H.R. 27 and Religious Discrimination

[Relbeek Einre]

Can you give me a specific example of such a program?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Can you give me a specific example of such a program?

Minority set-asides. Affirmative Action programs. Woman-owned business set-asides.

[Relbeek Einre]

Apparently that word "specific" was lost on you.

[Torakus]

http://www.mbda.gov/index.php?section_id=3

Ill help him out with specific I guess.

[Torakus]

Forgot to add, they don't give out cash, but are a government funded entity that provides "assistance". Unfortunately it does fit the category of government funding the promotion of minorities to the exclusion of poor whites like myself.

Tora

[Relbeek Einre]

The program seems designed to give minority businesses a little boost, doesn't discriminate in its own hiring practices, and specifically targets disadvantaged minorities for its aid.

I don't see a violation of the First Amendment here.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The program seems designed to give minority businesses a little boost, doesn't discriminate in its own hiring practices, and specifically targets disadvantaged minorities for its aid.

I don't see a violation of the First Amendment here.

To the exclusion of non-minorities.

[Relbeek Einre]

Yeah, Embar, and the same government provides many other programs that help out non-minorities, so the government is not really being exclusionary is it. And again, the First Amendment doesn't come into play.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yeah, Embar, and the same government provides many other programs that help out non-minorities, so the government is not really being exclusionary is it. And again, the First Amendment doesn't come into play.

Those programs that help out non-minorities you mentioned, can you give me a specific example where the minorities are excluded from those programs?

What you're factually saying Beek, is that you endorse racial and gender discrimination. So why do you have an issue with this?

[Relbeek Einre]

Embar... quit the Rsakian logic. It's old.

Racial and gender discrimination exist whether the government recognizes the fact or not. I believe that a government program designed to counter the existing discrimination is a good thing provided its actions are reasonable.

However, I believe in the rule of law, and the Constitution as the supreme law, and I do not see the First Amendment saying that Congress shall pass no law respecting the existence of discrimination.

[Embar Angylwrath]

What's old is the ad hominem attacks when you can't support your argument.

Yes, racial and gender discrimination exists, and we have laws to bar that kind of activity. We also have programs that promote that activity, like minority and gender set-asides.

What you're really saying is that you endorse discrimination as long as you feel its for justified purpose. You realize though that you're trying to combat perceptual discrimination with an even more insidious form of it, institutionalized racial and gender discrimination.

What's really Rsakian is you basic stance that to combat discrimination by individuals, we have to have government sponsored and enforced discrimination.

[vaulos]

You two are arguing a different notion of fair. Keebler is arguing that what must be "fair" is the end distribution of goods (and so if certain people are denied access to certain funds, then tough shit - the point is to make people equally off in the way things work out at the end). Embar is arguing that what must be fair is the process of distribution (and so if the end distribution is off-kilter, then tough shit - the point is to give people an equal process and accept whatever falls out of that process).

John Rawls made a similar distinction which he differenciated through distinguishing between perfect procedural justice and pure procedural justice.

Perfect procedural justice has two characteristics: (1) an independent criterion for what constitutes a fair or just outcome of the procedure, and (2) a procedure that guarantees that the fair outcome will be achieved. E.g., welfare, medicare, social security.

Pure procedural justice describes situations in which there is no criterion for what constitutes a just outcome other than the procedure itself. E.g., civil and criminal law.


It isn't that either of you is using faulty logic...it is that you aren't arguing about the same thing.

[Relbeek Einre]

I think you need to learn what 'ad hominem' means, Embar. Because nothing in my last post was ad hominem.

Vaulos: You're not quite right. I'm not looking for equality of results. I'm acknowledging that an inequality exists in the process and so can accept an imperfect solution of counterbalancing the process. If the results come up uneven when we have a truly balanced process, then so be it.

Embar, however, only seems to cry foul when the skew in the process negatively impacts his ethnic group or gender.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You and I both know what ad hominem means. When yuo engage in a debate tactic designed to attack the person (Rsakian logic comment) instead of the position, it's an ad hominem response.

