NationStates Jolt Archive

you know, you had a great point til the end. Next time, I suggest, whatever last little parting comment you have in mind....let it go.

Because I would like to point out that what you advocate is called micro-credit, it has been a great success in africa, and a recent LIBERAL economist won the nobel prize for it recently.

Interesting. Sorry about the grumbling at the end. It is just that I always get grouchy when I hear liberals babble on about how corporations are the devil.

you know, you had a great point til the end. Next time, I suggest, whatever last little parting comment you have in mind....let it go.

Because I would like to point out that what you advocate is called micro-credit, it has been a great success in africa, and a recent LIBERAL economist won the nobel prize for it recently.

Man, if only I had actually done something with my idea maybe I could have beat him to the nobel prize. Shucks. I have seen second hand how difficult it is for new companies to get credit. People prattle on about educational opportunities but it is really credit that is most important because new businesses not only create wealth and innovation but employ the folks who have the educations.

Blacks (with the exception of Bill Cosby and handful of others (we can count them on one hand) blame their plight on white people.

Period.

The guilt that white people in general feel is palpable in public situations where this is brought up.

If you blame the problems of African-Americans on their own inaction or their own stupidity (in the case of them murdering one another), if you're black you're labeled a race traitor, and if you're white, you're a racist.

You aren't a racist because you "blame the problems...." You are a racist because you think that all black people (well, with the exception of Bill Cosby and a handful of others) have a hive mind.

You aren't a racist because you "blame the problems...." You are a racist because you think that all black people (well, with the exception of Bill Cosby and a handful of others) have a hive mind.

Not mention that he says it as "their own inaction or stupidity" like everyone except that handful is also stupid and/or lazy.

The State of Black America?

Washington D.C. isn't a state yet...is it?

The circumstances in which people will act irrationally are predictable to one degree or another,
This is true.
and so are the ways in which they will do so.
This is not.

Once you're selecting your behaviours from the list of irrational behaviours, they are all equally supported by the available evidence, and thus each is equally likely from the point of view of an impartial observer.

I could get to know someone well enough to predict his irrational behaviour specifically (by examining patterns of behaviour), but people generally would remain wholly unpredictable.

Not mention that he says it as "their own inaction or stupidity" like everyone except that handful is also stupid and/or lazy.

Yeah, that kind of fell under "hive mind" to me, but is definitely part of it.

It's sort of like the people who like to say things like, "Don't you know the history of slavery? They sold themselves into slavery!"

Yeah, that kind of fell under "hive mind" to me, but is definitely part of it.

It's sort of like the people who like to say things like, "Don't you know the history of slavery? They sold themselves into slavery!"

Yes, all black people not only look alike. They're the same person.

how convenient. people either choose to follow pure reason or they are not persons.
Everyone needs some sort of standard of personhood. The capacity for reasoned thought is mine.
Are you suggesting people make a rational choice to be irrational?
A conscious choice, certainly. In intentional choice. I don't think the choice to act irrationally can actually be rational.
You'd seem a bit wiser if I hadn't already responded to that post in post #19 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634451&postcount=19).
And in that post you conceded that there was no evidence of discrimination out side of the audit studies - only disadvantage. As you yourself say, to see discrimination as a cause there requires inference.
The sheer magnitude of the gaps between black and white suggest some discrimination, especially when one considers this nation's recent history of overt, legal discrimination. I'd also note the studies showing wage gaps are evidence of discrimination.
Wage gaps are not evidence of discrimination. In fact, I would argue that the principle of equal pay for equal work is antithetical to individual freedom.
I also listed several audit studies in post #39 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634901&postcount=39).

I'll repeat my links to them. Knock yourself out.
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v104y1996i3p542-71.html)
The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future (http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/609/1/104) (pdf)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)
The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field (http://www.arec.umd.edu/jlist/JLISTQJEDISC.pdf)(pdf)
I'd missed those. Though I notice that your post hadn't been directed at me.

I look forward to reading them.
As I suspected, you haven't even seen the studies but are assuming they are flawed because they don't fit your narrow world view.
I assumed nothing. I asked a question.

My question contained no information. Questions can't convey information.
Why do I suspect that peruse the actual studies won't effect your opinion?
I can't know your mind.

However, if you suspect that, perhaps you think that I'll reject any studies which rely in inference and induction to justify their findings.

Yes, all black people not only look alike. They're the same person. :confused: so is Micheal Jackson his attempt at disgusing himself as a white man? :p

I'll repeat my links to them. Knock yourself out.
You asked for it.
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
This one doesn't describe its methodology in any great detail, but even what they do show is biased in that they're assuming there are never relevant race-based hiring concerns.
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
This study is much better, as it recognises the possibility of legitimate discrimination based on race in cases where race affects productivity.

But, four paragraphs later (still in the introduction) the paper asserts that race isn't related to productivity for these jobs. I wonder how they know that. Reading on...

Nice misuse of the word "hispanic' in section 2.1.1. The rest of chapter 2 is mostly a history lesson.

In section 3, ths study points out that testers were selected partly based on an "absence of strong ideological beliefs about discrimination that might interfere with objectivity". This is important - I'll explain why in just a moment.

Starting section 4, we're greeted with this statement:
The "null hypothesis" of an absence of discrimination would be confirmed if equally-qualified minority and majority testers met with success at equal rates, while discrimination is measured by the extent to which minorities are treated less favourably than their White partners.
Again, this is an assertion that there are no job-relevant race-based hiring concerns. And yet, the previous control mentioned in section 3 is one possible such concern.

In section 4.2, it's mentioned that one of the research organisations (the FEC) assumed equal pay for equal work as a reasonable standard, and thus considered differences in offered wages as evidence of descrimination. But that's not necessarily evidence of discrimination by this employer. This could be an employer's awareness of cultural differences that could affect the willingness of ability to negotiate for salary, or indeed the employer's perception of discrimination in the workforce generally, thus requiring a higher wage to attract a white applicant (who would have access to other job prospects) than to a black applicant (who wouldn't).

As such, I would discard all findings by the FEC.

The studies refer to jobs of "lesser quality", but don't define the term.

The great long section 4.7 deals with the psychology of employers, something I would generally deem unknowable without exstensive follow-up interviews (which none of these studies seem to have done, thus creating tremendous uncertainty as to why any of thei decisions were made). However, even allowing for the possibility of psychological knowledge, the evaluations are equating demographic profiling (the assumption that children of wealthy families do better at school than children of poor families - somthing that's demonstrably true) with unacceptable discrimination, and I don't see how the two are similar at all.

Chapter 5 offers detail methodology, but only for one of the four studies, and this was one conducted by the FEC, which I've already discarded for having used non-relevant criteria for identifying discrimination.

This paper has potential, and it may well demonstrate strictly race-based discrimination in a way that isn't realted to productivity, but I need more information about methodology to determine that. I'll take this one as a maybe.

At the end, it does advocate affirmative action as a solution to discrimination, something I would describe as a cure significantly worse than the disease.
Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v104y1996i3p542-71.html)
This paper isn't publicly available. I can't read it from this link.
The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future (http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/609/1/104) (pdf)
This paper does a good job of explaining why studies can't convey race through the use of racially distinctive names (given the correlation between racially distinctive names and socioeconomic status). As such, correspondence studies fail.

The paper's author demostrates his gross innumeracy by claiming that black applicants are "50 and 500 percent less likely" to be considered or offered jobs by employers. 500 percent less likely is a mathematical impossibility. I'm tempted to stop reading this one right now.

I'm glad I didn't, though, because the next section explains in great detail the problems with these audit studies, generally. James Heckman (economist) does a great job of explaining why audit studies can't produce scietifically valid results. This paper's overall conclusion even points out that the findings of audit studies are incompatible with survey data. This paper seems firmly on my side. Thanks for linking it.
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)
This is another audit study (with all the problems that entails) that fails to describe its methodology sufficiently well.

When I complain about not seeing the methodolgy, I just want more information about the studies. I want to know more about the employers contacted. I want to know age, race, and gender of the interviewers, and I want to know the size of the company hiring. I want to know the demographics of existing employees. One of the studies you linked mentioned that the employers wanted to get rid of some existing employees who weren't pulling their weight. The race of those employees could certainly create a relevant hiring criterion. If all of the employees to be fired were black, the employer might fear offending another black employee by firing them, and thus choose not to hire one right now. Since he's been presented with 2-3 otherwise identical applicants, the employers can afford to make discriminate on otherwise insignificant grounds (like race).
The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field (http://www.arec.umd.edu/jlist/JLISTQJEDISC.pdf)(pdf)
This is a wonderful study that points out the discrimination in the sportscard market is due primarily to a disparate distribution of reservation rates between racial groups rather than any unfair prejudice. There is a relevant characteristic that differs from racial group to racial group and the sportscard dealers are aware of it.

Did you even read these studies? They're not supporting your position at all.

The results from the Dictator Game show "Dealers do not exhibit noneconomic tastes for discrimination that systematically favor the majority group." I win again.

In the Chamberlain Market test, the discrimination is shown to be based on relevant demographic assumptions about reservation values. And tests III.C. and III.D. show these to be correct assumptions. Experienced dealers are making purely economic race-based decisions based on their correct analysis of buyer trends. There is no prejudicial discrimination here.
If you find these inadequate, I can link to more.
I found them quite adequate. I'm very surprised you do, however.

This was hardly necromancy - there was a one week break.

I had a lot of studies to which to respond; I had to read them, first.

Ok, I'm not reading 35 pages of this.

My view on the situation is this.

There has been racism in the past against minorities. Then there was civil and womens rights movements, and now women and minorities enjoy most rights on par with men and white folk.

Now, heres where we have a problem. In order to gain "equality", we have implemented certain laws which ensures that a certain percentage of minorities must be employed by certain business'. That makes it so that the business cannot hire soley based on who the best employee could be, but also based on race, because they have a racial quota to meet.

Who does this hurt? The consumer, because the company is forced to hire workers that may or may not be the best employees. They are forced to hire someone for the colour of their skin, and not for their credentials or work history or experience. That, my friends, is racism.

Fighting racism with racism will only end up with more unequality.

I don't know how much you all know about scholarships, but there are minority only scholarships out there at this very moment. The NAACP even has blacks only scholarships. The money is raised by them for the purpose of sending worthy black students to colleges they might not otherwise go to, and i see nothing wrong with that.

I do see something wrong with the opposition to white only scholarships. Allowing black only scholarships and minority only scholarships to exist is allowing certain races of people more rights than others, and that is the very definition of racism. Whenever someone attempts to create a white only scholarship, they are met with cries of racism, and hate speech, and people relate them to the Klan. Whenever there is a black only scholarship, they are applauded for helping out the imporvershed.

We must move on from the false belief that only minorities are poor and need financial assistance. Allowing minority only scholarships is allowing minorities at least one (if not more) avenues for getting a scholarship. They have all the avenues that whites have open to them, plus additional ones that whites do not have access to, simply for being a certain race.

I've heard of a case in which a minority at a college set up a $50 scholarship for white folk, and he received so many threats to withdraw even that small amount of money (which won't even pay for Lab fees or books in college, let alone a class). Why? Because apparently people think that its racist if whites do it, but a symbol of empowerment if minorities perform the same action.

If that is not racist than I dunno what is.

