3 ms·

Not really. You're taking things out of context by putting things in the macro instead of the micro. I have no problem with someone saying "men are usually st

Not really. You're taking things out of context by putting things in the macro instead of the micro. I have no problem with someone saying "men are usually stronger than women." That's statistics. But Anti-discrimination laws are designed to keep someone who is offering a job from picking a less qualified man over a more qualified woman. So if someone had a job that required strength and hired the man even though the woman was stronger that would be irrational. So you see, one's a macro discussion and the other's a micro one. In the macro using statistics is rational in the micro it's not.

amichail 18y ago
Who would argue with you about the micro? That's obvious. The article is about the macro.
- TomOfTTB 18y ago
  Ummm...Anyone who wrote, voted for, or is in favor of the millions of anti-discrimination laws that are in place in every country in the world. As for the article it was a counter point to classic feminism which is the movement that was behind all the aforementioned laws.
  - amichail 18y ago
    I mean almost anyone would agree that you should pick the better candidate for a job. That point is obvious. Some may argue that it should be ok to discriminate in the presence of insufficient information. While that may be rational in a probabilistic sense if you are lazy, it should be and is illegal. Anti-discrimination laws force you to evaluate the candidates more carefully, and ultimately, to pick better candidates for the job.
    - TomOfTTB 18y ago
      But why are the anti-discrimination laws necessary? You really have to try to step out of your own perspective for a second and realize that maybe not everyone is enlightened as you. That the whole purpose of feminism is to fight against those who are not as enlightened as y ou. You saying "almost anyone would agree you should pick the better candidate" tells me that you can't see out of your own perspective long enough to realize there is discrimination out there. Which is why you can't see my point. My whole point was that these people are out there and that reasoning with them is pointless BECAUSE they aren't making a rational decision in the first place. So the feminist who try to fight against them with rational arguments are wasting their time BECAUSE those people have choosen to disregard all rational evidence.
      - skinnymuch 18y ago
        I'd say anti-discrimination laws being around has a ton more to do with governmental power over society than all the points you are attemping to make.

amichail 18y ago

Who would argue with you about the micro? That's obvious. The article is about the macro.

TomOfTTB 18y ago
Ummm...Anyone who wrote, voted for, or is in favor of the millions of anti-discrimination laws that are in place in every country in the world. As for the article it was a counter point to classic feminism which is the movement that was behind all the aforementioned laws.
- amichail 18y ago
  I mean almost anyone would agree that you should pick the better candidate for a job. That point is obvious. Some may argue that it should be ok to discriminate in the presence of insufficient information. While that may be rational in a probabilistic sense if you are lazy, it should be and is illegal. Anti-discrimination laws force you to evaluate the candidates more carefully, and ultimately, to pick better candidates for the job.
  - TomOfTTB 18y ago
    But why are the anti-discrimination laws necessary? You really have to try to step out of your own perspective for a second and realize that maybe not everyone is enlightened as you. That the whole purpose of feminism is to fight against those who are not as enlightened as y ou. You saying "almost anyone would agree you should pick the better candidate" tells me that you can't see out of your own perspective long enough to realize there is discrimination out there. Which is why you can't see my point. My whole point was that these people are out there and that reasoning with them is pointless BECAUSE they aren't making a rational decision in the first place. So the feminist who try to fight against them with rational arguments are wasting their time BECAUSE those people have choosen to disregard all rational evidence.
    - skinnymuch 18y ago
      I'd say anti-discrimination laws being around has a ton more to do with governmental power over society than all the points you are attemping to make.