And Beek, you are maintaning the the solution to the discrimination problem is just to let another class of citizens discriminate against a group whom you feel has had the upper hand too long.

It's akin to solving hunger by letting others starve. Or solving poverty by making others poorer (oh wait, you kinda already think that way, wealth redistribtution and all that).

The solution to discrimination should not be to let segments of society take turns discriminating against one another.

[vaulos]

Keebler- That's entirely the point. You don't trust the process, so you require that we have another process on top of it in order to ensure the outcome of the first process was what you believe it should have been. The problem is that the second process doesn't treat people equally (that is, it isn't pure procedural justice). It favors one group of people over another based on some unrelated, arbitrary feature of the person (i.e, skin color, religion, sex, etc). But you do it, because you are attempting to equal out the distribution AFTER the regular process has completed. The big question then, is whether it is any more morally justified when you do it than when David Duke does it.

[Relbeek Einre]

You and I both know what ad hominem means. When yuo engage in a debate tactic designed to attack the person (Rsakian logic comment) instead of the position, it's an ad hominem response.

Again, Embar, I think you don't know what ad hominem is. If I had said "flawed logic" instead of "Rsakian logic" would it have been ad hominem? I was saying your argument is absurdly flawed. That's not ad hominem. If I said "You're as stupid as Rsak", that'd be ad hominem.

And here's more Rsakian logic:

And Beek, you are maintaning the the solution to the discrimination problem is just to let another class of citizens discriminate against a group whom you feel has had the upper hand too long.

It's akin to solving hunger by letting others starve. Or solving poverty by making others poorer (oh wait, you kinda already think that way, wealth redistribtution and all that).

A) No, I don't feel that minorities and women should discriminate against whites or men. I think that's a very bad idea, in fact. I also don't feel the government should give "exclusive contracts," enact quotas, or any of those things the government is routinely accused of doing but actually doesn't do. I feel the government's involvement should be limited to helping the disadvantaged help themselves. I don't feel anything should be given to those who won't work for it (children and the infirm excepted). Which is why I think this kind of program is a good thing - it acts as a resource for those who seek to utilize it, and is of no value to those who won't work for their goals (in this case, starting or growing a busines).

B) Your analogies are deeply Rsakian. You speak as if it's a negative-sum game. No, it's akin to solving hunger by teaching the hungry how to grow food, while you bitch and moan that we're not giving equal resources to teaching those with hoards of food how to grow more. It's akin to solving poverty by showing the poor how to make money while you bitch and moan that we should be teaching the rich how to make more money too.

You go, Embar, champion of the privileged, hero of the haves, warrior of the wealthy. (That's an ad hominem.)

vaulos: I disagree. This imperfect solution is inserted into the existing process, not tacked onto the end thereof.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Beek -

Those programs ARE exclusive. They exclude, by definition, anyone who isn't a minority, or female (depending on the program). How is that not discrimination?

What if the government had programs that were only available to whites? You'd claim discrimination most certainly. Well, the government has programs available to non-whites, so whats the difference? That the government picked a side of the pigment fence?

You can't in good fiath claim that these programs are non-discriminatory nor non-exclusive. The only honest support you can give is that they are discriminatory, that they do discriminate on the basis of color and/or gender, and that you're ok with race/gender discrimination for these programs.

What I'm saying is that a government shouldn't single out any race or gender defined segment of society for exclusionary treatment. And truly, I think the type of thought you're espousing, that minorities and females need special help, is insulting to them.

[Relbeek Einre]

Ah, but see, you're changing your statements again.

You first spoke about minorities and women engaging in discrimination, and now you're talking about the government engaging in discrimination. Not the same thing.

You really need to keep your arguments straight, man.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You're taking one sentence out of context in the debate, and you know it. I suppose the properly worded sentence would be "You're maintaining the solution is to let the government enact programs that discriminate between classes of citizens"

I didn't think you were so obtuse you couldn't see that since this entire debate has been about government sponsored racial and gender discrimination.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Let me clarify again, since you might use this as another dodge... this entire debate between you and I, in this thread, on the Rants board, taking place in 2005.