What should happen is they should abolish all questions relating to race and sex on every application, and abolish all racial quotas. Hire the best person for the job, don't hire them for simply being a certain race. Humans are not equal to each other, some are better at things than others are. The trick is finding what your good at, and do that for a living.

Abolish all minority only scholarships, or allow the creation of white only scholarships under a new Racial Equality Act. Abolish all racial clubs in schools, or allow the creation of White Clubs under a new Racial Equality Act. Abolish all racial quotas on companies, and do more to help those in poverty. Allow scholarships to be used to help those who cannot afford college, regardless of race.

People of other races can shout out that they're proud of being that race.
"Viva la raza" for the Mexicans, "Black Power" for the Blacks, "Asian Pride" for the asians, and so on. People accept that as acceptable and non racist behaviour. The second someone says "White power" its assumed they are part of the Klan and hated on. True equality would mean that Whites would have the option of saying "White power" and not get hated on, as all the other minority groups can say "race power".

Either get TRUE equality by allowing Whites the same privaledges as minorities are, or abolish the silly notion that everyone is equal, and help out poor people (regardless of race), and help the people who are good employees to get jobs.

To say the truth, I work with several black and mexican people at my work. They are all hard working, and should get payed just as much as I do (if we did the same job). I am for the hiring of good workers, without looking at their race. Don't hire someone simply because "we need another minority to fill our quota". Hire them because they will be competent and a good worker.

You shouldn't be afraid of firing a minority because they have performed actions that would get a white male fired. Fire them for doing something wrong, and you shouldn't have to worry about falling below a "racial quota". Its not discrimination if the person deserves to be fired by breaking company conduct, sexually harassing people on the job, walking off the job whenever they want, not doing work, etc. If they deserve being fired, its not discrimination.

I am for true equality in the sense in which your personal achievements should be accounted for. If you have a history of messing up on the job, not obeying your boss, walking off the job, cussing out your bosses, then perhaps thats why you didnt get the job. If you have a history of being a good worker, then thats why you should get a new job. Don't fire someone for colour or race, but for performance. When you make laws that ensure that someone can sue you by simply "feeling" like they have been discriminated against is when we have taken this too far.

Anyway, I hope some of you actually read this wall of text, and not just skim over it assuming I am some whining white male who is scared for "losing power" to the minorities. Thats not the case. I see unequality in abundance when people speak of how these laws are about promoting equality.

This is a wonderful study that points out the discrimination in the sportscard market is due primarily to a disparate distribution of reservation rates between racial groups rather than any unfair prejudice. There is a relevant characteristic that differs from racial group to racial group and the sportscard dealers are aware of it.

Did you even read these studies? They're not supporting your position at all.

The results from the Dictator Game show "Dealers do not exhibit noneconomic tastes for discrimination that systematically favor the majority group." I win again.

In the Chamberlain Market test, the discrimination is shown to be based on relevant demographic assumptions about reservation values. And tests III.C. and III.D. show these to be correct assumptions. Experienced dealers are making purely economic race-based decisions based on their correct analysis of buyer trends. There is no prejudicial discrimination here.

I couldn't find a more relevant example of you seeing what you want to see rather than what is there. This study explicitly states that the discrimination is social rather than due to specific animus by the dealers. It calls it statistical discirmination.

The experimental design, which includes data
gathered from more than 1100 market participants, provides sharp findings : (i) there is a strong tendency for minorities to receive initial and final offers that are inferior to those received by majorit ies, and (ii) overall, the data indicate that the observed discrimination is not due to animus, but represents statistical discrimination.

In case you're wondering it means that rather than it being for the purpose of holding down a particular group or looking down on a particular group, but instead because they identify with their own race. However, it means that if the majority of a white people are economically advantaged and are thus buyers in any marketplace then you should expect other races to experience discimination.

The fact is that this study explicitly identifies discrimination. It simply is more clear of the cause of said discrimination. To read this and find that it doesn't support the claim of TCT one either would have to have no idea what TCT said or have no idea what statistical discrimination means.

And, unlike you, apparently, I read the whole thing, but since the authors were kind enough to explicitly explain that there is discrimination in the marketplace in the summary, you might notice that their study shows that.

EDIT: To the gravedigging, I've noticed you always have an excuse and you always do it. So has Neo Art which is why he pointed it out. You slink out for a week or two. Hmmm... unsurprisingly each time it's when you're getting pounded with evidence.

I couldn't find a more relevant example of you seeing what you want to see rather than what is there. This study explicitly states that the discrimination is social rather than due to specific animus by the dealers. It calls it statistical discirmination.
Exactly. But discriminiation is only a problem when it is caused by animus. Statistical discrimination is just good business.

You can't possibly oppose discrimination generally, because one needs to be able to discriminate between options in order to make decisions. The only discrimination that's a problem is discrimination caused by animus, and that's quite clearly not happening here.
The experimental design, which includes data
gathered from more than 1100 market participants, provides sharp findings : (i) there is a strong tendency for minorities to receive initial and final offers that are inferior to those received by majorit ies, and (ii) overall, the data indicate that the observed discrimination is not due to animus, but represents statistical discrimination.
Like I said, that's not something that needs fixing. The lower offers were due to correct race-based assumptions about reservation rates.

As I quoted, the discrimination wasn't causing noneconomic decisions.
In case you're wondering it means that rather than it being for the purpose of holding down a particular group or looking down on a particular group, but instead because they identify with their own race. However, it means that if the majority of a white people are economically advantaged and are thus buyers in any marketplace then you should expect other races to experience discimination.
Because the advantaged group is aware it is advantaged and will leverage that advantage. That's just good business. That the advantage is drawn along racial lines in irrelevant.
The fact is that this study explicitly identifies discrimination.
Yes it does, but not the sort that needs fixing.
It simply is more clear of the cause of said discrimination.
Yes it is, thus demonstrating why it doesn't need fixing.
To read this and find that it doesn't support the claim of TCT one either would have to have no idea what TCT said or have no idea what statistical discrimination means.
If there's no animus, then there's nothing wrong. The study isn't finding anything beyond sound economic dealings.
And, unlike you, apparently, I read the whole thing, but since the authors were kind enough to explicitly explain that there is discrimination in the marketplace in the summary, you might notice that their study shows that.
I did read the whole thing. You seem to think that all discrimination is bad, in which case you did something abhorrent by deciding what the have for breakfast today.
EDIT: To the gravedigging, I've noticed you always have an excuse and you always do it. So has Neo Art which is why he pointed it out. You slink out for a week or two. Hmmm... unsurprisingly each time it's when you're getting pounded with evidence.
I need to find a big enough block of time to read and respond to all the evidence.

I like having evidence to which to respond, but it does slow me down. I'm a lot quicker when I can just respond off the top of my head.

I like this argument. So, basically, as long as a person isn't trying to be mean when they discriminate against someone based on their skin color, it's perfectly ok.

That, and the guy who claimed that there are no communities - only individuals - suddenly thinks it is perfectly ok, economical even, to assume that a person will follow whatever trends exist in those who happen to look like him.

Exactly. But discriminiation is only a problem when it is caused by animus. Statistical discrimination is just good business.

Pardon me? According to the theory an entire class of people are disadvantage and will this disadvantage will increase due to the color of their skin. This disadvantage was created through government practice, but you oppose government intervention to level the field that you've admitted is not currently level. And this harms TCT's argument, how?

You can't possibly oppose discrimination generally, because one needs to be able to discriminate between options in order to make decisions. The only discrimination that's a problem is discrimination caused by animus, and that's quite clearly not happening here.

Statistical discrimination is a theory that states that we tend to business of other people identify with, including by skin color. It means that if white people have all the monetary power they are likely to keep and it's an outstanding argument for the government to step in and correct the mistakes of the past.

I oppose racial discrimination generally. That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about discriminating about whether or not it's better to hire people who were short or long skirts.


Like I said, that's not something that needs fixing. The lower offers were due to correct race-based assumptions about reservation rates.

As I quoted, the discrimination wasn't causing noneconomic decisions.

Economic decisions doesn't make it not a problem. I can choose not to hire black people at my restaurant because my clients don't want a black server, but it doesn't make it acceptable or something we should ignore.


Because the advantaged group is aware it is advantaged and will leverage that advantage. That's just good business. That the advantage is drawn along racial lines in irrelevant.
Nevemind, you do know what statistical discrimination. You're just pretending like as long as it's for financial reasons that a race is kept down it doesn't count. You do realize that you claimed this study doesn't support the claims of TCT, but you've just admitted it does support his claim, you just don't give a crap.



Yes it does, but not the sort that needs fixing.

According to you. TCT's claim is that it exists and that it's racial and that it results in disadvantage. You just admitted all of those things. Fine, you don't care. We get it. It doesn't change what the study says.


Yes it is, thus demonstrating why it doesn't need fixing.

If there's no animus, then there's nothing wrong. The study isn't finding anything beyond sound economic dealings.

You keep stating this likes a truism, but how do you figure that provided people aren't doing it because of animus it's okay if an entire class of people is permanently disadvantaged. In fact, the theory of statistical discrimination is that the disadvantage would increase over time without interference.


I did read the whole thing. You seem to think that all discrimination is bad, in which case you did something abhorrent by deciding what the have for breakfast today.

Equivocation is a fallacy. This study found racial discrimination. Trying to compare that to choosing between inanimate objects is really just evidencing your lack of a better argument.

You admit it supports the case for discrimination based on race, and then nonsensically claim that TCT can't use it to back up his claim for discrimination based on race. Logic meet Llewdor. Yes, Logic, I know you're nervous around people you don't know, but I promise if you just hang out for a bit he'll start to play with you nicely.

how convenient. people either choose to follow pure reason or they are not persons.

Are you suggesting people make a rational choice to be irrational?



But you've made clear you don't care why people act certain ways. It is rather hard to modify behavior if you ignore the causes.



You'd seem a bit wiser if I hadn't already responded to that post in post #19 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634451&postcount=19). The sheer magnitude of the gaps between black and white suggest some discrimination, especially when one considers this nation's recent history of overt, legal discrimination. I'd also note the studies showing wage gaps are evidence of discrimination.

I also listed several audit studies in post #39 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12634901&postcount=39).




I'll repeat my links to them. Knock yourself out.
Race at work (http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf) (pdf)
Discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities in access to employment in the United States: Empirical findings from situation testing (http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/papers/usempir/)
Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination (http://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v104y1996i3p542-71.html)
The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future (http://ann.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/609/1/104) (pdf)
Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets: Evidence from an Experimental Audit Study in New York City (http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50874) (pdf)
The Nature and Extent of Discrimination in the Marketplace: Evidence from the Field (http://www.arec.umd.edu/jlist/JLISTQJEDISC.pdf)(pdf)


If you find these inadequate, I can link to more.



As I suspected, you haven't even seen the studies but are assuming they are flawed because they don't fit your narrow world view.

Why do I suspect that peruse the actual studies won't effect your opinion?

We're done here. He admits that the articles support your point (even though he originally claimed they didn't. Apparently, he was hoping no one would notice.) and that they evidence discrimination due to race, but that he just doesn't see anything wrong with it. Apparently, as long as I do it for financial gain it's okay if I contribute to the systematic disadvantage of a race.

"I joined the Ku Klux Klan for the business contacts, so there's nothing wrong with my sociopathic behavior."

