Affirmative action: what do you think of it?

[Michael Hardner]

Who is advocating separating the races or cultures?

The poster that I was responding to seems to expect groups to solve their own problems, and not for society at large to do so. He refers to something like "their problems" and "our problems" or somesuch.

it's a simple mathematical identity. Is it that hard to type? Your username has more characters and takes longer to type.

You have to find the... ^ symbol. (That took me 6 seconds to find.) I could cut/paste it but I would likely accidentally click the link and lose my post.

Races are different, religions are different, cultures are different. If they were not different how could we recognize them? What is your point?

Gee. I guess you'll have to click back to find my point. I asked you a question which you either dropped or dodged, based on my original question as to why treating people differently based on their religion is ok, and treating people differently based on their race is not.

I really try to answer your questions, and I'm getting impatient with you not being responsive to mine - it's not a fair debate tactic.

I cannot understand how one could 'treat' races, except maybe in the context in an academic study about DNA sequencing and the past migrations of humans.

A policy of affirmative action vs a policy of treating people of certain religions with preference in immigration perhaps ?

[-1=e^ipi]

The poster that I was responding to seems to expect groups to solve their own problems, and not for society at large to do so. He refers to something like "their problems" and "our problems" or somesuch.

By society, do you mean government?

You have to find the... ^ symbol. (That took me 6 seconds to find.) I could cut/paste it but I would likely accidentally click the link and lose my post.

Haven't you used the qwerty keyboard for years? Can't you just press shift+6?

Gee. I guess you'll have to click back to find my point. I asked you a question which you either dropped or dodged, based on my original question as to why treating people differently based on their religion is ok, and treating people differently based on their race is not.

By treating people differently based on religion, what are we talking about? You have to be more clear.

Are we talking about something similar to what the Nazis did where the law was different for Jewish people?

Are we talking about some sort of government funded preferential hiring system that favors people from some religions over others?

Are we talking about individuals in society being bigoted towards people from other religions?

Are we talking about taking a person's religion into account when hiring someone for a job (such as not hiring a muslim for the job of a priest, not hiring an atheist for the job of an imam or not hiring a creationist for the job of an evolutionary biologist)?

I really try to answer your questions, and I'm getting impatient with you not being responsive to mine - it's not a fair debate tactic.

It's not a debate tactic. I'm trying to answer your questions, but to answer your questions you have to be very clear in your meaning. I do not want to be accused on misinterpreting your questions.

A policy of affirmative action vs a policy of treating people of certain religions with preference in immigration perhaps ?

Finally, something more specific and clear that I can answer. I have already given the reasons for my opposition to affirmative action earlier in this thread, so I will answer the second part of your question.

With respect to having preferential immigration policies that favor people from some religions over others, I have not advocated that (primarily because it is unfeasible. It is very difficult for the state to define what is a religion or what isn't, and for the state to deal with people who lie about their religion). What I have advocated is to give preferences of immigrants from some countries over others based on a variety of factors (such as human capital quality and culture).

Feasibility aside, morally I have no issue with immigration policies that favor people based on their religious beliefs. I would prefer that our country have as few people who believe in ridiculous fairy tales as possible and an increase in some religious beliefs such as Wahhabi Islam will increase the risk of home grown islamic terrorism. Furthermore, no one is born with a religion (unlike race). People are free to choose their religion, so I do not think it is comparable to race.

[dre]

Please explain how slavery is responsible for the troubles of the Somalian community in Canada, their high rate of incarcertaion, for example.

Its because theyre libertarians!

[Michael Hardner]

By society, do you mean government?

No.

Haven't you used the qwerty keyboard for years? Can't you just press shift+6?

I don't use that hat thing very much. Why is it even there ?

It's not a debate tactic. I'm trying to answer your questions, but to answer your questions you have to be very clear in your meaning. I do not want to be accused on misinterpreting your questions.

They have to be clear, or you just ignore them and drop the question ?

Feasibility aside, morally I have no issue with immigration policies that favor people based on their religious beliefs. ... Furthermore, no one is born with a religion (unlike race). People are free to choose their religion, so I do not think it is comparable to race.

Basically you're saying that religious discrimination is morally acceptable, in theory, and racial discrimination is not.

Theoretically, then, discrimination against Jews would not cause you a moral problem then ?

[Michael Hardner]

This just occurred to me: Presumably this means that the problems that racial groups experience are problems they're born with ?

[-1=e^ipi]

Michael, you didn't respond to a large portion of my post. So I shall repeat it.

By treating people differently based on religion, what are we talking about? You have to be more clear.

Are we talking about something similar to what the Nazis did where the law was different for Jewish people?

Are we talking about some sort of government funded preferential hiring system that favors people from some religions over others?

Are we talking about individuals in society being bigoted towards people from other religions?

Are we talking about taking a person's religion into account when hiring someone for a job (such as not hiring a muslim for the job of a priest, not hiring an atheist for the job of an imam or not hiring a creationist for the job of an evolutionary biologist)?

I don't use that hat thing very much. Why is it even there ?

The 'hat thing' is there cause people use it. Same with the other symbols on the keyboard. I use the 'hat thing' all the time to express the exponential function.

They have to be clear, or you just ignore them and drop the question ?

I don't ignore the question. I ask you to clarify the meaning of your question so that I can answer it.

Basically you're saying that religious discrimination is morally acceptable, in theory, and racial discrimination is not.

No, you are mis-reading what I say. This is why I ask for clarification, so I do not misunderstand what you say.

I said that I would have no moral objection to immigration policies that favour people based on their religion. How do you think that means I find all religious discrimination as morally acceptable?

Theoretically, then, discrimination against Jews would not cause you a moral problem then ?

It depends on the circumstances. Suppose that a jewish person was not hired for a job because of their religion. This is discrimination, correct? Is it morally justified? It depends on the job. If the job were an accountant, a marketing position or an actor then the discrimination would be immoral. However, if the job were a priest, an imam or an evolutionary biologist then the discrimination is justified.

Actually, come to think of it, I can think of one case where racial discrimination can be justified for a job and that would be for acting. For example, you might want to hire someone to play the role of a black person in a movie. Obviously you would discriminate against non-black people when looking for an actor (though you might still hire someone of another race if they agree to wear makeup).

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, you didn't respond to a large portion of my post. So I shall repeat it.

I gave my example at the end of the post, to which you responded. That was the one I was wondering about.

No, you are mis-reading what I say. This is why I ask for clarification, so I do not misunderstand what you say.

No, you pretty much say above you have no problem with religious discrimination on principle.

I said that I would have no moral objection to immigration policies that favour people based on their religion. How do you think that means I find all religious discrimination as morally acceptable?

It doesn't matter what you think about all forms of religious discrimination. On principle, you have no moral problem with it - that's the point.

Suppose that a jewish person was not hired for a job because of their religion. This is discrimination, correct? Is it morally justified? It depends on the job. If the job were an accountant, a marketing position or an actor then the discrimination would be immoral. However, if the job were a priest, an imam or an evolutionary biologist then the discrimination is justified.

If a Jewish person wasn't allowed into Canada because we felt that we had ample evidence to keep 'that kind' out of Canada, then it would be justified, it seems to me, according to your criteria.

Of course, you'll come back and say that there's no such evidence but it doesn't matter - you have already declared your 'morality' on the topic.

[-1=e^ipi]

No, you pretty much say above you have no problem with religious discrimination on principle.

Never said that. Strawman argument.

It doesn't matter what you think about all forms of religious discrimination. On principle, you have no moral problem with it - that's the point.

Again strawman argument. It depends on what kind of religious discrimination.

Answer the following question (please do not avoid it). Do you think it is acceptable to not hire a jewish person for the position of an imam because they are jewish? Because I expect you would have no problem with this, which means that you find some forms of religious discrimination acceptable.

If a Jewish person wasn't allowed into Canada because we felt that we had ample evidence to keep 'that kind' out of Canada, then it would be justified, it seems to me, according to your criteria.

I never said that either (again strawman). Religion is one of many factors that could influence if someone should or shouldn't come to Canada, and as I said earlier, making decisions based on one's religion is not feasible. Furthermore, you seem to be confusing the concept of 'is justified' with the concept of 'is not morally wrong'.

[Michael Hardner]

Never said that. Strawman argument.

Well you are in favour of religious discrimination - right ?

If you in favour of any one case, then the principle is there - especially if you follow what you've been saying about racism.

Answer the following question (please do not avoid it).

You're doing an annoying tit-for-tat thing. Because I caught you avoiding my questions, you're now falling into that childhood game called "I know you are but what am I ?"

Do you think it is acceptable to not hire a jewish person for the position of an imam because they are jewish? Because I expect you would have no problem with this, which means that you find some forms of religious discrimination acceptable.

