People can never be regarded as equals

"10.1% of African Americans remain unemployed as opposed to only 4.7% of white americans." In the above argument, you mentioned the word "remain", however according to your source, this information was from 1995. "In February 1995 the unemployment rate for African Americans was 10.1 percent as compared to 4.7 percent for white Americans (Berry, 1995). " http://www.socialworkers.org... "Not too long ago, infact early this month, the first black female minister in Italy Cecile Kyenge was insulted both on the basis of her race and her gender by a European parliament member Mario Borghezio (referring to the Italian government as a bonga bonga government)." This is not because of her race or gender, but more because of Mario Borghezio personality. "Borghezio, who has a long history of controversial comments, including verbal attacks on immigrants, has been condemned by some members of his own party." Even if Cecile Kyenge wasn't black, Borghezio would probably found some way or another to verbally attack this immigrant. http://www.ibtimes.com... "Please refer to the part where I say that. What I said was We cannot address the inequalities created by the segregation, emasculation and economic deprivation which arose during the 400 or so years of slavery and segregation without helping those who were previously disadvantaged more than we would those who were advantaged (which is were affirmative action comes into play) This "unequal" treatment of people (which is a reference to affirmative action) actually helps society function better. At what point do I insinuate what you have suggested? I'm not sure how that helps your argument, because what i'm saying is that affirmative action, or broad based black economic empowerment as it is called in South Africa, cannot by its very definition be regarded as treating people as equals, from a literal perspective it amounts to empowering a certain group of people, you say in the long run the generations will have equal opportunities, but the fact remains that people empowered by these provisions are not literally regarded as equals to those not empowered by these provisions. They are afforded with more opportunities in essence it is reverse apartheid/segregation." Forgive me, I have misread your text. What I want to point out now is that our topic of the debate is meant to be revolved around "People Can Never Be Regarded as Equals". So like you said, even if we empower a certain group of people in today's society (African Americans), future generations will have equal opportunity. That means it is possible for these people to have equal opportunity with the rest of society in the future. "Have to pay credit where it's due, that is a nice counter argument. However I would like to point a flaw in your statement "how much they are affected by it". The wealthy are not treated as equals, by the tax system, instead they are regarded in higher esteem. Firstly you need to note that not all income is taxable; municipal bonds offer tax free income, tax from foreign income is exempt from tax to a certain degree and income from long term capital gains amongst a few. These are tax breaks readily available to the wealthy to use and to abuse. http://www.foxbusiness.com...... The Fed is aware of this, yet continues to literally hand these tax breaks over to the wealthy, is that not a sign of unequal treatment. A good example arises in the case of Warren Buffett who is afforded by the tax system a lower tax rate than his secretary. Infact in 2010 he was taxed of only 17.4% of his taxable income http://www.forbes.com...... tell me is that equal treatment" First of all, let me clarify this a bit. Middle class and lower class can participate in reducing their federal tax as well. These options aren't available only to the rich is what I am saying, they are available to everybody. But still, the Federal Government is fully aware of the situation with super rich people like Warren Buffet paying lesser tax than his secretary. In 2011, the Buffet Rule was proposed by Obama so that Americans making over 2 million dollars annually would need to pay at least 30% tax. This would start making the rich not be able to cheat on their taxes. Although the bill was close to passing, the bill ended with 51-45 (requires 60 to pass). Even so that this bill didn't pass, Obama is currently trying to fix this situation along with most of Senate. They are aware that this is unequal treatment and will put a stop to it as soon as possible. http://www.forbes.com... http://consumerist.com... "On top of the ramps that are to be built by "their tax money" disability grants are also afforded to the disabled. They help pay for staircases, we help pay for ramps and their grants. That is not equality" The difference is, these disabled people are different from us regular people. They are at slight disadvantages to regular pedestrians. Many people are born disabled or have been injured in accidents. This is an unfair and unequal treatment to them if we just leave them alone. This can be seen as an analogy of poor people : disabled people, rich people : non disabled people. We want to help these disabled people so they can live well in our current society as well as help innovate it. In order for a good working society where all people should have easy accessibility to the same things, it is necessary to help fund them through both government and NPO means. "Liberty is defined in the oxford dictionary as : 1) the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one"s behaviour or political views" Oppressive is defined in the oxford dictionary as : 1) unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, especially on a minority or other subordinate group ^^ Key word is "unjustly". So basically liberty is the state of being free within society from unfair restrictions imposed by authority on one's behaviour or political views. "Prisoners are not free from oppressive restrictions, the very fact that their movement is limited and confined at certain times to a cell, infringes on the right to liberty. Furthermore the statement "we are protecting the safety of the people...FOR THE COMMON GOOD" is not entirely true. When prisoners get out of jail they have incredible difficulties finding a job because society already labels them as villains (again another example of unequal treatment) to the point that some return to crime as a way of feeding their families. How is that helping the greater good? Certain researchers have suggested that sexual victimization in prison may be as high as 41%..." First of all, the greater number of people are not past time criminals, but innocent citizens. If we let criminals continuously roam our streets and don't do anything, we will end up with much violence and murder. These innocent citizens have not committed any acts of crime that should infringe upon their unalienable rights. When I mention the term "common good", I am referring to the greater number of innocent citizens of the whole of our society. Society labeling a previous criminal as a "villain" is not an example of unequal treatment however. These past-time criminals are the ones at fault, for committing a crime in the first place, when they should fully understand the consequences of doing so. Job opportunities may be limited for them, but that doesn't mean finding a job is impossible. Many of these past-time criminals either end up starting their own business, participating in medical tests, or doing online freelance work. These jobs do not require background checks which means their criminal record doesn't matter. http://www.articledashboard.com...