4 ms·
From his perspective it certainly must seem that way. He can probably even point to a paper published by a legitimate researcher to show that it does happen. Ev
by caskance 11y ago
From his perspective it certainly must seem that way. He can probably even point to a paper published by a legitimate researcher to show that it does happen. Even if it was written by someone who was paid to do so and all his coauthors later retracted their support.
- Dylan16807 11y agoYou're actually arguing that it is a fringe opinion that the companies in Gattaca are discriminating based on genes?
- caskance 11y agoThey discriminate in the same sense that that real companies today discriminate based on candidates' skills and experience. Selecting the most qualified candidates and filtering out candidates because they trip certain flags are procedurally very different.
- Dylan16807 11y agoSure, when the qualifications have anything to do with the job. When you apply a test to applicants, if it happens to have a bias that touches protected groups you had better have a very good argument that it relates directly to core job requirements or you are leaving yourself open to a massive lawsuit. Which might happen anyway. Plus all the circumstances where you must make reasonable accommodations even if it has some impact, as long as they can still do the job.
- caskance 11y agoApplying real-life ideas about what is protected to a eugenicist utopia really makes sense to you?
- Dylan16807 11y agoWhen we're looking at how its use of genetic testing acts as a prediction of the future? Makes total sense to me.
- caskance 11y agoBut changing laws when there are radical shifts to society doesn't?
- Dylan16807 11y agoLaws do not change the concept of discrimination. There is a big difference between picking qualified individuals vs. systematically picking certain groups over others. He's not imagining the tests. The evidence of tests is not one guy lying in a tiny study.
- caskance 11y agoLaws are the entirety of the concept of discrimination.