<p>
[quote]
So, as long as something is "in the interest of the social good," majority support for that something will not be "tyranny of the majority." Did you ever stop and think that to a majority of the voters of Michigan in 2006, colorblind equal treatment under the law was "in the interest of the social good"?
[/quote]
Well, what social good does a colorblind admissions policy promote? The Supreme Court has ruled that seeking diversity within communities is a common good, so I'm curious what made the Michigan voters think otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Tyranny of the majority" simply refers to mob rule, where on a whim, the rights of those in the minority can be taken away by those in the majority. In the case of pedophiles, they never had a right to sex with minors in the first place. You can't take away what wasn't there to begin with.
[/quote]
The age of consent has been increasing throughout our history. What pedophiles could legally do during the 19th century is drastically different than what they can legally do now. I think that this example has served its purpose, so I think it's best that we drop it now, if that's okay with you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You do realize that it is no understatement that our nation sinned against non-whites, yes? I hope you don't believe that blacks and only blacks were discriminated against in the past. Take a look at the Chinese Exclusion Act or Korematsu for examples of sins against non-whites.
[/quote]
Your response indicates that you did not understand that I was quoting the parts I considered to be understatement. I'm baffled by how you can take me considering your use of the word "sinned" to describe the way in which Whites mistreated non-Whites throughout the history of this country as me thinking that African Americans were the only non-Whites mistreated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Race is responsible for the implementation of segregation and various immigration quotas. I don't see why anyone would continue to argue that it should be considered when its consideration has caused so many pain in the past.
[/quote]
Race is not responsible for the implementation of segregation, Racism is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think you're making something more complicated than it is. If the ultimate goal is to end discrimination based on race, then the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. There's only one meaning of 'discrimination' here.
[/quote]
No, this discussion is actually complicated. First of all, when you say, "only one meaning of 'discrimination' here," you are talking about denotation. I, however, have been talking about connotation, or what the word implies. In the first portion, "f the ultimate goal is to end discrimination based on race," "discrimination" is alluding to racism, while in the second portion, "then the solution is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," "discrimination" is alluding to considering race in the name of diversity. In the first case "discrimination" implies exluding people because of race, while in the second "discrimination" implies including because of race. Clearly, the two outcomes of the situation are inherently different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, discrimination does not have a different connotation in each scenario. In both situations, people are singled out and are treated differently based on their race. That is discrimination, plain and simple. The "outcomes" do not change the fact that discrimination took place.
[/quote]
See above. In one case you are excluding while in the other you are including.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For these reasons, preferential treatment is inherently bad. It is simply another form of racial discrimination.
[/quote]
"Preferential treatment" is a vague term. Please elaborate on what you mean. Affirmative Action is no longer considered to be "preferential treatment." Those who still refer to it as such are merely showing their disdain for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're pretty quick to pull the "you're prejudiced" trigger. Lest you make another logical error like your "if A doesn't consider race, then A is racist" statement, stop and think.</p>
<p>The statement lookingforwhat? made contains no prejudice whatsoever. It is comical to accuse him of prejudice when he stated that "...all races are the same" (unless a belief in equality is itself prejudice.)
[/quote]
I think you are, somewhat intentionally, misconstruing what I said. (Like when you accused me of forgetting about mistreatment of other non-Whites earlier in your post.) The "separation between the races" could refer to many things, perhaps a feeling of animosity, that would indicate that the poster is prejudiced. Besides, I have offered the poster an opportunity to clarify what he or she means by that statement.</p>
<p>Also, to say that it is the "only" thing is an ineffective use of overstatement that makes the poster out to be naive.</p>