 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
> constitutional rights and responsibilities.
And in California, they do. One of those is that same-sex couples can't get
married, regardless of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. You may
think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would go
about making this better in a constitutional democracy.
> I'm sure there are some countries which have a constitution which
> explicitly makes some exceptions towards some minorities,
Welcome to California.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
> > constitutional rights and responsibilities.
> And in California, they do. One of those is that same-sex couples can't get
> married, regardless of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. You may
> think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would go
> about making this better in a constitutional democracy.
I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
of non-discrimination.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/2/2011 6:16 AM, andrel wrote:
> Note that I am not a proponent of positive discrimination. Yet, I
> understand why under some circumstances some people think society as a
> whole would profit on the long term if some measures were implemented.
> That is perhaps a bit abstract, but it means that I am willing to
> support measures that I think are wrong.
>
To toss in my two cents, I both am, and am not. It may be necessary to
take corrective steps to fix a real problem, but not necessary to
maintain those steps once the problem is no longer significant. The
difficulty in the US is that there is *ample* evidence, some of it from
the very people crying about such positive discrimination, that the
original problem is a few generations away from being no longer
relevant. This is due to some "local" individual interactions still
being *very* racist, or hugely sectarian, just to name two such issues,
to the extent that the only thing curtailing certain acts are those laws
that make it punishable to act on such a bias. In those places, the
"individual" interaction issues are systemic macro level problems,
still. Ironically, easing the law someplace where there is less of one
would simply have the effect of moving the people from where they are,
to someplace they imagine they are more open, and legally allowed, to
act on those systemic biases.
Worse, we see a similar, unintentional, one with, for example, schools.
You have failing schools most commonly in places where certain people
live, less money sent to those places, because politicians tend to be
more concerned with getting elected than helping people that may not be
voting at all, or worse, in this case, many of the people in those
areas, lacking secular foundations on which to survive, like education,
turn to churches, and those tend to... well, not exactly side with
rationality, or encourage voting for people willing to fix problems,
instead of just be "godly", what ever the F that means. And, on top of
that, when church fails, you get crime instead. So, we end up with a
multi-level imbalance. You can't fix the crime, or the reliance of
fantasy, instead of jobs, or the job problem, or *anything* else,
without fixing the education system, and you can't do that without
biasing, someplace, the system in favor of helping those people more
than someone else.
You could try, but.. attempts to fix the problems without addressing the
core causes are generally dismal failures. And, of course, for every one
person we have saying, "We need to fix these things.", we have another
saying, "What is there to fix? If they didn't want to live like that,
they would move someplace else." Hmm.., where exactly, and how, without
the parents *choosing* to step away from all the stuff helping them
fail, instead of just moving to some place where all the same crutches
are present? And, for that matter, how, if they don't have the resources?
You need a bottom up solution, and most of them are top down that get
tried. But, a bottom up solution requires "recognizing" who you are
talking about, and giving them more help than you would someone from a
good neighborhood, with a good school, parents with decent educations,
sufficient money, etc.
Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is
to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the
category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is
equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to
happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial"
equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system
anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools,
college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> > 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is
> to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the
> category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is
> equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to
> happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial"
> equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system
> anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools,
> college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.
One could even make the argument that a society actually *benefits* on
the whole in the long term from inequality (in terms of education, job
opportunities and such), from some people being part of an "elite".
Why? Because not everybody can be an astrophysicist, an electronics
engineer, a surgeon, or the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. We
need people who make and cause progress (the "elite"), and we need people
who make that progress possible (the "workers"), and we need people to
direct and lead other people (the "bosses").
If everybody is forced to always stand on the same line as everybody
else, that will stagnate and inhibit progress. The brilliant people are
actually stopped from achieving innovation because they are forced to
stand back. No matter how "unfair" it might be, but some people just are
naturally more talented, intelligent and capable than others. This is just
a fact of life and we have to live with it. Rather than complain about how
unfair this is, the society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are
given the opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover,
they should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so.
This is the reason why I think pure socialism is bad for a society:
In pure socialism nobody owns anything, and the government forces everybody
to the same line. This stagnates progress and removes incentive for
people to improve because there is no reward. While pure capitalism
might be bad for other reasons, it at least motivates and rewards
innovation (so the best solution might be somewhere in-between the two
extremes).
Things like government-imposed hiring and enrollment quotas fail for
that same reason, because while trying to fight perceived discrimination,
as a side-effect some of the truly brilliant people might get shunned.
Granted, actual discrimination can shun brilliant people among the group
of people being discriminated against, but hiring quotas are not the
solution to that problem. They only cause more problems than they solve.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-1-2011 20:50, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is
>> to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the
>> category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is
>> equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to
>> happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial"
>> equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system
>> anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools,
>> college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.
>
> One could even make the argument that a society actually *benefits* on
> the whole in the long term from inequality (in terms of education, job
> opportunities and such), from some people being part of an "elite".
>
> Why? Because not everybody can be an astrophysicist, an electronics
> engineer, a surgeon, or the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. We
> need people who make and cause progress (the "elite"), and we need people
> who make that progress possible (the "workers"), and we need people to
> direct and lead other people (the "bosses").
>
> If everybody is forced to always stand on the same line as everybody
> else, that will stagnate and inhibit progress. The brilliant people are
> actually stopped from achieving innovation because they are forced to
> stand back. No matter how "unfair" it might be, but some people just are
> naturally more talented, intelligent and capable than others. This is just
> a fact of life and we have to live with it. Rather than complain about how
> unfair this is, the society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are
> given the opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover,
> they should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so.
Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-1-2011 20:29, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> > A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
>> > constitutional rights and responsibilities.
>
>> And in California, they do. One of those is that same-sex couples can't get
>> married, regardless of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. You may
>> think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would go
>> about making this better in a constitutional democracy.
>
> I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
> of non-discrimination.
I don't think I like it, but I understand why you consistently fail to
answer his real points. In this case the point was the second line: 'You
may think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would
go about making this better in a constitutional democracy.' Darren is
fully aware of what he was saying in the line before that and I find it
rather disturbing that you seem not to understand that he is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?
Are you seriously expecting me not to get offended by such a comment?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
