Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
I have broken out the sub thread from the Attacks in Paris thread. It was clear that it was generating its own content that while interesting, had little to do with the original topic. I have chosen a thread title that I hope reflects the content.
Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.
Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
abaxas
I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.
You're not allowed to discriminate on age in most cases. There are some health etc. exceptions, just as there are some exceptions for sex where it makes sense.
Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
As far as I can see, anti-discrimination laws came about and continue to exist, in order to protect and promote a notion of equal worth among all human beings, in response to various abuses based on notions that one 'demographic' was or could be worth less than some other demographic (black are worth less/less human than whites, or women than men or homosexuals than heterosexuals). All of that, to me, seems well and good. The equality in being of all humans is a vital truth to be upheld and defended courageously.
I think a lot of the problems with whether these laws have been going stems from the conflation of a person's being with their actions so that, whereas the laws rightly protect against discrimination on the basis of a person's inherent worth or being and deny or elevate worth unjustly and incorrectly, it's becoming the case that discrimination is not permitted even on the basis behaviour. That is, while one may be able to recognise and respect the full value and inherent worth of a given individual, and even treat them with due respect and civility, one may not be permitted to hold meaningful disagreement with views that person holds, or practises in which that person engages, if they are in some way tied to a protect aspect of their being.
Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galant
That is, while one may be able to recognise and respect the full value and inherent worth of a given individual, and even treat them with due respect and civility, one may not be permitted to hold meaningful disagreement with views that person holds, or practises in which that person engages, if they are in some way tied to a protect aspect of their being.
I don't think that's the case though. Disagreement with views and practises is fully allowed in law, because they are by their nature not inherently discriminatory. Actions or statements that encourage/lead to actions against inherent aspects are.
Example:
Saying I disagree with the Christian practise of baptism is not discriminatory.
Saying I will treat Christians differently to non-Christians *is* discriminatory.
Interesting one about gender and sexual preference though: Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women? ;)
Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
Anti-discrimination laws often have unintended consequences. One example was the EU ruling that insurance companies were not allowed to take gender into account when assessing risk for car insurance, so they could not offer lower premiums to young female driver, even though statistically they have fewer claims and represent a lower risk. As a consequence, the insurance premiums for young female drives rose massively, which seems blatantly unfair. Although I expect the EU naively thought that male premiums would reduce!
Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kalniel
I don't think that's the case though. Disagreement with views and practises is fully allowed in law, because they are by their nature not inherently discriminatory. Actions or statements that encourage/lead to actions against inherent aspects are.
Example:
Saying I disagree with the Christian practise of baptism is not discriminatory.
Saying I will treat Christians differently to non-Christians *is* discriminatory.
Interesting one about gender and sexual preference though: Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women? ;)
I was thinking more along the lines of:
Saying I don't value as equal Arab individuals is wrongful discrimination.
Saying I don't value as equal the polygamous marriage of a given Arab is not wrongful discrimination. In that reasonable people can hold meaningful and important on different types of marriage but not meaningful and important views on different races or sexual orientation.
The same could be applied to gay marriage.
It's one thing for a society to require us to, rightly, recognise the equality of all individuals and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion and value on that matter. It's something else to require people to recognise the equality of any given behavior or relationship and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion or value on the matter.
The protection afforded is to the person of the individual, not any given expression that individual chooses to make. It's an important distinction if we wish to maintain as free a society as possible.
Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galant
I was thinking more along the lines of:
Saying I don't value as equal Arab individuals is wrongful discrimination.
Saying I don't value as equal the polygamous marriage of a given Arab is not wrongful discrimination. In that reasonable people can hold meaningful and important on different types of marriage but not meaningful and important views on different races or sexual orientation.
The same could be applied to gay marriage.
It's one thing for a society to require us to, rightly, recognise the equality of all individuals and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion and value on that matter. It's something else to require people to recognise the equality of any given behavior or relationship and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion or value on the matter.
The protection afforded is to the person of the individual, not any given expression that individual chooses to make. It's an important distinction if we wish to maintain as free a society as possible.
Right, but isn't that the case already? It is the individual that is protected, not a given behaviour.