2 ms·

> Your definition of fairness suggests that when someone is born poor, suffers, and dies poor, and someone is born rich, gets to enjoy all the things wealth bri

> Your definition of fairness suggests that when someone is born poor, suffers, and dies poor, and someone is born rich, gets to enjoy all the things wealth brings a person in life, and dies rich, even though they did nothing in particular to earn their station in life... That's fair. No. I said nothing of the sort. What I said is that when those things happen, and then an employer disregards that history in the course of making a hiring assessment, the employer acted fairly. It is not incumbent upon the employer to attempt to right prior injustices. It is in fact wrong to expect the employer to do so. Because the employer did not cause them. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. I am done with this discussion, in all sub-threads, because this is clearly going no where.

shadowgovt 1y ago
You didn't say it directly; your definition suggests it as a logical inference. > The law required you not to discriminate on the basis of sex etc. > I am the one saying that this is inherently fair So if most men start on a playing field where they are wealthier and most women on one where they are poorer, a level playing field will tend to maintain that level of inequality, will it not? And by your definition that would e fair. In fact, there'd be an interesting observable consequence of this scenario: were it truly level, one could begin to observe population-level phenomena like "women are just poorer; that's innate to them" and be correct in observation but with an error in causality; it's not so much "innate" as "initial conditions coupled with a lack of mobility." If it were initial conditions and a lack of mobility... An un-level playing field would encourage more mobility, would it not? And if you made it un-level in the right way, perhaps you could start to zero out those initial-conditions effects?

shadowgovt 1y ago

You didn't say it directly; your definition suggests it as a logical inference. > The law required you not to discriminate on the basis of sex etc. > I am the one saying that this is inherently fair So if most men start on a playing field where they are wealthier and most women on one where they are poorer, a level playing field will tend to maintain that level of inequality, will it not? And by your definition that would e fair. In fact, there'd be an interesting observable consequence of this scenario: were it truly level, one could begin to observe population-level phenomena like "women are just poorer; that's innate to them" and be correct in observation but with an error in causality; it's not so much "innate" as "initial conditions coupled with a lack of mobility." If it were initial conditions and a lack of mobility... An un-level playing field would encourage more mobility, would it not? And if you made it un-level in the right way, perhaps you could start to zero out those initial-conditions effects?