Gender roles (split from Japanese/English VAs)

[Ruby]

government.

crying yet?

in all seriousness though, in my opinion, the easiest route to eventual equality is just making sure the kids grow up without the influence of racism/sexism/etc, and with the awareness of what exactly constitutes these things. the older generations (behold my sweeping generalization) tend to be a bit of a lost cause, as they've spent a lifetime justifying their ignorance. sadly, as they also happen to be raising the new generations, well...

it's pretty much going to be a slow, uphill struggle. there are no especially good methods. open exchange is good, but most people are terrified of that, as it exposes their personal "isms." and everyone has some "isms" somewhere (the feminist movement, for example, struggles with race and LGBT issues)--we're fighting with a natural and often useful instinct to group people into easily labeled boxes. we're also fighting with the dominant group's tendency to act like everything's perfect now, when it's obviously not. to be honest, i kind of think that second one is more dangerous than the first, as it quite effectively shuts down communication.

Lol. No, that would be a good answer and it's what I thought you would say. I certainly think it's a worthwile effort, so long as you resign yourself to the fact that ultimately you can't control the way other people act so there's always going to be people, even large groups of people, who never come around to your way of thinking.

government.

Government for a serious answer.

No. Forcing people at the point of a gun to act a certain way is never a serious answer. I can't really respond to the rest because the amount of intellectual sloth you display and the inability to come up ethical ways to solve your own problems sickens me.

PS. Why is your first answer to any problem always force, BTW? Don't you have any other tools in your toolbox besides a hammer?

[Kizyr]

Kizzy,
While I understand your point, you're assuming that the author is using the word rate to mean that and not gross numbers. In common usage the sentence in question could mean both things. And contrary to what you are saying the article is not specific enough to designate if the amount of white to black participants was accounted for or not in relation to the sentence in question. Remember we're reading an article about the study, not the study itself, so it's not going to communicate in the same kind of precise language the study itself would be.

I decided to read the actual study itself. It supports exactly what I said earlier, and the article in question was using the word "rate" correctly (in fact, the line that meg quoted is a direct quotation from the article): 5.6% of white US-born employees surveyed suffered wage violations, while 16.6% of black US-born employees surveyed suffered wage violations.

In other words, yes, they did account for population, and no, the difference was not accountable to the number of white and black participants. (Also, the number of black respondents was only a little over double the number of white respondents, so there's no mathematical way the article could have mistakenly referred to gross numbers when saying "triple the rate".)

Here is the link:
http://nelp.3cdn.net/b294e0aad2ba7008e3_2pm6br7gi.pdf (See pages 15 and 42)
And the line in question:

As noted, U.S.-born workers in our sample had lower minimum wage violation rates than foreign-born workers. But here too the story is more nuanced, as shown in Table 5.1. For example, foreign-born Latinos had an especially high minimum wage violation rate of 35 percent, double the rate of U.S.-born Latinos and nearly six times the rate of U.S.-born whites. And race plays a marked role among U.S.-born respondents, where African-American workers had a violation rate three times that of white workers (this difference is statistically significant; a similar pattern holds when comparing U.S.-born Latino and white workers, but the difference is not statistically significant).

However, there are a ton of more vital conclusions from this study, summarized at the top for convenience if you don't want to look through all of it. Namely, workplace violations go beyond just wage violations--they also include overtime violations, meal break violations, etc.. While wage violations show a significant difference by race, gender, and origin (US vs. foreign-born), the other type of violations are consistently high across all segments without much significant difference between groups.

No. Forcing people at the point of a gun to act a certain way is never a serious answer. I can't really respond to the rest because the amount of intellectual sloth you display and the inability to come up ethical ways to solve your own problems sickens me.
PS. Why is your first answer to any problem always force, BTW? Don't you have any other tools in your toolbox besides a hammer?

You're saying the government shouldn't use laws at all? Or are you equating the use of laws to "forcing people at gunpoint"?

Seriously, I'm very thankful I'm in a country with a First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ensures that I can't be discriminated against due to religious practice, and the EEOC which provides a legal body I can turn to in case of violations on either count (I only pick religion as an example here; race/ethnicity just as well apply). Had those (particularly the latter two) never came into being, the state of civil rights in this country would still be severely poor. KF

[meg]

Lol. No, that would be a good answer and it's what I thought you would say. I certainly think it's a worthwile effort, so long as you resign yourself to the fact that ultimately you can't control the way other people act so there's always going to be people, even large groups of people, who never come around to your way of thinking.

and i have.

i also support government answers, btw. you just made it too easy to go for the snarky response, and god knows i love some snark.

the sad thing about these sort of matters is that they usually require some kind of authoritative intervention. people are generally little shits about extending kindnesses to those they perceive as "the other." you have to get the police to escort the little black children into the previously all-white schools. you have to have laws punishing businesses for gypping women out of their pay. right now there are debates over the availability of contraceptives, over whether or not gays "deserve" the same rights as everyone else. having had debates with my uber-christian youth minister brother, he agrees that gays deserve those rights. i doubt i could convince the protester who hangs out in front of the local women's clinic of the same. and so, the debate goes to the courts.

[Ruby]

Well then, kudos to you for going and actually reading the study Kizzy and clarifying that. I did notice the part about other violations in the summary article, and yes I did see it was quite high, but I hadn't commented on it because it wasn't terribly relevant to what we were talking about.

You're saying the government shouldn't use laws at all? Or are you equating the use of laws to "forcing people at gunpoint"?

