Is it fair to punish white males today for the actions of their ancestors?

SugarHigh · 06-12-2010 08:35PM

Knasher wrote: »

To my mind the goal of affermative action is to remove barriers to entry for people who are interested in certain fields

How does it do this?
What barrier exists for women entering Science that means they need special treatment?

For example men who are interested in nursing and especially childcare face serious issues because of the perceptions that society places upon them. This is an extremely obvious example, but I can't imagine that it doesn't apply to women in certain cases, or to everyone in more subtle ways. For example if you look at the toys that are traditionally given to boys versus girls, e.g. lego vs dolls, one encourages children to get interested in engineering whereas the other encourages childcare. Clearly these are things that are ingrained into children from very young ages.

Telling an employer he should hire a woman instead of a man doesn't remove these.

As to why I think this is a bad thing? Simply because it is entirely possible that a women might have the curiosity and intellect to make great contributions to a field but be discouraged away from it simply because she feels that its a boys club. Or even more grievously if she gets interested from a young age and is discouraged from it simply because either her parents or her peers don't view it as ladylike.

What about a boy who gets turned down because he's a boy. You have replaced one discrimination with another

A negative side effect right now is that a women's achievements might be taken less seriously simply because she is a women, because the perception of how she got there is biased against her. Completely unfair to the individual, however I'm still taking the long term view that overtime this may help remove some of the perceptions that form barriers to entry and will then have an overall positive effect on society. At which point affermative action would become completely unnecessary; hopefully we can give it up then.

It doesn't remove negative perceptions of women it creates new ones.

SugarHigh · 06-12-2010 08:44PM

pissants wrote: »

Most rich families are white, as you said. Why are most rich families white? Is it because white people are innately more talented or capable than anyone else? No.

'Talent' (as the sum of individual ability) is a talking point. Talent is the last factor to be applied in any individual circumstance behind a person's race, social class, socioeconomic status and upbringing. To twist your own point on runners, I'm sure there are similarly (by sheer virtue of probability) children born in sub-saharan africa with the 'talent' to become scientists and engineers capable of shifting the paradigm of human technology - but they almost certainly won't.

They won't not because they are black but because they are poor. It's a rich poor divide not a race one.

This logic applies inversely to white people living in poverty too, and the argument that white poor people exist therefore races are equal is simply invalid as far as the usefulness of affirmative action is concerned.

Races should be treated equally. Affirmative action does not do this. It creates a new divide to get rid of an old one.

To take America (thanks for going black v white, the Irish context is much harder): the median income for African-Americans $20,000 less than white Americans. They are SEVEN times more likely to be incarcerated, and ONE QUARTER of all African-Americans live in poverty (more than double of the white population)

Again this is a rich/poor problem not a race one. You are being blinded by race.

Now, if you want to argue that inequality is the way things 'should' be, that talent trumps social class, that everyone has the same chances as whites etc. in light of this I really have no counter argument.

More room to manoeuvre in the irish context, and where gender is concerned though.

A rich black kid has the same chance as a rich white kid. A poor white kid does not have the same chance as poor black kid if we have affirmative action. In fact affirmative action will give the rich black kid the same extra advantage as the poor black kid. It's the same as punishing the white child.

The inequality that needs to be solved is between rich and poor not black and white but this is much harder to tackle and doesn't give the same easy to show results as hey look we now have 50/50 male/female ratios.

bluecatmorgana · 06-12-2010 09:28PM

Why isnt there a more balanced profile in jobs from childcare to scientists?

And how do you suggest we balance it?

bluecatmorgana · 06-12-2010 09:32PM

So why is there an imbalance in jobs from childcare to science to managerial positions?
And how would you correct it to be more acceptable levels?

Sorry for the double post

pissants · 06-12-2010 09:40PM

No. Race and class are inextricably linked here, you can't just separate them on a whim.

The 'rich black kid' has the same advantages of the 'rich white kid' - save for race - but this is to wilfully disregard the fact that any 'rich child' in America is far, far more likely to be ethnically white than any other race: this is the point of affirmative action in the first place; to undo systemic inequality.

Similarly, being poor is a huge disadvantage - but white people are less disadvantaged by being poor by virtue of race than black people. Again, I can drag out statistics to confer this point. Social programs (welfare/healthcare, and so on) target (or should) the 'poor' portion of this indiscriminately.