We're done here. He admits that the articles support your point (even though he originally claimed they didn't. Apparently, he was hoping no one would notice.) and that they evidence discrimination due to race, but that he just doesn't see anything wrong with it. Apparently, as long as I do it for financial gain it's okay if I contribute to the systematic disadvantage of a race.

"I joined the Ku Klux Klan for the business contacts, so there's nothing wrong with my sociopathic behavior."

Nicely done, Jocabia. You've exposed Llewdor's bias for what it is.

I like this argument. So, basically, as long as a person isn't trying to be mean when they discriminate against someone based on their skin color, it's perfectly ok.

Isn't that special?

Note Llewdor also makes excuses for when a person is motivated by animus. At a basic level, he just doesn't have a problem with discrimination.

That, and the guy who claimed that there are no communities - only individuals - suddenly thinks it is perfectly ok, economical even, to assume that a person will follow whatever trends exist in those who happen to look like him.

Yes, this is cute. When you were describing black attitudes, he was saying that they were irrational because they considered the existence of communities. But employers can discriminate on the basis of one belonging to a community, and Llewdor defends that choice as not only rational, but just.

Nicely done, Jocabia. You've exposed Llewdor's bias for what it is.



Isn't that special?

Note Llewdor also makes excuses for when a person is motivated by animus. At a basic level, he just doesn't have a problem with discrimination.



Yes, this is cute. When you were describing black attitudes, he was saying that they were irrational because they considered the existence of communities. But employers can discriminate on the basis of one belonging to a community, and Llewdor defends that choice as not only rational, but just.

I'e noticed this about this argument and those supported by this poster in that they have one common theme, if it hurts the bottom line he says it's BS, regardless of the evidence, and if it helps the bottom line, it's good. It's just convenient that the jury is still out on global warming, because it allows business to continue to destory the environment, "rational" racial discrimination, also conveniently just happens to be okay since it's not their fault and, of course, allows them to exploit disadvantaged people. Look at pretty much every argument he makes, and apparently every bit of science, every bit of available philosophy just happens to support greed. Or more appropriately, all of the science that Llewdor accepts just happens to support greed.

Isn't that convenient?

Come on you guys, quit beating up on Llewdor. He's just arguing that sometimes, racism the logical side-effect of the actions of a logical person.

Come on you guys, quit beating up on Llewdor. He's just arguing that sometimes, racism the logical side-effect of the actions of a logical person.

Not JUST. He's saying provided it's not due to animus it's not a problem, even when systemic. Statistical discrimination theories have it increasing without interference. He's arguing for a state that would result in the eventual rise of a completely dominant race. In fact, it's precisely what DID create the rise in a completely dominant race. That natives still exist in the countries dominated by the various european countries is the result of people with compassion stepping in a stopping the "rational" and psychopathic belief that it doesn't matter who you hurt provided you gain.

For example, that it wasn't socially or professionally rational to suggest that we stop slavery or that we stop destroying natives at the time when we first arrived here, according to his statements would make it completely acceptable.

And I quote -

The only discrimination that's a problem is discrimination caused by animus, and that's quite clearly not happening here.

The people who were destroying your people thought they were justified in doing so. I don't see how that makes it not a problem.

Or were you being sarcastic? It's not always easy to tell.

EDIT: By the way, I used sociopath when I meant psychopath, earlier. The KKK and statistical discrimination is social, it just lacks empathy, conscience or morality.

I like this argument. So, basically, as long as a person isn't trying to be mean when they discriminate against someone based on their skin color, it's perfectly ok.
Yes. If there's no animus, then you must be discriminating on some relevant grounds. Like if I refused to hire th ewhite kid to wait tables at my authentic Japanese restourant because his pale face would spoil the mood. In that case, the race of the applicant is directly relevant to the job being done.
That, and the guy who claimed that there are no communities - only individuals - suddenly thinks it is perfectly ok, economical even, to assume that a person will follow whatever trends exist in those who happen to look like him.
On a large scale, absolutely. That's the same reason if I open one factory in Indianapolis and one in Kuala Lumpur I'll offer lower wages to the workers in Kuala Lumpur because I have reason to expect they'll work for lower wages.

If I have reason to believe that black people, as a group, are poorer than white people I'll approach price negotiations with them somewhat differently. That's not racism, that's just prudence. Presented with a single black trading partner I had reason to believe was wealthier (say, Chuck D), I'd adjust my approach in the otehr direction.

Come on you guys, quit beating up on Llewdor. He's just arguing that sometimes, racism the logical side-effect of the actions of a logical person.

indeed. you can hardly fault him for following the dictates of reason. now where did i put my white sheets?

You asked for it.

Actually, I predict you'd do just what you've done: find trivial, misleading, and nonsensical reasons to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit your world view.

The only thing suprising is your lack of intellectual honesty.

This one doesn't describe its methodology in any great detail, but even what they do show is biased in that they're assuming there are never relevant race-based hiring concerns.

1. Intellectually dishonest, as the study does describe it's methodology adequately

2. Gee, vast discrepancies in treatment of job applicants based on race is proven. Blacks are shown to be only slightly more than half as likely to recieve consideration by employers relative to equally qualified white applicants. Indeed, black job seekers fare no better than otherwise equally qualified white men just released from prison!

3. Your only response is that there is the possibility of "relevant" race-based hiring concerns? The study involved applications to 1470 real entry-level jobs in New York. How many of the negative results can you write of as based on "relevant race-based hiring concerns"? What is a "relevant race-based hiring concern?

As Jocabia has revealed, your position boils down to arguing not that there isn't racial discrimination, but that that discrimination is OK. (Note that you irrationally take what you perceive as the possibility that any discrimination was not based as animus as sweeping proof that all discrimination is not based on animus.)

This study is much better, as it recognises the possibility of legitimate discrimination based on race in cases where race affects productivity.

The possibility of legitimate discrimination based on race? Again, you show your true colors.

But, four paragraphs later (still in the introduction) the paper asserts that race isn't related to productivity for these jobs. I wonder how they know that. Reading on...

You are being intellectually dishonest in cherry-picking a single sentence from a 50-page report.

If you have evidence that race is related to productivity in employment, then you may have found a relevant variable. However, even if you could show that there is such a valid variable, the methodology of the study provides some control over any variable other than naked race.

Nice misuse of the word "hispanic' in section 2.1.1. The rest of chapter 2 is mostly a history lesson.

Meh. Again you are being intellectually dishonest.

I'm not sure in what way you are alleging the study misused the term hispanic, but the study discusses the proper definition of the term at length.

Moreover, the rest of chapter 2 is not just history, but evidence of the state of minorities similar to the OP. Also reported are the results of statistical studies of employment that show the existence of racial discrimination.

In section 3, ths study points out that testers were selected partly based on an "absence of strong ideological beliefs about discrimination that might interfere with objectivity". This is important - I'll explain why in just a moment.

Starting section 4, we're greeted with this statement:

Again, this is an assertion that there are no job-relevant race-based hiring concerns. And yet, the previous control mentioned in section 3 is one possible such concern.

Again with the intellectual dishonesty. The variable -- for which the studies controlled -- was that the testers might not be objective in evaluating their treatment. This is not a job-relevant race-based hiring concern -- and I'd love to see you try to explain how it is.

By the way, after complaining about the lack of information about the methodology of the other studies, your lack of comment on the 6 whole pages of detailed description of methodology of the four studies reported in this paper is telling. (Especially because that whole chapter of the paper is supplemented by additional discussion of methodology throughout the rest of the paper.)

In section 4.2, it's mentioned that one of the research organisations (the FEC) assumed equal pay for equal work as a reasonable standard, and thus considered differences in offered wages as evidence of descrimination. But that's not necessarily evidence of discrimination by this employer. This could be an employer's awareness of cultural differences that could affect the willingness of ability to negotiate for salary, or indeed the employer's perception of discrimination in the workforce generally, thus requiring a higher wage to attract a white applicant (who would have access to other job prospects) than to a black applicant (who wouldn't).

As such, I would discard all findings by the FEC.

Again, intellectually dishonest. The paper says that one group looked at wage gaps in addition to the other variables. Even if you were right that this one variable is invalid, that would not invalidate the whole study.

Moreover, despite your presumptions to the contrary, evidence that white applicants were offered better compensation than equally qualified black applicants is evidence of discrimination.

Finally, it is telling that in your own attempt to rationalize wage discrimination you assume a background environment in which a black applicant is disadvantaged relative to a white candidate.

The studies refer to jobs of "lesser quality", but don't define the term.

Again, there is discussion of this point at length in the paper. That you skimmed over it doesn't make it non-existent.

The great long section 4.7 deals with the psychology of employers, something I would generally deem unknowable without exstensive follow-up interviews (which none of these studies seem to have done, thus creating tremendous uncertainty as to why any of thei decisions were made). However, even allowing for the possibility of psychological knowledge, the evaluations are equating demographic profiling (the assumption that children of wealthy families do better at school than children of poor families - somthing that's demonstrably true) with unacceptable discrimination, and I don't see how the two are similar at all.

This goes back to your assumption that we can't know psychology. I'm not debating that absurdity with you again.

Chapter 5 offers detail methodology, but only for one of the four studies, and this was one conducted by the FEC, which I've already discarded for having used non-relevant criteria for identifying discrimination.

Intellectually dishonest.

Chapter 3 presented detailed methodology for all four of the studies reported on in the paper.

Chapter 5 discusses an additional sub-part of one of the four studies. A correspondence study that was done in addition to the audit study.

And I've already explained how dismissing everything done by the FEC because you disagree with them about one type of discrimination is asinine.

This paper has potential, and it may well demonstrate strictly race-based discrimination in a way that isn't realted to productivity, but I need more information about methodology to determine that. I'll take this one as a maybe.

At least you have some slight intellectual conscience.


At the end, it does advocate affirmative action as a solution to discrimination, something I would describe as a cure significantly worse than the disease.

First of all, the paper describes affirmative action as "...any measure, beyond simple termination of a discriminatory practice, adopted to correct or compensate for past discrimination or prevent discrimination from recurring in the future."

Second, the paper merely states that "the testing findings presented in this paper are more consistent with the former position [i.e., that additional measures are warranted] than with the latter [i.e., that the appropriate remedy is only vigorous enforcement of prohibitions on discrimination.]"

Third, it is curious that you consistently defend the use of "race-based hiring criteria" when it is applied to minorities, but not if applied to the majority.

This paper isn't publicly available. I can't read it from this link.

My bad. I have a hard copy and thought the paper was accessible. Not that reading it would have effected your opinion.

This paper does a good job of explaining why studies can't convey race through the use of racially distinctive names (given the correlation between racially distinctive names and socioeconomic status). As such, correspondence studies fail.

Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. Out of a balanced scholarly discussion of the alleged advantages and disadvantages of correspondence studies you cherry-pick a single factor which is said merely to "complicate[]" such studies and make it into an excuse to dismiss all such studies.

The paper's author demostrates his gross innumeracy by claiming that black applicants are "50 and 500 percent less likely" to be considered or offered jobs by employers. 500 percent less likely is a mathematical impossibility. I'm tempted to stop reading this one right now.

You are being absurd.

I'm glad I didn't, though, because the next section explains in great detail the problems with these audit studies, generally. James Heckman (economist) does a great job of explaining why audit studies can't produce scietifically valid results.

Again with intellectual dishonesty. The paper describes alleged faults in audit studies and then explains away these faults at length. You cherry-pick only the alleged faults and ignore the paper's actual content.