The latter. Or specifically that since force is really the only tool government has to work with that laws equal force. Therefore they should only be used when force would be an acceptable response. Although I agree that putting an end to bigotry and hatred are noble goals, using violence and force to accomplish those goals is not appropriate answer.

I know that if someone was personally taking it upon themselves to use violence and force to enact this sort of policy you would find it to be evil, and you would feel the same way if they hired one person or a group of persons to do it on their behalf. So it's doesn't make much sense that you think it's ok when a group of people get another heavily armed group of people to do the same thing.

Seriously, I'm very thankful I'm in a country with a First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ensures that I can't be discriminated against due to religious practice, and the EEOC which provides a legal body I can turn to in case of violations on either count (I only pick religion as an example here; race/ethnicity just as well apply). Had those (particularly the latter two) never came into being, the state of civil rights in this country would still be severely poor. KF

First, I'd like to point out the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to worship whatever deity you choose to worship or not. The purpose of the amendment is to expressly limit the government's power in that regard and keep it from violating that right which you already possess.

Secondly, many of the problems you bemoan are caused by the state in the first place. There are plenty of acceptable, ethical, voluntary, free-market solutions to the problem, none of which require you to force people to act a specific way.

I imagine you'll hate this answer, but to be perfectly honest, if someone owns a piece of property or business, it's their right to do what they want with the property. That includes being a small minded bigoted discriminating person with policies I find abhorrent. Just as you have the right to boycott the business, protest in front of the business, open up a competing business, create a directory of businesses rated on their tolerance of people of different races and beliefs, try to educate the individual, and completely shun the individual from society.* The reason you believe you have to use the government to fix this problem for you is that you've been conditioned to think that, and not to think about how to fix the problem for yourself. Not that I blame you, because giving up responsibility and asking the government to take care of the problem for you and ignoring the consequences of that action is a heck of a lot easier to do.

Obviously I don't make a crusade about this because there's a lot worse things that the government has done wrong, such as the fact that we currently have more people in prison than any other country in the world, including China, and a large percentage of them are in jail for drug possession, we've been sending our military off across the globe to blow people we don't know up for political reasons for the past decade now, habeus corpus moving along toward being done away with. With all of that the right of bigots to be bigots it's really high on my list of things to fix. It's sort of like worrying about a splinter when someone is trying to amputate your arm.

*These are just a few examples. Free-markets tend to come up with better and more effective solutions than I could imagine.

[Werefrog]

I can't really respond to the rest because the amount of intellectual sloth you display and the inability to come up ethical ways to solve your own problems sickens me.

Okay, you need to back off. I have said nothing anywhere near that offensive to you, nothing that calls for such hostility. But, you should see some of the stuff I've edited out of my posts though. There were some zingers there, but I decided that maybe if I treated you with civility, you would treat me with the same. Mea culpa.

Seriously, I want an apology before I hear another word from you. Then I want you to explain how it's unethical for schools to teach children about racism.

[meg]

i wouldn't take ruby too personally, werefrog. it's about what i expect from her. she seems to have a very black and white perception of the world. i mean, how many people do you know, really, who equate the rule of law to being threatened with a gun?

[Ruby]

Okay, you need to back off. I have said nothing anywhere near that offensive to you, nothing that calls for such hostility. But, you should see some of the stuff I've edited out of my posts though. There were some zingers there, but I decided that maybe if I treated you with civility, you would treat me with the same. Mea culpa.

Seriously, I want an apology before I hear another word from you. Then I want you to explain how it's unethical for schools to teach children about racism.

Then I guess you won't be reading the rest of this post because it contains no such apology. Though I assure you that there is no hostility directed toward you, merely a statement that the way you blithely think theft is a good idea when it suits you makes me physically ill. Which not a particularly nice thing to tell someone, but it is however true, and your thought process does frighten me.

And if you really want me to explain it, even though I explained it in another thread for you, I'll give it another try, even though I know you're not reading this right now.

You have the right to yourself, your life, your liberty, and your property. You have the right defend your life, your liberty, and your property and to work with other consenting people to protect it. You do not have the right to take other people's life (murder), liberty (slavery), or property (theft). You can't extend a right you don't have to someone else or a group of persons to do so on your behalf, even if they have a fancy hat, because that's not a right you have to give.

All of the answers you gave require theft to enact because you're asking the government to force this action. And they also require the threat of murder to cow people into allowing the theft to take place. Even though the end result might be good, the means you are suggesting is evil. I mean that literally.

I would postulate another example to you. Let us suppose that all of the programs you suggested where genuinely good ones. If they are so beneficial, they why are you unable to convince other people to fund them voluntarily? Why do you need to force people to fund then? Does not the fact that you need to force people to fund them bother you?

[meg]

see what i mean? this is someone who thinks gov't funded social programs are tantamount to theft and murder. when a person's views are that far out, you pretty much have to just agree to disagree, because you have no common ground.

[Werefrog]

The last thing I'm going to say on this issue is that you accuse me of being intelectually slothful, yet your solution to a problem as complex as racism is "the free market will take care of it." That's ridiculous. Humans are more complex than that, sorry. With a government intervention, the government's programs would (ideally) be informed by the latest scientific studies of psychology, sociology, educational science, law, economics and all the other areas of study that racism and sexism falls under. The free market, being a fictitious, idealized abstraction can do none of that. You fail to see the issue at its full complexity which surely shows some degree of sloth or ignorance on your part. Furthermore, you're simply copying an idea of other libertarian philosophers directly without any indication that you've actually processed it beyond the level a 3rd grader could. I couldn't think of anything lazier.

