Affirmative Action

Affirmative Action

 

Aaron Edwards

I don’t believe affirmative action is moral. Being that to accept an individual by offering them a job or be accepted in college because they are a minority or women.  Due to the fact that you’re a minority or women you’re not qualified to work or go to college.  I believe that whether or not you are minority or women you should meet some type of requirements to get a job. If you don’t meet them then you should not be consider for job. But you can argue that affirmative action has helped a lot of individuals in a good or bad way with school and work. Discrimination is still alive in America so that affirmative action will not work everywhere because people will not allow women or minority an opportunity.  Since I am black man and considered a minority I don’t want to get a job just because of that I want to work for what I got so at the end of the day I can say I was taught the right way to make a dollar. The way to make a dollar is buy hard work of course as a human you want things giving to you that are a natural characteristic but you don’t want everything given to you. Then you will not want to work for anything. Which will make you become lazy and think you have the right to everything. So there is good and bad in affirmative action you just have to be the judge of it.

 

Affirmative Action

Although some may make the point that affirmative action encourages the continuation of prejudice, the ugly truth is that they would still exist without it.  Humankind has not reached a point of total acceptance of all beings and getting rid of affirmative action is not the solution to that.  However, in the combat against prejudice affirmative action is merely a band-aid.  It is truly shameful to think that in the year 2013 superficial features still play a role in how people are judged in general aspects of life, as well as career and educational processes that have nothing to do with one’s ability to do their job.  Without affirmative action employers with an agenda against a certain group would easily discriminate. 

In the case of affirmative action, the person applying for the job or for admission to a school must meet AT LEAST the minimum requirements.  So it is not the case that many critics of affirmative action argue that employers are hiring incompetent people just so they can fill a legally required percentage. 
  It is also important that veterans be included in affirmative action.  Whether they saw combat or sat in an office, veterans made a sacrifice in honor of our country.  To discriminate against this group because of disagreements with military, or fear of post-war problems such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder would be dishonorable.  It is important that after serving their time veterans receive no discrimination and the same opportunities as non-veterans.  Additionally, blatant and accepted discrimination of military members could possibly discourage potential members from joining, thus weakening the United States military as well as weakening the honor and appreciation that it deserves.  Until it can be proven that prejudice no longer exist affirmative action is a 100% necessary system of containment. 

Affirmative Action

Jackie Faugno

Individual Blog Post #4

I do not think affirmative action is moral. To accept an individual into a college, or to offer them a job based on the fact that they are a woman or a minority is wrong, just as it is wrong to deny the individual acceptance into a college or a job offer based on their gender or race. I think college admissions and job acceptance should be based on merit. If you are not qualified for a job position, then you should not receive it. It is unfair to both the employee and the company, and I believe the same goes for college admissions. If the candidate in both scenarios cannot handle the workload expected of them, they will suffer by getting bad grades, being stressed out, or, worst case, getting fired or put on academic probation. The same is true for the college or employer; their reputation will suffer if they have individuals attending/employed that are not capable of performing up to their standards. I also think affirmative action is just another form of discrimination, just, in the case of affirmative action, the discrimination is against a majority group in favor of a minority group. I believe all forms of discrimination are wrong and immoral, and this situation is no different. As a female, I would not want to receive a job offer/college admission just because of my gender. I want to get one because I worked hard to prove myself as the best possible candidate. I do not need any favors. As I said before, it is unfair to both parties involved, and could have unwanted consequences. I think job offers and college acceptances should be based on merit, not gender or race.     

Blog Post #4-- Affirmative Action

Jeff Latimer
I think that affirmative action is moral so long as it is given to someone when there is a tie and both candidates are equally qualified.

Just because someone is a certain color skin or gender does not necessarily mean that that person is at a disadvantage in society. There are many women and black people who are more well off than white man. Just because someone is black does not mean they are poor, just because someone is white does not mean that they are rich. To assume that someone is poor just because of their skin color only underlines the stereotype. However, it think that most stereotypes have some truth to them. So if candidates for a job are at a tie than it would be the moral thing to do to give the job to whoever is assumed to be at a disadvantage. If people hire people just because of their race or gander than it is reverse discrimination. If we hire a person just because they are a minority or female then we are just putting white people at a disadvantage. People should work jobs that they are qualified for. If people hire with a bias towards people of a certain race/gander than it will cause people of that race to tell themselves that they don't need to do as good in school or college because they are a minority. It will kill peoples motivation. People will also say that a person got hired because they are a certain race rather than their qualifications. If people who aren't fit for a certain job are hired the work will not be done correctly. There might be more casualties at the work place, customers will get mad, and more money will be spent.

Even thought some groups of people are at a disadvantage in society, it doesn't mean that they should get a job over someone that id more qualified. However, if there is a tie between two candidates it essentially dose not matter which person the employer chooses, in that case, the employer should pick the person who is at a disadvantage.

