No, affirmative action is this: when two candidates are approximately equally qualified but one was raised black in the inner city and the other white, then it's best practice to choose the black candidate.
I would use more general qualifiers in place of those specific expressions of the problem:
"When comparing two candidates of otherwise approximately equal qualification, apply historical socio-economic advantages/disadvantages as modifiers to get their probable scores in the absence of those modifiers, then re-evaluate accordingly."
Compare it to testing two sets of children, one that was kept up all night and one that got to sleep after studying, and extrapolate writ-large.
In a similar vein, we can't make useful assessments about alcoholism susceptibility in Native American populations without first accounting for all of the historical socio-economic pressures that would likely drive a disproportionate amount of any given population to drink.
No, affirmative action is this: when a white candidate is only slightly better qualified than a black candidate, the black candidate should be preferred, even if the black candidate came from a wealthy home and the white candidate grew up poor.
Not to respond to a glib response, but the issue crops up when the minority population is underrepresented as part of the company/college/etc. So for Morehouse (for example, a historically black college in the US) the reverse might be true.
There's lots of literature backing this up - when you have a MORE diverse population in your company/college/whatever, it performs by almost any measure you can come up with, better as a whole.
That doesn't make sense. Everybody knows that the number of views a post has is an integer, it doesn't really cause that much of a confusion for anyone. Most europeans are used to it.
What they should do is display the right separating symbol depending on the user's location.
When you were a teenager living with your parents, did you poop with the door open? Did your parents poop with the door open? When a friend or coworker is visiting at your place, do you poop with the door open?
For most people, the answer is "no" in all those cases, because most people nowadays do not find the sight of pooping people appealing. Thus, when one does poop with the door open when their SO is around, but does not do so when others are around, the message one is sending is that the SO does not deserve the common courtesy that other people do, that the SO has become just a fixture around the house or perhaps a pet.
It think this should be extrapolated as follows: "If you have a particular personal hygiene habit that drives your SO crazy, then avoid it, for their sakes."
> Their fighting frightened me because he was physical
Arguing and abuse are two separate things. Watching my parents fight, often over incredibly stupid things using irrational tactics, taught me worlds about the values of patience, understanding, and rationality.
I just don't think this is universal. Even if he didn't hit her, their issues were always unresolved and their situation never got better, even after counseling.
It's anecdotal at best.
Not only it can't be generalized, at different ages the outcome may be a lot different.
Kids need a certain level of maturity to understand properly conflicts and learn conflict resolution otherwise they simply feel them as a crack in their world.
There are not fast and hard rules here, every kid/situation may be quite different...