I told you in the other topic that I disagree with you about taxation being theft as does the majority of people (democrat, republican, moderate). I'm adding you to my foes' list, so I can slowly forget about what a jerk you've been. Just because you're forgotten that don't mean you're forgiven. (Slightly modified with apologies to the Arcade Fire).

i wouldn't take ruby too personally, werefrog. it's about what i expect from her. she seems to have a very black and white perception of the world. i mean, how many people do you know, really, who equate the rule of law to being threatened with a gun?

Actually, I know far too many who equate the rule of law with being threatened with a gun (but my God! it's okay for a real man to threaten people with a real gun, but a metaphorical man with a metaphorical gun wanting you to pay taxes, that's something to be concerned about). In college, Objectivism has replaced Maoism as the preferred -ism for disrespectful, pseudo-intellectuals.

What bothers me is I did try to treat him/her with civility and think I did a pretty good job. I just expect such civility to be returned, and it bothers me when it's not.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

Seriously, I want an apology before I hear another word from you.

BAWWWW!

[meg]

What bothers me is I did try to treat him/her with civility and think I did a pretty good job. I just expect such civility to be returned, and it bothers me when it's not.

sadly, people like that think they're doing you a favor when they treat you poorly--like they're giving you a life-saving jolt of reality. there's no real way to reason with them, because any facts they don't like they can dismiss as flawed with "bias." no fact is ever real enough. science is bunk. their personal principles are far more important than the lives of those around them, etc etc. i've learned to content myself with the occasional snark and let them be.

[Jenner]

government.

Government for a serious answer. This is true at least to some extent. We need laws to prohibit workplace discrimination. We need laws against hate crimes. We need federally funded programs in school which are designed to teach students that sexism and racism are wrong (and how to evaluate and change their attitudes) and teachers who make an honest attempt to punish sexual harassment in school (no more, "boys will be boys." When they sneak into a locker room).

All of these require the government. Contrary to Ronald Reagan's axiom, the government is not always the problem. Quite often, it's part of the solution.

Not always though, I can't believe I'm saying this. Not to derail, but the usual liberal screams is "MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL." where the "conservative" voices are very "MORE FREE MARKET" or whatnot. The argument is that regulation stagnates creativity. However, so does commercialization. Right now, it's really only ideas that can be made profitable that thrive. The desire to invent and create comes directly from that goal: To make money, to be profitable. Look as profitable as you can to lure in investors, and milk it until it's withered and dried up.

There are a few lucky ones that get through that and are designed and allowed just because they're good ideas, or because the investor is interested in the subject, but not enough. People who create and invent are told to survive they have to be "marketable" and since inventors and artists need to eat and have roofs over their heads creating for creations sake is usually not a luxury that can be afforded for most.

The argument that forcing a certain kind of project and focus stagnates the market and business is a scarecrow, the stagnation is already there. You can't just invent and create and play around anymore, with or without regulations, all innovation at it's core is fixated on being profitable. With the goal of money being the focal point of all ventures corners are often cut, everything is scaled down to the bare minimums to make as much money as possible. As such companies and investors rarely care about the product their creating, and the impact they're having on society.

As I've stated before, this exists in all markets. My mother works in a nursing home, the director acknowledges that it's easier to just bribe the state investigator than to pay the wages of the number of nurses and aides they're federally required to have working. So, that's what they do. This is why my mom is so burned out and beat up. They hire just enough help to give the ILLUSION of good care.

If it's cheaper to screw someone, they will. When the goal is max profit for minimal effort a society of privilege and and savage selfishness is the outcome. It's an inherent flaw in a capitalistic system. Regulations and programs like affirmative action and emissions tests are in place for the betterment of society.

But, too much government with too many rules and regulations will kill industry and innovation. As such, it's about balance and moderation. The main flaw with both of these is the human element. The state regulators are supposed to oversee and maintain the assisted living homes standard, but, if they don't do their job and take bribes instead then what was the point? Corruption is a wonderful thing.

In the future, I for one will welcome our cold, calculating, robot overlords. Who will not tolerate that shenanigans.

I know that if someone was personally taking it upon themselves to use violence and force to enact this sort of policy you would find it to be evil, and you would feel the same way if they hired one person or a group of persons to do it on their behalf. So it's doesn't make much sense that you think it's ok when a group of people get another heavily armed group of people to do the same thing.

Indeed, it's hypocritical for us to sit back and wince and cringe at the misinformed -Fatal Hopper- with guns outside the town hall meetings, and then show up at the house of representatives with guns ourselves. We have to use the law, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and spread awareness in other ways if we're ever going to set ourselves apart.

I realized when I made the post that showing up with a bunch of liberals with guns at these town hall meetings would be silly. Instead, they should show up with bullseyes painted all over them and signs that way "I wonder what the deductible for gunshot wounds is." and "I don't think cobra covers funerals." and "I hope the health insurance my employer chose for me because it was the best and cheapest deal they could get covers bullet injuries." "I'm using my sick days to be here." etc.

There are plenty of acceptable, ethical, voluntary, free-market solutions to the problem, none of which require you to force people to act a specific way.

A lot of religious, community, free-market, etc options that promote the humanity of every person are, largely, objectively ignored by their followers and advocates.

