Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.

I wasn't talking about a quota. I haven't heard of hiring quotas.

>>  >   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.

It's sarcasm. An attempt at exageration to show you the piece of the puzzle 
you're missing.

How do you *know* it's discrimination? Who decides it's discrimination? Just 
because there are human rights *you* think are obvious doesn't mean everyone 
or even a majority of people think it's obvious.

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

Post a reply to this message