Reply With Quote
You'll need to blue that for WC and DarrinS.
Based on prejudice, not racism. *Discrimination* shouldn't be a dirty word either IMO. Time was, it meant one had keen or discerning judgment.
Time to bring it back. For too long vindictive libs have used it as a club to beat blameless whites for non-existent racism, to assuage their own guilty consciences.
You'll need to blue that for WC and DarrinS.
Except when you discriminate on the basis of an "accident" of birth; then, it is a bad thing -- and a dirty word. Discriminating against someone because they are of a particular race, sex, physical handicap, etc... is wrong. Period.
Now, having said that, should it be illegal? I don't believe government should stop people from discriminating -- outside of government. Originally, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only applied to government agencies. Somewhere along the way, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Cons ution was tortured out of all recognition to drag private commercial enterprise into the mix.
A person has the right, under the first amendment, to associate with whomever they want. That right should extend to employers having the right to enter into any employment agreement they wish, with whomever they want. And, they should also have the right to offer their services or goods to anyone they like -- or withhold them from anyone they like.
Are you being sarcastic? That doesn't sound like you Winehole. But, I agree.
What, you finally make some sense?
Correction: If it ever happened, it would be wrong.
Happily, this is not the case. Racism, sexism and discrimination against the handicapped are all imaginary ills, except where civil rights and feminism create them to justify their legal fiefs.
To remedy imagined wrongs? How absurd.
No harm in that, since discrimination in the pejorative sense no longer exists, right?
Serious as a heart attack. Let's dial it back to 1937.
Wow, I never thought about it that way, but it's true. I'm glad we are past that level of discrimination and racism.
Yoni, thanks for this comment, as I think it quite interesting.
Should society make laws that support the 'weakest' as it were? Or should we let the free market rule out, and assume that those weakest who aren't being utilized will eventually be utilized by someone smart enough to recognize it?
I can definitely see a reason for the current laws, as in a free market system, I just see no way from a handicapped person to make as much as a non-handicapped person in a great majority of jobs. Some people will say, (like Nietzche, I believe it was), that the stronger society, the more non-productive people it can support, so it is only right to do such. Others will take the mind that it's not fair to rebalance the workflow... sucks that he's handicapped, but it shouldn't cut into a healthy person's bottom line.
I'm ambivalent about it, personally.
aside of course from withholding such things from people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc......
I would hope that's understood, but in this forum, you never know.
aside of course from withholding such things from people based on the color of their skin, their gender, etc......
I would hope that's understood, but in this forum with posters being afraid of Black surgeons, you never know.
I think Yoni is saying discrimination based on accidents of birth is immoral, but shouldn't be illegal. He seems to think racism is a chimera, except as perpetrated by race-hustlers, and so doesn't see the harm of stripping the civil rights law that gave effect to the 14th Amendment in the 20th century. All that is ancient history to him.
If the market supports a privatization of Jim Crow, then so be it, I guess?
Why?
No, it's not understood. Racism, bigotry, and discrimination shouldn't be crimes except when perpetrated by the government or their agents.
You can blame Affirmative Action (a racist policy) for the fact that black surgeons skills are questioned.
Exactly. Why is that so hard for people to comprehend?
Do you question white surgeons' skills because of legacy admissions policies?
Who said they have to be white?
Being a chump like always. Finding another path to ignore the topic. I think anyone in their right mind disagrees with legacy policies for the same reasons. At least a white person doesn't get favoritism in the job market after getting favoritism in college, unless it's daddy's business, or a friends. Affirmative action has continued in the recent past to job hiring as well.
There no defense for affirmative action. Why are you trying?
So you question any surgeon who could possibly be a legacy?
Not so readily. OK, he had a favored college admission. Affirmative Action isn't going to help with the job itself like it has historically with blacks. He only get's a leg up there if there is a legacy connection to work also. That happens anywhere, with any race.
Any more stupid questions?
I'm not certain there's a legacy admissions policy at medical schools.
I cannot think of any, but I don't know. Maybe I should ask a friend at OHSU. I was humoring the head anyway, due to the possibility. I think he's just making up.
idiot
it's almost tiresome to read failed WC post after failed WC post............More specifically, the latter results indicate that, among college-educated workers, the wages of African American men are still about 13% lower than comparable white men.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_ml...802_index.html
almost.
I don't disagree there is a statistical disadvantage for blacks. I never said that. I said affirmative action is wrong. Employers do discriminate. Even when it's not on skin color, tell me. How many blacks speak well, or is it closer to ebonics? Communications skills are one key element to employment. I have seen more problems with the way people carry themselves and speak, rather than the color of their skin, when it comes to employment interviews. Employers in good paying jobs do not want someone who acts and talks like a thug. That goes for whites, and any other race as well. It's just a statistical truth that most blacks have poor vocabulary skills.
Tell me I'm wrong about the communications and mannerism.
Communication is a singular word in this context.
...or is this a form of ebonics that I'm not aware of and you're just giving us an example of it?
too much.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
