On 2-1-2011 14:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
>    Well, I'd say the problem is one of basic principles of human rights.

In stead of repeating your point you could also react to what I am 
wrote. Given that you do not object to my metaphor I will assume that 
you agree with me that the metaphor is valid. ;)

>    One of them is "innocent until proven guilty". If the basic assumption
> is that "if an employer doesn't hire enough members of a minority group,
> it's probably discrimination" that's an assumption of guilt by default,
> which is the completely opposite to what it should be.
>
>    The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.

I agree that you can see it as a human rights issue in this limited 
sense. Though, I also think it is far fetched and stretching the concept 
much too far. ;)
Anyway, I have already earlier said it is a *conflict* of human rights 
where for some strange reason you think some rights are more important 
than others. This could be related to the point below or simply another 
irreconcilable disagreement.

>> 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?
>
>    A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
> constitutional rights and responsibilities. There are no "minorities"
> from the point of view of the constitution, only individuals. (Well,
> I'm sure there are some countries which have a constitution which
> explicitly makes some exceptions towards some minorities, but that
> doesn't make it right.)

So that is a 'no' then. Then that is where we disagree on a fundamental 
level.

Post a reply to this message