No human rights in Alberta
Chris Iggulden
<tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> jko...@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>
>
> What about protection for white, anglo-saxon males? Oh, we are already
> protected? The problem with naming different groups is it makes them more
> protected than people not named. The government should scrap ALL
> classifications, and say EVERYONE is protected. It would save a lot of
> tiem and effort. Then everyone will be equal, and everyone should be
> happy.
>
Quite simply, hte reason White Anglo Saxon Males do not have to be
recognized is because they are the ones running the power structures in
this society. As a lesbian in the province of Alberta I can be fired, lose
my housing, my children etc simply because I am a lesbian and that is
wrong. If the government were true to its word that everyone was equal
they would not be appealing the Delwin Vriend case...instead they would
have told the institution in question that it was illegal to discriminate
against Mr. Vriend for any reason. The only way everyone is going to be
equal in this province is when those in the power structures are no longer
allowed to practice hate and bigotry and have it condoned at the highest
level of government.
>
>
> How aren't children protected? Does each kid when he reaches 12 years of
> age have to have a new video game system? When he/she reaches 16, the
> parents have to buy them a car? I am looking forward to reading some
> examples of why children need to be protected. They already are under
> different statutes of child abuse, and so on. What else do we need?
>
Again children need to be protected by the government becasue they are
vulnerable in out male dominated society. Just examine abuse statistics
and you will see that there is a problem and a need to be addressed. IT
has nothing to do with material considerations (beyond the basics of food,
shelter and clothing) and has a lot more to with respect. tHe problem here
is that children (and to a degree women) are still laregely viewed as
chattel by many men.
>
>
> He is not preventing them from being together, is he? Just think of the
> historical roots of marriage. It is the union of a man and a woman. If
> homosexuals are so obessed with getting married, why don't they make their
> own ritual? Call it something else, then everyone will be happy.
>
Shall we discuss the historical roots of marriage...marriage was devised
by feudal lords as a way of keeping track of hte serfs...it was then
co-opted by organized religion. And homosexuals have created their own
ceremony...now we would like the same legal rights that heterosexuals
recieve under marriage.
>
>
> So because these groups get LESS money than before, they should sue?
> Years ago I received about 3 dollars a week for allowance. After a few
> years, it was up to 10 dollars a week. So if my parents were in a hard
> time, and decided to reduce it down to 5, could I sue? Of course not! I
> would have no sympathy from the public, just like vocal groups do not when
> they complain if they don't get "enough" money. A hundred years ago, when
> there was no social programs, they would get nothing! If they want more
> money, they have to work.
HOmosexual groups in the province of Alberta do not receive any provincial
government funding. We raise it ourselves in our community. And, moreover,
much of the money going to help people living with HIV or AIDS has and
will continue to be raised in the gay community. Yet we do not
discriminate. I have volunteered at a hospice founded by gay people and
funded by gay people yet heterosexuals were welcome with open arms.
>
> Tim Lamb
> ___________________________________
> tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
> wa...@mail.compusmart.ab.ca
> http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/warf/
> ___________________________________
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca
>What about protection for white, anglo-saxon males? Oh, we are already
>protected? The problem with naming different groups is it makes them more
>protected than people not named.
Well, Tim, you've probably surmised that the likes of Kodish need and want
that kind of protection to absolve themselves of any responsibility for
conducting themselves accordingly within the framework of society regardless
of who they are or what they do.
What that kind of bullshit legislation amounts to is a shield to the kind of
"dare" they want to purvey on you, and me, and your neighbour. They won't
stop until they can stand 1 inch from your nose and say:
"I am <what ever trait they want protected in law>"
"You must like me"
"You must accept me"
Of course you and I know where to file THAT shit...................
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Again children need to be protected by the government becasue they are
: vulnerable in out male dominated society. Just examine abuse statistics
: and you will see that there is a problem and a need to be addressed. IT
: has nothing to do with material considerations (beyond the basics of food,
The Alberta government doesn't want to protect children because it would
mean two things. It would mean addressing their appauling child welfare
system, where the children's advocate was forced into retirement because
he stated that the Klein government put children's lives at risk
(with such policies as having parents convicted of child abuse getting
access to children), and it would mean addressing child poverty, and hunger.
But conservatives love poverty, it keeps the masses in check.
--
-Jason Kodish
In a world torn by every kind of fundamentalism -- religious, ethnic,
nationalist and tribal -- we must grant first place to economic
fundamentalism, with its religious conviction that the market, left to its
own devices, is capable of resolving all our problems. This faith has its
own ayatollahs. Its church is neo-liberalism; its creed is profit; its
prayers are for monopolies.
Carlos Fuentes (Mexico) from World Press Review (Nov. '95) p. 47
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: How is this acheived? You do not want equality, you want special rights.
: I still think everyone should be equal. I don't believe that some people
: are more special than others.
It is time for Tim to be put on the spot. Precicely what "special rights"
(politically correct rightoid claptrap used to opress other's basic human
rights) do you think homosexuals want? My guess is you and your kind
wishes for a society where the employer can tell you whom to love and not
to love, what religion to worship and so forth.
: They are protected! They are protected by things called "laws". If
: anyone harms your children, they will come under the juridiction of the
: judicial system.
Which I suppose is why Tory policy has abusers re-united with their children.
How many more deaths will be on the Rightoid's hands because of this?
: Again, these people who are abusive should be punished. But you cannot
Not according to your favorite government.
: Well, I would like a new car for Christmas, and I don't see that happening
: anytime soon.
What that has to do with anything is beyond me. Except the fact that the
refusal to allow homosexuals to marry is just another sign of how
undemocratic, anti-libertarian your ideology is.
Conservatism isn't about freedom, it's about control and power.
: Tim Lamb
: ___________________________________
: tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
: wa...@mail.compusmart.ab.ca
: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/warf/
: ___________________________________
--
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: always been a means for each one of these entities to control people's
: behaviour. Why do you think homosexual activists are demanding
: "marriage rights?"---they wish to control the behaviour of people by
: the force of law and with the power of the State.
Huh? I don't see this.
: relationships are not considered beneficial to the State I don't see
: any reason they should be granted any legal benefit greater than those
: given the Thursday night poker crowd.
The Thursday night poker crowd hasn't made a lifelong commitment to live
with and love each other until death do them part. But of course you
don't see that, you are a conservative, and conservatives want to dictate
to people how they live their lives.
Conservatives are power mad,blood thirsty little creatures.
PKolding
>In article <4a9pj2$q...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, "Tim E. Lamb"
><tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>> jko...@thwap.nl2k.edmonton.ab.ca (Jason Kodish) wrote:
>>
>>
>> What about protection for white, anglo-saxon males? Oh, we are already
>> protected? The problem with naming different groups is it makes them more
>> protected than people not named. The government should scrap ALL
>> classifications, and say EVERYONE is protected. It would save a lot of
>> tiem and effort. Then everyone will be equal, and everyone should be
>> happy.
>>
>Quite simply, hte reason White Anglo Saxon Males do not have to be
>recognized is because they are the ones running the power structures in
>this society.
If you have a problem with the colour and sex of people "running the
powers structures in this society" you should take it up with those
individual people. The most discriminated group in Canadian society
are white men. Unlike you, they are discriminated against as a matter
of law and regulation.
>As a lesbian in the province of Alberta I can be fired, lose
>my housing, my children etc simply because I am a lesbian and that is
>wrong.
But there is no law that says that "because you are a lesbian, your
children, your home and your employment can be taken from you." In the
case of men (who you don't feel "have to be recognized") the law SAYS
they can lose their homes, children and employment. The various family
relations and child protection laws require that men be removed from
their own homes, without any charge being made, if someone reports
their child as having been sexually assaulted. Whether he had anything
to do with it is irrelevant---his sex is the legal liability. The AA
laws deny ONLY non-disabled white men from employment and
promotion----for everyone else such a denial is a matter of human
rights law, the prosecution of which the government itself will
undertake.
>If the government were true to its word that everyone was equal
>they would not be appealing the Delwin Vriend case...instead they would
>have told the institution in question that it was illegal to discriminate
>against Mr. Vriend for any reason.
Unless he's a white man. Then it is a requirement of LAW to
discriminate against him. But people like you don't "recognise" white
"males". Why should anyone care about your trivial complaints under
such circumstances?
>The only way everyone is going to be
>equal in this province is when those in the power structures are no longer
>allowed to practice hate and bigotry and have it condoned at the highest
>level of government.
I agree. But you would do better to cure yourself of hatred and
bigotry before asking it of others.
>> How aren't children protected? Does each kid when he reaches 12 years of
>> age have to have a new video game system? When he/she reaches 16, the
>> parents have to buy them a car? I am looking forward to reading some
>> examples of why children need to be protected. They already are under
>> different statutes of child abuse, and so on. What else do we need?
>>
>Again children need to be protected by the government becasue they are
>vulnerable in out male dominated society.
Female-dominated society, you mean. 99% of prisoners are men. 85% of
custody is awarded against men. 95% of alimony and child support is
awarded against men. They hold less than 40% of the assets of the
country. If white, they are legally denied employment and promotion by
law.
>Just examine abuse statistics
>and you will see that there is a problem and a need to be addressed. IT
>has nothing to do with material considerations (beyond the basics of food,
>shelter and clothing) and has a lot more to with respect. tHe problem here
>is that children (and to a degree women) are still laregely viewed as
>chattel by many men.
>>
Incorrect. Men are "not recognised" by many women. And this process is
started with the boys they are awarded that secure for them alimony
and child support money. Men do not regard women and children as
chattel---many simply hate them. They are the living representation of
men's persecution and have willfully demanded that position. You think
there is an "abuse" problem---but you are wrong. Abuse and violence is
the only *solution* in a society that persecutes men by law, and
denies them any other option. If you think the random acts of violence
against women is a problem now, just wait till they become organised.
>Shall we discuss the historical roots of marriage...marriage was devised
>by feudal lords as a way of keeping track of hte serfs...it was then
>co-opted by organized religion.
Marriage was never "co-opted" by religion---organised religion and the
State co-opted each other in a regular cyclical manner. Marriage has
always been a means for each one of these entities to control people's
behaviour. Why do you think homosexual activists are demanding
"marriage rights?"---they wish to control the behaviour of people by
the force of law and with the power of the State.
>And homosexuals have created their own
>ceremony...now we would like the same legal rights that heterosexuals
>recieve under marriage.
>>
Fair enough. But why should homosexuals, and not single people, get
the legal rights as those who are married? Why shouldn't law partners
get these legal rights, or the regular Thursday night poker group? In
fact, why should there be special legal rights and benefits for the
married?---Because the State wishes to give benefits to relationships
that it sees as beneficial to the State. And if homosexual
relationships are not considered beneficial to the State I don't see
any reason they should be granted any legal benefit greater than those
given the Thursday night poker crowd.
>>
>> So because these groups get LESS money than before, they should sue?
>> Years ago I received about 3 dollars a week for allowance. After a few
>> years, it was up to 10 dollars a week. So if my parents were in a hard
>> time, and decided to reduce it down to 5, could I sue? Of course not! I
>> would have no sympathy from the public, just like vocal groups do not when
>> they complain if they don't get "enough" money. A hundred years ago, when
>> there was no social programs, they would get nothing! If they want more
>> money, they have to work.
...[some deleted]...
>Yet we do not
>discriminate. I have volunteered at a hospice founded by gay people and
>funded by gay people yet heterosexuals were welcome with open arms.
Please do not hand us this tripe. You are already on record that you
do not even recognise white anglo saxon males. How do you sort out
which are heterosexual and which are not? I suggest you recognise
white anglo saxon males if they are homosexual---which means you are a
straight out homosexist.
Western Aquatic Research Facility
>: How is this acheived? You do not want equality, you want special rights.
>: I still think everyone should be equal. I don't believe that some people
>: are more special than others.
>It is time for Tim to be put on the spot. Precicely what "special rights"
>(politically correct rightoid claptrap used to opress other's basic human
>rights) do you think homosexuals want? My guess is you and your kind
>wishes for a society where the employer can tell you whom to love and not
>to love, what religion to worship and so forth.
Here is my answer to you Jason:
Lets say it is entered into all legislation that you cannot descriminate
on the basis of sexual preference. Someone who is gay is fired. I am
also fired. I have no recourse, I am a straight, white, male (three
strikes, I am out). The gay person can go to court and say they were
fired on the basis of discrimination, and they would win! Is this
equality? That is why EVERYONE should be protected equally. You say I
want to control who people love or not love. Why would I want to waste my
time controlling people I do not know? You are using some cheap mushrooms
Jason.
>: They are protected! They are protected by things called "laws". If
>: anyone harms your children, they will come under the juridiction of the
>: judicial system.
>Which I suppose is why Tory policy has abusers re-united with their children.
>How many more deaths will be on the Rightoid's hands because of this?
What do you call "abuse"? A little spank?
If the kid is in danger, then it is the responsiblity of the police and
the social workers to ensure he is removed from the family. I am sure
Ralph stays up late, arranging for abusive parents to see their kids!
>: Again, these people who are abusive should be punished. But you cannot
>Not according to your favorite government.
Actually, my favorite government right now is the socialist one in BC that
robs money from charities. Oh, they must be a rightoid government! Left
wing people are so noble, and kind, and would never siphon money from
poor, deserving people!
>Except the fact that the
>refusal to allow homosexuals to marry is just another sign of how
>undemocratic, anti-libertarian your ideology is.
>Conservatism isn't about freedom, it's about control and power.
Yup, this is coming from someone who wants to see the financial systems of
all countries fall overnight. Of course all the millions of people who
would be unemployed because of this will all unite and form a Utopia of
happiness.
>-Jason Kodish
Tim Lamb
http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/warf/
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Lets say it is entered into all legislation that you cannot descriminate
: also fired. I have no recourse, I am a straight, white, male (three
: strikes, I am out). The gay person can go to court and say they were
: fired on the basis of discrimination, and they would win! Is this
If you were fired because of your sexual prefference, you too would win.
If the gay man were fired because of incompitence on the job,he would lose.
So there's your equality.
: want to control who people love or not love. Why would I want to waste my
: time controlling people I do not know? You are using some cheap mushrooms
: Jason.
And you are taking cheap shots. As for why. You are a conservative. No
other reason need be given.
: What do you call "abuse"? A little spank?
: If the kid is in danger, then it is the responsiblity of the police and
: the social workers to ensure he is removed from the family. I am sure
I call that when a court convicts a parent of child abuse and recognizes
that a child's life is in danger..I call that abuse. As for the social
workers, they are often limited by red tape and a government that just
doesn't care.
: Ralph stays up late, arranging for abusive parents to see their kids!
No, but his minions do.
: wing people are so noble, and kind, and would never siphon money from
: poor, deserving people!
Don't look at me. I've got nothing to do with that. At least they
admitted they were crooks. Klein and his rightoid crew have raped this
province for billions and turn to blaming the poor for it.
You and your kind are always looking for scapegoats. Maybe you ought to
look in a mirror and see the corruption.
: all countries fall overnight. Of course all the millions of people who
: would be unemployed because of this will all unite and form a Utopia of
: happiness.
We a bit bitter,Tim-bo?
: >-Jason Kodish
: Tim Lamb
: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/warf/
PKolding
>PKolding (pkol...@cts.com) wrote:
>: always been a means for each one of these entities to control people's
>: behaviour. Why do you think homosexual activists are demanding
>: "marriage rights?"---they wish to control the behaviour of people by
>: the force of law and with the power of the State.
>Huh? I don't see this.
Law is the formal introduction of the State's interest in society. The
State has only one interest and that is the behaviour of the
citizenry, in its various classes and organised groups, along approved
lines. Those people who seek laws to do anything are seeking to
control people through the power of the State.
>: relationships are not considered beneficial to the State I don't see
>: any reason they should be granted any legal benefit greater than those
>: given the Thursday night poker crowd.
>The Thursday night poker crowd hasn't made a lifelong commitment to live
>with and love each other until death do them part. But of course you
>don't see that, you are a conservative, and conservatives want to dictate
>to people how they live their lives.
You are falling into bad habits. Whenever you find yourself unequal to
the task you label people and then do an imitation of the late Sen.
McCarthy. I am not a conservative by any stretch of the
imagination---my posts on this newsgroup are so counter to
conservative values and interests that only a witless fool would
imagine otherwise. As to dictating what other people should do with
their lives---it isn't me demanding laws and privilege on the sole
basis of my sexual orientation.
The marriage and divorce laws have been of particular interest to me
since the early 1980's. As the director of the Vancouver Men's Action
Committee I prepared the original 8-point policy which included the
following (to the best of my recollection): "That marriage be simply
the public expression of a private devotion, and not be liable to
government regulation or interference." This is not a conservative or
liberal view of marriage, and decidedly not a socialist or religious
one. Some have said it is libertarian---but I am not a libertarian,
and no libertarian worth his salt requires "marriage" in any form
anyway (or so I am informed).
You constantly labour under the delusion that people have as simple,
and simpleminded, a position on issues as you do. That they are
motivated by a single agenda, based upon a unified and
all-encompassing rationale generally represented by one or another of
the ludicrous platforms of the various political parties. In short,
and I say this without at all meaning to inflame, you are dunderhead.
John Sutherland
: : How is this acheived? You do not want equality, you want special rights.
: : I still think everyone should be equal. I don't believe that some people
: : are more special than others.
: It is time for Tim to be put on the spot. Precicely what "special rights"
: (politically correct rightoid claptrap used to opress other's basic human
: rights) do you think homosexuals want? My guess is you and your kind
: wishes for a society where the employer can tell you whom to love and not
: to love, what religion to worship and so forth.
Perhaps it is time for Jason to wake up and smell the coffee. By
its very definition, granting rights to homosexuals alone is an example
of 'special rights'. I agree with Tim that unfortunately, as long as we
as a society continue to find more and more groups to give rights too,
the larger and larger will be the chasms that separate us as people.
Drew
--
=========================================================
+ "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
+ arrogance successfully!" +
+ -Drew Sutherland +
+ <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> +
=========================================================
Chris Iggulden
<tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> iggu...@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:
> >In article <4a9pj2$q...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, "Tim E. Lamb"
> That is true. Why? Look at the number of white male candidates who run
> in elections! Last time I checked the population is about one half male,
> one half female. Why are more females not running in elections? With
> half the population, some of them must be voting for these old farts!
> Maybe instead of complaining so much, it is time for more women to sieze
> jobs of power. When you apply to University, they do NOT recruit due to
> gender. WOMEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE POSITIONS! Some refuse to
> accept this, and blame their lack of hard work on other reasons.
>
Obviously you do not pay attention to the world you live in. While women
comprise 52% of the population we are, nonetheless, a minority in terms of
status. White Anglo men control business and politics in this country.
When women do run for and achieve high political office they are often
cast into negative terms for doing exactly what men do....jsut look at
Margaret Thatcher or Lynn Macleod.
>
>
> >As a lesbian in the province of Alberta I can be fired, lose
> >my housing, my children etc simply because I am a lesbian and that is
> >wrong.
>
>
> Yes, and you can already sue if you are evicted, or fired for that reason.
>
What and have the Alberta government appeal the decision? There is no
protection on a provincial level for gays and lesbians in the province of
Alberta.
>
> How is this acheived? You do not want equality, you want special rights.
> I still think everyone should be equal. I don't believe that some people
> are more special than others.
>
Please tell me how bing able to marry the person I love is a special right>
>
> They are protected! They are protected by things called "laws". If
> anyone harms your children, they will come under the juridiction of the
> judicial system.
>
As the government cuts back on basic social services children are falling
through the cracks. I have worked for 10 years with youth and as more
institutional beds are being closed it more dangerous offenders are being
placed in community based group homes. Often these are adolescent sex
offenders. Moreover, as bed space tightens up children are not being
removed from abusive situations when they should be.
> And I have volunteered in public hospitals, and I have never seen a
> homosexual refused entry.
>
So what does that prove? The point I was trying to make was that it has
been the gay community, without help from government, that reacted to the
AIDS crisis. And as AIDS makes its way into the heterosexual community,
those people will be accessing services set up and paid for by the gay
community. The government has had nothing to do with it.
>
PKolding
>: following (to the best of my recollection): "That marriage be simply
>: the public expression of a private devotion, and not be liable to
>: government regulation or interference." This is not a conservative or
>: liberal view of marriage, and decidedly not a socialist or religious
>If you really believed the above, than you wouldn't have any problem at
>all with homosexual marriages.
You seem not to be able to actually read. Please note the word
"simply" in my definition. Note also the reference to no government
regulation or interference. I despise the marriage and divorce laws
and regulations in Canada and will oppose them being extended to
anyone else. I want them destroyed---I don't want yet more millions of
people given the legal right to have the government impose slavery
upon others at their behest.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Perhaps it is time for Jason to wake up and smell the coffee. By
: its very definition, granting rights to homosexuals alone is an example
The rights that homosexuals are asking for already exist for you and I.
They are asking for eqaul rights. Not the politically correct rightoid
buzzward special rights that you and your kind seem to believe they're
asking for. WHat rights are gays asking for that you don't have?
: as a society continue to find more and more groups to give rights too,
: the larger and larger will be the chasms that separate us as people.
You are the one building chasms. You deny medical treatment to the poor,
food to the jobless, you build walls of hatred for those who disagree
with you, for welfare recipients. You deny homosexuals freedom of choice
because you wish more power.
Let me tell you this. When a homosexual is denied the right to marry whom
he chooses, we all lose. The State has now begun a campaign of
interfering with the lives of individuals in a negative way.
Funny how you support minimal government interference so long as it
inflates your pocket book, but want Big Daddy Government when you wish to
impose your morals on others.
: Drew
: --
: =========================================================
: + "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
: + arrogance successfully!" +
: + -Drew Sutherland +
: + <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> +
: =========================================================
--
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Distribution:
Tim E. Lamb (tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: If "there is your equality", then why the outcry for legislative change?
Because a gay man can be fired from his job because he is gay.
: I said you must be on mushrooms because you were not making any sense. I
: guess I was just tired of all your stereotypical comments. If only you
I'm making plenty of sense. As for stereotypical comments, it's not as if
you rightoids aren't full of them. I've seen more sterotypical
politically correct bullshit out of the right than anywhere else.
: wouldn't be so jealous of people with more than you, and you would not be
: so angry.
Jealous of people with more than me? More what? I have everything I want
right now. (Except perhaps a car and a Pentum, both of which I shall have
within the next couple of years)
: If a social worker is convinced that someone's life is in danger, they
: have the power to ensure the kid does not go back. If they say otherwise,
: they would rather blame the government than to get off their buts and save
: the kid.
Your naivety is showing here. But I will leave this to Robin, who
probably knows more about the situation than I do. Suffice it to say, the
above statement is a load of hooey. You haven't read the news much.
Plenty of social workers have tried to fight for the children and have
tried to prevent the children from getting hurt, only to be blocked by
red tape and a government that cares more for profit and it's business
friends than human lives.
(That too is typical of the Right)
: Yes, and the BC socialists stay up and think of ways to rip off charities.
: Left wing governments are just as bad as Right ones.
WHat happens in BC has no relevance to the situation in Alberta.
: Ah, but Drew, Me, and Derek have things to do with Ralph's "rape" of the
: province right?
You and the rightoid brothers here condone, find excuses for and bend
over backwards to support the corruption in this province.
: bread from a hungry mother. I also kicked an old lady in front of a bus.
: Anything else I did? You seem to know me so good!
No, you personally didn't give that away, but you do support a government
that does, and you perpetuate the propoganda and hatred of the poor that
the Klein government is filled with.
: I am bitter when someone wants to make millions suffer for his own selfish
: reasons.
THan why do you support Klein and co?
Oh, it's ok if the poor, the young, the old, or anyone who dares speak
against the vast power of the Corporate State suffer.
Hell, conservatism is an ideology of suffering and hate.
: >-Jason Kodish
: Tim Lamb
: ___________________________________
: tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
: wa...@mail.compusmart.ab.ca
: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/warf/
: ___________________________________
--
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: lines. Those people who seek laws to do anything are seeking to
: control people through the power of the State.
The State has a role in protecting individuals from other individuals,
and in my opinion, a role for protecting individuals against external
economic factors. However, the State has no role in dictating the
personal preferences or relations of others.
The state has no business telling me whom I can and cannot enter a
contract with.
: You are falling into bad habits. Whenever you find yourself unequal to
: the task you label people and then do an imitation of the late Sen.
I am hardly unequal to the task. And I have no need to lable people. They
do it themselves. You seem to have a desire which is typical of the right
to control how others live their personal lives above and beyond the norm
which involves harming others.
: imagination---my posts on this newsgroup are so counter to
: conservative values and interests that only a witless fool would
: imagine otherwise.
And on with the rightoid insults. I am sorry if I don't believe your
nonsense about your posts being contrary to conservative vales. Perhaps you
could point me to the posts that aren't upholding corrupt rightoid values.
As to dictating what other people should do with
: their lives---it isn't me demanding laws and privilege on the sole
: basis of my sexual orientation.
Homosexuals are only demanding that they be treated the same as any
couple who wishes to enter into marriage. The only reason you refuse them
this is so that you may have more power over their lives. The fact
remains, you have no business telling anyone whom they can and cannot marry.
: following (to the best of my recollection): "That marriage be simply
: the public expression of a private devotion, and not be liable to
: government regulation or interference." This is not a conservative or
: liberal view of marriage, and decidedly not a socialist or religious
If you really believed the above, than you wouldn't have any problem at
all with homosexual marriages. So not only are you a control freak, but
you are lying to us. Not very good, my dear boy.
Not good at all.
: You constantly labour under the delusion that people have as simple,
: and simpleminded, a position on issues as you do. That they are
Hardly. I merely call things as they are. I call 'em as I see 'em.
Your insulting and rude behavior has painted you as yet another worthless
rightoid loser. My suggestion is that you procede to the nearest store
and buy yourself a life.
: the ludicrous platforms of the various political parties. In short,
: and I say this without at all meaning to inflame, you are dunderhead.
You are an asshole, and of course you meant that to inflame. I expected
much better from you. But in light of this, I can see that you are
particularly stupid, particularly pathetic, and are yet another worthless
rightoid.
So I raise my finger in the Trudeau salute, and pat yet another loser on
the head.
In conclusion, you can bite me.
John Sutherland
: Ah, but Drew, Me, and Derek have things to do with Ralph's "rape" of the
: province right?
Sssshhhhh! Tim, you're going to give away our greatest Secret <TM>!
John Sutherland
: I have been watching the reaction to Tim Lamb's posts with interest.
: Talk about raising people's blood pressure. :)
Damn he's good! I wish I was as good as him! <wistful tone> :)
: But for the record, Tim ---- White Anlgo Saxon Males are included in
: categories of prohibited discrimination under human rights legislation.
: The legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race,
: and ethnic origin. Unfortunately none of those categories prohibits
: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Unless there is some affirmative action policy in that
workplace. Then they are discriminated against. Period.
: Re: Children's rights. Alberta is the only province that has not
: endorsed the United Nations Charter on the rights of the child. The
: document is actually quite mild as delcarations of this sort go and I was
: shocked when Alberta would not endorse it. As far as your point about
: Child Welfare legislation, believe me our legislation is very poor and
: our system does not work.
Why oh why do we lay that at our government's feet? I agree that
tougher laws could be enacted, but how about some Social Workers who
care? Why must we legislate everything that has to deal with job
competence to death?
: It still amazes me that people are afraid of protection of our most
: vulnerable citizens.
But oh the outcry when someone wants to publish a pedophile
list! Can you say hypocrisy?
John Sutherland
: In article <4afkfd$h...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
: jsut...@gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) wrote:
: > Perhaps it is time for Jason to wake up and smell the coffee. By
: > its very definition, granting rights to homosexuals alone is an example
: > of 'special rights'. I agree with Tim that unfortunately, as long as we
: > as a society continue to find more and more groups to give rights too,
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: > the larger and larger will be the chasms that separate us as people.
: >
: I thought you people on the right were arguing that everyone is
: equal....but here you say you are giving rights to more people. Shouldn't
: we all have the same rights. That is all gay people want. We want to be
: treated the same in society as heterosexuals. We want to be able to
: publicly acknowledge our relationships and our families. Just because ours
: are different from yours does not make them less valid. So if you truly
: believe that we are all equal and all have the same rights why do you
: continue to deny basic marital rights to gay men and lesbians?
Perhaps you would like to take up with those who like to molest
children, and those who like to perform blood sacrifices, and those, and
those, etc. What you are asking for is to grant special rights to a
segment of the population that is less than 10%. Hello! Why the push
for it? The group is small, tight knit, and cohesive. Do what you want
in the group, but why ask for special status when you make up a miniscule
amount of the population? We all have the same rights. We can vote, we
shouldn't be fired from our jobs because of sexual preference (I agree
with your stance here), we have the right to live with whomever we choose
for however long we want. What society/government has done however is
set up rules and guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior for society
members to allow society to flourish. Rape, murder, stealing, these are
all bad things. Marrying someone of the same sex will not help society
as a whole. (IE-no population increase, no real lasting effects from
relationship, etc.) Look at it however you choose, but <10% of the
poulation that will not contribute to its growth as a whole doesn't
deserve any special mention except maybe in the history books thanks.
Chris Iggulden
Tim E. Lamb
>In article <4acedo$8...@bert.compusmart.ab.ca>, "Tim E. Lamb"
><tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>> WOMEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THESE POSITIONS! Some refuse to
>> accept this, and blame their lack of hard work on other reasons.
>Obviously you do not pay attention to the world you live in. While women
>comprise 52% of the population we are, nonetheless, a minority in terms of
>status. White Anglo men control business and politics in this country.
>When women do run for and achieve high political office they are often
>cast into negative terms for doing exactly what men do....jsut look at
>Margaret Thatcher or Lynn Macleod.
And men are never cast into negative terms? Mulroney? Lougheed?
Chris, politics is a dirty business, and you need a think skin to do it.
Most people will lose their former good reputation, but that is a
sacrifice you make in order to serve the public. Women have 52% of the
vote. What I am saying is that if they were TRULY fed up with the "White
Anglo men" who control everything, then they have the means to elect some
people who express their beliefs. Women are now just penetrating higher
up jobs, and I am not scared by this. I know I have confidence in my
abilities, and I hope a truly level playing field will arrive soon, where
gender, sexual preference does not come into play, just the qualifications
of the individual.
>> How is this acheived? You do not want equality, you want special rights.
>> I still think everyone should be equal. I don't believe that some people
>> are more special than others.
>Please tell me how bing able to marry the person I love is a special right>
But why must it be recognized by everyone? Is it the marriage you want,
or the "acceptance" from the straight community?
Marriage is a custom that demonstrates the love between a male and female.
I still suggest that the gay community create their own institution,
because you will just infuriate the straight community, and you will not
get acceptance from that.
>> They are protected! They are protected by things called "laws". If
>> anyone harms your children, they will come under the juridiction of the
>> judicial system.
>As the government cuts back on basic social services children are falling
>through the cracks. I have worked for 10 years with youth and as more
>institutional beds are being closed it more dangerous offenders are being
>placed in community based group homes. Often these are adolescent sex
>offenders. Moreover, as bed space tightens up children are not being
>removed from abusive situations when they should be.
Then obviously things must change then. No child should be forced to go
back to sexually-abusive adults. But I know with my little brother, when
he is "forced" to clean up his room (ie, if he doesn't he may lose TV
rights) he screams he is suffering child abuse, and he is 15! There needs
to be a clearer line between discipline and abuse, because some
well-intentioned parents are confused how to discipline.
>> And I have volunteered in public hospitals, and I have never seen a
>> homosexual refused entry.
>So what does that prove? The point I was trying to make was that it has
>been the gay community, without help from government, that reacted to the
>AIDS crisis.
No the gay community has NOT responded. Either has the straight
community. I find it repulsive that homosexual men are blaming the
government for getting AIDS, and saying the drug companies are
deliberately preventing a cure. If all gay males (and straight ones for
that matter) were to use condoms (not that hard to do!) then the amount of
new AIDS cases could fall by 100 times. Take some responsibility.
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Distribution:
ve...@compusmart.ab.ca wrote:
: Yeah right; not until he made at least one attempt to have a sheister on the
: bottom rung of legal-aid try and do some sabre-rattling with the old
: "discrimination" card.
He attempted to stand up for his freedom. You know what freedom is, you
wothless pile of dung?
: And you comment on them? As for why, you're a Kodish; our submission to
: Websters as the newest colloquialism for 'idiot'. No other reason than you're
: *absolutely*.....
Any subission form an evil liar like yourself isn't worth much. But
that's ok, you aren't worth much either. THat's why you hate me so much.
But there is a way that can be aliviated, you fat old freak.
: Yeah, Kodish, we blame you. Now stop whining and pick up your end here.
: Progress doesn't want to keep spinning its wheels in first gear.....
Bite me, asshole.
: waiting at the bank.
: (sigh) Oh well, I'll just have to re-schedule lunch with Jim Dinning to AFTER
: I get back.....
I always knew you were a bum and a hypocrite. My only hope is that it all
catches up with you, old man, and that you die in misery.
: >
: >: all countries fall overnight. Of course all the millions of people who
: >: would be unemployed because of this will all unite and form a Utopia of
: >: happiness.
: >
: >We a bit bitter,Tim-bo?
: >
: >
: >
: >: >-Jason Kodish
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >: Tim Lamb
: >: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/warf/
: >
: >
Barry Bruyea
>
>
>The only case that kids have against the government is the voting age.
>Ask any 16 year old kid who is in school. I bet they know a lot more
>about the political system than do their parents. (When I was 12, I knew
>more about politics than either parent). So why should a knowledgeable 16
>year old not be allowed to vote for a government that will undoubtably
>affect them?
>
>>Jason Kodish
>
Jason says that when he was 12 he knew more about politics than his
parents. I believe him. Unfortunetly, he hasn't progressed much past
that..
Barry Bruyea
Tim E. Lamb
>: I have been watching the reaction to Tim Lamb's posts with interest.
>: Talk about raising people's blood pressure. :)
> Damn he's good! I wish I was as good as him! <wistful tone> :)
This is nothing. You should see me in the hockey groups! (right Drew?;)
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Distribution:
John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: Perhaps you would like to take up with those who like to molest
: children, and those who like to perform blood sacrifices, and those, and
None of these involve concent. We've been through that all before.
: those, etc. What you are asking for is to grant special rights to a
: segment of the population that is less than 10%. Hello! Why the push
What special rights are these that are being asked for. You rightoids
can't even name them,,
: amount of the population? We all have the same rights. We can vote, we
: shouldn't be fired from our jobs because of sexual preference (I agree
: with your stance here), we have the right to live with whomever we choose
You rightoids want to be able to fire people because of their sexual
prefference. You rightoids want to deny gays the right to marry. All part
of your ever growing hunger to control other's lives.
: members to allow society to flourish. Rape, murder, stealing, these are
: all bad things.>
All of these involve non concenting acts.
: as a whole. (IE-no population increase, no real lasting effects from
: relationship, etc.) Look at it however you choose, but <10% of the
I see. So infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry either. And
couples should be forced by government law to have children.
Good job Drew. Finally showing your true colours.
: poulation that will not contribute to its growth as a whole doesn't
: deserve any special mention except maybe in the history books thanks.
Yup. Thanks for paying only lip service to rights and freedoms of the
individual. THanks for beating up on welfare recipients and the poor, and
whining about government intervention and taxes yet demanding government
intervention on marriage and the rights of gays. Thanks for bproving how
hypocritical, and evil the conservative ideology is. How concerned with
power and control. You couldn't give much of a sh*t if a poor child goes
hungry or a homeless man freezes to death, but it's a big deal if two
concenting adults of the same sex decide to marry each other.
That is moral cowardice of the highest order. And it is utterly repugnent.
More proof that rightoids are vile bastards who only seek to make others
suffer.
: Drew
: --
: =========================================================
: + "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
: + arrogance successfully!" +
: + -Drew Sutherland +
: + <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> +
: =========================================================
--
Tim E. Lamb
>>>Jason Kodish
> Barry Bruyea
Oops! Made a little booboo there Barry:)
It was me who wrote that little passage, not Jason.
His name was left there because I was responding to his post.
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: ...an accurate assessment. Welcome to his nightmare.
You are the nightmare, Slouch. But the dream will be over soon.
You're old and your worthless. Maybe this latest snowfall will be the one.
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Distribution:
Tim E. Lamb (tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: Then lets say I demanded everyone accept me, and that me or my group could
: not lose our jobs for picking our nose at the job. Then we demanded
On the job. Of course you can be fired for that. There are very clear
reasons behind that. (Health, cleanliness, and image). A gay man can be
fired if he flirts with the customers on a job as well. I have no problem
with that. However, what has happened is more like the following: I go
home and I pick my nose, my boss finds out about it and fires me.
Whether I pick my nose on my off time is neither yours, my boss's, nor
the government's business.
: spousal benefits (but a nose-picker can have up to 15 mates at the same
Perhaps we should get rid of spousal benefits alltogether.
Problem with you conservatives is you support handouts so long as you're
the ones getting them.
: Well, according to an article in the Edmonton Sun a few months back, the
: number of homosexual men who used a condom was VERY low, especially when
Oh, my, now the Edmonton Sun. Now there's a paper without an agenda.
Totally unbiased news. I gotta LAUGH!
: Yes.
Then why all the heartlessness?
Conservatism must have blackened your heart to this.
: Tim Lamb
: ___________________________________
: tim...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
: wa...@mail.compusmart.ab.ca
: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/warf/
: ___________________________________
--
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Distribution:
John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: The fact that they feel that they need special protection because
: of sexual preference when that is already guaranteed in the Charter.
: Period. I already have it, they already have it.
They don't have the right to marry, and can be fired from jobs because of
their sexuality. Therefore, they do not have it.
Besides, you rightoids have come out time and time against the CHarter
(Which is supposed to protect us against the actions of Big Government
more than anything else)
: <snip>
: Drew
: --
: =========================================================
: + "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
: + arrogance successfully!" +
: + -Drew Sutherland +
: + <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> +
: =========================================================
--
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: tougher laws could be enacted, but how about some Social Workers who
How about a government that cares. You ever talk to any child social
service workers or are you doing the typical little Drew thing, spouting
off at the mouth without knowing a thing abour what you are talking about.
:
: But oh the outcry when someone wants to publish a pedophile
: list! Can you say hypocrisy?
Untill we bashed you into it, you wanted to publish a list of
suspected(not convicted) pedophiles.
It was yet another example of your power hunger. A way of punishing
dissidents by having their names on pedophile lists even though they've
never been convicted of any crime. That's what you were arguing for..
Had that idiocy gone through, I could have very well found myself on such
a list because of ve6yj's slander. (The fat old bastard who's constantly
harrassing me here)
Chris Iggulden
jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) wrote:
> Chris Iggulden (iggu...@cadvision.com) wrote:
> : In article <4afkfd$h...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
> : jsut...@gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) wrote:
>
> Perhaps you would like to take up with those who like to molest
> children, and those who like to perform blood sacrifices, and those, and
> those, etc.
What exactly should I take up with these people? THese people are breaking
the law and they have nothing to do with gay and lesbian people. It is not
a crime to be homosexual but it should be a crime to diescriminate against
us. Discrimination and hatred often lead to violence. We only need to look
south of the border wehre a lesbian couple were killed in Oregon simpy
because of who they were.
What you are asking for is to grant special rights to a
> segment of the population that is less than 10%. Hello! Why the push
> for it? The group is small, tight knit, and cohesive. Do what you want
> in the group, but why ask for special status when you make up a miniscule
> amount of the population?
We don't want special rights! We want to be able to do what heterosexual
people do...and to recieve the same benefits. It does not matter that we
comprise 10% of the population or 2% of the population...we are here and
we are not going away. Obviously you know nothing about the gay community
when you state it is small and cohesive...it is neither. Look we live in
this society and we pay taxes jsut like you so we deserve the same rights
as you.
We all have the same rights. We can vote, we
> shouldn't be fired from our jobs because of sexual preference (I agree
> with your stance here), we have the right to live with whomever we choose
> for however long we want.
That is good...then why does it extend that gay people should not marry
who they choose and have it legally sanctioned?
What society/government has done however is
> set up rules and guidelines as to what is acceptable behavior for society
> members to allow society to flourish. Rape, murder, stealing, these are
> all bad things.
Gay people contribute to society and allow it to flourish. Why do you keep
lumping homosexuals with criminals? Homosexuality is not a crime in this
country and the analogy is misleading.
Marrying someone of the same sex will not help society
> as a whole. (IE-no population increase, no real lasting effects from
> relationship, etc.)
So then we decide who can marry based on their ability to add to the
population? Where do infertile couples, couples who choose to remain
childless, and older couples fit into this narrow biological paradigm?
Look at it however you choose, but <10% of the
> poulation that will not contribute to its growth as a whole doesn't
> deserve any special mention except maybe in the history books thanks.
Well what a judgement. Gay people have contributed greatly to society as a
whole. ( I did my MA on gay and lesbian history). Many of the great
artists, composers, philosophers etc were gay. Not to mention the average
joe who just goes to work every day (like straight people I might add),
does a good job nad pays his taxes.
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Jason says that when he was 12 he knew more about politics than his
: parents. I believe him. Unfortunetly, he hasn't progressed much past
: that..
Learn to read, you pathetic imbicile. That was Tim that said that.
No go find a wall and bang your head into it 10 times while saying "I'm
so stupid...I'm so stupid"
: Barry Bruyea
Darren Crooks
iggu...@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) says...
>Clearly Mulroney has earned the denigration he has recieved. I have not
>heard negative things about Lougheed and actually I think he was ok as
>politicians go. My point was missed by you though. What I was getting at
>is that when women do similar things to men as politicians they are
>negatively labeled. Thatcher for example was no more or less strident than
>her male colleagues yet she was cast as an aggressive woman...if it had
>been a man he would have been assertive or showing leadership. Women are
>socialized in our society to defer to men and male power. This is why
>women, although numerically a majority, have minority status. It is also
>why women do not exercise their franchise in a manner you describe above.
>It is not as simple as you make it out to be. Women face more obstacles as
>a result of societal conditioning of both men and women. A level playing
>field will only emerge when men are compelled to give up their positions
>of power and control.
>
This is the biggest crock of shit I've read on Usenet. Ever. Period. In law,
it is men who are treated as second-class citizens. Men are routinely, for
every type of crime, given stiffer sentences than women. Women are routinely
awarded custody of children after a divorce, and fathers have to practically
beg to see their kids again. Women who withhold custody (a criminal offense)
are almost *never* prosecuted. Men who have consensual sex with women can be
arrested for (and summarily convicted of) rape *if* their partner chooses to
merely accuse him of it. The defendant must *prove* his innocence or else will
face conviction. This is a complete revocation of our legal rights under
our justice system, which (until it was hijacked by radical feminists) assumed
you were innocent until proven guilty.
So tell me ... If I have all the "power and control" in this society, why do I
have less legal rights than women do?
--
Darren C.
Dust as we are, the immortal spirit grows
Like harmony in music: There is a dark, inscrutable workmanship,
That binds discordant elements; makes them cling together
In one society.
John Sutherland
: This is nothing. You should see me in the hockey groups! (right Drew?;)
Again, you are the pinnacle to which I aspire! <RBG>
John Sutherland
: > : John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: >
: > The fact that they feel that they need special protection because
: > of sexual preference when that is already guaranteed in the Charter.
: > Period. I already have it, they already have it.
: Obviously you lack an understanding of our federal state. Protection in
: the Charter only applies to federal areas of jurisdiction. Protection at
: the provincial level is also paramount.
Not if you are as die-hard a federalist as I am. Realistically
as well, the Charter is only precedential in Federal matters as a matter
of course. However, in terms of legalistic discussions, the Charter can
be used in provincial matters as well.
John Sutherland
: In article <4akncg$6...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
: jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) wrote:
: > Perhaps you would like to take up with those who like to molest
: > children, and those who like to perform blood sacrifices, and those, and
: > those, etc.
: What exactly should I take up with these people? THese people are breaking
: the law and they have nothing to do with gay and lesbian people.
Ahh, but the point was that they are also small, relatively
insignificant groups in the population. If they had their way, they
would also change the laws to give them sanction.
: > What you are asking for is to grant special rights to a
: > segment of the population that is less than 10%. Hello! Why the push
: > for it? The group is small, tight knit, and cohesive. Do what you want
: > in the group, but why ask for special status when you make up a miniscule
: > amount of the population?
: We don't want special rights! We want to be able to do what heterosexual
: people do...and to recieve the same benefits. It does not matter that we
: comprise 10% of the population or 2% of the population...we are here and
: we are not going away. Obviously you know nothing about the gay community
: when you state it is small and cohesive...it is neither. Look we live in
: this society and we pay taxes jsut like you so we deserve the same rights
: as you.
Sorry, but the few members I know of the gay community are just
that. Cohesive. I agree that you pay the same taxes as me, but
unfortunately, you are not able to give to society what it originally
established the convention of marriage for. If you want to fight for it,
go ahead. Don't be so shocked however at the inertia present.
: > Marrying someone of the same sex will not help society
: > as a whole. (IE-no population increase, no real lasting effects from
: > relationship, etc.)
: So then we decide who can marry based on their ability to add to the
: population? Where do infertile couples, couples who choose to remain
: childless, and older couples fit into this narrow biological paradigm?
See my post to Jason regarding this.
<snip>
John Sutherland
: Organization: Edmonton Freenet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
: Distribution:
: John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: : The fact that they feel that they need special protection because
: : of sexual preference when that is already guaranteed in the Charter.
: : Period. I already have it, they already have it.
: They don't have the right to marry, and can be fired from jobs because of
: their sexuality. Therefore, they do not have it.
Sure they can be fired from their jobs because of their
sexuality, so can I. However, such actions are illegal! Thought you
might like to know. As for the marrying issue, don't drag up a dead
issue that we have put to rest a few threads ago.
John Sutherland
: John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
<snip>
: : as a whole. (IE-no population increase, no real lasting effects from
: : relationship, etc.) Look at it however you choose, but <10% of the
: I see. So infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry either. And
: couples should be forced by government law to have children.
: Good job Drew. Finally showing your true colours.
Jason, what we were talking about here is the society convention
of marriage. It's based on a lot of things, much of which is
traditional. If you can't take the time to read the posts I'm responding
too, shut the hell up.
John Sutherland
: How about a government that cares. You ever talk to any child social
: service workers or are you doing the typical little Drew thing, spouting
: off at the mouth without knowing a thing abour what you are talking about.
Happened to be married to one. I guess that makes my information
fresh compared to your CBC spoon-fed drivel.
: : But oh the outcry when someone wants to publish a pedophile
: : list! Can you say hypocrisy?
: Untill we bashed you into it, you wanted to publish a list of
: suspected(not convicted) pedophiles.
Yet again Jason knew all along what I was thinking. Why do we
bother to post our opinions kids? Jason already knows what are feelings
are on the subject. Makes our posting rather redundant I guess.
<snip Jason's paranoid delusions>
Jason Kodish
>
> Happened to be married to one. I guess that makes my information
>fresh compared to your CBC spoon-fed drivel.
And what can you relay to us beyond propogandistic spew? You've never told
us storied about child care workers who don't care. Just some prattle and
generalizations.
> Yet again Jason knew all along what I was thinking. Why do we
>bother to post our opinions kids? Jason already knows what are feelings
You said it! In your post! I didn't have to know what you were thinking.
I read your words.
Sheesh! You are impossible!
>
>Drew
>
>--
>=========================================================
>+ "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
>+ arrogance successfully!" +
>+ -Drew Sutherland +
>+ <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> +
>=========================================================
>
--
Jason Kodish
Thirring Institute for Applied Gravitational Research
Thirring homepage: http://www.geopages.com/siliconvalley/1659
______________________________________________________________________
Onwards UNION brothers! Marching proud and TRUE! Fighting for what's
RIGHT! Fighting for what's JUST. Fighting against Rightoid ideology
of greed and lust.
Jason Kodish
>
>
> Jason, what we were talking about here is the society convention
>of marriage. It's based on a lot of things, much of which is
There is more to marriage than societial convention. There's obviously
a legal recognition.
>traditional. If you can't take the time to read the posts I'm responding
>too, shut the hell up.
Oh, Drew. Your colours shine even more. Because I oppose you, you wish me
to shut up. Tell you what,Drew. You stop pretending to be a man who believes
in liberty of the individual, and I'll shut up.
We know what you stand for now, Drew.
Jason Kodish
>
>insignificant groups in the population. If they had their way, they
>would also change the laws to give them sanction.
>
I see. So if only 10% of the population is from the Southern tip of Malasia
we should strip Malasian South tippers of all their rights.
Good job, Drew.
Michael Henry
the Charter is only precedential in Federal matters as a matter
>of course. However, in terms of legalistic discussions, the Charter can
>be used in provincial matters as well.