I imagine you'll hate this answer, but to be perfectly honest, if someone owns a piece of property or business, it's their right to do what they want with the property. That includes being a small minded bigoted discriminating person with policies I find abhorrent. Just as you have the right to boycott the business, protest in front of the business, open up a competing business, create a directory of businesses rated on their tolerance of people of different races and beliefs, try to educate the individual, and completely shun the individual from society.* The reason you believe you have to use the government to fix this problem for you is that you've been conditioned to think that, and not to think about how to fix the problem for yourself. Not that I blame you, because giving up responsibility and asking the government to take care of the problem for you and ignoring the consequences of that action is a heck of a lot easier to do.

Okay, so firstly, I agree with the right of a person to do whatever the -Fatal Hopper- they want on the land they own as long as they pay their taxes on time. But, when they use that land to publicly rape, butcher, and display the mutilated remains of little girls then the government has to step in because (and this is in response to your second statement about a person not wanting to resolve an issue for themselves) A NORMAL CIVILIAN DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE AND DEAL WITH CERTAIN PROBLEMS. And, in many cases, the problems that stem from racism/sexism are problems that are largely beyond the scope of authority of the average joe. This is why the government is often required to enforce these issues, because they're the only ones who can.

I know for a fact, Meg does what she can to combat the idiocy of racism/sexism/etcism, she stands up to people who put there heads up their asses every time. She has never once shut her mouth just because she likes the person. She's even given me a good punch to the face when I've stuffed my foot in my mouth and everyone knows she and I are BFF. If anyone is an authority on doing their part to combat "isms" it's Meg. I'm not rushing to her defense, I'm just saying. You're stuffing your head up your ass, Del, and she's arguing with you for what she sees is the right side, as she always has. Same with Kizzy and Alun.

the fact that we currently have more people in prison than any other country in the world, including China, and a large percentage of them are in jail for drug possession...

Did you know white people are still the biggest group in prison? The primarily black jail is a media selectiveness to perpetuate the stereotype that black people are more dangerous than while people. I learned that in my Introduction to Law Enforcement class.

Looks like I basically covered most of the rehashing arguments already but to summarize, being obligated to do the just and fair thing does not equal having a gun put to your head, it has never been that definitive. I pray it never will be. Defending your rights is one thing, defending your right to take those rights away from someone else is just -Fatal Hopper-. Your ability to be an -Albino Baboon- is not being denied you, but every living sentient human being is EQUAL regardless of gender, whether you guys want to recognize it or not.

All groups of people are viewed poorly, there is NO WAY for a government to enforce those views to be on-line with a proper viewpoint, we shouldn't give them that authority and they should never have it. Instead, WE who realize these views and biases are rubbish should call -Dung Beetle- on it and defend it, that is what we can do as a people to stop racism. BUT, when people practice behaviors and employ actions and, yes, even say misinformed things that are damning and damaging to that people we have to go after them with all the LEGAL wrath we have at our disposal. And the government often HAS to get involved. This isn't a gun to YOUR head, don't make it so personal. It's the government defending it's people from threats, even if those threats are its own people.

Can I stop being serious now?

[Werefrog]

Indeed, it's hypocritical for us to sit back and wince and cringe at the misinformed -Fatal Hopper- with guns outside the town hall meetings, and then show up at the house of representatives with guns ourselves. We have to use the law, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and spread awareness in other ways if we're ever going to set ourselves apart. I realized when I made the post that showing up with a bunch of liberals with guns at these town hall meetings would be silly. Instead, they should show up with bullseyes painted all over them and signs that way "I wonder what the deductible for gunshot wounds is." and "I don't think cobra covers funerals." and "I hope the health insurance my employer chose for me because it was the best and cheapest deal they could get covers bullet injuries." "I'm using my sick days to be here." etc.

Jenner, your missing his/her point. He/she is claiming that the government is a armed group of people forcing its will.

RE the free state project: Yeah, Ruby, I agree any plan to the get libertarian away from me and put in isolation is a worthwhile endeavor to me.

Also, who's smarter Penn or Teller? Teller. At least he's smart enough to keep his libertarian stupidity inside.

[Kizyr]

First, I'd like to point out the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to worship whatever deity you choose to worship or not. The purpose of the amendment is to expressly limit the government's power in that regard and keep it from violating that right which you already possess.

Splitting hairs. I wasn't commenting on the God-given nature of my rights; had I said "I'm thankful to live in a country where the First Amendment protects my freedom of religion" then it would've been the same point.

The rest of your post is overshadowed by an nasty undercurrent in your posts:

The reason you believe you have to use the government to fix this problem for you is that you've been conditioned to think that, and not to think about how to fix the problem for yourself.

Stop using the word "conditioned". It indicates that you think everyone who disagrees with you does so not of their own free will, but because they've been indoctrinated by the state. For some reason you find it hard to fathom that someone else can have reasonable and well-founded disagreement with you, and therefore you must reduce others' counterarguments to "well, you've just been indoctrinated--if you were enlightened like me then you would agree."

That last bit assumes something about my background that you have no reason to assume (well, except that assuming I'm blind helps you reaffirm your own position). I'll mention a few things about my background that have been or will be relevant:
- I'm a statistician, so I can spot easily problems and inadequacies in studies (hence why I had to correct you earlier).
- I work very closely with a lot of government agencies (as well as private businesses). So, I have far more experience and insight into both the areas where government functions effectively and where it's grossly inefficient than most others on this board. It's not because I'm "conditioned" that I know there are areas where government can function effectively, it's because I'm not so blinded by ideology that I can't see the people right in front of me.
- I'm an economist. This will come up momentarily.

