 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21-12-2010 21:12, andrel wrote:
[snip]
> People from a minority in general know relatively more from the
> majority, so there the problem is not so great. Though there are closely
> knit minorities with all sorts of strange ideas about how the majority
> thinks. It is from these groups that sometimes things are said and
> written that also leads to prosecution for hate mongering. (which is a
> limitation to free speech here).
I might have explained that better perhaps. The idea is that everyone
knows people from various groups. Starting from the center, there is
family, relatives, neighbours, sport and schoolmates, coworkers etc.
When the circle is expanding the composition will more and more be like
the average of the entire population. Hence people from the majority
will mainly meet people from the majority in every circle whereas
minorities meet more and more people from the majority. Alienation from
other groups is therefore in general more a problem of the majority than
of the minority.
Is that more clear? rereading, I doubt it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> > The law should be the same for everybody.
> Sure. Let's make it the law that you can't criticize islam, and the penalty
> is death. Fair, right? Very democratic. The law is the same for everyone,
> muslims and christians and atheists alike.
No, because because of several reasons:
- It obviously is against basic human and constitutional rights.
- It's contradictory with freedom of speech.
- It puts one religion in a special position over all others.
"The law should be the same for everybody" does not equal "any arbitrary
law is ok, as long as it's applied equally to everybody". That's a rather
cheap argument.
A law must follow basic human rights, constitutional principles *and*
be applied to everybody equally.
> Again, the point I'm trying to make is that a minority with less power needs
> more ability to defend itself than a majority with a great amount of power
> needs to defend itself against a small minority.
I disagree. A minority needs the *same* ability to defend itself as the
majority. Different rules and double standards are discrimination.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
> > andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
> >> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
> >
> > Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
> > politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
> > society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
> > inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
> > people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)
> I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the
> majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.
While protecting the rights of *everybody* equally.
> > Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
> > you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
> > democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
> > we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
> >
> > The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
> > society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
> > (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)
> It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.
Then we disagree. As long as there is preferential treatment, double
standards and discrimination (there's no such a thing as "positive
discrimination", that's a ridiculous oxymoron), no society can be truly
free and equal.
> > *Why* does the minority need special protection?
> because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as
> that.
Minorities require extra protection and preferential treatment because
they can be outvoted in a democracy? And exactly how does that solve
anything? And how does that argument make any sense? By the same reasoning
advocates of a minority political party should get special protection and
preferential treatment because they are outvoted by the advocates of the
larger parties. You don't see that happening, and for good reason.
I also like how you quote 'democracy', as to imply that there's something
wrong with the whole concept.
> > Why are double standards necessary?
> I would not call them 'double standards', you do.
Maybe you don't, but that doesn't change the fact.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> The law should be the same for everybody.
>
>> Sure. Let's make it the law that you can't criticize islam, and the penalty
>> is death. Fair, right? Very democratic. The law is the same for everyone,
>> muslims and christians and atheists alike.
>
> No, because because of several reasons:
>
> - It obviously is against basic human and constitutional rights.
Constitutional rights are exactly what prevent *democracy* from doing this.
That's precisely my point.
> - It's contradictory with freedom of speech.
Again, freedom of speech (at least here) is a constitutional right, not
something decided by the democracy.
> - It puts one religion in a special position over all others.
But only because that's what the majority wants.
> "The law should be the same for everybody" does not equal "any arbitrary
> law is ok, as long as it's applied equally to everybody". That's a rather
> cheap argument.
Then you have an odd view of democracy.
You asked why the minority needs special protection. Then you go to argue
that my example is bad *because* the minority already has special
protection, in the form of ...
> A law must follow basic human rights, constitutional principles *and*
> be applied to everybody equally.
So if the majority votes for something that would take these rights and
principles away from the minority, shouldn't the minority be more protected
than the majority? The majority isn't going to take the rights away from the
majority, so the protection really only applies to the minority.
In other words, if 90% of the country is muslim, you don't need protection
against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be muslim. You need
protection against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be christian.
In a country where 90% of the people are christian, you need to give more
credence of the jewish man claiming discrimination than of the christians
complaining about an "attack on christmas".
In the USA, the argument is often made that the anti-gay laws are applied
equally to all: Neither gay nor straight men are allowed to marry other men.
Or, as one great historical figure whose name I forget quoted: "The law
prohibits both the wealthy and the poor from sleeping under bridges."
The whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the
majority. If you assume your democracy already has a constitution that
prevents that stuff, then you've already conceded my point, because a
constitution is useless if it's a democratic document.
(Not dissimilar to anti-trust complaints, really.)
If your constitution has in it that the state religion is islam and everyone
else gets discriminated against in the courts (i.e., Sharia law), then the
whole "that's not how democracy works" argument falls apart.
>> Again, the point I'm trying to make is that a minority with less power needs
>> more ability to defend itself than a majority with a great amount of power
>> needs to defend itself against a small minority.
>
> I disagree. A minority needs the *same* ability to defend itself as the
> majority. Different rules and double standards are discrimination.
But each individual member of the minority needs more ability that each
individual member of the majority in order to enjoy equal protection.
--
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:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford
> >> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?
> >
> > That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.
> You're missing the point I'm trying to make. You're talking about abstract
> rights, in which case yes I agree. I'm talking about the reality of the
> situation in which there's often a lack of justice due to the way the system
> works.
