The former is affirmative action, which is a response to racism, while the latter is racism. Both are discrimination, but only one is due to "unjust prejudice". They are different & I couldn't care less if you agree with me or not.
First, I'm glad that you finally agree that they are both discrimination.
Second, the actions for both are the same. The reasoning behind the two are completely irrelevant in a discussion of discrimination.
Third, you're making an insignificant differentiation as you have yet given an example of a "other situation" that can't be viewed as "affirmative action".
1- One is ALma's definition of "discrimination" which means "choosing between two things" and the other is discrimination due to "unjust prejudice". They're different, but both "discrimination".
2- The reasoning behind discrimination matters, because without knowing the reasoning it's impossible to tell if it's "unjust prejudice" or not. We can't legally discriminate due to "unjust prejudice", but we can for other reasons.
3- ?- I don't know what you're referring too.
it can easily be viewed as "unjust prejudice" by racially discriminating against a person simply due to the color of their skin, regardless on your intent. That's like Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. A better example, stealing from the crooked and giving to the poor. Your intent doesn't change your action of stealing.
Nope, but intent matters when figuring out if stealing/discrimination is right or wrong, doesn't it?
So you support affirmative action that widens the racial gap in order to reduce the racial gap?
I think in the case of affirmative action, the pros outweigh the cons.
Then you didn't read the post. Simple as that.
As I said, if you support the segregation between men and women based on "comfort", then you can't argue against "comfort" as a reason for DADT because they are based on the same exact concepts.
I've never argued against "comfort" as a reason for DADT. Comfort was
a reason for DADT.
(the presence of homosexuals)would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability
Why did the presence of homos do this? Because most straights were uncomfortable knowing that there were gays in the military, I guess.
I've argued that since most Americans & the military are now comfortable with homosexuals (Which you disagree with, but cannot dispute), the negatives associated with a homosexual presence in the military no longer poses a risk to morale (in most cases), good order & discipline (Gays just LOVE orders & discipline!), & unit cohesion (in most cases).
If, the desegregation of the military by gender would ALSO result in a similar situation- then by all means integrate by gender too! But, ya know, the woman would have to actually WANT to room with the guys first. Your false equivalent is invalid, again
As I stated in the quote within post 206, I'm generally against discrimination of sexual orientation for jobs, but I'm realist and believe just like every other human trait, there exist times of discrimination.
So...you think its logical to discriminate due to sexual orientation at your job (the military) because you'd be uncomfortable knowing there were gays at your job & who they were (if they decided to tell you) & instead think they should keep it to themselves & get kicked out if it's found out they are *** because of your comfort?
WELL WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY SO?!!!
In this very post, you finally admitted that there is racial discrimination that is supported by society. So, that only leaves you with the sexuality as the ONLY thing that can't be logically discriminated against.
Affirmative action is not racial discrimination, nor is casting, & there's just no good reason to discriminate against a guy who likes to suck a ****.
You have your right to believe that, but I would ask you to re-look at your views.
I'd ask you to suck my ****, but I''m not ***. And you'd probably like it. Edited, Nov 10th 2011 9:59am by Omegavegeta