This paper's overall conclusion even points out that the findings of audit studies are incompatible with survey data. This paper seems firmly on my side. Thanks for linking it.

Have you no shred of intellectual decency? You ignore the wheat for the chaff.

More importantly, the section of the paper you are describing concludes as follows:

In either scenario, discrimination at the point of hire remains an active barrier to employment for young black men. Indeed, the magnitude of the results shown here, across a wide range of studies, suggests that barriers to labor market entry are likely to represent a serious constraint on the acheivement of economic self-sufficient among young black men today.

BTW, this paper has a six-page appendix regarding the methodology of audit studies. Despite your alleged concern with methodology, you fail to comment.

This is another audit study (with all the problems that entails) that fails to describe its methodology sufficiently well.

When I complain about not seeing the methodolgy, I just want more information about the studies. I want to know more about the employers contacted. I want to know age, race, and gender of the interviewers, and I want to know the size of the company hiring. I want to know the demographics of existing employees.

Undoubtedly, you wouldn't be satisfied if the paper included everything down to the Social Security numbers of each interviewee and interviewer.

One of the studies you linked mentioned that the employers wanted to get rid of some existing employees who weren't pulling their weight. The race of those employees could certainly create a relevant hiring criterion. If all of the employees to be fired were black, the employer might fear offending another black employee by firing them, and thus choose not to hire one right now. Since he's been presented with 2-3 otherwise identical applicants, the employers can afford to make discriminate on otherwise insignificant grounds (like race).

Again, here you are openly defending the use of race as a hiring criteria.

This is a wonderful study that points out the discrimination in the sportscard market is due primarily to a disparate distribution of reservation rates between racial groups rather than any unfair prejudice. There is a relevant characteristic that differs from racial group to racial group and the sportscard dealers are aware of it.

Did you even read these studies? They're not supporting your position at all.

The results from the Dictator Game show "Dealers do not exhibit noneconomic tastes for discrimination that systematically favor the majority group." I win again.

In the Chamberlain Market test, the discrimination is shown to be based on relevant demographic assumptions about reservation values. And tests III.C. and III.D. show these to be correct assumptions. Experienced dealers are making purely economic race-based decisions based on their correct analysis of buyer trends. There is no prejudicial discrimination here.

Jocabia has more than adequately handed you your ass with regards to this study.

I found them quite adequate. I'm very surprised you do, however.

When taken for what they actually say, the papers I linked copiously demonstrate the existence of racial discrimination in the job market. You fail to show otherwise.

Moreover, despite your presumptions to the contrary, evidence that white applicants were offered better compensation than equally qualified black applicants is evidence of discrimination.

Finally, it is telling that in your own attempt to rationalize wage discrimination you assume a background environment in which a black applicant is disadvantaged relative to a white candidate.

The funny part is that he admits the disadvantage exists. Says it's okay for employers to exploit that disadvantage since "Johnny did it too" which of course increases the disadvantage, which increases the reason for the employer to discriminate, etc.

Isn't that a nice result. if you're down you stay down and if you're up you stay up. Provided you have the right visible indicators of your value, you know, like your skin.

The funny part is that he admits the disadvantage exists. Says it's okay for employers to exploit that disadvantage since "Johnny did it too" which of course increases the disadvantage, which increases the reason for the employer to discriminate, etc.

It's that a nice result. if you're down you stay down and if you're up you stay up. Provided you have the right visible indicators of your value, you know, like your skin.

that's the funny part, he ADMITS proof of discrimination, just tries to pretend there's not proof of "discrimination with animus", and tries to think that these huge numbers are somehow indicitive of legitimate discrimination.

he also completely ignores subconcious acts and motivations.

Yes. If there's no animus, then you must be discriminating on some relevant grounds. Like if I refused to hire th ewhite kid to wait tables at my authentic Japanese restourant because his pale face would spoil the mood. In that case, the race of the applicant is directly relevant to the job being done.

I love how you choose this relatively innocuous example while you're actually discussing using the fact that a group is oppressed to exploit them.


On a large scale, absolutely. That's the same reason if I open one factory in Indianapolis and one in Kuala Lumpur I'll offer lower wages to the workers in Kuala Lumpur because I have reason to expect they'll work for lower wages.

If I have reason to believe that black people, as a group, are poorer than white people I'll approach price negotiations with them somewhat differently. That's not racism, that's just prudence. Presented with a single black trading partner I had reason to believe was wealthier (say, Chuck D), I'd adjust my approach in the otehr direction.

As I said, using the fact that a group is or was oppressed to exploit them. What a thing to aspire to? Forget the fact, that were people in general to follow your line of thinking, you can pretty much justify any action and eventually one race would destroy or own all the others. Then it would be by eye color, or weight or height or type of hair, or some other equally absurd means of "rationally" discriminating.

that's the funny part, he ADMITS proof of discrimination, just tries to pretend there's not proof of "discrimination with animus", and tries to think that these huge numbers are somehow indicitive of legitimate discrimination.

he also completely ignores subconcious acts and motivations.

No, it's worse than that. he admits it's discrimination based on race, which was TCT's claim. Then he claims TCT didn't read the study that, according to Llewdor shows that discrimination based on race occurs, since it doesn't support TCT's claim that discrimination based on race is occurring.

He pretends this makes sense by claiming that despite the fact that TCT never said anything about animus, that if animus doesn't exist then TCT must not have been talking about that kind of discrimination, because, you know, it's just like choosing your cereal in the morning.

It's so absurd, that one wonders if he's not doing this on purpose.

When taken for what they actually say, the papers I linked copiously demonstrate the existence of racial discrimination in the job market. You fail to show otherwise.

You are patently wrong. He didn't fail to show otherwise. He succeeded in demonstrating that they do demonstrate the existence of racial discrimination, and he openly said as much. ;)

You are patently wrong. He didn't fail to show otherwise. He succeeded in demonstrating that they do demonstrate the existence of racial discrimination, and he openly said as much. ;)

I stand corrected. :cool:

Pardon me? According to the theory an entire class of people are disadvantage and will this disadvantage will increase due to the color of their skin. This disadvantage was created through government practice, but you oppose government intervention to level the field that you've admitted is not currently level. And this harms TCT's argument, how?
I wasn't aware TCT was arguing that equality needs to be maintained at all costs.

Let's assume the field was level. All racial groups had fully equal opportunities. But over time, that changed (for reasons that were wholly fair, but they just didn't happen to work out for one group). The field would then be unequal. Is that something that needs to be fixed? Should the successful be punished? TCT seems to think so.

Since there's no animus in these people's actions, the field is level. No one is being singled out for being the member of a group. They're being treated differently because there's a statistical likelihood that they exhibit specific relevant characteristics. That they are the members of one racial group isn't actually influencing anyone's behaviour - it's the presence of the relevant characteristics that's influencing behaviour. Two people if different races who are believed to be equivalent in terms of relevant characteristics (determined by that test where the characteristics were assigned randomly and everyone knew it), they would be treated equally. But since in the real world their relevant characteristics are not equal, perfectly reasonable discrimination occurs.
Statistical discrimination is a theory that states that we tend to business of other people identify with, including by skin color. It means that if white people have all the monetary power they are likely to keep and it's an outstanding argument for the government to step in and correct the mistakes of the past.
The statistical discrimination in these studies was based on actual differences in relevant criteria. The dealers correctly identified the minority buyers as exhibiting characteristics that differed from those of majority buyers. They weren't being excluded because they were minorities, as shown in the randomised tests. They were being excluded based not on race, but based on characteristics that actually mattered.
I oppose racial discrimination generally.
And that's the problem. If I could prove that members of one race werre prone to unpredictable nervous ticks, you'd hold that we shouldn't take any steps to make sure our brain surgeon isn't a member of that group, because that would be racial discrimination, and you oppose it generally.

You should always be permitted to discriminate based on relevant characteristics. If I'm trying to sell a car, and someone comes in I have reason to believe is wealthier, I'm going to try to sell him the more expensive car, or at least be less flexible on the price. But that means that if one group is consistently wealthier than another, I'll be systematically treating members of the two groups differently. Do you honestly think that's a bad thing?
That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about discriminating about whether or not it's better to hire people who were short or long skirts.
Yes we are. We're discussing relevant characteristics. Skirt length, like race, may well be indicative of something about which I really care.
Economic decisions doesn't make it not a problem. I can choose not to hire black people at my restaurant because my clients don't want a black server, but it doesn't make it acceptable or something we should ignore.
And I disagree. Let the market's inefficiency sort itself out.

The diner that does employ black servers can probably pay them less (because they have fewer job prospects), which means they'll gain a competitive advantage over the diner that pays a premium to employ only white servers.
Nevemind, you do know what statistical discrimination. You're just pretending like as long as it's for financial reasons that a race is kept down it doesn't count. You do realize that you claimed this study doesn't support the claims of TCT, but you've just admitted it does support his claim, you just don't give a crap.
I still can't believe TCT's claim was that all racial discrimination is bad all the time in all possible circumstances. No one could reasonably hold that position.
According to you. TCT's claim is that it exists and that it's racial and that it results in disadvantage. You just admitted all of those things. Fine, you don't care. We get it. It doesn't change what the study says.
The study totally agrees with me. The dealers were making decisions based solely on economics, not race. That the two were confluent is only obfuscatory.
You keep stating this likes a truism, but how do you figure that provided people aren't doing it because of animus it's okay if an entire class of people is permanently disadvantaged.
Not everyone can succeed. Homeless people are permanently disadvantaged. I'm not jumping up and down insisting we should help them not be homeless.

What matters here is if the racial group is disadvantaged solely because it is that racial group. And it isn't.

If I ran a university, and I knew that the black students in some town were vastly less likely to attend post-secondary school than the white kids were, but I could only afford a recruiting visit to one school, would I be behaving inappropriately by making that visit to the predominantly white school rather than the predominantly black school? You seem to think so.
In fact, the theory of statistical discrimination is that the disadvantage would increase over time without interference.
But it's not increasing for racist reasons, so that's not a problem that needs fixing. That's individual freedom at work.
Equivocation is a fallacy.
You've said that before. I don't get it.
This study found racial discrimination.
The study found discrimination that happened to match racial lines. It was demonstrably not based on race.
Trying to compare that to choosing between inanimate objects is really just evidencing your lack of a better argument.
It's directly analogous. There's no moral angle to economic decisions of this sort. That's what makes it very much like your breakfast decision.

The dealers weren't treating the buyers differently because they were black. They were treating them differently because they had reason to believe they were relevantly different from otehr buyers. And (here's the kicker) the dealers were right.
You admit it supports the case for discrimination based on race, and then nonsensically claim that TCT can't use it to back up his claim for discrimination based on race.
Do you honeslty not understand the distinction I'm trying to draw, here?

If, as a dealer, I driver a harder bargain with black buyers, even though I have no reason to believe that black buyers, as a group, differ in any relevant way from white buyers such that they warrant my harder bargaining stance, that's racist behaviour. That would be me being a racist.

If, however, if I'm a dealer like the ones in the study, and I driver a harder bargain with black buyers because I have reason to believe (and am correct) that black buyers, taken generally, do exhibit relevant characteristics that warrant my harder bargaining stance, then I'm not behaving like a racist. I'm behaving like a smart businessman.