Gun Rights

Cody Fitelson Jose Collado Geoffrey Kiarie Gabriella Sampaio

 

The debate on gun control is a very complex issue. Everyone has their own opinions and many of these people are extremely passionate on this issue. Right now in the United States there are an estimated 310 million guns circulating this country (GunPolicy.org). That is a crazy number when you think of it. There is a little more than 300 million people in America, which means that there are more guns in this country than there are citizens. As disturbing as a fact that may be, it’s nothing compared to this next fact. Every year, over 30,000 people die from gun related deaths (GunPolicy.org). This incorporates suicides, accidental deaths, and murder with any type of gun.

It is the opinion of our group that guns should be legal, but regulated. It is clear that the right to bear arms is in the 2^nd amendment of our constitution and that the government should not infringe upon this. In a perfect world, we would have no guns, but that will never happen. Although guns are legal, there should only be certain guns and bullets that the public can purchase. The guns we would allow the public to buy are handguns, shotguns, and certain types of rifles (like bolt action rifles which are primarily used in hunting and shooting for sport). When the constitution was made, there was only a single loading musket that took about 40 seconds to reload. Weapons have changed and assault rifles are used for one purpose, killing. Guns like the AR-15 should only be used by police officers and military personnel. In addition to banning certain types of guns to the general public, there should be magazine limits as well as restrictions on armor piercing bullets. A typical handgun holds anywhere from 9 to 12 bullets. There is no need to have a clip size of 24 bullets in a handgun, nor should it be legal. The shooter in Tucson had extended magazines which enabled him to continue shooting without reloading for a longer period of time.  Armor piercing bullets as well as extended magazines should both be illegal.

We believe that if the government regulates gun sales, enforces gun laws, and strictly punishes those who disobey the law, then gun-violence will decrease significantly. After thorough discussion and re-visiting certain disputes, we agreed that gun violence is a major issue, and while it is a right to own a gun, it should be heavily regulated in order to prevent catastrophes that are not only becoming more frequent, but also more severe.

Lastly, gun regulation has become a necessity, simply because technology is advancing at such a rapid rate that guns are becoming more lethal with each passing decade. At the time that the constitution was drawn up, the deadliest weapon available was a musket which fired one bullet and took 40 seconds to reload. In modern society, people have access to weapons that can let off hundreds upon hundreds of rounds in the time it takes to shoot and reload that old musket. Gun regulation was not a debate in the 18th century because people couldn't do much damage with the weapons they had, even if they wanted to. Today, all it takes is a kid who is having a bad day and has access to his dads AR-15 to yield a mass killing.

We are not saying, “Eliminate the second amendment.” We are not saying, “Americans do not deserve the right to own guns.” And we certainly aren't saying, “If you own a gun, you will become a mass killer.” But what we are saying, is that if government doesn't take affirmative action, and they continue to allow any 18 year old to walk into a near-by Cabela's and by hunting rifle's at his own whim, these tragedies will continue to get more severe and we will lose our sense of safety in a country where too much freedom has clearly become poisonous to its' citizens.

Blog Post #4-- Affirmative Action

My views on Affirmative Action: If there were no reason to place a policy into the United States law systems which guarantees that people of color, females, and other minorities will have equality in the workplace and in higher education, then there will be no affirmative Action. People were being discriminated against and denied rights to essential duties of life. How else should America make up for it’s lost cause? Affirmative action derived from that very place where guilt did, and opened up opportunities to those discriminated against.

On page 225 in Why Affirmative Action is Immoral, by Louis P. Pojman quotes Dr. Martin L. King with the mounting the hoarse phrase. Pojman made an analogy to that saying that we, the US, are mounting the horse for minorities to obtain jobs, but we are falling off of the other side because white males aren’t able to get any jobs. America mounted the hoarse in their hopes of keeping African American’s and females (in civil movement times) oppressed when they created the quarter of a person law, Jim Crow laws, anti-women voting rights, and all kinds of other madness. Thus, they fell off on the other side when they started realizing that people needed aid to survive (such as welfare, housing assistance, WIC, and all other programs the nation complain about having to pay), that they couldn’t obtain without a job. They also realized they fell off on the other side when they realized that its citizens aren’t all voting due to deprivation of even wanting certain people to know about politics and therefore keeping them uneducated about making changes in society.

As stated in her article, Judith Jarvis Thomson touched upon three debts that she explains should be paid back: debts of gratitude, debts of creditors, and debts to someone you have wronged.

So what is preferential hiring? According to Judith Jarvis Thomson, it is the feeling of wanting to give a person a chance because he or she has been deprived in a sense that the giver feels he/she must help put back (377). But isn’t the definition of preference the choosing of one’s liking? Affirmative Action does not create preferential hiring, but probably guilt hiring. Prejudice people will prefer to hire who they want to. People who understands the law will hire someone because they feel that that person should have a chance at doing something he/she wants to.

Gun Rights

Kathleen Abouzeide

Mike Tully

William Meza-Vasquez

Brandon Wood

Gun Rights

            Americans are taught from a very early age what their rights as American citizens are. The public, or most specifically conservatives argue against gun control policies simply because these policies slightly modify this amendment. Secondly, we have the idea that one must protect one's family and property. Some rather be safe than sorry. Another self interest are gun enthusiasts, people that collect weapons and feel as if they shouldn't be restricted to what kind of weapons they are capable of acquiring.

Sadly we have gone through many gun related tragedies recently (i.e. Sandy Hook massacre, Aurora Theater massacre) and these events have led to the uprising of a series of gun control policies and massive popular acclaimed protests. Citizens are becoming more aware of the present issue due to social media. Should this second amendment really be a right for any born American? Or should it be a privilege to those who are capable of handling harmful arms.

Our group feels that there should not be a complete restriction on guns.  Rather there should be a process in which one must take in order to own a gun to set up limits on who can own a gun and what type of gun they can own.  The process should include how to use a gun, teach the dangers on guns, and a background check on the individual who is acquiring the gun.  This will set a restriction and lower the number of gun holders.  Persons caught violating this should have to pay a fine and or lose their permits.  This process will not fully restrict access to guns but will allow for requirements to be met in order to obtain one, making sure that the guns are in safe hands and not just with anybody.

The individual interests of gun ownership may be one or more of many things. A person who wants or owns a firearm may want it as a collector's item, or maybe they want it for sport, or hunting. Perhaps they live in a dangerous area or work a dangerous job and need it in order to ensure their own safety. Or rather, maybe they want one just for the closure of knowing they have a means of personal protection. And, less commonly talked about, another big reason for private gun ownership is the prevention and/or defense against tyranny.

One reason we believe that people should be able to own guns is because people feel safe with owning a gun so they can use it in self defense.  Take for example if someone’s house was broken into and there was a person robbing it.  If the homeowner had access to a gun it could be used in self-defense in a situations like this.  It wouldn’t necessarily have to be fired it could be used as an intimidation tool to rid their home of the intruder.

It would also be unsafe to take away guns from owners. Many guns that are owned are not registered, they are owned illegally.  Guns can be taken away, but will still be out there.  This will leave non-gun owners as easy prey to be attacked. 

We also believe that people should have to take a class on gun ownership in order to own a gun.  Education on guns would lead to less violence and less accidents.  Also if people knew how dangerous guns can be it would make them think about how to be more safe with their gun.

For some people guns are used for recreation in hunting and shooting.  In some areas hunting is a major part of their culture.  To take guns away would be taking away from their way of life. 

Gun Rights

Cooper Dubuque

Alexa True 

Thounsa Kerse

Damon

Gun Rights

  Guns are a significant part of traditional American hobbies.  The American people use guns for sporting purposes that range from hunting, to gun ranges and skeet shooting.  It is also clear that some Americans do not want to possess guns solely for the purpose of sport, many feel it is necessary to obtain guns for protection and it’s their constitutional right to do so. Guns also provide a check against government tyranny as an armed citizenry. Unfortunately guns are also used unlawfully every day which has put these traditions at risk of termination. 

    Too take guns away entirely would be unconstitutional and unethical, however there are some precautions that can be taken to attempt to protect the American people while still allowing them rights to their guns.  For example, background checks before gun registration would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get ahold of guns and potentially use them for violence.  Those who use guns for sport or protection would not be affected negatively by this.  Also, limiting magazine capacity is an effective but nonintrusive contribution to the fight against mass shootings. When someone is set on doing harm they will find ways to do it, restricting gun laws only harms those citizens who acquire guns through legal channels for justified purposes. according to FBI crime statistics more people die from clubbing deaths then actual causaulities from rifles (http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles). 

    With that said, our group believes that people should be allowed to bear arms, but would be limited magazines and limited to handguns and certain shotguns. We feel that while it's hard to limit people to only a limited amount of guns and magazines, it also wouldn't make sense if people were allowed to get as many magazines or any type of gun they would like. If the intention was truly to be for protection, a person wouldn't need access to medium to long ranged weapons. As mentioned before, government tyranny is a possible motive for bearing arms. If the population is stripped of its defenses, then it would mean we are totally susceptible to the government if something or someone became corrupt. We feel that while the opposition to allowing people to have guns is that the crime rate may increase, we think that criminals will find a way to get guns regardless if they are legal are not, and even if it’s not guns, if someone wants to kill someone bad enough they will find a way. People often talk about the dangers of gun violence when there are many other more frequent types of violence.