3 ms·
He's convinced himself that a contentious (re: Clarence Thomas and crew) legal precedent is actually a moral, philosophical, or logical position to hold. Dispa
by rukittenme 6y ago
He's convinced himself that a contentious (re: Clarence Thomas and crew) legal precedent is actually a moral, philosophical, or logical position to hold.
Disparate impact is a matter of practicality. It isn't how a person should base their life or interactions with other human beings.
- Pfhreak 6y agoI'm not sure what you are saying? I don't know what Clarence Thomas has to do with this, and "he" is incorrect as well if you are referring to me.
- rukittenme 6y agoI am but more broadly the movement toward legalism and the ad-hoc justifications wrapped around it. Cutting to the chase... You have been describing disparate impact as a philosophical principle in and of itself. Whereas, in reality, disparate impact exists as a matter of political expediency. Its not a doctrine that should be adopted. Its one that may be necessary to adopt when real intentions and real motives are concealed.
- Pfhreak 6y agoWell... that's just like, your opinion, man.
- rukittenme 6y agoThe dude abides.