SugarHigh · 06-12-2010 10:05PM

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

Why isnt there a more balanced profile in jobs from childcare to scientists?

And how do you suggest we balance it?

Maybe women simply aren't interested in Science. Yes there are societal reasons for this but there is societal reasons for everything. What problem is being caused by there being more men than women that is actually worth fixing?

If a girl wants to go into science she can and will have no disadvantage to a man, in fact she will be given many advantages. Just because some women may not want to go into Science because they view it as a mans job doesn't mean Science needs to change it means she needs to change. If a man doesn't want to become a flight attendant because it's full of women should Ryanair be forced to hire men over women to balance it out just so this minority won't feel intimidated.

It's replacing a hypothetical inequality that may happen with a real inequality that is put into law to ensure it does happen.

And how do you suggest we balance it?

Why does it need to be?
Is the lack of female builders a problem that needs to be fixed?

bluecatmorgana · 06-12-2010 10:14PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

Maybe women simply aren't interested in Science. Yes there are societal reasons for this but there is societal reasons for everything. What problem is being caused by there being more men than women that is actually worth fixing?

If a girl wants to go into science she can and will have no disadvantage to a man, in fact she will be given many advantages. Just because some women may not want to go into Science because they view it as a mans job doesn't mean Science needs to change it means she needs to change. If a man doesn't want to become a flight attendant because it's full of women should Ryanair be forced to hire men over women to balance it out just so this minority won't feel intimidated.

It's replacing a hypothetical inequality that may happen with a real inequality that is put into law to ensure it does happen.

Why does it need to be?
Is the lack of female builders a problem that needs to be fixed?

But why arent they interested ? There in lies the epiccentre.
Why dont more men want to become sterards?
I dont know but Id like to see if anyone knows.

SugarHigh · 06-12-2010 10:14PM

pissants wrote: »

No. Race and class are inextricably linked here, you can't just separate them on a whim.

The 'rich black kid' has the same advantages of the 'rich white kid' - save for race - but this is to wilfully disregard the fact that any 'rich child' in America is far, far more likely to be ethnically white than any other race: this is the point of affirmative action in the first place; to undo systemic inequality.

Similarly, being poor is a huge disadvantage - but white people are less disadvantaged by being poor by virtue of race than black people. Again, I can drag out statistics to confer this point. Social programs (welfare/healthcare, and so on) target (or should) the 'poor' portion of this indiscriminately.

They are not poor because they are blacked. Being black does not cause you to be poor being born to a poor family causes you to be poor.

Yes black people are more likely to be poor but it is not the cause. It used to be the cause but isn't anymore. Why not just focus on helping poor people instead of focusing on race. Since black people in America make up a larger portion of poor people you will be helping the ones who need it. Not because if their skin colour but because of their race.

You're making being poor a race issue which just heightens pointless differences.

In Canada a millionaire Arab will get the same advantages from affirmative action as a poor black kid. How does that make any sense?

It's because you are focusing on the wrong aspect. Grouping people by race is as dumb as grouping people by hair colour. Knowing someone is black tells you nothing about there situation, you are just making the assumption that he is poor because a lot of black people are poor.

desertcircus · 06-12-2010 10:29PM

Are there problems with affirmative action as it's currently practised? Yes.
Does that mean it's intrinsically wrong? No.

Certain people start with an unfair head start in life. Affirmative action is an effort to correct for that, not to just beat down white heterosexual fully-abled men. Men graduate with worse college grades and still earn more over their lifetime. I'm unlikely ever to have someone make a negative assumption about me on the basis of my race, my gender or my sexuality; that's not necessarily true for other people.

Would I be annoyed if I applied for a college course and found out I lost the last place to a person who got the same grades as me but was, say, the child of asylum seekers? I'd like to think not, because that person quite probably didn't have anywhere near the same advantages as I do, and would most likely beat my lazy ass if they'd been given the same environment from birth. But I know that even if I was annoyed, it wouldn't make me right to be annoyed. And any real grievance is with the exact procedure of affirnative action, rather than affirmative action itself.