>
Well folks, I'm afraid Drew is right on this one. The Canadian Charter
applies to the actions of both the Federal and Provincial/Territorial
Governments. What it does not cover is the private sector, which is
dealt with in provincial human rights (in Alberta - The Individual Rights
Protection Act) legislation.
mhe...@ccinet.ab.ca
Michael Henry
MLA Edmonton Centre
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Distribution:
PKolding (pkol...@cts.com) wrote:
: iggu...@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:
: All the "benefits" of marriage are available to anyone who marries
: someone of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with
But none of them to anyone who marries the same sex. Isn't it funny how
you conservatives hollar and wail when anyone tries taxing you, yet seem
to think, all of a sudden it's time to put your nose into other's lives
when it comes to marriage.
Conservatism=hypocricy.
PKolding
>But that point aside...lets play it your way for a
>minute...heterosexuals have special rights becasue they can get married
>and recieve tax breaks, spousal benefits and adopt children.
All the "benefits" of marriage are available to anyone who marries
someone of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with
it. There are plenty of homosexual ex-husbands living in basements
today, and having their wages garnisheed for maintenance just like
their heterosexual brothers.
PKolding
>jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) wrote:
>>
>>: But for the record, Tim ---- White Anlgo Saxon Males are included in
>>: categories of prohibited discrimination under human rights legislation.
>>: The legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race,
>>: and ethnic origin. Unfortunately none of those categories prohibits
>>: discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
>>
>> Unless there is some affirmative action policy in that
>>workplace. Then they are discriminated against. Period.
>Drew: stop changing the subject every time you cannot refute a point!
> My comment is specific to categories of prohibited
> discrimination. Affirmative action is a related but different
> topic.
You are either genuinely ignorant or are avoiding the issue yourself.
The "categories of prohibited discrimination" are set out in CCRF
Section 15 (1). However, 15 (2) gives the government the power to make
ANY law, program or activity NOTWITHSTANDING Section 15 (1), if it has
as its object "the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged
individuals or groups". This is the part of the Charter that allows
Affirmative Action laws, programs and activities even though they
discriminate and break Section 15(1). And who are these
"disadvantaged" groups? That too is spelt out in legislation: Women,
Aboriginal Peoples, Visible Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities.
Just take a moment to figure out who are the *only* people not
included in the above four "disadvantaged" groups.....: non-disabled
white males. *Everybody else* in society is protected from
discriminatory acts except this group, BY LAW. Everybody else can go
to the Human Rights Councils for protection from and redress off
discrimination, at taxpayers expense, except NDWM. And what is one of
the main tools the Human Rights Councils uses in prosecuting the cases
brought to them? That's right---AA programs that discriminate against
men contrary to CCRF Section 15 (1), but are allowed under the Section
15 (2).
People who legislate, enforce and support AA are worse than Nazis, and
will one day receive a similar fate.
PKolding
>I have been watching the reaction to Tim Lamb's posts with interest.
>Talk about raising people's blood pressure. :)
>But for the record, Tim ---- White Anlgo Saxon Males are included in
>categories of prohibited discrimination under human rights legislation.
>The legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race,
>and ethnic origin.
I have before me the Canadian Human Rights Commission's Annual Report.
The enforcement and extension of "Employment Equity" is one of its
principal policies. Those people not in the following groups will be,
and by law must be, discriminated against deliberately: Women;
Aboriginal Peoples; Visible Minorities; and Persons with Disabilities.
I trust the calculation of which group---the only group that shall be
discriminated against by law---is within your powers.
>Unfortunately none of those categories prohibits
>discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
So what? What good are discrimiantion laws when Section 15 . (2)
exists in the Charter of Rights?
John Sutherland
: In article <4asfgm$1a...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> jsut...@gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca writes:
: >
: > Happened to be married to one. I guess that makes my information
: >fresh compared to your CBC spoon-fed drivel.
: And what can you relay to us beyond propogandistic spew? You've never told
: us storied about child care workers who don't care. Just some prattle and
: generalizations.
I haven't relayed anything to you because of small things like
confidentiality, etc. What I have seen however is enough for me to know
that there is a large proportion of care workers in that profession who
don't seem to give a flying blank about the kids they are 'caring' for.
: > Yet again Jason knew all along what I was thinking. Why do we
: >bother to post our opinions kids? Jason already knows what are feelings
: You said it! In your post! I didn't have to know what you were thinking.
: I read your words.
No Jason, what you did is interpret my words. Check Webster's
again about the difference between reading and interpreting.
John Sutherland
: jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) wrote:
: >
: >: The legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, race,
: > Unless there is some affirmative action policy in that
: Drew: stop changing the subject every time you cannot refute a point!
: My comment is specific to categories of prohibited
: discrimination. Affirmative action is a related but different
: topic. For the record, I believe affirmative action can be the
: best or worst depending on how it is designed and implemented.
: Quotas or the Ont Rae gov't model are, I believe among the
: worst.
Actually, the point wasn't mine to refute. What I was merely
showing was that Affirmative Action is discrimination of the highest
sort! Legalized discrimination. Regardless of what other laws are in
place to prevent discrimination in the workplace I can see the point
about it perhaps working, however, I have yet to see that translated
into the real world.
: : Re: Children's rights. As far as your point about Child Welfare
: legislation, believe me our legislation is very poor and our system does
: not work.
: >
: > Why oh why do we lay that at our government's feet? I agree that
: >tougher laws could be enacted, but how about some Social Workers who
: >care?
: Drew: Unfortunately the current Minister punishes any social services
: employee that speaks out or does any action outside of what is legislated
: and mandated by department policy. This puts the social worker who cares
: in a very difficult position.
This is deplorable, but please, there are more and better ways to
talk about the situation than by saying things that will seem
inflammatory to the powers that be. Talk to jen, she loves stuff like that.
: >: It still amazes me that people are afraid of protection of our most
: >: vulnerable citizens.
: >
: > But oh the outcry when someone wants to publish a pedophile
: >list!
: Drew: Again, for the reord, you have never heard such an outcry from
: me. In fact, quite the contrary!
Gosh, where were you this summer?
Timothy Huyer
Organization: Department of Economics
Distribution:
John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: Michael Henry (mhe...@ccinet.ab.ca) wrote:
: : jsut...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) wrote:
: Actually, the point wasn't mine to refute. What I was merely
: showing was that Affirmative Action is discrimination of the highest
: sort! Legalized discrimination. Regardless of what other laws are in
: place to prevent discrimination in the workplace I can see the point
: about it perhaps working, however, I have yet to see that translated
: into the real world.
It is important to note that discrimination is a problem if and only
if it leads to social inequality based on morally irrelevant characteristics.
By morally irrelevant, it is clear that discrimination, under a
careful definition occurs all the time -- the employer discriminates
between the competent employee and the incompetent, the professor between
the bright student and the moron, etc.. Morally irrelevant
characteristics would include but not be limited to: gender, age, race,
religion, sexual orientation.
Since my terminology might very well be exclusively mine, I will
explain further. By morally irrelevant characteristic, I mean that, to
ethically discriminate, one cannot use characteristics which are morally
irrelevant. Eg., the ethical prof can judge a student based on
performance on a fair examination, but not on skin colour.
By social inequality, the median member of a demographic group
identified by a morally irrelevant characteristic is socially unequal to the
median member of other demographic groups so defined. Social inequality
can include economic and political power, but is not necessarily limited
to those criteria.
Thus, affirmative action is not a problem -- it is not morally
wrong since its goal is to reduce social inequalities. It does not,
therefore, merit the condemnation that you put into the word
"discrimination".
: This is deplorable, but please, there are more and better ways to
: talk about the situation than by saying things that will seem
: inflammatory to the powers that be. Talk to jen, she loves stuff like that.
In the case of social workers, they are obligated to remain confidential
regarding their clients. They have limited, if any (in Alberta), ability
to complain about govt policy that negatively affects their ability to do
their job -- such policies as case load, procedures that must be
followed, and so on. They have no direct influence over the policy that
defines their working conditions, they get fired if they attempt to
indirectly influence same. Under even reasonable circumstances their
jobs entail significant stress.
You argue that these social workers have some option. Please
outline it.
: + "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
: + arrogance successfully!" +
: + -Drew Sutherland +
Practice humility.
--
Tim Huyer, Graduate Studies | "A bloated deficit is more like having a
Department of Economics | few termites in the house: ... a little
Queen's University, Canada | procrastination will do only a little damage,
huy...@qed.econ.queensu.ca | and an excessively strong pesticide might do
4t...@qlink.queensu.ca | more harm than good." A. Blinder (Princeton)
- My opinions do not necessarily reflect my views or those of anyone else -
John Sutherland
: John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: : I haven't relayed anything to you because of small things like
: : confidentiality, etc. What I have seen however is enough for me to know
: You don't have to relay names. Just circumstances.
Then let me give you one. Both the head of a certain program and
the principal of a school knew of a teenager's previous record of sexual
offences perpetrated on the teenager's family. When this teenager was
brought into the context of where my wife worked with other teenagers
(most especially an autistic boy), she was told none of this. Lo and
behold, less than 1 month later, the first teenager had perped on the
autistic boy. When my wife found out about the prior knowledge of her
supervisor and this principal, she asked the supervisor about it. He
agreed he knew, but that it wasn't important for my wife or any of the
other staff who worked under her to know. One example, of which I have a
plethora more.
: : No Jason, what you did is interpret my words. Check Webster's
: : again about the difference between reading and interpreting.
: No dear Drew, your words were quite clear. You backed down when it was
: finally revealed what a fascist little rightoid idea that was, and
: started going on about lists of convicted pedophiles, but your original
: words clearly put suspects on those lists. And you defended that..
The fact I defended was for released inmates to have their names
published. Hmmm, let me look at that statement again. Yes, inmates who
are released seem to be already convicted. I'll even analyze my
examples. Hmmm, released convicts moving in next door was my scenario.
Yes, again there is that convict word. I did say that those who were
suspected worried me a little to be put on the list, but my main thrust
was for convicted pedophiles all along. Tell you what Jason, next time
you think you know what I mean, ask me. That makes it so much easier
down the road. Until then, don't try and guess as to what I am talking
about. If it ain't clear to you I probably intended it that way.
Drew
--
=========================================================
+ "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
+ arrogance successfully!" +
+ -Drew Sutherland +
+ <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> +
=========================================================
John Sutherland
: : This is deplorable, but please, there are more and better ways to
: : talk about the situation than by saying things that will seem
: : inflammatory to the powers that be. Talk to jen, she loves stuff like that.
: Oh, my, how dare we question the Corporate Statists in power now? How
: dare we speak out about a government that cares so little for anyone
: earning under a certain income.
Actually Jason, although I know you can't fathom the idea, I was
thinking of using tact. Instead of, "The Minister and the rest of the
bureaucracy sucks! My hands are tied when I try to do anything because
of the fascist tendencies of the Powers That Be!", why not try, "I've
been reaching out to the children, but I have not had success since I
need more development for my program. The fundamental purpose of my job
is not being fulfilled and thus the children are being neglected."
Notice a difference?
jko...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: I haven't relayed anything to you because of small things like
: confidentiality, etc. What I have seen however is enough for me to know
:
You don't have to relay names. Just circumstances.
that there is a large proportion of care workers in that profession who
: don't seem to give a flying blank about the kids they are 'caring' for.
A large portion? I question that. But you've provided no proof.
: No Jason, what you did is interpret my words. Check Webster's
: again about the difference between reading and interpreting.
No dear Drew, your words were quite clear. You backed down when it was
finally revealed what a fascist little rightoid idea that was, and
started going on about lists of convicted pedophiles, but your original
words clearly put suspects on those lists. And you defended that..
: Drew
: --
: =========================================================
: + "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
: + arrogance successfully!" +
: + -Drew Sutherland +
: + <jsut...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> +
: =========================================================
--
Michael Henry
>Just take a moment to figure out who are the *only* people not
>included in the above four "disadvantaged" groups.....: non-disabled
>white males. *Everybody else* in society is protected from
>discriminatory acts except this group, BY LAW. Everybody else can go
>to the Human Rights Councils for protection from and redress off
>discrimination, at taxpayers expense, except NDWM. And what is one of
>the main tools the Human Rights Councils uses in prosecuting the cases
>brought to them? That's right---AA programs that discriminate against
>men contrary to CCRF Section 15 (1), but are allowed under the Section
>15 (2).
The fact is that if a NDWM is discriminated against, there is protection
in law. I concede that generally Human Rights legislation allows such
discrmination where is is justifiable and reasonable. Defining that is
where we might differ. For example, reduced bus fares for seniors or
reduced ticket prices for students is a form of discrimination, but we
generally hold those to be reasonable.
>
>People who legislate, enforce and support AA are worse than Nazis, and
>will one day receive a similar fate.
>
I suspect we may not be that far off in agreeing on AA. I do not
support quotas, but there is room for measures that break down barriers
to minority participation. One example is U of Sask Law School. Many
years ago the school noted that while natives were major users of legal
services, there were not many native lawyers, no role models for young
natives. The school identified that young natives were entering
undergrad, but seldom made in into and through law school. By mentoring
and tutoring, the school helped students qualify and get through the law
school. The students wrote the same assignments, exams, etc and met the
same criteria. This is an example of affirmative action that worked.
>
--
Michael Henry
John Sutherland
: : other staff who worked under her to know. One example, of which I have a
: : plethora more.
: That, as I have frequently pointed out was the doing of the superviser,
: not the fron line workers. The people I say care are the people who have
: direct contact, every day, with the kids. Your wife, likely being one of
: them.
: The supervisors and the government have turned blind eyes to horrible
: abuses, and when those abuses were pointed out by the children's
: advocate, the rightoids running this province drummed him out of his job.
And what pray tell are the social workers? When was the last
time any of them met with the children outside of case conferences? Not
too damn often.
: Very clever, Drew. Very clever. Sneak it under a decent idea. What your
: main thrust is, is utterly irrelevant. Once again, right above, right
: here you state(in a convoluted manner though) that you want suspected
: pedophiles put on a public list. Problem is, and evidenced right here in
: this newsgroup with old man panker's accuasations against me, is that you
: rightoids will use that list to silence opposition. It will be a tool of
: opression.
Jason, if you think Ed or I or Tim or whoever would be able to
use a list like that as a tool shows two things: Delusions of granduer
(even if it were possible, why would we take the time?), and paranoia.
YOu know, they have drugs out now for just such problems.
John Sutherland
: John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: : Actually, the point wasn't mine to refute. What I was merely
Actually it does discriminate along two of your 'testing points',
gender and race. If the company is hiring for a position, but their AA
tallies are a little low in the female visible minority column, it
doesn't matter how many men apply or for that matter how many females not
of a visible minority apply. All it takes is one female of a visible
minority to apply and she has the job. All things being equal, how can
you say that isn't discrimination?
: You argue that these social workers have some option. Please
: outline it.
Already have. Please check on of my other posts.
: : + "Humility is for those who can't carry off +
: : + arrogance successfully!" +
: : + -Drew Sutherland +
: Practice humility.
Sorry, arrogance is just too fun. Seems to me you already know that.
Timothy Huyer
: Timothy Huyer (huy...@qed.uucp) wrote:
There are many times when people do not understand my posts which are
completely my fault. However, there are other times when the source of
the confusion is clearly covered in a part of my post. In the latter,
albeit more rare case, simply READING my post, rather than just hitting
the follow-up command, would prevent confusion.
: : It is important to note that discrimination is a problem if and only
: : if it leads to social inequality based on morally irrelevant characteristics.
[ ... ]
: : By social inequality, the median member of a demographic group
: : identified by a morally irrelevant characteristic is socially unequal to the
: : median member of other demographic groups so defined. Social inequality
: : can include economic and political power, but is not necessarily limited
: : to those criteria.
: : Thus, affirmative action is not a problem -- it is not morally
: : wrong since its goal is to reduce social inequalities. It does not,
: : therefore, merit the condemnation that you put into the word
: : "discrimination".
: Actually it does discriminate along two of your 'testing points',
: gender and race.
Please read the part of my earlier post which I cited. There is no
problem so long as the programme serves to reduce social inequalities.
haw...@ibm.net
>: iggu...@cadvision.com (Chris Iggulden) wrote:
>: All the "benefits" of marriage are available to anyone who marries
>: someone of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with
>
>But none of them to anyone who marries the same sex. Isn't it funny how
>you conservatives hollar and wail when anyone tries taxing you, yet seem
>to think, all of a sudden it's time to put your nose into other's lives
>when it comes to marriage.
Jason, you are confusing matters here. Failing to create explicit
supporting infrastructure for something doesn't "put (our) nose
into" anyone's lives. The government does nothing, Jason, that
would affect "marriage" for homosexuals.
Homosexuals can do whatever they want to do, and they can imagine
a god (or even several of them) looking down upon their union as
sacred if they so wish. That doesn't create a case for
governments to do anything active about them, and the fact that
governments don't actually do anything (eg- create tax benefits,
social guarantees, or whatever) means that the collective nose of
government is specifically not being put into their lives.
To rephrase the matter in an attempt to make it clear to you, the
lack of explicit support for something does not mean that there
is suppression of that same something.
Glenn Mor
haw...@ibm.net
>Tell you what Jason, next time
>you think you know what I mean, ask me. That makes it so much easier
>down the road. Until then, don't try and guess as to what I am talking
>about.
Ah, yes... Jason does have a tendency to insert his own arguments
in place of those of other people, since he has a much easier
time arguing against them.
Glenn Mor
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Distribution:
haw...@ibm.net wrote:
: Jason, you are confusing matters here. Failing to create explicit
: supporting infrastructure for something doesn't "put (our) nose
: into" anyone's lives. The government does nothing, Jason, that
: would affect "marriage" for homosexuals.
The denial of marriage to individuals who love each other deaply does
mean you are putting your nose into people's lives. The fact that you
deny that choice to people shows the hunger for power you posses.
: governments don't actually do anything (eg- create tax benefits,
: social guarantees, or whatever) means that the collective nose of
: government is specifically not being put into their lives.
Why should homosexuals who pay taxes be denied access to married benefits
because you don't like their union. Is your desire to tell people how to
live there lives *that* strong?
: lack of explicit support for something does not mean that there
: is suppression of that same something.
The law denies gays the right to marry.
As does your desire to control their lives.
But then we knew that. Rightoids aren't interested in liberty.
THey're interested in control.
: Glenn Mor
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: And if you were to consider this aspect a little farther, you
: would notice that a "legal recognition" amounts to the insertion
: of government into peoples' lives.
Then mabey it's time to take government out of the marriage business
altogether.
jko...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: In <4b4ien$h...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, jsut...@gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca (John Sutherland) writes:
: Ah, yes... Jason does have a tendency to insert his own arguments
: in place of those of other people, since he has a much easier
: time arguing against them.
I do not, Glenn. Knock it off.
haw...@ibm.net
>: governments don't actually do anything (eg- create tax benefits,
>: social guarantees, or whatever) means that the collective nose of
>: government is specifically not being put into their lives.
>
>Why should homosexuals who pay taxes be denied access to married benefits
>because you don't like their union.
For the same reasons bachelors are denied access to such
benefits. They aren't part of a process that governments are
trying to encourage by subsidy.
>Is your desire to tell people how to live there lives *that* strong?
???? As I keep pointing out to you (and it may sink in
eventually), what people do with their lives is their business,
and I would neither abet nor hinder them from doing whatever they
want as consenting adults in the privacy of their bedrooms.
To pass to another discussion we have had, on your posting style,
this is another example of your attempting to create a "straw
man" against which to argue. Nothing that I have posted indicates
any desire to control anyone's life, Jason, and you're just being
deliberately obtuse to keep trying to claim the contrary (I don't
believe this to be caused by stupidity, the only other
explanation)
>But then we knew that. Rightoids aren't interested in liberty.
>THey're interested in control.
Ah, yes, Jason's obligatory personal attack; at least one in
every post.
Glenn Mor
haw...@ibm.net
>: haw...@ibm.net wrote:
>: And if you were to consider this aspect a little farther, you
>: would notice that a "legal recognition" amounts to the insertion
>: of government into peoples' lives.
>
>
>Then maybe it's time to take government out of the marriage business
>altogether.
Yes!!! The light has dawned!!!
This is exactly what we should do. Unfortunately the more
"bleeding heart" segments of our Society will exert so much
pressure to maintain all the state intervention that it is
unlikely we can ever rid ourselves of it completely.
We can try to keep from extending that intervention any wider
than it already is, however, by not creating new groups to which
it would apply. In the case at hand, by not creating
pseudo-marriages.
Glenn Mor
haw...@ibm.net
>: haw...@ibm.net wrote:
>: Ah, yes... Jason does have a tendency to insert his own arguments
>: in place of those of other people, since he has a much easier
>: time arguing against them.
>
>I do not, Glenn. Knock it off.
This is one post in which you have not done so, I'll concede, but
in many of your posts you do invent ideas not found in the
original against which to rail. For an example, you have
castigated me for wanting to "control peoples' lives", an aspect
of discussion that is entirely your own, and which does not come
from anything I have posted.
This post lacks any personal attacks as well, Jason.... bravo.
Glenn Mor
John Sutherland
: Please read the part of my earlier post which I cited. There is no
: problem so long as the programme serves to reduce social inequalities.
Actually, I did read your post before following up, but where oh
where are these social inequalities defined? Are you saying that because
the population has certain percentages of certain types of people, that
an employer or firm must hire in similar proportions? I find that
ludicrous. You've perhaps heard of individuality? Cultural influences?
Etc., etc.? Reducing social inequalities is nothing more than glorified
prejudice. Why can't the best person win the job? Why does everyone
seem to have a problem with that?
Drew
PKolding
>John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
>: Timothy Huyer (huy...@qed.uucp) wrote:
>: : Please read the part of my earlier post which I cited. There is no
>: : problem so long as the programme serves to reduce social inequalities.
>: Actually, I did read your post before following up, but where oh
>: where are these social inequalities defined? Are you saying that because
>: the population has certain percentages of certain types of people, that
>: an employer or firm must hire in similar proportions? I find that
>: ludicrous. You've perhaps heard of individuality? Cultural influences?
>If a demographic group makes up a certain percentage of society but does
>not have political/social/economic influence correspondent to its
>demographic weight, social inequality exists.
You don't explain how this "demographic group" gets created though. In
fact, it is simply a fiction that "demographic groups" exists anywhere
outside of the head of whomever is doing the designating. The next
fiction is that "demographic groups" have any intrinsic meaning even
if they are designated. If we were to designate blue-eyed people as
one group, and brown-eyed people as another, does "social inequality"
really exist if a disproportionate number of brown-eyed people are bus
drivers? Of course not.
>Example: women make up 52% of the population but the percentage
>of women MLAs, MPs, senators, cabinet ministers -- in fact, the
>percentage of women holding any position that directly influences public
>policy -- is significantly and non-trivially less than 52%. In simpler
>terms, women are not fairly represented politically.
This is a perfect example---or perhaps a perfect opportunity---to
point out the utter corruption of your views. "Social equality"
presumably, if the object is that the more unequal should be helped
before the less unequal, should concentrate on that "demographic
group" which has the most disproportionate lack of political, social
and economic equality. At present, 99% of society's imprisoned are
male. Surely, by any demographic standard, this is the area that
should be addressed when it comes to relieving "social inequality".
And yet we never hear from the advocates of "social equality" that the
laws should be changed so 52% of prisoners should be female, or that
society should be changed to allow for activities that exclusively get
men incarcerated . Always, rather, it is in areas where the most
intense "equality" is already established---those governed by
universal suffrage and the secret ballot---where screams of
"inequality" are heard because people, alas, do not conform to the
fictional ideas assigned to their fictional demographic group.
> Individuality is never an excuse when the difference is
>statistically significant -- the difference here is too great to be
>attributed to individuals. Nor is cultural influences an argument for
>the status quo (in fact, it argues the reverse). If it is Canadian
>culture that women are under-represented, then that aspect of our culture
>must change.
If you believe in this, then you should concentrate in changing the
culture to help those *most* unequal. Ninety-nine percent is a
statistically significant number if ever there was one. If it is due
to the Canadian culture that 99% of prisoners are male, I suggest that
enforced cultural changes start with this lowest and most unequal
victim of that culture---and not with those who form the majority of
the population, yet only one percent of the jail cells.
>Nowhere have I advocated -- and although you have claimed to have
>read my posts you are nevertheless quick to put words into my mouth that
>I have never even implied -- that quotas are a necessary tool to change
>social inequalities (although I will admit to never having stated that
>quotas should not be used!). Having identified that a social inequality
>exists, a situation under which the status quo is unacceptable, a
>strategy for addressing that inequality must be implemented.
