Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Well (1) is almost exactly what I stated the first time, and you denied that it was true.
|
#1 is not even close to what you said the first time. Which was this:
Certain races would still need a leg up at the expense of other races
I take exception to the phrase "a leg up" and to the phrase "at the expense of". Neither of those two phrases are contained or implied in #1, which was this:
If the mean incomes of all the races were equalized, race-based AA preferences will still be necessary.
The fundamental area that you are wrong is that you are unable to differentiate between those two statements, which are quite clearly very distinct.
The secondary area that you are not comprehending is that AA is beneficial to ALL races in that it decreases the negative affects of racism. Hence, there is no race that suffers an "expense", as you claim.
Quote:
OK so now it's clear. Even if all the races had identical socioeconomic status, you believe that some races still:
(1) need preferential admission to college,
(2) need to be preferentially hired and promoted,
(3) etc.
even though those being preferentially treated have the same socioeconomic status on average as those who are not being preferentially treated.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
SO here's the next question: in this scenario where all the races have equal socioeconomic status yet AA is still necessary, how do you decide which race(s) deserve the preference?
|
Population density.