I have a question that's been on my mind lately, /pol/;

>>138740134
>remove ability to pass on wealth to your children
>all reasons for actually developing long lasting wealth go out the window
>spend all of your money in your 70s and die from alcohol poisoning
>entire society collapses

yeah nah i vote that we stick with the oppression

>>138740134
Passing on assets to one's children encourages people to work hard and make something of themselves so that those they love will reap the fruits of one's labor.

On the other hand, affirmative action can discourage people from working, since they see others being given wealth for doing nothing.

>>138740340
Right, and I agree with that (excepting some weird implementations of extreme meritocracy that might possibly work), but I'm just trying to rectify passing along wealth between generations and the claim that past discrimination does not directly harm present minorities.

Because if it does harm present minorities, then there's actually precedent for having it, and we can all agree that affirmative action shouldn't actually be a thing,

>>138740854
don't bother attempting to rationalize any of this, the entire argument is set up to deceive you.

>>138740936
How so?

so i wouldn't be considered a minority (yet!), but i'm definitely not benefiting from my ancestors.

so affirmative action based on minority status i think is flawed. MAYBE based on financial or economical status? cause it would seem, generally speaking, that anyone who was benefiting from ancestor's decisions, probably won't care about any level of affirmative action in this case.

>>138741090
it's comparing a reality to (at best) a utopia / (at worst) a deliberately set up trap to fool you into doing what they want.

yeah, okay, maybe some niggers 200 years ago were pretty poor off, and maybe their great great great grandniglets are poorer because of it. maybe we were responsible. maybe it might help to "fix" the problem.

but you CAN'T. that's the entire thing. so what if we ban inheritances? we'll just destroy our economy, and our society. there is no good from it. we will never receive thanks for doing it.

it's just a trap. first they want to make you believe that inheritances are bad, then they'll introduce some fallacious argument about how we all need to be made equal by taxing the successful so that they fall into line with everyone else, then they'll introduce some shit about how we need to nationalize private industries to "remove the capitalist influence", and then they'll start calling us all "comrade" and shuffling us into labor camps.

they are trying to deceive you. they are not trying to debate. they are not trying to reason. THEY ARE TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU.

File: antifactual action.jpg (40KB, 592x592px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 592x592px

>>138740134
kill yourself shill rat

>>138740134
Families receive financial assistance for raising and educating children. Why base this assistance on race? If two families have similar financial needs, race shouldn't enter into it.

The primary issue is instead cultural. Racial history may have influence on modern attitudes towards education, family structure, and how to care properly for one's children. If you're arguing for some kind of cultural or behavioral assistance, okay. Perhaps that's what affirmative action is. But this is not a financial inheritance issue. It is cultural inheritance.

>>138741512
Interesting thought, anon, I'll definitely have to consider this some more.

>>138741591
Not a shill, anon, I'm just genuinely curious.

>>138741767
Also a good answer, thank you anon. I'm starting to see what the initial errors in my logic were.