Quote from: maggs on April 03, 2006, 02:53:45 PMHe's not always rightIn other news, life isn't always fair, puppies arn't always cute, and posters don't always expect impossibilities.
He's not always right
1. It isnít at the margins. There was a 60% increase in American Indians from 1960-1980 (age range of 15-19 year olds and then 35-39 year olds 20 years later). Unless people were miraculously born in that range thatís an impossibility (barring reclassification as a minority group). In India this is so common that the original minorities that were to be protected are now a tiny fraction of those who receive positive discrimination. Same with the aborigines in Australia and with the minorities in China (who get to have multiple children if they arenít Han Chinese).2. Where did you get that from? At various points it has been about many things including redressing socio-economic inequality. How is this at all disingenuous? He claims that AA mostly benefits benefit the Rich, which if you read the clip I typed (2 pages in a book of several hundred) in is very difficult to argue (successfully with. In this particular book he rationales for AA are beyond the scope of the question. It is simply about the results of AA worldwide.3. You do know heís black right? Do you have any proof that inherited benefits of being white do anything along the lines of what AA does? Are you aware that both Jews and Asians (both historically persecuted minority groups) put whites to shame in just about any current field of endeavor (business, academics, etc.)? How is that possible if they arenít white (and by definition devoid of any white privilege) and at many points have been strongly discriminated against?4. Itís difficult to talk about AA without referring to groups. India and Malaysia are prime examples here, with several Indian provinces (Assam and Andhra Pradesh for example) having conflicts between prosperous minorities and idle majorities, and AA for the majority Malay against the prosperous minority Chinese.Your intelligence blinds you to your complete lack of useful information to debate Affirmative Action with. You made no references to facts, no appeals to sources, but managed lots of character assassination and innuendo. Iím going to guess that youíve read exactly zero Sowell books (or perhaps that economic issues arn't your strong suite), and further that youíve spent little time reading on positive discrimination in general. Youíre smart, but cut the rhetoric and read a bit more on the subject. Stuff like ďHe generally makes poor arguments, however, which is why he's affiliated with the Hoover.Ē is hopefully beneath you.
My best guess is that you have the typical opinions and a typical amount of research to back them up, i.e. none whatsoever.