Nicely done, Jocabia. You've exposed Llewdor's bias for what it is.
My bias for pure reason?
Note Llewdor also makes excuses for when a person is motivated by animus.
Did I?
Yes, this is cute. When you were describing black attitudes, he was saying that they were irrational because they considered the existence of communities. But employers can discriminate on the basis of one belonging to a community, and Llewdor defends that choice as not only rational, but just.
Not just. Fair. I'm still waiting for Neesika to define justice for me.

When dealing with groups of people, it is often more efficient to make assumptions about individual members based on the general characteristics of the group members as a whole.

That still doesn't make a community a thing.

Or more appropriately, all of the science that Llewdor accepts just happens to support greed.

Isn't that convenient?
People are greedy. Society needs to allow for that.

Come on you guys, quit beating up on Llewdor. He's just arguing that sometimes, racism the logical side-effect of the actions of a logical person.
Racial discrimination. Not racism.

Otherwise, you've summed up my point quite neatly.

My bias for pure reason?

Did I?

Not just. Fair. I'm still waiting for Neesika to define justice for me.

When dealing with groups of people, it is often more efficient to make assumptions about individual members based on the general characteristics of the group members as a whole.

That still doesn't make a community a thing.

It's also not rational. There is nothing rational about acting as if a person's skin color says something about whether or not they will conform to a particular stereotype. When you're talking about an individual you are not talking about odds. Odds don't apply to the individual. Hell, ask any poker player. It's rational to treat a deck cards according to odds. It's irrational to treat another poker player as if he will conformt to odds. It's quite literally relying on luck. Very rational that is.

Meanwhile, I find your use of the word fair amusing. Apparently, fair means to be consistently disadvantage through the results of statistical discrimination due to something one cannot help ever.

People are greedy. Society needs to allow for that.

Allow for, not encourage. People are also violent. Should we also encourage that?

I wasn't aware TCT was arguing that equality needs to be maintained at all costs.

Amusing. So you don't know what TCT was arguing, but you're telling him his studies don't support his premise. Hmmm....

Well, let me help you out.

In recent threads (and old threads), some have questioned whether blacks are still disadvantaged in America. Some have even gone so far as to claim blacks are more privileged than whites.

Now hopefully we will see a more poignant argument from you. I'm willing to cross my fingers and wait.

Let's assume the field was level. All racial groups had fully equal opportunities. But over time, that changed (for reasons that were wholly fair, but they just didn't happen to work out for one group). The field would then be unequal. Is that something that needs to be fixed? Should the successful be punished? TCT seems to think so.

Amusing. So if reality wasn't reality, then TCT would be wrong. Again, hmmmm.... do you imagine this is how one makes a valid argument? Says if only reality had happened differently the actions TCT supports wouldn't be justified?

In the real world, there was a sanctioned system that created the disadvantage. All racial groups do not have equal opportunities and never have. Meanwhile, how do you claim it's "wholly fair" when if we allowed that to occur individuals would be oppressed because of the failures of their ancestors.

I'm going to continue that reasoning. Since as long as I call it reasoning, it's rational and fair, I say if you've ever lost a debate to me that it's perfectly fair that you be held responsible for my bills. Forget the fact that you aren't. I regard it as wholly fair. Every bit as rational as making pay the "bills" of my ancestors.

Not JUST. He's saying provided it's not due to animus it's not a problem, even when systemic.
Nut just animus. When the discrimination os based on perceived differences for which the discriminator has no evidence (like the belief that black people are dumb), I would also count that as racism, and something that should be combatted.
Statistical discrimination theories have it increasing without interference. He's arguing for a state that would result in the eventual rise of a completely dominant race.
Would that be a bad thing?

If all races are equal, then which one happens to run society shouldn't matter, should it?
In fact, it's precisely what DID create the rise in a completely dominant race. That natives still exist in the countries dominated by the various european countries is the result of people with compassion stepping in a stopping the "rational" and psychopathic belief that it doesn't matter who you hurt provided you gain.
But European settlement of North America was riddled with racism. The indigenous natives were seem as less valuable or even less human than Europeans, and that's racist.

However, selling them weapons or liquor in exchange for land involved taking advantage of their differing perceptions of value (or even concepts of ownership), and thus that wasn't racist behaviour. Just opportunistic.

Note, I'm not saying anything about whether opportunism is good, here. I'm just arguing that racial discrimination for opportunistic reasons isn't necessarily evidence of racism.
EDIT: By the way, I used sociopath when I meant psychopath, earlier. The KKK and statistical discrimination is social, it just lacks empathy, conscience or morality.
The two are clinically identical. I've done a lot of reading on psychopathy.

indeed. you can hardly fault him for following the dictates of reason. now where did i put my white sheets?
You can't. That's why you're forced to try to make fun of me.

There's nothing logically wrong with my position.

Nut just animus. When the discrimination os based on perceived differences for which the discriminator has no evidence (like the belief that black people are dumb), I would also count that as racism, and something that should be combatted.

Why? If it creates an economic advantage for the discriminator, then it's WHOLLY fair, no?


Would that be a bad thing?

If all races are equal, then which one happens to run society shouldn't matter, should it?

Not in your world, since you've said it's perfectly fair to use whatever advantages one has, which of course includes power, to take advantage of those with less advantage. So, yes, it would certainly matter.


But European settlement of North America was riddled with racism. The indigenous natives were seem as less valuable or even less human than Europeans, and that's racist.

Less valuable? Wow, the irony. Isn't that precisely what you argued for? You should save this argument. You really should, because I can't imagine a way for you to make it less defensible.


However, selling them weapons or liquor in exchange for land involved taking advantage of their differing perceptions of value (or even concepts of ownership), and thus that wasn't racist behaviour. Just opportunistic.

Note, I'm not saying anything about whether opportunism is good, here. I'm just arguing that racial discrimination for opportunistic reasons isn't necessarily evidence of racism.

Yes, you are. You've stated clearly that it's fair and that you support it. You've also stated that we should stay out of it.

The two are clinically identical. I've done a lot of reading on psychopathy.

Actually, in your lot of reading, you MUST have read that this is heavily disputed because psychopathy can involve very social behavior, which by definition sociopathy wouldn't.

You can't. That's why you're forced to try to make fun of me.

There's nothing logically wrong with my position.

Well, if you say so it must be true. According to you treating a race as less valuable because of their race is racism, but treating a race as less valuable because their skin color makes them less valuable is not racism.

Yep, entirely logical that is. In what world?

Actually, I predict you'd do just what you've done: find trivial, misleading, and nonsensical reasons to dismiss evidence that doesn't fit your world view.
It's a piece of "research". None of it is trivial.
The only thing suprising is your lack of intellectual honesty.
I'd love you to define that, because how you use it below doesn't make any sense.
(Note that you irrationally take what you perceive as the possibility that any discrimination was not based as animus as sweeping proof that all discrimination is not based on animus.)
No, I'm insisting that without evidence that it's based on animus there's no reason for us to believe that it is, and that as such there's no way to target those racist employers without also harming the wholly reasonable employers who are making racial distinctions on relevant grounds.
The possibility of legitimate discrimination based on race? Again, you show your true colors.
As do you. How can you possibly hold that there can never be a legitimate discrimination based on race? Law enforcement does it all the time. If the witnesses say a white guy robbed the store, the police will target only white suspects. That's a perfectly legitimate discrimination based on race.
You are being intellectually dishonest in cherry-picking a single sentence from a 50-page report.
Are some of the sentences not meant to be taken seriously?
If you have evidence that race is related to productivity in employment, then you may have found a relevant variable. However, even if you could show that there is such a valid variable, the methodology of the study provides some control over any variable other than naked race.
In that actual applicants, yes. But not over true generalisations about racial groups.
I'm not sure in what way you are alleging the study misused the term hispanic, but the study discusses the proper definition of the term at length.
While I accept that the study does adequately define the term as used within the study itself, the definition doesn't match the proper definition of the word. I think choosing the word hispanic to describe those people was sloppy.
Again with the intellectual dishonesty. The variable -- for which the studies controlled -- was that the testers might not be objective in evaluating their treatment. This is not a job-relevant race-based hiring concern -- and I'd love to see you try to explain how it is.
The study (and you) assumes that the employers are using only the information provided them in making their hiring decisions. This is a bad assumption, and the main reason I want follow-up interviews.
Moreover, despite your presumptions to the contrary, evidence that white applicants were offered better compensation than equally qualified black applicants is evidence of discrimination.
As I said, the principle of equal pay for equal work is antithetical to individual freedom.
Finally, it is telling that in your own attempt to rationalize wage discrimination you assume a background environment in which a black applicant is disadvantaged relative to a white candidate.
As a group, black Americans ARE disadvantages with regard to white Americans. Given no other information, it's far more likely that a black person in front of me is from a poor background than it is of a white person.
This goes back to your assumption that we can't know psychology. I'm not debating that absurdity with you again.
But I see you used that previous disagreement to completely ignore my point:

"...allowing for the possibility of psychological knowledge, the evaluations are equating demographic profiling (the assumption that children of wealthy families do better at school than children of poor families - somthing that's demonstrably true) with unacceptable discrimination, and I don't see how the two are similar at all."
At least you have some slight intellectual conscience.
Intellect is all I have. What you're doing is trying to use reason to justify your preconceived notions about justice, and you're failing.
Third, it is curious that you consistently defend the use of "race-based hiring criteria" when it is applied to minorities, but not if applied to the majority.
Because affirmative action isn't based on relevant job-related criteria. If it were, employers would already be using it (because it would be a sound economic decision).
Again, you are being intellectually dishonest. Out of a balanced scholarly discussion of the alleged advantages and disadvantages of correspondence studies you cherry-pick a single factor which is said merely to "complicate[]" such studies and make it into an excuse to dismiss all such studies.
Unless they isolate the effect of this complication, the results are undeniably tainted.
You are being absurd.
Am I? What does 500 percent less likely mean, then?

The paper is making statistical comparisons and yet grossly misuses simply mathematical concepts. Credibility, much?
Again with intellectual dishonesty. The paper describes alleged faults in audit studies and then explains away these faults at length. You cherry-pick only the alleged faults and ignore the paper's actual content.
It does not explain them away. The problems persist, and may well muddy the data considerably.
Again, here you are openly defending the use of race as a hiring criteria.
Because in this case it would be a relevant criterion. You asked what a relevant race-based criterion might me - this is it.
Jocabia has more than adequately handed you your ass with regards to this study.
Jocabia has utterly failed to do that on more than one occasion. This one is no different.

Well, if you say so it must be true. According to you treating a race as less valuable because of their race is racism, but treating a race as less valuable because their skin color makes them less valuable is not racism.

Yep, entirely logical that is. In what world?
This one.

If their skin colour does make them demonstrably less valuable in a job-related way (say, less able to blend into a crowd in Japan for a job that requires that very skill), then that's not racism.

If I'm hiring for one position that requires fluency in Korean, and I don't have a lot of time to do it, but I've been bombarded by hundreds of applicants, is it wrong of me to go through the resumes of applicants who have Korean names first? You seem to think so, even though it would be a great way to increase my chances of finding a qualified applicant.

Jocabia has utterly failed to do that on more than one occasion. This one is no different.

Hmmm... yes, of course I have. I mean you declared your argument logical. How could I ever defeat a judgement of your own argument?

I mean, you did defeat my pointing out your logical fallacy of equivocation with "huh, what's equivocation?" Yeah, I've been soundly beaten.

