"forums post positive rights ideology"
"God help us save American from this lunacy"
I think TC is in 'need' of a better education.

A popular positive right is that all Americans are "owed" a college education.

Another way to look at this right is that all college faculty need students to justify their existence.

What kind of majors would exist on college campuses if there were no grants or guaranteed loans?
If you paid every red cent in tuition what would you major in?
I would argue entire departments would disappear.
Those departments exists only because academics and their supporters make the argument that every American is "owed" a college education.

Oh the waste and unintended consequences of fabricated positive rights.

Somebody just read Isaiah Berlin and thinks they're smart.

@TC, you mean affirmative action? Yeah, I'm against that as well. I think it's discrimination in its purest form. (When someone comes up with the bull shit of affirmitive action, I usually ask them what they think is the difference between apartheid and this type of policy. [And the topic dies instantly.])
But exactly why are you against it? You simply state what the concept means and rephrase then said concept, you conclude by saying what you'll do if you meet someone who's not like-minded. I see this one very interesting topic, but without reasons I simply can't understand why you're against it.

And right now you start by asking questions? Just simply say: "I am of the opinion that ..." and insert your opinion instead of the dots. Right now you're just rephrasing yourself over and over again and I'm getting bored.

Oh, and BTW: German bureaucracy prevents this affirmative action to be applied. Furthermore, nowhere, literally nowhere is affirmative action applied as often as in the US.

I don't think AA haters have the slightest idea of what it actually entails. More white grievance bluster.

Okay, Putin, then explain me exact what the different is between AA and Apartheid.

Well let's see:

There's the basic fact that apartheid was about segregation of the races, whereas AA is about integration. Apartheid involved total (as in 100%) minority control of the government and police. White representation in Congress is 361/435 Congressmen and 96/100 Senators. 45 out of the 50 governors are white. The head of the FBI is white. The head of the NYPD is white. The head of the LAPD is white. Apartheid involved the implementation of a passbook system, in which blacks could not travel to white communities and had to get permission to travel anywhere.

Affirmative Action is simply a policy which says: pay attention to demographics, if inequalities in demographics exist, figure out why they exist and implement policies would lead to qualified unrepresented demographics getting more of an opportunity. The point is to direct people to look for qualified unrepresented candidates. To compare it to "apartheid" is one of the more absurd things I've heard on this forum.

So in your opinion it is (among other topics): People need to registrate their etnicity? That happened everywhere in the world prior to WWI, some countries even do it nowadays. And you're incorrect about the other thing: blacks were allowed (to some extent) to get whathever job they wanted, that was until there was a white that liked his job. This posted minor problems, until the effects of international isolation kicked in (that was after 5 to 10 years). From that time on, (and most people see this as the only kind of apartheid) unemployment sky-rocketed, resulting in blacks losing their jobs by the masses. The unemployed disrupted public live and the police -wrongfully- punished the unemployed for being unemployed. (But I'm not going to lecture you South-African history, so I'll leave you with this.)
You're totally missing my point. Now I'm going to be very selective in quoting you, but I gues I'm doing it correctly: "[...] more [...]". And that very word is the root of my rejectance of AA. It's not about integration or about segregation, it's about being treated exactly equally.
It's about who has a priority when a respected job is being pursued. And I see right now that quota are introduced to promote "diversity". You shouldn't promote diversity this way: you should hire the best woman/man available for the job, irrespective of the color of their skin.
I bet that if both the white version of you and the black version of you would apply for the exact same job, your black version will always get the job. Period. This in not promoting diversity: this is promoting one specific group of people over a significantly different one.
White people get a slap on the wrist for hiring a white (wo)man when there's an equally qualified candidate of the other race, I don't see that happening on the other side of the spectrum.
And -you're right- that AA is not exactly the same as apartheid or rather the inverted verion of it, but it is in my opinion incredibly close to eachother. (To put this in perspective: this is a similar difference between a race and religion: if you oppose one specific sort of those sets of people you're a racist in both ways.) Therefore I treat them as equals.

If you think AA is even close to Apartheid, you have a very shallow understanding of what Apartheid South Africa was like.

aside - I get incredibly frustrated when people use things such as Apartheid or the Holocaust to illicit emotional responses to other social grievances. It belittles both your point and the atrocities that happened during those two events.

11 replies and I can only see my two.
The muted morons are driven nuts by any challenge to their dependence on what they are "owed" under positive rights.
I can imagine their hysterics and hyperbole. LOL!
The mute button is a great feature.

@Yonni, maybe you could read my long response: I'm not pro-Apartheid activist. I want people to treat eachother without judgment by the color of their skin, and AA does judge by the color of your skin.

I did read it but it's a weak analogy. Without passing judgment on AA, I was simply saying that you'd do much better to stay away from using knee jerk analogies like that.

@Yoni: Ok, analogies are not my strongest points.
But let me get this straight: Do you think it's a weak analogy because the analogy I see -both treating races unequally- is weak; or is the analogy unethical/immoral because one (AA) is -by you- associated with positive feelings, while the other isn't?
I might've implied they're the same, but I want people to think why I oppose this policy and what in my opinion major problems of the policy in short-term and mid-term are.

