 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
You're completely missing the point of me bringing it up. I'm offering you
examples that *you* think are discrimination that *most* people do not.
Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If
not, why not?
--
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 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
> 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?
Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?
No, it is just that what you wrote appeared to say that. I wanted to
give you the opportunity to set the record straight, just in case
somebody else reads it in this way.
In case you don't understand why I read it that way: we have been
arguing that different groups have different chances based on irrelevant
differences. I.e. what school you go to partly depends on your skin
color and the social status of your parents. Now suddenly you claim that
the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.
To quote you: "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."
I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you
actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training. Only
that does not work. In reality these two groups overlap to a great
extend. That is what we have been saying the whole time, but what you
refuse to acknowledge. So, in your private world this is not a racist
remark, but be warned that quite a lot of people (not me) might see that
different.
Before replying that I am a fool, reread your post with this in mind and
see why I reacted the way I did.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you
> actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.
I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better." Like the NFL
football players are elite, usually not only because they got better
football training.
What I failed to understand was why Warp brought up *this* subject at all.
It seems completely at odds with the conversation so far.
--
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:
> You're completely missing the point of me bringing it up. I'm offering you
> examples that *you* think are discrimination that *most* people do not.
I may be indeed missing the point because I don't understand what you
are trying to say. I *know* that many people have a different view on these
things than I do. So what? Does that somehow invalidate what I'm saying?
As I have said before, I'm ranting precisely *because* many people have
differing views on these things than I do, not regardless.
> Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If
> not, why not?
You might as well ask if it's discrimination to outlaw people from stealing
and murdering.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you
> > actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.
> I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better." Like the NFL
> football players are elite, usually not only because they got better
> football training.
That's what I meant. Some people *are* more intelligent than others,
some people *are* more competent than others, some people *are* physically
more proficient than others, no matter how "unfair" that might feel. Rather
than trying to shut down these "elite" people, the system should try to
benefit from these individuals so that the whole society gets some benefit
(usually in the form of progress).
> What I failed to understand was why Warp brought up *this* subject at all.
> It seems completely at odds with the conversation so far.
It was a tangent written as a response to what Patrick wrote.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
> > 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?
> Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?
Not all offence is intentional.
I don't understand where the racial thing suddenly came up. I wasn't even
thinking about races when I wrote that. I was thinking about (idealistic)
socialism vs. capitalism, and the idea that it's somehow unfair that there
vast differences in social classes and wealth distribution.
> Now suddenly you claim that
> the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.
You should read what I was responding to. Also, I didn't say that.
I said that more *talented* people should be awarded and allowed to
succeed, rather than forcing them down to the same line as everybody
else, no matter how "unfair" the idea of some people succeeding (eg.
by getting richer) might seem.
I don't even have to quote myself because you do it perfectly:
> To quote you: "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."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/2/2011 12:50 PM, 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".
>
In point of fact, it only does so to a point, then you get a sort of
striation, where neither the top or the bottom progress.
> 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").
>
True, the problem of course being that just because person X was a
genius at Y, doesn't mean that X's children, with all the opportunities
and money, will either a) apply themselves to being that good at
anything, or b) won't be a total idiot, while person Z's kids, who have
no money, no schooling, etc. might not have been far better. This isn't
just a hypothetical either, it happens all the damn time, its just hard
to see, if the resources for the guy that *should have* been elite
consists of the stuff taken from the local trash can, while the village
idiot can hire 50 people, slightly smarter than himself, to make a
small, mediocre, improvement in something.
> 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).
>
Might be? Pure capitalism is what Microsoft tries to exist in. We know
what their products look like. lol Seriously though, *pure* anything
engenders stupidity. In the case of economics, pure socialism leaves you
without incentives. Capitalism, on the other hand, in its pure form,
rewards those that grab up as much as possible, discourages innovation,
since any true innovation could badly screw someone's business plans
(especially if it was someone else's), formation of monopolies, to
prevent such competition, refusal to implement new ideas at all, since
the basic cost of doing it would cut into existing profits, and the
*profit* is more important than improving the products, and when they
are improved, its flash and window dressing. Change the color, the
shape, etc., but never *ever* invest in *new*. Only competition forces
that to happen, and then only if the company with the original company
can't just buy up something, then bury it in a closet for 50 years.
