andrel wrote:
> On 22-12-2010 22:46, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Thanks for the explanation, I hope I can remember.
>>
>> No problem. Sorry if it came across a bit sarcastic.
> 
> You didn't. D*mn I misjudged your tone again.

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. But I'd be less bothered by an American 
thinking I was being sarcastic about an American not knowing basic American 
terminology than someone from outside America. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On 23-12-2010 0:09, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 22-12-2010 22:46, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the explanation, I hope I can remember.
>>>
>>> No problem. Sorry if it came across a bit sarcastic.
>>
>> You didn't. D*mn I misjudged your tone again.
>
> I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. But I'd be less bothered by an American
> thinking I was being sarcastic about an American not knowing basic
> American terminology than someone from outside America. :-)
>
Ok, so that was why you replied to me rather than Patrick?

;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> writes:

> On 17-12-2010 2:06, Darren New wrote:
>> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
>> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
>>
>
> Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
> If so, what the ... does he mean?

Note to self: If you wish to post a video that engenders a lot of
conversation, don't go for reasonable. Just post a troll.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 23-12-2010 0:09, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 22-12-2010 22:46, Darren New wrote:
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for the explanation, I hope I can remember.
>>>>
>>>> No problem. Sorry if it came across a bit sarcastic.
>>>
>>> You didn't. D*mn I misjudged your tone again.
>>
>> I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. But I'd be less bothered by an American
>> thinking I was being sarcastic about an American not knowing basic
>> American terminology than someone from outside America. :-)
>>
> Ok, so that was why you replied to me rather than Patrick?

 >>>>>>>>> I thought at first I was replying to Patrick's use of the word

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

Post a reply to this message

On 12/22/2010 2:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanation, I hope I can remember.
>
> No problem. Sorry if it came across a bit sarcastic. I thought at first
> I was replying to Patrick's use of the word, who, being American, I
> would have thought knew the phrase "public defender." :-)
>
Wasn't thinking in those terms when I wrote it, so ended up kind of 
lumping in several different groups. But, same issue stands. The ones 
doing it for free *or* in the pay of a group dedicated to supporting 
causes, tend to be slandered quite regularly by right wingers. The 
"public defenders" tend to have stupid huge case loads, not always have 
the best resources, or skills, may end up with cases they never had 
before, and don't know how to handle as well, and are probably *merely* 
the best option, only if you don't know enough to try to depend 
yourself, in some cases, which, generally means nearly everyone.

System is badly broken, in a lot of ways, and not just due to the 
simultaneous ramping up of morons on one side trying to screw you, or 
jail you over issues they probably shouldn't, and morons on the other 
side suing over every imaginary offense, while important stuff gets 
dragged out for months, or even years.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     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

On 23-12-2010 19:21, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  writes:
>
>> On 17-12-2010 2:06, Darren New wrote:
>>> Saw this earlier today. The first half had me laughing at just how
>>> obnoxiously it was phrased. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4dSiHqpULk
>>>
>>
>> Is there a remark on Dutch criminal courts at about 3:30??
>> If so, what the ... does he mean?
>
> Note to self: If you wish to post a video that engenders a lot of
> conversation, don't go for reasonable. Just post a troll.

no, that will die out much more quickly.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm clearly not going to be able to explain it to you.

  What I think is going on here is a fallacy of equivocation. The expression
"minorities need more protection" is ambiguous and can be understood in two
distinct ways:

  1) It is more often the case that a minority requires protection. (In
other words, if we count the cases where authorities need to step in to
protect someone, this number is higher per capita with minorities than with
the majority.) In other words, "minorities need more *often* protection"
(rather than special treatment).

  2) Minorities, besides being protected by the same laws as everybody
else, need *additional* laws that apply only to them (ie. "more
protection").

  I think that, as with many other such cases, these two possible
interpretations are confused and interchanged when it's most convenient
(intentionally or not). Applying the second meaning in practice is
justified by the first meaning, and these two different meanings are
being muddled and confused.

  However, the second meaning is unconstitutional and against the basic
principles of equality and freedom.

  (And, again, I'm here talking about the "minorities" that are so only
in terms of inconsequential things, such as ethnic background. Of course
other minorities, such as people with disabilities, may need special
treatment as a practical necessity. I'm not talking about them.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 24-12-2010 8:09, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> I'm clearly not going to be able to explain it to you.
>
>    What I think is going on here is a fallacy of equivocation. The expression
> "minorities need more protection" is ambiguous and can be understood in two
> distinct ways:
>
>    1) It is more often the case that a minority requires protection. (In
> other words, if we count the cases where authorities need to step in to
> protect someone, this number is higher per capita with minorities than with
> the majority.) In other words, "minorities need more *often* protection"
> (rather than special treatment).
>
>    2) Minorities, besides being protected by the same laws as everybody
> else, need *additional* laws that apply only to them (ie. "more
> protection").
>
>    I think that, as with many other such cases, these two possible
> interpretations are confused and interchanged when it's most convenient
> (intentionally or not). Applying the second meaning in practice is
> justified by the first meaning, and these two different meanings are
> being muddled and confused.
>
>    However, the second meaning is unconstitutional and against the basic
> principles of equality and freedom.