No, but I don't think that having a social system based on race is racist either. You do.

Why is what's good for the racist goose not good for the religiously discriminating gander, hm ?

I never said that either (again strawman). Religion is one of many factors ...

Right - keeping Muslims out of Canada was your idea in that discussion as I recall.

Why don't you wear the garment you have sewn, I wonder...

[-1=e^ipi]

Well you are in favour of religious discrimination - right ?

I am in favour of some types of religious discrimination and not in favour of other types. And unless you think that churches cannot favour christians over non-christians when hiring a priest, mosques cannot favour muslims over non-muslims when hiring an imam and synagogues cannot favour jews over non-jews when hiring a rabbi then you are in favour of religious discrimination in some cases as well.

If you in favour of any one case, then the principle is there - especially if you follow what you've been saying about racism.

I'm confused by this statement. What have I been saying about racism and what is 'the principle'?

No, but I don't think that having a social system based on race is racist either. You do.

So you are in favour of religious discrimination in some circumstances. Then why are you criticizing me for doing the same thing?

Also, with your continued denial that a system that discriminates by race is racist, I might as well be arguing with a flat earther. You clearly do not understand what racist means (which doesn't suprise me as many that do not understand that affirmative action is racist think that being critical of islam makes you racist).

Why is what's good for the racist goose not good for the religiously discriminating gander, hm ?

I'm do not understand your unclear language. What goose?

Also, I gave one example where I think race should be a factor when deciding on who gets a job: acting jobs. Do you also agree with this one case of racial discrimination?

Right - keeping Muslims out of Canada was your idea in that discussion as I recall.

I never said 'keep muslims out of Canada'. You really love your strawman arguments, don't you?

We had a 14 page thread on this, how do you still not understand my position? I said that islamism is a concern for the west and should be considered when determining immigration policy. I advocated giving immigrants more/less points in their immigration application based on their country of origin.

Why don't you wear the garment you have sewn, I wonder...

Cause I do not sew my own garments. I buy them from a store.

Edited November 25, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

1. I am in favour of some types of religious discrimination and not in favour of other types.

2. Also, with your continued denial that a system that discriminates by race is racist,

3. I said that islamism is a concern for the west and should be considered when determining immigration policy.

4. So you are in favour of religious discrimination in some circumstances. Then why are you criticizing me for doing the same thing?

1. Therefore you are in favour of religious discrimination.

2. Under your definition, yes it's "racist" and you yourself discriminate based on religious groups. I guess nobody's moralizing here, then. You just used the term "racist" which most people take as a pejorative, but you do not.

3. "should be considered" ... oh come on ... if you're not going to use it as a basis for excluding people in some cases, why even "consider" it ? "Giving them fewer points" is just a cowards way of discriminating behind accounting.

Why do you all of a sudden turn so mushy at certain points of the discussion ? You have already indicated that you discriminate against religions in some cases, so the line has been crossed - own it.

4. I'm just asking you about your positions. I think I understand them now, and they're consistent. I can't expect you to have my values but I can expect somebody who purports to be logical to be consistent in applying their principles. You do that, although in a mushy way (eg. I only discriminate against religion in some cases) for some reason.

[-1=e^ipi]

I like how you ignored half my post...

1. Therefore you are in favour of religious discrimination.

This statement is vague. Why do you insist on using it (probably cause you want to use some sort of strawman argument)? I am in favour of some times of religious discrimination and not in favour of others, Same with you and everyone else in this thread. Unless someone wants to argue my point about priests/imams/rabbis.

2. Under your definition, yes it's "racist" and you yourself discriminate based on religious groups. I guess nobody's moralizing here, then. You just used the term "racist" which most people take as a pejorative, but you do not.

Huh? When do I 'discriminate' based on religious groups. Please provide me with an example. As for not moralizing... I've said many times that affirmative action is racist and therefore morally wrong.

3. "should be considered" ... oh come on ... if you're not going to use it as a basis for excluding people in some cases, why even "consider" it ? "Giving them fewer points" is just a cowards way of discriminating behind accounting.

Why would you suggest that I should suggest that Canada should exclude immigrants that are muslims? When considering who should immigrant you should consider many factors including education background, age, work experience, language skills etc. Why would one only consider religion?