> It would be nice if the legal system were set up in such a way that everyone
> is equally protected. But it's not. Hell, our previous president has
> confessed in writing to committing war crimes and knowingly violating the
> constitution, and nobody is even going to look into it, let alone punish him
> for it.
So exactly what's wrong in promoting equal rights for everybody, and
abolishing special treatment for some groups of people?
If the current situation is that some minorities are being discriminated
against, the solution is not to give them *more* protection than to the
rest. Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fight discrimination with
more discrimination. The correct solution is to give them the *same*
protection as everybody else. That, by definition, removes the discrimination.
> > I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
> > regardless of income.
> Only for crimes. Which is to say, only when you're accused by the government
> itself of breaking some law for which the punishment might be jail time.
> If you get sued by some company for copyright infringement (to pull an
> example out of the air), you have to pay for your own lawyer.
At least here if you actually win the case, the company that accused you
will have to pay for your lawyer fees. (This makes sense because it avoids
people/companies abusing the legal system to cause economic harm to somebody
by forcing them to pay legal fees.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/12/2010 9:18 PM, Darren New wrote:
> But
The good thing about banging your head against a brick wall is that when
you stop so does the pain ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > A law must follow basic human rights, constitutional principles *and*
> > be applied to everybody equally.
> So if the majority votes for something that would take these rights and
> principles away from the minority, shouldn't the minority be more protected
> than the majority?
But then the law would be discriminatory, would not be equal for
everybody, and thus it would be contradictory with the whole concept
of equality I'm talking about.
I think that there's a confusion here. When I say "a law should be
applied equally for everybody" that doesn't mean "a discriminating law
is ok as long as it's applied equally to everybody". That's actually
a contradiction, and the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
Laws should give equal rights to everybody, and be applied equally to
everybody. That's the exact opposite of a law that discriminates against
some group of people.
The minority should not be "more protected than the majority". The
minority should be exactly as much protected as the majority. No more,
no less. Same rights, same laws. No preferential treatment nor
discrimination.
How hard can that be to understand?
> In other words, if 90% of the country is muslim, you don't need protection
> against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be muslim. You need
> protection against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be christian.
Actually I disagree. You *also* need protection against passing a law that
says you are not allowed to be muslim, even if at an implied level. The same
principle should apply to everybody.
This isn't actually any actual problem in any constitution I know of.
It's only a problem in the *application* of the law in some cases in
some countries. It's being applied in a discriminatory way in similar
situations when it really shouldn't.
> In a country where 90% of the people are christian, you need to give more
> credence of the jewish man claiming discrimination than of the christians
> complaining about an "attack on christmas".
Discrimination is a crime. Criticism of a holiday isn't. Of course a crime
should be taken more seriously. I don't understand your argument.
What *does* happen in the current world is, however, that when a member
of the unprotected majority complains about discrimination, he gets laughed
at. *That* is a double standard that shouldn't exist.
> In the USA, the argument is often made that the anti-gay laws are applied
> equally to all: Neither gay nor straight men are allowed to marry other men.
One could make that argument, but it's obviously ridiculous.
*Claiming* that a law is equal and fair to everybody doesn't
automatically make it so.
> The whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the
> majority.
I thought that the point was to give equal rights to everybody.
> If you assume your democracy already has a constitution that
> prevents that stuff, then you've already conceded my point, because a
> constitution is useless if it's a democratic document.
But the problem I'm complaining about is that constitutional principles
*are* being violated with discriminatory laws which give preferential
treatment to some groups of people.
No constitution I know of says that some groups of people must be
protected more than others. All constitutions I know of talk only about
equal rights and no preferential treatment.
I do know, however, of some laws that are being applied in contradiction
with this principle.
> If your constitution has in it that the state religion is islam and everyone
> else gets discriminated against in the courts (i.e., Sharia law), then the
> whole "that's not how democracy works" argument falls apart.
I never said that democracy should override basic human rights and
the principles of equality and freedom.
> > I disagree. A minority needs the *same* ability to defend itself as the
> > majority. Different rules and double standards are discrimination.
> But each individual member of the minority needs more ability that each
> individual member of the majority in order to enjoy equal protection.
I don't understand. A person is a person. Each person should be entitled
to the same rights and protection as any other person. Why should one
person get more protection than another? That would be discrimination.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Laws should give equal rights to everybody, and be applied equally to
> everybody. That's the exact opposite of a law that discriminates against
> some group of people.
The problem is in interpreting those rights. There's always a trade-off.
> The minority should not be "more protected than the majority". The
> minority should be exactly as much protected as the majority. No more,
> no less. Same rights, same laws. No preferential treatment nor
> discrimination.
Except if you give them exactly the same laws and rights, then you *do*
protect the minority more than the majority, in practice, precisely because
the majority isn't going to pass a law against the majority's interests.
> How hard can that be to understand?
>
>> In other words, if 90% of the country is muslim, you don't need protection
>> against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be muslim. You need
>> protection against passing a law that says you're not allowed to be christian.
>
> Actually I disagree. You *also* need protection against passing a law that
> says you are not allowed to be muslim, even if at an implied level. The same
> principle should apply to everybody.
>
> This isn't actually any actual problem in any constitution I know of.
