|
On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever).
If all gay people could be proven to be worse in the military it would not be discrimination. Its not racist to deny a black man a job if there are better people for it.
|
On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general? I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue.
Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
|
On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever).
So I guess you have a problem with women serving in the military (they do you know)?
|
On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever).
Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant.
And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place.
|
On January 19 2012 07:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place.
Easy, lol? Women <--> Men.
Naturally not at every single tasks but special tasks with a high minimum abilitiy requirement (certain military forces come to mind).
|
On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? ... Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay. One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment. It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general? I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue. Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid.
Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet).
I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda).
Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
|
On January 19 2012 07:03 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place. Easy, lol? Women <--> Men.
Wrong. This is far from an absolute. It's a general trend, and you can't discriminate on a general trend.
|
On January 19 2012 07:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place.
I never said every single, i said "average". Big difference there. You really need me to say that ppl based on minorities in average differ on some attributes?
|
On January 19 2012 07:04 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:11 Elegy wrote:
[quote]
...
Gays couldn't serve openly because they were gay.
One's sexual orientation should be irrelevant when it comes to determining suitability for employment.
It is perfectly fine (though regrettable) that people dislike homosexuals simply because of their orientation, but that dislike cannot be codified into law, which it most certainly was under DADT. Denying one's service merely because they enjoy a different sexual preference is discrimination and cannot be lawful. But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general? I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue. Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid. Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda). Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets.
Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
|
On January 19 2012 06:58 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). So I guess you have a problem with women serving in the military (they do you know)?
Gratz, cus you completely failed to get my point. GJ.
|
On January 19 2012 07:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:04 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:
[quote]
But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general? I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue. Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid. Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda). Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets. Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
There's quite a bit of evidence that says that minimum wage laws make things worse off for the poorest classes, so I wouldn't be so forward about your examples of what government does well.
|
On January 19 2012 07:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place. I never said every single, i said "average". Big difference there. You really need me to say that ppl based on minorities in average differ on some attributes?
They very well may differ on average, but that's exactly my point. There isn't a single case of an absolute where everyone from a particular group differs in such a way. Therefore we should be evaluating entrance to a group (for instance, the military, by women or homosexuals or whoever you are talking about) by individual merit, because you can find many women/homosexuals that are more fit for military duty than many heterosexual men. This is why your hypothetical situation of every gay person being 50% inferior in military service is stupid - it will never happen.
|
On January 19 2012 07:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:03 Velr wrote:On January 19 2012 07:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place. Easy, lol? Women <--> Men. Wrong. This is far from an absolute. It's a general trend, and you can't discriminate on a general trend.
Yeah, sorry... I specified in an edit  .
There are jobs only Men can do Woman can't. But these are only very, very few jobs with certain requirements when it comes to strenght (certain special forces for instance). And even there it's posisbly no sure 100%... But this leads to basically a 100% exclusion of Women.
But i actually agree with your point of view anyway ^^.
|
On January 19 2012 07:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:04 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:On January 19 2012 06:14 Hider wrote:
[quote]
But there weren't any law that denied them acces to military? The military bosses just disliked them, right? And should we through force make it illegal for bosses in private companies and government instituions to dislike some minorities and make them worse of? If a racist opens a new company, and dont want to hire a black man, should he be put in prison? No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general? I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue. Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid. Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda). Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets. Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement.
Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off.
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off.
I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
|
On January 19 2012 07:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:05 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 07:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place. I never said every single, i said "average". Big difference there. You really need me to say that ppl based on minorities in average differ on some attributes? They very well may differ on average, but that's exactly my point. There isn't a single case of an absolute where everyone from a particular group differs in such a way. Therefore we should be evaluating entrance to a group (for instance, the military, by women or homosexuals or whoever you are talking about) by individual merit, because you can find many women/homosexuals that are more fit for military duty than many heterosexual men. This is why your hypothetical situation of every gay being 50% inferior is stupid - it will never happen.
What if we have limited informance. We only have information such as age, height, weight, physical condition, background (minority), sexual preferences, education.
This is obv. the case in many situations in real life, and hence the hyphotetical situation is relevant.
|
Stephen Colbert endorsed Herman Cain for the SC primary. It's an open primary so anyone can vote. Don't you think it would be hilarious if Cain finished in the top 3 and pundits had to explain that? I had a dream last night that Cain got 12% of the vote and it was hilarious
|
On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off.
I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minimum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
Actually, economists have run studies on the effects of minimum wage on reality. Results are mixed.
This is because the economy in real life is markedly different from the economy in perfect competition models. Real life tends to have its share of monopolistic competition and oligopolies.