What advocate of the "social equality" school of thought has ever
proposed that 52% of the jail cells of Canada should be housing
females? What strategy has ever been proposed by them to bring this
"social inequality" to an end? None. In fact, the followers of the
"social equality" theory have been the leading advocates for the
adoption of laws that deliberately increase the number of male
prisoners. That they also advocate laws that excuse female
criminality---a difficult thing to defend on the basis of "social
equality", (much less justice)---is perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy.
>Should the
>fastest and most efficient method of addressing that inequality be no
>strategy at all (i.e., if the inequality will disappear if -- or because
>-- the govt does nothing) then that is the policy I would support. I am
>somewhat sceptical, however, that inaction is, in this case, optimal.
>Nor would I rule out any policy idea that could possibly end the
>unjustness.
How about this then: Deny females, solely on the basis of their sex,
by constitutional law, the right to equal access to all institutions
of society until such time as they occupy 52% of the jail cells.
After all, it is not as if it hasn't been done before.
Timothy Huyer
: Timothy Huyer (huy...@qed.uucp) wrote:
: : Please read the part of my earlier post which I cited. There is no
: : problem so long as the programme serves to reduce social inequalities.
: Actually, I did read your post before following up, but where oh
: where are these social inequalities defined? Are you saying that because
: the population has certain percentages of certain types of people, that
: an employer or firm must hire in similar proportions? I find that
: ludicrous. You've perhaps heard of individuality? Cultural influences?
If a demographic group makes up a certain percentage of society but does
not have political/social/economic influence correspondent to its
demographic weight, social inequality exists.
Example: women make up 52% of the population but the percentage
of women MLAs, MPs, senators, cabinet ministers -- in fact, the
percentage of women holding any position that directly influences public
policy -- is significantly and non-trivially less than 52%. In simpler
terms, women are not fairly represented politically.
Individuality is never an excuse when the difference is
statistically significant -- the difference here is too great to be
attributed to individuals. Nor is cultural influences an argument for
the status quo (in fact, it argues the reverse). If it is Canadian
culture that women are under-represented, then that aspect of our culture
must change.
Nowhere have I advocated -- and although you have claimed to have
read my posts you are nevertheless quick to put words into my mouth that
I have never even implied -- that quotas are a necessary tool to change
social inequalities (although I will admit to never having stated that
quotas should not be used!). Having identified that a social inequality
exists, a situation under which the status quo is unacceptable, a
strategy for addressing that inequality must be implemented. Should the
fastest and most efficient method of addressing that inequality be no
strategy at all (i.e., if the inequality will disappear if -- or because
-- the govt does nothing) then that is the policy I would support. I am
somewhat sceptical, however, that inaction is, in this case, optimal.
Nor would I rule out any policy idea that could possibly end the
unjustness.
--
Timothy Huyer
: huy...@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:
: You don't explain how this "demographic group" gets created though. In
: fact, it is simply a fiction that "demographic groups" exists anywhere
: outside of the head of whomever is doing the designating. The next
: fiction is that "demographic groups" have any intrinsic meaning even
: if they are designated. If we were to designate blue-eyed people as
: one group, and brown-eyed people as another, does "social inequality"
: really exist if a disproportionate number of brown-eyed people are bus
: drivers? Of course not.
In the case of women, their demographic group is created by summing up
all of the people with two x chromosomes. In general, a demographic
group is a group of the population sharing a defining characteristic or
characteristics.
The intrinsic meaning that can most easily be derived from the
determination of demographic groups is from the use of statistics.
Using your example, if we define demographic groups based on eye
colour, we could statistically test the wages of each group to determine
if their is a significant difference. I.e., whereas one blue-eyed person
may make more income than a certain brown-eyed person and vice versa, the
representative blue-eyed individual would have the same income as the
representative brown-eyed individual.
The next step, then, is one of fairly simple statistics. A
significant statistical difference is not certain proof but it is
extremely compelling evidence. If blue-eyed individuals are found to
have incomes significantly different from brown-eyed individuals, there
is strong concern for social inequality.
Obviously, other factors would have to be considered. 15-25 year old
persons earn significantly less than 35-45 year old persons, but this is
a factor of experience and not discrimination. However, in many cases,
like eye colour, a significant difference would imply the existence of
discrimination. Thus, if the proportion of brown-eyed bus drivers is
significantly different than their representation in society, this would
be of potential concern.
There are abundant tests, and many of them are very simple to do,
to show that, for example, women earn significantly less than men and
have significantly lower representation than men in government, corporate
board-rooms, etc.. Moreover, not only is the difference significant but
it is also of non-trivial magnitude; the inequality is rather dramatic.
Statistics strongly supports the existence of a social inequality, and
the existence demands the need to develop a feasible strategy to
counteract that inequality.
: This is a perfect example---or perhaps a perfect opportunity---to
: point out the utter corruption of your views. "Social equality"
: presumably, if the object is that the more unequal should be helped
: before the less unequal, should concentrate on that "demographic
: group" which has the most disproportionate lack of political, social
: and economic equality. At present, 99% of society's imprisoned are
: male. Surely, by any demographic standard, this is the area that
: should be addressed when it comes to relieving "social inequality".
: And yet we never hear from the advocates of "social equality" that the
: laws should be changed so 52% of prisoners should be female, or that
: society should be changed to allow for activities that exclusively get
: men incarcerated . Always, rather, it is in areas where the most
: intense "equality" is already established---those governed by
: universal suffrage and the secret ballot---where screams of
: "inequality" are heard because people, alas, do not conform to the
: fictional ideas assigned to their fictional demographic group.
Statistics is used to test specific hypotheses, and, in particular,
predictions that depend upon those hypotheses.
For example, consider the hypothesis "women are not socially
inequal to men". Were that the case, the following would very likely be
true:
(1) Women would be represented in political office and corporate
boardrooms proportional to their demographic size.
(2) Women would have incomes equal to men's.
The above two predictions are very reasonable in that it is impossible to
find a rationale why the predictions would not be true without ULTIMATELY
following a logic path that rejects the hypothesis. The first test
indicates whether women hold the positions of influence in equal
proportions, the latter test whether or not their marginal product is of
equal value.
Now consider the test: women would be equally represented in prisons.
This test hinges on the assumption that women commit the same number of
crimes as men do and the same type of crimes. But there is plenty of
evidence to show that the assumption is not true. That women, in fact,
commit less crimes than men also does not imply that women are socially
superior. In fact, the statistic you provide is of evidence to the
contrary. Since oppression is frequently done through violence, men,
being statistically more likely to be violent, are more likely to be the
oppressor. It should be noted, for example, that the origin of the "rule
of thumb" is that it used to be legal -- even in Canada -- up to about 50
years ago, for a man to beat his wife provided that he used a stick no
wider than his thumb. Although the law has changed, culture has not, and
thus men are, by orders of magnitude, more likely to perpetrate violence
against women than women against men or even women against women.
Note, however, there are no laws that exclusively get men
incarcerated, and your suggestion otherwise is nothing short of blatant
misrepresentation. Should a woman, for instance, commit a rape, she is
subject to the same laws that a male rapist be subject to. Indeed, there
have been such cases. That this has not happened at the same frequency
of men raping women is not evidence for women being socially superior.
In short, you have very successfully illustrated an incorrect use
of statistics in your arguments. I suggest that you actually take some
stats courses to avoid repeating that mistake.
: > If it is Canadian
: >culture that women are under-represented, then that aspect of our culture
: >must change.
: If you believe in this, then you should concentrate in changing the
: culture to help those *most* unequal. Ninety-nine percent is a
: statistically significant number if ever there was one. If it is due
: to the Canadian culture that 99% of prisoners are male, I suggest that
: enforced cultural changes start with this lowest and most unequal
: victim of that culture---and not with those who form the majority of
: the population, yet only one percent of the jail cells.
I support changing the culture towards making society less violent --
particularly by reducing the violence perpetrated by males. Ironically,
although you claim concern for the incarceration rate of men, you
have nevertheless advocated on other threads support for violence by men
against women, i.e., support for the culture of violence that results in
male incarceration.
Notwithstanding ANY of my previous arguments, may I REPEAT that I
have not advocated a quota system? Making the EXTREME allowance, for the
moment, that you are perfectly correct, simply raising the incarceration
rate of women, i.e., instituting a quota system for prison lock-ups, does
not seem like the ideal strategy for addressing the social inequality you
allege disadvantages men.
In fact, you even quote my statement on quotas:
: >Nowhere have I advocated -- and although you have claimed to have
: >read my posts you are nevertheless quick to put words into my mouth that
: >I have never even implied -- that quotas are a necessary tool to change
: >social inequalities (although I will admit to never having stated that
: >quotas should not be used!).
PKolding
>PKolding (pkol...@cts.com) wrote:
>: huy...@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:
>: You don't explain how this "demographic group" gets created though. In
>: fact, it is simply a fiction that "demographic groups" exists anywhere
>: outside of the head of whomever is doing the designating. The next
>: fiction is that "demographic groups" have any intrinsic meaning even
>: if they are designated. If we were to designate blue-eyed people as
>: one group, and brown-eyed people as another, does "social inequality"
>: really exist if a disproportionate number of brown-eyed people are bus
>: drivers? Of course not.
>In the case of women, their demographic group is created by summing up
>all of the people with two x chromosomes. In general, a demographic
>group is a group of the population sharing a defining characteristic or
>characteristics.
You are not moving your argument in any forward direction.
"Chromosomes" are picked from the ether, and by this we are supposed
to believe in the bizarre mandate of "social equality". And then you
compound this inertia by saying a group is defined by the
characteristics that define the group. "Femaleness" defines females,
"blue-eyedness" the blue-eyed. It is all a convenient fiction to
advance the self-serving interests of those who propound the theory.
> The intrinsic meaning that can most easily be derived from the
>determination of demographic groups is from the use of statistics.
There is no "intrinsic meaning" to be derived, by statistics or any
other means. And it is an act of pure prejudice to suppose otherwise.
If the followers of "social equality" were honest they would simply
say that they were against the special treatment of people based on
their "demographic group". But this is exact opposite of what they
want. Instead, they want people treated precisely on the basis of
their demographical status.
> Using your example, if we define demographic groups based on eye
>colour, we could statistically test the wages of each group to determine
>if their is a significant difference. I.e., whereas one blue-eyed person
>may make more income than a certain brown-eyed person and vice versa, the
>representative blue-eyed individual would have the same income as the
>representative brown-eyed individual.
> The next step, then, is one of fairly simple statistics. A
>significant statistical difference is not certain proof but it is
>extremely compelling evidence. If blue-eyed individuals are found to
>have incomes significantly different from brown-eyed individuals, there
>is strong concern for social inequality.
But it is precisely the illogic of this idea that I am pointing out.
That people with blue eyes have significant higher incomes than people
with brown-eyes is not, ipso facto, evidence of ANYTHING. It is a
meaningless observation. It proves nothing about "social inequality"
at all, any more than a divergence of income between those who sleep
with their beards on the outside of the blanket, and those who sleep
with it inside would indicate "social inequality". These sort of ideas
are not scientific or modern----they are medieval. They are direct
descendents of the conception that people who owned a disproportionate
number of cats were witches.
>Obviously, other factors would have to be considered. 15-25 year old
>persons earn significantly less than 35-45 year old persons, but this is
>a factor of experience and not discrimination.
Why? This is yet another example of how "social equalitists" are
constantly pulling things from the ether to maneuver themselves to
their final, pre-calculated, results. It is precisely this ability to
make things up in order to support their prejudice that is corrupt and
dishonest. Far better would be the straight out declaration that one
is taking a sexist or racist position because of social conditions,
than to indulge in medieval incantations under the guise of
rationality, or to avoid the true nature of the social equalists'
aims: special treatment of individuals on the basis of their group
status.
...[some deleted]...
Why? All you are doing is defining, out of the ether, what you
consider is evidence of a "social equality" you have already pulled
out of the ether in the first place. It is precisely the "hypothesis"
that is at issue here. You have arbitrarily decided that XX, XY
chromosomal attributes are something deserving "social equality". You
are on record that ANY arbitrary attribute is worthy of this. And
finally, you pull from the ether your own definition of "equality" as
being represented simply by parity. None of these presumptions are
defensible except upon prejudice and partiality.
But the denouement of this "social equality" pretense is more damning.
This is because even if parity is enforced upon the basis of one
attribute, an unlimited number of attributes are still left. In short,
parity between men and females will NOT be "social equality" because
of all the oppressed blue-eyes who have been neglected by the social
equalitists.
> (2) Women would have incomes equal to men's.
>The above two predictions are very reasonable in that it is impossible to
>find a rationale why the predictions would not be true without ULTIMATELY
>following a logic path that rejects the hypothesis.
This is like saying that the predictions must be true because the test
allows no other result.
>The first test
>indicates whether women hold the positions of influence in equal
>proportions, the latter test whether or not their marginal product is of
>equal value.
>Now consider the test: women would be equally represented in prisons.
>This test hinges on the assumption that women commit the same number of
>crimes as men do and the same type of crimes.
No it doesn't. You are again pulling things out of the air in order to
avoid the unavoidable. If the hypothesis is "women are not socially
inequal to men" then they should be present in prison on the same
basis that you conclude that they should be in positions of power.
If they are not, then "social inequality" exists on the basis of
sexual attributes, and the laws of society are the CAUSE of this
"social inequality", not the reason to ignore the "social inequality".
>evidence to show that the assumption is not true. That women, in fact,
>commit less crimes than men also does not imply that women are socially
>superior.
The commission of crimes is entirely a matter of what the law says is
criminal. If 99% of men are prisoners, the laws are being drawn up to
criminalise behaviour almost exclusively male. If male behaviour is
criminal and female behaviour is not criminal, men will be imprisoned.
Females will not. Result : "social inequality".
>In fact, the statistic you provide is of evidence to the
>contrary. Since oppression is frequently done through violence, men,
>being statistically more likely to be violent, are more likely to be the
>oppressor.
But this is counter to the tests you say prove "social inequality" for
females: Demographic proportionality and equal outcomes. 99% of
prisoners being male is disproportionate, and male behaviours earn
imprisonment while female behaviours do not. It is indefensible to
deny the "social inequality" exhibited in the prison population while
simultaneously, using the same hypothesis and tests, declaring "social
inequality" exists in political institutions.
> It should be noted, for example, that the origin of the "rule
>of thumb" is that it used to be legal -- even in Canada -- up to about 50
>years ago, for a man to beat his wife provided that he used a stick no
>wider than his thumb. Although the law has changed, culture has not, and
>thus men are, by orders of magnitude, more likely to perpetrate violence
>against women than women against men or even women against women.
But what has this to do with differing chromosomes? Your argument is
that "social equality" exists when parity and outcomes are
proportional to this attribute in the population. The laws,
presumably, should therefore be geared to acheive, or at least
reflect, this. If 99% of the criminals are men, this "social
inequality" MUST be a result of discriminatory laws against men on the
basis of their chromosomes. It is a complete denial of your theory of
parity and equal outcomes as defining "social equality" to claim that
laws resulting in 99% of criminals being men reflect this acheivement.
It would be no different than your saying that a 99% male Senate
reflects the same thing.
> Note, however, there are no laws that exclusively get men
>incarcerated, and your suggestion otherwise is nothing short of blatant
>misrepresentation.
Yet 99% of prisoners are men. By your very own definiton of "social
inequality" the laws discriminate against men. Remember, you are the
one who defines "social equality" as parity on the sole basis of
chromosomal attributes and equal outcomes.
>Should a woman, for instance, commit a rape, she is
>subject to the same laws that a male rapist be subject to. Indeed, there
>have been such cases. That this has not happened at the same frequency
>of men raping women is not evidence for women being socially superior.
I see---No longer is it parity and outcomes which define "social
equality", but now it is the way individuals act. This is MY ARGUMENT,
and it is completely incompatible with your stated view that it is
parity and outcomes that define such things. The laws to obtain
political office are equal for both men and females, and have been so
for seventy years---yet you say that females suffer "social
inequality" because the number of females in office is
disproportionate to their number in the population. Now, when MEN are
99% of prisoners, you throw this all out the window and say that, oh,
no, the laws are the same for men and females, therefore social
inequality is impossible upon this basis. This is utterly corrupt.
> In short, you have very successfully illustrated an incorrect use
>of statistics in your arguments. I suggest that you actually take some
>stats courses to avoid repeating that mistake.
My dear fellow, I majored in Economics and minored in Math. I can spot
bafflegab at a thousand paces.
>: > If it is Canadian
>: >culture that women are under-represented, then that aspect of our culture
>: >must change.
>: If you believe in this, then you should concentrate in changing the
>: culture to help those *most* unequal. Ninety-nine percent is a
>: statistically significant number if ever there was one. If it is due
>: to the Canadian culture that 99% of prisoners are male, I suggest that
>: enforced cultural changes start with this lowest and most unequal
>: victim of that culture---and not with those who form the majority of
>: the population, yet only one percent of the jail cells.
>I support changing the culture towards making society less violent --
>particularly by reducing the violence perpetrated by males.
I thought you were interested in "social equality"? If parity is
acheived and outcomes are equal, "social equality" is acheived.
Whatever the culture that results from this MUST be the correct
culture by the rules you have set up. It seems to me, therefore, that
there is not enough violence against females by this criteria.
>Ironically,
>although you claim concern for the incarceration rate of men, you
>have nevertheless advocated on other threads support for violence by men
>against women, i.e., support for the culture of violence that results in
>male incarceration.
You are mistaken. I advocate the equal treatment of people without
respect for their immutable charateristics, or demographic group
status. I also advocate, if society is to be run upon the idea that
sex parity and outcomes are evidence and justification for unequal
treatment, then ALL disparities and inequalities be recognised and be
treated equally. And if neither of these things are done, as is the
case in Canada, and men are deliberately barred by constituional law
from equal access to all the institutions of society, solely on the
basis of their sex, I do not have to support a "culture of violence" I
simply have to acknowledge it.
>Notwithstanding ANY of my previous arguments, may I REPEAT that I
>have not advocated a quota system? Making the EXTREME allowance, for the
>moment, that you are perfectly correct, simply raising the incarceration
>rate of women, i.e., instituting a quota system for prison lock-ups, does
>not seem like the ideal strategy for addressing the social inequality you
>allege disadvantages men.
This would be a perfectly reasonable view, but you cannot hold it and
simultaneously demand parity and outcomes for everyone except the
worst example of "social inequality".
> In fact, you even quote my statement on quotas:
>: >Nowhere have I advocated -- and although you have claimed to have
>: >read my posts you are nevertheless quick to put words into my mouth that
>: >I have never even implied -- that quotas are a necessary tool to change
>: >social inequalities (although I will admit to never having stated that
>: >quotas should not be used!).
It is not the tactics you would adopt to acheive your vision that
concern me, but the vision itself. You are prepared to accept, and
the defend the policy of unequal treatment of people, in law and
society, simply on the basis of some immutable characteristic. It is
the definiton of injustice and the most dangerous and violence-
provoking of political theories.
Fred Jorgensen
race, colour etc etc etc, I am astonished that these debates
actually take place between supposedly educated persons.
We fought wars of liberation and emancipation for the concept that all human
beings are to be treated equal, regardless of statistical outcomes, and now,
in 1996, we are marching backwards and measure justice by skin colour and
genes.
Like anti-semitism, communism, nazism, and the divine rights of royalty, these
affirmative discrimination ideas will one day be relegated to the scrap heap
of intellectual history, as a sad, but unfortunate fashionable lunacy of the
late 20th century.
PKolding
But they won't be unless someone makes the people who legislate,
enforce and support these policies pay for their crimes. These people
are criminals, not misguided intellectuals. They are of the same stuff
that made the Blackshirts, and they operate upon exactly the same lack
of personal morality. They will happily put you in concentration
camps, if the law can be passed.
Timothy Huyer
: huy...@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:
: You are not moving your argument in any forward direction.
: "Chromosomes" are picked from the ether, and by this we are supposed
: to believe in the bizarre mandate of "social equality".
I will admit to some facetiousness on my part. You asked for what
determines a demographic group, and I gave you an example.
However, allow me to define the debate rather carefully. There
are several logical paths (and more illogical paths, naturally, which I
will not include for what I hope are obvious reasons) that the argument
can take. For simplicity, and since this is the predominant example,
particularly on this thread, I will restrict the case to male/female.
Possible argument number 1: Social inequality is ethical, moral, good.
I will confess to having skipped this argument myself. However,
I can rely upon the fact that the predominant view of society is that
social inequality is bad, that discrimination on the basis of morally
irrelevant characteristics for the purposes of creating inequality is wrong.
Indeed, in this thread the issue has not even been necessary; it is
apparent that all sides agree on this point.
Given, then, that social inequality is bad, the next question is not a
subjective or philosophical debate, but one of scientific application of
statistics. The question is whether social inequality exists. My
previous post did attempt to explain somewhat how statistics can be used
to test existence. Unfortunately, I was somewhat terse due to the time
constraint in explaining through this medium what is essentially a fairly
large topic spanning multiple university courses.
If statistics, which it does, indicates the existence of social
inequality, then, by simple conlusion, a bad exists in our society. The
next issue, then, is how does one proceed.
The issue, actually, resolves itself in what is an optimal
strategy for eliminating the bad. Will inaction be sufficient and
sufficiently quick, or will inaction lead to continuation of the status
quo, the bad. If inaction is not sufficient, then positive, i.e.,
affirmative, action is necessary. At that point, the entire debate is
now entirely technical, how to design and implement a policy.
: But it is precisely the illogic of this idea that I am pointing out.
: That people with blue eyes have significant higher incomes than people
: with brown-eyes is not, ipso facto, evidence of ANYTHING. It is a
: meaningless observation.
I had tailored my previous posts somewhat on the assumption that everyone
had a greater understanding of statistics than what actually appears to
be the case. I apologise for that, and will attempt to re-explain more
carefully:
In the purest and most abstract possible sense (done only for
pedagogical purposes), let the only discernible difference between the
representative blue-eyed person and the representative brown-eyed person
be their eye colour. I.e., let the average representative of each
demographic group have identical labour productivity, etc., and let
variance on the representative member be the same.
In other words, let there be no objective reason whatsoever for a
brown-eyed person to be more or less likely to be able to succeed than a
blue-eyed person.
Given a large enough sample, then, the mean income of each
demographic group should be the same.
A statistical test would, in this case, find the mean incomes of
each demographical group and determine if there is any reason to believe
that the representative income is, in fact, different. That is, although
there might be differences in the averages found from sampling, they
could be from the sample not being sufficiently large. Stats will tell
one if the sample is, in fact, large enough to determine if a
_significant_ difference exists.
Clearly, this is not conclusive evidence. Even with excellent
sampling techniques and very large samples, the possibility exists that
the sample taken could not be representative, and therefore imply meaning
where it does not exist. However, stats CAN and DOES determine with a
very high level of confidence before using the word significant.
Thus, if it was found that a significant difference between the
wages of brown-eyed and blue-eyed persons existed, very compelling
evidence has been presented to indicate that a social inequality, in this
case, exists. Further tests would establish the result beyond a
reasonable doubt (the use of sociology, economics, and potentially other
sciences could also be used to support the statistics conclusions).
In the case of male/female, the earnings of women are not only
significantly lower than that of men but are also non-trivially so, i.e.,
the difference is large in magnitude. This strongly re-inforces the
conclusion that a social inequality exists; even if the sample is non
representative it is extremely unlikely to be that unrepresentative.
Moreover, repeated sampling has consistently proven the same results.
The statistical evidence, therefore, is overwhelming.
: >Obviously, other factors would have to be considered. 15-25 year old
: >persons earn significantly less than 35-45 year old persons, but this is
: >a factor of experience and not discrimination.
: Why? This is yet another example of how "social equalitists" are
: constantly pulling things from the ether to maneuver themselves to
: their final, pre-calculated, results. It is precisely this ability to
: make things up in order to support their prejudice that is corrupt and
: dishonest.
I had rather hoped that explaining the patently obvious was not necessary.
It should be clear that just because statistics indicates the
existence of a social inequality, this does not necessarily imply that a
social inequality exists. Your argument against the use of statistics
essentially worked on the same premise, so I had assumed that this issue
was not controversial.
Before, then, concluding that social inequality exists on the
basis of statistical evidence, it is necessary to show that the
statistical evidence is most likely resultant from the existence of a
social inequality, i.e. discrimination, rather than a rational reason.
For this, it is necessary to use economics, sociology, and other sciences
both social and otherwise, in order to add to the evidence.
Just as I have been terse in the summation of the statistical
evidence, I have likewise been terse in discussing this aspect of the
evidence. The body of literature is literally overwhelming, and, if you
remain unconvinced, I would recommend that you consult some of it.
