3 ms·

In my opinion, that debate isn't really worth having in this context - see the HN rules on reopening flamewars[0]. Suffice to say that affirmative action has al

by yzzxy 12y ago

In my opinion, that debate isn't really worth having in this context - see the HN rules on reopening flamewars[0]. Suffice to say that affirmative action has already been discussed inside and out in almost every single context. The US Supreme Court case University of California v. Bakke is a good starting point if you want to read about the issue. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

questions 12y ago
Well, then feel free not to participate in this debate. I understand where the courts stand on affirmative action, that case is a little different than what I am talking about. Also, just because a the Supreme Court decides something doesn't mean they are correct (Dred Scoot v. Standford).
- yzzxy 12y ago
  It's a little different, but still a good starting point. It contains some strong arguments both for and against affirmative action, and is significant beyond simple legal status. I cited that case not because I believe SCOTUS is correct in all contexts, but because the format of Supreme Court cases is a good way to have an argument in my opinion. Facts are presented from previous hearings, without deliberations over authenticity, and legal arguments are made based on those facts. I note that I don't think the debate is worth having here because it is against the HN guidelines: > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. not because I don't think the discussion is still worth having in the present day. Finally, I would like to point out that Dredd Scott v. Sandford is often considered an accurate legal ruling. The direct result of the ruling was disgusting, but side remarks by justices in the majority opinion revealed fundamental inconstancies in US state/federal slavery laws and precipitated the Civil War.

by yzzxy 12y ago

questions 12y ago

Well, then feel free not to participate in this debate. I understand where the courts stand on affirmative action, that case is a little different than what I am talking about. Also, just because a the Supreme Court decides something doesn't mean they are correct (Dred Scoot v. Standford).

yzzxy 12y ago
It's a little different, but still a good starting point. It contains some strong arguments both for and against affirmative action, and is significant beyond simple legal status. I cited that case not because I believe SCOTUS is correct in all contexts, but because the format of Supreme Court cases is a good way to have an argument in my opinion. Facts are presented from previous hearings, without deliberations over authenticity, and legal arguments are made based on those facts. I note that I don't think the debate is worth having here because it is against the HN guidelines: > Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them. not because I don't think the discussion is still worth having in the present day. Finally, I would like to point out that Dredd Scott v. Sandford is often considered an accurate legal ruling. The direct result of the ruling was disgusting, but side remarks by justices in the majority opinion revealed fundamental inconstancies in US state/federal slavery laws and precipitated the Civil War.