Bottom line: you're more than capable of arguing without having to insult people who disagree with you. I suggest you improve your tone. If not, this will be the last post I make that actually responds to your arguments.

Secondly, many of the problems you bemoan are caused by the state in the first place. There are plenty of acceptable, ethical, voluntary, free-market solutions to the problem, none of which require you to force people to act a specific way.
*These are just a few examples. Free-markets tend to come up with better and more effective solutions than I could imagine.

And this... It's to think that the free market can solve everything belies a lack of understanding of both history and economics.

One of the problems with economics education is that, after introductory courses, you're left with a bunch of students who only remember the perfect-competition-supply-demand model and come away thinking "Government intervention causes deadweight loss! Government intervention is always bad!" The reality (which you don't even begin to approach until you get to intermediate and advanced courses, and some people don't even encounter unless they go into economics as a career) is very, very different. You find that few markets are competitive, every market has its idiosyncracies, and there are few cases where unbridled free markets will lead to the best outcome.

Bottom line with this: Ayn Rand was a -Dragon Diamond- economist. Not everyone acts in "economic rational self-interest". And in the real world, the free-market doesn't solve everything.

Since we're on the subject, let's apply the above to the solution you suggest:

I imagine you'll hate this answer, but to be perfectly honest, if someone owns a piece of property or business, it's their right to do what they want with the property. That includes being a small minded bigoted discriminating person with policies I find abhorrent. Just as you have the right to boycott the business, protest in front of the business, open up a competing business, create a directory of businesses rated on their tolerance of people of different races and beliefs, try to educate the individual, and completely shun the individual from society.*

This was the case for several decades after the Civil War ended. It's what enabled the majority of service establishments in the South to be white-only, and it's what helped keep non-whites severely disadvantaged for all those years. It's fallacious to think that it all would've disappeared with just a few protests--after all, the main counterargument to keeping white-only establishments was that business owners should be able to choose who to serve and who to hire. It wasn't until there was force involved that racist businesses began to be shunned by enough people to make an impact. (Remember that, at least currently, most people who are racist vehemently deny that they are--you have two clear examples earlier in this thread, and there are countless other's I've encountered who are similar. So, businesses will continue to use whatever tricks they can to justify discrimination while hiding the fact that it is discrimination.)

Protests and boycotts don't do anything if there are still enough consumers to buy from the business. And if you're a minority group with little buying power (who they're not serving anyway), and with limited ability to start up a competing business (remember, credit markets and banks were similarly racist during this period), all the alternatives you suggest are either nonexistent, or only serve to perpetuate the status quo.

Let's bring this to present-day with hiring policies. You seem to forget that a business is made up of many individuals. Without the EEOC, a hiring manager with prejudices against certain groups can simply "overlook" my application due to my race/religion (those are apparent from my name) without me having any recourse. Otherwise, I could very much enjoy working at the place (HR is usually separate from your direct manager, so a prejudiced hiring manager doesn't mean the entire establishment is bigoted).

Additionally, without the EEOC and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I'm completely at the mercy of my company when I need reasonable religious accommodations. For instance, I leave work every Friday for prayers (I'm out of the office about 90 minutes total). Everyone from my manager on up to my CEO knows that I have every right to do that. Without Title VII, the power is on their side to pressure me into staying, no matter if they could easily accommodate my needs; with Title VII, the power is on my side, to say that I have the right to observe my religion.

Alunnisage! I almost forgot to respond to some stuff you said. I gotta get to that another time... But I get the feeling that if we had the same conversations that we've had before where we disagreed, by this point I think I'd be more inclined to see things from your point-of-view. KF

[Ruby]

As I've stated before, this exists in all markets. My mother works in a nursing home, the director acknowledges that it's easier to just bribe the state investigator than to pay the wages of the number of nurses and aides they're federally required to have working. So, that's what they do. This is why my mom is so burned out and beat up. They hire just enough help to give the ILLUSION of good care.

If it's cheaper to screw someone, they will. When the goal is max profit for minimal effort a society of privilege and and savage selfishness is the outcome. It's an inherent flaw in a capitalistic system. Regulations and programs like affirmative action and emissions tests are in place for the betterment of society

However to run a successful business long term you need to be seen as beneficial to your consumers, because those consumers will only purchase your product if they feel it is beneficial to them. If consumers are unhappy with said company they will goto another one, or a competitor with a competing product with crop up.

However currently you don't have a free market to allow this to happen because regulations and laws have been put in place, not to protect you, but to protect the current players in the arena. Allow me to put it this way. Currently let's say I make widgets. There are currently three widget makers in all. We want to make sure that no one else comes into the widget business and undercuts our business. So we lobby government to make a law that says to start making widgets you need an expensive license to start making widgets, and you need to pay to have your widgets inspected by a certified widget inspector. Now we've increased the cost of making widgets and protected ourselves from not competitors in the widget business, so now we can artificially raise our prices or decrease the quality of our widgets because everyone only has three widget makers to choose from.

Get it? The same method is also used to inhibit other business who might be competing for my customer's dollars. Or I could ask the government to safeguard my personal wealth in case I am found to have gained it through fraud, such as what happened with Enron. In a free-market though you can't actually do this though because there's no entity that owns a monopoloy on force that you can turn to use for this purpose.