You're not being punished for the actions of your ancestors; nobody is being punished. We're trying to correct the more grossly unfair facets of a system that gives a massive advantage to a certain subset of society at the expense of other subsets.

pissants · 06-12-2010 11:13PM

SugarHigh wrote: »

They are not poor because they are blacked. Being black does not cause you to be poor being born to a poor family causes you to be poor.

Yes black people are more likely to be poor but it is not the cause. It used to be the cause but isn't anymore. Why not just focus on helping poor people instead of focusing on race. Since black people in America make up a larger portion of poor people you will be helping the ones who need it. Not because if their skin colour but because of their race.

You're making being poor a race issue which just heightens pointless differences.

In Canada a millionaire Arab will get the same advantages from affirmative action as a poor black kid. How does that make any sense?

It's because you are focusing on the wrong aspect. Grouping people by race is as dumb as grouping people by hair colour. Knowing someone is black tells you nothing about there situation, you are just making the assumption that he is poor because a lot of black people are poor.

these points don't become any more valid by repetition. I'm not going to argue in circles. Here, let me explain it through visual media! (oh, and you're wrong, white people actually do make up the larger portion of poor in america by simple numbers - just not in proportion)

SugarHigh · 06-12-2010 11:29PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Certain people start with an unfair head start in life. Affirmative action is an effort to correct for that, not to just beat down white heterosexual fully-abled men. Men graduate with worse college grades and still earn more over their lifetime. I'm unlikely ever to have someone make a negative assumption about me on the basis of my race, my gender or my sexuality; that's not necessarily true for other people.

Affirmative action makes the assumption that if your black you need help.

Would I be annoyed if I applied for a college course and found out I lost the last place to a person who got the same grades as me but was, say, the child of asylum seekers? I'd like to think not, because that person quite probably didn't have anywhere near the same advantages as I do, and would most likely beat my lazy ass if they'd been given the same environment from birth. But I know that even if I was annoyed, it wouldn't make me right to be annoyed. And any real grievance is with the exact procedure of affirnative action, rather than affirmative action itself.

What about if the place went to a black kid who had lived her all his life and whose parents were millionaires.

Why only help non-white asylum seekers?

The reason the asylum seeker needs help isn't there race it's their poor background which can also happen to white people.

If you want to help poor people why not just help poor people?
Why choose who to help based on race in the hope of helping poor people?
By deciding who to help based on race it means you miss out on people like poor white kids and give help to people who don't need it like rich black kids.

SugarHigh · 06-12-2010 11:33PM

pissants wrote: »

these points don't become any more valid by repetition. I'm not going to argue in circles. Here, let me explain it through visual media! (oh, and you're wrong, white people actually do make up the larger portion of poor in america by simple numbers - just not in proportion)

The problem is you are blaming the actions of past white people on present on white people because you focus on correlation of race and poverty.

If a black guy applies for a job in a company that currently employs no black people is he at a disadvantage?

pissants · 07-12-2010 12:55AM

I love how your last sentence is answered by that first comic and yet you keep repeating the same invalid points.

I'll stop focusing on the correlation between race and poverty when it stops being relevant to the present, and yes. Black americans with a degree and no criminal record are more likely to be turned away in job interviews than with americans of similar status.

Similarly, the recession has hit pretty much every ethnicity harder than it has white people (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/10/20/inam.money.great.recession/index.html).

Race matters because it has demonstrable effects when you consider poverty, education, social class, or any other metric you want to use to discuss white privilege and whether it still matters.

Whether or not the company in question employs black people is utterly irrelevant, as for the fiftieth time, white privilege (at the expense of other ethnicities) is systemic and ingrained into the fabric of society. Social programs that target every ethnicity do not undo this.

iptba · 07-12-2010 03:59AM

nedtheshed wrote: »

How do you know it doesnt?By the logic above men are a higher risk as they will be working longer hours for a longer period of time so will be at more risk of health problems eg stress,blood pressure,ulcers, heart attacks etc so a claim on a mans health insurance is likely to be heftier than a claim for the associated costs of pregnancy.

I know the last point was more directed at somebody else but just to say that I've read it quite a few times that women cost health services much more (and my impression was that extended to excluding pregnancy). Warren Farrell's "Myth of Male Power" may be one place I read it (I've misplaced my copy so can't check). Sorry I don't have a better reference - am out of touch on men's issues (never was an expert).