: > (1) Women would be represented in political office and corporate
: >boardrooms proportional to their demographic size.
: Why? All you are doing is defining, out of the ether, what you
: consider is evidence of a "social equality" you have already pulled
: out of the ether in the first place. It is precisely the "hypothesis"
: that is at issue here. You have arbitrarily decided that XX, XY
: chromosomal attributes are something deserving "social equality". You
: are on record that ANY arbitrary attribute is worthy of this. And
: finally, you pull from the ether your own definition of "equality" as
: being represented simply by parity. None of these presumptions are
: defensible except upon prejudice and partiality.
I am at a loss as to what element of the argument that you are
attacking. Are you claiming that (1) women should not be equal to men,
and, in fact, should be inferior, (2) that proportional representation in
positions of political and corporate influence is not an indicator of
social equality -- if so, why not? --, or (3) that the entire science of
statistics is of no academic value -- and I would be particularly amused
to see you try to argue that one.
I argue that proportional representation would be a reasonable
indicator of social equality as there does not seem any rational argument
why women would be socially equal yet not have direct influence equal to
their demographic rate.
Finally, I am not "on record that ANY arbitrary attribute is
worthy of [social equality]". Please note above in this post a passage
which YOU QUOTED from my previous post. I am stunned that someone could
follow-up on my post, retaining a passage that I wrote, argue AGAINST the
point I make, and THEN CLAIM I NEVER MADE THAT POINT!
: But the denouement of this "social equality" pretense is more damning.
: This is because even if parity is enforced upon the basis of one
: attribute, an unlimited number of attributes are still left. In short,
: parity between men and females will NOT be "social equality" because
: of all the oppressed blue-eyes who have been neglected by the social
: equalitists.
If we can presume that 52% of both blue-eyed persons and brown-eyed
persons are female, i.e., that eye colour is proportionally distributed
across population, then it is entirely possible to eliminate social
inequality based on both gender and eye colour. Indeed, although I have
frequently limited my examples down to the ones YOU raise, eg., women,
there is no reason why the list is restricted to one attribute. Indeed,
even the list in the Charter of Rights is by no means exhaustive.
: >Now consider the test: women would be equally represented in prisons.
: >This test hinges on the assumption that women commit the same number of
: >crimes as men do and the same type of crimes.
: No it doesn't. You are again pulling things out of the air in order to
: avoid the unavoidable. If the hypothesis is "women are not socially
: inequal to men" then they should be present in prison on the same
: basis that you conclude that they should be in positions of power.
: If they are not, then "social inequality" exists on the basis of
: sexual attributes, and the laws of society are the CAUSE of this
: "social inequality", not the reason to ignore the "social inequality".
Please attempt to follow a logical path. Men being over-represented in
prisons can simply be attributed to men commiting more crimes -- note the
earlier discussion on both statistics and the use of social sciences to
ensure the correct use of statistics.
However, I will concede that over-representation by men in
prisons can be connected to social inequality, but would then argue that
this is not resultant from men being oppressed, but men being
oppressors. Although violence, a typical tool in oppression, is illegal,
it is nevertheless still widely practiced, and, thus, men, being more
likely to be oppressors, are more likely to commit crimes.
: The commission of crimes is entirely a matter of what the law says is
: criminal. If 99% of men are prisoners, the laws are being drawn up to
: criminalise behaviour almost exclusively male.
The vast majority of murders committed are perpetrated by males. ARE YOU
SUGGESTING THAT MURDER SHOULD NOT BE A CRIMINAL ACT?
: >Should a woman, for instance, commit a rape, she is
: >subject to the same laws that a male rapist be subject to. Indeed, there
: >have been such cases. That this has not happened at the same frequency
: >of men raping women is not evidence for women being socially superior.
: I see---No longer is it parity and outcomes which define "social
: equality", but now it is the way individuals act. This is MY ARGUMENT,
: and it is completely incompatible with your stated view that it is
: parity and outcomes that define such things. The laws to obtain
: political office are equal for both men and females, and have been so
: for seventy years---yet you say that females suffer "social
: inequality" because the number of females in office is
: disproportionate to their number in the population. Now, when MEN are
: 99% of prisoners, you throw this all out the window and say that, oh,
: no, the laws are the same for men and females, therefore social
: inequality is impossible upon this basis. This is utterly corrupt.
Laws guaranteeing equal access, i.e., the relatively recent historical
allowance for women's suffrage, do not, necessarily imply the end to
social inequality, but merely the legislation of social inequality. I
think it remains rather obvious that merely having, for example, the
right to vote does not imply social equality with all other persons who
share that same right.
Given the existence of social inequality, the need exists to
change that state, as I have stated above.
In the case of male prison population, I will agree that
something needs to be done to reduce the discrepancy -- in this case, I
advocate making positive actions that change the socially
institutionalised culture that promotes male violence and oppression
against women. I do not, as you seem to, advocate arbitrarily filling
prisons with women to fulfill some sort of quota system, nor do I
advocate the decriminalisation of many violent crimes. I do support
activities which reduce the likelihood of men perpetrating such violence
-- which you apparently do not when you have advocated support elsewhere
for violence against women.
: > In short, you have very successfully illustrated an incorrect use
: >of statistics in your arguments. I suggest that you actually take some
: >stats courses to avoid repeating that mistake.
: My dear fellow, I majored in Economics and minored in Math. I can spot
: bafflegab at a thousand paces.
My not dear anything, it is apparent that you have not studied your
courses very clearly, or have forgotten what you were supposed to have
been taught. Did your programme require statistics and how did you
manage to pass? As to bafflegab, please review your own posts from a
distance of precisely one thousand paces.
: >I support changing the culture towards making society less violent --
: >particularly by reducing the violence perpetrated by males.
: I thought you were interested in "social equality"? If parity is
: acheived and outcomes are equal, "social equality" is acheived.
: Whatever the culture that results from this MUST be the correct
: culture by the rules you have set up. It seems to me, therefore, that
: there is not enough violence against females by this criteria.
Allow me, (it may be a big step for you to imagine people having multiple
goals) the intelligence of desiring more than one criteria for a good
society.
I assume that what you mean is that there are more male victims
of violence than female. I do not have stats on hand, and hence will not
dispute the claim. You argue, therefore, presumably (hopefully!)
facetiously, that, therefore, to promote equality, more females should be
made victims of crime (and, to be technical, that more females should
also be perpetrators of violent crime). I opt for the strategy that less
violence is better, and that, therefore, the strategy to work for is
reducing violence perpetrated by males (and, in general, violence
perpetrated by anyone).
: You are mistaken. I advocate the equal treatment of people without
: respect for their immutable charateristics, or demographic group
: status.
Please note that you have not advocated equal treatment UNDER THE LAW
which is what the context of your argument implies. I advocate equal
treatment UNDER SOCIETY, which is larger than govt. If social inequality
exists, it does not necessarily exist due to the act of govt. Indeed, it
is the role of govt, in this case, to correct the social inequality.
Timothy Huyer
: huy...@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:
: >Possible argument number 1: Social inequality is ethical, moral, good.
: You are still on the wrong track, and I suspect it is a deliberate
: journey. You have already defined "social equality" as being
: demographic proportionality and equal outcomes.
You have completely misunderstood my posts, despite repeated efforts. I
will attempt to explain as clearly as possible, although it might help if
you kept a dictionary nearby to look up any words over two syllables in
length.
Any statistician would state that, given a large enough sample,
the sample statistics should approach the true proportions unless a bias
exists. If one tosses a _fair_ coin often enough, the number of heads
should end up being very close to 50%. Therefore, to test whether or not
a coin is fair, one tosses it a number of times, and then uses statistics
to see if the proportion of heads is significantly different from 50%.
If the proportion of heads is indeed significantly different, evidence
that the coin is biased exists.
Since you should have taken some stats in your studies, I am
distressed that I apparently have to explain this exceptionally
straightforward concept to you.
Applied to the debate at hand, if there is no bias, i.e.
discrimination (either latent or active), the proportion of women in any
sufficiently large sample should be very close to 52%. The statistics
show that not only is the proportion significantly different from 52%,
but it is non-trivially so, in some cases multiple standard deviations
removed from 52%. This is exceptionally strong evidence for social
inequality.
I have not defined social equality as proportional
representation; merely that proportional representation is symptomatic of
social equality, i.e., a necessary condition.
: Here we are then. All the nonsense comes down to the fact that you
: BELIEVE in a bizarre theory that propounds that demographic
: proportionality and equal outcomes is MORALLY justified.
Again, I invite you to read my posts. I stated, rather explicitly I
would think, that I think social equality is good, and that the use of
statistics is a diagnosing tool in order to determine if social equality
does, in fact, exist.
It would also help that if you continue to reply to these
arguments, that you attempt to use some logic. The argument, at this
stage, is: (1) social equality is good, and (2) statistics can be used
to determine if social equality exists. I have assumed that social
equality being good is not controversial, based on some evidence that
some of your arguments seemed to derive from that premise. If I am in
error on that assumption, please bring forward a philosophical argument
that states that inequality is morally justified. I am stunned,
however, that you are seeming, with no academic justification whatsoever,
to reject an entire science (statistics) whose purpose was clearly used
to deal with such questions as we have at hand.
: The answer is that there is no such thing as "social equality", except
: in the realm of gaining political advantage.
If one demographic group has political advantage over another, than, ipso
facto, social equality does not exist.
: Or it would indicate that some other, of an unlimited number of
: attributes or confluence of attributes, was responsible. Please at
: least be honest: NO ONE does statistical analysis on income based on
: eye-colour to determine if "social inequality" exists.
(1) unlimited is a rather overly large figure. There are a finite number
of possible characteristics a human, even a mammal, can have. Please
contain your rhetoric.
(2) although I will acknowledge that not every testable characteristic
has been used to determine if a social inequality exists, the testing has
been more general than you would imply.
MOREOVER, let me once again try to explain how statistics
operates. Yes, there does indeed exist the possibility of determining
correlation when no correlation exists -- i.e., determining that social
inequality may be based on gender when it is due to some other factor.
Repeated testing is therefore a regular feature in statistics.
Confidence levels are modified to accomodate this problem. And other
sciences use extensive efforts to determine all possible reasons for the
correlation to exist.
In the case of male/female representation in positions of
influence, all of these have been done. Moreover, the statistical
evidence is, as I have repeatedly emphasised, not only significant but it
is non-trivial; even if the data is skewed due to some unknown reason the
odds of such a skewing being so dramatic as to provide such large
magnitude results is not significantly different from zero. In other
words, the evidence here is (well) beyond a reasonable doubt.
: You are induging in bafflegab, however, when you try and defend this
: exercise as an impartial, "moral" outlook, supported by statistical
: analysis, while in the same breadth you deny that 99% of the prison
: population being men is evidence of "social inequality".
Please READ my posts. Particularly if you will actually quote it and
then make arguments against even that quote. I would imagine that the
following paragraph had actually covered this point rather explicitly:
: > However, I will concede that over-representation by men in
: >prisons can be connected to social inequality, but would then argue that
: >this is not resultant from men being oppressed, but men being
: >oppressors. Although violence, a typical tool in oppression, is illegal,
: >it is nevertheless still widely practiced, and, thus, men, being more
: >likely to be oppressors, are more likely to commit crimes.
: >Further tests would establish the result beyond a
: >reasonable doubt (the use of sociology, economics, and potentially other
: >sciences could also be used to support the statistics conclusions).
: Why not just examine the entrails of a goat?
Thank you for that logical insight. The scope of this debate has now
grown immensely. You have now not only dismissed the science of
statistics, but also all of the social sciences. Is there some
particular reason why you think entire academic disciplines -- composed
of the works of thousands of persons, including some of the brightest
people known to have existed -- are bunk, or is it merely because science
inconveniences your narrow-minded existence?
: I'm disputing the presumption that holders of political office need be
: of any particular sex at all.
Please read discussion on statistics. Please indicate why, if you
continue to hold your belief, that the science of statistics is bunk.
: Since you have defined "social equality" as precisely proportional
: representation based on sex, what possible argument, given that
: definition, can be offered saying it isn't? I DO NOT accept your
: definition of "social equality", nor the underlying morality that
: prompts its creation. And neither do you, actually----because if you
: did you would be concerned with those demographic groups MOST
: unequally represented, and MOST severely treated.
Please provide an argument as to how social equality could exist
simultaneously with significant and non-trivial differences in the
proportion of demographic groups represented in positions of influence?
: Statistics are extremely valuable. They are used to bolster every
: crackpot political idea that comes down the pike. That is not the
: fault of statistics though, but the crackpots who use them.
If I have, indeed, used statistics incorrectly, please indicate how and
where. Part of the training one gets in statistics is on how to use it
scientifically, and not for the support of incorrect hypotheses.
Presumably, since it is apparent to me that your ability in statistics is
exceptionally limited, you might wish to check with a statistician to see
if I have made my presentation of the use of that science correctly.
: How can "proportional representation" be anything BUT a "reasonable
: indicator of social equality" when you have already defined "social
: equality" as proportional representation?
Please read my posts. If proportional representation is NOT a reasonable
indicator of social equality, I would, and presumably others on this
thread, be interested in finding out why and what does constitute a
reasonable indicator. Frankly, I am getting quite tired of trying to
present information, repeating it when it is clear that it is
misunderstood, only to be finally met with a refusal to counter my points
with intelligible arguments.
: > Finally, I am not "on record that ANY arbitrary attribute is
: >worthy of [social equality]".
: Here are your quotes that I relied upon to make that judgement:
Which you read without the context. You conveniently did delete,
however, the quote that I used to show that I explicitly did state the
contrary, that an arbitrary attribute is not necessarily an indicator
that social inequality exists. If you had read fully and not chosen
quotes without context, you would not have made the incorrect judgement.
Should you wish to blame me for the difficulty you have in reading, I
would suggest that it is not likely to be a good strategy to help you
correct that problem.
: Now you are simply picking and choosing, apropos of nothing, which
: attribute "deserves" demographic status. If the argument is that if
: eye-colour is "equally" distributed among females, "social equality"
: achieved by females automatically means achievement by the
: eye-coloured then you are failing to account for "social inequality"
: amongst females of different eye colours. Wouldn't there be "social
: inequality" if, given "social equality" exists for females, 99% of
: female-held institutional positions were held by blue-eyes? On the
: other hand, if the argument is that eye-colour is subordinate to sex
: for "social equality" purposes (an argument that you cannot justify),
: then your whole theory falls apart.
I had caveated in an effort to be more academically honest, and am thus
surprised to be called to task for it. I am not aware if there is
disproportionate distribution of eye colour across gender, for instance.
If there is, then it would be possible to have statistical evidence that
inequality exists even if there is no discrimination based on eye colour
occuring. As should be apparent from my arguments in this thread,
statistical evidence in and of itself is not sufficient proof, and had
thus caveated for that possibility.
I will rephrase then to be absolutely precise:
Should there be strong evidence (which is a weaker claim than evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt) that inequality exists based on eye colour
then I would fully support action to eliminate that inequality.
: But the list in the Charter of Rights makes no reference to "social
: equality",
Although I am not able to quote the Charter from memory, the exceptions
to the prohibition of discrimination are solely for the purposes of
ameliorating and improving disadvantaged groups. To state that a
disadvantaged group exists is equivalent to stating that social
inequality exists. I apologise if my choice of terminology was
confusing, but I certainly did not expect anyone to have any problems in
understanding its definition.
: Unfortunately, as I have repeatedly pointed out, a second
: sub-section allows the government to ignore this at will, and the
: result is that everybody in society is protected against
: discrimination, by force of law, except non-disabled white males, who
: are obliged to be discriminated against on pain of fines or
: imprisonment.
It is apparent that you have misunderstood what I had thought was fairly
precise (and made more precise through legal rulings since the Charter
came into existence), that non-disabled [straight christian] males are
protected from discrimination and that the only flexibility govt has is
in the creation of programmes designed to ameliorate and improve
disadvantaged groups.
: >The vast majority of murders committed are perpetrated by males. ARE YOU
: >SUGGESTING THAT MURDER SHOULD NOT BE A CRIMINAL ACT?
: On the contrary, I am suggesting that the theory of "proportionate
: representation and equal outcomes" rejects the existence of "acts",
: murder or otherwise, as relevant to the achievement of "scoial
: equality".
It is academically bankrupt to take facts in isolation and to refuse to
analyse the context in which they occur. Men are over-represented in
prisons, true. Men commit more than 48% of crimes, especially in the
case of violent crimes. This is possible evidence, absolutely, of the
existence of social inequality -- BUT IT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT IT IS MEN
WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED! Again repeating myself: that men are
over-represented in prison is a problem, one which I feel should be
addressed by changing the culture which promotes male violence.
: But with respect to the VOTE, they DO! You have provided a perfect
: example of the very "social equality" you demand. If all women and all
: men individually hold the institutional position of vote-holder, the
: maximum possible proportionality and equality of outcomes is achieved.
The vote holder has influence in democracy. However, the creators of
public policy are not the voters but their elected representatives.
Having the vote is not the sole criteria for becoming elected; indeed,
were that the case, statistics would demand that the proportion of female
MPs be not significantly different than 52%. Since the vote is not the
sole criteria, other criteria must exist, of which statistics and other
sciences confirm that women do not share proportionate influence. Hence,
maximum possible proportionality and equality of outcomes are not
achieved, Q.E.D..
: > Given the existence of social inequality, the need exists to
: >change that state, as I have stated above.
: Let me translate this into English: I want change so the laws reflect
: my prejudices and political theories.
Is social equality a bad thing? If my philosophy that social equality is
bad, please argue why.
In fact, an argument why or what alternative would be a novel
contribution from you:
(1) Why is social equality bad, if it is?
(2) Why is the measure I have used to test social equality's
existence flawed? What alternative measure would you propose?
(3) Where have I contradicted academic conclusions on the use of
statistics and the social sciences? What would the results be if the
methodology I used was corrected?
(4) Are the academic sciences that I have called upon in a
general way in and of themselves flawed? Is there a reason why the
social sciences are no different than studying the entrails of a goat, as
you implied above? Why?
: >I do not, as you seem to, advocate arbitrarily filling
: >prisons with women to fulfill some sort of quota system, nor do I
: >advocate the decriminalisation of many violent crimes.
: We know that. That is the why your justifications of "social equality"
: are so ludicrous. The disproportionate number of men in prison
: constitutes "social inequality" according to YOUR theory, not mine. I
: don't believe in the concept of "social inequality". But if AA is the
: rule---proportional representation and equal outcomes---then I insist
: it be applied to EVERYONE.
Agreed. Note the positive (affirmative) action that I have advocated to
be taken:
: > In the case of male prison population, I will agree that
: >something needs to be done to reduce the discrepancy -- in this case, I
: >advocate making positive actions that change the socially
: >institutionalised culture that promotes male violence and oppression
: >against women.
: And I advocate and insist that men be given equal protection before
: and under the law. And until then, the exercise of violence cannot be
: condemned.
Read the law. If you actually manage to understand the big words, you
will end up being surprised.
: >Allow me, (it may be a big step for you to imagine people having multiple
: >goals) the intelligence of desiring more than one criteria for a good
: >society.
: I will allow it when you allow it. It is absurd at this late stage to
: defend your own theory on the basis that the propositions you've
: offered to defend it don't actually apply.
Again, let me re-state that proportional equality is not my be all and
end all, but is merely a good indicator of social inequality. Where
strong evidence of social inequality exists, I support positive action to
correct it. Where multiple strategies are available, I would choose the
best one, sometimes using additional criteria to evaluate the best one.
In this case, the choice seems to be between a strategy to reduce male
violence or a strategy to increase female violence. I opt for the
former, and I presume that the rationale behind my choice is obvious. I
am at a loss as to how this can even appear to be absurd.
: Why not reducing violence perpetuated by Jews? Or Blacks? Or the
: blue-eyed? Or just PEOPLE? I want to tell you something: "males" do
: not commit violent crimes on account of their sex, notwithstanding
: whatever experiences you, as a "male", have indulged in.
I first would like to ask why I am categorised a "male" and not a male.
Your use of quotation marks suggests a broader implication, and I would
prefer that, if that is the case, it be made explicit, and if not, that
you simply state that the quotation marks did not intend anything.
I support the reduction of violence period. However, it seems
reasonable to target my efforts towards reducing violence at those people
most lkely to perpetrate violence: men. The same logic applies in
corporate advertising -- one makes ads that target those people who buy
one's products. I had hoped that it need not be said that my efforts are
not exclusively focused towards male violence since my efforts are indeed
broader. Nevertheless, the emphasis of my efforts are focused where the
violence is most predominant.
: >If social inequality
: >exists, it does not necessarily exist due to the act of govt. Indeed, it
: >is the role of govt, in this case, to correct the social inequality.
: Which "social inequality" though, Mr. Huyer? That alleged by
: upper-class white females with respect to inconvenient election
: results, or the one alleged by the indisputable make-up of the
: nation's prisons?
Economic power. Status in society in general. I have attempted to note
the existence of an entity larger than govt, which is society. Thus
socioeconomic status, under which political status is a subset, is the issue.
PKolding
>PKolding (pkol...@cts.com) wrote:
>: huy...@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) wrote:
>: You are not moving your argument in any forward direction.
>: "Chromosomes" are picked from the ether, and by this we are supposed
>: to believe in the bizarre mandate of "social equality".
>I will admit to some facetiousness on my part. You asked for what
>determines a demographic group, and I gave you an example.
> However, allow me to define the debate rather carefully. There
>are several logical paths (and more illogical paths, naturally, which I
>will not include for what I hope are obvious reasons) that the argument
>can take. For simplicity, and since this is the predominant example,
>particularly on this thread, I will restrict the case to male/female.
>
>Possible argument number 1: Social inequality is ethical, moral, good.
You are still on the wrong track, and I suspect it is a deliberate
journey. You have already defined "social equality" as being
demographic proportionality and equal outcomes. If such a thing is
achieved it must be ethical, moral and good, regardless of the
culture, organisation or activities of the citizenry. Or are you
saying that "social equality" is unethical, immoral and bad?
The objection to the theories of "social equalitists" like yourself is
that they are no more than pretexts for political or religious
ideology. As you reveal:
> I will confess to having skipped this argument myself. However,
>I can rely upon the fact that the predominant view of society is that
>social inequality is bad, that discrimination on the basis of morally
>irrelevant characteristics for the purposes of creating inequality is wrong.
>Indeed, in this thread the issue has not even been necessary; it is
>apparent that all sides agree on this point.
Here we are then. All the nonsense comes down to the fact that you
BELIEVE in a bizarre theory that propounds that demographic
proportionality and equal outcomes is MORALLY justified. You also go
further, and suggest that discrimination on the basis of morally
irrelevant characteristics is permissable for creating "equality". All
the statistical analysis you do is entirely based on this central
tenet----and it is precisely this tenet that is in dispute, and in my
judgement is absolutely discredited by the overwhelming majority in
society.
>Given, then, that social inequality is bad, the next question is not a
>subjective or philosophical debate, but one of scientific application of
>statistics.
I have never made the argument you are trying now to defeat. "Social
equality", defined as demographic proportionality and equal outcomes,
is evil.
>The question is whether social inequality exists.
The answer is that there is no such thing as "social equality", except
in the realm of gaining political advantage.
...[some deleted]...
>If statistics, which it does, indicates the existence of social
>inequality, then, by simple conlusion, a bad exists in our society. The
>next issue, then, is how does one proceed.
Again, this is the journey of a dog chasing its tail. You have
elevated, without justification, a self-serving political calculation
into the equivalent of a moral "good". The argument is not that you
can't do this, the argument is that statistical analysis revealing the
absence of this "good" is not proof of anything.
> The issue, actually, resolves itself in what is an optimal
>strategy for eliminating the bad. Will inaction be sufficient and
>sufficiently quick, or will inaction lead to continuation of the status
>quo, the bad. If inaction is not sufficient, then positive, i.e.,
>affirmative, action is necessary. At that point, the entire debate is
>now entirely technical, how to design and implement a policy.
It is technical only if you are a believer. Obviously, if you are
already convinced that something is "bad", what follows is easily
justified. What you and your fellows refuse to face is that your view
and definition of "social equality" is not "good" merely because you
say it is. You also refuse to acknowledge that the "technical"
policies that your views lead to are invariably at complete variance
with justice and the most basic civil liberties, and constitute when
put into effect nothing less than crimes against humanity.
> Thus, if it was found that a significant difference between the
>wages of brown-eyed and blue-eyed persons existed, very compelling
>evidence has been presented to indicate that a social inequality, in this
>case, exists.
