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

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

>    Well, I'd say the problem is one of basic principles of human rights.
>
>    One of them is "innocent until proven guilty". If the basic assumption
> is that "if an employer doesn't hire enough members of a minority group,
> it's probably discrimination" that's an assumption of guilt by default,
> which is the completely opposite to what it should be.
>

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

>    The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.
>

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


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   One of them is "innocent until proven guilty". If the basic assumption
> is that "if an employer doesn't hire enough members of a minority group,
> it's probably discrimination" that's an assumption of guilt by default,
> which is the completely opposite to what it should be.

If you stagger into the road clutching a cleaver and covered in blood after 
neighbors report a lot of screaming, is it presumptuous to arrest you until 
the police find out whether there's a dismembered body inside?

>   The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.

Nobody said the employer is guilty of discrimination. We said they get 
investigated.

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

Anyone with enough money is allowed to own slaves, right? So it's not 
discrimination.

The fact that you recognize this is *exactly* the point we're trying to 
make. There are democracies where this isn't recognized, specifically 
because the majority of people don't recognize it. And if it's the people 
voting for what they want, the minority gets legally discriminated against, 
exactly because the majority doesn't enforce what you think of as natural 
human rights.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
 >  A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
 > constitutional rights and responsibilities.

And in California, they do. One of those is that same-sex couples can't get 
married, regardless of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. You may 
think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would go 
about making this better in a constitutional democracy.

> I'm sure there are some countries which have a constitution which
> explicitly makes some exceptions towards some minorities,

Welcome to California.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>  >  A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
>  > constitutional rights and responsibilities.

> And in California, they do. One of those is that same-sex couples can't get 
> married, regardless of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. You may 
> think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would go 
> about making this better in a constitutional democracy.

  I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
of non-discrimination.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/2/2011 6:16 AM, andrel wrote:
> Note that I am not a proponent of positive discrimination. Yet, I
> understand why under some circumstances some people think society as a
> whole would profit on the long term if some measures were implemented.
> That is perhaps a bit abstract, but it means that I am willing to
> support measures that I think are wrong.
>
To toss in my two cents, I both am, and am not. It may be necessary to 
take corrective steps to fix a real problem, but not necessary to 
maintain those steps once the problem is no longer significant. The 
difficulty in the US is that there is *ample* evidence, some of it from 
the very people crying about such positive discrimination, that the 
original problem is a few generations away from being no longer 
relevant. This is due to some "local" individual interactions still 
being *very* racist, or hugely sectarian, just to name two such issues, 
to the extent that the only thing curtailing certain acts are those laws 
that make it punishable to act on such a bias. In those places, the 
"individual" interaction issues are systemic macro level problems, 
still. Ironically, easing the law someplace where there is less of one 
would simply have the effect of moving the people from where they are, 
to someplace they imagine they are more open, and legally allowed, to 
act on those systemic biases.

Worse, we see a similar, unintentional, one with, for example, schools. 
You have failing schools most commonly in places where certain people 
live, less money sent to those places, because politicians tend to be 
more concerned with getting elected than helping people that may not be 
voting at all, or worse, in this case, many of the people in those 
areas, lacking secular foundations on which to survive, like education, 
turn to churches, and those tend to... well, not exactly side with 
rationality, or encourage voting for people willing to fix problems, 
instead of just be "godly", what ever the F that means. And, on top of 
that, when church fails, you get crime instead. So, we end up with a 
multi-level imbalance. You can't fix the crime, or the reliance of 
fantasy, instead of jobs, or the job problem, or *anything* else, 
without fixing the education system, and you can't do that without 
biasing, someplace, the system in favor of helping those people more 
than someone else.

You could try, but.. attempts to fix the problems without addressing the 
core causes are generally dismal failures. And, of course, for every one 
person we have saying, "We need to fix these things.", we have another 
saying, "What is there to fix? If they didn't want to live like that, 
they would move someplace else." Hmm.., where exactly, and how, without 
the parents *choosing* to step away from all the stuff helping them 
fail, instead of just moving to some place where all the same crutches 
are present? And, for that matter, how, if they don't have the resources?

