Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You can't be saying that what we are doing here is screwing up what you do there are you? Why Clete, that makes no sense, and suggests that we here tell you what to do. Doubt it. Its more like you have your own issues as a country to deal with, as do they all, so don't blame whats wrong in your neck of the woods on anyone but yourself. What ever BS being applied there is done by the ones there.

Like my friend smoothy, I bet you don't know enough about minorities to say they are all whiners about there disadvantages, yet you probably have an example or two that you justifies you painting the whole group with thee same brush.

No I don't know you personally, but I have read what you have been writing, and do not agree, big deal, and I call you on it. I have been doing my thing, as long as you have, and my view is much different.

"But for the grace of God go I", and because you escaped the rabble, doesn't mean we can't go back.

---

And you are an authority on minorities and whiners? Likely didn't grow up around much of either I guess.

Whiners need affirmative action... because they know they are incapible of competing fairly. Because they were Lazy, never applied themselves, studied, or just because they are just plain dumb as a stump. The Democrats have to buy those votes, and that's how.

Fact is... only Liberals think affirmative action is needed, because they have to keep these people dumb and needy. If they ever got off their butts and accepted responsibility like successful people of any background do... they would realize what a crock all of that is anyway.

It's a way to discriminate against the people who earned what they have, by giving it to people who didn't earn it after taking it off someone who actually did. Just like Democrats tax programs... take from the productive to give to the lazy and unproductive. Punish success to reward failure and laziness. Liberals have an interest in keeping them down... because they reley on all those votes these discriminatory programs buy.

There are plenty of examples of people that rose to success from poverty... there are none where success has ever been taken from someone who earned it and given it to someone who didn't.

Socialism has failed in every country it has been tried. And for good reason... laziness has never been good for anyone.

Welfare is a huge waste of money and has helped nobody improve their situation.

Affirmative action puts morons into jobs they aren't qualified to do... and takes jobs from those that were qualified to do them.

With the resultant harm to society that brings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Fact is....only Liberals think affirmative action is needed,

---

Stop making up facts.

"In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned nine different presidential administrations -- six Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats. "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Stop making up facts.

"In truth, affirmative action programs have spanned nine different presidential administrations -- six Republican and three Democratic. Although the originating document of affirmative action was President Lyndon Johnson's Executive Order 11246, the policy was significantly expanded in 1969 by President Richard Nixon and then Secretary of Labor George Schultz. President George Bush also enthusiastically signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which formally endorsed the principle of affirmative action. Thus, affirmative action has traditionally enjoyed the support of Republicans as well as Democrats. "

---

I suppose you think Democrats were responsible for the civil rights act too?

I made no such statement, I only presented facts to counter your incorrect blanket assertion.

Really? Care to provide proof that Liberals (Democrats) AREN'T pro-affirmative action discrimination?

They would cease to exist as a party without those votes the discrimination is buying.

Your Messiah is all about playing Robbing Hood... stealing the earnings from the workers to give to the lazy who voted for him... He calls it redistributing the wealth.

Jobs... money. Its all the same... the lazy think they are entitled to everything without having to actually WORK for it.

Hello again, Smoothy:

I don't disagree with you about how people behave. There certainly IS a segment of our population who act exactly as you describe. The difference is, I don't believe that behavior is endemic to any one RACE, like YOU do. I think we're ALL capable of antisocial behavior.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Smoothy:

I don't disagree with you about how people behave. There certainly IS a segment of our population who act exactly as you describe. The difference is, I don't believe that behavior is endemic to any one RACE, like YOU do. I think we're ALL capable of antisocial behavior.

excon

---

Really... where did I say in one of my posts its limited to one race? The left seems to ASSUME that it is, I said no such thing.

There are plenty of lazy bums that have entitlement mentalities of every race... just some are more prone to it than others.

Just as certain ones are more prone to lawbreaking activities... arrest rates reflect those numbers.

And a high school dropout is still a bum... and as it is... certain bums are granted special status compared to other bums based on no other reason than race... and even more rspecifically political affiliation of that group.

I don't give a hoot if its white trash, brown trash, or black trash.

Trash is trash and none shoud get anything they haven't worked to earn equally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Really.....where did I say in one of my posts its limited to one race? The left seems to ASSUME that it is, I said no such thing.