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:13AM

Knasher wrote: »

To be honest I think you are oversimplifying the goal, admittedly that is the metric used to judge equality in the workplace, perhaps unfairly but I can't really think of another metric to judge it. To my mind the goal of affermative action is to remove barriers to entry for people who are interested in certain fields, not to achieve some perfect balance simply for the sake of it. Now I'll be the first to admit that sometimes the approach taken can be entirely ham-fisted and have quite serious negative side effects.

Make no mistake though, there absolutely are still barriers to entry for people to get interested in certain fields, and they don't just disappear simply because the legal ones are removed. For example men who are interested in nursing and especially childcare face serious issues because of the perceptions that society places upon them. This is an extremely obvious example, but I can't imagine that it doesn't apply to women in certain cases, or to everyone in more subtle ways. For example if you look at the toys that are traditionally given to boys versus girls, e.g. lego vs dolls, one encourages children to get interested in engineering whereas the other encourages childcare. Clearly these are things that are ingrained into children from very young ages.

As to why I think this is a bad thing? Simply because it is entirely possible that a women might have the curiosity and intellect to make great contributions to a field but be discouraged away from it simply because she feels that its a boys club. Or even more grievously if she gets interested from a young age and is discouraged from it simply because either her parents or her peers don't view it as ladylike.

And yes a negative side effect right now is that a women's achievements might be taken less seriously simply because she is a women, because the perception of how she got there is biased against her. Completely unfair to the individual, however I'm still taking the long term view that overtime this may help remove some of the perceptions that form barriers to entry and will then have an overall positive effect on society. At which point affermative action would become completely unnecessary; hopefully we can give it up then.

I think one needs to look at the science. Based on aptitude tests and the like, there seems to be average differences between men and women. So women on average are better at learning languages and men are a bit better on average on some aspects to do with engineering e.g. mathematical abilty, mechanical reasoning, spatial ability.

Then if one looks at interests, there are average differences.

I don't believe these differences are just socialised as some people pushing quotas would have us believe. But even if they are socialised, there are de facto differences on aptitude tests at this time.

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:21AM

pissants wrote: »

It's funny that teaching is being used as a counterbalance here because
the ratio of male-to-female principals is 70/30 in secondary schools, 65/35 in vocational, and 80/20 in comprehensive schools (http://www.tcd.ie/immigration/css/downloads/ELS_Policy,_challenges_and_deficits.pdf)

That proves very little. It certainly doesn't prove discrimination.

If one compares the quality of life of a teacher and a principal, a principal on average has a worse quality of life: it involves longer hours, more responsibilities, more stress. It probably damages the health of some who take on the position.

More men may go for it because they're more pressure on them to not just have a job but have a well-paid job. But if the money ends up being shared with your partner, I'd prefer if my partner worked longer hours and I got to benefit than vice versa (i.e. women can benefit indirectly from the longer hours men work without having to put in the long hours themselves - so they may "earn less" but not necessarily lose out).

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:25AM

Men and women (or boys and girls) come from the same families - their parents had exactly the same average income.

That's different from black and white people in America for example. Or rich and poor people.

So the issues are not the same.

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:38AM

desertcircus wrote: »

Men graduate with worse college grades and still earn more over their lifetime.

Is there much difference? Any source? One also needs to look at degrees chosen - some degrees are more useful than others e.g arts degrees vs some other degrees. The amount of hours required on average required to get a 11.1 in an engineering degree is a lot more than many arts or business degrees.

Some jobs are better paid in society than others - but that does not necessarily mean there's discrimination. People are pretty free these days to choose whatever course they want in college - the CAO system doesn't know what gender you are. People are a lot freer to choose different jobs. Employers can get into big trouble if they are convicted for gender discrimination. A lot of the differences are likely down to the choices people make.

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:40AM

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

But why arent they interested ? There in lies the epiccentre.

Why are men more interested in watching sports such as football and women more interested in dancing? It is an interesting question. But I'm not convinced it's all socialised.

pissants · 07-12-2010 12:47PM

rich/poor and white/black unfortunately go hand in hand in America, as I repeatedly stated. I stuck with the topic because it is a very clear case. Gender is more difficult, especially here, because strides have been made over the past few decades to close the gap.

iptba wrote: »

That proves very little. It certainly doesn't prove discrimination.