It's also a better proof against corruption because you can have free-market regulatory agencies that companies work with voluntarily, Underwriters Laboratory or UL is a prime real-world example of this, as a way show their product has been vetted by an independent party. The regulatory agency is less-likely to accept bribes because it is in there interest to provide the service they say they will. If they're found to be corrupt or lax in their inspection standards then they themselves would be held accountable and would lose business, or go out of business. On the other hand a government inspector has problem with being lax or accepting a bribe because they're the only ones who can do the inspection, they won't be held accountable if they're wrong, and if the individual is discovered, the arbiter of it is going to be someone within the government itself and not an independent party, meaning very little will occur. In short, they have very few reasons not to be corrupt.

A lovely film about the subject

Indeed, it's hypocritical for us to sit back and wince and cringe at the misinformed -Fatal Hopper- with guns outside the town hall meetings, and then show up at the house of representatives with guns ourselves. We have to use the law, peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and spread awareness in other ways if we're ever going to set ourselves apart.

Werefrog's right, the "another heavily armed group of people" to do the same thing I'm referring to is the government. Though it's still true if that group is a mercenary organization, a militia, or your local gun club. The point of the statement is that people often find it acceptable for unethical things to be done when it is the government doing it for them. I'm trying to point out the fallacy in this kind of thinking.

Okay, so firstly, I agree with the right of a person to do whatever the -Fatal Hopper- they want on the land they own as long as they pay their taxes on time. But, when they use that land to publicly rape, butcher, and display the mutilated remains of little girls then the government has to step in...

If government has any purpose it would be to protect the life, liberty, and property of people within it. This is an example of situation where force would be required. I'm not a pacifist, I'm not saying force is never the answer. I'm just saying it's the last answer, and I think too many people jump to it as an answer much too soon.

Although I've been told there are better more efficiant ways to deal with a problem like this than using government, you'd have to ask someone better educated than I am to explain it. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about doing things that way.

@Werefrog
I don't think you quite understand what civility means. Also, while using the free market is a simple solution, it's not a simple answer. It's a complex system which constitutes an entire field of study. Similar to how "evolution" is a simple yet complex answer for the creation of complex forms of life. (And they both have interesting correlaries to each other too.)

If you really want to use government to solve all your problems though I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. As you use government to enact force upon your enemies they will respond in kind and you and your foes are going to wrestle over the "wheels of power" for the rest of your life, trying to get small morsels of benefit out of the system while the Democratic and Republican parties gain from your constant struggles, the real beneficiaries of your efforts will be their friends who possess enough wealth to work the system. Each new administration will grab more power for itself, building upon the power the last administration garnered for the office it vacated.

I've also, never ever once, endorsed threatening anyone with a gun. Please try again.

@Werefrog and Meg

I can completely understand why you find this idea to be so unusual because you're not used to hearing it. But even if you don't agree with on anything with me you should at least be able to attempt to answer this question. I'll repeat it: Let us suppose that all of the programs you suggested where genuinely good ones. If they are so beneficial, they why are you unable to convince other people to fund them voluntarily? Why do you need to force people to fund then? Does not the fact that you need to force people to fund them bother you?

I find it to be a very simple question.

@Kizzy

After the Civil War you had a group of people disadvantaged by previous legal policy, given nothing, and when they did try to freely make a life for themselves after the civil war the government enacted laws to prohibit them from competing fairly in the marketplace up until the middle of this century. They barely even had a chance to get on their feet before the majority in power used the stick of government to force them down. Using government to "fix" the problem took about 357 years. Pick a minority group, allow them to compete freely in the market like everyone else? Do you really think it would take 357 years for them to uplift themselves, disregarding the fact that without government policy allowing slavery most of them wouldn't even be here in the first place?

And to add to your next statement, if a company is bigoted, and they have enough customers to stay in business and all your efforts don't stop people from going there, then yes they would stay in business. That's how a free market works, the people who are spending the money at the business decide if the establishment get to stay in business. That means there is going to be something you or I detest that is in business. But it also means that something you or I enjoy that someone else detests can stay in business too so long as it can cover it's operating costs. But your alternative to get to decide who gets to be in business and who isn't is to use government, and that's a much, much worse alternative, where lobbyists get to decide who gets to be in business and who doesn't.

Let's bring this to present-day with hiring policies. You seem to forget that a business is made up of many individuals. Without the EEOC, a hiring manager with prejudices against certain groups can simply "overlook" my application due to my race/religion (those are apparent from my name) without me having any recourse. Otherwise, I could very much enjoy working at the place (HR is usually separate from your direct manager, so a prejudiced hiring manager doesn't mean the entire establishment is bigoted).

I don't forget business are made up of individuals, but there's a problem with your statement. You don't need the EEOC to protect you. The company as a whole is perfectly capable of establishing it's own policies regarding hiring. These policies may or may not sensitive to discrimination. Also, there are ways to ensure equality without government intervention. A company that wishes to gain the economic advantages that come with being known as a place business which does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion, could also allow an independent agency to audit the company to for this, similar to ISO audits.

Additionally, without the EEOC and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I'm completely at the mercy of my company when I need reasonable religious accommodations. For instance, I leave work every Friday for prayers (I'm out of the office about 90 minutes total). Everyone from my manager on up to my CEO knows that I have every right to do that. Without Title VII, the power is on their side to pressure me into staying, no matter if they could easily accommodate my needs; with Title VII, the power is on my side, to say that I have the right to observe my religion.

However to gain this protection you're using the threat of force to secure it. Although I want you to be able to practice your religion freely your method of securing that protection is unethical. Also, remember now that you're using these unethical means to secure this protection, those opposed to you being able to take out that 90 minutes for prayers on Friday are going to respond in kind by using this same agency to harm you in turn.

