• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Slew of SCOTUS Decisions.

Because many view it as repayment and restitution for what they believe is a broken system in which discrimination against them and their forefathers have caused them a significant handicap from the onset.

This is similar to someone feeling justified in a civil court garnishing the wages of an individual to pay for child support; they may believe theft is wrong, but in that particular case this form of "legal theft" is simply rectifying a situation that was wrong in the first place.

Not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's not hard to step back and "understand" something even if you disagree with it, if one truly wants to understand it.

I do understand it -- I was being facetious.

When will it be enough?
 
blaxshep said:
No black family kidnapped from Africa was wealthy, in fact bringing them here gave their descendants a much better life than if they had remained in Africa.

Probably not true, but no one really knows. What we do know is that there were wealthy empires in Africa prior to European colonization and exploitation, and people living in those empires typically made a decent living. We can also be pretty sure that none of the slaves wanted to be sold into slavery, so why your claim would matter, even if it were true, isn't obvious. Are you saying that if I take away your freedom and make you work for me without pay, but I feed you well and give you a nice bed, it'll be A-OK with you?

blaxshep said:
We wont mention that they were kidnapped and sold into slavery by other blacks.

Please do mention it, and while you're at it, explain why that has any ethical bearing at all.
 
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

Yes -- because you can't (and shouldn't have to) go back and fix the sins of your ancestors.
 
ludin said:
so can someone point me to someone that did this recently? if not then well it is discrimination but selective discrimination.
still doesn't make it any less wrong.

I disagree. Depends on what you mean by "recent," but it seems clear that the effects of slavery in this country are still being felt by African Americans. That seems to be the relevant factor, not proximity in time.
 
I disagree. Depends on what you mean by "recent," but it seems clear that the effects of slavery in this country are still being felt by African Americans. That seems to be the relevant factor, not proximity in time.

200 years ago is not relevant. the fact is none of that is done today.

basing anything on race is discrimination.

according to your logic I am free to open up a night club, and the first 100 people are welcome after that if you are white then you will be able to get in before others.
so you are cool with that right?
 
Josie said:
Yes -- because you can't (and shouldn't have to) go back and fix the sins of your ancestors.

Why not? Seems obvious to me that you should.

I agree that (in the hypothetical situation) my descendants shouldn't go to prison or suffer some punishment. But it's not punishment of the thief to return stolen merchandise. In this case, my descendants shouldn't have everything they possess, and so some of it should be taken away. Again, that's not punishment, unless you think taking back stolen goods punishes the thief. Taking back stolen goods is not punishment for the crime, that's just putting things back the way they should be.

Punishment of a thief is prison time, hard labor, cutting off the hands, something like that. No one is saying that white people should all go to prison (well, maybe a few crazies are saying that).
 
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

If you were still alive, no, it would not be fair just do nothing.

How many generations of descendants yet unborn are to be held responsible for actions taken by their predecessors, hundreds or maybe even thousands of years ago, while the descendants of those that were harmed are not held responsible for their own actions or inaction now that the laws allow them equal opportunity?

In this country we are guaranteed by the Constitution and the law an equal opportunity, we are not, however, guaranteed an equal outcome. This ruling does just that - guarantees equal outcome. If one person meets the criteria to be given affirmative action, and the other does not, yet the one that does not has better grades, higher test scores, a more full and diverse list of extracurricular activities and awards yet is not accepted for college admittance while the other person that may have lower grades, lower test scores, and less or no items of extracurricular activities and awards yet because of affirmative action is granted admittance, then they have been given something that they did not earn, but were given by the sole fact of what they are genetically, and not who they are as a person.

That is the very definition of discrimination. If discrimination is wrong, which it is, then it is wrong in every sense, including when it is used in an attempt to right an historical wrong done to long dead people by other long dead people.

As for the current generations and why they may or may not be succeeding? Read my sig below...
 
Why not? Seems obvious to me that you should.

I agree that (in the hypothetical situation) my descendants shouldn't go to prison or suffer some punishment. But it's not punishment of the thief to return stolen merchandise. In this case, my descendants shouldn't have everything they possess, and so some of it should be taken away. Again, that's not punishment, unless you think taking back stolen goods punishes the thief. Taking back stolen goods is not punishment for the crime, that's just putting things back the way they should be.

Punishment of a thief is prison time, hard labor, cutting off the hands, something like that. No one is saying that white people should all go to prison (well, maybe a few crazies are saying that).

It seems obvious to me that we shouldn't. We aren't responsible for the sins of our ancestors nor are we victims because of what happened to our ancestors.
 
ludin said:
200 years ago is not relevant. the fact is none of that is done today.