You need a bottom up solution, and most of them are top down that get 
tried. But, a bottom up solution requires "recognizing" who you are 
talking about, and giving them more help than you would someone from a 
good neighborhood, with a good school, parents with decent educations, 
sufficient money, etc.

Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is 
to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the 
category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is 
equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to 
happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial" 
equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system 
anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools, 
college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> > burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> > judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> > can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.

> Nobody said the employer is guilty of discrimination. We said they get 
> investigated.

  The context, at least from my part, was hiring quotas imposed by the
government.

  If someone is suspected of a crime, then it should be investigated.
A hiring quota is not investigation. It's assumption of guilt.

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

> Anyone with enough money is allowed to own slaves, right? So it's not 
> discrimination.

  I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
of non-discrimination.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is 
> to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the 
> category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is 
> equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to 
> happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial" 
> equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system 
> anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools, 
> college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.

  One could even make the argument that a society actually *benefits* on
the whole in the long term from inequality (in terms of education, job
opportunities and such), from some people being part of an "elite".

  Why? Because not everybody can be an astrophysicist, an electronics
engineer, a surgeon, or the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. We
need people who make and cause progress (the "elite"), and we need people
who make that progress possible (the "workers"), and we need people to
direct and lead other people (the "bosses").

  If everybody is forced to always stand on the same line as everybody
else, that will stagnate and inhibit progress. The brilliant people are
actually stopped from achieving innovation because they are forced to
stand back. No matter how "unfair" it might be, but some people just are
naturally more talented, intelligent and capable than others. This is just
a fact of life and we have to live with it. Rather than complain about how
unfair this is, the society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are
given the opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover,
they should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so.

  This is the reason why I think pure socialism is bad for a society:
In pure socialism nobody owns anything, and the government forces everybody
to the same line. This stagnates progress and removes incentive for
people to improve because there is no reward. While pure capitalism
might be bad for other reasons, it at least motivates and rewards
innovation (so the best solution might be somewhere in-between the two
extremes).

  Things like government-imposed hiring and enrollment quotas fail for
that same reason, because while trying to fight perceived discrimination,
as a side-effect some of the truly brilliant people might get shunned.
Granted, actual discrimination can shun brilliant people among the group
of people being discriminated against, but hiring quotas are not the
solution to that problem. They only cause more problems than they solve.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2-1-2011 20:50, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is
>> to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the
>> category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is
>> equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to
>> happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial"
>> equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system
>> anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools,
>> college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.
>
>    One could even make the argument that a society actually *benefits* on
> the whole in the long term from inequality (in terms of education, job
> opportunities and such), from some people being part of an "elite".
>
>    Why? Because not everybody can be an astrophysicist, an electronics
> engineer, a surgeon, or the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. We
> need people who make and cause progress (the "elite"), and we need people
> who make that progress possible (the "workers"), and we need people to
> direct and lead other people (the "bosses").
>
>    If everybody is forced to always stand on the same line as everybody
> else, that will stagnate and inhibit progress. The brilliant people are
> actually stopped from achieving innovation because they are forced to
> stand back. No matter how "unfair" it might be, but some people just are
> naturally more talented, intelligent and capable than others. This is just
> a fact of life and we have to live with it. Rather than complain about how
> unfair this is, the society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are
> given the opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover,
> they should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so.

Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?

Post a reply to this message

On 2-1-2011 20:29, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>   >   A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
>>   >  constitutional rights and responsibilities.
>
>> And in California, they do. One of those is that same-sex couples can't get
>> married, regardless of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. You may
>> think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would go
>> about making this better in a constitutional democracy.
>
>    I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
> of non-discrimination.

I don't think I like it, but I understand why you consistently fail to 
answer his real points. In this case the point was the second line: 'You 
may think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would 
go about making this better in a constitutional democracy.' Darren is 
fully aware of what he was saying in the line before that and I find it 
rather disturbing that you seem not to understand that he is.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?

