5 ms·

> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. It's literally the perfect reason to do discrimination. It is j

> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. It's literally the perfect reason to do discrimination. It is just like discriminating for having work experience, education, demonstrably market skills, etc.

dangus 7y ago
You should read the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. None of the things you listed are examples of discrimination in the context of civil rights. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Perhaps I should also remind you that this isn’t 4chan.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  You are using the legal definition of discrimination, and I am using the economics definition of discrimination.
  - chii 7y ago
    and the courts only care about the legal definition.
    - karlakush 7y ago
      and this isn't a court.
    - paulryanrogers 7y ago
      And Voters should care if their elected legislators permit injustices to remain technically legal
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      The courts only care about what they know
  - dangus 7y ago
    “Officer, you’re just using the legal definition of speeding!”
    - jlawson 7y ago
      You seem to think the law is the be-all end-all definition of perfect moral reasoning. The law is not God's word. It's open to criticism, and we're criticizing it. If you want to participate in the discussion, great. But, "It's illegal because the law says you're not allowed to do it," is not a meaningful contribution.
      - fzeroracer 7y ago
        The discussion point was already made above, in that we make certain things illegal because even though it may make economic sense, it results in massive damage to things such as the environment, vulnerable populations and so forth. The poster chose to respond by saying it was a perfectly valid reason to discriminate, which goes against the law for the already stated reasons. There was no additional criticism offered here. No one has made the point that 'it's the law therefore it's good', and you're massively misrepresenting the arguments here.
        jacques_chester 7y ago
        And in fact, there are laws against pollution because it's an externality, it doesn't make economic sense to the whole of society. Markets are good at maximising the total good in the case where costs and benefits can be totally internalised. Where you have externalities you see either overprovisioning or underprovisioning and in net, everyone is worse off than the rational outcome. That's where intervention is better than a market by itself.
    - conanbatt 7y ago
      A unique characteristic about those that base their values purely on the law is that it only takes changing the law to turn them to your side.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
We have decided as nations and societies that some forms of economic discrimination are too damaging to permit. The details vary, but typically the things we can't easily change: race, nationality, age etc. Such discrimination is generally outlawed. Someone lacking relevant market skills or education etc can go out and fix that.
- jlawson 7y ago
  >Someone lacking relevant market skills or education etc can go out and fix that. Not really, if they lack economic resources, have dependents, have low IQ, low grit, or lots of other reasons. Ultimately it comes down to what parts of a person you think they are 'responsible for' and what parts they aren't. You're saying that someone being a certain skin color isn't something they should lose opportunities for, but it's okay if they do so for being too dumb to complete and advanced education, even if they were born that way. My point isn't that you're right or wrong about either of these, but that if you really dig into this you'll find that any such narrative supporting an egalitarian notion that 'people ought to be equal' collapses with a few simple questions about genetics, free will, parenting, intelligence, and other such topics. Nobody gets an equal shot at anything.
  - macintux 7y ago
    The lack of an equal shot is no excuse to make things even more unequal, wouldn’t you agree?
    - collyw 7y ago
      Are you calling for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
- conanbatt 7y ago
  > The details vary, but typically the things we can't easily change: race, nationality, age etc. Such discrimination is generally outlawed. Also generally perpretrated, by the same body that bans it. A great beauty about human beings is that they have a natural tendency to find what is best for them and their communities in spite of legalities that attempt to distort reality. In any case, what you are ascribing as unlawful discrimination is absolutely lawful and you would be naive to believe that there were castings for white asian geriatric women for the role of Black Panther to abide a law about the positively-discriminated groups you mention.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dangus 7y ago

You should read the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. None of the things you listed are examples of discrimination in the context of civil rights. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Perhaps I should also remind you that this isn’t 4chan.

conanbatt 7y ago
You are using the legal definition of discrimination, and I am using the economics definition of discrimination.
- chii 7y ago
  and the courts only care about the legal definition.
  - karlakush 7y ago
    and this isn't a court.
  - paulryanrogers 7y ago
    And Voters should care if their elected legislators permit injustices to remain technically legal
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    The courts only care about what they know
- dangus 7y ago
  “Officer, you’re just using the legal definition of speeding!”
  - jlawson 7y ago
    You seem to think the law is the be-all end-all definition of perfect moral reasoning. The law is not God's word. It's open to criticism, and we're criticizing it. If you want to participate in the discussion, great. But, "It's illegal because the law says you're not allowed to do it," is not a meaningful contribution.
    - fzeroracer 7y ago
      The discussion point was already made above, in that we make certain things illegal because even though it may make economic sense, it results in massive damage to things such as the environment, vulnerable populations and so forth. The poster chose to respond by saying it was a perfectly valid reason to discriminate, which goes against the law for the already stated reasons. There was no additional criticism offered here. No one has made the point that 'it's the law therefore it's good', and you're massively misrepresenting the arguments here.
      - jacques_chester 7y ago
        And in fact, there are laws against pollution because it's an externality, it doesn't make economic sense to the whole of society. Markets are good at maximising the total good in the case where costs and benefits can be totally internalised. Where you have externalities you see either overprovisioning or underprovisioning and in net, everyone is worse off than the rational outcome. That's where intervention is better than a market by itself.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    A unique characteristic about those that base their values purely on the law is that it only takes changing the law to turn them to your side.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

We have decided as nations and societies that some forms of economic discrimination are too damaging to permit. The details vary, but typically the things we can't easily change: race, nationality, age etc. Such discrimination is generally outlawed. Someone lacking relevant market skills or education etc can go out and fix that.

jlawson 7y ago
>Someone lacking relevant market skills or education etc can go out and fix that. Not really, if they lack economic resources, have dependents, have low IQ, low grit, or lots of other reasons. Ultimately it comes down to what parts of a person you think they are 'responsible for' and what parts they aren't. You're saying that someone being a certain skin color isn't something they should lose opportunities for, but it's okay if they do so for being too dumb to complete and advanced education, even if they were born that way. My point isn't that you're right or wrong about either of these, but that if you really dig into this you'll find that any such narrative supporting an egalitarian notion that 'people ought to be equal' collapses with a few simple questions about genetics, free will, parenting, intelligence, and other such topics. Nobody gets an equal shot at anything.
- macintux 7y ago
  The lack of an equal shot is no excuse to make things even more unequal, wouldn’t you agree?
  - collyw 7y ago
    Are you calling for equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
conanbatt 7y ago
> The details vary, but typically the things we can't easily change: race, nationality, age etc. Such discrimination is generally outlawed. Also generally perpretrated, by the same body that bans it. A great beauty about human beings is that they have a natural tendency to find what is best for them and their communities in spite of legalities that attempt to distort reality. In any case, what you are ascribing as unlawful discrimination is absolutely lawful and you would be naive to believe that there were castings for white asian geriatric women for the role of Black Panther to abide a law about the positively-discriminated groups you mention.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]