And again, I said that we should modify the points based on country of origin, not on religion. And my issue with islamism is not that the muslims believe in the fairy tales of Mohammed being the final prophet of Allah, met with Gabriel the Angel, had Allah split the moon in two to prove Mohammed's legitimacy and ascended to heaven on a pegasus. My issue is the doctrine of Jihad, the misogyny against women, the calling for death of apostates and gays, the constant theme that non-muslims are inferior to muslims, the violence that it encourages, etc. Furthermore, islamism is only a subset of islam. Peaceful westernized moderate muslims that do not properly understand their own religion are fine.

Why do you all of a sudden turn so mushy at certain points of the discussion ? You have already indicated that you discriminate against religions in some cases, so the line has been crossed - own it.

What points? Could you give examples? What do you mean by mushy? Also, when have I discriminated against people based upon their religion? And what do you want me to own?

4. I'm just asking you about your positions. I think I understand them now, and they're consistent. I can't expect you to have my values but I can expect somebody who purports to be logical to be consistent in applying their principles. You do that, although in a mushy way (eg. I only discriminate against religion in some cases) for some reason.

I never claimed to discriminate against people based upon their religion (if that is what you are implying). I said that it is justified to discriminate based upon religion in some circumstances. Why do you continually distort my meaning? Furthermore, you have also admitted that in some cases it is acceptable to discriminate based upon religion (ex. priest/imam/rabbi).

How is it mushy to determine if something is justified or not by doing things on a case by case basis rather than making vague generalizations?

[Michael Hardner]

I like how you ignored half my post...

There are parts of it that we agree to disagree on, and I left out the parts where you didn't understand a play on words that I put in there.

This statement is vague. Why do you insist on using it (probably cause you want to use some sort of strawman argument)?

No, the argument part is done. To say "I believe in religious discrimination in *some* cases means nothing.

It's like a virulent racist saying "I would hire that race to work on my property, but I wouldn't ... ". We've established the truth here, so I'm moving on.

I am in favour of some times of religious discrimination and not in favour of others, Same with you and everyone else in this thread.

And with racism, too, according to what you've posted.

So it seems you and I are racists and religionists (?).

Huh? When do I 'discriminate' based on religious groups.

Sorry - not you personally, but you believe in policies that embody the practice of discrimination.

I've said many times that affirmative action is racist and therefore morally wrong.

Are you saying that racism is morally wrong in all cases ? Didn't you give an example where it's sometimes not morally wrong - when you're hiring for a TV commercial or somesuch example ?

Why would you suggest that I should suggest that Canada should exclude immigrants that are muslims?

By assigning points to peoples' religions in an immigration system. You mentioned that above. If you're assigning points to religions then your religion could hurt you and be a factor that results in you not being allowed into Canada.

The fact that it's one of many factors still means you're using religion as a means of discrimination.

And again, I said that we should modify the points based on country of origin, not on religion.

Why did I think that then ? Your style of argument is tiring and dishonest, IMO. If I go back and find the quote, it will take me at least ten or fifteen minutes. Then if I post what you said here, you won't acknowledge the mistake...

Furthermore, islamism is only a subset of islam. Peaceful westernized moderate muslims that do not properly understand their own religion are fine.

It seems to me you are changing your tone here, but ok.

What points? Could you give examples? What do you mean by mushy? Also, when have I discriminated against people based upon their religion? And what do you want me to own?

Either I have misunderstood your position in the other thread days or weeks ago, or you have changed it. I don't care which one it is; either I made a mistake or you changed your mind. Either way, we're moving forward so ok.

I never claimed to discriminate against people based upon their religion (if that is what you are implying). I said that it is justified to discriminate based upon religion in some circumstances.

It's a strange distinction. If you promote policies that enact discrimination, I suppose you can honestly say that you didn't personally discriminate but how much of a distortion is it really and why do you care ?

Why do you continually distort my meaning? Furthermore, you have also admitted that in some cases it is acceptable to discriminate based upon religion (ex. priest/imam/rabbi).

How is it mushy to determine if something is justified or not by doing things on a case by case basis rather than making vague generalizations?

I don't understand this question. "Deciding to be racist", or "religionist" on a case by case basis means that you are engaging in the practice. Otherwise, you could say that slave owners during the Civil War were racist when it came to owning slaves, but not when it came to hiring African Americans.

[Argus]

Ok - let's do it this way then: you're not sacrificing much of anything at all, you're investing in social capital to hopefully alleviate a problem that we all face. And your complaints come out of academic nit-picking definitions of fairness that are academically correct at best.

