|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
> > 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.
The context, at least from my part, was hiring quotas imposed by the
government.
If someone is suspected of a crime, then it should be investigated.
A hiring quota is not investigation. It's assumption of guilt.
> > 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.
I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
of non-discrimination.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |