Reverse Discrimination.

I recently watched a video on youtube that discussed something that the poster referred to as “Reverse Discrimination.”  The vlogger went into detail about all of the perks and benefits that come from being discriminated against.  He claimed that specifically women and minorities get extra perks.  He goes along to cite certain instances where “the discriminated” have an upper hand.  One of the major points he talks about is affirmative action.  He highlighted specific instances where people did not get a job or a scholarship because they weren’t a minority.  This is what the user claimed to be reverse discrimination.  This to me seemed a little dramatic at first, but after quite a bit of thought, I considered both sides of the argument.  The opposition would say that because these “minorities” were discriminated against, that made them less than equal in the “real world.”  In the past, I could see how this would be helpful, but as time progresses, I think that practices such as this could be slowly dissolved.  Originally, it was meant to level the playing field, but now it seems that more and more, it may not be needed.  This is fantastic, if everyone is more equal, that means that discrimination is being less and less dominant.  This video actually wasn’t very well explained, and did require quite a bit of thought to actually get the point that the user was attempting to make.  Overall, it was rather thought provoking, and I tend to enjoy videos like this.

Florida's Darwinian Interlude

This article, written by Ben Stein, is about a new proposed law that would take effect in Florida. Basically this proposed law ban that teachers or students from teaching or discussing any theory of creation other than Darwinism.  Stein starts off with a series of questions that draws your attention to the fact that it is not easy to prove Darwinism. He claims that you can assume one theory, but that there is next to no proof for either.  He continues to say that if something is not verifiable, that we or our government should not impose limitations on other theories.  Stein even uses analogies by comparing our government to “worse than Stalin-ism”.  He does this to help him prove that even Stalin respected knowledge, and only limited other rights.  He continues to say that this law is a direct attack against our ability to learn, and therefore violates the first amendment.  This analogy does prove a point to his audience.  It may be slightly exaggerated, but doing this actually furthers his point.  It shows how much he is against this proposed law and that he doesn’t want to accept it. Stein admits that he is not an expert on this, but still manages to dispute the proposed law by using a logical order of thought. You can tell that he spent the time on this and really thought out what he was going to say before he actually did anything.    This achieves its purpose and resonates well with Steins intended audience.