If one compares the quality of life of a teacher and a principal, a principal on average has a worse quality of life: it involves longer hours, more responsibilities, more stress. It probably damages the health of some who take on the position.

More men may go for it because they're more pressure on them to not just have a job but have a well-paid job. But if the money ends up being shared with your partner, I'd prefer if my partner worked longer hours and I got to benefit than vice versa (i.e. women can benefit indirectly from the longer hours men work without having to put in the long hours themselves - so they may "earn less" but not necessarily lose out).

Rubbish. Men take a greatly disproportionate amount of principal positions, despite accounting for less than half the total amount of teachers, and it's solely due (think at a systemic level - can this argument hold at such a broad generalisation) to the fact that men want to work higher paid, 'stressful' jobs and women simply don't? Really?

This is all socialised. Of course it's socialised! All of modern human civilisation is the product of the careful reproduction of norms and values from birth!

If all boys were given ballerina outfits and sent to dance classes at an early age, and watched blokes performing the Nutcracker on the telly instead of a football and the premiership league, that would be the 'normal' thing for them to do.

Similarly, if more girls' schools taught metalwork/engineering, and if the engineering field wasn't staffed and taught predominantly by men, there would be more female professionals in the field and it would be more 'normal' to have female engineers than it is now.

The Corinthian · 07-12-2010 01:14PM

pissants wrote: »

Rubbish. Men take a greatly disproportionate amount of principal positions, despite accounting for less than half the total amount of teachers, and it's solely due (think at a systemic level - can this argument hold at such a broad generalisation) to the fact that men want to work higher paid, 'stressful' jobs and women simply don't? Really?

It's not so much that men want such jobs, it's that socially men do not have a choice.

Socially the breadwinner-homemaker roles still dominate our society, and women heavily outnumber men in this regard (I believe that women account for about 98% of homemakers in Ireland). This is further underlined with the presumption that women are the natural child carers too.

Given this, the choice for women to go into traditionally male roles has opened up dramatically in the last forty years, and while often at a disadvantage, their access to traditional male roles far outstrips male access to traditional female roles, where social and legal barriers stop most men from even considering it as an option.

The irony is that the Women's Rights Movement has done little or nothing to redress this, preferring instead in concentrating on giving women a greater choice. As a result, women's privileged position, where it comes to the home and children, remains and once women get to an age where it is normal to 'settle down', this privilege ends up backfiring on those who wish to concentrate on what would be a traditional male role - that women out perform men in terms of salary in their twenties, then begin to follow a pattern of leaving the workforce temporarily or permanently to raise a family underlines this.

Men on the other hand have to become the breadwinners. One interesting anecdote I came across some time back was that with dating sites the most common lie that women gave was about their age or weight, for men it was their salary. That a man's earning potential is still considered such an important factor in our ability to attract a mate points to this prejudice being across the genders, and not localized simply as a male issue.

If one is truly interested in equality, then this strategy of 'choice for women' really has to be abandoned, because it is ultimately a dead end. Only by tackling the traditional roles, meaning also that women would need to sacrifice their privileged position in the home and with children, are you going to see a leveling of the playing field.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 07-12-2010 01:17PM

pissants wrote: »

Rubbish. Men take a greatly disproportionate amount of principal positions, despite accounting for less than half the total amount of teachers, and it's solely due (think at a systemic level - can this argument hold at such a broad generalisation) to the fact that men want to work higher paid, 'stressful' jobs and women simply don't? Really?

Would be interesting to see how many female principals are childless or have a husband who is primary carer of the children. If women are taking months off at a time to look after kids it is no surprise men are rising to the top in that field.

This is all socialised. Of course it's socialised! All of modern human civilisation is the product of the careful reproduction of norms and values from birth!

If all boys were given ballerina outfits and sent to dance classes at an early age, and watched blokes performing the Nutcracker on the telly instead of a football and the premiership league, that would be the 'normal' thing for them to do.

It isn't all socialised, I'm not ignoring it is partly so but take one of the most if not the most popular sports in Ireland - GAA. Its just as easy for females of any age to take part, and has been for quite some time, but the numbers are hugely different.

Similarly, if more girls' schools taught metalwork/engineering, and if the engineering field wasn't staffed and taught predominantly by men, there would be more female professionals in the field and it would be more 'normal' to have female engineers than it is now.

