On 25-12-2010 13:47, Warp wrote:
> 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.

that is the point, indeed.

> 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).

It definitely does. In most countries samesex mariage is the only one 
allowed, that is blatant discrimination of homosexuals, at least 
according to your rigid standards.

>    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".

Welcome in the real world, these laws do exist and for the stated reason.

>> (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".

Welcome to the real world.

>> 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.

that is not the point.

> 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?

Muslims are discriminated against in order to conform to other 
international treaties about education.

>>>     (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)?

In general one person only has one employer. The only way to spread the 
burden (or perceived burden, as people with disabilities can make very 
poor employees) evenly is to not let them work at all.


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.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > 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).

> It definitely does. In most countries samesex mariage is the only one 
> allowed, that is blatant discrimination of homosexuals, at least 
> according to your rigid standards.

  So there are discriminatory laws in many countries. I know that, you
know that, everybody knows that. So? What do you think I'm arguing here?

  Do you think I would be arguing if there were no discriminatory laws?

  I really don't understand why you keep bringing out this odd "there are
discriminatory laws in many countries" argument. I *know* that. And that's
precisely why I'm ranting. What is your point?

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

> Welcome in the real world, these laws do exist and for the stated reason.

  Well, why do you think I'm ranting? I *know* they exist. That's precisely
the reason. I don't understand your point.

  If your point is "that's just how it is, and you should simply learn to
submit and conform", then we just have to disagree. I won't. I refuse.

  Is it such a bad thing to dream about a world where everybody is equal
and nobody is treated differently?

> >    Conflicts of interests between what is better for the entirety of the
> > society and what some minority group wants happen all the time.

> that is not the point.

  Then why do you keep bringing up these examples of discrimination and
conflicts of interest? What *is* your point?

> > 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?

> Muslims are discriminated against in order to conform to other 
> international treaties about education.

  No, muslims in your example want preferential treatment (which, in this
case, would be harmful to their children's education). It's precisely *not*
giving them this special treatment that would be the correct course of
action. Refusing to give preferential treatment to a group of people is
not discrimination. It's the opposite.

  (If the christians in your example are also getting preferential treatment,
it makes no difference. It shouldn't be the case either.)

> >    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)?

> In general one person only has one employer. The only way to spread the 
> burden (or perceived burden, as people with disabilities can make very 
> poor employees) evenly is to not let them work at all.

  If the handicapped person is capable of performing his job, there's no
reason for him to be hired, especially if he is qualified and competent,
and refusing to hire a person which would otherwise qualify because he's
handicapped would be discrimination and should be dealt with accordingly.

  However, imposing mandatory hiring quotas, even in cases where the person
is clearly not qualified for the job, is more harmful than useful.

  People should do the jobs they are qualified for. For example I am not
qualified as a surgeon, hence nobody should hire me as one, and that's how
it should be.

> As I said before: In a society with different social groups you can 
> either have equal treatment or equal chances.

  I still see no reason why they are mutually exclusive.

> Your rigorous adherence to equal treatment will lead to unequal chances 
> for many.

  I don't see why, except if people deliberately discriminate against some
people (which is the thing to fight against).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   If the handicapped person is capable of performing his job, there's no
> reason for him to be hired

  Typo. Of course I meant "there's no reason for him not to be hired".
Complicated sentences...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 25-12-2010 16:09, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>> 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).
>
>> It definitely does. In most countries samesex mariage is the only one
>> allowed, that is blatant discrimination of homosexuals, at least
>> according to your rigid standards.
>
>    So there are discriminatory laws in many countries. I know that, you
> know that, everybody knows that. So? What do you think I'm arguing here?
>
>    Do you think I would be arguing if there were no discriminatory laws?
>
>    I really don't understand why you keep bringing out this odd "there are
> discriminatory laws in many countries" argument. I *know* that. And that's
> precisely why I'm ranting. What is your point?

That there are reasons for these laws. Not that they want to 
discriminate (that may happen, but I am not referring to those) but 
because they want to remedy another problem. In a hypothetical world 
(the one in your head) there may be no need for such laws. In the real 
world there is.

>>>     That would be a blatantly contradictory law. It's saying "employers
>>> must not take ethnicity into account, but employers must take ethnicity
>>> into account".
>
>> Welcome in the real world, these laws do exist and for the stated reason.
>
>    Well, why do you think I'm ranting? I *know* they exist. That's precisely
> the reason. I don't understand your point.
>
>    If your point is "that's just how it is, and you should simply learn to
> submit and conform", then we just have to disagree. I won't. I refuse.

