5 ms·

> What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving? In the United States, this question is answered by Federal

> What makes non-whites deserving of protection from bad laws but non-medallion owners undeserving? In the United States, this question is answered by Federal Laws which define Protected Classes [0]. Non-medallion owners are not a protected class (yet) according to US Federal Law. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class EDIT: provide link

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Totally true, and not what is being discussed. To quote myself a couple of lines up: "We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?" I.e. the question is "aught", you are merely reiterating what "is" (which no one disagrees with).
- mistersquid 10y ago
  The idea that a protected class as defined by US Federal Law can be determined by a "consistent limit [to] be applied in general" is a categorical misunderstanding of the term protected class. Furthermore, the designation of a protected class is hardly the outcome of "(mostly) arbitrary limits". A quick visit to the link I provided in my earlier comment shows a diverse range of peoples grouped together as protected classes • Race • Color • Religion • Nationality • Age • Sex • Pregnancy • Citizenship • Familial status • Veteran status • Genetic information These groups are not identified by any "consistent limit" but by a wide range of legislation and case law. Protected classes are defined by the judicious and careful application of expert legal opinion among practitioners of jurisprudence and writers of US Federal legislation, practitioners who include but are not limited to Senators, members of Congress, scholars, historians, judges, attorneys, and expert witnesses. In other words, there is no way to apply a rigid set of parameters ("consistent limit") to find what group of people should constitute a protected class. Additionally, there are many considerations in establishing a protected class, some of those being whether membership in such a class is voluntary as well as whether members of a proposed protected class have historically, culturally, and socioeconomically been subject to unjust discrimination. Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class. EDIT: grammar, formatting, augmentation of series
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Yes, I'm well aware that case law is hodgepodge of arbitrary restrictions. And again, unless I misinterpreted him, jdminhbg was asking if there is a consistent moral principle rather than a bunch of arbitrary legal rules cooked up by politics at various times. Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class. You are quite right that moral philosophy and other rational processes are not a way to appeal to the mob. Cheap slogans ("make America great again"), tribalism, flattery, shared sense of danger an shared enemies are far more effective. That's one thing (actually the only thing) I like about Trump - he isn't even pretending that there is any substance to politics. Definitely shines a light on the fallacy of democracy.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Let me see if I'm following you. The one thing you like about Trump is that he isn't even pretending that there's any sense to laws like those forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or sex? And, the fact that there are such laws shows that democracy is fallacious? I remember once enjoying your comments. This recent turn you've taken towards subtly or not-so-subtly relitigating discrimination seems like it must be new. Did something happen? It's an unfortunate change.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I think you aren't following. I said the only thing I like about Trump is that he's shining a light on the flawed decisionmaking process that is democracy. The specific flaw is not that various anti-discrimination laws exist, but that laws exist due to a sequence of emotional reactions of the mob and historical accident rather than due to reasoning from a core set of principles. I don't know what you think changed - I've always favored reason over religion and moral philosophy over doing what feels good. Consider various comments of mine on moral philosophy over the years, on a wide variety of topics (free speech, public access to beaches, corporate forms, internet shaming): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 I also truly don't understand why you are so offended by the idea that I consider anti-racism a consequence of my anti-violence position, rather than a core principle. Why is it so offensive that I oppose what you oppose, but I oppose it with different ideas? Isn't it good that multiple chains of reasoning lead to the same conclusion? To me that suggests robustness in the conclusions. If you were willing to actually advance a logical argument in favor of these conclusions, I'd certainly be happy that something I believe is robust and not just a weird quirk of one set of axioms. Similarly, if a mathematical fact has multiple disparate proofs, I'm far more convinced that it's actually true. Or is this simply religious hatred of an atheist who happens to live according to the principles of Christ cause they seem like a good idea?

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Totally true, and not what is being discussed. To quote myself a couple of lines up: "We are all aware that the law has various (mostly arbitrary) limits. The question being asked is what consistent limit should be applied in general?" I.e. the question is "aught", you are merely reiterating what "is" (which no one disagrees with).

mistersquid 10y ago
The idea that a protected class as defined by US Federal Law can be determined by a "consistent limit [to] be applied in general" is a categorical misunderstanding of the term protected class. Furthermore, the designation of a protected class is hardly the outcome of "(mostly) arbitrary limits". A quick visit to the link I provided in my earlier comment shows a diverse range of peoples grouped together as protected classes • Race • Color • Religion • Nationality • Age • Sex • Pregnancy • Citizenship • Familial status • Veteran status • Genetic information These groups are not identified by any "consistent limit" but by a wide range of legislation and case law. Protected classes are defined by the judicious and careful application of expert legal opinion among practitioners of jurisprudence and writers of US Federal legislation, practitioners who include but are not limited to Senators, members of Congress, scholars, historians, judges, attorneys, and expert witnesses. In other words, there is no way to apply a rigid set of parameters ("consistent limit") to find what group of people should constitute a protected class. Additionally, there are many considerations in establishing a protected class, some of those being whether membership in such a class is voluntary as well as whether members of a proposed protected class have historically, culturally, and socioeconomically been subject to unjust discrimination. Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class. EDIT: grammar, formatting, augmentation of series
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Yes, I'm well aware that case law is hodgepodge of arbitrary restrictions. And again, unless I misinterpreted him, jdminhbg was asking if there is a consistent moral principle rather than a bunch of arbitrary legal rules cooked up by politics at various times. Now, whether non-medallion owning contractors ought to be a protected class I cannot say, but I can say that such a designation will not come from facile calls for consistency in determining members of a protected class. You are quite right that moral philosophy and other rational processes are not a way to appeal to the mob. Cheap slogans ("make America great again"), tribalism, flattery, shared sense of danger an shared enemies are far more effective. That's one thing (actually the only thing) I like about Trump - he isn't even pretending that there is any substance to politics. Definitely shines a light on the fallacy of democracy.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Let me see if I'm following you. The one thing you like about Trump is that he isn't even pretending that there's any sense to laws like those forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or sex? And, the fact that there are such laws shows that democracy is fallacious? I remember once enjoying your comments. This recent turn you've taken towards subtly or not-so-subtly relitigating discrimination seems like it must be new. Did something happen? It's an unfortunate change.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I think you aren't following. I said the only thing I like about Trump is that he's shining a light on the flawed decisionmaking process that is democracy. The specific flaw is not that various anti-discrimination laws exist, but that laws exist due to a sequence of emotional reactions of the mob and historical accident rather than due to reasoning from a core set of principles. I don't know what you think changed - I've always favored reason over religion and moral philosophy over doing what feels good. Consider various comments of mine on moral philosophy over the years, on a wide variety of topics (free speech, public access to beaches, corporate forms, internet shaming): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4230649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7068509 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9901225 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9126192 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6819575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6818871 I also truly don't understand why you are so offended by the idea that I consider anti-racism a consequence of my anti-violence position, rather than a core principle. Why is it so offensive that I oppose what you oppose, but I oppose it with different ideas? Isn't it good that multiple chains of reasoning lead to the same conclusion? To me that suggests robustness in the conclusions. If you were willing to actually advance a logical argument in favor of these conclusions, I'd certainly be happy that something I believe is robust and not just a weird quirk of one set of axioms. Similarly, if a mathematical fact has multiple disparate proofs, I'm far more convinced that it's actually true. Or is this simply religious hatred of an atheist who happens to live according to the principles of Christ cause they seem like a good idea?