That of course was an exaggeration. But there are certainly similar laws in
countries with a Sharia basis in law, where it is (for example) obvious that
muslims are much more trustworthy in their testimony than non-muslims.
> What *does* happen in the current world is, however, that when a member
> of the unprotected majority complains about discrimination, he gets laughed
> at. *That* is a double standard that shouldn't exist.
Not usually, in my experience.
>> In the USA, the argument is often made that the anti-gay laws are applied
>> equally to all: Neither gay nor straight men are allowed to marry other men.
>
> One could make that argument, but it's obviously ridiculous.
Not ridiculous enough to keep the law from being passed in spite of
discrimination.
> *Claiming* that a law is equal and fair to everybody doesn't
> automatically make it so.
Somehow, you seem to think that your reasoning is common. It's not, really.
>> The whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the
>> majority.
>
> I thought that the point was to give equal rights to everybody.
Yes. Both. You give equal rights to everyone by protecting the minority from
the wishes of the majority.
>> If you assume your democracy already has a constitution that
>> prevents that stuff, then you've already conceded my point, because a
>> constitution is useless if it's a democratic document.
>
> But the problem I'm complaining about is that constitutional principles
> *are* being violated with discriminatory laws which give preferential
> treatment to some groups of people.
Then you're not talking about democracy any more, or why a minority should
have more protection than a majority. What laws do you think are giving
preferential treatment to minorities, and how did they get on the books?
> No constitution I know of says that some groups of people must be
> protected more than others. All constitutions I know of talk only about
> equal rights and no preferential treatment.
See above.
> I do know, however, of some laws that are being applied in contradiction
> with this principle.
>
>> If your constitution has in it that the state religion is islam and everyone
>> else gets discriminated against in the courts (i.e., Sharia law), then the
>> whole "that's not how democracy works" argument falls apart.
>
> I never said that democracy should override basic human rights and
> the principles of equality and freedom.
And that's why minorities need more protection - because they're more prone
to having their basic rights overrun by the majority.
>> But each individual member of the minority needs more ability that each
>> individual member of the majority in order to enjoy equal protection.
>
> I don't understand. A person is a person. Each person should be entitled
> to the same rights and protection as any other person. Why should one
> person get more protection than another? That would be discrimination.
For the same reason we don't have straight pride marches, that rich people
don't need permission to sleep under bridges, that we never had a white
landowner suffrage movement, etc. Maybe you just grew up in a place where
the *actual* abuses of the system are minute compared to other places.
In other words, being in the minority, the deck is already stacked against
you. So in the *enforcement* of the laws, one might give greater credence to
the claims that a minority was targeted by a majority than vice versa.
--
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:
> So exactly what's wrong in promoting equal rights for everybody, and
> abolishing special treatment for some groups of people?
I didn't say it was wrong.
> If the current situation is that some minorities are being discriminated
> against, the solution is not to give them *more* protection than to the
> rest.
Are you saying that the current levels of protection are adequate?
> Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fight discrimination with
> more discrimination. The correct solution is to give them the *same*
> protection as everybody else. That, by definition, removes the discrimination.
Yep. And this is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to
address.
And, again, "the same protection" prevents both rich and poor from sleeping
under the bridge, and prevents both gay and straight men from marrying other
men. That's what you get in a democracy, sometimes even in a constitutional
democracy.
I'm not saying that affirmative action is the right solution to problems
like this. I'm saying that this sort of balance doesn't naturally arise from
democracy, and that obtaining this sort of balance is therefore
non-democratic and implicitly supports those statistically discriminated
against more than it supports those statistically doing the discrimination.
> At least here if you actually win the case, the company that accused you
> will have to pay for your lawyer fees. (This makes sense because it avoids
> people/companies abusing the legal system to cause economic harm to somebody
> by forcing them to pay legal fees.)
As I say, it depends on the case. Here if the reason you sue is to make them
pay legal fees, then it's a frivolous case and you can get lawyer fees.
Sometimes you have to sue them back (which is called a counter suit) to get
your costs back. There's a strong sense that "justice should be served", but
it doesn't always cover lawyer fees; it is often up to the judge or the jury
as I understand it. When it does, you then have to go collect the lawyer
fees after the fact, so if you go broke before you win, you're screwed, and
if the other side goes broke before you collect, you're screwed.
--
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 21-12-2010 22:14, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
>>>> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
>>>
>>> Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
>>> politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
>>> society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
>>> inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
>>> people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)
>
>> I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the
>> majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.
>
> While protecting the rights of *everybody* equally.
Yes, that is what that means. Many people find it useful to stress it
this way to make clear that even in a democracy there are bounds to what
is acceptable to put into laws even if you have 50%+1 of the votes.
>>> Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
>>> you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
>>> democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
>>> we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
>>>
>>> The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
>>> society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
>>> (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)
>
>> It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.
>
> Then we disagree. As long as there is preferential treatment, double
> standards and discrimination (there's no such a thing as "positive
> discrimination", that's a ridiculous oxymoron), no society can be truly
> free and equal.
It is not preferential treatment, it is not double standards, it simply
is the way in which we make sure that your *everybody* from above gets
his rights protected.
>>> *Why* does the minority need special protection?
>
>> because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as
>> that.