  Are you seriously expecting me not to get offended by such a comment?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>   The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
>>> burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
>>> judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
>>> can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.
> 
>> Nobody said the employer is guilty of discrimination. We said they get 
>> investigated.
> 
>   The context, at least from my part, was hiring quotas imposed by the
> government.
> 
>   If someone is suspected of a crime, then it should be investigated.
> A hiring quota is not investigation. It's assumption of guilt.

I wasn't talking about a quota. I haven't heard of hiring quotas.

>>  >   That's as ridiculous as claiming that forbidding women's
>>  >  suffrage applies equally to all people, and hence it's fair.
> 
>> Anyone with enough money is allowed to own slaves, right? So it's not 
>> discrimination.
> 
>   I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
> of non-discrimination.

It's sarcasm. An attempt at exageration to show you the piece of the puzzle 
you're missing.

How do you *know* it's discrimination? Who decides it's discrimination? Just 
because there are human rights *you* think are obvious doesn't mean everyone 
or even a majority of people think it's obvious.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>  >  A society consists of individuals, all of who must have the same
>>  > constitutional rights and responsibilities.
> 
>> And in California, they do. One of those is that same-sex couples can't get 
>> married, regardless of whether they're heterosexual or homosexual. You may 
>> think this is wrong, but you've offered zero advice on how one would go 
>> about making this better in a constitutional democracy.
> 
>   I like how you keep bringing up examples of discrimination as examples
> of non-discrimination.

You're completely missing the point of me bringing it up. I'm offering you 
examples that *you* think are discrimination that *most* people do not.

Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If 
not, why not?

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

Post a reply to this message

On 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?
>
>    Are you seriously expecting me not to get offended by such a comment?

Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?
No, it is just that what you wrote appeared to say that. I wanted to 
give you the opportunity to set the record straight, just in case 
somebody else reads it in this way.

In case you don't understand why I read it that way: we have been 
arguing that different groups have different chances based on irrelevant 
differences. I.e. what school you go to partly depends on your skin 
color and the social status of your parents. Now suddenly you claim that 
the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.
To quote you: "The brilliant people are actually stopped from achieving 
innovation because they are forced to stand back. No matter how "unfair" 
it might be, but some people just are naturally more talented, 
intelligent and capable than others. This is just a fact of life and we 
have to live with it. Rather than complain about how unfair this is, the 
society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are given the 
opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover, they 
should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so."

I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you 
actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training. Only 
that does not work. In reality these two groups overlap to a great 
extend. That is what we have been saying the whole time, but what you 
refuse to acknowledge. So, in your private world this is not a racist 
remark, but be warned that quite a lot of people (not me) might see that 
different.

Before replying that I am a fool, reread your post with this in mind and 
see why I reacted the way I did.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you 
> actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.

I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better."  Like the NFL 
football players are elite, usually not only because they got better 
football training.

What I failed to understand was why Warp brought up *this* subject at all. 
It seems completely at odds with the conversation so far.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You're completely missing the point of me bringing it up. I'm offering you 
> examples that *you* think are discrimination that *most* people do not.

  I may be indeed missing the point because I don't understand what you
are trying to say. I *know* that many people have a different view on these
things than I do. So what? Does that somehow invalidate what I'm saying?

  As I have said before, I'm ranting precisely *because* many people have
differing views on these things than I do, not regardless.

> Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If 
> not, why not?

  You might as well ask if it's discrimination to outlaw people from stealing
and murdering.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you 
> > actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.

> I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better."  Like the NFL 
> football players are elite, usually not only because they got better 
> football training.

  That's what I meant. Some people *are* more intelligent than others,
some people *are* more competent than others, some people *are* physically
more proficient than others, no matter how "unfair" that might feel. Rather
than trying to shut down these "elite" people, the system should try to
benefit from these individuals so that the whole society gets some benefit
(usually in the form of progress).

> What I failed to understand was why Warp brought up *this* subject at all. 
> It seems completely at odds with the conversation so far.