The only point to affirmative action is to alleviate racial hiring. There isn't racial hiring now. The problem is upbbringing. So you're choosing the wrong tool to address your percieved problem.

If you want to make this as white people being persecuted, then you're making the issue divisive. This means you're taking the problem back into the past where we came from rather than looking at this as an issue that we all look at it together, to create a unified community.

A unified community is not possible where certain members of that community have different rights, responsibilities, and privilages, and have access to benefits not available to others.

I'd like to know: what specifically has corrupted the culture (your words) ? It seems to me we've said on this thread that slavery has nothing to do with it, so then what is it ?

The reserves. The thinking behind the reserves, way back when, was that there was no way the natives could live amongst us, and so we'd set aside some land, any old land would do, rugged wilderness of the type they preferred so they could hunt and and fish and live in their way away from us. But times changed. Now they want electricity and indoor plumbing, and schools and health care, and all the other stuff of a modern life. Only problem is you can't make enough money fishing and hunting on a reserve to get that. Which is why we pay for all that stuff. In fact, you can't make hardly any money hunting and fishing on the reserve. So most people don't do much of it. And since there's no jobs, most people don't do much of anything. No job equals no pride, no purpose, lots of time on your hands (this is not rocket science). Get a whole group of people like that and you get rampant alcoholism, drug abuse, and crime. Raise children in that milleau and you get more of the same.

So what has corrupted the culture? Trying to stick to the old ways in a new world where the old ways don't work. Living out in the boonies where there are no jobs is nothing but perpetual poverty and hopelessness. And it doesn't matter if you call it a 'native reservation' or something else. Plunk down a couple of hundred white people in the middle of the bush away from everything and what's going to happen to that community over time?

As it is, we in Canada are paying fractions of fractions of our income to welfare programs that aren't working -

A fraction of a fraction? I think the official figure is something like $12 billion but many think it's far higher than that since that doesn't take into account what the provinces do, and doesn't take into account costs to other government departments which put a lot of money into native programs (CMHC, Heritage, Health Canada, HRSD, Industry, Justice, etc.) Not to mention the costs to Corrections.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

The only point to affirmative action is to alleviate racial hiring. There isn't racial hiring now. The problem is upbbringing. So you're choosing the wrong tool to address your percieved problem.

I was curious about this point, so I went to wiki and in fact Affirmative Action extends to other kinds of policies, such as education.

I like the term 'perceived problem'. We all perceive things, and problems. Racial hiring isn't as much of a problem, I agree, but I think the perceived problem that we should agree on is the outcome - at least to start a discussion of next steps.

A unified community is not possible where certain members of that community have different rights, responsibilities, and privilages, and have access to benefits not available to others.

If it's a temporary measure then I don't see why not. There are other examples where members of the communities have different rights and we don't seem to mind that so much.

1. The reserves.

2. So what has corrupted the culture? Trying to stick to the old ways in a new world where the old ways don't work.

That's a great answer, actually. A policy of forced segregation seems to me that it would damage the culture. Since the government of Canada imposed that policy, we can discuss with the segregated group how to move forward.

A fraction of a fraction? I think the official figure is something like $12 billion but many think it's far higher than that since that doesn't take into account what the provinces do, and doesn't take into account costs to other government departments which put a lot of money into native programs (CMHC, Heritage, Health Canada, HRSD, Industry, Justice, etc.) Not to mention the costs to Corrections.

I wasn't thinking about the situation with first nations, but of welfare overall. Even so, $12 billion amounts to $400 per person per year... which is not a big part of the budget. I think it's fair to expect that any moves to cut that amount will require more capital outlay in the short term, ie. an investment.

[GostHacked]

If you want to make this as white people being persecuted, then you're making the issue divisive. This means you're taking the problem back into the past where we came from rather than looking at this as an issue that we all look at it together, to create a unified community.

In a sense it is self prosecution of whites for atrocities against others. Or whites are collectively being punished for things done in the past. With policies like Affrimative Action we can never move past the history to move on.

I'd like to know: what specifically has corrupted the culture (your words) ? It seems to me we've said on this thread that slavery has nothing to do with it, so then what is it ?

Affirmative action does not guarantee that you are hiring the right person for the job. Affirmative Action will not allow us to move past prejudices and reach true social justice.

Just wishing that these groups wouldn't have problems is denial, IMO.