Or it would indicate that some other, of an unlimited number of
attributes or confluence of attributes, was responsible. Please at
least be honest: NO ONE does statistical analysis on income based on
eye-colour to determine if "social inequality" exists. They decide
first what they want politically, call it "social equality" and then
apply statistics to "prove" that "social inequality" exists. You want
females to be proportionately represented in all institutions of
society, purely on the basis of their chromosomes. Your statistical
analysis reveals that this is not the case and you declare that
"social inequality" exists, and therefore, ipso facto, must be
corrected.
You are induging in bafflegab, however, when you try and defend this
exercise as an impartial, "moral" outlook, supported by statistical
analysis, while in the same breadth you deny that 99% of the prison
population being men is evidence of "social inequality".
>Further tests would establish the result beyond a
>reasonable doubt (the use of sociology, economics, and potentially other
>sciences could also be used to support the statistics conclusions).
Why not just examine the entrails of a goat?
...[immense blizzard of bafflegab deleted]...
>: > (1) Women would be represented in political office and corporate
>: >boardrooms proportional to their demographic size.
>: Why? All you are doing is defining, out of the ether, what you
>: consider is evidence of a "social equality" you have already pulled
>: out of the ether in the first place. It is precisely the "hypothesis"
>: that is at issue here. You have arbitrarily decided that XX, XY
>: chromosomal attributes are something deserving "social equality". You
>: are on record that ANY arbitrary attribute is worthy of this. And
>: finally, you pull from the ether your own definition of "equality" as
>: being represented simply by parity. None of these presumptions are
>: defensible except upon prejudice and partiality.
>I am at a loss as to what element of the argument that you are
>attacking. Are you claiming that (1) women should not be equal to men,
>and, in fact, should be inferior,
I'm disputing the presumption that holders of political office need be
of any particular sex at all.
>(2) that proportional representation in positions of political and
>corporate influence is not an indicator of social equality -- if so, why not? --,
Since you have defined "social equality" as precisely proportional
representation based on sex, what possible argument, given that
definition, can be offered saying it isn't? I DO NOT accept your
definition of "social equality", nor the underlying morality that
prompts its creation. And neither do you, actually----because if you
did you would be concerned with those demographic groups MOST
unequally represented, and MOST severely treated.
>or (3) that the entire science of
>statistics is of no academic value -- and I would be particularly amused
>to see you try to argue that one.
Statistics are extremely valuable. They are used to bolster every
crackpot political idea that comes down the pike. That is not the
fault of statistics though, but the crackpots who use them.
>I argue that proportional representation would be a reasonable
>indicator of social equality as there does not seem any rational argument
>why women would be socially equal yet not have direct influence equal to
>their demographic rate.
How can "proportional representation" be anything BUT a "reasonable
indicator of social equality" when you have already defined "social
equality" as proportional representation? And then you argue that
"influence" is magically no longer measured by the actual results of
the activities of the group in question, but by the sexual attributes
of their representatives. May I say that it is no surprise that you
can find no rational arguments against your views----such an effort
requires the ability to recognise rationality when it presents itself.
> Finally, I am not "on record that ANY arbitrary attribute is
>worthy of [social equality]".
Here are your quotes that I relied upon to make that judgement:
"If a demographic group makes up a certain percentage of society but
does not have political/social/economic influence correspondent to its
demographic weight, social inequality exists."
"If blue-eyed individuals are found to have incomes significantly
different from brown-eyed individuals, there is strong concern for
social inequality."
>: But the denouement of this "social equality" pretense is more damning.
>: This is because even if parity is enforced upon the basis of one
>: attribute, an unlimited number of attributes are still left. In short,
>: parity between men and females will NOT be "social equality" because
>: of all the oppressed blue-eyes who have been neglected by the social
>: equalitists.
>If we can presume that 52% of both blue-eyed persons and brown-eyed
>persons are female, i.e., that eye colour is proportionally distributed
>across population, then it is entirely possible to eliminate social
>inequality based on both gender and eye colour.
Now you are simply picking and choosing, apropos of nothing, which
attribute "deserves" demographic status. If the argument is that if
eye-colour is "equally" distributed among females, "social equality"
achieved by females automatically means achievement by the
eye-coloured then you are failing to account for "social inequality"
amongst females of different eye colours. Wouldn't there be "social
inequality" if, given "social equality" exists for females, 99% of
female-held institutional positions were held by blue-eyes? On the
other hand, if the argument is that eye-colour is subordinate to sex
for "social equality" purposes (an argument that you cannot justify),
then your whole theory falls apart.
>Indeed, although I have
>frequently limited my examples down to the ones YOU raise, eg., women,
>there is no reason why the list is restricted to one attribute. Indeed,
>even the list in the Charter of Rights is by no means exhaustive.
But the list in the Charter of Rights makes no reference to "social
equality", but is there to precisely define those attributes which it
is PROHIBITED to use as the basis of demographic discrimination or
privilege. Unfortunately, as I have repeatedly pointed out, a second
sub-section allows the government to ignore this at will, and the
result is that everybody in society is protected against
discrimination, by force of law, except non-disabled white males, who
are obliged to be discriminated against on pain of fines or
imprisonment. Indeed, the list of attributes is "by no means
exhaustive", but what of it? The list may be appended with every
attribute known to the scientific and biological world---it still
won't be of any use to those denied the right to apply it.
>: >Now consider the test: women would be equally represented in prisons.
>: >This test hinges on the assumption that women commit the same number of
>: >crimes as men do and the same type of crimes.
>: No it doesn't. You are again pulling things out of the air in order to
>: avoid the unavoidable. If the hypothesis is "women are not socially
>: inequal to men" then they should be present in prison on the same
>: basis that you conclude that they should be in positions of power.
>: If they are not, then "social inequality" exists on the basis of
>: sexual attributes, and the laws of society are the CAUSE of this
>: "social inequality", not the reason to ignore the "social inequality".
>Please attempt to follow a logical path. Men being over-represented in
>prisons can simply be attributed to men commiting more crimes -- note the
>earlier discussion on both statistics and the use of social sciences to
>ensure the correct use of statistics.
Of course it can be "simply attributed" to men committing more crimes.
It can as easily be attributed to laws being written to punish male
behaviour, or to females committing crimes and not being imprisoned.
Or to anything an entrail reader conjurs up as his eyes roll up into
the back of his head. YOU are the one who has offered the definition
of "social inequality" as being represented by disproportionate
representation and unequal outcomes. Now you are saying that that is
not, in fact, true. You are now saying that disproportionate
representation and unequal outcomes are NOT evidence of "social
inequality".
> However, I will concede that over-representation by men in
>prisons can be connected to social inequality, but would then argue that
>this is not resultant from men being oppressed, but men being
>oppressors. Although violence, a typical tool in oppression, is illegal,
>it is nevertheless still widely practiced, and, thus, men, being more
>likely to be oppressors, are more likely to commit crimes.
>: The commission of crimes is entirely a matter of what the law says is
>: criminal. If 99% of men are prisoners, the laws are being drawn up to
>: criminalise behaviour almost exclusively male.
>The vast majority of murders committed are perpetrated by males. ARE YOU
>SUGGESTING THAT MURDER SHOULD NOT BE A CRIMINAL ACT?
On the contrary, I am suggesting that the theory of "proportionate
representation and equal outcomes" rejects the existence of "acts",
murder or otherwise, as relevant to the achievement of "scoial
equality". It is absurd to throw yourself into a feigned fit of
outrage, and bring in any particular laws that, by some private moral
calculation of yours, somehow are immune from change for purposes of
"social equality". After all, you are prepared to consider, with no
trace of outrage, laws that deny men equal rights and access to all
the arenas of society upon such a basis. It is the height of hypocrisy
to draw lines of social behaviour convenient exclusively to your own
morality, and then argue your brand of "social equality" to justify
preventing some people, according to some immutable personal
characteristic, protection under these self-same laws.
>: >Should a woman, for instance, commit a rape, she is
>: >subject to the same laws that a male rapist be subject to. Indeed, there
>: >have been such cases. That this has not happened at the same frequency
>: >of men raping women is not evidence for women being socially superior.
>: I see---No longer is it parity and outcomes which define "social
>: equality", but now it is the way individuals act. This is MY ARGUMENT,
>: and it is completely incompatible with your stated view that it is
>: parity and outcomes that define such things. The laws to obtain
>: political office are equal for both men and females, and have been so
>: for seventy years---yet you say that females suffer "social
>: inequality" because the number of females in office is
>: disproportionate to their number in the population. Now, when MEN are
>: 99% of prisoners, you throw this all out the window and say that, oh,
>: no, the laws are the same for men and females, therefore social
>: inequality is impossible upon this basis. This is utterly corrupt.
>Laws guaranteeing equal access, i.e., the relatively recent historical
>allowance for women's suffrage, do not, necessarily imply the end to
>social inequality, but merely the legislation of social inequality. I
>think it remains rather obvious that merely having, for example, the
>right to vote does not imply social equality with all other persons who
>share that same right.
But with respect to the VOTE, they DO! You have provided a perfect
example of the very "social equality" you demand. If all women and all
men individually hold the institutional position of vote-holder, the
maximum possible proportionality and equality of outcomes is achieved.
What you want is the denial of "social equality" in one area of
society in order to get enforced results on the basis of "social
equality" in another. In short, some animals are more equal than
others.
> Given the existence of social inequality, the need exists to
>change that state, as I have stated above.
Let me translate this into English: I want change so the laws reflect
my prejudices and political theories.
> In the case of male prison population, I will agree that
>something needs to be done to reduce the discrepancy -- in this case, I
>advocate making positive actions that change the socially
>institutionalised culture that promotes male violence and oppression
>against women.
And I advocate and insist that men be given equal protection before
and under the law. And until then, the exercise of violence cannot be
condemned.
>I do not, as you seem to, advocate arbitrarily filling
>prisons with women to fulfill some sort of quota system, nor do I
>advocate the decriminalisation of many violent crimes.
We know that. That is the why your justifications of "social equality"
are so ludicrous. The disproportionate number of men in prison
constitutes "social inequality" according to YOUR theory, not mine. I
don't believe in the concept of "social inequality". But if AA is the
rule---proportional representation and equal outcomes---then I insist
it be applied to EVERYONE.
> I do support
>activities which reduce the likelihood of men perpetrating such violence
>-- which you apparently do not when you have advocated support elsewhere
>for violence against women.
I wouldn't say I support violence against females, as a rule. I simply
do not condemn it, and in some cases I see it as justified. The *sex*
of people is something the state and other supporters of AA have
raised as pertinent and supreme---it is not my idea. Females want and
demand special treatment on account of their sex, and laws have been
passed reflecting this. I have no problem in adopting precisely the
same criteria in my political strategy and tactics in response. In
fact, it is unavoidable and essential.
...[exchange of insults deleted]...
>: >I support changing the culture towards making society less violent --
>: >particularly by reducing the violence perpetrated by males.
>: I thought you were interested in "social equality"? If parity is
>: acheived and outcomes are equal, "social equality" is acheived.
>: Whatever the culture that results from this MUST be the correct
>: culture by the rules you have set up. It seems to me, therefore, that
>: there is not enough violence against females by this criteria.
>Allow me, (it may be a big step for you to imagine people having multiple
>goals) the intelligence of desiring more than one criteria for a good
>society.
I will allow it when you allow it. It is absurd at this late stage to
defend your own theory on the basis that the propositions you've
offered to defend it don't actually apply.
>I assume that what you mean is that there are more male victims
>of violence than female.
There are, of course, but that was not the point at all. If "social
equality" is effected by means of proportional representation and
equal outcomes, it is achieved when that occurs. The activities and
social behaviours of the citizens of that society are correct at that
time, regardless of what they may be.
> I do not have stats on hand, and hence will not
>dispute the claim. You argue, therefore, presumably (hopefully!)
>facetiously, that, therefore, to promote equality, more females should be
>made victims of crime (and, to be technical, that more females should
>also be perpetrators of violent crime). I opt for the strategy that less
>violence is better, and that, therefore, the strategy to work for is
>reducing violence perpetrated by males (and, in general, violence
>perpetrated by anyone).
Why not reducing violence perpetuated by Jews? Or Blacks? Or the
blue-eyed? Or just PEOPLE? I want to tell you something: "males" do
not commit violent crimes on account of their sex, notwithstanding
whatever experiences you, as a "male", have indulged in.
>: You are mistaken. I advocate the equal treatment of people without
>: respect for their immutable charateristics, or demographic group
>: status.
>Please note that you have not advocated equal treatment UNDER THE LAW
>which is what the context of your argument implies. I advocate equal
>treatment UNDER SOCIETY, which is larger than govt.
I'm prepared to endorse good manners, but it won't help anyone not
protected by law. These religious and moral arguments about the way
people should behave "under society" are completely dependent upon the
society one finds oneself in. If you are in a society that, by law,
must exclusively discriminate against men on the basis of their sex,
one's behaviour is rather apt to be different based on your sex, don't
you think?
>If social inequality
>exists, it does not necessarily exist due to the act of govt. Indeed, it
>is the role of govt, in this case, to correct the social inequality.
Which "social inequality" though, Mr. Huyer? That alleged by
John Sutherland
: John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: If a demographic group makes up a certain percentage of society but does
: not have political/social/economic influence correspondent to its
: demographic weight, social inequality exists.
<snip>
Let us examine an example where it is someone other than single,
white, straight males who would be discriminated against. Take a look at
the enrollment in a typical science program at any university. Why
shouldn't ~1/2 the jobs in the industry go to asians then? I don't see
how this correction of 'social inequalities' helps them either. After
all, asians in the population surely make up much less than 50%, but in
engineering (here at the U of A at least) they are vastly
overrepresented. The minute anyone starts to enforce quotas as to who
should be working in specific fields, you do two things. You stop hiring
the best _person_ for the job (I don't care what color, gender,
preference, etc.). Secondly, you immeditately rule out taking into
account such things as I have just mentioned. There are <52% of our
elected officials that are women. Why not check out the percentage of
those who run versus those in positions. I submit that there is perhaps
a more even percentage of women who run for office compared with those
who win. Also, before you start bitching about how women aren't fairly
represented, I suggest you take a look at your definitions for democracy
again. Women vote for men, men vote for women. Just because a certain
constituencies representative is not female, does that mean that the
women in that riding are not represented? Hardly.
Timothy Huyer
: Timothy Huyer (huy...@qed.uucp) wrote:
: Let us examine an example where it is someone other than single,
: white, straight males who would be discriminated against. Take a look at
: the enrollment in a typical science program at any university. Why
: shouldn't ~1/2 the jobs in the industry go to asians then?
I presume that talent is distributed roughly equally across the entire
population. That is to say, there is, IMHO, no inherent reason to
believe that a person of Asian heritage is genetically predisposed to be
better at a particular field than a person of caucasian or any other
heritage. Even allowing for some genetic differences, particularly
across gender -- and I am being hypothetical here, being well outside of
my field of expertise -- the differences would not account for the large
statistical differences we see in society.
Under this presumption, the concern is not whether or not the job
is going to the most qualified person, but whether or not the job is
going to the person who would have, under equivalent training, be the
most talented for the job.
In the example of engineering: the vast overrepresentation of
men means that potentially very talented women are not entering that
science and that educational resources are therefore not being
efficiently allocated. If, as you describe, persons of Asian heritage are
significantly and non-trivially overrepresented as well, then there
likewise exists reason for concern.
Caveats: (1) the ability of underrepresented demographic groups to
adjust varies. Typically, white males have much higher initial wealth
endowments and thus adjusting is not as constrained as for other
demographic groups. If engineering is a good career choice but requires
increased competitiveness in mathematics and physics, it is more likely
that the wealthier white males will be able to acquire that increased
competitiveness on their own than other demographic groups.
Caveat to the caveat: the caveat reduces the imperativeness of
govt action in this case, but does not absolve the govt of any and all
actions. Govt response in fact becomes necessary in the case of
adjusting school curricula, for example.
(2) Temporary overrepresentation _could_ be an optimal short run
strategy in order to achieve social equity. The numbers of professional
engineers are still overrepresented white male; it can be argued that by
changing that fact by temporarily overrepresenting non-whites and females
in engineering schools is the best course for ensuring that the stable
long run solution of proportional representation occurs most quickly.
There are plenty of caveats to this caveat, and it is a very
technical issue at best.
: The minute anyone starts to enforce quotas as to who
: should be working in specific fields,
The necessary linking of affirmative action to quotas is categorically
incorrect and one which I have repeatedly mentioned in this thread and
elsewhere. When underrepresentation is observed affirmative action MAY
be necessary, and the possible strategies available include many more
options beside enforcement of quotas.
The goal of affirmative action is not to restrict the number of
qualified persons from the overrepresented demographic group but to
increase the number from the underrepresented. It will end up, clearly,
that individuals from the overrepresented group previously considered to
be qualified will lose that status once more competitive/talented
individuals from the underrepresented group start achieving their ability
levels, but this is dramatically different than the nightmare example of
quotas you illustrated.
: Women vote for men, men vote for women. Just because a certain
: constituencies representative is not female, does that mean that the
: women in that riding are not represented?
Political influence is not solely a function of having the vote.
Moreover, it is not the electorate who directly sets public policy, but
the elected. It follows, therefore, that if there is a significant
difference between the representation of women in parliament and their
representation in the population, then there are some factors which bias
the political influence that women have.
The elected represent the constituency that will elect them and
keep them in office. If the influence of women is not consistent with
their demographic weight, then they are not being represented according
to their numbers.
Timothy Huyer
: Timothy Huyer (huy...@qed.uucp) wrote:
My previous post was misunderstood, and I will try to summarize and
explain more clearly what my intent was.
Qualification for a job is mainly a function of inherent talent
and training. The issue is not who is most qualified, but if the
qualified persons represent the best talent pool possible.
It would be nice, first of all, to presume that employers always
use optimal labour search strategies to find the best qualified
applicants. Unfortunately, this is something that cannot be simply be
assumed to be always and everywhere true. Nevertheless, this issue is
not necessary for the existence of sub-optimal labour market results.
The issue is not merely whether the best qualified person is
getting the job but whether the most talented person is getting the
training and other human capital investments to become the best qualified.
The issue is also not one, as was misunderstood in John Sutherland's
reply to my previous post, of whether the self-interested employer is
hiring the best qualified instead of the most talented (when those two
are disjoint sets), but whether the _social_ result is that the best
qualified are the most talented.
Under situations that the most talented are not becoming the best
qualified, as is apparent as the case today, the issue is what form of
social intervention is optimal in addressing that issue. Note that
proving that non-intervention will still result in the imbalance being
corrected; the issue is of optimal path, if there is an intervention
strategy that will correct the imbalance more speedily and with less
cost to society.
It should not be interpreted, since it was not my intent, that I
support govt dictating what fields people should be studying either. But
given sufficiently large demographic groups who are entering certain
fields at rates significantly different than their demographic weight, it
is clear that an inefficiency in human capital investment resources is
occuring, and some intervention could improve the situation. Some of
those attempts, such as the use of scholarships for persons in
disadvantaged demographic groups, are currently in existence. Other
strategies are possible; the list is by no means exhaustive, and to
analyse the potential merits and disadvantages of each strategy is a
purely technical question.
: So now intelligence is based on economics? If a dumb person is
: born to a wealthy family, s/he will immediately have an advantage over
: other smarter people from less well off families? I sincerely doubt
: that. Perhaps you've heard of independence, and self-reliance? The will
: to achieve? I submit that those from well-off families will have a
: reduced ability to be competitive because their drive will be
: concomittantly less.
To even provide a fraction of the evidence, theoretical and empirical,
would involve many hours of time that I do not have.
The advantage to having wealth as an endowment is a result of
imperfect capital markets, a term familiar in any intermediate
economics course. The simplest way of noting it is that one borrows
money at a higher rate of interest than one lends (i.e., the bank charges
more for loans than it gives for deposits). Thus, the person who does
not need to borrow to finance human capital investment (eg., university
education) is facing the opportunity cost of the SAVINGS rate of interest
whereas the person who does need to borrow to finance same faces the
opportunity cost at the LENDING rate. It is straightforward to show that
at these different rates of interest, persons of equal talent but
different wealth endowments will not always make the same decisions
regarding human capital investment.
This even presumes that borrowing is even feasible. Note that
the non-wealthy person lacks collateral to put up for the loan and is
thus a very bad risk for the bank.
For more literature, consult texts on labour market economics. I
have mentioned repeatedly Becker, G.S. (1992). _Human Capital_ 3rd ed.,
as another source, since Becker was one of the defining contriubtors in
this field.
: So rich kids get a different curriculum than the rest of us?
: They don't teach them to spell, read, etc. until Grade 5? I'm sure
: that's not what you meant, but could you explain more clearly?
Actually, since communities are often defined by wealth and schools are,
in most areas, funded in part by local taxes, rich community's schools
will be better funded in general than other schools. Moreover, the
advantages of richer neighbourhoods notwithstanding education funding --
such as reduced crime -- create a better educational environment. As an
anecdotal note, I went to primary/secondary schools in St. Albert
(Alberta), which had all of the advantages I just mentioned.
: So then when there is a desire to correct this
: 'overrepresentation' there will be a hue and cry among the non-whites and
: females about discrimination?
Please read my previous post; I actually mentioned this issue rather
explicitly on it. To repeat in summary, govt intervention strategy
should be influenced in part by the ability of the under-represented
group to adjust on their own. In this sense, white males are less likely
to need govt intervention or need it as strongly. It does not, however,
mean that such intervention will always be unnecessary in the case of
white males.
: Those who are smart enough (read-good enough grades) to get in do,
Except where human capital investment failures result, please note labour
econ literature and/or Becker.
: Yes, that's real nice on paper, but we both know that in
: implementation, AA becomes a quota system. It becomes so much more
: administration friendly if that is the case.
Slippery slope argument. Affirmative action strategies is not limited to
quota systems, nor is it necessary that such strategies will lead to such
a system. Some discussion and attempts to implement a NON-STRICT quota
system have occured but these cases have resulted independently of other
affirmative action strategies.
: So, we ask industry, gov't, the world to wait while we balance
: our group representation? Again, I submit that the balances are there
: pure and simply as a result of environmental, social and economic
: pressures.
I submit that you are in error and that simply consulting the various
literature on the topic would reveal same.
: Again, I ask you to look at the %ages of women who run vs those
: who are elected. I think you will find that it is pretty fairly
: reflected.
I will apologise for not having the statistics, and this lack of
provision of data should be considered in the weight this claim makes,
but the data does not support your hypothesis. The %age of women elected
is less than the %age of women who run. This is typically as a result
that the seats a party considers the most winnable are the ones in which
a male typically runs.
: So the constituencies are weighted so that each of them has not
: enough women in them? Tim, you can't have it both ways. You say that
: ~52% of the population (goes against a stat I heard, but let's say you're
: right) are women. Then you say that the elected represent those who
: elect them, but are not representing women. Do you not see the conflict
: here?
Please read my previous post, since my point on this issue was explicitly
made. To repeat and summarize: the elected represent those who got them
elected and can re-elect them. The influence, then, is not simply one of
demographic weight of the franchised, but other factors as well. It is
these other factors which reduce the influence of women to below their
demographic weight.
PKolding
> In a similar vein, in any given field, having a hiring
>policy which tries to enforce a certain stereotypical view of the
>'normal' populace is a farce. The gender issue can be addressed in a
>similar way. The field I am currently employed in is dominated by
>women. Does that mean that the training programs for this field should
>stop allowing women entry, or preferentially allow men in? Funny how
>when the shoe is on the other foot, change is not always the watch-cry.
You will find that the promoters of "equality" quickly shift to the
stand of "temporary inequality" when such things are brought to their
uncomfortable attention. They then spring into a more morally
satisfactory aggressiveness, and state that domination by females "may
be necessary" before society is sufficiently acclimatised to
"equality".
The problem that you state above----the lack of AA in professions and
occupations dominated by females----is far more serious that you
suggest. It is not a matter of any philosophical opposition to such a
thing (though, of course, that exists), but it is a matter of law. It
is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate against anyone not a non-disabled
white male. AA for NDWM is therefore a legal impossibility. Any
profession that tried it---nursing?---would face sanctions on two
fronts. The first would be from non-NDWM who would be discriminated
against by such an AA program, and the second would be from
Attorneys-General responsible for enforcing the multitudinous AA laws,
programs and activities which specifically target NDWM for
discrimination (as there is no one else legally available for denying
employment, promotion, training, funding etc.).