  It was a tangent written as a response to what Patrick wrote.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
> > andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
> >> Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?
> >
> >    Are you seriously expecting me not to get offended by such a comment?

> Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?

  Not all offence is intentional.

  I don't understand where the racial thing suddenly came up. I wasn't even
thinking about races when I wrote that. I was thinking about (idealistic)
socialism vs. capitalism, and the idea that it's somehow unfair that there
vast differences in social classes and wealth distribution.

> Now suddenly you claim that 
> the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.

  You should read what I was responding to. Also, I didn't say that.
I said that more *talented* people should be awarded and allowed to
succeed, rather than forcing them down to the same line as everybody
else, no matter how "unfair" the idea of some people succeeding (eg.
by getting richer) might seem.

  I don't even have to quote myself because you do it perfectly:

> To quote you: "The brilliant people are actually stopped from achieving 
> innovation because they are forced to stand back. No matter how "unfair" 
> it might be, but some people just are naturally more talented, 
> intelligent and capable than others. This is just a fact of life and we 
> have to live with it. Rather than complain about how unfair this is, the 
> society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are given the 
> opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover, they 
> should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1/2/2011 12:50 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> Mind, top down solutions do have one benefit... Eventually the effect is
>> to actually land more and more of the people who where *not* in the
>> category being discussed in the same boat, until nearly everyone is
>> equally poor, uneducated, and prospect-less. We see that starting to
>> happen too now, in the US. And, obviously, you no longer need "racial"
>> equality opportunity laws, if everyone is screwed equally by the system
>> anyway, and the problem is purely one of *no one* having good schools,
>> college, or any chance at a job paying more than poverty levels.
>
>    One could even make the argument that a society actually *benefits* on
> the whole in the long term from inequality (in terms of education, job
> opportunities and such), from some people being part of an "elite".
>
In point of fact, it only does so to a point, then you get a sort of 
striation, where neither the top or the bottom progress.

>    Why? Because not everybody can be an astrophysicist, an electronics
> engineer, a surgeon, or the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company. We
> need people who make and cause progress (the "elite"), and we need people
> who make that progress possible (the "workers"), and we need people to
> direct and lead other people (the "bosses").
>
True, the problem of course being that just because person X was a 
genius at Y, doesn't mean that X's children, with all the opportunities 
and money, will either a) apply themselves to being that good at 
anything, or b) won't be a total idiot, while person Z's kids, who have 
no money, no schooling, etc. might not have been far better. This isn't 
just a hypothetical either, it happens all the damn time, its just hard 
to see, if the resources for the guy that *should have* been elite 
consists of the stuff taken from the local trash can, while the village 
idiot can hire 50 people, slightly smarter than himself, to make a 
small, mediocre, improvement in something.

>    If everybody is forced to always stand on the same line as everybody
> else, that will stagnate and inhibit progress. The brilliant people are
> actually stopped from achieving innovation because they are forced to
> stand back. No matter how "unfair" it might be, but some people just are
> naturally more talented, intelligent and capable than others. This is just
> a fact of life and we have to live with it. Rather than complain about how
> unfair this is, the society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are
> given the opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover,
> they should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so.
>
>    This is the reason why I think pure socialism is bad for a society:
> In pure socialism nobody owns anything, and the government forces everybody
> to the same line. This stagnates progress and removes incentive for
> people to improve because there is no reward. While pure capitalism
> might be bad for other reasons, it at least motivates and rewards
> innovation (so the best solution might be somewhere in-between the two
> extremes).
>
Might be? Pure capitalism is what Microsoft tries to exist in. We know 
what their products look like. lol Seriously though, *pure* anything 
engenders stupidity. In the case of economics, pure socialism leaves you 
without incentives. Capitalism, on the other hand, in its pure form, 
rewards those that grab up as much as possible, discourages innovation, 
since any true innovation could badly screw someone's business plans 
(especially if it was someone else's), formation of monopolies, to 
prevent such competition, refusal to implement new ideas at all, since 
the basic cost of doing it would cut into existing profits, and the 
*profit* is more important than improving the products, and when they 
are improved, its flash and window dressing. Change the color, the 
shape, etc., but never *ever* invest in *new*. Only competition forces 
that to happen, and then only if the company with the original company 
can't just buy up something, then bury it in a closet for 50 years.