Just make sure you are not the one who is in denial.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/federal-affirmative-action-policy-faces-review-1.940237

The federal government has ordered a review of its affirmative action policy one day after a woman complained that she couldn't apply for a public service position because she's Caucasian.

Sara Landriault of Kemptville, Ont., told the media Wednesday that she applied online for an administrative assistant job with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and was asked by the online application if she was white, aboriginal or a visible minority. When she answered white, she said a message informed her she did not meet the criteria and could no longer proceed.

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day said no Canadian should be barred from a federal job because of race or ethnicity.

"While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service based on race or ethnicity," Day said in a statement.

But here is what Affirmative Action is and this is what it is accomplishing.

"We are in favour of appropriate diversity in the public service and reasonable efforts to achieve it, but we don't think any Canadians should be excluded from applying within their government," he told CBC News. "It's OK to encourage people from different backgrounds to apply but in our judgment it goes too far to tell people that if they are not of a particular race or ethnicity they cannot apply [for a job] that is actually funded by their tax dollars."

It's nice they word it for government but does not touch the private sector. Hard to know what their stance is on that.

HOWEVER this could work in advantage of whites later on when they become the minority and can use AA to get a job. But as it is, AA discriminates against whites plain and simple.

Do you want a nice diverse ethnic workforce? Or do you want a productive workforce? I am not saying others are not productive, just hire the people best suited for the job at hand.

Edited November 25, 2013 by GostHacked

[Argus]

That's a great answer, actually. A policy of forced segregation seems to me that it would damage the culture. Since the government of Canada imposed that policy, we can discuss with the segregated group how to move forward.

There is only one path forward, and that is integration, which is violently opposed by native leaders.

I think it's fair to expect that any moves to cut that amount will require more capital outlay in the short term, ie. an investment.

I'm all in favour of short term pain for long term gain but I see little or no long term gain here. It's not like this is a new policy and it's not like we haven't been giving preferential treatment to natives for many years now. As long as the reserves remain in the condition they are in, only a few are going to rise above the rubble. These sorts of programs might help a few dozen or hundred natives, but in just the last 10 years the percentag of the prison population which are aborigines has risen from 14% -> 23% (natives make up 4% of the population). That's a pretty strong indication of the failure of such piecemeal bandaids. They might make you lefties feel good about yourself but on the grand scale they're meaningless.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

There is only one path forward, and that is integration, which is violently opposed by native leaders.

Integration will happen regardless of government decree. If the people oppose it, then their leaders will oppose it, and there will have to be another way.

I'm all in favour of short term pain for long term gain but I see little or no long term gain here.

How about reduced costs, or increased peace moving forward ? Those sound like two gains.

That's a pretty strong indication of the failure of such piecemeal bandaids. They might make you lefties feel good about yourself but on the grand scale they're meaningless.

The bandaid things sounds like another one of your 'perceived problems'. Since you're calling me a 'leftie' now, it seems that the conversation is close to the end...

[Michael Hardner]

In a sense it is self prosecution of whites for atrocities against others. Or whites are collectively being punished for things done in the past.

You must not have understood what I wrote, so I'll be more clear. This "us" versus "them" thinking promotes separate cultures, and perpetuates problems IMO. Since we're talking about potential means testing, there are plenty of minorities who would also pay for these programs.

With policies like Affrimative Action we can never move past the history to move on.

That's just a platitude. You would like to end preferential programs and "move on" but those who are suffering lingering effects of discrimination and bad policies over centuries just have to "move on" without your help.

Affirmative action does not guarantee that you are hiring the right person for the job. Affirmative Action will not allow us to move past prejudices and reach true social justice.

Affirmative Action refers to more than employment law. Furthermore, if we're talking about employment, the examples I have seen require that the applicant be qualified.

Just make sure you are not the one who is in denial.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/federal-affirmative-action-policy-faces-review-1.940237

Sorry ? What does that even mean ? The link has nothing to do with what I posted.

HOWEVER this could work in advantage of whites later on ...

Of course, you don't want to give an inch with regards to your "whites", which I assume is your race. Where is the concern for past wrongs ? Right, right, we're "moving on"...

Just to be clear here: I'm only pointing out the morality of this because you're so concerned about the moral issue involved in discrimination. I'm not calling for us to rectify past wrongs as a moral issue in itself, simply as a way to improve life overall for all Canadians...

[-1=e^ipi]

It's like a virulent racist saying "I would hire that race to work on my property, but I wouldn't ... ". We've established the truth here, so I'm moving on.

