- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
Every day of every every month of every year is White History moment.
What a stupid OP.
What a stupid OP.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wrong. He os protecting the health and well being of his employees.The owner of the company is only a racist if he believes in the superiority or inferiority of one race over another.Hypothetical Scenario:
A man owns a Home Healthcare company. His company delivers oxygen and medical supplies to folks who live at home but require these supplies as a matter of life and death or at least for a healthier, better quality of life. The man's company is centered in a part of town that borders a really rough, high-crime neighborhood but he needs to deliver medical supplies to anyone and everyone who needs them regardless of the neighborhood in which they reside. The high-crime neighborhood happens to be mostly black.
The man employs 8 delivery technicians. 4 of them are black and 4 of them are white. Whenever he sends one of his white drivers into the black neighborhood they are either harassed or assaulted. As a result and for safety's sake the company owner enacts a new company policy: "Only black drivers shall deliver medical supplies to that black neighborhood."
Is the company owner a racist for only sending drivers of a particular race to a particular neighborhood?
What he is practicing is racial discrimination. Whether that's legal, or justified, is up to employment and anti discrimination laws that apply to that town.
The poorest judges of whether or not the company owner is a racist, would include Fox and MSNBC, people with preexisting racial resentments, and most of the people on this site.
Wrong. He is doing both.
The owner of the company is only a racist if he believes in the superiority or inferiority of one race over another.Hypothetical Scenario:
A man owns a Home Healthcare company. His company delivers oxygen and medical supplies to folks who live at home but require these supplies as a matter of life and death or at least for a healthier, better quality of life. The man's company is centered in a part of town that borders a really rough, high-crime neighborhood but he needs to deliver medical supplies to anyone and everyone who needs them regardless of the neighborhood in which they reside. The high-crime neighborhood happens to be mostly black.
The man employs 8 delivery technicians. 4 of them are black and 4 of them are white. Whenever he sends one of his white drivers into the black neighborhood they are either harassed or assaulted. As a result and for safety's sake the company owner enacts a new company policy: "Only black drivers shall deliver medical supplies to that black neighborhood."
Is the company owner a racist for only sending drivers of a particular race to a particular neighborhood?
What he is practicing is racial discrimination. Whether that's legal, or justified, is up to employment and anti discrimination laws that apply to that town.
The poorest judges of whether or not the company owner is a racist, would include Fox and MSNBC, people with preexisting racial resentments, and most of the people on this site.
So if you owned the company and your white employees were routinely harassed or beaten would you continue to send them into harm's way?
You presume too much, for he said nothing of the sort.
Pineapple
It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.
.
I purposely left that detail out.
So ...
a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?
America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.
Thoughts?
I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.
That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.
Every day of every every month of every year is White History moment.
What a stupid OP.
Definitely the politically correct thing to do.The owner of the company is only a racist if he believes in the superiority or inferiority of one race over another.
What he is practicing is racial discrimination. Whether that's legal, or justified, is up to employment and anti discrimination laws that apply to that town.
The poorest judges of whether or not the company owner is a racist, would include Fox and MSNBC, people with preexisting racial resentments, and most of the people on this site.
So if you owned the company and your white employees were routinely harassed or beaten would you continue to send them into harm's way?
No, I would fire the white employees and hire all black people...since they are better qualified.
Maybe from your POV, but I think it's the practical thing to do, PC regardless.
But all the other neighborhoods are mostly white. What if the black drivers are being assaulted in the white neighborhoods? Would you not want to keep your black drivers safe?
Pineapple
It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.
.
I purposely left that detail out.
So ...
a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?
America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.
Thoughts?
I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.
That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.
No, its not...For example: Women are hired to fill quotas. Racism has nothing to do with hiring
Definitely the politically correct thing to do.So if you owned the company and your white employees were routinely harassed or beaten would you continue to send them into harm's way?
No, I would fire the white employees and hire all black people...since they are better qualified.
Maybe from your POV, but I think it's the practical thing to do, PC regardless.
But all the other neighborhoods are mostly white. What if the black drivers are being assaulted in the white neighborhoods? Would you not want to keep your black drivers safe?
Of course. I would want to ensure the safety of all my employees. If racial tensions were as bad as that, I would hire based on route: white drivers for white neighborhood and vice versa.
Pineapple
It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.
.
I purposely left that detail out.
So ...
a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?
America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.
Thoughts?
I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.
That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.
No, its not...For example: Women are hired to fill quotas. Racism has nothing to do with hiring
Filling quotas based on race OR gender is wrong. One should be hired based on experience; know-how; talent; and general qualifications.
I would even take it a step further. If I had no qualified, black applicants and was not able to hire any black drivers then I would simply stop servicing any area that would place my remaining employees in harm's way. That would be true if I only had black drivers who were routinely harassed if/when they entered dangerous, white neighborhoods.
Pineapple
It would be racist to assume the business owner is not an African-American to start with.
.
I purposely left that detail out.
So ...
a) would he be racist if he was a white business owner?
b) would he be racist if he was a black business owner?
America lives by a double standard where race is concerned. Some races enjoy a "history month" while other races do not.
Thoughts?
I think you need to start with what the term racist means and go from there.
That's a great place to start!!! It's "racist" to hire anyone, anywhere to fill a quota! Your turn.
No, its not...For example: Women are hired to fill quotas. Racism has nothing to do with hiring
Filling quotas based on race OR gender is wrong. One should be hired based on experience; know-how; talent; and general qualifications.
I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.
Definitely the politically correct thing to do.No, I would fire the white employees and hire all black people...since they are better qualified.
Maybe from your POV, but I think it's the practical thing to do, PC regardless.
But all the other neighborhoods are mostly white. What if the black drivers are being assaulted in the white neighborhoods? Would you not want to keep your black drivers safe?
Of course. I would want to ensure the safety of all my employees. If racial tensions were as bad as that, I would hire based on route: white drivers for white neighborhood and vice versa.
I would even take it a step further. If I had no qualified, black applicants and was not able to hire any black drivers then I would simply stop servicing any area that would place my remaining employees in harm's way. That would be true if I only had black drivers who were routinely harassed if/when they entered dangerous, white neighborhoods.
I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.
What tha....LMAO
I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.
What tha....LMAO
I know. I used to think the same thing, but I listened to a show where a very liberal person said the same thing, and after feeling reflexively incredulous and doing more research, realized that Affirmative Action, when it comes to higher education, isn't the best use of resources or political will when it comes to minorities (I leave out white women as they have benefited the most and significantly from AA).
I am, as you know, a liberal. Affirmative Action, in my opinion, based on studies, doesn't help minorities, or, I should say, doesn't help them very well, at least, in the context of higher education. It helps some, few individuals but they are the outliers. For the most part it hasn't helped and has actually done some harm.
What tha....LMAO
I know. I used to think the same thing, but I listened to a show where a very liberal person said the same thing, and after feeling reflexively incredulous and doing more research, realized that Affirmative Action, when it comes to higher education, isn't the best use of resources or political will when it comes to minorities (I leave out white women as they have benefited the most and significantly from AA).
Yeah but thats the common broad brush rebuttal to any and everything: "Isnt the best use of resources" but when those people are asked what the "best use" is everyone has a different answer.