Timothy Huyer
Organization: Department of Economics
Distribution:
haw...@ibm.net wrote:
: Yet there doesn't seem to be any rational argument establishing
: that there be an expectation of equality of participation in
: those few things you have defined as having "direct influence",
: nor do you attempt to discern if there are areas of social
: influence within which women tend to prevail, and to what extent
: you might decide that those areas countervail these "political
: and corporate" areas.
Equality of participation would be symptomatic of social equality. If
there were no barriers to participation, real or imagined, visible or
not, and if returns were not biased on account of, for example, gender,
then both genders would be participating at roughly equal levels.
If the disadvantage is a local effect, countervailed by
advantages in other areas, I would support the elimination of all
advantages.
: And indeed men being "over-represented" in some other areas can
: simply be attributed to men participating and competing in those
: areas to a greater extent.
Which is indeed the case. But note above.
: The State and the Law have a responsibility to treat all citizens
: as equally as practicable. Their inherent differences do not
: provide the State with excuses to crush out those differences.
The State and the Law have a responsiblity to _ensure_ that all citizens
are treated as equally as possible. Such inequal treatment need not
solely come from the activities of the State, and, when they arise from
other factors besides that of the State, the State must determine what is
the optimal strategy for eliminating the inequal treatment. This can
include affirmative action programmes in the short run.
The attribution of all differences in employment, wealth, etc.,
to inherent (i.e., genetic) differences and not, at least in part, to
discrimination is a very strong statement, and one which scientific
opinion does not agree with. I will concede that my earlier presumption
that talent is equally distributed across the population is strong, but
that it is a much closer approximation than the extreme uneven
distribution of talent which you are claiming.
Timothy Huyer
Organization: Department of Economics
Distribution:
haw...@ibm.net wrote:
: Alas, you have simplified to the point that the example is no
: longer applicable. The "coins" in the case of members of Society,
: are more like multi-sided dice (eg from a D&D game), and all of
: the dice are off-weighted in different ways and all have
: irregular sides.
In the situation where there is a bias, eg., an irregular side on
the die, then repeated tossing of the die will assymptotically approach
the true probabilities of generating each number of the die. In the case
of a coin that is biased so that it tosses heads 55% of the time, after a
large number of tosses, the number of heads will approach 55% of total
tosses.
If the proportion of heads is significantly different from .55,
then this implies that either or both of two cases may be true:
(1) The true probability of heads is not .55.
(2) The sample/test is somehow affected by other factors.
In the case of testing for the presence of discrimination, I will concede
that it is not merely as simple as testing against the entire population;
the proof of my assumption of equal distribution of talent across the
population has not been established. Obviously, if there were such a
profession as snow-pissing, statistics would find a very high proportion
of males employed to piss on snow, and very low proportion of females.
This could fairly easily be argued due to genetic factors and not through
discrimination.
Note, however, that this has been one reason why I have, in
previous posts, mentioned that not only is the representation of women
significantly different from their demographic weight but of non-trivial
magnitudes in difference. I.e., one might -- I simply have little
information -- claim that women are significantly less capable than men
in many fields besides snow-pissing, but can that claim account for the
entire difference that is apparent?
I am aware that some research effort has been attempted to
determine if their is indeed inherent genetic differences in talent
between males and females of certain talent levels. I am not certain of
results, but none indicated that the difference was of non-trivial
magnitude. An article in The Economist at the start of January seemed to
suggest that the inherent genetic advantages favoured women in most
fields. If that is the case, then the problem of discrimination is even
larger than originally claimed.
: As defined, "social equality" is neither good nor bad. It might
: exist in this or that case, or it might not, but it hasn't any
: normative value. It can be seen, though, that "equal treatment"
: is good, as all should have the same legal rights in any well-run
: modern society.
If equal treatment is good then a good society will have positions of
influence and other areas represented at the population proportion of a
demographic group modified by the inherent ability bias of each
representative of that group. I.e., a society in which equal treatment
by society is occuring will have social equality. No other result is
possible.
: Unless that other group has advantages elsewhere than in the
: "political" arena, in which case the overall "social equality"
: may still exist, even though it does not hold locally.
If this case were to hold, and I would argue that it does not, it would
follow that the objective is not to have some second best situation with
an advantage in one field being offset with an advantage in another but
to eliminate all advantages in all fields.
haw...@ibm.net
>: Why? All you are doing is defining, out of the ether, what you
>: consider is evidence of a "social equality" you have already pulled
>: out of the ether in the first place. It is precisely the "hypothesis"
>: that is at issue here. You have arbitrarily decided that XX, XY
>: chromosomal attributes are something deserving "social equality". You
>: are on record that ANY arbitrary attribute is worthy of this. And
>: finally, you pull from the ether your own definition of "equality" as
>: being represented simply by parity. None of these presumptions are
>: defensible except upon prejudice and partiality.
>
>I am at a loss as to what element of the argument that you are
>attacking. Are you claiming that (1) women should not be equal to men,
>and, in fact, should be inferior, (2) that proportional representation in
>positions of political and corporate influence is not an indicator of
>social equality -- if so, why not? --,
Nothing in the inherent makeup of men and women precludes them
from being different from one another, on average. You can (and
thus far in this missive of yours you have done so at least three
times) define any arbitrary characteristic as being an indicator
of this "social equality" construct, and in any sets of
individuals you would be able to find characteristics that show
inequalities. Using those same sets of persons you could also
find characteristics that did not show any inequalities, and you
could find characteristics that showed inequalities in opposition
to those you discovered in the first instance.
This is even before any question of whether such differences stem
from some ill-defined discrimination.
>I argue that proportional representation would be a reasonable
>indicator of social equality as there does not seem any rational argument
>why women would be socially equal yet not have direct influence equal to
>their demographic rate.
Yet there doesn't seem to be any rational argument establishing
that there be an expectation of equality of participation in
those few things you have defined as having "direct influence",
nor do you attempt to discern if there are areas of social
influence within which women tend to prevail, and to what extent
you might decide that those areas countervail these "political
and corporate" areas.
>Please attempt to follow a logical path. Men being over-represented in
>prisons can simply be attributed to men commiting more crimes
And indeed men being "over-represented" in some other areas can
simply be attributed to men participating and competing in those
areas to a greater extent.
>Given the existence of social inequality, the need exists to
>change that state, as I have stated above.
Not really. "Correcting" what can be seen to be local
inequalities (constrained to certain specific and carefully
chosen areas of endeavour) by the introduction of other
State-imposed and deliberate inequalities while ignoring all
other aspects of life is an unnecessary intrusion in Society.
The State and the Law have a responsibility to treat all citizens
as equally as practicable. Their inherent differences do not
provide the State with excuses to crush out those differences.
>I advocate equal treatment UNDER SOCIETY, which is larger than govt.
Not at all, Tim; you are advocating unequal treatment to balance
what you perceive to be unequal statuses... not the same thing at
all.
>If social inequality exists, it does not necessarily exist due
>to the act of government.
However, governments when they treat people differently guarantee
the creation of local social inequality by that action,
inequality that might or might not (generally not) be balanced by
other countervailing inequalities.
Glenn Mor
haw...@ibm.net
>Any statistician would state that, given a large enough sample,
>the sample statistics should approach the true proportions unless a bias
>exists. If one tosses a _fair_ coin often enough, the number of heads
>should end up being very close to 50%. Therefore, to test whether or not
>a coin is fair, one tosses it a number of times, and then uses statistics
>to see if the proportion of heads is significantly different from 50%.
>If the proportion of heads is indeed significantly different, evidence
>that the coin is biased exists.
Alas, you have simplified to the point that the example is no
longer applicable. The "coins" in the case of members of Society,
are more like multi-sided dice (eg from a D&D game), and all of
the dice are off-weighted in different ways and all have
irregular sides.
No set of tossings of any one die will yield an even distribution
of outcomes, and if you compare sets of tossings of dice that
have some aspect in common (say, their largest side is opposite
the numeral 6) with similar tossings of dice having a different
aspect in common (eg- their centre of gravity is opposite the
numeral 3), then you will find that the long term average will
yield different results for each set.
This tells you nothing more than that the dice are irregular,
something that can be deduced without recourse to large sample
sizes.
>It would also help that if you continue to reply to these
>arguments, that you attempt to use some logic. The argument, at this
>stage, is: (1) social equality is good, and (2) statistics can be used
>to determine if social equality exists. I have assumed that social
>equality being good is not controversial, based on some evidence that
>some of your arguments seemed to derive from that premise.
As defined, "social equality" is neither good nor bad. It might
exist in this or that case, or it might not, but it hasn't any
normative value. It can be seen, though, that "equal treatment"
is good, as all should have the same legal rights in any well-run
modern society.
Statistics can be used to determine whether people are different,
but they cannot ascribe to those differences any desirability or
undesirability.
>If one demographic group has political advantage over another, than, ipso
>facto, social equality does not exist.
Unless that other group has advantages elsewhere than in the
"political" arena, in which case the overall "social equality"
may still exist, even though it does not hold locally.
> In the case of male/female representation in positions of
>influence, all of these have been done. Moreover, the statistical
>evidence is, as I have repeatedly emphasised, not only significant but it
>is non-trivial; even if the data is skewed due to some unknown reason the
>odds of such a skewing being so dramatic as to provide such large
>magnitude results is not significantly different from zero. In other
>words, the evidence here is (well) beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet this is merely evidence that non-random factors are involved.
It says nothing about whether those factors might be deemed
desirable or undesirable. Non-identicality of outcomes does not
either directly or indirectly create a situation that demands
changes from the State.
Glenn Mor
haw...@ibm.net
>I presume that talent is distributed roughly equally across the entire
>population. That is to say, there is, IMHO, no inherent reason to
>believe that a person of Asian heritage is genetically predisposed to be
>better at a particular field than a person of caucasian or any other
>heritage.
Oh, good heavens no. The distribution of abilities in a wide
array of areas is quite inhomogenous across racial, cultural, and
gender bounds. Some of this is genetic, some of it is
environmental, and some is due to choices made by the individuals
in question.
There is no reason to assume that if people are very different
from one another, then groups of people assembled according to
specific criteria (ie- non-randomly) will not be different from
one another as well.
Glenn Mor
Michael Walton
: <4cubgm$j...@knot.queensu.ca> <4ddtfa$f...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>:
Why should I believe this, and why should I care? Have you measured
the inherihant ability bias of each 'group' lately?
Why do you care so much about so called 'society'? Are you
sure your not simply being intrusive? 'Society' isn't your
little pet to be groomed as you please.
: : Unless that other group has advantages elsewhere than in the
: : "political" arena, in which case the overall "social equality"
: : may still exist, even though it does not hold locally.
: If this case were to hold, and I would argue that it does not, it would
: follow that the objective is not to have some second best situation with
: an advantage in one field being offset with an advantage in another but
: to eliminate all advantages in all fields.
:
John Sutherland
: John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu4.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: My previous post was misunderstood, and I will try to summarize and
: explain more clearly what my intent was.
: Qualification for a job is mainly a function of inherent talent
: and training. The issue is not who is most qualified, but if the
: qualified persons represent the best talent pool possible.
: It would be nice, first of all, to presume that employers always
: use optimal labour search strategies to find the best qualified
: applicants. Unfortunately, this is something that cannot be simply be
: assumed to be always and everywhere true. Nevertheless, this issue is
: not necessary for the existence of sub-optimal labour market results.
: The issue is not merely whether the best qualified person is
: getting the job but whether the most talented person is getting the
: training and other human capital investments to become the best qualified.
: The issue is also not one, as was misunderstood in John Sutherland's
: reply to my previous post, of whether the self-interested employer is
: hiring the best qualified instead of the most talented (when those two
: are disjoint sets), but whether the _social_ result is that the best
: qualified are the most talented.
Here I must disagree. Whether or not the _social_ result is the
best is not the typical goal of employers. With AA, you ask employers to
perhaps choose sub-standard applicants, and also ask applicants to
prepare to be discriminated against. How can you legislate social
equality? Hell, if we can't do it without laws, do you really expect
laws to be the answer?
<snip>
: : So rich kids get a different curriculum than the rest of us?
: : They don't teach them to spell, read, etc. until Grade 5? I'm sure
: : that's not what you meant, but could you explain more clearly?
: Actually, since communities are often defined by wealth and schools are,
: in most areas, funded in part by local taxes, rich community's schools
: will be better funded in general than other schools. Moreover, the
: advantages of richer neighbourhoods notwithstanding education funding --
: such as reduced crime -- create a better educational environment.
And your point about this was? You want different curricula
depending on the tax bracket that the school resides in? Tim, last time
I checked, schooling was as close to free as possible. For those who
have the work ethic, there are plenty of scholarships available. In the
final apporximation, those who get good scholarships and go to good
schools do so because of personal drive. I doubt very much that this can
be considered to be an economic issue.
<snip>
: : So then when there is a desire to correct this
: : 'overrepresentation' there will be a hue and cry among the non-whites and
: : females about discrimination?
: Please read my previous post; I actually mentioned this issue rather
: explicitly on it. To repeat in summary, govt intervention strategy
: should be influenced in part by the ability of the under-represented
: group to adjust on their own. In this sense, white males are less likely
: to need govt intervention or need it as strongly. It does not, however,
: mean that such intervention will always be unnecessary in the case of
: white males.
So sooner or later, the government will have to issue an AA
policy regarding hiring of white males because they are under-represented
in the workplace? What a farce! Again, the market is being driven by
competition by all candidates. The candidate who is best for the job
should get the job. Period. Regardless of color, creed, etc.
: : Those who are smart enough (read-good enough grades) to get in do,
: Except where human capital investment failures result, please note labour
: econ literature and/or Becker.
Again, check out the real costs of education in the public
system. It just doesn't cost that much to send a kid to school. What
s/he does there is really up to him/her.
: : Yes, that's real nice on paper, but we both know that in
: : implementation, AA becomes a quota system. It becomes so much more
: : administration friendly if that is the case.
: Slippery slope argument. Affirmative action strategies is not limited to
: quota systems, nor is it necessary that such strategies will lead to such
: a system. Some discussion and attempts to implement a NON-STRICT quota
: system have occured but these cases have resulted independently of other
: affirmative action strategies.
Slippery slope argument? Real-life basis! Yes, AA strategies
are not limited to quotas, but again are easier to implement if they
are. Define non-strict quota for me. Is that where if you have too many
females working for you, or too many Native Americans it's alright, as
long as you don't have too many white males working for you?
: : So, we ask industry, gov't, the world to wait while we balance
: : our group representation? Again, I submit that the balances are there
: : pure and simply as a result of environmental, social and economic
: : pressures.
: I submit that you are in error and that simply consulting the various
: literature on the topic would reveal same.
Literature written from what point of view? Yours? I'm sure you
have passels of scripts supporting your POV. I think that at the very
least I can find a few to support my POV without even really trying.
That's the problem with some of the social sciences Tim (as I am sure you
well know), you can find any number of papers that support pretty much
anything.
: : Again, I ask you to look at the %ages of women who run vs those
: : who are elected. I think you will find that it is pretty fairly
: : reflected.
: I will apologise for not having the statistics, and this lack of
: provision of data should be considered in the weight this claim makes,
: but the data does not support your hypothesis. The %age of women elected
: is less than the %age of women who run. This is typically as a result
: that the seats a party considers the most winnable are the ones in which
: a male typically runs.
Again, please come up with some data. Let me talk about the
%ages here in Edmonton. Last municipal election, about an equal
percentage of women ran compared to the women who won. Unless there is
some serious, non-trivial, problem with the rest of Canada, I think that
you will find that it is the same everywhere. As for the party
supporting those who are considered winnable, is it now a grand
conspiracy by the big 5 to keep women out of politics? Please, we can
only cary the blame for things so far. Unfortunately, as far as most of
it goes is right on our own doorsteps.
: : So the constituencies are weighted so that each of them has not
: : enough women in them? Tim, you can't have it both ways. You say that
: : ~52% of the population (goes against a stat I heard, but let's say you're
: : right) are women. Then you say that the elected represent those who
: : elect them, but are not representing women. Do you not see the conflict
: : here?
: Please read my previous post, since my point on this issue was explicitly
: made. To repeat and summarize: the elected represent those who got them
: elected and can re-elect them. The influence, then, is not simply one of
: demographic weight of the franchised, but other factors as well. It is
: these other factors which reduce the influence of women to below their
: demographic weight.
So women are stupid and allow those who don't represent them to
win time and time again? What other factors are involved Tim?
Timothy Huyer
Organization: Department of Economics
Distribution:
Michael Walton (wal...@thing.declab.queensu.ca) wrote:
: Timothy Huyer (huy...@qed.uucp) wrote:
: : If equal treatment is good then a good society will have positions of
: : influence and other areas represented at the population proportion of a
: : demographic group modified by the inherent ability bias of each
: : representative of that group. I.e., a society in which equal treatment
: : by society is occuring will have social equality. No other result is
: : possible.
: Why should I believe this, and why should I care?
If you have a moral premise that equal treatment is a good thing, then
you should care. Moreover, given that moral premise, you should be
prepared to accept scientific measures of determining whether society is
(morally) good, i.e., whether equal treatment exists in society.
Most of the previous posts on this thread dealt with the issue of
whether the means of measure I propose are justifiable, and I will skip
over those arguments here.
: Have you measured
: the inherihant ability bias of each 'group' lately?
No. Nor have I cited any specific studies that do so. It should be
evident from my previous posts that I did not make any effort to conceal
these facts, and I fully acknowledge that they weaken the arguments that
I am putting forward.
Were this an academic journal, this weakness would have denied me
publication. The 'net is somewhat more forgiving. I will admit that my
position depends at least to some extent on facts that I cannot claim
with confidence. It is my belief, though, that studies done indicate that
the inherent ability bias is not sufficient to explain the inequalities
present in society.
If this is the only weakness in my position, then it should be
clear from anyone who wishes to refute my position that they must merely
provide academic studies indicating that inherent ability biases do
indeed explain all of the inequalities present in society. If, after
that point, I am unable to provide other academic studies and/or
rigourously show how the other studies are not valid, then my entire
position is defeated entirely by my own argument.
So, please, be my guest and submit such citations of studies.
Needless to say, it is also possible that there are other weaknesses in
my position, and you remain free to attempt to show that those other
possible weaknesses make my position invalid.
: Why do you care so much about so called 'society'?
If I may say so myself, it is because I am a nice guy ;-)
: Are you
: sure your not simply being intrusive? 'Society' isn't your
: little pet to be groomed as you please.
I would be intrusive if my position is invalid. There are several places
where this could happen:
(1) My opinion that social inequality exists could be wrong.
(2) My opinion on what redress can be taken to correct social
inequality may, in fact, be detrimental.
I will acknowledge that I cannot claim 100% certainty. However, I am
sure enough to support implementation of corrective policy.
Timothy Huyer
: Timothy Huyer (huy...@qed.uucp) wrote:
: Here I must disagree. Whether or not the _social_ result is the
: best is not the typical goal of employers. With AA, you ask employers to
: perhaps choose sub-standard applicants, and also ask applicants to
: prepare to be discriminated against. How can you legislate social
: equality? Hell, if we can't do it without laws, do you really expect
: laws to be the answer?
There are various strategies with AA. AA DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL STRICT
QUOTAS. AA does not necessarily ask employers to choose sub-standard
applicants.
The various strategies for AA include: (1) improvement of standards
of applicants from under-represented groups (For example, scholarships
for persons from under-represented groups to study certain fields)
(2) assistance for firms to ensure that they are considering _all_
possible applicants of acceptable standard, not just from an
over-represented group, (3) encouragement to hire under-represented when
candidates of equivalent standard, and (4) encouragement to hire
candidates from under-represented groups provided they meet necessary
job qualifications. I will even allow that this list is by no means
exhaustive.
In only one of the four strategies that I have mentioned (number 4) is
there some provision for hiring a candidate from an under-represented
group when a better candidate exists. Strategies (2) and (3) might
increase the costs that the firm must incur in hiring/training, but will
result in no worse candidates and very possibly better candidates being
hired. Strategy (1) does not affect costs of the firm and thus can only
improve quality of candidates.
I am very frustrated that opponents to affirmative action
consistently only mention the most extreme strategy and only the
potential negative consequences of that strategy. I would hope that
future debate tones down the rhetoric and moves to intelligent discussion.
By "legislating social equality" it should not be taken to mean
that a simple Act of Parliament would cause all inequality to end. I
claim that the optimal strategy for the ending of inequality involves the
intervention of govt, but the differences between the two statements
should be clear.
: And your point about this was? You want different curricula
: depending on the tax bracket that the school resides in? Tim, last time
: I checked, schooling was as close to free as possible. For those who
: have the work ethic, there are plenty of scholarships available. In the
: final apporximation, those who get good scholarships and go to good
: schools do so because of personal drive. I doubt very much that this can
: be considered to be an economic issue.
My point is that the quality of schools can be dependent, even at the
primary and secondary levels, on the wealth of the family going. To go
to certain schools, one must live in the jurisdiction to which they
belong, and, therefore, pay the costs of living in that jurisdiction. I
used an anecdotal example in my previous post which described the
circumstances of a wealthy suburb of Edmonton -- where there existed
virtually no housing for lower income families. In this case, it could
not be argued that the education was free.
In the case of post-secondary education the case is even more
obvious. MIT, for instance, has tuition for 12 months at US$28 000.
Now, MIT also provides scholarships for many very qualified persons.
However, there will be the case where two students of equal
qualifications, capable of getting accepted into MIT but not able to get
scholarships, will have the decision of going dependent upon wealth. For
the person who does not go to MIT, their education will likely be of
lower quality and their labour productivity, and hence employment
prospects and wage prospects, accordingly reduced.
: So sooner or later, the government will have to issue an AA
: policy regarding hiring of white males because they are under-represented
: in the workplace? What a farce! Again, the market is being driven by
: competition by all candidates. The candidate who is best for the job
: should get the job. Period. Regardless of color, creed, etc.
If AA is a good strategy for correcting under-representation of any
demographic group, then it should be used. As to the remainder of the
paragraph, there are consistent and inherent biases which prevent talent
from determining qualifications and which also prevent qualifications
from determining employment prospects and wage potentials.
I will agree with caveats in the wording, though: the person who has
the most talent for the job should get the job.
: Slippery slope argument? Real-life basis! Yes, AA strategies
: are not limited to quotas, but again are easier to implement if they
: are. Define non-strict quota for me. Is that where if you have too many
: females working for you, or too many Native Americans it's alright, as
: long as you don't have too many white males working for you?
Non-strict quota: (1) A quota which is simply a target, which is not
binding. (2) A quota whose target value is set voluntarily.
I had thought that the definition would be obvious.
I do not see why AA strategies are easier to implement if strict quotas
are used. The preferential scholarships that I have mentioned repeatedly
seem like the easiest to administer form of AA. Moreover, it is not
apparent that existing AA programmes have led to the creation of strict
quota programmes. The only possible argument derives from that it has
been shown that AA is still good but that the weaker measures taken are
not sufficient. This nevertheless requires that all AA programmes must
be analysed on their own merit and do not simply spawn other, stronger AA
programmes.
: : I submit that you are in error and that simply consulting the various
: : literature on the topic would reveal same.
: Literature written from what point of view? Yours? I'm sure you
: have passels of scripts supporting your POV. I think that at the very
: least I can find a few to support my POV without even really trying.
: That's the problem with some of the social sciences Tim (as I am sure you
: well know), you can find any number of papers that support pretty much
: anything.
I invite you to actually study the social sciences before you decide that
they are of no academic value. The following of scientific principles
and clearly developed logical methodology are cornerstones to any
academic discipline.
I invite you to read literature from an academic point of view.
If it is indeed biased, then an academic argument would expose those
biases.
Since you claim that you can find academic support with minimal
effort, I look forward to seeing the citations for that academic
support. Note that if you bring forward academic support by virtue of my
very own arguments your position becomes much stronger than mine since I
have not directly brought forward academic support.
: As for the party
: supporting those who are considered winnable, is it now a grand
: conspiracy by the big 5 to keep women out of politics? Please, we can
: only cary the blame for things so far. Unfortunately, as far as most of
: it goes is right on our own doorsteps.
No conspiracy was intended to be implied. If a riding is considered
winnable then it follows that more people will seek the nomination
for that riding. That more men are nominated then women could be
attributed to more men seeking the nomination but then this begs the
question as to why more men seek the nomination.
: So women are stupid and allow those who don't represent them to
: win time and time again? What other factors are involved Tim?
It would actually help if you did read the post I requested you to.
I have stated that political influence is not just a function of
demographic weight and that other factors -- such as money -- affect
influence. I make no claims to knowing what the entire list includes,
and have been thus terse on speculating details.
In order to present, for instance, one's specific concerns to
one's elected representative, quality of presentation is of importance.