I do not understand this analogy and do not agree that 'we've established the truth here'.

And with racism, too, according to what you've posted.

So it seems you and I are racists and religionists (?).

We would be in favour of racial discrimination in one case, but I'm not sure if I would call this case 'racism' because the hiring favoritism is based upon the inherent physical characteristics required for the job (it's very borderline).

As for the term religionist, you are not using it correctly. Religionist means excess religious zeal.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Religionist

Sorry - not you personally, but you believe in policies that embody the practice of discrimination.

No... I'm not the person arguing in favour of affirmative action. You are.

Are you saying that racism is morally wrong in all cases ? Didn't you give an example where it's sometimes not morally wrong - when you're hiring for a TV commercial or somesuch example ?

I'm not quite sure I would call that racism (it's borderline). Racism I would reserve for irrational hiring practices that aren't based on individual merit to find the best candidate for the job. In the case of acting, one's physical appearance is relevant towards the position of the job.

By assigning points to peoples' religions in an immigration system. You mentioned that above. If you're assigning points to religions then your religion could hurt you and be a factor that results in you not being allowed into Canada.

The fact that it's one of many factors still means you're using religion as a means of discrimination.

Again, I have never suggested that we should assign points based on someone's religion. This is unfeasible.

Why did I think that then ? Your style of argument is tiring and dishonest, IMO. If I go back and find the quote, it will take me at least ten or fifteen minutes. Then if I post what you said here, you won't acknowledge the mistake...

Idk why you think that. I've been extremely consistent in my position. I do not pretend to understand progressive minds that think that affirmative action isn't racist and not morally wrong.

It seems to me you are changing your tone here, but ok.

I'm not changing my tone. You just keep confusing islam with islamism and misreading my posts.

It's a strange distinction. If you promote policies that enact discrimination, I suppose you can honestly say that you didn't personally discriminate but how much of a distortion is it really and why do you care ?

I have never in my life discriminated based on race/gender/religion. So I would prefer you try not to personally attack my character. But that doesn't mean that there are not a few cases were discrimination can be justified.

Why do you continually distort my meaning? Furthermore, you have also admitted that in some cases it is acceptable to discriminate based upon religion (ex. priest/imam/rabbi).

Yes, churchers/temples/mosques need to be able to discriminate based upon religion or we do not have freedom of religion/worship in this country.

[-1=e^ipi]

There is only one path forward, and that is integration, which is violently opposed by native leaders.

Not by all native leaders. But I do agree that many native leaders have a financial incentive to keep the status quo as they benefit from it (at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent).

[GostHacked]

You must not have understood what I wrote, so I'll be more clear. This "us" versus "them" thinking promotes separate cultures, and perpetuates problems IMO. Since we're talking about potential means testing, there are plenty of minorities who would also pay for these programs.

Affirmative action is nothing more than an employment plan for 'minorities' to be represented in the workforce. This comes at the expense for a company to hire the best person for the job. I have no problem with a minority getting the job over me, as long as they are better qualified by skills and education and past experience. That just makes sense to me. If the person is hired based on something other than skills, education and experience, because by law you need to have a diverse work force, for the sake of having a diverse work force, then you are not hiring the right person for the job.

That's just a platitude. You would like to end preferential programs and "move on" but those who are suffering lingering effects of discrimination and bad policies over centuries just have to "move on" without your help.

I don't want special treatment over others. I would also not want others to have special treatment over me simply because of a cultural or race thing. We do not live in a society that really values equality.

Affirmative Action refers to more than employment law. Furthermore, if we're talking about employment, the examples I have seen require that the applicant be qualified.

That may be so, but that is where it originates and is mainly used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Affirmative action (known as positive discrimination in the United Kingdom and as employment equity in Canada and elsewhere) refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business".[2] The concept of affirmative action was introduced in the early 1960s as a way to combat racial discrimination in the hiring process, and in 1967, the concept was expanded to include gender.

The nature of affirmative action policies varies from region to region. Some countries, such as India, use a quota system, whereby a certain percentage of jobs or school vacancies must be set aside for members of a race, caste or other protected group. In some other regions, specific quotas do not exist; instead, members of minorities are given preference in selection processes. Often, university scholarships are earmarked for members of a specific minority.

Sorry ? What does that even mean ? The link has nothing to do with what I posted.

Then you might not understand affirmative action and what it means.

