it makes it more difficult for people to decry the injustice. But that, of course, is simply a clever PR move and doesn't do anything to eliminate the stigma attached to those who were leapfrogged ahead based on the color of their skin.

In my experience, single parents (you mean mothers) workign two jobs to make ends meet (I have never actually met one of these mythical creatures though I'm sure they exist) would generally come from a spectrum of the population which did not get good parenting themselves. That is to say, their own parent(s) failed to impart much in the way of instructions on life. And btw, the likelihood a single mother had a single parent (mother) is quite high. Quite simply, if young women had the intelligence to use birth control properly, and selected their mates for reasons slightly more sophisticated than how "hot" they are, there wouldn't be very many single mothers. I don't believe you can say single mothers are anything other than victims of their own poor life choices and stupidity. There are exceptions, of course. There are exceptions to everything, but that doesn't disprove the rule.

Excuse me but this 'evidence' you speak of having been presented; Does it not consist entirely of personal opinions you happen to agree with?

Really? Let's say you're playing a video game. Your challenge is to break up a bar fight. Which do of the toons below do you wish to take in? Bill. 6"5, 250lbs Anne. 5.1, 134lbs Fred. 6'4" 220lbs Cho. 5'3" 148lbs Second task. A building is on fire. Heavy hoses need to be dragged. Doors need to be bashed down. People need to be carried out. Again, which of those above do you take in?

You forgot how they discriminate against women. In fact, the NBA is much like local police and fire departments which used to hire big, tall, brawny men and now have a marked preference for small, skinny Asian women.

Unless those differences favour a non-white or non-male group. None of those so earnestly devoted to affirmative action have ever been troubled that the vast majority of nurses are women, for example.

And if that discrimination is actually only imaginary? For example, I don't believe there is any discrimination in government or large institutional hiring. Yet they invariably have affirmative action programs in place. So it isn't like a balancing act meant to counter discrimination. It's institutionalized racism. It's racism that some people find acceptable simply because they agree with the reasons for the racial hiring.

Why do you think that? Do you believe there are no physical or cultural differences between men and women, that they have no different wants, desires, aspirations, and dreams? Why is it NOT problematic that there are now almost NO male teachers in the lower grades, and that those in the upper grades are fast disappearing, yet it IS problematic that male construction workers outnumber female steelworkers? Why are there programs in place to try to recruit more females into the trades but few show any real concern about the fact males are disappearing from the education system?

Maybe you haven't met enough characters. I once had a job which had me dealing with welfar recipients on a regular basis. As I got to know them, I found it difficult to believe most of them would ever succeed at anything. They lacked motivation/drive, and had a strange acceptance of things which led to them simply not fighting. Check the newspaper want ads? What's the point? There'll be nothing there for me. And even if there was they wouldn't hire me. And even if they did I'd hate it. Those who did have drive/motivation usually weren't on welfare for long.

I hire Jim instead of Joe because Jim is White and I give preference to White people, and that's racist. Okay. But if I'm a government manager and I hire Joe instead of Jim because Joe is Black and I give preference to Blacks that's NOT racist? Please explain the logic.

Well there are a variety of definitions, but I'm willing to bet if I told you I hired Jim instead of Joe because Jim was a White man and I give preference to White men when I hire people, almost everyone would call that racism.

They didn't change status. They are unwelcome. The UAE imposes visas with their high fees in order to stop people from travelling to their fabulously wealthy little strip of desert in search of jobs. If it didn't have them then the place would soon be overrun with Palestinians and Yemenis and Egyptians etc. etc. The visas cost so much so that their fellow Arabs and the people from poorer nations can't afford them.

By saying "they had every right" you imply a level of support for their actions. Is that correct? Does anyone who has "every right" to do something meet with similar approval? For example, if I discover a technical trick of the law which allows me to evict a family from the home they bought, take it over, and sell it, do I "have every right" to do so? If the United States wishes to blackmail a poor, third world country by threatening to halt its imports into the United States and block assistance to it from the IMF in order to achieve some minor political end, does it have "every right" to do so? I'm trying to figure out what you're getting at with this statement because it sound suspiciously like "if you feel its in your interests, then do it, and don't worry about morality, ethics or anything else". And I'm sure that's not what position you would actually support.

From what I've read the UAE was negotiating for dozens of landing slots across the country. Clear something up for me, Waldo. You have taken the unequvical position that the Conservatives were wrong here. Yet you don't appear to have any knowledge of what the discussions entailed, the personalities involved, or the cost benefit analyeses or principles the government would certainly have engaged in. Therefore you can't really have any idea whether the UAEs decision was justified or not. Isn't your position based entirely on your dislike of the Conservatives, and not at all on the actual facts of the matter?

It makes a big difference in life. In the first place, the upper middle class parents I know are very careful about their children's education. They will pick up and move house to be in a neighborhood which has good schools, for example. This is not something generally available to poorer parents, who live in lower class areas, and whose schools are generally not as good because they're overrun with refugees and immigrants and problem children from welfare areas with absentee parents. In addition, of course, one of the major benefits of being reasonably well-off is the connections it brings. Upper middle class - never mind rich - parents have friends in a position to influence hiring. Their children are more likely to get preferential treatment. I've benefited from this myself in the past and so have others I know of. Really poor parents tend to know really poor people, and are less likely to be able to get their kids that all important entry job. Now there are no guarantees. I know of one bright young fellow from a good house who was placed on the road to success by his father's influence. He was lazy and muffed it and got fired. His father found him another job at a good wage with the company he works for. He muffed that too. Was lazy, kept sleeping in, missing work, and got fired again. He's now on unemployment, living in a ratty room with his buddy, drinking and lazing around. So no, there aren't any guarantees. But the poorer you are the more obstacles you face. You 'can' go to university, but it's harder. You need to apply for financing, and face huge loan repayments. You often need to find part time jobs to help support yourself. Rich children have no such worries and can simply focus on their education.

When you can demonstrate that two people with exactly equal intelligence, creatitivity, drive, work ethic, skills and education are likely to wind up with disparate fortunes if one is a different color, you'll have a case for affirmative action. So far I haven't seen any such evidence. The fact rich people have it better is a non sequitor and irrelevent to the discussion. Affirmative action is not designed to nor does it counter or affect the boost rich children get in life.