>
> Minorities require extra protection and preferential treatment because
> they can be outvoted in a democracy? And exactly how does that solve
> anything? And how does that argument make any sense? By the same reasoning
> advocates of a minority political party should get special protection and
> preferential treatment because they are outvoted by the advocates of the
> larger parties. You don't see that happening, and for good reason.
>
> I also like how you quote 'democracy', as to imply that there's something
> wrong with the whole concept.
?? No, I did that here because if that happened it would IMO cease to be
a democracy. Nothing wrong with it in the usual circumstances AFAIC.
>>> Why are double standards necessary?
>
>> I would not call them 'double standards', you do.
>
> Maybe you don't, but that doesn't change the fact.
or you have your facts wrong
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/21/2010 12:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford
>> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?
>
> That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.
>
> I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
> regardless of income. (Also, I don't know how it's there, but here if
> you win you don't pay anything. The loser pays the winner's lawyer fees.)
>
Entitled, yes. Best, effective, or even timely, not so much. A lot of
them won't work probono, and the ones that do often have *massive* case
loads, or work for organizations that are pretty much constantly
vilified for being too liberal, activist, or not on the side of the
assholes and ethically defective (i.e., the ones with money, power, and
therefor, on the "right side", in the minds of those with similar money
and power).
It doesn't do you a lot of good if you have to wait 3 years for a trial,
because Snoop Dog's appointment to argue whether or not his latest Ho
get the TV or not is ***so much more*** important than a civil rights
case, or the injury done to someone living in subsisted housing.
--
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:
> That of course was an exaggeration. But there are certainly similar laws in
> countries with a Sharia basis in law, where it is (for example) obvious that
> muslims are much more trustworthy in their testimony than non-muslims.
And? What does that have to do with anything? I'm advocating equal rights,
and "muslims are much more trustworthy in their testimony" isn't.
> >> In the USA, the argument is often made that the anti-gay laws are applied
> >> equally to all: Neither gay nor straight men are allowed to marry other men.
> >
> > One could make that argument, but it's obviously ridiculous.
> Not ridiculous enough to keep the law from being passed in spite of
> discrimination.
And? Does the fact that in some countries discriminatory laws are being
passed somehow nullify my proposal of equal rights?
I'm a proponent of equal rights precisely *because* in many countries
there aren't, even in many constitutional democratic ones.
> > *Claiming* that a law is equal and fair to everybody doesn't
> > automatically make it so.
> Somehow, you seem to think that your reasoning is common. It's not, really.
I don't understand.
> >> The whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the
> >> majority.
> >
> > I thought that the point was to give equal rights to everybody.
> Yes. Both. You give equal rights to everyone by protecting the minority from
> the wishes of the majority.
No, you give equal rights to everyone by protecting everyone equally.
If you give preferential treatment to some people, that's discrimination
and not equal rights.
> >> If you assume your democracy already has a constitution that
> >> prevents that stuff, then you've already conceded my point, because a
> >> constitution is useless if it's a democratic document.
> >
> > But the problem I'm complaining about is that constitutional principles
> > *are* being violated with discriminatory laws which give preferential
> > treatment to some groups of people.
> Then you're not talking about democracy any more, or why a minority should
> have more protection than a majority. What laws do you think are giving
> preferential treatment to minorities, and how did they get on the books?
For example, criticism of certain religions is punished more harshly
than criticism of certain other religions. Yes, it does happen here.
The law doesn't make the distinction explicitly, but it's being
interpreted by judges as such. That's the injustice and discrimination.
> > I never said that democracy should override basic human rights and
> > the principles of equality and freedom.
> And that's why minorities need more protection - because they're more prone
> to having their basic rights overrun by the majority.
No. That's why minorities need the *same* protection as everybody else.
They need to be equal to everybody else, not superior.
> >> But each individual member of the minority needs more ability that each
> >> individual member of the majority in order to enjoy equal protection.
> >
> > I don't understand. A person is a person. Each person should be entitled
> > to the same rights and protection as any other person. Why should one
> > person get more protection than another? That would be discrimination.
> For the same reason we don't have straight pride marches, that rich people
> don't need permission to sleep under bridges, that we never had a white
> landowner suffrage movement, etc. Maybe you just grew up in a place where
> the *actual* abuses of the system are minute compared to other places.
I don't understand.
If there is, for example, a group of citizens with no right to vote,
a situation of unequal rights and discrimination is in place. After a
political campaign these citizens get their right to vote. Now they are
*equal* to everybody else, their right to vote is *equally* protected as
everybody else's. Now they are the same before the law. Exactly where is
the preferential treatment and the "more protection" part? Now every citizen
has the same right. The injustice of some citizens having more rights than
others has been removed.
Homosexuals want the same right as everybody else to marry other adults.
Again, this is about equality, about getting the same rights, about getting
to the same level as everybody else rather than being discriminated, not
about preferential treatment and special protection. Where does preferential
treatment and "more protection" step in here? It's all about equal rights,
not about giving more rights to some people than others.
What *would* be preferential treatment is if it was decided that to
"compensate" for the injustice of some group of citizens not having the
right to vote, it was decided that now they can cast two votes, while
everybody else keeps the right for only one vote. This would be "positive
discrimination" and "affirmative action". This would fight an injustice
with another injustice, trying to correct one wrong with another.
That isn't being done with suffrage, obviously because it would be way
too blatant and ridiculous. However, it *is* being done with other matters,
and *that* is the injustice.