By some estimates, the nearly totally free system we have in the US may 
be leaving us 50 years *behind* where we should have been, precisely 
because of the, "I refuse to spend the money to adopt this, and hurt my 
billion dollar bonus at the end of the year, and the people buying form 
me won't know the difference anyway." Its even one of the libertardian 
arguments, which goes like, "You don't need limits of controls, because 
everyone should be able to figure out if we are robbing them blind, 
poisoning them, selling them crap!", while ignoring the basic fact that 
this *only* works if you a) have perfect information, and/or b) can 100% 
trust the people giving you information about the products. Since you 
don't have (a), and half the information sources on the market are 
*paid* to *inform* you about the products, or gloss over inconvenient 
details, you are left with the companies forcing each other to compete, 
and that only happens if someone else is standing behind them with a 
damn club.

The result, when they don't, is things like the oil industry, which is 
beholden to one single massive foreign corp to decide who gets the oil 
*they themselves* pumped out of the ground, or *worse* the insurance 
industry, which literally has a sort of convention every year, where 
everyone in it sits around a table, without the guy with the club, and 
goes, "Heh, what can we do to make more money, for less actual service 
this year!"

>    Things like government-imposed hiring and enrollment quotas fail for
> that same reason, because while trying to fight perceived discrimination,
> as a side-effect some of the truly brilliant people might get shunned.
> Granted, actual discrimination can shun brilliant people among the group
> of people being discriminated against, but hiring quotas are not the
> solution to that problem. They only cause more problems than they solve.
>
You really need to examine just how badly "pure capitalism", and lack of 
government intervention *does* fail. Hint: Somalia is often quoted as a 
Libertarian paradise, as a joke. No government to speak of, no 
regulation on anything, in theory, businesses could have *everything* 
they ever wanted. Well, they would have to hire their own cops, build 
their own jails, make laws for their properties as to what was and 
wasn't legal, prevent theft, rape, murder, drug dealing, etc. Oh, and 
somehow set up something to protect their products, so someone couldn't 
just steal them and sell identical stuff some place else. Oh, yeah, and, 
at some point, keep people from discriminating for, often, even stupider 
reasons than sex, or race. If only we already *had* something that did 
that sort of thing...

Everyone seems to be able to say what *isn't* the solution. Oddly, none 
of them can ever give a clear, workable, or even testable, solution that 
*will* solve the problem.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/2/2011 5:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you
>> actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.
>
> I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better." Like the NFL
> football players are elite, usually not only because they got better
> football training.
>
Think you will find that a) they get grabbed from all over, even bad 
schools, and b) they are the ones that don't instantly believe the, 
"good players don't use steroids!", spiel, but.. whatever.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/3/2011 10:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> I can only assume that you put quotes on "elite" to show that you
>>> actually don't mean the rich but the people with the best training.
>
>> I read "elite" as meaning "people who actually are better."  Like the NFL
>> football players are elite, usually not only because they got better
>> football training.
>
>    That's what I meant. Some people *are* more intelligent than others,
> some people *are* more competent than others, some people *are* physically
> more proficient than others, no matter how "unfair" that might feel. Rather
> than trying to shut down these "elite" people, the system should try to
> benefit from these individuals so that the whole society gets some benefit
> (usually in the form of progress).
>
And, as I pointed out, this is not necessarily *always* the rich people, 
with good schools. Or, are you honestly going to tell me that Paris 
Hilton is better off with all that money, and, as nightmare as it is to 
contemplate, opportunity for schooling, but some brilliant kid in a 
shitty school, who will probably resort to joining a gang some place, 
and running drugs, shouldn't even be given any chances?

Often "elite" doesn't mean better, it just means, "more privileged".