Moreover, it is also important to be able to convey how this concern is
not just an individual or a small group's concern, but a concern worthy
of consideration of the elected official. Since it is generally unlikely
that all persons affected by an issue will independently so inform their
elected representative, some organised effort must exist which attempts
to show that its support is broader than just those presenting. Such
organisational effort requires money.
Note that a poorly organised presentation of concerns will
frequently be no different in presentation than a well organised
presentation that has less broad support. In other words, it is
frequently difficult to tell if the 100 letters represent 1% of the
people concerned or 90%.
From the politician's perspective, it also does not even particularly
matter if the 100 letters represent 1% or 90%. If the letters represent
only 1%, then clearly ignoring them will piss off a fairly large number
of voters. But it is clear that those voters are not capable of
effectively organising around their discontent. For example, ignoring
those letters might result in 100 more volunteers for the politician's
opponent in the next election -- it is unlikely that it will result in
more than that (if it would, then the presentation would have been better
organised and more letters sent).
All of these results can be traced to a lack of financial
resources and no other factor needs be invoked. Again, it is very likely
that other factors do indeed exist, but I am choosing to not speculate:
I am simply keeping the door open and not restricting myself to
unrealistic limitations.
Neil
> You will find that the promoters of "equality" quickly shift to the
> stand of "temporary inequality" when such things are brought to their
> uncomfortable attention. They then spring into a more morally
> satisfactory aggressiveness, and state that domination by females "may
> be necessary" before society is sufficiently acclimatised to
> "equality".
In what area do you perceive this so-called "domination by females" to
exist? Nursing? What evidence of discrimination against males do you
actually have?
> The problem that you state above----the lack of AA in professions and
> occupations dominated by females----is far more serious that you
> suggest. It is not a matter of any philosophical opposition to such a
> thing (though, of course, that exists), but it is a matter of law. It
> is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate against anyone not a non-disabled
> white male. AA for NDWM is therefore a legal impossibility.
Yes it is, the reason being that you fail to understand what AA actually
is. I will not explain it to you either. For someone who spends as much
time condemning it, I expect you to find out on your own what AA actually
entails in the United States.
> Any
> profession that tried it---nursing?---would face sanctions on two
> fronts. The first would be from non-NDWM who would be discriminated
> against by such an AA program, and the second would be from
> Attorneys-General responsible for enforcing the multitudinous AA laws,
> programs and activities which specifically target NDWM for
> discrimination (as there is no one else legally available for denying
> employment, promotion, training, funding etc.).
You show a fundamental misunderstanding of affirmative action in the
United States.
________________________________________
|Neil Singh, |^| |
|University of Arizona, <^\| |/^> |
|Tucson, Arizona, U.S.A. <__ __> |
|http://u.arizona.edu/~neilends | |
|________________________________________|
Timothy Huyer
: Look Tim, it is obvious that we disagree here, let's just leave
: it at that. You see nothing wrong with AA, and while I agree with the
: underlying premise, the principle (to me) seems to be just one more
: discriminatory idea. Thanks for the discussion.
We are at the point of repeating old points and not progressing further
on this point. I accept your proposal to agree to disagree.
: Perhaps because men feel the need for the public spotlight more
: than women? Check out the ratio of the posters to a newsgroup.
That would be a part of it. The socialisation that encourages men to
speak out much more than women needs to be addressed in order to achieve
social equality.
: So men are better able to write a well-informed letter? They
: naturally have more money than women (how about ethnic men?) so they can
: afford better print jobs? Women lack the organizational skills to carry
: off a letter-writing scheme? Every point you bring up is not gender
: based Tim. Unless you have some serious doubts about the capabilities of
: women, everything you have said seems to be able to apply to both genders
: equally.
If you check my previous post, you will note that I was not referring to
the ability of any person to write a letter or organise. I was referring
to how lack of organisation results in less influence. I also explicitly
stated that financial resources are necessary for effective organisation.
I submit that women, in general, have access to less financial
resources than men for the purposes of organising. The argument can
clearly be extended: non-whites, in general, also have access to less
financial resources than whites. I restricted my discussion to issues on
gender, but the topic is much broader than that (and it should be noted
that AA programmes target more than just women). Note, though, that
within any given ethnic group, women generally have less financial
resources than men. Thus, whereas the example of women is not an
exhaustive list of possible examples, the example is nevertheless a
relevant one.
--
Tim Huyer, Graduate Studies | "Masters are always and everywhere
Department of Economics | in a sort of tacit, but constant and
Queen's University, Canada | uniform combination, not to raise the
huy...@qed.econ.queensu.ca | wages of labour above their actual
4t...@qlink.queensu.ca | rate." Adam Smith
John Sutherland
: John Sutherland (jsut...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
<snip>
: There are various strategies with AA. AA DOES NOT ALWAYS EQUAL STRICT
: QUOTAS. AA does not necessarily ask employers to choose sub-standard
: applicants.
: The various strategies for AA include: (1) improvement of standards
: of applicants from under-represented groups (For example, scholarships
: for persons from under-represented groups to study certain fields)
So now we not only discriminate against those applying for jobs,
but we also discriminate against those getting an education. Nice. Real
nice.
: (2) assistance for firms to ensure that they are considering _all_
: possible applicants of acceptable standard, not just from an
: over-represented group,
Such as? If you're talking a resume/job search service, that I
can see. What else would this entail?
: (3) encouragement to hire under-represented when
: candidates of equivalent standard,
Monetary compensations?
: and (4) encouragement to hire
: candidates from under-represented groups provided they meet necessary
: job qualifications.
I really don't see how this differs for point 4.
: I will even allow that this list is by no means
: exhaustive.
: In only one of the four strategies that I have mentioned (number 4) is
: there some provision for hiring a candidate from an under-represented
: group when a better candidate exists. Strategies (2) and (3) might
: increase the costs that the firm must incur in hiring/training, but will
: result in no worse candidates and very possibly better candidates being
: hired. Strategy (1) does not affect costs of the firm and thus can only
: improve quality of candidates.
It doesn't affect the costs of the firm, but instead gives
preferential scholarships. Real social equality there.
Look Tim, it is obvious that we disagree here, let's just leave
it at that. You see nothing wrong with AA, and while I agree with the
underlying premise, the principle (to me) seems to be just one more
discriminatory idea. Thanks for the discussion.
: : As for the party
: : supporting those who are considered winnable, is it now a grand
: : conspiracy by the big 5 to keep women out of politics? Please, we can
: : only cary the blame for things so far. Unfortunately, as far as most of
: : it goes is right on our own doorsteps.
: No conspiracy was intended to be implied. If a riding is considered
: winnable then it follows that more people will seek the nomination
: for that riding. That more men are nominated then women could be
: attributed to more men seeking the nomination but then this begs the
: question as to why more men seek the nomination.
Perhaps because men feel the need for the public spotlight more
than women? Check out the ratio of the posters to a newsgroup.
: : So women are stupid and allow those who don't represent them to
So men are better able to write a well-informed letter? They
naturally have more money than women (how about ethnic men?) so they can
afford better print jobs? Women lack the organizational skills to carry
off a letter-writing scheme? Every point you bring up is not gender
based Tim. Unless you have some serious doubts about the capabilities of
women, everything you have said seems to be able to apply to both genders
equally.
Drew
haw...@ibm.net
>Equality of participation would be symptomatic of social equality. If
>there were no barriers to participation, real or imagined, visible or
>not, and if returns were not biased on account of, for example, gender,
>then both genders would be participating at roughly equal levels.
>If the disadvantage is a local effect, countervailed by
>advantages in other areas, I would support the elimination of all
>advantages.
Hmmm... yet you persist in proposing the creation of governmental
advantages for all who fall into what you define as disadvantaged
categories. That doesn't correspond with "elimination of all
advantages".
>The State and the Law have a responsiblity to _ensure_ that all citizens
>are treated as equally as possible. Such inequal treatment need not
>solely come from the activities of the State, and, when they arise from
>other factors besides that of the State, the State must determine what is
>the optimal strategy for eliminating the inequal treatment. This can
>include affirmative action programmes in the short run.
Oh, no, no, no... the State has a primary responsibility to
ensure that the STATE does not treat the citizens unequally. The
State also may be said to have a duty to ensure that the citizens
do not defraud or cheat one another in their dealings, but the
State has no responsibility to impose upon the citizenry the
choices of career or lifestyle, or whatever else they might
choose.
People themselves are far better at determining that to which
they are best suited than is any bureaucracy. If their own
choices don't correspond with the ideological expectations of
ivory-tower theoreticians, then the theoreticians had best revise
their theories rather than attempting to get the government to
"prove" them in the face of contradictory reality.
That's how so-called "hard science" works, while the apparent
inability of "social science" to adhere to such scientific
principles is why it is referred to as a "soft science".
Adherence to theories in the face of massive evidence to the
contrary, and insistence that governments spend money based on
such dubious beliefs, is not a hallmark of intellectual
integrity. It _may_ be possible that there are biases that could
be modified in Society, but until and unless more rigorous proof
to that effect exists, governments have a responsibility to not
waste efforts on what might or might well _not_ be of any value
to Society.
Glenn Mor
PKolding
>On Sun, 14 Jan 1996, PKolding wrote:
>> You will find that the promoters of "equality" quickly shift to the
>> stand of "temporary inequality" when such things are brought to their
>> uncomfortable attention. They then spring into a more morally
>> satisfactory aggressiveness, and state that domination by females "may
>> be necessary" before society is sufficiently acclimatised to
>> "equality".
>In what area do you perceive this so-called "domination by females" to
>exist? Nursing? What evidence of discrimination against males do you
>actually have?
>> The problem that you state above----the lack of AA in professions and
>> occupations dominated by females----is far more serious that you
>> suggest. It is not a matter of any philosophical opposition to such a
>> thing (though, of course, that exists), but it is a matter of law. It
>> is AGAINST THE LAW to discriminate against anyone not a non-disabled
>> white male. AA for NDWM is therefore a legal impossibility.
>Yes it is, the reason being that you fail to understand what AA actually
>is. I will not explain it to you either. For someone who spends as much
>time condemning it, I expect you to find out on your own what AA actually
>entails in the United States.
And I expect you to find out on your own that you are posting to the
Alberta and Canadian politics newsgroups, moron.
Timothy Huyer
Regarding a non-exhaustive list of AA strategies:
: Strategy 1, however, does discrimminate...
: Strategy 2 is valid provided the "all" part is enforced.
: Strategy 3 is, once again, discrimminatory.
: Strategy 4 is, if I understand what you are saying, largly the same as
: strategy 3.
I have repeated on several occasions that I have defined discrimination
to be harmful discrimination; that is, discrimination which promotes
social inequality. Any action that ameliorates social inequality is
therefore not discriminatory in that sense. This corresponds to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which caveats the protection from
discrimination clause by allowing programmes that ameliorate the
disadvantages of groups/persons.
Note, please, that I also phrase an action _that ameliorates_ and
not an action _designed_ to ameliorate. We can all concede that
intentions do not always produce the desired results and that a well
meant but ineffective policy is not good.
: Provided someone is not denied a job because they are a "white Anglo-Saxon Protestant".
: Denying a person a job, or excluding him from consideration is, IMHO, worse that what went
: on in previous generations. In thse era, discrimmination was largely due to uneducation
: and pure ignorance. Modern AA, while speaking of social justice, often takes on the aura
: of aome type of retribution. Very dangerous.
Giving one person a job necessarily means that it is not given to someone
else. The problem of people believing they were denied a job because
they were _insert defining characteristic_ will likely always exist as a
result (not a problem restricted to WASPs).
Nevertheless, although I have not been sufficiently clear on
this, none of the AA programmes that I support -- nor any of the
programmes that are generally proposed -- involve denying a qualified
person a job in favour of an unqualified person. AA programmes are
intended -- and if well designed will -- to ensure that no qualified
persons are not considered fairly. Moreover, AA programmes work to
broaden the talent pool and thus result in even higher standards of
qualified.
Examples of high cost post-secondary education
: BY and large, this is an American situation. With a notable few exceptions (Queens'
: MBA program), Canadian universities vary by at most several thousand dollars a
: year for equivalent programs.
Granted. My example was made extreme to illustrate the point, however.
If it is clear that some qualified people cannot go to MIT due to lack of
financial resources, then it should also be clear that some (a smaller
number, definitely, but a strictly positive number nonetheless) cannot go
to Canadian universities.
Those nominated to be candidates in elections:
: Why does this question even have to be asked? There are no barriers to
: anyone applying for nomination except for approval of the riding assoc and
: the monetary where-withall to do it. If someone does not have the support of
: the local party members, then why should a party be forced to have a
: certain representation of peope of minority group "A"? If a person can't
: save enough to spring for the nomination fee, what business do they have
: in attempting to manage my tax dollars?
Saving is not a function of ability alone. Saving is a function of one's
financial resources as well. If one is born rich, it is much easier for
one to save. Financial resources are not gifted from heaven; they are
inherited. Govt efforts notwithstanding, people are not born with equal
endowments in wealth, and this inequality is persistent intergenerationally.
Result: the best person for the job may not get it because, in this
case, of a lack of financial resources.
: If enough people of limited means banded together, they could probably
: form their own political party and challenge the conventional ones. This
: would be a more valid process than legislating quotas.
To organise, one needs money.
Moreover, influence is not simply a question of how many people
are organised into a group that shares its common interest. Influence is
how many people that group can sway to their support. Swaying means
marketing, marketing costs money. A million people able to afford $1
each can do as much marketing as one person able to afford $1 million.
The person able to ante up the greatest amount of dough can thus win the
support of the greatest number of electorate and, therefore, the elected
will listen to the money.
Caveat: obviously influence is not a function of money alone.
It is possible that the persons spending less money will still have
greater influence. But when all other factors are equal, more money
means more influence. Moreover, more money can often give much more
influence than more people.
--
Tim Huyer, Graduate Studies | "Masters are always and everywhere
Department of Economics | in a sort of tacit, but constant and
Queen's University, Canada | uniform combination, not to raise the
huy...@qed.econ.queensu.ca | wages of labour above their actual
4t...@qlink.queensu.ca | rate." Adam Smith
Timothy Huyer
Organization: Department of Economics
Distribution:
haw...@ibm.net wrote:
: In <4dehka$l...@knot.queensu.ca>, huy...@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) writes:
: Until such time as it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that both
: a) some sort of "discrimination" is at cause, and b) there is
: thereby created a serious problem that undermines Society,
: governments have no mandate to expend money, time, and other
: resources "correcting" that which may very well be perfectly
: normal.
It has been my repeated assertion that the evidence that discrimination,
i.e., social inequality, exists, is beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover,
I have made my premises that social inequality is bad -- I consider them,
and since they seem to be accepted on all sides, non-controversial -- and
have not been challenged on them. If you doubt the evidence: the
consistent significance in repeated statistical testing, the various
social sciences working to explain the causes of the significance, the
magnitude of the test results, and a plethora of testing that goes beyond
my ability to even describe -- please provide reasonable evidence as to
why the evidence should not be considered, and why the lack of this
evidence constitutes a reasonable doubt.
: There is in addition to "ability" (in a free and democratic
: society at any rate) the factor of personal choice. If women (to
: take an example) do not present themselves for selection in
: certain fields with the same frequency and enthusiasm as do men,
: then even if their average ability in those fields were identical
: or comparable, there would result a difference in the numbers
: found in those fields.
There are three reasons why a person of equal ability would not apply to
the same job:
(1) Rates of return are not consistent with ability. I.e., if
discrimination exists, then one candidate will end up with a lower wage
than the other candidate. The lack of sufficient expected renumeration will
result in the discriminated candidate not applying.
(2) Barriers to employment. Another post dealt with financial
barriers. If the costs of seeking employment in a field are greater for
one candidate over the other, then this is equivalent to stating that the
rates or return are not consistent with ability.
(3) Preferences differ. The disutility of the job is higher for one
candidate than for the other. In non jargon: one candidate likes the
career more than the other.
For instance, I believe that I have the ability to be an engineer; should
I have wanted to be one I could have taken and completed a B.Sc. in
engineering. I chose not to since I did not want to be an engineer.
The example, though, is for one person. Over a statistical
sample, if preferences are distributed evenly across the population,
proportions equal to their demographic size would pursue those careers.
This does not happen by differences of non-trivial magnitude.
For instance, there are more men seeking to become engineers than
women. If we assume, for the moment, that factors (1) and (2) above do
not apply, we must now attempt to account for the different preferences.
Preferences, however, are a social construct. Some people might
be born lactose intolerant and therefore biologically not prefer milk,
but, in general, one's preferences are determined by culture, social
settings, and other learned experiences.
If the problem is preferences, then there is a socialization
problem. Then the society that marketed a Barbie doll that said "Math's
hard" socializes women to not pursue the sciences that require a strong
mathematics background.
In which case the culture that creates this socialization, this
inequality, is the problem and needs to be changed. I claim that AA is a
useful strategy for correcting this sociaization.
: It may well be that cultural factors lead women to choose
: different fields of endeavour than do men, but here again it
: isn't the business of governments to distort peoples' cultural
: tendencies merely to satisfy some esoteric ideal of imposed
: equality.
Culture and socialization are hardly fixed constants. As they change, I
would be happy if they changed to something more progressive. Something
that allowed people with ability to achieve the full potential of their
ability. Which in turn implies that society will achieve its full
potential. If this is esoteric, I must humbly beg forgiveness.
: Yet we would risk instead of "eliminating advantages" simply
: "eliminating differences", and there are very good reasons to
: suppose that women are different from men. Inherent differences
: can only be masked at a cost, and even if we could afford to pay
: the cost of continued suppression of them we would be doing
: ourselves a great disservice.
Better the evil we know than the unknown? I contend that, although it is
possible that differences will be masked as well as advantages being
eliminated, the masking of differences is not a long run result. In
other words, through the careful application of AA, it will become
apparent what are the differences and what are the advantages, and the
elimination of what is bad without negative consequences becomes
feasible. In the mean-time, a few masked differences seems to be a price
well worth eliminating advantages.
haw...@ibm.net
>It is my belief, though, that studies done indicate that
>the inherent ability bias is not sufficient to explain the inequalities
>present in society.
Yet ability is but one aspect of a number of determinants of
participation in any specific area of endeavour. There can be a
great difference between examining, for example, employment in a
specific job type as a proportion of population and examining the
same criterion as a proportion of those applying for such
employment. ie- there are groups of people who tend not to choose
certain employments, and the resulting inequality is not merely
due to either differences in average ability, nor to differences
in treatment.
> (1) My opinion that social inequality exists could be wrong.
> (2) My opinion on what redress can be taken to correct social
>inequality may, in fact, be detrimental.
>
>I will acknowledge that I cannot claim 100% certainty. However, I am
>sure enough to support implementation of corrective policy.
It remains that there is nothing to indicate there are any
benefits to social equality, yet we can know for certain that any
"corrective policy" will necessarily impose distortions upon our
economic activities... changes to the otherwise natural and
self-regulating market systems.
External forces that distort the marketplace (other than those
which constrain monopolistic practices) will always be to the
overall detriment of stakeholders in the market.
Glenn Mor
haw...@ibm.net
>: haw...@ibm.net wrote:
>: Oh, no, no, no... the State has a primary responsibility to
>: ensure that the STATE does not treat the citizens unequally. The
>: State also may be said to have a duty to ensure that the citizens
>: do not defraud or cheat one another in their dealings, but the
>: State has no responsibility to impose upon the citizenry the
>: choices of career or lifestyle, or whatever else they might
>: choose.
>
>: People themselves are far better at determining that to which
>: they are best suited than is any bureaucracy. If their own
>: choices don't correspond with the ideological expectations of
>: ivory-tower theoreticians, then the theoreticians had best revise
>: their theories rather than attempting to get the government to
>: "prove" them in the face of contradictory reality.
>
>should choose by whatever mechanism who does what. All of my statements
>have been consistent that every person should be able to exercise freedom
>of choice in determining their own career and lifestyle.
Come off it, man; you have explicitly advocated government
intervention to change the results of people choosing what they
do. You do not want to accept that fact that people choose
differently, and you want to eliminate such differences by
legislative fiat.
If you decree that this or that area of endeavour is occupied by
too many people from such and such a group, and launch
legislation forcing those people out of that area, or blocking
them from entering that area, then you are indeed imposing State
control over peoples' choices. That is, after all, what AA does;
it prevents certain people from doing what they would want to do.
Glenn Mor
haw...@ibm.net
>: haw...@ibm.net wrote:
>: In <4dehka$l...@knot.queensu.ca>, huy...@qed.uucp (Timothy Huyer) writes:
>
>: Until such time as it can be demonstrated beyond doubt that both
>: a) some sort of "discrimination" is at cause, and b) there is
>: thereby created a serious problem that undermines Society,
>: governments have no mandate to expend money, time, and other
>: resources "correcting" that which may very well be perfectly
>: normal.
>
>It has been my repeated assertion that the evidence that discrimination,
>i.e., social inequality, exists, is beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover,
>I have made my premises that social inequality is bad -- I consider them,
>and since they seem to be accepted on all sides, non-controversial -- and
>have not been challenged on them.
_I_ am certainly challenging the idea that "social inequality" is
anything like "bad", particularly when it is as arbitrarily
utilized as it has been here. Just because this or that area of
endeavour in Society is not occupied by people whose numbers
correspond to the overall population distribution according to
various criteria doesn't mean that there is any overwhelming
problem created that would justify draconian legislative
measures. Our society (indeed, any large society) is simply not
homogenous, and it is not to be expected that the activities in
which people indulge will be unaffected by all the various
aspects of peoples' culture, abilities, backgrounds, and so
forth.
The reasons for differential participation of various groups in
specific activities are multiple, and it is not the business of
governments to attempt to legislate people into whatever cultural
mould the reigning party thinks they want us to be fitted.
>The example, though, is for one person. Over a statistical
>sample, if preferences are distributed evenly across the population,
>proportions equal to their demographic size would pursue those careers.
>
>If the problem is preferences, then there is a socialization
>problem.
>In which case the culture that creates this socialization, this
>inequality, is the problem and needs to be changed. I claim that AA is a
>useful strategy for correcting this sociaization.
This must be the first time I've ever heard of peoples'
preferences being referred to as a "problem". What do you find
that is so repugnant about people being free to choose their own
careers and lifestyles? Just because people choose differently
doesn't make them wrong or evil to do so.
There is nothing that might lead us to believe that preferences
are "distributed evenly" across the population, and moreover
nothing that would lead us to believe that artificially imposing
preferences would make people any happier, or better off, or make
our economy run better.
>: It may well be that cultural factors lead women to choose
>: different fields of endeavour than do men, but here again it
>: isn't the business of governments to distort peoples' cultural
>: tendencies merely to satisfy some esoteric ideal of imposed
>: equality.
>
>Culture and socialization are hardly fixed constants. As they change, I
>would be happy if they changed to something more progressive. Something
>that allowed people with ability to achieve the full potential of their
>ability. Which in turn implies that society will achieve its full
>potential. If this is esoteric, I must humbly beg forgiveness.
Society will not achieve its full potential if the normal
criteria of ability are replaced by arbitrary notions of
representativity. Any time that AA in any guise is employed it
necesarily replaces competence as a basis upon which to hire,
promote, etc. If competence is not the primary criterion then
inefficiency will be the inevitable result. Our economy has
already too many constraints that militate against competency
(eg- nepotism, seniority) as a determining factor in who should
do what task, and we certainly need no more such.
>: Yet we would risk instead of "eliminating advantages" simply
>: "eliminating differences", and there are very good reasons to
>: suppose that women are different from men. Inherent differences
>: can only be masked at a cost, and even if we could afford to pay
>: the cost of continued suppression of them we would be doing
>: ourselves a great disservice.
>
>Better the evil we know than the unknown?
What evil do you see in any of this? People being different isn't
evil.
>I contend that, although it is
>possible that differences will be masked as well as advantages being
>eliminated, the masking of differences is not a long run result. In
>other words, through the careful application of AA, it will become
>apparent what are the differences and what are the advantages, and the
>elimination of what is bad without negative consequences becomes
>feasible. In the mean-time, a few masked differences seems to be a price
>well worth eliminating advantages.
How do you expect AA (carefully applied or not) to elucidate real
differences? The underlying premise is that differences do not
exist, and any apparent ones that do arise should be extirpated.
AA does not attempt to distinguish between what is real and what
is artificial, but rather between what is politically popular and
what is politically unpopular. In that respect we can see in your
paragraph some 50 lines above this point your use of the term
"progressive", a notorious code-word for anything that is (or
strives to become) "politically correct".
Glenn Mor