And as I've stated before there are ethical ways to achieve the effect your looking for, for the most part.

Government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

@Everyone

Well it happened. I literally spent my entire day responding to messages on this board. Let me say that I've found the discussion enjoyable, even if some people aren't particularly pleased with what I've had to say and apparently hate me right now. I'd like to leave you all with quote from Mary Ruwart's excellent book, "Healing our World", available in print and online, which is a long example of a lot of what I've been trying to explain. I know some of you are probably going to ignore this additional wall of text I'm throwing your way, but I do hope some of you will take the time to read it, or the enlightening book it's a part of.

I probably won't be making any more replies to this thread for a few days, since obviously, I can't afford to be spending so many hours replying to threads on this board. Lastly, sorry if at any point I misconstrued or misunderstood anyone's points. In trying what everyone is saying, comprehend, analyze, and respond to it I'm certain it's possible some errors have occured.

How We Violate the Principle of Non-Aggression Daily Without Even Realizing It!

If we decided we wanted a new neighborhood park, how would we go about getting one? We could call together other individuals who want the same thing and could raise enough money to own and operate the park through donations, by selling stock in a corporation set up for that purpose, or through other voluntary means. If those who did not participate in the fundraising effort decide later to use the park, we might require them to pay an entry fee. Obviously, we would be relating voluntarily and non-aggressively with our neighbors. If George didn't want to be involved as either a contributor or a park visitor, we would honor his choice.

Of course, another way we could proceed would be to vote for a tax to purchase and maintain the park. If a large enough gang of our neighbors voted for it, George's hard-earned dollars would be used for a park he didn't want and wouldn't use. If he refused to pay what our gang dictated, law enforcement agents, acting on behalf of the winning voters, would extract the tax, at gunpoint, if necessary. If he resisted too vehemently, George might even get killed in the scuffle.

Wouldn't we be using a gang called "government" to steal from George? Wouldn't we be the first ones to turn guns on a neighbor who hadn't defrauded or stolen from us? Wouldn't George eventually retaliate by getting government to turn its guns on us for projects that he prefers but we want nothing to do with? Wouldn't we alternate as victims and aggressors, as minorities and majorities? Wouldn't we just be taking turns directing the law enforcement agents toward each other?

Through taxation, pacifists are forced at gunpoint to pay for killing machines; vegetarians are forced at gunpoint to subsidize grazing land for cattle; nonsmokers are forced at gunpoint to support both the production of tobacco and the research to counter its impact on health. These minorities are the victims, not the initiators of aggression. Their only crime is not agreeing with the priorities of the majority. Taxation appears to be more than theft; it is intolerance for the preferences and even the moral viewpoints of our neighbors. Through taxation we forcibly impose our will on others in an attempt to control theirchoices.

[meg]

@Werefrog and Meg

I can completely understand why you find this idea to be so unusual

it's not unusual. neither of us finds it unusual, or even compelling.

because you're not used to hearing it.

we're very used to hearing it. i grew up with rednecks. what color is the sky in your world?

But even if you don't agree with on anything with me you should at least be able to attempt to answer this question. I'll repeat it: Let us suppose that all of the programs you suggested where genuinely good ones. If they are so beneficial, they why are you unable to convince other people to fund them voluntarily? Does not the fact that you need to force people to fund them bother you?

you clearly want a bogeyman. so, i'll oblige. i not only am not bothered, but i fantasize about it. i relish every penny stolen. i find your tears, fear, and frustration utterly delicious. don't ever change. and don't go looking for your wallet, as i've already pawned it.

I find it to be a very simple question.

i find you amazingly simple as well.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

We should have a thread for every touchy subject. This is highly amusing.

[ilovemyguitar]

We should have a thread for every touchy subject. This is highly amusing.

Let's start a Mac vs PC fight next!

[Kizyr]

First, I'm not going to go into point-by-point arguments. I think (especially given that you've disregarded the majority of my last post) that you'd agree going back-and-forth over every line item would be ridiculously protracted and a waste of time given that we already have a fundamental disagreement on worldviews to begin with. I'm going to focus on that disagreement as much as possible, rather than on the minor points.

I'll start out with my last point, to put this all into context: We disagree on about three fundamental things: whether or not law is equivalent to forcing people at gunpoint (or similarly if taxation is theft, though that doesn't directly come up here), whether or not the free market can solve everything, and how much reality reflects those beliefs. Everything else here is an extension of these three things.

@Kizzy1

Your first paragraph on the Jim Crow period indicates a lack of understanding of the history of civil rights during that period. The main factor was that blacks did not have access to the same services and markets as whites--that much we agree upon. But, this restriction was first put into place by people, not by law; all laws served to do was facilitate people running their businesses how they wished. In other words, there weren't laws prohibiting service to blacks; there were laws allowing you to refuse to serve blacks in the first place, though.

This didn't change, and it wouldn't have changed, unless there was a measure of force to stop this. Frankly, I don't have a single problem if you're uncomfortable with that force, since (a) you conflate "force" with "rule of law", and (b) I know full well that had it not been for it, I wouldn't have had any of the opportunities available to me over the course of my life. In other words, the alternative to simply letting things be would be to allow a culture of discrimination to perpetuate and prevent non-whites from ever participating on equal footing in society or the marketplace. It was these laws which allowed discriminatory businesses to be marginalized, not free market forces.