A good example of this was a post recently on a thread touching on 
similar things. His father *invented* nearly everything he ever used on 
the farm (since he didn't have the money to just buy equipment), he 
taught himself everything he knew, had almost no education, no chances, 
and started with no money. He ended with less land than you could live 
off of, government subsidies, no education, and *almost* no money. His 
kid had a few more chances than he did, because most of his money when 
to helping that happen. Had he been lucky enough to have had money, and 
gotten into college, odds are the guy would have ended up in 
engineering, or something. He wasn't stupider than his kid, he just had 
shit chances, no opportunities, and no money to find them, oh, and, at 
that time, no help from anyone *to try*.

This is pretty much what you get among "everyone" in the "bottom of the 
bucket", unless someone else steps in and provides an out. And, not all 
of them make enough, or the luck of remaining healthy, out of debt, 
etc., so their kid has better chances than they do. These people could 
have been "elite" too. Probably more people than we imagine could be, 
but the moneyed (not the same thing) don't want the competition, and 
other people have other excuses for not helping them at all.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 3-1-2011 18:49, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?
>>>
>>>     Are you seriously expecting me not to get offended by such a comment?
>
>> Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?
>
>    Not all offence is intentional.

Nor is being offended always justified. I think you should have known 
better by now, but that is just me.

>    I don't understand where the racial thing suddenly came up.

I though you wouldn't, so I explained it. ;)

> I wasn't even
> thinking about races when I wrote that. I was thinking about (idealistic)
> socialism vs. capitalism, and the idea that it's somehow unfair that there
> vast differences in social classes and wealth distribution.
>
>> Now suddenly you claim that
>> the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.
>
>    You should read what I was responding to. Also, I didn't say that.
> I said that more *talented* people should be awarded and allowed to
> succeed, rather than forcing them down to the same line as everybody
> else, no matter how "unfair" the idea of some people succeeding (eg.
> by getting richer) might seem.
>
>    I don't even have to quote myself because you do it perfectly:
>
>> To quote you: "The brilliant people are actually stopped from achieving
>> innovation because they are forced to stand back. No matter how "unfair"
>> it might be, but some people just are naturally more talented,
>> intelligent and capable than others. This is just a fact of life and we
>> have to live with it. Rather than complain about how unfair this is, the
>> society as a whole benefits if these "elite" people are given the
>> opportunity to thrive, to innovate, to drive progress. Moreover, they
>> should actually been given incentive (eg. monetary) to do so."

There were a couple of lines from me below that where I explained that 
what you intended was not what you wrote. Don't bother quoting them, I 
can still find them in the post one up.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Does that somehow invalidate what I'm saying?

Yes.  At least in the context of this conversation.

You're arguing that we don't need reverse-discrimination laws (aka 
affirmative action) because of what you believe. Yet you also acknowledge 
that what you believe isn't common. If what you believed was common, we 
wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, let alone 
reverse-discrimination laws.

>> Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If 
>> not, why not?
> 
>   You might as well ask if it's discrimination to outlaw people from stealing
> and murdering.

 From that, you seem to think it is *not* age discrimination?

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

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> True, the problem of course being that just because person X was a 
> genius at Y, doesn't mean that X's children, with all the opportunities 
> and money, will either a) apply themselves to being that good at 
> anything, or b) won't be a total idiot, while person Z's kids, who have 
> no money, no schooling, etc. might not have been far better. This isn't 
> just a hypothetical either, it happens all the damn time, its just hard 
> to see, if the resources for the guy that *should have* been elite 
> consists of the stuff taken from the local trash can, while the village 
> idiot can hire 50 people, slightly smarter than himself, to make a 
> small, mediocre, improvement in something.

  Maybe I'm biased in my views because I'm living in Finland rather than
the US, the UK or some other country where education is (AFAIK) much more
dependent on people's wealth.

  This mostly not the case in Finland. Everybody gets the same education
regardless of how wealthy they are, there are no separate schools for the
rich (even the idea feels foreign here), and even getting to a university
is cheap because the government pays for it (unlike in the US, where you
have to either be filthy rich or get some huge sponsorship). Basically
the only limiting factor for getting into a university is if you are
capable. It's not a question of money or social status.

