Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
You are making these ridiculous claims that the poor are somehow worse off in the United States than in Canada (with no evidence to support this), in order to bash the US. If you want to actually discuss something of substance, and stop referring to "you Americans" causing all these problems (implying that Aedes and myself, and other Americans on this board are personally responsible for some nonexistent mistreatment of poor people in America) then we could talk about policies that might actually help the poor (welfare was a failure). Until then, continue the anti-US bash-fest, it is quite hilarious that your jealousy inspires such violent passion!
Ya know, that you feel the compulsion to say that I, or any non-American, is jealous of you, really says a lot about how little you think of the rest of the world. It shows your atypical American utter contempt. Yes, I'm generalizing, but hey, when the whole world says that you scorn everything non-American, then just maybe you do.
To the heart of the matter; find a welfare system that does work. And, to appease Aedes and the "it works too well" type, (in other words, it doesn't actually work) find one that doesn't work too well. It ain't that hard, others have figured it out. You Americans can too! I believe in you America!:flowers::whistling:
I don't feel compelled to say this...but what else am I to think? You criticize us personally for the fact that our government threw out a failing welfare policy on what basis? Are poor people worse-off in the US compared to Canada? This is what you seem to claim, yet there is no data to support it. And if you do not claim this, then why are you whining about welfare if our poor people are doing just as well as those in Canada?
Why do we need welfare? The goal of welfare is to help poor people, yet isn't there something else that could be done to help them, besides re-institute a wasteful govt.-run social program to suck down tax dollars?
And if you compare countries around the world, standards of living are better, and disparity between classes is lower, in those countries which tend to be more capitalist than socialist.
which automatically insinuates the further a country sways toward capitalism the better the standard of living becomes. Well, the US is more capitalistic than Canada, and Canada is more socialistic than the US. So you didn't stop to think for a moment that a Canadian (or anyone else from a country that is more socialistic than the US) might read what you said in that post and take absolutely justified offense?
I know I came on too strong and said things that I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that. But this sort of attitude is part and parcel to the very sorts of things that we've been talking about in this thread, not racism precisely but certainly prejudice and unfair judgements.
That's only racism if the characteristics are pejorative! For me to say that black people generally have darker skin than white people is not racism. But to say that black people are savages would be racism.
When it's neutral it's a generalization; when it's overapplied to the point that it becomes an assumption, it's a stereotype. And when it's pejorative, demeaning, negative, then it's racism. Of course racism can be active, too -- I mean categorically refusing to hire people because of their race is racism, whether or not there is a generalization behind it.
Do you understand?
That's not correct even in theory. If (to simplify) 65% of the country is white, but 95% of "desirable job x" is filled by white people, then whites are overrepresented and minorities underrepresented in this job relative to their proportion in the general population. So affirmative action seeks to incentivize hiring of minorities such that they're represented in proportion to their fraction of the total population.
We'd love to. Any suggestions?
I know that is not racism, but its the meaning I give to the word, or rather, the meaning I believe the word should have.
If in a country the minorities need a shair fare of representation else their situation gets grim then the people of this country are segregative.
trying to override the will of the population by forcing the majority to accept the minority in higher positions will only make things worse.
Oh and by the way Aedes, Antietam was technically only a marginal victory for the Union. You might be thinking of Guettysburg...
When you look at it though, even with the same man to man ratio, had the Confederacy been able to give thier soldiers the same amount of provisions (guns, munitions, clothing) they would have won the war.
On the matter of Pickett's Charge, that was an act of desperation unusual for Lee
And sure, in the middle of the war odds favored the Union, but before then, they only had the Confederacy at sea. Had Lee been able to set up a proper supply chain and been able to give his men what they needed, they could have taken Washington Before the end of the second or third year.
If we're going to find common ground in ideas, which is the whole point of philosophical discourse, we should probably at the bare minimum agree to use words the same way whether we fully agree or not!
Perhaps, but it also may be that the majority are not sufficiently aware of problems unique to that minority. That in itself is a justification for integration and representation.
You mean like abolishing slavery (opposed by the majority) made things worse? (And I'll remind you that slavery wasn't abolished until after the battle of Antietam in 1862, which was a crushing strategic defeat for the Confederacy -- the war was underway long before abolition).
The reason we elect people to office is that we can't always trust the popular majority to make the right or moral decision.