My point is: try to understand why these laws exist, don't assume they 
are not necessary and that everybody else is stupid.

>    Is it such a bad thing to dream about a world where everybody is equal
> and nobody is treated differently?

It is not bad, just rather useless to tell the world about your dreams 
if you don't acknowledge that they are only dreams but something to 
really strive at.

>>>     Conflicts of interests between what is better for the entirety of the
>>> society and what some minority group wants happen all the time.
>
>> that is not the point.
>
>    Then why do you keep bringing up these examples of discrimination and
> conflicts of interest? What *is* your point?
>
>>> 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?
>
>> Muslims are discriminated against in order to conform to other
>> international treaties about education.
>
>    No, muslims in your example want preferential treatment (which, in this
> case, would be harmful to their children's education). It's precisely *not*
> giving them this special treatment that would be the correct course of
> action. Refusing to give preferential treatment to a group of people is
> not discrimination. It's the opposite.
>
>    (If the christians in your example are also getting preferential treatment,
> it makes no difference. It shouldn't be the case either.)

Why don't you just simply acknowledge that there is a conflict of human 
rights here?
Then explain why non-discrimination should be more important than any other.

>>>     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)?
>
>> In general one person only has one employer. The only way to spread the
>> burden (or perceived burden, as people with disabilities can make very
>> poor employees) evenly is to not let them work at all.
>
>    If the handicapped person is capable of performing his job, there's no
> reason for him [not] to be hired, especially if he is qualified and competent,
> and refusing to hire a person which would otherwise qualify because he's
> handicapped would be discrimination and should be dealt with accordingly.

How would you do that? In the job market there are groups that you know 
are discriminated against from statistical data. However, there is no 
single employer that discriminates, they all select the employees 
objectively. It just happens that there is always a candidate that they 
prefer from another social group. Or so they say. (they often really 
believe it).

>    However, imposing mandatory hiring quotas, even in cases where the person
> is clearly not qualified for the job, is more harmful than useful.

Sure, and even if they perform adequate there is always the risk that 
people will always say that there might have been a better candidate in 
the other group. Nobody can compete with a hypothetical perfect 
candidate, so that is a problem also. Yet just leaving it to market 
forces is also a sure way to let discrimination continue. Again people 
have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes they prefer not do do 
anything and sometimes not. Sometimes that works out and sometimes not. 
It is what makes us human.

>    People should do the jobs they are qualified for. For example I am not
> qualified as a surgeon, hence nobody should hire me as one, and that's how
> it should be.
>
>> As I said before: In a society with different social groups you can
>> either have equal treatment or equal chances.
>
>    I still see no reason why they are mutually exclusive.

I think I have said it not much too often: because a social group that 
as a group has more access to resources will have better chances than 
other groups.

>> Your rigorous adherence to equal treatment will lead to unequal chances
>> for many.
>
>    I don't see why, except if people deliberately discriminate against some
> people (which is the thing to fight against).

22-12-2010 11:14 is one of my earlier attempt to answer that.

Post a reply to this message

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

But the point is that the heterosexual men will never take advantage of that 
law. Passing that law (where it was disallowed earlier) is a boon to 
homosexuals and not to heterosexuals. Passing a law that denies same-sex 
marriages denies them equally to those who want them and those who don't.

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

More like "employers must not take ethnicity into account, and the 
presumption is that if minorities aren't hired in approximately the same 
ratio as they apply, the employers are probably discriminating illegally."

In much the same way that you'd say a casino that pays out far less than the 
state-mandated minimum for an extended period of time is probably not using 
the appropriate random number generators or is cheating or whatever.

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

> But the point is that the heterosexual men will never take advantage of that 
> law. Passing that law (where it was disallowed earlier) is a boon to 
> homosexuals and not to heterosexuals. Passing a law that denies same-sex 
> marriages denies them equally to those who want them and those who don't.

  That's as ridiculous as claiming that forbidding women's suffrage applies
equally to all people, and hence it's fair.

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

> More like "employers must not take ethnicity into account, and the 
> presumption is that if minorities aren't hired in approximately the same 
> ratio as they apply, the employers are probably discriminating illegally."