Of course, you don't want to give an inch with regards to your "whites", which I assume is your race. Where is the concern for past wrongs ? Right, right, we're "moving on"...

From Wikipedia again.

The Canadian Employment Equity Act requires employers in federally-regulated industries to give preferential treatment to four designated groups: Women, people with disabilities, aboriginal people, and visible minorities. In most Canadian Universities, people of Aboriginal background normally have lower entrance requirements and are eligible to receive exclusive scholarships. Some provinces and territories also have affirmative action-type policies. For example, in Northwest Territories in the Canadian north, aboriginal people are given preference for jobs and education and are considered to have P1 status. Non-aboriginal people who were born in the NWT or have resided half of their life there are considered a P2, as well as women and people with disabilities.[16]

What industry is NOT federally regulated?

Just to be clear here: I'm only pointing out the morality of this because you're so concerned about the moral issue involved in discrimination. I'm not calling for us to rectify past wrongs as a moral issue in itself, simply as a way to improve life overall for all Canadians...

Then I say we need to get rid of affirmative action. It's a moral issue to begin with.

[Michael Hardner]

Affirmative action is nothing more than an employment plan for 'minorities' to be represented in the workforce.

Actually, as I already explained there are more aspects than that, but I see you caught that farther down in your post.

Then you might not understand affirmative action and what it means.

No - I said that hoping for problems to just go away is living in denial, and you posted something about the government reviewing a job posting that was exclusionary. I'm not sure what the connection is there in your mind. It doesn't follow for me, ie. non sequitur.

What industry is NOT federally regulated?

Easier to list which ones are:

banks

marine shipping, ferry and port services

air transportation, including airports, aerodromes and airlines

railway and road transportation that involves crossing provincial or international borders

canals, pipelines, tunnels and bridges (crossing provincial borders)

telephone, telegraph and cable systems

radio and television broadcasting

grain elevators, feed and seed mills

uranium mining and processing

businesses dealing with the protection of fisheries as a natural resource

many First Nation activities

most federal Crown corporations

private businesses necessary to the operation of a federal act

http://www.labour.gc.ca/eng/regulated.shtml

Then I say we need to get rid of affirmative action. It's a moral issue to begin with.

Because it's not fair to whites ? Because you don't like it ? Sorry, I'm not convinced.

The impact on white males is minimal from what I've read. A news article about a job posting - especially one that is "being reviewed" - means almost nothing. You're getting hysterical because somebody posted a single job advertisement that would restrict based on race, basically. That means it's not a widespread practice, and the fact that it's under review means it probably wasn't supposed to happen. Net impact is negligible.

Imagine if you put this amount of neurosis into caring about the disadvantaged groups, and other ways to help them, rather than imaginary impacts like this...

By the way, if you would bother to put any effort whatsoever into coming up with some suggestions for alternatives, I would have a lot more respect for your position on this matter.

[Michael Hardner]

I do not understand this analogy and do not agree that 'we've established the truth here'.

Well, I don't think I can help you understand my analogy. Someone who pre-judges really just needs to do it once in order for it to fairly be said that they pre-judge. If you want to argue academic points like that, it's really not for me. After a certain point you're just arguing about language.

I have never in my life discriminated based on race/gender/religion. So I would prefer you try not to personally attack my character. But that doesn't mean that there are not a few cases were discrimination can be justified.

I'm actually quite tired of trying to understand the byzantine nature of your rationalizations and logic. You started a thread based on a dislike of some religions from what I can see, and advocated for some kind of policy that would bring religion into some method of evaluation.

Please don't stand on your chair, flushed, and breathlessly tell me you have never discriminated. It may be true, but your moral outrage is ridiculous if you advocate policies that enact discrimination. It's clearly not a matter of character as you have accepted that you agree with borderline racist policies and you somehow don't like religion - although I'm not going to read six weeks of posts to find out exactly how your complicated rationalizations work.

Also, I don't see much difference in people who have prejudice against race than religion.

It doesn't matter to me. I am not aghast by the idea of racists, or people who discriminate based on religion - I just don't think it achieves anything useful. If you want to introduce such changes to how Canadian policy works (does that sound familiar ?) then explain why it's a good idea and explain how you would get the provinces to agree to a constitutional change to enshrine laws that keep whomever you don't personally like to stay out of Canada.

Or whatever your idea is.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm sensing a lack of forward momentum on this thread, so for that and other reasons I shall recuse myself.