I do not think thst I have seen a thread on any forum that has had so many responses of quite the length of these.
Not even any involving the most verbose of evangelizing theists!
Well, we may have ever-so-slightly gotten ourselves a tiny-wee-bit bogged down in micromanagement here, but... It's a good run.
I'm not fan of a meritocracy anyway, as you demonstrated just after this, even that gets into too many blurry things to try to get working as meritocracy is supposed to work. It's an alright thought experiment, but not possible for humans to pull off. But that's an entirely different discussion.
Yes. I think that one is a discussion worth having when next we do this. And yes, meritocracy does deal with blurry lines and gray areas, just like pretty much every other system.
I feel that I have already conceded that the point that it is an oppressive law.
Certainly. My beef is with there being a need for the solution to be at the expense of the oppressor. (Also with it not being, as I put it, changing the oppressed party. It's not even as much changing it as it is shifting the legal bias, but we'll get there)
You can define a law, which gives equal people equal rights. You can define it in a way which obligates certain entities to treat equal people equally. We'll get to that as well...
I do not include your clarification in the quote for reasons of brevity, but it was good. Your position is understood.
Going back to the voting analogy, in some states even though it was legal for black people to vote, some states just never registered them to vote. So the Federal Government stepped in (after many years of struggle), and forced them to register qualified black people to vote. I see that technically, that is a slightly oppressive law by oppressing the registrar's ability to oppress. But I don't see it any worse than oppressing a muggers' ability to steal money from people. Anti-stealing laws are oppressive in the same sense.
Getting to the meat of this post.
Yes, it is oppressive, or at least highly discriminatory, of the government to go in and force a certain group of people to be treated a certain way. If you have a law, that states that any sane person of legal age without felony convictions may vote, it cannot be very well-written if it allows for unequal treatment of potential voters. You could fix it with something like "No eligible voter may be denied access to voting," just with more lawyer speak. You see, that law would protect me, the Chinese guy and that pesky Luxemburger down the street to the same degree as it would protect an African American voter. It is possible to accomplish - just put in the same document, that every other qualified group is included into it as well, so why settle for a law that discriminates against some of those groups in order to advance specific minorities? Yes, there may already be a law stating that you may not keep a white middle-aged male citizen from exercising his right to vote, but... Bloody well change it! Cross over the white middle-aged white man part and put in some legal definition of a modern day eligible voter, which also
includes that man.
The thing is though, I don't even see how it fits if I correct for the exaggeration.
My imaginary Rolls Royce is a commodity being redistributed using legislation.
Even in that case, I don't think it applies, since no one is getting anything for free. Unless you want to start saying that white males have been getting far more freebies for far longer and are now upset that they have to share those freebies with another group.
Oh, white males have been getting tons of freebies. However, the laws today are becoming more balanced exactly by removing the freebies for everyone. Redistributing them is... A waste of a potentially good law, I think.
If such a thing were the case all the time, it would be a bad thing. But this idea of comparing the best option, with a much, much worse option (that as constructed falls outside of what the company desires), and asking a reasonable person to agree or disagree with it... well I don't find it convincing. Like, "Would you choose to eat a pepperoni pizza or a bunch of kale?"
I'll take the kale; I have no idea what it is and would not mind finding out what it tastes like. (No metaphors here)
I did try to balance it, actually. I did not compare the best option with a that much worse one. Yes, I could have shaded it a little more, but... Why bother? It's illustrative. I could also have said that a Luxemburger is more likely to go off and have maternity leave for six months, and who's there to perform that critical function then? One of the Asmos forced to hire him/her/it?
Yes, there are nuances, but overall, if a law opens for something, and that is not the intention, why not close the gap? Equal opportunity oppression and discrimination is just regulation. That's a part of the game, and that's "well and good."
What I'm saying, is there are companies that when they have two candidates that are closely equal, and the company chooses the man instead of the woman just because he is a man or because she is a woman.
Certainly, this is a shitty hiring practice. But this, I think, is where cultural differences come in. I'm not sure what my company would do if presented with two equally good candidates separated only by gender... The people responsible for hiring would likely vote on it. Maybe flip a coin if tied. In my department, they would likely hire the woman because they are relatively rare in my profession and they do provide a different perspective to the sausage fest. One thing is common around these parts though; the personnel departments tend to take their job seriously, even in cases where individual employees may not.
I'm also saying that in a less equitable scenario, like the man is a great fit for the job, but the woman is a bit less so. That the woman, while not the optimum for the company, will not be a complete waste of space because she'll still be able to perform pretty well.
No, of course she would not necessarily be a waste of space, and I do hope I did not imply that in my scenario. The Luxemburger with Asian ambitions was a highly qualified one, who would perform his/her/its best.
I don't think we disagree about this issue... Maybe some wording and nuances here and there, but in my book, it loops back to that pesky equal-opportunity-discrimination-or-none-at-all thing.
But I also acknowledge the chances that it might be as you put forward, where the man is a great match and the woman is a bad fit. In that case, the company gets to take one for the team (society), and look for another person to replace that woman with.
Yes, that is exactly what happens. Not often, but occasionally, here and there, a corporation does take one for the team. Corporations would continue to do so under my version of affirmative action laws, but on a more balanced playing field.
The woman can still be fired, the laws aren't really all that oppressive. And I'm not aware of any law where chief officers are required to meet a gender or race quota
Well, the US affirmative action laws differ from the law I was raging against at the start of this debate. It's not quite
as bad as my barebones representation of it states, not if you read intent as well as the letter of it. However, the letter of the law is a powerful thing, and the law is imbalanced. It does shift bias rather than securing equal opportunities for equal people.
Besides, I don't mind so much being considered the worst person.
I want that one too. I think there ought to be a poll.
(Since we are making progress, I'm dropping the whole point.)