Not necessary.
If the protection of the majority is obvious or not necessary it may be 
sensible to have special laws to get the protection of the minority 
members at the same level.
To use an example that Darren also used: you don't need a law to allow 
heterosexual men to marry other men. (Though in this case it is clear 
that the law that restricts marriage to one man and one woman is 
'unconstitutional and against the basic principles of equality and 
freedom').
In the same vain a law that prohibits an employer to look at the 
ethnicity of an employee is superfluous, but may take the form of a 
requirement that a group employees should include a certain number of 
minority members. (Often deemed discrimination by many members of the 
majority, but in certain circumstances possibly vital to prevent the 
society from breaking in pieces)
In the Netherlands any group of parents is allowed to start their own 
school, that then will get funded by the government. A law that dates 
back to the beginning of the 20th century, mainly meant for the 
different Christian churches. Muslims are now also using these rights. 
In practice some (or many, as some claim) of these schools are below 
standard and hamper integration of muslim groups with the rest of 
society. Legislation was proposed (and possibly even passed, I did not 
follow it that well) to try to remedy these problems. A law that was 
worded objectively, but everyone knows that it is not meant for 
Christian schools and it will only be used to shut down non-Christian 
minority schools. Discrimination or just a conflict of human rights?

As I said before: In a society with different social groups you can 
either have equal treatment or equal chances.
Your rigorous adherence to equal treatment will lead to unequal chances 
for many. These unequal chances are just as contrary to universal laws 
as the unequal treatment. It is up to the different governments and 
parliaments to find the right balance, not to some group on the internet 
that discusses the state of the world from behind their keyboards.

>    (And, again, I'm here talking about the "minorities" that are so only
> in terms of inconsequential things, such as ethnic background. Of course
> other minorities, such as people with disabilities, may need special
> treatment as a practical necessity. I'm not talking about them.)

I have seen it argued that a law that forces an employer to have at 
least a number of employers with disabilities is also discriminatory.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> writes:

>> Note to self: If you wish to post a video that engenders a lot of
>> conversation, don't go for reasonable. Just post a troll.
>
> no, that will die out much more quickly.

Didn't seem to in this case.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> To use an example that Darren also used: you don't need a law to allow 
> heterosexual men to marry other men.

  That example makes no sense. Either the law allows it or it doesn't.
The sexual orientation plays no role from the point of view of the law
(or the concept of how necessary the law might be).

  If the law allows same-sex marriage, the law applies to everybody
equally, and that's how it should be. It makes no distinction.

  However, if law eg. allowed only men to marry men, but not women to
marry women, *then* it would be discriminatory. (Likewise if it only
allowed eg. natural-born citizens to do so but not people who are not
citizens but were not so originally. Or the other way around.)

> In the same vain a law that prohibits an employer to look at the 
> ethnicity of an employee is superfluous, but may take the form of a 
> requirement that a group employees should include a certain number of 
> minority members.

  That would be a blatantly contradictory law. It's saying "employers
must not take ethnicity into account, but employers must take ethnicity
into account".

> (Often deemed discrimination by many members of the majority

  I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that it's discriminatory,
regardless of which minority or majority they happen to belong to.

> but in certain circumstances possibly vital to prevent the 
> society from breaking in pieces)

  I think it's a sad society where discrimination is necessary for it to
not to "break in pieces".

> In the Netherlands any group of parents is allowed to start their own 
> school, that then will get funded by the government. A law that dates 
> back to the beginning of the 20th century, mainly meant for the 
> different Christian churches. Muslims are now also using these rights. 
> In practice some (or many, as some claim) of these schools are below 
> standard and hamper integration of muslim groups with the rest of 
> society. Legislation was proposed (and possibly even passed, I did not 
> follow it that well) to try to remedy these problems. A law that was 
> worded objectively, but everyone knows that it is not meant for 
> Christian schools and it will only be used to shut down non-Christian 
> minority schools. Discrimination or just a conflict of human rights?

  Conflicts of interests between what is better for the entirety of the
society and what some minority group wants happen all the time. The
stance that should be taken is the one which benefits everyone, not the
one that benefits the minority, especially if it degrades the quality
of the society as a whole.

  What does this have to do with discrimination, though?

> >    (And, again, I'm here talking about the "minorities" that are so only
> > in terms of inconsequential things, such as ethnic background. Of course
> > other minorities, such as people with disabilities, may need special
> > treatment as a practical necessity. I'm not talking about them.)

> I have seen it argued that a law that forces an employer to have at 
> least a number of employers with disabilities is also discriminatory.

  Why does the burden of sustaining a disabled person be cast upon one
single employer? How is it fair for that employer? What has he done to
deserve that duty? Why cannot it be cast upon everybody fairly (ie. by
taxation)?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message