Warp wrote:
>   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.

If you stagger into the road clutching a cleaver and covered in blood after 
neighbors report a lot of screaming, is it presumptuous to arrest you until 
the police find out whether there's a dismembered body inside?

>   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.

Nobody said the employer is guilty of discrimination. We said they get 
investigated.

 >   That's as ridiculous as claiming that forbidding women's
 >  suffrage applies equally to all people, and hence it's fair.

Anyone with enough money is allowed to own slaves, right? So it's not 
discrimination.

The fact that you recognize this is *exactly* the point we're trying to 
make. There are democracies where this isn't recognized, specifically 
because the majority of people don't recognize it. And if it's the people 
voting for what they want, the minority gets legally discriminated against, 
exactly because the majority doesn't enforce what you think of as natural 
human rights.

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

Post a reply to this message