On 2-1-2011 11:11, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    If the law allows same-sex marriage, the law applies to everybody
>>> equally, and that's how it should be. It makes no distinction.
>
>> But the point is that the heterosexual men will never take advantage of that
>> law. Passing that law (where it was disallowed earlier) is a boon to
>> homosexuals and not to heterosexuals. Passing a law that denies same-sex
>> marriages denies them equally to those who want them and those who don't.
>
>    That's as ridiculous as claiming that forbidding women's suffrage applies
> equally to all people, and hence it's fair.

Wow, really wow. You complete understand the point and still manage to 
make it sound as if you don't. Even better, you make it sound as if we 
don't understand you. Please don't go into politics, you might be too 
good at it.

>>>    That would be a blatantly contradictory law. It's saying "employers
>>> must not take ethnicity into account, but employers must take ethnicity
>>> into account".
>
>> More like "employers must not take ethnicity into account, and the
>> presumption is that if minorities aren't hired in approximately the same
>> ratio as they apply, the employers are probably discriminating illegally."
>
>    A perfect example of a false dichotomy.

Indeed and I think we have too often indicated that we are aware of 
that. Though that is not only what it was about.

Let's put it this way: the problem is that of statistical physics. The 
overall behaviour of a system is non-linearly determined by the 
interactions of one on one interactions. Even if they are (almost) 
symmetrical in every respect it still may happen that the system 
separates in two or more distinct environments (water and oil, water and 
ice, spin up and spin down in ferro-magnets etc.) If the goal of a 
society is for everyone to have as much the same environment as possible 
you might need to add an emulsifier or change the pressure or 
temperature. Even if, on a microscopic level, there is apparently no 
need to do so.

Note that I am not a proponent of positive discrimination. Yet, I 
understand why under some circumstances some people think society as a 
whole would profit on the long term if some measures were implemented. 
That is perhaps a bit abstract, but it means that I am willing to 
support measures that I think are wrong.

Possibly another way to describe our misunderstanding is that Darren and 
me are also talking about systems/societies while you keep focussing on 
the individual interactions.

Question: do you think that a society can or even should have goals?

Post a reply to this message