By some estimates, the nearly totally free system we have in the US may
be leaving us 50 years *behind* where we should have been, precisely
because of the, "I refuse to spend the money to adopt this, and hurt my
billion dollar bonus at the end of the year, and the people buying form
me won't know the difference anyway." Its even one of the libertardian
arguments, which goes like, "You don't need limits of controls, because
everyone should be able to figure out if we are robbing them blind,
poisoning them, selling them crap!", while ignoring the basic fact that
this *only* works if you a) have perfect information, and/or b) can 100%
trust the people giving you information about the products. Since you
don't have (a), and half the information sources on the market are
*paid* to *inform* you about the products, or gloss over inconvenient
details, you are left with the companies forcing each other to compete,
and that only happens if someone else is standing behind them with a
damn club.
The result, when they don't, is things like the oil industry, which is
beholden to one single massive foreign corp to decide who gets the oil
*they themselves* pumped out of the ground, or *worse* the insurance
industry, which literally has a sort of convention every year, where
everyone in it sits around a table, without the guy with the club, and
goes, "Heh, what can we do to make more money, for less actual service
this year!"
> 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.
>
You really need to examine just how badly "pure capitalism", and lack of
government intervention *does* fail. Hint: Somalia is often quoted as a
Libertarian paradise, as a joke. No government to speak of, no
regulation on anything, in theory, businesses could have *everything*
they ever wanted. Well, they would have to hire their own cops, build
their own jails, make laws for their properties as to what was and
wasn't legal, prevent theft, rape, murder, drug dealing, etc. Oh, and
somehow set up something to protect their products, so someone couldn't
just steal them and sell identical stuff some place else. Oh, yeah, and,
at some point, keep people from discriminating for, often, even stupider
reasons than sex, or race. If only we already *had* something that did
that sort of thing...
Everyone seems to be able to say what *isn't* the solution. Oddly, none
of them can ever give a clear, workable, or even testable, solution that
*will* solve the problem.
--
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 1/2/2011 5:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you
>> actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.
>
> I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better." Like the NFL
> football players are elite, usually not only because they got better
> football training.
>
Think you will find that a) they get grabbed from all over, even bad
schools, and b) they are the ones that don't instantly believe the,
"good players don't use steroids!", spiel, but.. whatever.
--
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 1/3/2011 10:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you
>>> actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.
>
>> I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better." Like the NFL
>> football players are elite, usually not only because they got better
>> football training.
>
> That's what I meant. Some people *are* more intelligent than others,
> some people *are* more competent than others, some people *are* physically
> more proficient than others, no matter how "unfair" that might feel. Rather
> than trying to shut down these "elite" people, the system should try to
> benefit from these individuals so that the whole society gets some benefit
> (usually in the form of progress).
>
And, as I pointed out, this is not necessarily *always* the rich people,
with good schools. Or, are you honestly going to tell me that Paris
Hilton is better off with all that money, and, as nightmare as it is to
contemplate, opportunity for schooling, but some brilliant kid in a
shitty school, who will probably resort to joining a gang some place,
and running drugs, shouldn't even be given any chances?
Often "elite" doesn't mean better, it just means, "more privileged".
A good example of this was a post recently on a thread touching on
similar things. His father *invented* nearly everything he ever used on
the farm (since he didn't have the money to just buy equipment), he
taught himself everything he knew, had almost no education, no chances,
and started with no money. He ended with less land than you could live
off of, government subsidies, no education, and *almost* no money. His
kid had a few more chances than he did, because most of his money when
to helping that happen. Had he been lucky enough to have had money, and
gotten into college, odds are the guy would have ended up in
engineering, or something. He wasn't stupider than his kid, he just had
shit chances, no opportunities, and no money to find them, oh, and, at
that time, no help from anyone *to try*.
This is pretty much what you get among "everyone" in the "bottom of the
bucket", unless someone else steps in and provides an out. And, not all
of them make enough, or the luck of remaining healthy, out of debt,
etc., so their kid has better chances than they do. These people could
have been "elite" too. Probably more people than we imagine could be,
but the moneyed (not the same thing) don't want the competition, and
other people have other excuses for not helping them at all.
--
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 3-1-2011 18:49, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
>>> 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?
>
>> Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?
>
> Not all offence is intentional.
Nor is being offended always justified. I think you should have known
better by now, but that is just me.
> I don't understand where the racial thing suddenly came up.
I though you wouldn't, so I explained it. ;)
> I wasn't even
> thinking about races when I wrote that. I was thinking about (idealistic)
> socialism vs. capitalism, and the idea that it's somehow unfair that there
> vast differences in social classes and wealth distribution.
>
>> Now suddenly you claim that
>> the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.
