|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> 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.
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |