User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 51

  1. #31
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    So you would be totally ok with an employer who wouldn't hire women, or people with glasses, or brunettes, or chinese men?
    OK with it? No, of course not. I hate bigotry. People should be allowed to run their business as they see fit, however. No one has a right to a job. The government should be colorblind, but individuals have a right to free association.


    What if it was every employer, or nearly every employer?
    That is an absurd example. Did women, people with glasses, brunettes, and Chinese men have jobs before it was illegal not to hire them? Yes? Then your hypothetical is silly.


    If you were born into one of those target groups and then couldn't get a job, would you still have these "principles"? Would you happily resign yourself to a minimum wage job because "the employers can pick who they want"?

    Just wondering.
    Yes, I would still have these principles, and I don't believe in a minimum wage, anyway. Price floors are really bad for the economy in general and the poor who want to work especially.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #32
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Ah, ok then. Anti-discrimination laws in general are another topic, and one I'm ambivalent about and particularly uninterested in debating (eww politics). In some areas though, it wouldn't surprise me if nearly all employers would fire an openly gay man. Just like similar areas would probably not hire black people back in the day (or even now?). I don't think that's right.

    I was just curious whether it was specifically the anti-discrimination for gays you protested.

    I recognize it can be a sticky situation trying to regulate these things, though I do think it's important to promote equal treatment by regulating things like unfair dismissals.
    -end of thread-

  3. #33
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    Ah, ok then. Anti-discrimination laws in general are another topic, and one I'm ambivalent about and particularly uninterested in debating (eww politics). In some areas though, it wouldn't surprise me if nearly all employers would fire an openly gay man. Just like similar areas would probably not hire black people back in the day (or even now?). I don't think that's right.
    It's NOT right, but it should be legal. There is a big difference between "I don't think this is right" and "the government should prevent this, by force if necessary." And frankly, if I were gay or black, I wouldn't WANT to work for a company that backward in its policies. I'd organize a boycott of them, actually.


    I was just curious whether it was specifically the anti-discrimination for gays you protested.
    Oh, no. It's a general principle. I would argue in favor of a businessman who wanted to exclude blue-eyed libertarians, too.


    I recognize it can be a sticky situation trying to regulate these things, though I do think it's important to promote equal treatment by regulating things like unfair dismissals.
    Promoting is one thing. Requiring is another.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post
    So you would be totally ok with an employer who wouldn't hire women, or people with glasses, or brunettes, or chinese men?

    What if it was every employer, or nearly every employer?

    If you were born into one of those target groups and then couldn't get a job, would you still have these "principles"? Would you happily resign yourself to a minimum wage job because "the employers can pick who they want"?

    Just wondering.
    I certainly would. Not because I'm in favor of discrimination, but because I abhor the idea that anyone other than someone with a stake in a business should have a voice in what constitutes a suitable employee for that business. I certainly don't want the government telling me what my employment criteria ought to be when it will be me and not them that has to deal with the consequences. Ultimately an employee is hired to make the boss money. If an employee will not make money for a business, regardless of how socially repellent the reason, then the government shouldn't be able to compel the hiring of that person through imposed criteria. Private businesses are not social programs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    It seems pretty silly to me to fire a productive worker on the grounds that they are gay/Chinese/a woman/brunette/etc. I mean, they are doing what they're being paid to do.
    Exactly, and I doubt that happens in the vast majority of cases. If a gay employee is successful and is going to make a business owner more money than a less successful straight employee, I can't imagine that any but the staunchest, most inflexible homophobes will fire the gay employee. People care less about black and white and gay than they care about green.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  5. #35
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I certainly would. Not because I'm in favor of discrimination, but because I abhor the idea that anyone other than someone with a stake in a business should have a voice in what constitutes a suitable employee for that business.
    Law is all about telling someone else what they can't do. I see no reason why business practices, including employment, should not be legally regulated if such regulation bring better results.

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    I certainly don't want the government telling me what my employment criteria ought to be when it will be me and not them that has to deal with the consequences. Ultimately an employee is hired to make the boss money. If an employee will not make money for a business, regardless of how socially repellent the reason, then the government shouldn't be able to compel the hiring of that person through imposed criteria. Private businesses are not social programs.
    First of all, in cases like discrimination, it seems that the boss does not comprehend that he is probably losing himself money with his actions. These ideals never account for how many business owners really don't know what they're doing.

    Of course, I find the very premise of the narrow proffit oriented mission of the typical business (generally a corporation, even if a tiny one) in this age to be of questionable utility to society. So a business isn't a social progam. It's still part of a society. It can be expected that somehow, one way or the other, up from the people or down from the authority, law will be imposed upon business to do things in a manner more agreable to the country.


    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    Exactly, and I doubt that happens in the vast majority of cases. If a gay employee is successful and is going to make a business owner more money than a less successful straight employee, I can't imagine that any but the staunchest, most inflexible homophobes will fire the gay employee. People care less about black and white and gay than they care about green.
    When? These things certainly were mass practies, presumably majority practices, not all that long ago. The government had to step in (what do you know!) to finally undermine the history of business discrimination. It's improved much but still has ways to go.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #36
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Law is all about telling someone else what they can't do. I see no reason why business practices, including employment, should not be legally regulated if such regulation bring better results.
    Law isn't supposed to be about deciding what you like and don't like. It's about protecting rights. This attitude is dangerously close to "might makes right."


    First of all, in cases like discrimination, it seems that the boss does not comprehend that he is probably losing himself money with his actions. These ideals never account for how many business owners really don't know what they're doing.

    Of course, I find the very premise of the narrow proffit oriented mission of the typical business (generally a corporation, even if a tiny one) in this age to be of questionable utility to society. So a business isn't a social progam. It's still part of a society. It can be expected that somehow, one way or the other, up from the people or down from the authority, law will be imposed upon business to do things in a manner more agreable to the country.
    Expected perhaps. Right? Perhaps not. Perhaps not even efficient.


    When? These things certainly were mass practies, presumably majority practices, not all that long ago. The government had to step in (what do you know!) to finally undermine the history of business discrimination. It's improved much but still has ways to go.
    They were also enforced by law. Living standards for African-Americans actually increased MORE SLOWLY after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned job discrimination by race. You're not basing your argument on the reality of the situation.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    When? These things certainly were mass practies, presumably majority practices, not all that long ago. The government had to step in (what do you know!) to finally undermine the history of business discrimination. It's improved much but still has ways to go.
    These were mass practices because the society that a business lived in was more prejudiced. It was good business not to hire black people for certain jobs in say, the 1950s, because it would hurt your bottom line. Civil rights pressure and legislation since then that were not business-oriented in nature have made for a society that has become more tolerant and integrated. Naturally, it made good business sense to follow suit in hiring practices. What I'm saying is that private business should not be required to blaze a trail for social causes at the peril of their financial success. When minds change in society at large, business will follow.

    From previous threads, I understand your position on business in general, but I think it serves the argument better to debate within the framework of what exists rather than what you wish existed.
    Everybody have fun tonight. Everybody Wang Chung tonight.

    Johari
    /Nohari

  8. #38
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Law isn't supposed to be about deciding what you like and don't like. It's about protecting rights. This attitude is dangerously close to "might makes right."
    I think that is factually and ideally incorrect. Society and civlization was certainly not born or developed on defending so-all inalienable rights. And ideally, quality of life in a societal as a whole should not be worse as a result of technically following one of those rights to a tee.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Expected perhaps. Right? Perhaps not. Perhaps not even efficient.
    Right it is. I can't imagine getting good results any other way. Something representative in some way is ideal. If there is a mass disatisfaction with something, it damn well should be that case that the will of the people can take initiative against it.

    And efficiency for what? Efficient for a business owner (MAYBE)? If something
    is efficient in helping maybe a tiny number of people at the expense of money more, then it's an efficiency that can be, perhaps should be reduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    They were also enforced by law. Living standards for African-Americans actually increased MORE SLOWLY after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned job discrimination by race. You're not basing your argument on the reality of the situation.
    You know, I don't if that's true or not. I hadn't heard that. However, that kind of figure is instantly questionable. What factors might have gone into it being so fast before or slower aftwards? In what time frame is the entirety of this average drawn from? It could easily be the case that factors not related to the law at all were involved, etc.. and that the 1964 civi rights act was still beneficial.