  A perfect example of a false dichotomy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-1-2011 11:11, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    If the law allows same-sex marriage, the law applies to everybody
>>> equally, and that's how it should be. It makes no distinction.
>
>> But the point is that the heterosexual men will never take advantage of that
>> law. Passing that law (where it was disallowed earlier) is a boon to
>> homosexuals and not to heterosexuals. Passing a law that denies same-sex
>> marriages denies them equally to those who want them and those who don't.
>
>    That's as ridiculous as claiming that forbidding women's suffrage applies
> equally to all people, and hence it's fair.

Wow, really wow. You complete understand the point and still manage to 
make it sound as if you don't. Even better, you make it sound as if we 
don't understand you. Please don't go into politics, you might be too 
good at it.

>>>    That would be a blatantly contradictory law. It's saying "employers
>>> must not take ethnicity into account, but employers must take ethnicity
>>> into account".
>
>> More like "employers must not take ethnicity into account, and the
>> presumption is that if minorities aren't hired in approximately the same
>> ratio as they apply, the employers are probably discriminating illegally."
>
>    A perfect example of a false dichotomy.

Indeed and I think we have too often indicated that we are aware of 
that. Though that is not only what it was about.

Let's put it this way: the problem is that of statistical physics. The 
overall behaviour of a system is non-linearly determined by the 
interactions of one on one interactions. Even if they are (almost) 
symmetrical in every respect it still may happen that the system 
separates in two or more distinct environments (water and oil, water and 
ice, spin up and spin down in ferro-magnets etc.) If the goal of a 
society is for everyone to have as much the same environment as possible 
you might need to add an emulsifier or change the pressure or 
temperature. Even if, on a microscopic level, there is apparently no 
need to do so.

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.

Possibly another way to describe our misunderstanding is that Darren and 
me are also talking about systems/societies while you keep focussing on 
the individual interactions.

Question: do you think that a society can or even should have goals?

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> More like "employers must not take ethnicity into account, and the
> >> presumption is that if minorities aren't hired in approximately the same
> >> ratio as they apply, the employers are probably discriminating illegally."
> >
> >    A perfect example of a false dichotomy.

> Indeed and I think we have too often indicated that we are aware of 
> that. Though that is not only what it was about.

> Let's put it this way: the problem is that of statistical physics.

  Well, I'd say the problem is one of basic principles of human rights.

  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.

  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.

> Possibly another way to describe our misunderstanding is that Darren and 
> me are also talking about systems/societies while you keep focussing on 
> the individual interactions.

> Question: do you think that a society can or even should have goals?

  A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
constitutional rights and responsibilities. There are no "minorities"
from the point of view of the constitution, only individuals. (Well,
I'm sure there are some countries which have a constitution which
explicitly makes some exceptions towards some minorities, but that
doesn't make it right.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-1-2011 14:35, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>>>> More like "employers must not take ethnicity into account, and the
>>>> presumption is that if minorities aren't hired in approximately the same
>>>> ratio as they apply, the employers are probably discriminating illegally."
>>>
>>>     A perfect example of a false dichotomy.
>
>> Indeed and I think we have too often indicated that we are aware of
>> that. Though that is not only what it was about.
>
>> Let's put it this way: the problem is that of statistical physics.
>
>    Well, I'd say the problem is one of basic principles of human rights.

In stead of repeating your point you could also react to what I am 
wrote. Given that you do not object to my metaphor I will assume that 
you agree with me that the metaphor is valid. ;)

>    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.
>
>    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.

I agree that you can see it as a human rights issue in this limited 
sense. Though, I also think it is far fetched and stretching the concept 
much too far. ;)
Anyway, I have already earlier said it is a *conflict* of human rights 
where for some strange reason you think some rights are more important 
than others. This could be related to the point below or simply another 
irreconcilable disagreement.

>> Possibly another way to describe our misunderstanding is that Darren and
>> me are also talking about systems/societies while you keep focussing on
>> the individual interactions.
>
>> Question: do you think that a society can or even should have goals?
>
>    A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
> constitutional rights and responsibilities. There are no "minorities"
> from the point of view of the constitution, only individuals. (Well,
> I'm sure there are some countries which have a constitution which
> explicitly makes some exceptions towards some minorities, but that
> doesn't make it right.)

So that is a 'no' then. Then that is where we disagree on a fundamental 
level.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/01/2011 1:35 PM, Warp wrote:

>    Well, I'd say the problem is one of basic principles of human rights.
>
>    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.
>

Employers have no human rights they are not human.
By that I mean, people (who have their own indisputable human rights) 
have a function as an employer.
Owing to the past history of employers is it not understandable that 
they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent?

>    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.
>

Oh! Yes you can. (It is still the panto season ;-))


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message