Would there f*ck. Metalwork/Engineering classes are nothing like being an engineer. They're practical classes. The mainstream subjects most relevent to engineering are Applied Maths, Maths and Physics in that order. Its difficult tot take you seriously if you think otherwise.

iptba · 07-12-2010 02:43PM

pissants wrote: »

If all boys were given ballerina outfits and sent to dance classes at an early age, and watched blokes performing the Nutcracker on the telly instead of a football and the premiership league, that would be the 'normal' thing for them to do.

I'm not convinced. I think there are average differences between men and women that aren't simply socialised.

If there are not, family courts for example are being very biased in their rulings.

There was a case of a baby boy who following an accident, lost his penis. He was brought up as a girl. He wasn't a happy bunny.

The Corinthian · 07-12-2010 03:34PM

This nature versus nature argument is one without conclusion. The reality is that neither is correct and the truth is somewhere in-between.

However, there has long been a decision to 'buck' whatever influence nature has, in the interests of equality of the sexes - otherwise women would never be able to join the military, for example.

Knasher · 07-12-2010 03:44PM

iptba wrote: »

I'm not convinced. I think there are average differences between men and women that aren't simply socialised.

Absolutely, I really hope nobody is arguing that, but surely the only way to check is to remove as many of the inequalities as we can and see whats left. Do you believe that we have already achieved that?

iptba wrote: »

If there are not, family courts for example are being very biased in their rulings.

I think family courts are extremely biased, however I fail to see how that supports either of our arguments.

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:13PM

Knasher wrote: »

I think family courts are extremely biased, however I fail to see how that supports either of our arguments.

My point is that society continues to treat men and women differently in in ways we might not always be immediately conscious of - in the family courts it would be that women are a better parent for a child to be left with. I come from a mathematics background and tend to dislike inconsistent arguments. If the argument is that there are no differences between men and women and we require positive discrimination, one should not just be looking at the employment realm or areas where women seem to lose out but also areas where there could be positive discrimination in favour of men.

(Related to this) one will often find people say they think there are no differences between men and women. But often the same people say that men are "such a way", women are "another way" i.e. they do believe there are differences between them.

The argument that men and women are the same so if there are not close to 50% of women on boards or principals or whatever, it's due to discrimination tends to fall apart if one believes there are differences between the two genders (which could be argued account for the difference). An argument shouldn't hold two opposite positions simultaneously. Some people like to argue there's discrimination which it seems to me is how we get to the situation where it is claimed that there are no differences at this time between the two.

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:15PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

This nature versus nature argument is one without conclusion. The reality is that neither is correct and the truth is somewhere in-between.

I'm not sure if one can logically say "neither is correct." which implies that nature doesn't have an effect and nurture/society doesn't have an effect. What is the correct one if neither of them is correct?

Personally I think both can have influences. Which could be called "somewhere in between".

The Corinthian · 07-12-2010 04:25PM

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure if one can logically say "neither is correct." What is the correct one if neither of them is correct?

Perhaps I was not clear enough - neither extreme of genetic predetermination versus tabula rasa are correct.

The truth is somewhere in-between (at least this is the consensus), but were in-between has been a topic of discussion and argument in academic circles for over a century.

Additionally, regardless of whether nature is the overriding influence or not, it has long been accepted that the principle of equality should override this. If it did not we would still be following the orthodox gender model that has existed since pre-neolithic times.

So arguing this topic is pointless, IMHO.

iptba · 07-12-2010 04:32PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

So arguing this topic is pointless, IMHO.

Maybe. But one can discuss average abilitites/aptitudes, interests, at this moment in time. One doesn't need to know why women are on average better at languages and men are a bit better on average in some areas relating to engineering (for example mechanical reasoning, spatial ability, mathematical reasoning). Or that men might be more interested in gadgets or other things that might attract them more to engineering. It could be nature or nurture but at this moment in time could account for differences - one shouldn't necessarily expect 50/50 breakdowns across society at this moment in time.

Knasher · 07-12-2010 04:45PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

So arguing this topic is pointless, IMHO.

To be honest I think we have been all arguing non contradictory points for some time now. However in general I do think this topic has merit and should be looked at.

Is it fair to punish white males today for the actions of their ancestors?

Comments