@Kizzy2

Your second paragraph on demonstrates a lack of understanding of how bigotry in the modern day works. Here's the key line:

But your alternative to get to decide who gets to be in business and who isn't is to use government, and that's a much, much worse alternative, where lobbyists get to decide who gets to be in business and who doesn't.

Actually, no. The alternative is what occurs now: minorities enjoy certain protections from hiring and promotion practices based on discrimination, and from the denial of services also based on discrimination. When you're in a position where you'd be screwed otherwise, you tend to be thankful that such protections exist (particularly when you're the member of a group that most people would either ignore or, worse, support discrimination against). There are examples in other democratic countries where people do not enjoy the level of protection we do in the US that, coupled with the fact that discrimination does exist in this country as well, that lead me to believe I would be screwed otherwise.

Here's another key line:

You don't need the EEOC to protect you. The company as a whole is perfectly capable of establishing it's own policies regarding hiring. These policies may or may not sensitive to discrimination. Also, there are ways to ensure equality without government intervention. A company that wishes to gain the economic advantages that come with being known as a place business which does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, or religion, could also allow an independent agency to audit the company to for this, similar to ISO audits. ... And as I've stated before there are ethical ways to achieve the effect your looking for, for the most part.

It doesn't work. Companies that actively discriminate do not get noticed the way you seem to believe they will, and that kind of pressure (from what, boycotts? ad campaigns?) isn't something that everyone is in a position to apply. Without the law on my side, the power is entirely in my company's hands: they can threaten to fire me, deny me a promotion, or whatever. With the law, the power is even: I can demand accommodation, but it must be reasonable. They also have better lawyers, so it'd better be a good reason I'm demanding accommodation for. (Now, my company and manager are pretty good with this, so while it doesn't come up for me, there are a lot of folks I know in other professions, particularly blue-collar work, where it does come up as a point of contention.)

As for the last line, first your definition of "ethical", like your definition of "force", is very different from the norm, since most people wouldn't consider "law" to be prima facie unethical. Second, there are no other effective ways to just take care of this through the free market--and the smaller the minority group (and more acceptable discrimination is against them), the less power said group has to do anything.

Similar to what I said earlier, I don't mind if you think my methods are unethical, considering you have such a different idea of what constitutes "ethics" (and it's not one that I've never encountered before--you're not the only one who's read Ayn Rand). On that note:

I'll repeat it: Let us suppose that all of the programs you suggested where genuinely good ones. If they are so beneficial, they why are you unable to convince other people to fund them voluntarily? Why do you need to force people to fund then? Does not the fact that you need to force people to fund them bother you?

The optimism you have for the unbridled free market works within a framework that assumes (a) every market is competitive, (b) every person behaves in rational self-interest, and (c) every person has perfect access to information. Because those three things don't hold in the real world (that is, the real world beyond the idealized one taught in introductory economics courses), we need laws and taxes--which I'm not going to conflate with force--to support some of the things which are beneficial, yet would not arise in a pure free market, or would be horribly inefficient in a pure free market.

I'll end on this one part:

Although I've been told there are better more efficiant ways to deal with a problem like this than using government, you'd have to ask someone better educated than I am to explain it. Honestly, I'm not sure how I feel about doing things that way. ... Also, while using the free market is a simple solution, it's not a simple answer. It's a complex system which constitutes an entire field of study.

I've already stated that I am an economist, so I'd fall into that "someone better educated" label. And, once you get into real world applications, beyond the theoretical constructs of an introductory class, you find that using only the free market framework is rarely realistic. It's like the difference between learning regular Latin verb conjugations and actually speaking the language.

It does bear repeating that Ayn Rand was a -Dragon Diamond- economist. Reading her thoughts on how the free market works is like a physician talking to a faith healer about curing cancer.

So that's that. To recap once more, we disagree on about three fundamental things, namely whether or not law is equivalent to forcing people at gunpoint (or similarly if taxation is theft, though that didn't come up here), whether or not the free market can solve everything, and how much reality reflects those beliefs. Everything else here is an extension.

You know why else it's funny? Because every time I see mention of the destructive nature of porn in terms of totally unrealistic expectations, some self-righteous male claims that that's ridiculous because of course he knows the difference between fantasy and reality and would never, ever let what he sees in porn shape his expectations of women

Fatal hopper... I'm really seeing your point now. I mean, yes, I could argue that B_G already had racist sentiments towards Asians and porn only confirmed his expectations, but that almost seems like a trivial aside at this point. Racial stereotypes do abound in porn, also, so... it'd be very easy to confirm anything you want to believe if porn is a main source of your information.

Along these lines, the classic article "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" and a similar article/checklist about male privilege seem to fit right into this discussion. I have no illusions that either Aaron or B_G will actually read, comprehend, and see themselves in these articles, but for other readers, here's a link to the latter (which links the former in the first paragraph).

Y'know I've see that identical behavior pattern so often I should've known there was a checklist to summarize it all. KF

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

So you think Asian men are mostly likely sitting at home saying "Mine's bigger than that." or you think they choose men who are small to average so it doesn't affect the self-esteem of the men?

OR do you really think that what I'm saying has validity but you won't acknowledge that because it isn't the PC thing to do?

As for it affected my expectations of women, apply that to Asian porn and I'd be expecting the women to make the exact same noise with each motion as if you were boning a squeaky toy.

I'd love for Alun to elaborate on the DESTRUCTIVE nature of porn. Sure...porn has most men expecting women to swallow. Is that destructive somehow?