Unemployed? Don't bother applying.

[luiz]

Actually luiz, I'm not the one arguing that "being born with it" should be the criteria for determining whether some discriminatory practice should be illegal. In fact, I've gone to great lengths to explain why "being born with it" is a stupid way of deciding what discrimination should be illegal. In fact, I made the exact same arguments you made in previous posts of mine, here and here. If you want to argue against someone who thinks that "being born with it" is a good criteria for determining what discrimination should be illegal, go argue with our "bedrock of knowledge", JerichoHill.

OK, we agree with that much, then. I just read your first two posts and wrongly assumed you had a far more radical view than you actually do.

Can I assume (given our previous discussions, as well as this post) that you oppose anti-discrimination laws? If so, I doubt there is any kind of common ground.

I only see the point in anti-discrimination laws against groups that actually represent "worse" candidates, like pregnant women. Obviously, withou anti-discrimination laws employers would have a huge incentive not to hire pregnant women, which might be a big problem in a society already struggling with low birth rates, like much of Europe.

I absolutely see no point in laws that prohibit discriminating against blacks or gays.

If you acknowledge that, say, it should be illegal to discriminate against blacks, then you should acknowledge that it is possible to "force my own criteria down their throats", because we did exactly that in the 1960s, and again in the 1980s about homosexuality, and with women and with religion and with disabilities... If you think that all of these laws are wrong, then there is quite literally nothing that will change your mind.

Yeah they're wrong and are not enforceable. What ultimately gave black people good opportunities in the US was not "do-good" anti-discrimination laws, but rather education and changing perceptions among mainstream society. It's very easy not to hire a black candidate and make up an excuse for that. The only way blacks will be hired is if the employers understands that they are just as good workers and not hiring them would not only be immoral but also stupid.

I don't favour quotas, and I never have. I don't favour quotas for getting blacks or women into traditionally white or male jobs, and I don't favour them for getting the unemployed back into work. However, the point of making it illegal to discriminate against blacks, women, gays, etc is to effect an attitudinal change in society and in businesses. It didn't matter that it was still largely unenforceable when we outlawed discrimination against blacks -- an employer could (and did) still argue that he was unqualified or inexperienced or interviewed poorly. However, as lawsuits went on, society and employers realised that it was no longer "okay" to discriminate against blacks. It's reached a point now where race is completely irrelevant to employment decisions in most large companies. What you're saying is that making something illegal doesn't change minds -- but our own experience during the civil rights movement is that it does.

Again, it was not making things illegal that changed anyone's mind. That was just a government imposition on private affairs that gave no practical results. What changed things was greater education, greater promotion of the speech of equality. People became aware that discrimination was wrong, people realized that there are no scientific bases for racism, and so on and so forth.

Education and information did the trick. And also, obviously, the removal of racist laws.

 

[aelf]

Yeah they're wrong and are not enforceable. What ultimately gave black people good opportunities in the US was not "do-good" anti-discrimination laws, but rather education and changing perceptions among mainstream society. It's very easy not to hire a black candidate and make up an excuse for that. The only way blacks will be hired is if the employers understands that they are just as good workers and not hiring them would not only be immoral but also stupid.

Again, it was not making things illegal that changed anyone's mind. That was just a government imposition on private affairs that gave no practical results. What changed things was greater education, greater promotion of the speech of equality. People became aware that discrimination was wrong, people realized that there are no scientific bases for racism, and so on and so forth.

Wait, what? Even if I buy your argument, whether something is effective has no bearing on whether it's right (or wrong). Unless you follow some sort of a crazy twisted sort of Utilitarianism.

 

[luiz]

Wait, what? Even if I buy your argument, whether something is effective has no bearing on whether it's right (or wrong). Unless you follow some sort of a crazy twisted sort of Utilitarianism.

An important distinction, often lost in totalitarian minds, is the one between what is wrong and what is illegal. Just because something is wrong (or rather, because you think something is wrong) does not mean it should be illegal. You, me and most people can agree that racism is wrong. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I consider Marxism just as wrong and evil and I still would not make it illegal to preach it.

Naturally, whether something is effective or not has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong, but it should have a bearing on whether it's legal or illegal. I strongly oppose unenforceable laws; they overburden the court system, represent vast monetary opportunities for lawyers and frequently bother perfectly decent citizens with trivolous lawsuits - and all that without reaching it's actual goal, because as stated, they are unenforceable.

 

[Traitorfish]

...totalitarian minds...

 

[luiz]

Unlike you, I made a point. I see a pattern whenever you address one of my posts: since you are intellectually incapable of addressing the actuall issues and engaging me in debate, you will try to get a singe phrase out of context and make it look like I was talking nonsense.

My point about the totalitarian minds is entirely valid. People with that disposition believe whatever they think is wrong should be illegal. They see no difference between their own personal moral codes and the law (or how the law should be).
I was not even saying that poster I was addressing has a totalitarian mind. Buts as they say, if the cap fits wear it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unlike you, I made a point. I see a pattern whenever you address one of my posts: since you are intellectually incapable of addressing the actuall issues and engaging me in debate, you will try to get a singe phrase out of context and make it look like I was talking nonsense.

Oh, I never meant to imply that you were "talking nonsense", simply that you were using a particularly asinine insult. You may as well have just called him a "Nazi" and been done with it.

But, as you say, I am a self-evident dullard, and have no place engaging such a wise and lofty personage as your grand and most esteemed self.

 

[aelf]

An important distinction, often lost in totalitarian minds, is the one between what is wrong and what is illegal. Just because something is wrong (or rather, because you think something is wrong) does not mean it should be illegal. You, me and most people can agree that racism is wrong. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I consider Marxism just as wrong and evil and I still would not make it illegal to preach it.

Naturally, whether something is effective or not has no bearing on whether it's right or wrong, but it should have a bearing on whether it's legal or illegal. I strongly oppose unenforceable laws; they overburden the court system, represent vast monetary opportunities for lawyers and frequently bother perfectly decent citizens with trivolous lawsuits - and all that without reaching it's actual goal, because as stated, they are unenforceable.

Then I suppose fascist minds forget what they have thought about quickly?

Yeah they're wrong and are not enforceable.

You said anti-racist laws are wrong and then went on to explain how they are not effective in producing change. I'm still missing the part where you explain why they are wrong.

 

[downtown]

Education and information did the trick. And also, obviously, the removal of racist laws.

Racist laws...like the ones that made racial discrimination legal?

I don't see how we can practically expect education to be properly administered in a society that racially discriminates in other businesses. You don't think they will in schools? Or are anti-discrimination laws okay for the administration of public services?

You said anti-racist laws are wrong and then went on to explain how they are not effective in producing change. I'm still missing the part where you explain why they are wrong.

Because they take away our freedom to be rasist. If everybody was given the ability to be rasist, (according to this kind of thinking), the non-rasist firms would be able to outcompete the rasist ones anyway, and the rasist ones would die out or at least be publicly shunned.

 

[Cutlass]

Doesn't follow. Divide and conquer is a profit maximizing strategy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Certainly doesn't stand up to history, given the success of, say, the slave trade.

 

[Lord Baal]

Certainly doesn't stand up to history, given the success of, say, the slave trade.

The best way of gaining maximum employment I've ever seen.

 

[Elrohir]

Random selection won't yield a pool with a higher probability of good fit.

That's not the point. Would it yield a significantly lesser probability of a good fit? If so, then it might be defensible to avoid it, since you would potentially be harming the company by doing so. But if it's effectively the same (As I suspect it would be) then it should be preferable, as impartial and fair courses of action should be preferred over arbitrary and unfair courses, where there are not overriding adverse effects.