And let's see, I didn't catch you saying that the study TCT used doesn't support his assertion that black people are disadvantaged to race and then later saying that the study shows just that. Yep, that never happened. But hey if you ignore it, you've made a "logical" argument, no?

One of your arguments certainly wasn't the No True Scotsman fallacy "I don't regard people who aren't rational as people".

Yep, arguments that rely on fallacies are GREAT arguments. That's why they call them fallacies.

The funny part is that he admits the disadvantage exists. Says it's okay for employers to exploit that disadvantage since "Johnny did it too" which of course increases the disadvantage, which increases the reason for the employer to discriminate, etc.

Isn't that a nice result. if you're down you stay down and if you're up you stay up. Provided you have the right visible indicators of your value, you know, like your skin.

I was waiting for your strawman. You do this every time.

I'm not claiming that you should ever be permitted to discriminate simply because someone is of a particular race. But if their membership of that race make them relevantly different from another applicant of another race, then discrimination should be acceptable.

Employers discriminate between applicants all the time. They do it for reasons that are relevant to the job. You guys are arguing that they should be allowed to do that if those characteristics coincide with racial divisions.

One of your arguments certainly wasn't the No True Scotsman fallacy "I don't regard people who aren't rational as people".
This one really irritates me.

What standard should I use then, oh wise one, to determine which creatures in the universe are people? And why is that particular criterion better than mine?

I await your infinite wisdom.

This one.

If their skin colour does make them demonstrably less valuable in a job-related way (say, less able to blend into a crowd in Japan for a job that requires that very skill), then that's not racism.

That's not the example you gave however. You suggested that provided that a person traditionally makes less money at a job because of their skin color, i.e. you regard them as less valuable because of their skin color, that it's acceptable to treat them as less valuable. You keep trying to qualify when it makes sense, but you've admitted that requirement, the one in your above post, is not required. Are you saying it's only okay to discriminate if the reasoning is as such above, and not because people are just less valuable because of how society regards them generally? I mean you did say exactly that.

Amusingly, when you get caught every time you use a fallacy, what makes you think you'd get away with it now?


If I'm hiring for one position that requires fluency in Korean, and I don't have a lot of time to do it, but I've been bombarded by hundreds of applicants, is it wrong of me to go through the resumes of applicants who have Korean names first? You seem to think so, even though it would be a great way to increase my chances of finding a qualified applicant.

Um, ha. Try that. The very scientific "this name sounds Korean so they are good at speaking Korean". This is your argument? You really want to make that after declaring that you can't be defeated by me in argument. How divinely amusing.

This one really irritates me.

What standard should I use then, oh wise one, to determine which creatures in the universe are people? And why is that particular criterion better than mine?

I await your infinite wisdom.

Hmmmm... how about that they are human beings and alive? Yeah, I'll go with that. At least, it's not a definition I just pull out of a dark and smell place. If only we could all make that claim.

I love how you choose this relatively innocuous example while you're actually discussing using the fact that a group is oppressed to exploit them.
The two are analogous.
As I said, using the fact that a group is or was oppressed to exploit them. What a thing to aspire to? Forget the fact, that were people in general to follow your line of thinking, you can pretty much justify any action and eventually one race would destroy or own all the others. Then it would be by eye color, or weight or height or type of hair, or some other equally absurd means of "rationally" discriminating.
Only if they're demonstrably relevant criteria.


I note you haven't disputed any of my examples of relevant racial criteria. I've offered several throughout the thread.

I was waiting for your strawman. You do this every time.

I'm not claiming that you should ever be permitted to discriminate simply because someone is of a particular race. But if their membership of that race make them relevantly different from another applicant of another race, then discrimination should be acceptable.

Employers discriminate between applicants all the time. They do it for reasons that are relevant to the job. You guys are arguing that they should be allowed to do that if those characteristics coincide with racial divisions.

You've said it's "relevantly different" if they are simply disadvantaged. Are you going to claim otherwise? You didn't say anything about relevant to the job. You said provided you've got less power because of your race, it's perfectly acceptable to leverage that power. That's not anything about their skin color being relevant to the job. Are you really going to try and change your argument when I can just quote you?

The two are analogous.

Only if they're demonstrably relevant criteria.

Ok, if you say that again, then you're simply being dishonest. I willing to accept that you forgot you said otherwise, but you've admitted that even if two people are equally qualified it's okay to leverage that one race is disadvantaged.


I note you haven't disputed any of my examples of relevant racial criteria. I've offered several throughout the thread.

Because they don't reference the claim you made. You claimed that it's "fair" to exploit people because their skin makes them disadvantaged. Your examples don't reference this, so you simply employing another fallacy. Fallacies neednt be disputed. They are irrelevant simply by being fallacies.

That's not the example you gave however. You suggested that provided that a person traditionally makes less money at a job because of their skin color, i.e. you regard them as less valuable because of their skin color, that it's acceptable to treat them as less valuable.
I'm not treating them as less valuable. I'm offering them a lower salary. You have no reason to believe the two are equivalent, and yet you jumped neatly to that conclusion.

Their value to me is actually higher if they'll do the same work for less pay.
Um, ha. Try that. The very scientific "this name sounds Korean so they are good at speaking Korean". This is your argument?
"Sounds Korean"? I said is Korean.

If I have two applicants, Cha Seung Baek and Billy Ray Dithers, and I need the one who speaks better Korean, but I don't have time to interview them both, is it unreasonable of me to go with the guy with the Korean name?

Ok, if you say that again, then you're simply being dishonest. I willing to accept that you forgot you said otherwise, but you've admitted that even if two people are equally qualified it's okay to leverage that one race is disadvantaged.
Being disadvantaged can itself be a relevant criterion. In salary negotiations, for example.

Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions?

I'm not treating them as less valuable. I'm offering them a lower salary. You have no reason to believe the two are equivalent, and yet you jumped neatly to that conclusion.

Their value to me is actually higher if they'll do the same work for less pay.

Ha. Amusing. So you giving them less isn't an indication of the value you are treating them as if they have? Hmmm... Let's try that again. You are assigning an outward value to them in dollars based on their race, we call that a salary. It's the only indicator to them of their value. But it's not "treating" them as less valuable, as long as you claim it's not.

Nope. No matter how many times I restate, I simply can't pretend like that resembles logic.


"Sounds Korean"? I said is Korean.

When you're reading it, sounds, or more aptly, looks Korean is all you hae. Unless you're talking about someone who actually is Korean, in which case their name matters not in your analogy and you're simply making a poor argument and it's not the analogy's fault. So which is it? Poor analogy or poor argument?

If I have two applicants, Cha Seung Baek and Billy Ray Dithers, and I need the one who speaks better Korean, but I don't have time to interview them both, is it unreasonable of me to go with the guy with the Korean name?

So you're argument is that it's rational to assume that if one is named Cha Seung Baek they are Korean? No, I don't accept this. Reasonable would be to assume it's likely. Then you have to include how likely it is that simply having enough connection to the culture to have a Korean name

What a thing to aspire to?
See?

Your entire position is one based on values you already hold and are trying to justify after the fact.

Reason should work the other way around. Reach the conclusions, and then hold them as opinions.

Being disadvantaged can itself be a relevant criterion. In salary negotiations, for example.

Why do you insist on jumping to conclusions?

Ha. You just keep on doing that. It's amusing. This is amsuing, because it means as long as you can get away with it, it's relevant. Everything is relevant. What a wonderfully terrible and entertaining argument.

I sincerely can't wait for the next post.

See?

Your entire position is one based on values you already hold and are trying to justify after the fact.

Reason should work the other way around. Reach the conclusions, and then hold them as opinions.

Amusing. This assumes that what I aspire to isn't already examined. Not a valid assumption.

Meanwhile, you really want to play this game when you changed the definition of person to make your argument valid? Really? I knew I couldn't wait for your next post. This argument is wonderful.

Ha. Amusing. So you giving them less isn't an indication of the value you are treating them as if they have?
Of course not. Why would it be?

You're the one holding the positive opinion, here. You're the one who has to justify it.
Hmmm... Let's try that again. You are assigning an outward value to them in dollars based on their race, we call that a salary.
No, I'm offering them the salary in trade for their services. It's a value they'll accept. Whether I would be willing to pay them more is immaterial.
I simply can't pretend like that resembles logic.
Because you repeatedly jump to unsupported conclusions. I think it would help if you treated my positions as stand-alone thought experiments. After all, that's how I reached most of them.
When you're reading it, sounds, or more aptly, looks Korean is all you hae.
Francois Marleau is a French name. Whether Francois himself is French isn't known to me, but his name is demonstrably French.
So which is it? Poor analogy or poor argument?
Neither. You seem unable to grasp that some names have nations of origin.
So you're argument is that it's rational to assume that if one is named Cha Seung Baek they are Korean? No, I don't accept this.
Good, because I didn't assert it.

If you'll recall, my initial example had a large group of applicants. Likelihood within the group would have been sufficient to justify choosing that group.

Again you jumped to an unsupported conclusion.

Hmmmm... how about that they are human beings and alive? Yeah, I'll go with that.
Okay, why is that better than mine? Why are you so willing to disenfranchise non-humans? Or non-living humans?

Or, comparing it to my position, why are non-cognitive humans equivalent to cognitive humans? Your position requires that they are. Why do you think so?

Ha. You just keep on doing that. It's amusing. This is amsuing, because it means as long as you can get away with it, it's relevant. Everything is relevant. What a wonderfully terrible and entertaining argument.

I sincerely can't wait for the next post.
Your mind is trapped by this whole equal pay for equal work thing.

If I negotiate a salary with my employer, and I'm happy with it, but then he goes and hires another guy to do the same job I'm doing (because there's too much work for just me), but that guy negotiates a higher salary, is that unfair?

I don't think so. I agreed to my salary, and I was happy with it. What some other guy is getting paid is entirely unrelated to how much I think I should get for my labour. Nothing in my agreement with my emplyer has changed, so there's no reason for me to mind someone else earning more than me.

So, in salary negotiations, we're talking about a voluntary exchange of monetary value for labour. As employer, I want to pay you as little as I think you'll accept. You want to earn as much as you think I'll pay you. The salary on which we agree has nothing at all to do with the value we assign each other - it's just a trade.

Amusing. This assumes that what I aspire to isn't already examined. Not a valid assumption.
Then why aren't you already aware of how baseless your position is? Why all this pussyfooting around?

I'll come right out and ask. Why do you oppose racial discrimination?

Ha. You just keep on doing that. It's amusing. This is amsuing, because it means as long as you can get away with it, it's relevant. Everything is relevant. What a wonderfully terrible and entertaining argument.
Let me try this another way. Consider this a neat little lesson in how a free market works when everyone's behaving fairly.

If I'm trading with you (any commodity for any commodity), I'm willing to allow discrimination on any grounds that related directly to the commodities that are being traded, but not if they're based solely on the traders themselves without regard for the commodities.

When hiring you, one of the commodities is your labour. If your race affects your labour (and depending what I'm hiring you to do, it might), then I should be permitted to discriminate based upon it.

Similarly, if you're hiring me, and your race gives me clues about your capacity to pay me, I should be allowed to discriminate based on that.

Of course not. Why would it be?

You're the one holding the positive opinion, here. You're the one who has to justify it.