> In other words, being in the minority, the deck is already stacked against
> you. So in the *enforcement* of the laws, one might give greater credence to
> the claims that a minority was targeted by a majority than vice versa.
I don't understand where this "credence" thing is coming from.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the
> >> majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.
> >
> > While protecting the rights of *everybody* equally.
> Yes, that is what that means. Many people find it useful to stress it
> this way to make clear that even in a democracy there are bounds to what
> is acceptable to put into laws even if you have 50%+1 of the votes.
The problem is that when some people stress that notion too much,
they start showing preferential treatment for some groups of people,
effectively discriminating others. When this happens to a politician
passing laws or judges passing verdicts, it's a problem.
And yes, that *is* happening. It's not purely theoretical.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't understand.
> Homosexuals want the same right as everybody else to marry other adults.
I'm not going to be able to explain to you the thoughts I'm trying to express.
> Again, this is about equality, about getting the same rights,
They *have* the same rights. At least, that's the argument.
You're starting from the presumption that you already know what "equal
rights" means and that you're correct.
> I don't understand where this "credence" thing is coming from.
I'm clearly not going to be able to explain it to you.
--
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:
> > If the current situation is that some minorities are being discriminated
> > against, the solution is not to give them *more* protection than to the
> > rest.
> Are you saying that the current levels of protection are adequate?
Why would I be ranting if I thought so? Some groups of people *are* being
protected more than others, and that's discrimination.
> > Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fight discrimination with
> > more discrimination. The correct solution is to give them the *same*
> > protection as everybody else. That, by definition, removes the discrimination.
> Yep. And this is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to
> address.
"Affirmative action" is just a buzzword meaning "discrimination".
Trying to counter-act discrimination (real or perceived) with even more
discrimination. That's not the way to go.
> And, again, "the same protection" prevents both rich and poor from sleeping
> under the bridge, and prevents both gay and straight men from marrying other
> men.
I don't understand how you equal limiting people's freedom as "protection"
and equal rights.
If a law does not apply equally to all people, then it's discriminatory.
"Apply" here meaning "has the same effect on", rather than "is being
equally imposed on".
> That's what you get in a democracy, sometimes even in a constitutional
> democracy.
Fortunately in a democracy the citizens have a way of correcting the
wrongs.
> I'm not saying that affirmative action is the right solution to problems
> like this. I'm saying that this sort of balance doesn't naturally arise from
> democracy, and that obtaining this sort of balance is therefore
> non-democratic and implicitly supports those statistically discriminated
> against more than it supports those statistically doing the discrimination.
I get the feeling that somewhere along the line in this thread you misread
some post of mine where I mentioned "democracy". As if I had said something
along the lines of "democracy is a good thing because it automatically
removes all injustice and discrimination".
I have nowhere said that. All I said was "democracy is a good thing
because it allows you to try to correct the wrongs you are seeing in your
society" (as opposed to some other more totalitarian forms of government).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not going to be able to explain to you the thoughts I'm trying to express.
Maybe not. Perhaps you just don't understand what the situation here is,
perhaps because it's different there.
The fact is that some groups of people are being treated differently
than others, judged differently than others for the same actions. For
example, criticism of one religion might not result in even an investigation,
while similar criticism of another religion can result even in jailtime
(yes, it has happened). Crimes committed by a member of one group of people
against a member of another group are being judged differently (by both
the media and the justice system) depending on the groups in question,
even though the crimes may be completely similar. Preferential treatment
is being applied to some groups of people, often at the cost of
discriminating others.
The very concept of "freedom" has shifted its meaning in Europe during
the past decade or two. It used to mean that the government has no right
to limit certain basic rights of people. Nowadays "freedom" is more like
concessions and permissions granted by the government to the citizens.
It's not anymore "you are free to do this because the government has no
right to restrict it". It has become "you are free to do this because the
government allows you to". European governments are granting themselves
more and more rights to limit people's freedom at their own whim.
As far as I understand, this is slightly better in the United States.
For example, the first amendment to the constitution says "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof" and so on. It limits what the government can do.
Not so here. The Finnish constitution has no such wording. It grants
people freedom of religion, but it imposes no restriction on the
government with respect to preferential treatment towards one religion
or another. In fact, there exists a state church in Finland (namely the
lutheran church), which gets special rights from the government that no
other religions get. It's thus the official state church of Finland.
It's rather ironic that Finland is mostly a secular country (I think
something like over 85% of Finns are atheists) while the US is mostly
a christian country (with something like 90% of christians), yet the
*government* of Finland is a christian government (because of the
official state church) while the government of the US is a secular one
(because it doesn't have and cannot have an official state church).
The freedom in the US goes even beyond that. If you, for example, burn
a Koran and a Bible in the US as a form of protest or social commentary,
and post a video of it to YouTube, that's completely legal and protected
by freedom of expression. However, do that here in Finland, and you *will*
get jailtime. This is no exaggeration. You will literally get sentenced
to jailtime.
Yes, I know that some people will argue that "well, that's proper
because you can't do that". The only thing I can say to that is that
I disagree. Burning a bunch of paper should not be a crime. It's paper.
Last time I checked, burning paper is not illegal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-12-2010 8:05, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the
>>>> majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.
>>>
>>> While protecting the rights of *everybody* equally.
>
>> Yes, that is what that means. Many people find it useful to stress it
>> this way to make clear that even in a democracy there are bounds to what
>> is acceptable to put into laws even if you have 50%+1 of the votes.
>
> The problem is that when some people stress that notion too much,
> they start showing preferential treatment for some groups of people,
> effectively discriminating others. When this happens to a politician
> passing laws or judges passing verdicts, it's a problem.
>
> And yes, that *is* happening. It's not purely theoretical.
>
Indeed preferential treatment (but not discrimination*) is happening and
that is as it should, reread e.g.Darran's posts to understand why.
Last night I was thinking of starting this thread from scratch, perhaps
it is more logical do do it here.
-------------------fresh start-----------------
Assume you have a village in a hypothetical country with two
highschools. A: a general one with 40 student per class in an old
building in the middle of town. And B: one with one staff member per 10
students, a sporting facility, a laptop computer for every student etc.
It turns out that most students from A go and work in a factory or on
the land, only 10% go to a university and on average perhaps only one of
them to a high ranking one. From B 60% go to a university half of them
to a good one.
The yearly fee per student is just the total cost (salaries/maintenance)
divided by the number of students. It turns out that B is 5 times as
expensive as A. You, me nor anybody else is surprised that the net
effect is that only kids from middle and high income parents are going
to university.
Someone proposes that that is not fair and also intelligent kids from
poor parents should have a chance to study. That there should be a
passing exam for school B and that the fees should depend on the income
of the parents.
Somebody else complains because this is preferential treatment and
discrimination of the rich as their chances to go to university will be
lowered.
Moral of the story: In a society with different social groups you can
either have equal treatment or equal chances.
Observation: most, if not all, civilized countries go, at least
officially, for equal chances.
------------------------------
*) The goal of a non-discriminatory society is often worded as: treat
equal cases equal, and non-equal cases non-equal. What you seem to
advocate is a much more rigid interpretation: treat all cases equal
regardless of whether they are equal or not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 22-12-2010 3:17, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 12/21/2010 12:13 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to
>>> afford
>>> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?
>>
>> That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.
>>
>> I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
>> regardless of income. (Also, I don't know how it's there, but here if
>> you win you don't pay anything. The loser pays the winner's lawyer fees.)
>>
> Entitled, yes. Best, effective, or even timely, not so much. A lot of
> them won't work probono, and the ones that do often have *massive* case
> loads, or work for organizations that are pretty much constantly
> vilified for being too liberal, activist, or not on the side of the
> assholes and ethically defective (i.e., the ones with money, power, and
> therefor, on the "right side", in the minds of those with similar money
> and power).
I remember in one of the documentaries of that most objective source
Michael Moore that there was a county in the US where none of the
probono case ever went to trial, they were all settled by plea bargaining.
> It doesn't do you a lot of good if you have to wait 3 years for a trial,
> because Snoop Dog's appointment to argue whether or not his latest Ho
> get the TV or not is ***so much more*** important than a civil rights
> case, or the injury done to someone living in subsisted housing.
I know a Yen Ho, Head of the Cardiac Morphology Unit at Imperial College
London and Royal Brompton Hospital in London, I can only assume you are
not referring to her.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I'm not going to be able to explain to you the thoughts I'm trying to express.
>
> Maybe not. Perhaps you just don't understand what the situation here is,
> perhaps because it's different there.
Yes, we have all that stuff here. Indeed, some of it is written into law in
the form of affirmative action. Certainly it's almost impossible here to
get a hate crime by black people against white people prosecuted as such.
And of course any bashing of gays is not only seldom prosecuted but indeed
often lauded.
> The very concept of "freedom" has shifted its meaning in Europe during
> the past decade or two. It used to mean that the government has no right
> to limit certain basic rights of people. Nowadays "freedom" is more like
> concessions and permissions granted by the government to the citizens.
Same here. "That's a privilege, not a right."
> As far as I understand, this is slightly better in the United States.
> For example, the first amendment to the constitution says "Congress shall
> make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
> free exercise thereof" and so on. It limits what the government can do.
Yes, but it's a constant on-going battle. If you wear a T-shirt into a
government building that implies you're an atheist, you get kicked out. When
an atheist or muslim puts up a display next to the christmas tree in the
city hall, it gets broken and stolen and nobody will investigate the crime.
And the first amendment is pretty much the only one that people really pay
much attention to any more. You can forget the rest of the rights, both
explicit and implied. And forget anything not specifically written down and
just listed as "oh, and anything not listed here is also a right."
> The freedom in the US goes even beyond that. If you, for example, burn
> a Koran and a Bible in the US as a form of protest or social commentary,
> and post a video of it to YouTube, that's completely legal and protected
> by freedom of expression. However, do that here in Finland, and you *will*
> get jailtime. This is no exaggeration. You will literally get sentenced
> to jailtime.
The first amendment is really one of the very few that are well-protected
here. It's stuff like assault, habeus corpus, the government accusing your
money of a crime and then taking it because it can't take the stand in its
own defense, locking up people for no reason, deporting brown people who
were born here because they don't speak english, etc etc etc.
But sure, you can *complain* about it.
> Yes, I know that some people will argue that "well, that's proper
> because you can't do that". The only thing I can say to that is that
> I disagree. Burning a bunch of paper should not be a crime. It's paper.
