Let me see if I can pinpoint where your analogy, or metaphor, or whatever breaks down.
I was metaphorically speaking though. The idea of "me" involves everyone on the planet. Everyone is their own "me". My god is this tedious.
This assumes that every human "me" is, essentially, equal in that every "me" could have manifested in any given body. This implies that the "me" exists in some metaphysical form prior to its manifestation, which is precisely what Dak and I are saying isn't the case. The "me" only comes about because of embodiment. What you are--the "me"--is what it is because of the body/biology you were born into. So if we accept that certain bodies tend, on average, to be born more frequently into less privileged social conditions, then the "me" that manifests in that body isn't equal to every other "me." It's shaped by the socioeconomic conditions that accompany its physical body.
Now, you say you're speaking metaphorically, but then you say this:
I'm not willing to concede to the point of dividing the possibility of birth into subsections of humans. Im talking about being born as a human in general. The only way I think that I can convey my idea is to make some assumptions. Assume that there is some divine force that directs a soul into a body at birth. Like reincarnation. My soul could, at birth, theoretically be inserted into any baby currently being born on earth at the time the divine force specifies. The soul has no control over this, so therefore you could be born anywhere.
Even if this is still metaphorical, the crux of the metaphor is that souls exist prior to their embodiment. You might say "I don't actually believe in reincarnation, or divine intervention"; but the only way for this metaphor to work is if we agree that souls somehow preexist the bodies they're born into.
I can't accept this metaphor because the assumption it's making--that souls preexist bodies--is precisely what I'm saying isn't the case.
I dont see why it matters whether my friend was more likely to be born underprivileged just because he was born black. The fact of the matter was that he wasn't born underprivileged, yet was able to accrue the benefits as if he were. Im not really that against it though, as I do acknowledge that some social aspects of it can be complicated. Discrimination still exists to a certain extent, but it isnt as bad as the left suggest, and isnt as good as the right says. I think it is mostly the poor blacks that continue not to prosper, and the reason may be more internal than external.
We can discuss the inequities of individual cases, which is what you seem to be focusing on. The motivating belief of affirmative action, whether you agree with it or not, is that by directing itself toward people of color, it tends to ameliorate situations for those who've experienced socioeconomic hardships. We can disagree with the ethics and/or mechanics of this, definitely--and cases like the one that affected you are a place to start--but that doesn't change the demographic patterns that shape who affirmative action is intended to benefit, i.e. socioeconomically underprivileged people of color.
I'm sorry if this has misrepresented your position, but it's what I gather from your comments.
