Affirmative Action

Originally posted by @eladar
I answered your question about my personal belief on this issue in my first post.

The question in the OP was: when is and isn't "intentional race-based discrimination" morally sound? And your answer is "never". So you are saying it is never morally sound to engage in intentional race-based discrimination, right?

Originally posted by @chaney3
The term 'morally sound' may be over the top.

What would be a less "over the top" way to refer to the moral dimension - the rightness and wrongness - of an action?

Originally posted by @fmf
I am not really interested in your superstitions and your notion of "sin" on this topic. Feel free to expound upon them, but stuff about supernatural phenomena and beings doesn't address my question in a way that interests me. For example, whether you think you are or aren't going to "hell" is neither here nor there.

That is fine and dandy. I answered your question in my first post.

I'll see if anyone wants to deal with the problem I brought up, which is discrimination based on perceived discrimination. It is based on the belief that every racial group has the same set of skills.

Originally posted by @chaney3
I don't think it's 'right' for the government to force employers to hire someone 'just because'.

What about when the government itself is the employer?

Originally posted by @fmf
What would be a less "over the top" way to refer to moral dimension - the rightness and wrongness - of an action?

Yes, simple right and wrong would be better.

Anything 'moral' seems to snowball out of control in this forum, and detour into a debate on 'define morality'.

Originally posted by @eladar
I answered your question in my first post.

You appeared to say it's never morally sound to engage in intentional race-based discrimination but then also appeared to support the right of people to do engage in it, and were careful not to mention the morality of them exercising that right. Would you yourself ever consider engaging in intentional race-based discrimination?

Originally posted by @fmf
What about when the government itself is the employer?

Nope. Still not right.

By the way, whatever happened to 'equal rights'? If affirmative action was the government's way of dealing with racism, all it did was reverse the racism.

Originally posted by @chaney3
Yes, simple right and wrong would be better.

Anything 'moral' seems to snowball out of control in this forum, and detour into a debate on 'define morality'.

What is morality about, then, if not "simple right and wrong"?

Do you have some different definition of the word that you are using?

Originally posted by @fmf
You appeared to say it's never morally sound to engage in intentional race-based discrimination but then also appeared to support the right of people to do engage in it, and were careful not to mention the morality of them exercising that right. Would you yourself ever consider engaging in intentional race-based discrimination?

If I had a reason, like I don't trust Saudi Muslims or Iranian Muslims, then sure.

Originally posted by @eladar
If I had a reason, like I don't trust Saudi Muslims or Iranian Muslims, then sure.

So much for your use of the word "never", then.

Don't people who implement affirmative action schemes "have reasons" for what they do?

Originally posted by @fmf
So much for your use of the word "never", then.

Don't people who implement affirmative action schemes "have reasons" for what they do?

Exactly, I didn't think about this until you asked.

Should one discriminate when it comes to hiring people you trust? I'd say yes.

It would be a very rare circumstance, which means a snowball's chance, but nice to bring up.

How about my question now? Or is this just your game?

Originally posted by @eladar
How about my question now?

Which one? Fire away. I may have answered it already or I may have missed it. Go for it.

Originally posted by @eladar
Or is this just your game?

Everything connected to this web site is pure leisure activity and entered into for whatever entertainment it might provide. This topic is an interesting one, is it not?

Originally posted by @eladar
Should one discriminate when it comes to hiring people you trust? I'd say yes.

If this is so where the government is the employer or a state funded education facility is recruiting, do you feel there should be some burden of evidence necessary in deciding whether to "trust" someone and would this be different from a private individual's decision about "trust" in who he does and doesn't enter into some kind of private transaction with?

Originally posted by @fmf
If this is so where the government is the employer or a state funded education facility is recruiting, do you feel there should be some burden of evidence necessary in deciding whether to "trust" someone and would this be different from a private individual's decision about "trust" in who he does and doesn't enter into some kind of private transaction with?

In such case it would not be my company. My company would take no government funds.