---

Hello again, smoothy:

Well, you intimated as much... But, that's fine. I'm HAPPY to be wrong. You and I agree about lazy good for nothings. But, affirmative action doesn't have anything to do with that. I think you're confused. Really, affirmative action doesn't waste yours, or my, tax dollars on good for nothings?? That wouldn't do no good...

excon

Please don't try to tell me I am wrong in my thoughts on myself. I am a ugly person BUT I want to get the job on my own merits. I all ready know I am ugly do I want to hear others comment on my appearance?
Judge me by how I do my job. Not on how I look, how I behave outside of work, what color I am, what race I am, what religion I am etc etc etc. Do I do a good job? That is all that should matter! If we follow that then it stops people not getting jobs due to stupid reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Affirmative action puts morons into jobs they aren't qualified to do....and takes jobs from those that were qualified to do them.

With the resultant harm to society that brings.

---

I would say that the outworking of affirmative action is the financial crisis and economic situation we find ourselves in. If the US government had not been stupid enough to mandate loans to people who could not afford them we would not have had the GFC.

Perhaps some of those who perpetrated the fraud got their jobs through affirmative action.

Smoothy, I cannot agree that socialism has been a failure in all countries where it has been tried, but it has failed in some and it has not been tried in others, yet they are also a failure, therefore you false logic is shown for what it is, bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

On the other hand everyone deserves and opportunity at employment. At the expense of someone else? I don't know, but I think we have a moral obligation to try in that area.

Affirmative action and racism is a highly complex and controversial topic. In this thread there have been some attempts to give a simplified account of racism and affirmative action that fits neatly into a particular world view. The issues don't lend themselves to this type of analysis.


Tut

---

Tut

If, as you say, everyone deserves an opportunity for employment, then let those who have no qualification do the meniel jobs and undertake training until they are equipped to get something better. We have a great need for white rocks but I don't see any. What I don't like is a government responding to underrepresentation of certain classes by mandating their inclusion in activities they are not qualified for. As a example you would be aware of the initiative to create positions for indigenous people. It is suggested that this is a success because 50,000 jobs exist but only 1% of these positions actually have people in them. Quick fix affirmative action doesn't work.

Let's face it Tut our counrty was founded on an affirmative action program of giving disadvantaged people a fresh start. It could have been called a success but I'm sure those participating in the program were unimpressed and failed to see the opportunity they were given

They said that about the American Indian, when they put them on reservations because they wouldn't change the way they wanted to live, because they were ungrateful savages.

They said the slaves should be grateful because they didn't have to be savages any longer.

Now you say the indigenous people should be grateful at the opportunities you GIVE them.

Almost like the house slave resenting the field slave for not having the qualifications to clean massa's house.

The ungrateful b@st@rds! Passing on a chance to be a qualified slave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

They said that about the American Indian, when they put them on reservations because they wouldn't change the way they wanted to live, because they were ungrateful savages.

They said the slaves should be grateful because they didn't have to be savages any longer.

Now you say the indigenous people should be grateful at the opportunities you GIVE them.

Almost like the house slave resenting the field slave for not having the qualifications to clean massa's house.

The ungrateful b@st@rds! Passing on a chance to be a qualified slave.

---

Tal

you have a pecular view. My observation was that people had not taken up the opportunities they told us they wanted. I have no doubt that they know their skills aren't adequate and perhaps out of fear they are unwilling to try. The government think their affirmative action program is a success because employers have responded, but there is much more to the equation, because people who are unused to employment need much more than opportunity, someone has to sell them a vision. Giving them a job where accommodation is high cost and not readily available doesn't solve the problem because they may not have the resources or expertise to take up the opportunity.


I didn't say indigenous people should be grateful, I said they had not responded well to the opportunity, so more is needed. I was pointing out the falacy in government policy. As to the attitudes of the americans to the indian population, people in alternative lifestyles generally don't meet a favourable response. I can't speak about house slave attitudes, undoubtedly you know much more about that than I do. We don't keep slaves in any form here, but we have had some foreign business people who have paid less than minimum wage. Old attitudes die hard

I am not referring to an alternative lifestyle Clete, but displacing cultures, and expecting them to be gung ho with trying to assimilate into a different culture. Especially if theirs was here first. As is the case of the American Indian. They are not an alternative lifestyle, they were living their lives before others came and moved them aside.

Some assimilate, some don't, some assimilate better than others, and some the hatred for the new way is cultural, and generational. It may take a few generations to put old resentments, hatreds, and attitudes behind you.

