Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
It doesn't work that way. One certainly can fight for the removal of such a solution, even when there isn't an equally efficient solution, when the solution in question is unconscionable and repugnant. When the means aren't justified by the end.
|
The solution in question is no more unconscionable or repugnant than the problem that it, to some degree, remedies. So unless you do have an alternate solution, to propose that AA be removed is to welcome an increase in repugnance. Hence, it does work that way.
Quote:
|
AA's a macro-perspective solution that has too many micro-level injustices to be acceptable. It's wrong to assume that a given hirer will be racist, even when some are.
|
Everything is imperfect, even more so when you are speaking of an initiative implemented on a large scale by a large organization such as the government. I'm open to improvements to AA that do not limit its effectiveness and I'm open to entirely different methods of dealing with the general discrimination that society contains. I am not open to removing any protections against discrimination simply because those protections may or may not contain various degrees of imperfection.
Quote:
|
No, it really isn't. Perhaps you'd like to outline why you think the two positions cannot be separated.
|
Yes it is. And in this thread I have already demonstrated the linked nature of AA and discrmination.