>
> You should read what I was responding to. Also, I didn't say that.
> I said that more *talented* people should be awarded and allowed to
> succeed, rather than forcing them down to the same line as everybody
> else, no matter how "unfair" the idea of some people succeeding (eg.
> by getting richer) might seem.
>
> I don't even have to quote myself because you do it perfectly:
>
>> To quote you: "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."
There were a couple of lines from me below that where I explained that
what you intended was not what you wrote. Don't bother quoting them, I
can still find them in the post one up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Does that somehow invalidate what I'm saying?
Yes. At least in the context of this conversation.
You're arguing that we don't need reverse-discrimination laws (aka
affirmative action) because of what you believe. Yet you also acknowledge
that what you believe isn't common. If what you believed was common, we
wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, let alone
reverse-discrimination laws.
>> Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If
>> not, why not?
>
> You might as well ask if it's discrimination to outlaw people from stealing
> and murdering.
From that, you seem to think it is *not* age discrimination?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> True, the problem of course being that just because person X was a
> genius at Y, doesn't mean that X's children, with all the opportunities
> and money, will either a) apply themselves to being that good at
> anything, or b) won't be a total idiot, while person Z's kids, who have
> no money, no schooling, etc. might not have been far better. This isn't
> just a hypothetical either, it happens all the damn time, its just hard
> to see, if the resources for the guy that *should have* been elite
> consists of the stuff taken from the local trash can, while the village
> idiot can hire 50 people, slightly smarter than himself, to make a
> small, mediocre, improvement in something.
Maybe I'm biased in my views because I'm living in Finland rather than
the US, the UK or some other country where education is (AFAIK) much more
dependent on people's wealth.
This mostly not the case in Finland. Everybody gets the same education
regardless of how wealthy they are, there are no separate schools for the
rich (even the idea feels foreign here), and even getting to a university
is cheap because the government pays for it (unlike in the US, where you
have to either be filthy rich or get some huge sponsorship). Basically
the only limiting factor for getting into a university is if you are
capable. It's not a question of money or social status.
(In fact, university students are actually considered poor by default,
which might feel a bit ironic to some people in some countries where only
the rich and lucky get to universities. The image of the poor and bohemian
university student is actually kind of a stereotype. Not a negative one,
though, and usually quite factual. I'm sure Finland is not the only such
country.)
> You really need to examine just how badly "pure capitalism", and lack of
> government intervention *does* fail.
You write as if I had defended pure capitalism.
IMO capitalism is ok, but needs a strong government to control it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You're arguing that we don't need reverse-discrimination laws (aka
> affirmative action) because of what you believe. Yet you also acknowledge
> that what you believe isn't common. If what you believed was common, we
> wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, let alone
> reverse-discrimination laws.
What I'm saying is that fighting discrimination with more discrimination
is not the correct solution.
> >> Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If
> >> not, why not?
> >
> > You might as well ask if it's discrimination to outlaw people from stealing
> > and murdering.
> From that, you seem to think it is *not* age discrimination?
What does causing physical or monetary harm to somebody have to do with
whether it's discrimination or not?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> (In fact, university students are actually considered poor by default,
This is true of the USA also. "Starving student" is the usual expression.
--
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:
> > (In fact, university students are actually considered poor by default,
> This is true of the USA also. "Starving student" is the usual expression.
I thought that the tuition fees are so extravagant there that only the
rich can afford it?
Or is it more like the parents pay the fees, their son/daughter has to
live with whatever is left?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Or is it more like the parents pay the fees, their son/daughter has to
> live with whatever is left?
Or the student gets their tuition paid by the university along with a small
monthly bonus to pay for housing and such. Tuition is expensive, but many
wind up not paying it, instead living off government grants,
university-specific grants (scholarships), etc. I only paid one year of
grad school. My advisor paid the rest.
--
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 1/3/2011 10:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
>>> 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?
>
>> Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?
>
> Not all offence is intentional.
>
> I don't understand where the racial thing suddenly came up. I wasn't even
> thinking about races when I wrote that. I was thinking about (idealistic)
> socialism vs. capitalism, and the idea that it's somehow unfair that there
> vast differences in social classes and wealth distribution.
>
>> Now suddenly you claim that
>> the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.
>
> You should read what I was responding to. Also, I didn't say that.
> I said that more *talented* people should be awarded and allowed to
> succeed, rather than forcing them down to the same line as everybody
> else, no matter how "unfair" the idea of some people succeeding (eg.
> by getting richer) might seem.