True, both deal with treating races unequally.
However, the effects of each are in such different stratospheres that the analogy is ludicrous.
Furthermore, the intentions and implementation of each are also not even close.

It's funny how John Locke got it right over 300 years ago.

The individual has a right to life, liberty, and the protection of property.
Society has grown by leaps and bounds where those rights are insured, and has began to decay where those rights are exceeded.

If you attempt to legislate equality at the expense of freedom you will end up with little of both, but if you insist on the absolute protection of freedom you will produce a great measure of equality.

Hyperbole- Exaggerated or extravagant statements, used to evoke strong feeling, and not meant to be taken literally.

An effective definition of positive rights- A selfish envy for the possessions of others.

Tettleton, if you've muted enough people to only see 2 out of eleven posts, YOU are the problem here. You are the only common denominator between these "morons"

Affirmative action legalizes reverse discrimination "for the good of the society". It is a mandate, i.e. a use of force on the people to require them to operate in a certain way that is determined to be beneficial by one part of the society. The rational that it is a good thing stems from the idea that a certain group of people have been disadvantaged in the past by society and thus the society as a whole should reverse this to help them "catch up" to the average or mean value of performance in that in that society.

Apartheid is a process of legalizing a racial caste system. Each group has a station in society. And each station has a basket of rights with that society. Of course there is a hierarchy of castes with one or two racial groups having a full basket rights while other groups have only partial baskets of rights.

The similarities are that both are based upon grouping people based upon exterior observable markers such as color of skin or gender. And that your rights, in apartheid's case, or your access to extra consideration for educational/work opportunities in affirmative action's case, are based not choice but on which group you have been determined to be a part of. Affirmative action is like an extra bonus given to certain groups of people. Whereas Apartheid is the opposite in ways in that less rights are granted to a certain group of people. AA and Ah utilize the same principle of distinguishing individuals based on aspects that the individual did not choose nor can they control. Their short term affects are not the same, but one could argue their long term affects have distinct similarities.

The idea the government "owes" you long-term health care has vanished.

The Obama administration will not implement a new program to provide Americans with long-term-care insurance, abandoning a controversial part of the healthcare overhaul the president signed last year. The decision to give up on what was once touted as a key benefit of the law marks a major retreat for the administration and a vindication for critics who have voiced doubt about the promises that Democrats made as they fought to enact the law last year.

The program envisioned in the healthcare law — Community Living Assistance Services and Supports, or CLASS — couldn't have been structured to collect enough in premiums to remain solvent.

Gosh, what will people do, rely on prudent planning and family for security in old age instead of an increasingly indebted government. Perish the thought.

Oh yes. We are all so wealthy that we can afford to save enough for the average rate of end of term care on our lower middle class - or God forbid - lower class budgets.

holy cow, the American priorities are so bizarre. A society without public health care for all is not a society for me. The sad thing is, most Americans would agree with having health care for all, but a minute few are too darned greedy to let this happen.

"There's the basic fact that apartheid was about segregation of the races, whereas AA is about integration. Apartheid involved total (as in 100%) minority control of the government and police. White representation in Congress is 361/435 Congressmen and 96/100 Senators. 45 out of the 50 governors are white. The head of the FBI is white. The head of the NYPD is white. The head of the LAPD is white. Apartheid involved the implementation of a passbook system, in which blacks could not travel to white communities and had to get permission to travel anywhere.

Affirmative Action is simply a policy which says: pay attention to demographics, if inequalities in demographics exist, figure out why they exist and implement policies would lead to qualified unrepresented demographics getting more of an opportunity. The point is to direct people to look for qualified unrepresented candidates. To compare it to "apartheid" is one of the more absurd things I've heard on this forum. "
Putin, this statement kinda proved his point.

The Apartheid was the government of South Africa who was paying attention to the needs of a minority group, in this case the whites, then that of the majority, in SAs case the blacks.

AA is the government of a developed nation who focuses more on the needs of a minority group, typical either black or female, then that of the majority, in most cases white males.

There is no difference to it other then that the minority group was enslaved 150 years ago. Its just them trying to guilt trip us into giving jobs to those who are under qualified.

From an economic stand point AA is sheer lunacy.

An over qualified white male and an under qualified black female apply for a job. Due to AA laws requiring companies to higher a minimum number of black females guess who gets the job?

"The idea the government "owes" you long-term health care has vanished. "
People have the right to a healthy long life. Healthcare is one of the few instances were government involvement is better then Laissez-Faire.

However Obamacare cannot be considered a good healthcare system. It is the most expensive health care system to operate in the world and is so inefficent it would be better to switch back to America's other healthcare system and save the tax payers from wasting their money.

Overqualified people don't get hired even without Affirmative Action. Companies dislike hiring people who are overqualified because they tend to turnover much more often and are more likely to demand more compensation.

would perfectly qualified be a better term?

And fasces, you don't understand Affirmative Action at all. It's not requiring companies to "higher" a minimum number of black females. Or even to hire them.

http://labor-employment-law.lawyers.com/employment-discrimination/Affirmative-Action.html

"During the late 1960s and the early 1970s, many educational institutions used minority quota systems that provided for specified numbers of minority students. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court ruled that such racial quotas were illegal."