    Tell me, do you oppose that act?

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    These were mass practices because the society that a business lived in was more prejudiced. It was good business not to hire black people for certain jobs in say, the 1950s, because it would hurt your bottom line. Civil rights pressure and legislation since then that were not business-oriented in nature have made for a society that has become more tolerant and integrated. Naturally, it made good business sense to follow suit in hiring practices. What I'm saying is that private business should not be required to blaze a trail for social causes at the peril of their financial success. When minds change in society at large, business will follow.
    I'm aware that pragmatic business incentives are not always socially positive. That's a part of my point.

    I'm guessing that you think the role of business and commerce, and economic liberties are very important to society, because most people who take a generally anti-regulatory position do. My question would be, why it is that businesses gets a free ticket, and don't have to involve themselves in the fascilitation of, and get to be the last thing that actually responds to, progressive social changes, especially if theses business are so integral to society?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #39
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    I agree with pure_mercury on this. I don't know much about the Civil Rights act of 1964, however a quick browsing shows that a majority was to end discrimination in government facilities and discrimination enforced by law. Enforced discrimination is enforced discrimination in my mind. The government doesn't have the right to force people to discriminate in any manner. This includes requiring "equality" in private hiring. Why should the government be able to mandate which types of discrimination are good or bad.

    Mass dissatisfaction is not a reason to limit the freedom of people. This is discrimination against the minority. Discrimination against a group of people isn't justified simply because the majority supports it. The majority supported discrimination against blacks at one time. Did that make it right?

    What mass dissatisfaction can do is pressure such employers through boycotts or disapproval if they view the issue as serious enough. It's their right to control their own action but is it not their right to get the government to step in for them.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  10. #40
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    I agree with pure_mercury on this. I don't know much about the Civil Rights act of 1964, however a quick browsing shows that a majority was to end discrimination in government facilities and discrimination enforced by law. Enforced discrimination is enforced discrimination in my mind. The government doesn't have the right to force people to discriminate in any manner. This includes requiring "equality" in private hiring. Why should the government be able to mandate which types of discrimination are good or bad.
    So enforced discrimination is enforced discrimination. I presume that the value of such a policy never differs in your mind? I disagree with that, I'd say the value could differ dramatically based on the social results.

    And if you actually have anything like a credible democratic republic, then the government can do this on the pretense that it has legitimacy to carry that what was demanded by those who put the acting office-holders in power.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    Mass dissatisfaction is not a reason to limit the freedom of people. This is discrimination against the minority. Discrimination against a group of people isn't justified simply because the majority supports it. The majority supported discrimination against blacks at one time. Did that make it right?
    Who's freedom are we limiting here? I can't keep myself from rolling my eyes when the charge of freedom is taken up to protect a relatively tiny circle of corrupt business owners. The only freedom they are exercizing, the only freedom of theirs that is being threatened here, is the freedom to unilaterally decide who else in society doesn't get to have freedom. That maybe a freedom that can be justly curtailed, no?

    It's hopeless to talk about freedom like it is a boolean state of society. There are not things that just make people more or less free. Humans frequently extend their own freedom through means that deprives it from another. Nothing makes everyone more free. If you actually care about freedom, the only thing you can hope to do is maximize it. In this case, siding with the discriminatory business only almost surely isn't maximizing freedom.

    Alas, pursuing complete and universal freedom always leads towatd self-contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    What mass dissatisfaction can do is pressure such employers through boycotts or disapproval if they view the issue as serious enough. It's their right to control their own action but is it not their right to get the government to step in for them.
    Might I say the same thing about dealing with a roving band of murderers and rapists?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. Lexus let skateboarders put its hoverboard to the test
    By phobik in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-15-2015, 10:47 AM
  2. Let's take a moment to remember Phillip Seymour Hoffman...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-03-2014, 06:51 AM
  3. Video: Christian Bale takes David to the Dentist
    By NewEra in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-08-2009, 02:59 PM
  4. Let's take over the world! Huzzah!
    By GinKuusouka in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-08-2008, 03:11 PM
  5. Geoff takes his camera to the Cornish coast [further pics added]
    By Geoff in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-23-2007, 08:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO