Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 37
I'm not surprised that an immoral and unconstitutional practice produces net negative results for all.

On the other hand, I don't think that benefits to a single individual change the basic immorality and overall negative impact of affirmative action.

Should it matter if an immoral act somehow benefits the perpetrator?

Should I be less outraged if a mugger uses my money to buy a book instead of crack or liquor?

Should I be less outraged if an assailant pummels me but benefits from the aerobic exercise?

Should slaves have been less outraged if plantation owners profited from their enslavement?

Why is racism more palatable when we call it by another name?

Does anybody think that politicians would vote for "affirmative action" if it was correctly labeled "government racism?"

Does anybody think "affirmative action" would last if schools or employers were forced to tell victims that they lost out because of their skin color?

Does anybody think that "affirmative action" would last if those who benefitted were forced to go to the home of the victim and thank them for their job or educational opportunity?

The immorality of an act is the same whether perpetrated by government or an individual.



wolvy
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.