Warp wrote:
>   So exactly what's wrong in promoting equal rights for everybody, and
> abolishing special treatment for some groups of people?

I didn't say it was wrong.

>   If the current situation is that some minorities are being discriminated
> against, the solution is not to give them *more* protection than to the
> rest.

Are you saying that the current levels of protection are adequate?

> Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fight discrimination with
> more discrimination. The correct solution is to give them the *same*
> protection as everybody else. That, by definition, removes the discrimination.

Yep. And this is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to 
address.

And, again, "the same protection" prevents both rich and poor from sleeping 
under the bridge, and prevents both gay and straight men from marrying other 
men. That's what you get in a democracy, sometimes even in a constitutional 
democracy.

I'm not saying that affirmative action is the right solution to problems 
like this. I'm saying that this sort of balance doesn't naturally arise from 
democracy, and that obtaining this sort of balance is therefore 
non-democratic and implicitly supports those statistically discriminated 
against more than it supports those statistically doing the discrimination.

>   At least here if you actually win the case, the company that accused you
> will have to pay for your lawyer fees. (This makes sense because it avoids
> people/companies abusing the legal system to cause economic harm to somebody
> by forcing them to pay legal fees.)

As I say, it depends on the case. Here if the reason you sue is to make them 
pay legal fees, then it's a frivolous case and you can get lawyer fees. 
Sometimes you have to sue them back (which is called a counter suit) to get 
your costs back. There's a strong sense that "justice should be served", but 
it doesn't always cover lawyer fees; it is often up to the judge or the jury 
as I understand it. When it does, you then have to go collect the lawyer 
fees after the fact, so if you go broke before you win, you're screwed, and 
if the other side goes broke before you collect, you're screwed.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message