  (In fact, university students are actually considered poor by default,
which might feel a bit ironic to some people in some countries where only
the rich and lucky get to universities. The image of the poor and bohemian
university student is actually kind of a stereotype. Not a negative one,
though, and usually quite factual. I'm sure Finland is not the only such
country.)

> You really need to examine just how badly "pure capitalism", and lack of 
> government intervention *does* fail.

  You write as if I had defended pure capitalism.

  IMO capitalism is ok, but needs a strong government to control it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You're arguing that we don't need reverse-discrimination laws (aka 
> affirmative action) because of what you believe. Yet you also acknowledge 
> that what you believe isn't common. If what you believed was common, we 
> wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, let alone 
> reverse-discrimination laws.

  What I'm saying is that fighting discrimination with more discrimination
is not the correct solution.

> >> Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If 
> >> not, why not?
> > 
> >   You might as well ask if it's discrimination to outlaw people from stealing
> > and murdering.

>  From that, you seem to think it is *not* age discrimination?

  What does causing physical or monetary harm to somebody have to do with
whether it's discrimination or not?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (In fact, university students are actually considered poor by default,

This is true of the USA also.  "Starving student" is the usual expression.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   (In fact, university students are actually considered poor by default,

> This is true of the USA also.  "Starving student" is the usual expression.

  I thought that the tuition fees are so extravagant there that only the
rich can afford it?

  Or is it more like the parents pay the fees, their son/daughter has to
live with whatever is left?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Or is it more like the parents pay the fees, their son/daughter has to
> live with whatever is left?

Or the student gets their tuition paid by the university along with a small 
monthly bonus to pay for housing and such.  Tuition is expensive, but many 
wind up not paying it, instead living off government grants, 
university-specific grants (scholarships), etc.  I only paid one year of 
grad school. My advisor paid the rest.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 1/3/2011 10:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 2-1-2011 23:12, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> Wait a minute, are you really claiming that the white race is superior here?
>>>
>>>     Are you seriously expecting me not to get offended by such a comment?
>
>> Why on earth would I want to offend you? What would I gain by that?
>
>    Not all offence is intentional.
>
>    I don't understand where the racial thing suddenly came up. I wasn't even
> thinking about races when I wrote that. I was thinking about (idealistic)
> socialism vs. capitalism, and the idea that it's somehow unfair that there
> vast differences in social classes and wealth distribution.
>
>> Now suddenly you claim that
>> the elite (people born from well off parents) should be in charge.
>
>    You should read what I was responding to. Also, I didn't say that.
> I said that more *talented* people should be awarded and allowed to
> succeed, rather than forcing them down to the same line as everybody
> else, no matter how "unfair" the idea of some people succeeding (eg.
> by getting richer) might seem.
>
This I would *almost* agree with. The problem is.. How did someone once 
put it, I think it was, "In the village of idiots, the elite is thrown 
out and ostracized for being *too* different, while in the village of 
geniuses, its the idiot who gets treated poorly." The law, and society, 
attempts, perhaps stupidly, to fix *both* problems at the same time, but 
the only way to do that is making everyone stand in the same line. If 
you let those that god rich stand in one line, and everyone else stand 
in the other, what you end up with *instead* is not the elite, best and 
brightest in the rich line. What you get is one town of Harvard grads, 
who got rich by *being* elite, next to another town full of village 
idiots, who get there by inheriting the money, but not the smarts that 
made it, *or* by catering to the lowest common level of stupid.