>
This I would *almost* agree with. The problem is.. How did someone once
put it, I think it was, "In the village of idiots, the elite is thrown
out and ostracized for being *too* different, while in the village of
geniuses, its the idiot who gets treated poorly." The law, and society,
attempts, perhaps stupidly, to fix *both* problems at the same time, but
the only way to do that is making everyone stand in the same line. If
you let those that god rich stand in one line, and everyone else stand
in the other, what you end up with *instead* is not the elite, best and
brightest in the rich line. What you get is one town of Harvard grads,
who got rich by *being* elite, next to another town full of village
idiots, who get there by inheriting the money, but not the smarts that
made it, *or* by catering to the lowest common level of stupid.
Just look at all the idiots that buy rubber bands with holograms and/or
magnets in them, and deny that they work via pure placebo effects. Any
idiot can make the things, it doesn't take a lot of brains to sell one,
or to make up claims about what they do, or hire someone to make a logo
to stamp on it, and any idiot willing to believe in them will buy the
damn things, sometimes are $60+ a piece, of they are one of those
"elite" athletes, with more muscle than brains. The scam artists made
millions off these, and every time they become unsellable, they merely
make up new shit, clue some new bits on one, name it something else, and
sell millions more, often to the same fools. Any attempt to claim these
people are "elite" just because they run good cons, the law doesn't
cover them properly, so can't stop it, etc., is a complete joke. They
have money, and talk about shit convincingly, that is the sole sum of
their "skill". Otherwise, they are no different than the people that
once sold patent medicines, because you could make more money going town
to town selling stuff you threw together in a bottle than you could
working at the local foundry. The guy working at that foundry, on the
other hand, may **actually** turn out to be the one that figured out how
to get aluminum out of a rock, which is both more useful *and* requires
actual knowledge.
Not everyone that has, or makes, money is producing stuff that is "high
quality", or even useful in the long term. Most of them are not, and
most are in it *solely* to make money, not to understand anything, or
learn anything, or improve anything, etc. Some even disparage people
that do want any of those things (they tend to own the local "big"
store, in the next town over, where all the village idiots live...)
--
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 1/3/2011 12:20 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> True, the problem of course being that just because person X was a
>> genius at Y, doesn't mean that X's children, with all the opportunities
>> and money, will either a) apply themselves to being that good at
>> anything, or b) won't be a total idiot, while person Z's kids, who have
>> no money, no schooling, etc. might not have been far better. This isn't
>> just a hypothetical either, it happens all the damn time, its just hard
>> to see, if the resources for the guy that *should have* been elite
>> consists of the stuff taken from the local trash can, while the village
>> idiot can hire 50 people, slightly smarter than himself, to make a
>> small, mediocre, improvement in something.
>
> Maybe I'm biased in my views because I'm living in Finland rather than
> the US, the UK or some other country where education is (AFAIK) much more
> dependent on people's wealth.
>
Hmm. Yeah, I think this is precisely the issue. Where you are, the
"baseline" is very fair, so the range of outcomes are not terribly
different from one group to the next. You go to some place like the US
and what you end up with is a damn mess where third world countries have
better chances in some neighborhoods, and the only difference between a
third world dictator and a CEO becomes how many elected officials they
have to buy off to get what they want, where the dictator could simply
shoot anyone that didn't play ball. The rich get rich because they *are*
rich, not because they do shit, the poor stay poor, because you can't
get a job that pays you jack, if you don't know anything at all, and the
same rich bozos that got that way by inheriting it don't want to give a
dime to fix the problem of some person they don't know having a 6th
grade education, and no prospects for college, never mind high school,
*ever*. The "baseline" in the US, in some places, looks less like a
small, grassy, hill, than a shear cliff.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
> 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.
When I worked for the government I was not allowed to be involved in
decision making for projects if a relative was bidding on the contract
being offered.
Then when I worked for the private sector, I still couldn't.
Government regulators (e.g. those that regulate medicine, or media, etc)
are often forbidden from taking money or gifts from the folks they are
regulating.
Don't you think that's unfair? Shouldn't I get in trouble only if they
prove that these things influenced my decisions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You're arguing that we don't need reverse-discrimination laws (aka
>> affirmative action) because of what you believe. Yet you also acknowledge
>> that what you believe isn't common. If what you believed was common, we
>> wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, let alone
>> reverse-discrimination laws.
>
> What I'm saying is that fighting discrimination with more discrimination
> is not the correct solution.
And what Darren is saying is that you haven't provided a correct
solution.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
