On 25-12-2010 16:09, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>> Either the law allows it or it doesn't.
>>> The sexual orientation plays no role from the point of view of the law
>>> (or the concept of how necessary the law might be).
>
>> It definitely does. In most countries samesex mariage is the only one
>> allowed, that is blatant discrimination of homosexuals, at least
>> according to your rigid standards.
>
>    So there are discriminatory laws in many countries. I know that, you
> know that, everybody knows that. So? What do you think I'm arguing here?
>
>    Do you think I would be arguing if there were no discriminatory laws?
>
>    I really don't understand why you keep bringing out this odd "there are
> discriminatory laws in many countries" argument. I *know* that. And that's
> precisely why I'm ranting. What is your point?

That there are reasons for these laws. Not that they want to 
discriminate (that may happen, but I am not referring to those) but 
because they want to remedy another problem. In a hypothetical world 
(the one in your head) there may be no need for such laws. In the real 
world there is.

>>>     That would be a blatantly contradictory law. It's saying "employers
>>> must not take ethnicity into account, but employers must take ethnicity
>>> into account".
>
>> Welcome in the real world, these laws do exist and for the stated reason.
>
>    Well, why do you think I'm ranting? I *know* they exist. That's precisely
> the reason. I don't understand your point.
>
>    If your point is "that's just how it is, and you should simply learn to
> submit and conform", then we just have to disagree. I won't. I refuse.

My point is: try to understand why these laws exist, don't assume they 
are not necessary and that everybody else is stupid.

>    Is it such a bad thing to dream about a world where everybody is equal
> and nobody is treated differently?

It is not bad, just rather useless to tell the world about your dreams 
if you don't acknowledge that they are only dreams but something to 
really strive at.

>>>     Conflicts of interests between what is better for the entirety of the
>>> society and what some minority group wants happen all the time.
>
>> that is not the point.
>
>    Then why do you keep bringing up these examples of discrimination and
> conflicts of interest? What *is* your point?
>
>>> The
>>> stance that should be taken is the one which benefits everyone, not the
>>> one that benefits the minority, especially if it degrades the quality
>>> of the society as a whole.
>>>
>>>     What does this have to do with discrimination, though?
>
>> Muslims are discriminated against in order to conform to other
>> international treaties about education.
>
>    No, muslims in your example want preferential treatment (which, in this
> case, would be harmful to their children's education). It's precisely *not*
> giving them this special treatment that would be the correct course of
> action. Refusing to give preferential treatment to a group of people is
> not discrimination. It's the opposite.
>
>    (If the christians in your example are also getting preferential treatment,
> it makes no difference. It shouldn't be the case either.)

Why don't you just simply acknowledge that there is a conflict of human 
rights here?
Then explain why non-discrimination should be more important than any other.

>>>     Why does the burden of sustaining a disabled person be cast upon one
>>> single employer? How is it fair for that employer? What has he done to
>>> deserve that duty? Why cannot it be cast upon everybody fairly (ie. by
>>> taxation)?
>
>> In general one person only has one employer. The only way to spread the
>> burden (or perceived burden, as people with disabilities can make very
>> poor employees) evenly is to not let them work at all.
>
>    If the handicapped person is capable of performing his job, there's no
> reason for him [not] to be hired, especially if he is qualified and competent,
> and refusing to hire a person which would otherwise qualify because he's
> handicapped would be discrimination and should be dealt with accordingly.

How would you do that? In the job market there are groups that you know 
are discriminated against from statistical data. However, there is no 
single employer that discriminates, they all select the employees 
objectively. It just happens that there is always a candidate that they 
prefer from another social group. Or so they say. (they often really 
believe it).

>    However, imposing mandatory hiring quotas, even in cases where the person
> is clearly not qualified for the job, is more harmful than useful.

Sure, and even if they perform adequate there is always the risk that 
people will always say that there might have been a better candidate in 
the other group. Nobody can compete with a hypothetical perfect 
candidate, so that is a problem also. Yet just leaving it to market 
forces is also a sure way to let discrimination continue. Again people 
have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes they prefer not do do 
anything and sometimes not. Sometimes that works out and sometimes not. 
It is what makes us human.

>    People should do the jobs they are qualified for. For example I am not
> qualified as a surgeon, hence nobody should hire me as one, and that's how
> it should be.
>
>> As I said before: In a society with different social groups you can
>> either have equal treatment or equal chances.
>
>    I still see no reason why they are mutually exclusive.

I think I have said it not much too often: because a social group that 
as a group has more access to resources will have better chances than 
other groups.

>> Your rigorous adherence to equal treatment will lead to unequal chances
>> for many.
>
>    I don't see why, except if people deliberately discriminate against some
> people (which is the thing to fight against).

22-12-2010 11:14 is one of my earlier attempt to answer that.

Post a reply to this message