Some people don't adapt to change very well, especially if old ways are all they know. They have many fears to overcome before they can embrace that change. Forgive me if I mistaken your statements as condescending to those less fortunate, and I have been known as have a weird point of view.

Some of the things you have written sound just like the bigots I see all the time. That to me is weird.

Tal

You have displaced cultures just as we do, but this is also used as an excuse.We are expected to forget that this displacement took place a long time ago, not yesterday, not in this generation, but beyond the memory of anyone living today.

We have some people who want to live in a traditional way. Fine, separate yourself from everything our society provides. They, of course, don't really want to do this. They like to take the welfare, remain in a place where there is no employment and claim disadvantage. When development comes close, suddenly it is a sacred site and cannot be touched. The same people will tell you they don't benefit from development, yet employment is provided, tracks become roads, water, sewerage, power become available

No affirmative action program can get these ugly people off their butt.

I can understand both the arguments for and against affirmitive action for many groups of people. One of the main problems isn't the ideology but the implementation.

I remember these stories, and others like them,where employers were not allowed to ask for workers to be reliable or hard-working since that would discriminate against the lazy and unreliable:

Employer told they can't advertise for 'reliable' workers... because it discriminates against 'unreliable applicants | Mail Online

'Hard-working' job ads discriminate against the lazy | European Business Forum | Find Articles at BNET

I'm all up for putting a stop to discrimination but as soon as you make any kind of official policy the idiots running the asylum start reading things into that policy that were never there. No, the lazy and unreliable never had any protection against discrimination enshrined in law here - at least not yet

Should we be giving jobs to people unqualified to do them in order to tick quota boxes? Not in my opinion.

Should we be making every endeavor to ensure the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, can avail themselves of all they need to become qualified for that job and are then given a fair chance at securing it? Absolutely.

In the long-term I believe more equality emerges when hearts and minds are engaged in the problem rather than throwing badly worded, and ever more badly implemented legislation, at it.

Can it be done? I believe so. I have lived long enough to see many discriminations melt away for the majority of people in the country I live in, although of course there will always be a hard core of bigots anywhere, and I don't believe any legislation will actually tackle that.

I do think raising awareness of any issue is always a good first step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tut

If, as you say, everyone deserves an opportunity for employment, then let those who have no qualification do the meniel jobs and undertake training until they are equiped to get something better. We have a great need for white rocks but I don't see any. What I dont like is a government responding to underrepresentation of certain classes by mandating their inclusion in activities they are not qualified for. As a example you would be aware of the initiative to create positions for indigenous people. It is suggested that this is a success because 50,000 jobs exist but only 1% of these positions actually have people in them. Quick fix affirmative action doesn't work.

Let's face it Tut our counrty was founded on an affirmative action program of giving disadvantaged people a fresh start. It could have been called a success but I'm sure those participating in the program were unimpressed and failed to see the opportunity they were given

---

Hi Clete,

In the end I can't really devise any sort of prescriptive defense for affirmative action. Your examples are by no means unconvincing. My position is QLP's position. She has stated it better than any forthcoming attempt on my part.

If you go back over my posts you will see that defense of affirmative action was never my intention. My intention was to make us define the concepts of the discussion is an accurate way.

That's about it on my part.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QLP

I can understand both the arguments for and against affirmitive action for many groups of people. One of the main problems isn't the ideology but the implementation.

I remember these stories, and others like them,where employers were not allowed to ask for workers to be reliable or hard-working since that would discriminate against the lazy and unreliable:

Employer told they can't advertise for 'reliable' workers... because it discriminates against 'unreliable applicants | Mail Online

'Hard-working' job ads discriminate against the lazy | European Business Forum | Find Articles at BNET

I'm all up for putting a stop to discrimination but as soon as you make any kind of official policy the idiots running the asylum start reading things into that policy that were never there. No, the lazy and unreliable never had any protection against discrimination enshrined in law here - at least not yet

Should we be giving jobs to people unqualified to do them in order to tick quota boxes? Not in my opinion.

Should we be making every endeavor to ensure the disadvantaged, for whatever reason, can avail themselves of all they need to become qualified for that job and are then given a fair chance at securiting it? Absolutely.

In the long-term I believe more equality emerges when hearts and minds are engaged in the problem rather than throwing badly worded, and ever more badly implemented legislation, at it.

Can it be done? I believe so. I have lived long enough to see many discriminations melt away for the majority of people in the country I live in, although of course there will always be a hard core of bigots anywhere, and I don't believe any legislation will actually tackle that.

