QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
How is a system which creates an equal playing field an immoral act?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Romney opts out of Presidental Race
- Thread starter BourneID
- Start date
- Status
How is a system which creates an equal playing field an immoral act?
So intent doesn't matter at all? Our laws frequently take intent to account (manslaughter vs. 1st degree murder, attempted murder/robbery/kidnapping, etc.).
That's like saying that if you shoot someone, no matter what, it's just like anyoen else who shoots someone because the action (pull trigger) is the same. But of course it's different when you shot a guy who is attmepting to kidnap your kid than it is when you shoot someone so you can steal his wallet.
You may not believe that the government has a right to tell anyone who to hire or include, and you may feel that affirmative action is always counter-productive in the long run. But I don't see how anyone can make the argument that AAaction then and now is all the same if they are willing to concede the point that back then it helped desegregate and now it's just political pandering.
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
The usual implication which follows this argument is that the system favors the giving of jobs to minorities which is taking jobs away from the majority. Perhaps I jumped the gun but it certainly seemed to me that was the direction you were going to head in. If you weren't, then I apologize.
So, I ask you: are you in favor of hiring/recruitment programs that target on other historically discriminating factors, i.e. gender, country of origin, disability?
In addition, I am not sure if this is an appropriate conversation for Airwarriors so I'll defer to the admin and moderators on whether we should end this discussion.
Again, Quagmire, the economy is self-regulating. I read an article a few days ago that made a point to make me stop and ponder.
If women make 75% of what men make, then businesses would be insane not to hire them. Hiring employees at 75 cents on the dollar would give you a huge advantage in the market. However, the fact that many women choose to leave the work force after a period of time and raise children screws over the women who choose to remain in the work force (and potentially suffer from the disproportionate wages).
You can make all the government regulations you want, but in the end business owners are the final determinate, and of course, they are controlled by the economy. When government regulation > economic pressure, free enterprise ceases to exist.
If women make 75% of what men make, then businesses would be insane not to hire them. Hiring employees at 75 cents on the dollar would give you a huge advantage in the market. However, the fact that many women choose to leave the work force after a period of time and raise children screws over the women who choose to remain in the work force (and potentially suffer from the disproportionate wages).
You can make all the government regulations you want, but in the end business owners are the final determinate, and of course, they are controlled by the economy. When government regulation > economic pressure, free enterprise ceases to exist.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
No, I'm not in favor of any government mandate to hire someone based upon gender, ethnicity, nationality, or disability.
It is up to the employer to assess whether or not someone is capable of performing their job duties. The beauty of a free market is that these people who are being "discriminated" against are free to start up their own business in which they hire as many [insert subgroup] of people as they wish.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. An equal playing field is one in which each candidate is evaluated on their performance, accomplishments, and ability to do the job. On the surface, the idea that Hooters won't hire men seems sexist. However, Hooters girls exist not only to serve people food, but to generate business. As a man, I lack the physical attributes necessary to get Hooter's target clientele -- men -- to come into the restaurant and overpay for shitty wings.
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
You really believe that business owners are the final determinate? I wholeheartedly disagree with you. It is their clientele which is the final determinate. Let's use Hooters as an example, if Hooters began to hire non-perky, flat-chested, 49 year old spinsters as they were the ones willing to a $3.15 wage, do you think the clientele would remain?
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
Of course it is! But they are going to make their hiring decisions based upon that clientele. As the business owners are dependent on the whims of the client, it is the client who maintains the power in this relationship.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
It's a fine balance. Could Hooter's turn around tomorrow and suddenly market themselves to women? No. But they could, if they desired, try to shift their business strategy to be more inclusive of other subgroups of people. Businesses do this all the time to try to generate more profit. The thing with a wing joint is that you're generally not going to get interest from a lot of women. In my dating experience, I've never had a girlfriend say "hey, let's get wings tonight!"
The bottom line, though, is that it's the Hooter's execs choice regarding to whom they market their product, and thus, who they hire to represent that product. It is not the government's job or right to step in and mandate otherwise.
Hooters makes excellent wings, especially when consumed as leftovers the next day. I go for the food. :icon_wink
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
QuagmireMcLawyer said:
Master calls BULLSHIT.
What scholarships are available for white students only? Name one. At my school over 90% of the black and hispanic students were on scholarships. They had special ones that I could not get because I was white. They also were eligible for all the ones I could get.
Show me how affirmative action has made it easier for me, a white, anglo-saxon protestant male from a lower income family to go to college. I had to get good SAT scores. I had to apply. I had no special United White College Fund to help give me money.
Again, Master calls BULLSHIT.
only the naked wings....i hate the bready batter ones.
But Master, many years ago people who looked similar to you did some terrible things. Therefore, regardless of when your family moved to America, what they have done or not done here, and your families economic standing, you are over-privileged and the world has been handed to you on a silver platter.
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
I'm sorry that Mass didn't have those scholarships available but where I'm from there are certain scholarships reserved for people who came from the rural, farming counties. Most of these counties have a very small minority population so those that actually benefit from these scholarships are White, Anglo-Saxon males.
Additionally, there are scholarships reserved for people who come from Irish-American families, scholarships reserved for people with red hair and green eyes and scholarships for people who are of German descent. So, yes, there are plenty of scholarships available for White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant males but they just don't say: these are for White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant males only.
Plus, I'm familiar with plenty of minority scholarships. Most only require descent (exception is American Indian which has much stringet requirements as set forth by federal law). So in the slight chance you have some Black blood in you, then I extend a warm welcome and a blessing to pursue a Black scholarship.
Sidenote: A girlfriend and I went to Hooters once. I walked away with a blistered tongue from the hot grease used to fry the wings in. I was unimpressed.
- Status