Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but that's not what I meant - I mean genes are a more dominant differentiator for all human beings, by virtue of biology, on the order of 75-25. Who you end up being is less a factor of what happens to you than your genetic makeup. Which is an uncomfortable fact for some people.
Again, without getting involved for the moment (maybe later because it's way more interesting than the American Politics thread right now) in your argument with Cliff, I was bringing it up to analogize it to the evidence supporting the above statement about how influential genetic makeup is. There are quite a lot of people who for ideological reasons resist those conclusions, much like they do in the case of climate change.
|
Which I totally agree with. My point was simply that there are some people (in the black community, in every community) where, given nothing more than increased opportunity, could be much more successful and well-off than they are. Those people exist in every community, so considering that lack of opportunity (or even more extreme: giving opportunity) will absolutely have a positive impact.
It will not help all people. What does? It will help
some people. Because for
some people it really is the biggest difference between success and failure.
So, I took Cliff's "it's not helpful because black people don't have books" as silly. I assume he doesn't mean "all black people" but rather "some" as I did, but saying "providing better opportunity won't matter because some members of the black community don't have books" is a fundamentally incorrect statement on its own. It makes no sense.
This all ties back to the point: How is recognizing a factor that certainly impacts members of a community at a higher rate than others, a bad thing? It's not like other communities don't get considerations specific to them, so what's the difference?