Borders Books: What a difference 5 years make

Joshua Korosi said:
Here, I got a better one. Say a Nazi officer had a Jew and your 10-year-old son both in handcuffs, and you are somehow forced to decide which one will die, without any alternative choices (including some kind of macho suicide-thing). Which one would you choose, and why? Tough choice? Just keep adding family members versus the one single Jewish prisoner until the decision becomes easier. Which choice is "brave"? Which is "cowardly"?
Click to expand...
I've always hated that type of analogy, since it attempts to shift the moral imperative from the villian to the victim, and falsely limit the choices in such a scenario to an untenable degree. The key issue here is that the villian is going to kill one of the two, regardless of which the victim chooses. The ultimate culpability is that of the villian, not the victim. Regardless of what choice the victim makes, there is no blood on his hands, only on the hands of the villian who creates and enacts the scenario.

The truly brave, moral act is to refuse to make that choice; to refuse to allow one's self to become involved in the murder in any way. Instead, one should attempt to resolve the scenario in a way that results in no one being murdered. Fighting back, attempting to reason with the villian, stalling until help arrives, etc. -- these are the only truly moral choices; and always options, regardless of any artifical hypothetical boundaries that one may posit. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the villian will accept the choice, and will simply kill who he chooses; or that he will not simply murder both, and possibly the victim as well. Acceeding to the villian's demand to choose is to aquiesce to murder. To accept it as inevitable, and a valid moral choice.
 
luchog said:
I've always hated that type of analogy, since it attempts to shift the moral imperative from the villian to the victim, and falsely limit the choices in such a scenario to an untenable degree. The key issue here is that the villian is going to kill one of the two, regardless of which the victim chooses.
Click to expand...

I agree; that's why I disliked Skeptic's question so much. In any case, making an allegory between the above-explained sort of scenario and Borders' decision not to run a magazine for a month is ludicrously hyperbolic, no matter what sort of rationalizion one could make.
 
Just a few things...

First of all, Joshua, all this talk about Borders risking their employees safety. Folks, last time I checked no one was FORCED to work at Borders. If told to carry a magazine they think puts them in danger, there's no handcuffs keeping them at the cash register at the store. Borders execs choose the store policy, employees always choose if they want to work there. Therefore, this is a matter of no one's safety, but of their stores policy and image.

Second, Skeptic, who is usually dead-on with most everything he says, pissed me off with one comment. That being an out-of-left-field snipe at Affirmative Action. I'm not even a person to engage in that stupid debate, but don't construct a caricature of the pro-Affirmative action position. On top of being off-topic and inflammatory, it's irresponsible. It's NOT "We deserve priority in college admission because our great grandfathers were oppressed." It's closer to "the government made it illegal for our great grandfathers to learn to read and write, therefore they got sh-t for jobs, were unable to make a decent living or provide well for our grandfathers, who in turn were poor and uneducated, leading down to us being generally uneducated, therefore it might be helpful for that same government to assist us in getting a college education."

Again, I don't take sides in that debate, but trying to ridicule one side will make me jump to de-ridicule it.

Anyway what else? Oh yeah. Borders also carries loads of other books that ridicule Islam. Um...so? Do you really think the terrorists know everything that's on Borders bookshelves? This might be the one that draws their attention.

Final thought, in the overall discussion...barring his affirmative action comment...Skeptic is right as usual. And also, I'll disagree with Cleon and say that the original poster has a good point. Great thread.
 
Last edited:
I see your point, EGarret, but I maintain that affirmative action is, nevertheless, "our grandparents were opressed so we deserve more".

If affirmative action was what you claim it was--"we grew up disadvantaged so we deserve more"--then affirmative action would be concerned with CLASS, not race. It would be concerned with giving people of all races who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged preference or leniancy in admission. I think most of us would agree that such a system would be fair, and would support that sort of affirmative action.

But affirmative action as it is currently employed is RACE based. It gives all and any black persons--simply for being black--preference over all and over white people. It doesn't matter if the black person is, say, Colin Powell's son and the white person the son of poor farmers; the fact that he has black skin is all the proof needed that he needs extra consideration.

Since that is the case, the only justification that can be given is simply that being black means you deserve extra credit, and the only justification for THAT sort of sweeping generalization is something like the "my grandparents were opressed so I deserve extra credit", since one's own circumstances don't enter into it.
 
Skeptic said:
If affirmative action was what you claim it was--"we grew up disadvantaged so we deserve more"--then affirmative action would be concerned with CLASS, not race.
Click to expand...
I don't see how that fits what I said at all.

The government made it illegal for American slaves to be educated. It was also policy to separate slave families and thus destroy cultural backgrounds and family units. These slaves were black. So, black people would be the ones who could make the argument "my great grandfather was forced to have no parents and be uneducated by official government policy, therefore he did not provide for my grandfather, who grew up uneducated and poor, and so on, leading to a chain in which I am uneducated and poor."

It's an argument that can be made by descendants of American slaves. Slavery was race-based. Therefore, affirmative action would be race-based.

It would be concerned with giving people of all races who are poor or otherwise disadvantaged preference or leniancy in admission. I think most of us would agree that such a system would be fair, and would support that sort of affirmative action.
Click to expand...

I would favor some sort of class or background check in affirmative action.

But I try not to get involved with the actual affirmative action debate, I just want to point out that the pro-Affirmative action position is not as foolish as you (perhaps unintentionally) made it sound.

Anyway, I don't mean to be one of the many people dogpiling on you in this thread. The people who calmly make their points and back them up without sarcasm and rudeness are the ones that, for some reason, attract the most attacks from others. I don't know why, but I've observed this phenomenon happening to me all the time. You seem to suffer the same fate.
 
I *am* for helping someone who are poor or otherwise in trouble due to forces beyound their control, *including* those who are in such a position due to slavery or its aftermath.

I just don't see why affirmative action should be *limited* to them, or why those who are now rich and succesful should get help merely because of past injustice done to their forefathers.
 
I never said it should be limited to them.

You posted an improper version of the argument. I attempted to present a more proper version. You said that that means that it shouldn't be limited to black people, I just wanted to clarify that the proper version of the argument does deal with African-Americans. Due to slavery being race-based.

I'm not particularly FOR affirmative action. I agree that you shouldn't give it to rich people just because they are black. I only want to clarify that the "my grandfather was oppressed" argument isn't as foolish as it was made to sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom