Affirmative Action Explained

[bloodyminded]

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

No, it was presented by another poster, in this thread, after you became involved in it...so it's not my fault that you didn't see it. Scroll to #129.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17721&st=120

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

As for "better parenting," how much parenting can a single parent working two jobs to make ends meet actually, in reality, do?

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.

[bloodyminded]

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.

Nice. You caricature single mothers...and then deride your own caricature.

[Saipan]

No as the same would be true if it was male or female or many other factors.

Yes, racist and sexist.

[Scotty]

Your missing a few factors here, Joe and Jim's performance are essentially identical, and there are by far more white people in that field.

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.

[Saipan]

Nice. You caricature single mothers...and then deride your own caricature.

Why do divorce courts discriminate agaist fathers?

[Scotty]

But the main point--avoided again and again in this "debate"--is that most people with little or no money are not welfare recipients....despite the top-down class warfare myths being continually perpetrated. This discussion, remember, has in no way been about welfare recipients...it's been about people who have very little financial resources, period.

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.

[bloodyminded]

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.

It appears to be the point you wish to discuss too--since you discussed it.

????

(Is this the clumsiest sidestep of this thread, or are others up for consideration?)

[Scotty]

The one who knows what they are doing. What you gave me isn't enough information, I don't know how fit they are or their skill sets. Anne could easily do better than all of them if she knows what she is doing.

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.

FYI the hoses aren't that heavy, you don't bash down doors in case of back drafts, and you certainly don't carry injured people out of a burning building. I may not know which one of them I would pick but I certainly wouldn't pick you.

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.

[bloodyminded]

Why do divorce courts discriminate agaist fathers?

There might be some legitimacy to this complaint (my personal experience cannot tell me, since my divorce was amicable, and custody shared).

But it does nothing whatsoever for your arguments about affirmative action, nor for your notion of the innate superiority of the rich and weak character and inferiority of the poor.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

No, it was presented by another poster, in this thread, after you became involved in it...so it's not my fault that you didn't see it. Scroll to #129.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=17721&st=120

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?

[Scotty]

Nice. You caricature single mothers...and then deride your own caricature.

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

[Scotty]

It appears to be the point you wish to discuss too--since you discussed it.

????

(Is this the clumsiest sidestep of this thread, or are others up for consideration?)

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.

[bloodyminded]

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?

That's a different matter, and is the one being debated here.

And the evidence presented was that white males are also the recipients of affirmative action programs...a fact frequently denied, out of some impression, or Faith, evidently.

Edited January 1, 2011 by bloodyminded

[charter.rights]

FYI the hoses aren't that heavy, you don't bash down doors in case of back drafts, and you certainly don't carry injured people out of a burning building. I may not know which one of them I would pick but I certainly wouldn't pick you.

Another thing you have no clue about.

A high rise kit consists of 2 50 ft rolls of hose and a nozzle, an axe and pry bar and wears about 75 pounds. That would be on top of an SCBA, and bunker suit that adds an additional 50 pounds on to the firefighter.

Injured people MUST be carried out of the building. They can't walk out on their own and there is no waiting for a gurney or a stokes to carry them out. The firefighter must be fit and strong enough to carry your partner - who could weigh as much as 300 pounds with gear - out of the building in case one of you go down. And a firefighter must be capable of doing this while wearing a SCBA and under physically exhausting conditions.

At the station I was posted we had women and minorities but all of them were capable of handling the same tasks as any other firefighter in my crew and I would trust any one of them with my life.

Edited January 1, 2011 by charter.rights

[Scotty]

That's a different matter, and is the one being debated here.

And the evidence presented was that white males are also the recipients of affirmative action programs...a fact frequently denied, out of some impression, or Faith, evidently.

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.

[bloodyminded]

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

Please. Unfortunately for your arguments, I'm not illiterate.