Relevance has to do with effect. If A has an effect on B, A is relevant to B. Saying that the long period of enslavement and subsequent discrimination against people of African descent in this country (discrimination that still exists, I might add) is not relevant because it happened so long ago is to ignore the definition of relevance.

ludin said:
basing anything on race is discrimination.

How so?

ludin said:
according to your logic I am free to open up a night club, and the first 100 people are welcome after that if you are white then you will be able to get in before others.
so you are cool with that right?

No, and if you think that's my logic, you don't understand my argument.
 
Relevance has to do with effect. If A has an effect on B, A is relevant to B. Saying that the long period of enslavement and subsequent discrimination against people of African descent in this country (discrimination that still exists, I might add) is not relevant because it happened so long ago is to ignore the definition of relevance.

Not at all. If you want to file a complain the people that did it are dead but you can still file a complain I guess.
again it has nothing to do with anything now. This girl suffered discrimination due to the color of her skin. Because she is white though you give her a pass.


please see the definition of discrimination.

No, and if you think that's my logic, you don't understand my argument.

that is your argument it is ok for Texas to discriminate as long as they are discriminating against white people.
as long as it is in the name of "diversity" then it is ok to discriminate.

you shouldn't have a problem with the night club I opened. that is the same thing that the university of texas is doing except for after 100 people allowing white people
after 100 people they are taking minorities over white people.
 
Josie said:
It seems obvious to me that we shouldn't. We aren't responsible for the sins of our ancestors nor are we victims because of what happened to our ancestors.

So, imagine that one member of your family is quite a fine artist who has painted portraits of other members of your family. I steal those, and pass them down to my descendants. My descendants should get to keep those? What about, say, your grandmother's wedding ring, which I also steal? That shouldn't be returned to your family, merely because I, the perpetrator of the crime, was never made to put things back?

What if I steal all your stuff, and then sell it to a pawn shop? Since the pawn shop owners didn't do anything wrong (assume they did all they could to ensure I wasn't passing stolen property), they should get to keep all your stuff?

Putting property back with the people who originally had it, and making material circumstances as close as possible to how they were before a crime happened, is not punishment.
 
ludin said:
Not at all. If you want to file a complain the people that did it are dead but you can still file a complain I guess.
again it has nothing to do with anything now. This girl suffered discrimination due to the color of her skin. Because she is white though you give her a pass.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. I was talking about relevance. You said that temporal proximity has an effect on relevance. I said not so, what's important to the concept of relevance is effect.

ludin said:
please see the definition of discrimination.

I know the definition of "discrimination." You said that anything based on race is discrimination. Nothing about the definition of "discrimination" suggests that claim (i.e. that basing anything on race is discrimination) is true.

ludin said:
that is your argument it is ok for Texas to discriminate as long as they are discriminating against white people.
as long as it is in the name of "diversity" then it is ok to discriminate.

Not diversity. Putting things right.

ludin said:
you should have a problem with the night club I opened. that is the same thing that the university of texas is doing except for after 100 people allowing white people
after 100 people they are taking minorities over white people.

Getting into college and earning a degree has the potential for a pretty profound effect on your future well-being. Getting into a nightclub...not so much. We can justify the policy with regard to who gets into college, because it can help lift someone out of a situation they should never have been in, in the first place. No such similar justification exists for the nightclub example.
 
Beaudreax said:
If you were still alive, no, it would not be fair just do nothing.

How many generations of descendants yet unborn are to be held responsible for actions taken by their predecessors, hundreds or maybe even thousands of years ago, while the descendants of those that were harmed are not held responsible for their own actions or inaction now that the laws allow them equal opportunity?

Has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Beaudreaux said:
In this country we are guaranteed by the Constitution and the law an equal opportunity, we are not, however, guaranteed an equal outcome.

We are not guaranteed an equal opportunity, and people typically do not have equal opportunities. Whatever gives you that idea? Bill Gates had vastly better opportunities than I ever did.

Beaudreaux said:
This ruling does just that - guarantees equal outcome.

Looks to me like it's an opportunity, not an outcome. Getting into college is no guarantee of a degree, or a job afterward, or of a job that will make one wealthy.

Beaudreaux said:
If one person meets the criteria to be given affirmative action, and the other does not, yet the one that does not has better grades, higher test scores, a more full and diverse list of extracurricular activities and awards yet is not accepted for college admittance while the other person that may have lower grades, lower test scores, and less or no items of extracurricular activities and awards yet because of affirmative action is granted admittance, then they have been given something that they did not earn, but were given by the sole fact of what they are genetically, and not who they are as a person.

Same argument is often used against women: women have contributed very little to the intellectual tradition of the West over the centuries...of course, they were never given the education to do so. Getting into college, and getting into a higher economic class, is a matter of having inumerable skills that aren't taught in other economic classes. In short, you're confused about what it means to say "who a person is"--the skills to rise above one's present station are not part of who one is.