I do think raising awareness of any issue is always a good first step.

---

That is the definitve answer about affirmative action... now to the op.I know it's about the ugly . How do they deal with the contradiction of the government's official policy of discrimination against the fatty .

Tom that is a discrimination it is hard to eliminate because no one will actually admit it takes place. It is like aged discrimination how do you actually prove it?

I worked with some Bastard$ at times and I know I was discriminated against but how do I prove it. I think I might have been discriminated against on three counts, weight, religion and age but how do I prove it. Just because I am the best qualified doesn't entitle me to a particular position since it is also possible the discrimination was political or maybe it was because I wasn't a mason. Hush, we don't talk about that one. You see the subject is much wider than physical appearance and if you don't have the right hand shake there are some places you can't go.

Hello:

For what it's worth, we discriminate about a million times a second... At least I do... I was at an event this weekend. As I interacted with people, I kept on noticing things about them... One had a crumb on her lip. I made a judgment... Another had a comb over. That triggered something... Then I saw this girl who's eyes were too far apart... Then I saw one I wanted to ***.. Oh, yes... There was MORE.

I don't think I'm the only one. Fortunately, in my country, there's only a few things we can't discriminate on in the workplace, and violations of THOSE are hard enough to prove... I mean, do you want to be forced to hire a salesman with crumbs on his mouth?

Ugly, as in the OP?? I never took that serious.

excon

Actually I think the ugly discrimination discussion is quite timely in terms of how society is changing.

After years of stick-thin models, and air-brushed magazine covers, a back-lash is spreading, albeit slowly and subtly, throughout society against the glorification of (generally enhanced) beauty at the expense of other personal attributes.

How refreshing that 'Ugly Betty' wasn't given a makeover to fit in.
How lovely to see TV shows where the spectacle-wearing geek is the hero of the show not the punchline, and I am increasingly seeing more of these.
Those commercials featuring, 'real women' for body moisturisers. Fashion adverts featuring the middle aged.
Is all this happening elsewhere in the world? Pop singers who don't look the 'part.' Would even Susan Boyle have been given a chance a decade or two back?

Although the change is slow, and these things are still in the minority, and plastic surgery is far from waning in popularity, I see things I didn't a decade ago.

Even with body enhancements, look at the people who have alternative surgery to give themselves multiple piercings, snake tongues, full body tatooes, rather than subscribe to the 'normal beauty' ideal.

The small challenges to the values of society do effect change eventually. Otherwise the fashions and mores of society would remain static; History tells us not. Again, I say, hearts and minds.

Nice thoughts QLP, but the remaining issue on the thought of affirmative action for ugly people is who decides the beauty of a person? And can you imagine someone with self-esteem issues already standing before some committee to determine if they're ugly or not?

I think of the NFL's rule that a team must interview minority candidates for coaching positions. Why would anyone want to be interviewed, much less hired because of the color of their skin? Who wants to be the token?

I think we're actually on the same page speechless, I'm not promoting affirmative action, but change of mindset to overcome this.

We all find certain things intrinsically attractive or otherwise. To some extent this is a personal thing; very much in the eye of the beholder.

Nevertheless, societal constructs do affect us on levels we are hardly aware of. We have only to look at art through the ages to see that different ideals of beauty have been held up at different times. Would a lady from a Reubens or Renoir cut the mustard as a poster girl today?

Maybe we are actually ready to question whether physical attractiveness is such a strong measure of worth, or self worth, as it has been held to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QLP

I think we're actually on the same page speechless, I'm not promoting affirmative action, but change of mindset to overcome this.

We all find certain things intrinsically attractive or otherwise. To some extent this is a personal thing; very much in the eye of the beholder.

Nevertheless, societal constructs do affect us on levels we are hardly aware of. We have only to look at art through the ages to see that different ideals of beauty have been held up at different times. Would a lady from a Reubens or Renoir cut the mustard as a poster girl today?

Maybe we are actually ready to question whether physical attractiveness is such a strong measure of worth, or self worth, as it has been held to be.

---

How about affirmative action for short people in the NBA, for 110 lb weaklings in the NFL, Blind brain surgeons, sociopaths on the State Police force... oh, we have that one already... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Ugly, as in the OP???? I never took that serious.

excon

---

Well of course not Ex because ugly is hard to define. We can define beauty far more easily than we can define ugly. Without being racist I find some races ugly in facial appearamce, ugly in physical appearance and I certainly find certain attitudes and cultural things ugly