I have to justify that an item designed to represent one's market value, a salary, represents one's market value? Do I have to show that shoe that costs 4000 is being treated as more valuable than a shoe that costs 40? I didn't realize I had to define money and salaries to you? Please tell me I don't.

I also find this interesting from the guy who redefined person and then said that it stands unless I can come up with something better. Oh, the consistency.


No, I'm offering them the salary in trade for their services. It's a value they'll accept. Whether I would be willing to pay them more is immaterial.

You said you wouldn't be willing to pay them more. You said they don't deserve more because they are disadvantaged, remember? It's fair. Or did you forget that.

Meanwhile, we're talking about how rational you're being, remember? You've claimed that they're race is relevant and that you could get someone else of that race for less, because the race generally is requiring less of a salary (I'll refrain from saying worth less, since you don't what a salary represents). Why in your infinite rationality would you pay this black man more when you could just hire another black man for less?


Because you repeatedly jump to unsupported conclusions. I think it would help if you treated my positions as stand-alone thought experiments. After all, that's how I reached most of them.

You say that so much after I show my reasoning that one wonders if you know what "jump to a conclusion" means. I come to a conclusion, and I show why I came to it. Disagree with it if you like, but please, please, use a dictionary before you use anymore phrases you use anymore phrases like this improperly.

So you want me to treat all of your positions as completely unrelated because tying them together destroys them. Sorry, I'm not going to ignore that your conclusions are rationally inconsistent. I think your experiments have poor methodology.



Francois Marleau is a French name. Whether Francois himself is French isn't known to me, but his name is demonstrably French.

Actually, you cannot conclude that. It could be French. It could just as easily being completely made up and may just happen to sound exactly like a french name. Much like I could argue that drawers are underwear, but it won't change that it could just as easily end up being dresser drawers. That's how combination of sounds work. So the bet you can do is "sounds french." Is french depends on where it ACTUALLY came from, not where you think it MUST come from.


Neither. You seem unable to grasp that some names have nations of origin.

You seem to fail to grasp that the same combination of letters can be put together with another origin. I recognize SOME names have nations of origin. You're declaring that all names that are identical have the same nation of origin, which is a fallacious argument.

Baab Kjorstrom? What's the nation of origin for that one? It's original, but I bet if searched I could match it. So what nation did it originate from? Hint: the answer is America, because that's where I wrote that. However, if you read it on a peice of paper, you'd have no way of knowing that unless I told you. Incidentally, my last name sounds Irish, but my great grandfather made it up for precisely that reason. Many people have completely thrown reason out the window and made the assertion that my name doesn't SOUND Irish, but IS Irish. They were as wrong as you are now.



Good, because I didn't assert it.

If you'll recall, my initial example had a large group of applicants. Likelihood within the group would have been sufficient to justify choosing that group.

Again you jumped to an unsupported conclusion.

If you're a poor enough employer that your reduce a large group to one based on a name, then rational isn't going anywhere near an accurate description of you.

I love this, you say JUMP again. I pointed out exactly where that conclusion came from. No jumping. You may disagree, but if you're wrong about them being Korean this idiotic employer has just wasted his time because he was irrational. You said IS Korean about his name and you said you were assuming that he could speak Korean because you are assuming his name IS Korean. IF you're calling the fact that you said you'd interview them based on your assumption about their Korean name and I noticed that you said it and what that implies about your assumptions JUMPING, then I jump to work every day.

Hey, in fairness to you, I'm going to be off for a bit. I'm jumping over to a restaurant to buy some dinner, then I'll jump home and check in. Don't stop though. I hate to miss a single post.

Let me try this another way. Consider this a neat little lesson in how a free market works when everyone's behaving fairly.

If I'm trading with you (any commodity for any commodity), I'm willing to allow discrimination on any grounds that related directly to the commodities that are being traded, but not if they're based solely on the traders themselves without regard for the commodities.

When hiring you, one of the commodities is your labour. If your race affects your labour (and depending what I'm hiring you to do, it might), then I should be permitted to discriminate based upon it.

Similarly, if you're hiring me, and your race gives me clues about your capacity to pay me, I should be allowed to discriminate based on that.


Again, you've changed your argument. You've said that if the race doesn't affect the labor it's okay to consider it for the valuation of that labor simply because the trader is disadvantaged.

You've defeated yourself with your own argument. You've said explicitly that it's okay to pay the trader, the applicant, less because the trader is disadvantage even if the services are equivalent. Thanks for playing.

Okay, why is that better than mine? Why are you so willing to disenfranchise non-humans? Or non-living humans?

Because person is a term with a definition that explicitly requires humanity. Remember your claim about how you in making the assertion it should be different are responsible for proving it.

Or, comparing it to my position, why are non-cognitive humans equivalent to cognitive humans? Your position requires that they are. Why do you think so?

Non-cognitive? You mean dead? Because providing you are alive you are certainly a person. I don't know what you mean by equivalent. It seems to be another one of your attempts to assign value to people based on how you choose to group them.

EDIT: And, yes, I know what you mean by non-cognitive, thus the last sentence.

It seems to be another one of your attempts to assign value to people based on how you choose to group them.
That's exactlly what you're doing. You're just choosing a position shared by more people.

Why are you grouping people as you are?

Incidentally, non-cognitive could be vegetative, or anencephalic. They'd be humans, and they'd be alive.

Persons are the people who are granted rights as free agents. I don't want to limit that to humans, because if I do my legal system will fail should I discover that some non-human creature satisfies all of my other criteria.

Why do you value people at all? What is it about people that makes them valuable to you? You have to have an answer to this. In classic philosophical terms, why do you think people have a sake?

I love how the person who says it's reasonable to assume that someone speaks korean based on their name but at the same time says criminal law couldn't consider intent because we can never know ones intent.

I would think that making reasonable assumptions of someone's intent based on their actions is really no different, or less "logical" than making a reasonable assumption of what language someone speaks based on their name.

Again, you've changed your argument. You've said that if the race doesn't affect the labor it's okay to consider it for the valuation of that labor simply because the trader is disadvantaged.
The race doesn't affect the labour - it affects your negotiating position. You're going to demand less. Its your behaviour being affected - not mine.

I'm perfectly williong to accept gifts offered in error.

I love how the person who says it's reasonable to assume that someone speaks korean based on their name but at the same time says criminal law couldn't consider intent because we can never know ones intent.
I didn't say it was reasonable to assume someone with a Korean name speaks Korean. I said it's that people with Korean names, taken generally, are more likely to speak Korean than people without Korean names.

And given that, it's reasonable to behave as if it's true.

If intent is knowable, you can demonstrate how.

If intent is knowable, you can demonstrate how.

certainly. If you, holding a loaded gun, point it at my head and pull the trigger it can be known beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to kill me.

If you are asking me with 100% absolute certainty how intent can be known, I only ask you how you can, with 100% absolute certainty, know that someone speaks korean.

So you're argument is that it's rational to assume that if one is named Cha Seung Baek they are Korean? No, I don't accept this. Reasonable would be to assume it's likely. Then you have to include how likely it is that simply having enough connection to the culture to have a Korean name

And excuse me for failing html, anyway
I don't accept this. Hahah...oh wow!
No really, you, Cha Seung Baek, I don't accept the fact that with a name like that the probability is higher that you, and indeed not "Billy Ray Dithers" enjoys the skill of speaking a language! Screw you Cha Seung Baek! You are not only non-accepted, your name is silly and most certainly bearing "Less-korean"ness than this fine gentleman "Billy Ray Dithers".
Let's face it, if I wanted somebody to speak spanish, and all I had were names to ride off of "Miguel" would come before "Travis". "Juan" before "Cha Sueng" and "Mario" before "Luigi"...no wait :rolleyes:

I didn't say it was reasonable to assume someone with a Korean name speaks Korean. I said it's that people with Korean names, taken generally, are more likely to speak Korean than people without Korean names.

And given that, it's reasonable to behave as if it's true.

If intent is knowable, you can demonstrate how.

Amusing, you aren't taking them generally. Your accepting an individual and dismissing another based on name. Do you not know what general means?

Then why aren't you already aware of how baseless your position is? Why all this pussyfooting around?

I'll come right out and ask. Why do you oppose racial discrimination?

Amusing. I love how you took one statement about your position being one I wouldn't aspire to and talk about how it represents my entire argument and I'm the one who has no argument? Such acts of desperation are often the sign of a strong argument, don't you think? Desperately taking a non-argument and claiming it's the only thing that matters is an act of desperation.

That's exactlly what you're doing. You're just choosing a position shared by more people.

Amusing. I'm assiging valuation to different people? I am? Which people am I saying are of less value than other people? Please explain. This should be amusing.


Why are you grouping people as you are?

I'm not. I'm not grouping "people" at all. I'm saying everyone is a person. You're the only one saying that some human beings are not people.


Incidentally, non-cognitive could be vegetative, or anencephalic. They'd be humans, and they'd be alive.

Anencephalics don't count are quite literally not alive. It's not a judgement, we require brain function for life. Incidentally so does our body. Vegatatives are absolutely people.




Persons are the people who are granted rights as free agents. I don't want to limit that to humans, because if I do my legal system will fail should I discover that some non-human creature satisfies all of my other criteria.

And, again, you're changing the meaning of the term. You're welcome to do so, but you're the one who's got the hill to climb.


Why do you value people at all? What is it about people that makes them valuable to you? You have to have an answer to this. In classic philosophical terms, why do you think people have a sake?

Who said I did? Speaking of jumping to conclusions.

Amusing, you aren't taking them generally. Your accepting an individual and dismissing another based on name. Do you not know what general means?

I'm confused, are you saying that, say you're looking for an interpretter, you would pick through every single applicant in the week or so you're given to insure that everyone gets the same chance regaurdless of shortcuts that you, and the entire buisness world would take?
As you reveiw each and every single name and resume, you're wasting money and time, instead of taking a logical, quicker, shortcut that would supply you with something(I'm unsure of the rate of people with a korean name speaking korean over those of "Billy Ray Dithers"'s race.) And my apologies if you weren't trying to argue with me, your random quotes are some new kind of arguing. :p
Oh, no wait. hahah...that's been alot of this thread, give an inch, than try to take a yard in arguments. I'm merely focused on the fact that you seemed like an arrogant hatstand saying things like "I don't accept that".

The race doesn't affect the labour - it affects your negotiating position. You're going to demand less. Its your behaviour being affected - not mine.

I'm perfectly williong to accept gifts offered in error.

I find it amusing that you put such a premium on logic and that you keep switching up your position like there is no flaw in it. How do you think this helps the crediblity of the position?

You keep switching from what you're willing to pay them to what they're willing to take. How does being dishonest about your position help?

Anencephalics don't count are quite literally not alive. It's not a judgement, we require brain function for life. Incidentally so does our body. Vegatatives are absolutely people.

Actually, isn't the definition and require for life like...five different objectives or somesuch?(And sorry about the butchered english, I do hope this won't result in people ignoring my argument to try and take apart my spelling or grammar.:rolleyes:)
Respiration
Reproduction
Movement
Intake of energy(eating, nomnom)
Growing

I'm confused, are you saying that, say you're looking for an interpretter, you would pick through every single applicant in the week or so you're given to insure that everyone gets the same chance regaurdless of shortcuts that you, and the entire buisness world would take?

No. I'm saying, if you read it, that there is actually relevant information, like their job history, for example. Their references. Their skills. Why don't I just collect resumes with names? Because only an idiot would base their decision on the name.