Beaudreaux said:
That is the very definition of discrimination. If discrimination is wrong, which it is, then it is wrong in every sense,

That seems false to me. It is wrong to lie. Is it wrong to lie about your friend's location to someone you know is planning on killing him? Obviously not--but that means the principle that goes "X is wrong, therefore, X is always wrong" is false. Ergo, it does not follow that merely because discrimination is wrong, it is always wrong.

By contrast, it is clearly wrong to just leave a people in poverty when their poverty is the result of something that was done to them.

Beaudreaux said:
including when it is used in an attempt to right an historical wrong done to long dead people by other long dead people.

An historical wrong that is still being felt.

Beaudreaux said:
As for the current generations and why they may or may not be succeeding? Read my sig below...

I have heard this before. I think it's a catchy way to dodge a guilty conscience and avoid actually thinking about something. This is not to say that no one is responsible for their present state, because some people clearly are. But that does not mean that everyone is, which is what would have to be the case for your sig line to be correct.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm....I kidnap you and your family members, take all your stuff, and make you live in a shack for the rest of your life, while I use your property to become wealthy. We die, our children and grandchildren die, but my descendents do quite well, while yours do not.

Someone finally realizes that your family used to be about as wealthy as mine, and the reason yours is poor is because of my crime. It's fair to just do nothing?

Yes. Thst is absurdist thinking.
 
Why do you think so?

I don't think it I know it. Did my children or grandchildren harm your family? Hmmm? No. So harming them to "right" what I did is as if not more immoral then what I did originally. Besides how far back do we go? 1 generation? 3? 10? Can you prove I actually was in the wrong abd you were not foolish and lost your lands? What if you were a drunkard who gambled away your lands.... and i merely bought them. Thats how my family understood we got our wealth.


Then what?
 
Why do you think so?

because the person you are asking to pay for the crimes had absolutely no control over their being... or not being... committed, and going back to the actual case the decision was made on, some people in this country may not have even HAD ancestors that were culpable, yet because of the attribute you are judging, they have to pay the same penalty.
 
Last edited:
Renae said:
I don't think it I know it.

You cannot know a proposition that is false. Ergo, you do not know it.

Renae said:
Did my children or grandchildren harm your family? Hmmm? No. So harming them to "right" what I did is as if not more immoral then what I did originally.

Sure, but who's suffering harm? Harm would be if they're thrown in prison or have their hands cut off or something.

Let me ask you this: suppose two people submit identical applications to a college, but the college has room for only one of them. Should it be forced to admit both?

Renae said:
Besides how far back do we go? 1 generation? 3? 10?

Decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on how long-lasting the effect is.

Renae said:
Can you prove I actually was in the wrong abd you were not foolish and lost your lands? What if you were a drunkard who gambled away your lands.... and i merely bought them. Thats how my family understood we got our wealth.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of these questions. No one has said anything about lands so far. In some cases, we absolutely can determine that a wrong was done.

Renae said:
Then what?

Hmmm? Then what, er, what? What are you asking?
 
Last edited:
Hypothetical said:
because the person you are asking to pay for the crimes had absolutely no control over their being... or not being... committed

Again, who is asking anyone to pay something that is rightfully theirs?

Suppose I steal your grandmother's engagement ring and give it to my son to give to his fiancee. I get caught after he's given it to her. Should she get to keep the ring, or should it be returned to you? What if I die just a day or two before my crime is discovered?

It seems to me that only one thing matters with respect to answering who keeps the ring: it is rightfully yours, not my son's fiancee's.

No one is saying (well, except maybe for some nutters) that the current generation should actually be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. But to the extent they've been enriched by those crimes, the situation is no different than the ring example, above, except in magnitude.
 
Again, who is asking anyone to pay something that is rightfully theirs?

Suppose I steal your grandmother's engagement ring and give it to my son to give to his fiancee. I get caught after he's given it to her. Should she get to keep the ring, or should it be returned to you? What if I die just a day or two before my crime is discovered?

It seems to me that only one thing matters with respect to answering who keeps the ring: it is rightfully yours, not my son's fiancee's.

No one is saying (well, except maybe for some nutters) that the current generation should actually be punished for the crimes of their ancestors. But to the extent they've been enriched by those crimes, the situation is no different than the ring example, above, except in magnitude.

what if you die a day or 2 before it's discovered.... it seems as if you are talking around the subject, trying to find an analogy that fits to make it right, but its not right, and it is not justice imho.

things have been done for a long time to aid in correcting this issue, but it is time for them to end. the fact that the ancestors of the party that was originally wronged are supposedly still feeling the impact of the wrong that was perpetrated a long time ago, now, should not be based solely on the fact that the supposed impact is still there. It is easily evidenced that many, many ancestors of the group that was wronged are doing much better than a lot of the ancestors of the ones who did wrong, thus by all rational standards it would seem that the debt should be paid.

there is no Justice in perpetrating inequality, no matter which side it is on.
 