|
On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:06 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 07:04 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:43 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:32 nam nam wrote:On January 19 2012 06:27 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:24 Eppa! wrote:
[quote]
No laws are absolute. They are based on moral values of the majority (or in some cases the bourgeois) So yes in Sweden if a person doesn't hire a person based on the colour of their skin they are breaking the law. Yes i know that. But I think i can go on and on and make more extreme examples and then conclude why this law is just bad (ppl should be allowed to be racist IMO). But im not gonna go into this kind of discussion (read above). By that logic, you would be ok with universities not allowing black people to go to their school? As I said im not gonna go into this dicussion. ANyway my last answer. Yes in theory. But genereally eveyrthing become problematic when governement controls stuffs, as they are no longer profit driven. This means that they perhaps dont care about losing the money that black students can give them, and hence racism isn't hurting their financials. Then one could argue that we would better off with regulations. This is kinda the same dilemmas as we see in financial markets, where theo nly reason why regulations are needed is because governent is fucking the markets. Without governments markets would be much more sound. Have you ever studied American history? Hell, even the history of the Industrial Revolution in general? I guess you want to tell me something where you are going to rewrite history. Just continue. Saying "Without governments the markets would be much more sound" is just straight up ignorant. Back when there was no government regulations you had monopolies, shoddy products, no minimum wage, terrible working conditions, child labor, etc. Are you really about to tell me that you're fine with all of these things? Because if you are, then I'm just done having a discussion with you. There are respectable arguments for having limited government intervention in the economy, but none at all is just straight up stupid. Yes and in the stone age we made fire from stones (i guess we did, i dont know much about that time though). And we didn't have cars btw and no houses, so our living conditions were great. Whats your point. Do you think socialism would have improved anything excet destroying and redstributign wealth, which would make conditions better short-termish, but long run just lead to more poverty for everybody (hi sovjet). I guess btw you think that families send their children to work becuase the parents are stupid and ignorant and dont understand child needs, and not because they actually need the money? Or is the reason why they need the money because the rich people are stealing all their money, right? (typical socialistic propaganda). Btw I actually reffered to financial markets. You aren't even talking about financial markets. Your argument about the Stone Age sending children to work isn't relevant to what I was saying. No shit they sent children to work because they needed the money. That's also connected to the fact that there was no minimum wage. And you were the one that said Without governments which is quite the absolute statement and is a straight up foolish statement. Well it is relevant. Of course we were more poor 200 years ago than today. Why are we wealthier today? Because we are much more efficient at producing stuff. This makes everybody better off. We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage). This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off. I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minmum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth).
You do understand that countries GDP is not counted in what is produced but how money circulates? The service industry produces nothing yet stands for a substantial part of the GDP in developed countries. Profit has no use unless it is being used.
|
On January 19 2012 07:03 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:52 Hider wrote:On January 19 2012 06:42 Rob28 wrote:On January 19 2012 06:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 19 2012 06:03 Hider wrote:
If i admit I am gay should I still be allowed to get any kind of job (given my qualificans are up to pair) even though the boss's dont like gay people. Is it a human right for me to get a job, and should their opinions of gay people be disallowed by law?
If no, whats the difference between being accepted into military and job in private sector. Is it because every government job should be allowed for everbody? The military is a government organization, the private sector is, by definition and name, the private sector. Yes, the government should and does have a responsibility to make sure all of its positions are completely non-discriminatory. This is an incredibly basic concept. ^ Pretty much this. Military is public sector (ie. salaries are paid with public tax dollars). Last I checked, gay people paid taxes too, and so are entitled to have equal opportunities to work in the public sector. Hmm yeh perhaps. Anyway what if your very weak. Perhaps pretty sick, can barely lift anything. But you pay taxes. Should you be allowed acces? What if the military boss denies acces to "your" kind of people. And he also dislikes gays as he has prejudices and think that they are worse soldiers. Is he allowed to have the first policy but not the second? And I guess your arguments would be based on the fact that in the first example there is a physical reason why you sohuldn't enter the military, and in situation 2 its based on prejudices. Hyphoteitical situation: Now what if a survey (a very good one, every statistican agrees this is the truth), shows that gays are on average much worse soldiers than nongays. Actually they are 50% worse (assuming we can quantify that number). Weak physical people like you are in average 50% worse soldiers as well. Does the above change your opinion? Btw if weak physical kinda sick ppl still are allowed to get into military, lets make them even weaker (like have one arm only or whatever). Can you give a single example of a group of people where every single member is inferior at a certain task and therefore it is ok to disallow all people in that group for joining or participating in something? Because if you can't, your hypothetical situation is completely irrelevant. And no, saying the physically disabled doesn't count because they just can't do the task in the first place. Easy, lol? Women <--> Men. Naturally not at every single tasks but special tasks with a high minimum abilitiy requirement (certain military forces come to mind).
The difference between men and women in strength looks something like...
[-------------------women----------------------------------]---
----[-----------------------------men----------------------------]
the common area makes it so that, while standards are ok, being a man can't be used as a requirement. In order for such a rule to be legitimate an strength of sexes would have to look like...
[----------------women--------------] [---------------------men--------------------]
where every single man is physically stronger than every woman (you only have to go as far as youtube to see just how extreme a male physique has to be to outclass EVERY female on earth).
A similar argument is obvious for gay people and ethnic people. The key is to not be selective with your logic.
|
On January 19 2012 07:15 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 07:12 Hider wrote:
We dont become more wealthy at redistributing wealth or setting up a minimum wage. Btw what do you think happens when a worker who is worth 10$/hour for his employee demands 20$/hour (cus thats the minimum wage).
This is actually basic economics. If you dont know the answer I can tell you that unemployment rises and hence total producting decreases making everybody worse off.
I actually throught you was aware of how harmfull minimum wages are to wealth, and hence suggested in my previous post that you probably would suggest that families were poor because the rich people were evil and took all the money from the poor people (aka no redistribution of wealth). Actually, economists have run studies on the effects of minimum wage on reality. Results are mixed. This is because the economy in real life is markedly different from the economy in perfect competition models. Real life tends to have its share of monopolistic competition and oligopolies.
Logic doesn't change. If one is worth less than what he demands he shouldn't be hired. Low minimum wage can never increase employment. Some times (if competition is really bad) it can increase wages as you say, but that doesn't change unemployment or make the socierty as a whole better of. That makes some ppl better off, some ppl worse of.
Overall however minimum wage is harmfull for total wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