> Last time I checked, burning paper is not illegal.
And this is exactly my point, that I can't seem to explain to you.
--
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:
>>> If the current situation is that some minorities are being discriminated
>>> against, the solution is not to give them *more* protection than to the
>>> rest.
>
>> Are you saying that the current levels of protection are adequate?
>
> Why would I be ranting if I thought so? Some groups of people *are* being
> protected more than others, and that's discrimination.
You have missed the irony in my comment.
>>> Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't fight discrimination with
>>> more discrimination. The correct solution is to give them the *same*
>>> protection as everybody else. That, by definition, removes the discrimination.
>
>> Yep. And this is exactly the sort of thing affirmative action is supposed to
>> address.
>
> "Affirmative action" is just a buzzword meaning "discrimination".
> Trying to counter-act discrimination (real or perceived) with even more
> discrimination. That's not the way to go.
That's what it is. But it's more trying to counter-act the effects of
earlier discrimination by discriminating in the other direction. It is an
open argument as to whether this is good or bad.
> If a law does not apply equally to all people, then it's discriminatory.
> "Apply" here meaning "has the same effect on", rather than "is being
> equally imposed on".
Sure. Except here's the rub. Affirmative action is an attempt to "have the
same effect on" instead of being "is being equally imposed on."
Take for example forced "desegregation". For a number of decades, it was
illegal in the USA for black students to attend the same schools as white
students. Black people, who were undereducated and thus poor because they
used to be slaves, were forced to attend the schools that the black
population could afford to pay for, which were thus of lower quality than
the white schools.
Then a law is passed saying "black kids get to go to the same schools as
white kids." OK, all fixed now, right?
No, of course not. The black kids still can't afford to go to the wealthy
schools, and racist white town members will reduce the amount of money going
to schools where the black kids are trying to go and spend it on the white
kids. Teachers will not pay any attention to the few black kids wealthy
enough to come to their classes, and flunk them out at every opportunity so
they don't have to have black kids mixing with the white kids.
But hey, we eliminated the discrimination, right?
>> That's what you get in a democracy, sometimes even in a constitutional
>> democracy.
>
> Fortunately in a democracy the citizens have a way of correcting the
> wrongs.
More often than not, around here, the democracy causes the wrongs rather
than correcting them. That's my point.
> I have nowhere said that. All I said was "democracy is a good thing
> because it allows you to try to correct the wrongs you are seeing in your
> society" (as opposed to some other more totalitarian forms of government).
I'm saying that this sort of wrong is caused by unconstrained democracy.
Problems of inappropriate discrimination are caused, pretty much by
definition, when a large number of people decide that some small number of
people shouldn't be judged on their individual merit. It happens when
there's a majority that's inappropriately asserting their opinions over a
minority. I think the more democratic your society, the more likely that a
minority of 10% of the population is going to get shit upon.
Hell, in California, gays used to have the right to get married in the
constitution, and it was the democracy here that removed that right from the
constitution.
Indeed, I can't really think of any time when an actual law was passed
through the democratic process in the USA that significantly reduced the
effects of prejudice, except maybe women's suffrage. Getting rid of slavery
took a civil war. Getting rid of other kinds of prejudice is generally done
by the courts interpreting the constitution, which was created in far from a
democratic process.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> probono case
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
--
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 11:11 AM, Darren New wrote:
> The first amendment is really one of the very few that are
> well-protected here. It's stuff like assault, habeus corpus, the
> government accusing your money of a crime and then taking it because it
> can't take the stand in its own defense, locking up people for no
> reason, deporting brown people who were born here because they don't
> speak english, etc etc etc.
>
Unless.. You happen to be living in some place where the people running
the local state, or town, government are serious about their religion,
and then it is **only** taken seriously if their own supposed rights are
abused, not taken seriously when determining whether or not the state
should promote it (like say, giving millions to a supposed "tourist
attraction", based on it being "Biblical", or opening with a very
specific sects prayers, and getting damned offended if someone suggests
a less narrow version, or FSM forbid, actually open without one), and,
might even be completely ignored, if your position is that they
shouldn't be allowed to shove it in your face, because you can't be free
to practice, if everyone else is free to force their own on you.
Oh, yeah, and, its usually, if only indirectly, in some cases,
religions, some place, behind most of the other stuff you list (in one
form or another), including attempted to change, remove, distort, or
ignore other parts of the constitution. The only minor exception to that
rule might be some political movements, like the libertarians, which
don't bother shoehorning religion into everything, but flat out reject
the idea that their circumstances and opportunities have a damn thing to
do with their current social status, or wealth, as one poster recently
stated it, "Pissing on my, and their own ancestors, who where just as
smart, may have actually **had to** worked harder, but didn't have
anything close to the resources, opportunities, or luck of being born
with *any* money at all, in some cases, that all these, 'the free market
is king, and everyone can succeed, if they just work hard like me!',
bozos all had."