Last edited:
Yes. So they're a-okay with racial discrimination if they get something positive out of it.

Did I say that?

It's not just for blacks either. Hispanics and Asian benefit.
 
Hypothetical said:
what if you die a day or 2 before it's discovered.... you are talking around the subject, trying to find an analogy that fits to make it right, but its not right, and it is not justice imho.

It's a pretty simple principle: if you receive something that was stolen from someone else, you don't get to keep it, even if you received it believing it was legitimate. So the ring example isn't "talking around" the subject--it goes right to the heart of the matter. It's an example of someone receiving something in a manner they believe to be legitimate, but in fact they are wrong. Their belief in the legitimacy of their property is basically irrelevant--as it should be in every case involving the same principle.

Hypothetical said:
things have been done for a long time to aid in correcting this issue, but it is time for them to end.

How do you decide that? Seems to me that it's time for reparations to end when the situation has equalized to pre-crime levels, and not before.

Hypothetical said:
the fact that the ancestors of the party that was originally wronged are supposedly still feeling the impact of the wrong that was perpetrated a long time ago, now, should not be based solely on the fact that the impact is still there. It is easily evidenced that many, many ancestors of the group that was wronged are doing much better than a lot of the ancestors of the ones who did wrong, thus by all rational standards it would seem that the debt should be paid.

Hypothetical said:
there is no Justice in perpetrating inequality, no matter which side it is on.

I agree, but given your apparent comittment to this principle, I'm astounded by the other parts of your position.
 
It's a pretty simple principle: if you receive something that was stolen from someone else, you don't get to keep it, even if you received it believing it was legitimate. So the ring example isn't "talking around" the subject--it goes right to the heart of the matter. It's an example of someone receiving something in a manner they believe to be legitimate, but in fact they are wrong. Their belief in the legitimacy of their property is basically irrelevant--as it should be in every case involving the same principle.



How do you decide that? Seems to me that it's time for reparations to end when the situation has equalized to pre-crime levels, and not before.

and how, pray tell, do you go about determining those levels? even the entertainment of appropriately attempting to do so from a long gone era seems impossible.


I agree, but given your apparent commitment to this principle, I'm astounded by the other parts of your position.


I'm sure you are. it's because I believe in the equality of all of humanity and no longer seeing race as any sort of division. your solution, and in fact, the SC's decision, apparently do not subscribe to that belief, imho.
 
I'm not even sure what you're talking about now. I was talking about relevance. You said that temporal proximity has an effect on relevance. I said not so, what's important to the concept of relevance is effect.

no what I did was I ask how recently has described your scenario. so far you have yet to provide evidence of your scenario. so therefore your scenario is irrelevant.

I know the definition of "discrimination." You said that anything based on race is discrimination. Nothing about the definition of "discrimination" suggests that claim (i.e. that basing anything on race is discrimination) is true.

the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

so you don't know the definition.

Not diversity. Putting things right.

discrimination is illegal, but i guess as long as you are white it is ok. justifying discrimination in the name of diversity is even worse.

Getting into college and earning a degree has the potential for a pretty profound effect on your future well-being. Getting into a nightclub...not so much. We can justify the policy with regard to who gets into college, because it can help lift someone out of a situation they should never have been in, in the first place. No such similar justification exists for the nightclub example.

it doesn't matter we are talking about criteria. not getting into that program has a profound affect on her life now. not only that but because she is white she is legally discriminated against.
the hypocrisy continues.

you can't justify discrimination can you or you can as long as they are white right?
who are you to tell me what justification i can use. i am using the same criteria that texas is using.

if it is ok for them to limit people by race then by right any public business should be able to as well if they see fit.

so the next question is why do you continue to support discrimination?
 
Hypothetical said:
and how, pray tell, do you go about determining those levels? even the entertainment of appropriately attempting to do so from a long gone era seems impossible.

The law currently enshrines examples of how to do so. For instance, if a litigant can be shown to have delayed a lawsuit for a sufficient period of time in many jurisdictions, and is ultimately found to be liable, they are responsible to pay not merely the judgement, but also interest.

In this case, we have historical data to give us some guidelines about the rates of acquisition and accrual of property in this country. Had people of African descent been treated in the same way as European colonists from the very start of their being brought to this continent, black people would be about as well-off as white people, on the whole.

Hypothetical said:
I'm sure you are. it's because I believe in the equality of all of humanity and no longer seeing race as any sort of division. your solution, and in fact, the SC's decision, apparently do not subscribe to that belief, imho.

Depends on what you mean. I agree it should be that way; you seem to believe it essentially is already that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom