Why Does Affirmative Action need Justification?

[Infinity]

yes, my moral lines are inflexible. there is no circumstance in which imprisoning an innocent man is morally justifiable. flexible morals are amoral.

This really isn't the place for this, but I can't resist.  Do you really think that all flexible morals are amoral?  I mean, really?

So, for instance, if, somehow, for some reason, you were put in a situation where you either had to release 10 of the 9/11 bombers (or, perhaps, 10 of these potential bombers they arrested today in London) or put an innocent man in jail for one night, you would choose the former, because the latter would be immoral?

Or have you ever stolen a grape?  Or told a harmless or mostly harmless lie?  In which case are you immoral or, as you seem to think, amoral?   If so, do your insults "immoral" and "amoral" even have any meaning anymore?  Or do they become vapid modifiers, like most swear words these days.

[Infinity]

to further your logic, why not round up all 35 million american blacks and put them in concentration camps? crime will go down. our education statistics will look better when compared to japan and europe, illegitimacy will go down, obesity will go down. what's the cost?

You're confusing "logic" with "rhetoric," and poor rhetoric at that.  If you really think that your sentence follows logically from what I said, then God help you.  Try thinking sometime, it might help.

it does. you're arguing that even if aa discriminates its okay because the ends justify the means. you could make a similar argument for detaining all blacks.

You have a very strange idea of what "ends" would be accomplished by detaining an entire race of people.  Most people, including myself, don't think that imprisoning an entire race of people could ever be an acceptable end.

Logically, just because the ends justify the means in one situation, it does not follow, as you seem to "think," that any end justifies any means.

[FossilJ]

as you seem to "think,"