Frankly, imho, its just another damn religion, and maybe even a far
stupider one than all those other lame ones that include charity, and
helping people, someplace in them, even if *that* is usually only to
ingratiate yourself to the churches, or hoping that you do live forever
after you die, and being scared to death that it will be just as shitty,
or worse, than life was, if you don't. It still misses the whole point,
and even, in the case of groups like the Salvation Army, "Heh, we have
this great sales pitch to give today, so I don't care of you are cold,
starving and need to use the bathroom, you have to listen before we will
even give you a glass of water!", actually completely ass backwards from
their own supposedly belief systems. Somehow, this new "the market will
solve it all" religion has opted to reject even basic human society, in
favor of blaming everyone for everything that happens to them. Struck by
lightning? Its your fault. House burned down? Your fault. Got born poor,
in a bad neighborhood? Your fault! Oh, and btw, we should repeal a whole
bunch of laws, and maybe even muck with the constitution, so I don't
have to pay taxes, sell working/safe products, or, worse, actually pay
for someone else's *anything*.
The law and constitution may be holding this country together, but...
there are a whole hell of a lot of rich, powerful, kooks running around,
all of which have their own insane ideas about just which parts of those
laws, and the constitution, they would like to repeal, replace, or be
granted the right to outright ignore, on a state by state basis. If long
standing legal tradition didn't support telling them to go fuck
themselves, Europe's problems would look like a bloody paradise. (And,
from things I have read, and heard about, that may already be true, if
you are the wrong color, religion, or tax bracket, in some counties, in
a few of the states. Not that this is a new thing, just.. not reported
about until one of the slugs crawls out to run for office, from one of
them.)
--
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 22-12-2010 19:28, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> probono case
>
> I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>
Could be I am not a lawyer and not living there. I meant a case where
the defendant is assigned a lawyer that he doesn't have to pay. I though
that Patrick was referring to that sort of case.
The Dutch term is 'pro deo' (for god).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> If you wear a T-shirt into a
> government building that implies you're an atheist, you get kicked out.
How can they do that? Isn't it a blatant violation of basic rights?
> And the first amendment is pretty much the only one that people really pay
> much attention to any more.
I thought the second amendment was also a big deal there.
> > Yes, I know that some people will argue that "well, that's proper
> > because you can't do that". The only thing I can say to that is that
> > I disagree. Burning a bunch of paper should not be a crime. It's paper.
> > Last time I checked, burning paper is not illegal.
> And this is exactly my point, that I can't seem to explain to you.
I don't understand what that has anything to do with the previous
discussion.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> If you wear a T-shirt into a
>> government building that implies you're an atheist, you get kicked out.
>
> How can they do that? Isn't it a blatant violation of basic rights?
>
>> And the first amendment is pretty much the only one that people really pay
>> much attention to any more.
>
> I thought the second amendment was also a big deal there.
That's more a regional thing as to how respected that is. A great number of
states have laws enforcing onerous restrictions on firearms. Other states
say "Hey, he looked at you funny, feel free to shoot him." Lots of people
argue about it, but it doesn't wind up getting supported quite as well as
the whole freedom of speech thing.
Of course, this might change with the wikileaks fiasco also.
>> And this is exactly my point, that I can't seem to explain to you.
>
> I don't understand what that has anything to do with the previous
> discussion.
Hence my assertion. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 22-12-2010 19:28, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> probono case
>>
>> I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>>
> Could be I am not a lawyer and not living there. I meant a case where
> the defendant is assigned a lawyer that he doesn't have to pay. I though
> that Patrick was referring to that sort of case.
> The Dutch term is 'pro deo' (for god).
"pro bono" means "for free". The lawyer does work without getting paid, out
of the goodness of his heart, or because he feels strongly about the case,
or he wants to make a name, or whatever. He volunteers his time for his own
reasons.
The lawyer that gets assigned to your case when you can't afford one is paid
by the government, and that's often their full-time job. The job is
called "public defender."
--
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:
> "pro bono" means "for free". The lawyer does work without getting paid, out
> of the goodness of his heart, or because he feels strongly about the case,
> or he wants to make a name, or whatever. He volunteers his time for his own
> reasons.
I thought that the American Bar Association (that name still confuses me)
stipulates that all lawyers should dedicate a certain amount of time to
pro bono work.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> "pro bono" means "for free". The lawyer does work without getting paid, out
>> of the goodness of his heart, or because he feels strongly about the case,
>> or he wants to make a name, or whatever. He volunteers his time for his own
>> reasons.
>
> I thought that the American Bar Association (that name still confuses me)
> stipulates that all lawyers should dedicate a certain amount of time to
> pro bono work.
Probably. But that's not the same as a public defender. The two are
orthogonal concepts, but that doesn't mean they don't intersect here and there.
--
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 22-12-2010 22:11, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 22-12-2010 19:28, Darren New wrote:
>>> andrel wrote:
>>>> probono case
>>>
>>> I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>>>
>> Could be I am not a lawyer and not living there. I meant a case where
>> the defendant is assigned a lawyer that he doesn't have to pay. I
>> though that Patrick was referring to that sort of case.
>> The Dutch term is 'pro deo' (for god).
>
> "pro bono" means "for free". The lawyer does work without getting paid,
> out of the goodness of his heart, or because he feels strongly about the
> case, or he wants to make a name, or whatever. He volunteers his time
> for his own reasons.
Thanks for the explanation, I hope I can remember.
> The lawyer that gets assigned to your case when you can't afford one is
> paid by the government, and that's often their full-time job. The job is
> called "public defender."
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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." :-)
--
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 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 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." :-)
That and that it is close to our Pro Deo made me assume that was the US
term.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