You were not "deriding that point": that generalities contain exceptions. (This is what your sentence here claims; unless it's an even more confused assertion about the previous clause, in which you were "not deriding" that you were "generalizing on the origins of single mothers." At any rate, since you're clearly not stupid, I can imagine this only as some sort of grammatical moebius strip of intentional obfuscation.)

And your post was not about the "exceptions"; the "exceptions" are what you consider irrelevant, since they "prove the rule."

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

Yes. Decidedly and incontrovertibly including yourself.

Jeesh. An uncontroversial, undebatable truism, immediately demonstrable.

Why are you holding others to higher standards than you hold yourself?

[Guest TrueMetis]

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.

Exactly not enough information. This may be surprising to you but I want all the information I can get before I make a decision. Cause the 6'5 250 pound guy might just be fat.

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.

When did he retire because they haven't carried victims for years, modern hoses are a lot lighter than past hoses, and back drafts are hard to notice so you don't want to go cutting into doors even if there isn't any sign a back draft may happen.

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.

My mother was married for over 20 years where does she fit in your little caricature?

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.

No that's just what you see not what actually happens.

[bloodyminded]

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.

Already presented. Note I'm not claiming "proof," but evidence, of a four-year study undertaken by The Washington State Commission on African-American Affairs.

Again, it's not proof...but it's somewhat better than the evidence you've offered...which is none.

Well, aside from a video-game analogy, which I don't think quite passes muster.

[Saipan]

There might be some legitimacy to this complaint (my personal experience cannot tell me, since my divorce was amicable, and custody shared).

But it does nothing whatsoever for your arguments about affirmative action, nor for your notion of the innate superiority of the rich and weak character and inferiority of the poor.

It does exactly that. Racist and sexist.

[bloodyminded]

It does exactly that. Racist and sexist.

Divorce laws are not related--are divorced, you might say--from affirmative action programs.

Surely you understand this?

[Michael Hardner]

There was a discussion of affirmative action on this board this year, wherein an offhand comment from a guidance counsellor to a male student interested in applying for police work.

"Don't even bother applying unless you're a woman or a minority."

What did it mean though ? That they don't hire white males any more ?

We looked into it & discussed ... It turned out that some spaces (can't remember if it was school spaces or jobs) were set aside to meet a quota, but it was a small number. The majority of positions went to white males, but the competition for those jobs (higher salary, union positions of course) was very strong. There wasn't as much competition for quota positions - hence the counsellor's comment.

Now - were we to eliminate the quota spaces, the labour pool would move police services to (arguably) very few women and minority police, with white males getting only a marginally better chance of getting a spot.

An example - blueline.ca says that there can be 100 applicants for 1 position. Let's look at the math for 100 spots, 20 quota/80 non-quota. If 8000 white males apply, eliminating the quota system increases their chances from 1% to 1.25 %.

[Saipan]

Divorce laws are not related--are divorced, you might say--from affirmative action programs.

Surely you understand this?

It's racist and sexist no matter what the excuse and "explanations".

[TimG]

If you were actually correct, instead of relying on reactionary ideologues for your opinions, yu would be able to trot out a a parade of such injustices.

There are many cases of standards being watered down because not enough politically correct minorities are not able to meet them. Here is a reference to more formal academic studies:

Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an "other things equal basis," where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/07/how_diversity_punishes_asians.html

The problem with affimative action is uses one trait to determine whether someone is disdvantaged: their self delcared ethnic identity (self-declared because many hispanics and aboriginals look "white"). This is racism. If affimative action was really about assisting economically disadvantaged groups it would focus on the applicants economic background instead of purported race (i.e. poor whites would be given more consideration than rich blacks).

[TimG]

An example - blueline.ca says that there can be 100 applicants for 1 position. Let's look at the math for 100 spots, 20 quota/80 non-quota. If 8000 white males apply, eliminating the quota system increases their chances from 1% to 1.25 %.

In other words, standards are reduced in order to meet affimative action quotas.

To be fair - police work is one of the few job categories where ethnic background is a legitimate job qualification.