Validity of Racism and Affirmative Action

"more a question of how MANY laws/regs you'd see as appropriate." - Ok... WHO (or what level) gets to decide how many laws/regs are appropriate... same thing. "I cannot promise that I will strictly adhere to LD" - I wouldn't expect you to, I was just pointing out the irony of going to the extreme on the opposite right away. I believe that in normal debates, it's good to mix the two. If you can win on one front, but your opponent wins on the other, I think both people have lost. "The idea that EVERYONE will interbreed and pure lineages will be lost is no more likely or rational than human annihilation." - Equality (intermingling completely) is the goal of desegregation (even if it won't be accomplished). It would be ill to say "some should intermingle and some shouldn't"... as you then have to define who should and who shouldn't based on genetic (or otherwise empirical) qualities. Therefore, the goal must be for complete intermingling. Contrarily, the goal of segregation certainly isn't annihilation. "It is generally agreed (historically) that sharing ideas is beneficial to people as a whole." - Please give a source for this, because I've never seen any study, philosophical or empirical, to suggest this... let alone prove this. Sure, there's the common adage "we're better when we work together/two heads are better than one"... but I wouldn't say that means that it is "historically" generally agreed by anyone who has any type of merit to make such a claim. Why can't we change the constitution to establish segregation? "For starters, it would violate the ideas our nation was founded on." - Except... our nation was founded with slavery being legal, yet alone segregation? so.. the ideas that you're talking about simply never existed, in their minds anyway... they believed in states rights. We can say that it goes against what our (some of us) ideas are founded on, but certainly not against the ideas of our founding fathers. "Its supposed to be a melting pot. That's the whole idea." - Is it? Really? Sounds like liberal propaganda to me. "There are countries around the world that are largely homogeneous when it comes to race. The US has really NEVER been that way and was never meant to be." - In 1790, the TOTAL population of the United States was 3,893,635. There were 59,150 non-white free peoples and 694,280 slaves. That's a 1.5% population of non-white free peoples and 17.8% of slaves. In 1800, we had a total 5,305,982 people. There were 104,294 non-white free peoples and 893,605 slaves. that's a 1.9% population of non-white free peoples and 16.8% population of slaves http://en.wikipedia.org.... Compare that to modern Japan, that is considered EXTREMELY closed... they have a 1.5% population of non-Japanese http://en.wikipedia.org.... So, I'm not sure what this melting pot that founding fathers wanted? Furthermore, the breakdown of European ethnicity are here http://en.wikipedia.org... with England accounting for 67% of the population of white in America, Scot/Irish accounting for 14% and Germans accounting for 9%. That's 90% of the white population in America in 1790 from Great Britain or Germany. Not exactly a melting pot (considering all the Founding Fathers were from the UK http://wiki.answers.com..., with five that were not expressly British being James Smith, George Taylor, Matthew Thornton, James Wilson and John Witherspoon all having British sounding names.) That's alot just to say... we were not founded as a melting pot. "Yet, you seem to prefer this?" - I agree fighting each other hinders progress... that's why we should be separate. We wouldn't be fighting each other if we were separated. We could all join together in our own cause and be confident in the direction we are going. "Despite how you feel a 150 year old war SHOULD have ended" - It's not just that I think the War should have ended differently.. the War should have never been fought. This could have been done by the North quelling southern concerns dealing with "Bleeding Kansas" or simply allowing them to secede. Coercing States by force is not something we were founded on! (Join or Die was death by the British, not each other) "This isn't the EU or a coalition of nations" - Correct, it is the "union" of states... are those terms so different? True, the constitution does declare sovereignty (as opposed to the EU, which doesn't), states are still protected by the rights reserved to them by the Constitution. As repeated many times before, the tenth amendment proclaims "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" While adding the 14th amendment has changed that for slavery, I believe that the 10th Amendment asserts that States have the right to decide race relations. Sure, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been defended by the Supreme Court...but I do not believe the power to pass such an act was "delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "all Americans should be afforded the same legal rights, abide by the same regulations, enjoy the same privileges, and have the same liberties." - I could not agree with you more. "It violates rights (legal, that is), privileges AND liberties to tell people where they can or cannot live, work, learn or visit." - That is not true, at least not any Right granted by the constitution. "families could be torn apart, people could lose their jobs, be expelled from school, forcibly relocated" - that's kinda the point, isn't it? "A country should not harass and abuse its citizens." - and yet.. it happens... continually "However, I aim to look at the country as a whole and consider all citizens, not just those who are a certain color." - As do I... it affects both sides, as do your suggested policies. You must see that. Your policies don't just concern those of a certain color... they affect everyone. "Its interesting you say equality wastes resources, because I say that inequality wastes them." - Give for example, you have a group of long distance runners... if you were to have a race of several miles, would it be better for all if those who finished first went back and helped the others? Or better to only count those who finished first and exclude the others? Which would give you the best average times? If you had to pick teams, should you do it a random, or only have the best? Granted, we live in an economic world, where the best aren't always the richest... but when it comes to genes, I think this argument rings true. You don't get the best genes by having the best genes mate with lesser genes. You should only want the best genes to be reproduced, and in that way advance the species. Now, I realize I'm arguing more for eugenics here, but I think in the way I described Dog Breeding, it is best when you take each form to its extent, instead of muddling and averaging. "please define 'people' when it comes to legal matters" - Mean that the constitution should state (or just assumed kinda like it is) that the government shall make no law or judicial ruling or anything of the like based on race.. at all... maybe so far to say that no language regarding races can be used in any official documents. I think it should be up to the States. The great part of being United is there no restriction on where to go. The more diversity of the states, the more options we have as citizens. If we want to be bigots, there should be a place where we can go to be bigots, with other bigots. We've talked before, I want a place that I can go, but it doesn't exist. Not on this idea, but in general... I want diversity in America!!! I want us to be different!!! You are the one that wants to push the same onto everyone! Consider that in your response