I believe the first part of your first sentence though, based on the evidence.

As you reveiw each and every single name and resume, you're wasting money and time, instead of taking a logical, quicker, shortcut that would supply you with something(I'm unsure of the rate of people with a korean name speaking korean over those of "Billy Ray Dithers"'s race.) And my apologies if you weren't trying to argue with me, your random quotes are some new kind of arguing. :p
Oh, no wait. hahah...that's been alot of this thread, give an inch, than try to take a yard in arguments. I'm merely focused on the fact that you seemed like an arrogant hatstand saying things like "I don't accept that".

Amusing. I love when puppets do this. It's oh so fun. Come in make a fallacious argument, then pretend it's not REALLY your argument and then present an ad hominem because you don't like my use of language. How useful. Any more fallacies or have you finished proving you've not got a valid point?

Actually, isn't the definition and require for life like...five different objectives or somesuch?(And sorry about the butchered english, I do hope this won't result in people ignoring my argument to try and take apart my spelling or grammar.:rolleyes:)
Respiration
Reproduction
Movement
Intake of energy(eating, nomnom)
Growing

Actually, grammar-wise the only thing that would be nice is if you spaced out your statements a bit to make them more legible. It's not bad. I'd say you've got potential.

Meanwhile, the requirements to qualify as individual organism and the requirements to be considered alive medically are not the same. In the medical profession brain death is death. Biology assigns a different measure because many things don't have brains, nor do they require them as humans do.

EDIT: By the way, what's your native language?

certainly. If you, holding a loaded gun, point it at my head and pull the trigger it can be known beyond a reasonable doubt that you intended to kill me.

If you are asking me with 100% absolute certainty how intent can be known, I only ask you how you can, with 100% absolute certainty, know that someone speaks korean.

I love this one. I can make assumptions based on almost no information but making assumptions on tons of it is completely illogical, you fool. How dare you expect him to be consistent? Didn't you read earlier when he said all his arguments should be treated as seperately because otherwise you might catch him being completely inconsistent?

By the way, if you can't tell I'm having a great time. It's not often someone, especially Llewdor, makes such a clearly flawed argument.

No. I'm saying, if you read it, that there is actually relevant information, like their job history, for example. Their references. Their skills. Why don't I just collect resumes with names? Because only an idiot would base their decision on the name.

I believe the first part of your first sentence though, based on the evidence.

Amusing. I love when puppets do this. It's oh so fun. Come in make a fallacious argument, then pretend it's not REALLY your argument and then present an ad hominem because you don't like my use of language. How useful. Any more fallacies or have you finished proving you've not got a valid point?

I keep rereading your response to the discounting of a korean name over a Billy Ray Dithers name, and I keep coming up short on why Dithers would be given more of a look than Chau hua(whatever).

And the first thing employers see on a resume is your name, or possibly the job title you're applying for if they have good organizational skills. I've already argued the theory or even, what's the word...hypothesis? Educated guess? That an employer would give more attention to a Korean(name) over an English(Dithers, where is that supposedly from? I'm not terribly good with names). Sure, if they looked into every file(time and money) They could narrow the search, but if it was me, I'd go with the more likely candidate for the job. Unless you've got a really good reason why I should assume an englishman would know more about Korean than a Korean. I don't believe it's racist, just speed of business and convinience.(sp)

And I'm hardly a puppet, I keep reading that the moderators have large heads and mouths to match but I prefer to give everyone a fair chance to make an impression on forums. Your name-calling of "puppet" is fair play since I stated you're an arrogant hatstand. That's all well and good, but your manners in arguing could take a slight improvement. It's just the internet, it's not serious business. :P
Also, I'm confused, my pointing out of your rudeness in no way invalidates my other argument. o_O Perhaps you could explain how calling someone arrogant displaces the fact that more Koreans in the world know more Korean than Mr.Dithers over here. If I was hiring for someone to speak Spanish, I'd look for a Spanish person(Of course, split the favor between Spanish and South American the dialects make a difference in business. unless I'm wrong that the Southern Spanish is like Redneck English, where there is no formal "You all").

And I complain about your quotes because you address an argument that isn't my own. (At least that's as far as I can gather) And I'm in no way Llewdin or Neo or whomever. Check the ips if need be :P

And should I assume that if you don't quote me I needn't read the article? I'd rather argue my own point in this subargument than relying on the others who seem ill-prepared.

I keep rereading your response to the discounting of a korean name over a Billy Ray Dithers name, and I keep coming up short on why Dithers would be given more of a look than Chau hua(whatever).

And the first thing employers see on a resume is your name, or possibly the job title you're applying for if they have good organizational skills. I've already argued the theory or even, what's the word...hypothesis? Educated guess? That an employer would give more attention to a Korean(name) over an English(Dithers, where is that supposedly from? I'm not terribly good with names). Sure, if they looked into every file(time and money) They could narrow the search, but if it was me, I'd go with the more likely candidate for the job. Unless you've got a really good reason why I should assume an englishman would know more about Korean than a Korean. I don't believe it's racist, just speed of business and convinience.(sp)

And I'm hardly a puppet, I keep reading that the moderators have large heads and mouths to match but I prefer to give everyone a fair chance to make an impression on forums. Your name-calling of "puppet" is fair play since I stated you're an arrogant hatstand. That's all well and good, but your manners in arguing could take a slight improvement. It's just the internet, it's not serious business. :P
Also, I'm confused, my pointing out of your rudeness in no way invalidates my other argument. o_O Perhaps you could explain how calling someone arrogant displaces the fact that more Koreans in the world know more Korean than Mr.Dithers over here. If I was hiring for someone to speak Spanish, I'd look for a Spanish person(Of course, split the favor between Spanish and South American the dialects make a difference in business. unless I'm wrong that the Southern Spanish is like Redneck English, where there is no formal "You all").

And I complain about your quotes because you address an argument that isn't my own. (At least that's as far as I can gather) And I'm in no way Llewdin or Neo or whomever. Check the ips if need be :P

And should I assume that if you don't quote me I needn't read the article? I'd rather argue my own point in this subargument than relying on the others who seem ill-prepared.


You are babbling on about a side argument that you don't really understand.

Cut through the wheat and leave the chaff.

Do you mean to be arguing that race-based hiring criteria are generally reasonable and fair? If so, fine. If not, come back to the table with relevant points.

Then why aren't you already aware of how baseless your position is? Why all this pussyfooting around?

I'll come right out and ask. Why do you oppose racial discrimination?

Let's see you answer the question for once instead of playing a wannabe Socrates.

Why do you oppose racial animus, but not racial discrimination?

You are babbling on about a side argument that you don't really understand.

Cut through the wheat and leave the chaff.

Do you mean to be arguing that race-based hiring criteria are generally reasonable and fair? If so, fine. If not, come back to the table with relevant points.

I'm sorry, this was the point where you were supposed to counteract what was being talked about, not act like you're "king of the castle" :P

Or is that how arguing usually rolls out in Nation States?

And actually, while it might be unfair, it is certainly reasonable. Unless you'd enjoy brining an actual argument and not just "STFU NUB."

Unless I'm out of line for asking you to behave like this was a debate and not just people randomly yelling at each other.

I'm sorry, this was the point where you were supposed to counteract what was being talked about, not act like you're "king of the castle" :P

Or is that how arguing usually rolls out in Nation States?

And actually, while it might be unfair, it is certainly reasonable. Unless you'd enjoy brining an actual argument and not just "STFU NUB."

Unless I'm out of line for asking you to behave like this was a debate and not just people randomly yelling at each other.

If you were bringing forth an actual argument that was related to content of this thread, I would respond to that argument accordingly.

You didn't. So I didn't.

If you were bringing forth an actual argument that was related to content of this thread, I would respond to that argument accordingly.

You didn't. So I didn't.

Come down with a case of "tl;dr"?

Come down with a case of "tl;dr"?

WTF?

I keep rereading your response to the discounting of a korean name over a Billy Ray Dithers name, and I keep coming up short on why Dithers would be given more of a look than Chau hua(whatever).

And the first thing employers see on a resume is your name, or possibly the job title you're applying for if they have good organizational skills. I've already argued the theory or even, what's the word...hypothesis? Educated guess? That an employer would give more attention to a Korean(name) over an English(Dithers, where is that supposedly from? I'm not terribly good with names). Sure, if they looked into every file(time and money) They could narrow the search, but if it was me, I'd go with the more likely candidate for the job. Unless you've got a really good reason why I should assume an englishman would know more about Korean than a Korean. I don't believe it's racist, just speed of business and convinience.(sp)

And I'm hardly a puppet, I keep reading that the moderators have large heads and mouths to match but I prefer to give everyone a fair chance to make an impression on forums. Your name-calling of "puppet" is fair play since I stated you're an arrogant hatstand. That's all well and good, but your manners in arguing could take a slight improvement. It's just the internet, it's not serious business. :P
Also, I'm confused, my pointing out of your rudeness in no way invalidates my other argument. o_O Perhaps you could explain how calling someone arrogant displaces the fact that more Koreans in the world know more Korean than Mr.Dithers over here. If I was hiring for someone to speak Spanish, I'd look for a Spanish person(Of course, split the favor between Spanish and South American the dialects make a difference in business. unless I'm wrong that the Southern Spanish is like Redneck English, where there is no formal "You all").

And I complain about your quotes because you address an argument that isn't my own. (At least that's as far as I can gather) And I'm in no way Llewdin or Neo or whomever. Check the ips if need be :P

And should I assume that if you don't quote me I needn't read the article? I'd rather argue my own point in this subargument than relying on the others who seem ill-prepared.

Many Koreans has no bearing on A Korean. A Korean is quite capable of having not the slightest clue what Korean even sounds like. I don't think you really want to argue that choosing an employee based solely or even majorly on their name or even their nationality is a wise practice. What's that saying about judging a book by its cover.

I'm arguing that you judge an argument, a book, a person by the content not by the cover. If you'd like to show that you can make a wiser choice by doing otherwise, please show how. At present, you've not done so.

And when I said, if you read it, I meant my argument, not the article. My argument is not the one you're responding to. In English that's called a strawman, when you reply to something I didn't argue. It's a logical fallacy. You jumped into an on-going argument, ignored what I wrote, made up an argument and then get upset because I keep trying to move it back to the point. Seriously, you cannot think that's good debate. And if you do, well, I can't help you.

The bit about how I'm an arrogant hatstand because I actually notice when an argument sucks... well, I can't help you. I can't dumb down my arguments to make the arguments that aren't up to par compare. But, hey, thanks for asking.

Come down with a case of "tl;dr"?

I love this. You accuse him of "randomly yelling" because he tried to move you back to the point of the thread and then you make posts like this. His point is that your claim isn't relevant even to the side-argument you jumped into. It's a misunderstanding of what I posted and the context. When I explained the context to you, you thought I meant the article which means that you realy didn't read the context. See, in a forum, each post doesn't just stand on its own. Often it's the continuation of points already made or previous posts. Being too lazy to bring yourself up to speed and then getting angre because people are asking you to get a sense of what we're talking about is just silly. But, hey, why don't you just call me an arrogant hatstand again. That'll help your argument.

Woah. Forty pages already.

Have we come any closer to finding out who's keeping the Black Man down? Just curious. I suspect Whitey, but I'm not a social scientist, so I'll leave it to you guys. ;)