Just look at all the idiots that buy rubber bands with holograms and/or 
magnets in them, and deny that they work via pure placebo effects. Any 
idiot can make the things, it doesn't take a lot of brains to sell one, 
or to make up claims about what they do, or hire someone to make a logo 
to stamp on it, and any idiot willing to believe in them will buy the 
damn things, sometimes are $60+ a piece, of they are one of those 
"elite" athletes, with more muscle than brains. The scam artists made 
millions off these, and every time they become unsellable, they merely 
make up new shit, clue some new bits on one, name it something else, and 
sell millions more, often to the same fools. Any attempt to claim these 
people are "elite" just because they run good cons, the law doesn't 
cover them properly, so can't stop it, etc., is a complete joke. They 
have money, and talk about shit convincingly, that is the sole sum of 
their "skill". Otherwise, they are no different than the people that 
once sold patent medicines, because you could make more money going town 
to town selling stuff you threw together in a bottle than you could 
working at the local foundry. The guy working at that foundry, on the 
other hand, may **actually** turn out to be the one that figured out how 
to get aluminum out of a rock, which is both more useful *and* requires 
actual knowledge.

Not everyone that has, or makes, money is producing stuff that is "high 
quality", or even useful in the long term. Most of them are not, and 
most are in it *solely* to make money, not to understand anything, or 
learn anything, or improve anything, etc. Some even disparage people 
that do want any of those things (they tend to own the local "big" 
store, in the next town over, where all the village idiots live...)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/3/2011 12:20 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> True, the problem of course being that just because person X was a
>> genius at Y, doesn't mean that X's children, with all the opportunities
>> and money, will either a) apply themselves to being that good at
>> anything, or b) won't be a total idiot, while person Z's kids, who have
>> no money, no schooling, etc. might not have been far better. This isn't
>> just a hypothetical either, it happens all the damn time, its just hard
>> to see, if the resources for the guy that *should have* been elite
>> consists of the stuff taken from the local trash can, while the village
>> idiot can hire 50 people, slightly smarter than himself, to make a
>> small, mediocre, improvement in something.
>
>    Maybe I'm biased in my views because I'm living in Finland rather than
> the US, the UK or some other country where education is (AFAIK) much more
> dependent on people's wealth.
>
Hmm. Yeah, I think this is precisely the issue. Where you are, the 
"baseline" is very fair, so the range of outcomes are not terribly 
different from one group to the next. You go to some place like the US 
and what you end up with is a damn mess where third world countries have 
better chances in some neighborhoods, and the only difference between a 
third world dictator and a CEO becomes how many elected officials they 
have to buy off to get what they want, where the dictator could simply 
shoot anyone that didn't play ball. The rich get rich because they *are* 
rich, not because they do shit, the poor stay poor, because you can't 
get a job that pays you jack, if you don't know anything at all, and the 
same rich bozos that got that way by inheriting it don't want to give a 
dime to fix the problem of some person they don't know having a 6th 
grade education, and no prospects for college, never mind high school, 
*ever*. The "baseline" in the US, in some places, looks less like a 
small, grassy, hill, than a shear cliff.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

>   One of them is "innocent until proven guilty". If the basic assumption
> is that "if an employer doesn't hire enough members of a minority group,
> it's probably discrimination" that's an assumption of guilt by default,
> which is the completely opposite to what it should be.
>
>   The accuser (in this case the government imposing the quotas) has the
> burden of proof, not the accused (in this case the employer). That's
> judicial procedure 101. It doesn't matter what statistics may say. You
> can't go making guilty-by-default assumptions.

When I worked for the government I was not allowed to be involved in
decision making for projects if a relative was bidding on the contract
being offered.

Then when I worked for the private sector, I still couldn't.

Government regulators (e.g. those that regulate medicine, or media, etc)
are often forbidden from taking money or gifts from the folks they are
regulating.

Don't you think that's unfair? Shouldn't I get in trouble only if they
prove that these things influenced my decisions?

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> You're arguing that we don't need reverse-discrimination laws (aka 
>> affirmative action) because of what you believe. Yet you also acknowledge 
>> that what you believe isn't common. If what you believed was common, we 
>> wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, let alone 
>> reverse-discrimination laws.
>
>   What I'm saying is that fighting discrimination with more discrimination
> is not the correct solution.

And what Darren is saying is that you haven't provided a correct
solution.

Post a reply to this message