Your post was not exclusive to race, correct.

But if it was general, then it applied to race.

If it applied to race then it was entirely correct to assume it applied to race.

If you're going to post an article that defends AA in a thread on race-based AA, then you shouldn't be surprised that people interpret it as being supportive of race based AA.

And in fact everybody was correct in assuming that you are in favor of race-based AA.

So again: what are you so surprised about? Why are you making such a big deal about this?

So we can't answer good, questions about what AA means, in the most basic fundamental terms, until we have unanimous acceptance of AA? How can we know what we're accepting unless we first know what it is composed of? Isn't good social policy based on open, rational debate?

I'm sorry that you think fundamental questions about what "race" is is not relevant to race-based AA. And you are incorrect in believing that my mind is made up on this. My mind is always open to argument. If you want to convince me of your position, then you are going to have to argue it well and convincingly.

If you choose not to, then your voice won't be heard.

1. It promotes racism and sexism, and thereby is an obstacle in developing a more race- and gender- blind society.

2. There are many other forms of recourse. There is no convincing evidence that AA as currently implemented has been more effective in "leveling the playing field" than any of these other forms of recourse.

3. It puts detailed information about the "race" of large numbers of people into the hands of the government. I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government with that information. Especially this government.

OK, I can get back to this for a bit now. Too bad we're having a discussion about discussion instead of a discussion about the topic, but hey, whereever you want to take things, I guess.
I'm not suprised about anything. My statement was that AA discussions typically focus on race even while AA is typically applied based on gender. That the thread is race based only bolsters my statement. That my tangenital discussion, being non-exclusive to race, was twisted back to exclusivity to race bolsters my statement.

In essence, my statement is an accurate description of how society approaches discussions about AA: the discussions focus on race.
You did not ask "basic fundamental" questions. You asked highly specific, detailed questions. If you cannot agree on the philosophical need for AA, there is no point in discussing the practical minutiae.
You have not demonstrated that to be true.
I have argued it well and convincingly. You have both ignored the argument and attempted to alter the discussion. That I refused to accept your approach to the discussion is not a sign of a weakness in my argument.

Google search, 1,240,000 results: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=affirmative+action+race&btnG=Google+Search" target=_blank>affirmative action race</a>
Google search, 628,000 results: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=affirmative+action+gender&btnG=Search" target=_blank>affirmative action gender</a>

How to define "race" and how to determine which "races" are going to be given preference is not minutiae. That is the core of the whole project.

If you don't want to describe and defend the core of your project, that's up to you.

The reason I asked you those questions was to give you an opportunity to change my mind. Those are the questions that I consider key. But if you don't care what I think, then feel free to ignore them.

The "core of the whole project", considering it is my "project", is that it is a requirement of society to promote minority genders and race in order to counter-balance the affects of discrimination. It is most certainly minutiae to then discuss, in which circumstances, any particular race is to be considered the minority. That you feel differently about the scope of the discussion does not change the scope of the discussion.
I have described the core of my "project". If you want to discuss the minutiae, that might be possible after we have reached agreement on the core.

AA doesn't promote racism/sexism, it punishes it. It says because there is race/sexism, the group it's targeted against gets bonuses to compensate for the innate bonus that the majority has. Instead of getting mad at the solution, why not get mad at the problem? If there was no racism, there is not needed AA. Same for sexism.[/quote]

I have yet to see any reasonable alternate that didn't boil down to "hide our heads in the sand and ignore the problem". If you have seen one, i would be very interested in seeing it.

The government probably knows things about people they don't even know about themselves. Race is generally something you can know just by looking at someone, I don't see how it's this big state secret.

I AM mad at the problem, which is AA. Because of this numbskulled idea, people are granted privileges based on their skin color, instead of the content of their character.

And even more importantly, it's employed in a racist fashion against whites and Asians.

Host has certainly been quiet since I pulled this from the website he promotes:

But AA isn't the problem. Again, it's the initial racism inherent in America which causes the need for AA. All AA does is attempt to balance out the discrimination (which it goes about in an admittedly inefficient manner).

So you believe the it's only fair that whites benefit because of their skin color? Because that's the alternate. If that's what you think, that's your opinion, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. But if you believe racism is a problem worth solving, you cannot logically be against AA.

People are granted privileges based on their skin color, instead of the content of their character - regardless of AA. Your comment is a regression in this thread.