Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Philosophy (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/)
-   -   Homosexuality (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-philosophy/69437-homosexuality.html)

tecoyah 10-17-2004 04:44 AM

Homosexuality is not a corporate issue, it is a societal issue and therefor falls into the mainstream of public domain.

There is a huge difference between discrimination based on sexual orientation, and discrimination based on work ethic, or experience.

By your definition, I should be able to hire only those people who I personally like, and pass on anyone who disagrees with me. Would it be Okay for a Gay corporate executive to hire only other Gays? Or do you think there would be a bit of an outcry from the Public. What if Bill Gates was Gay and all 200,000 MS employees were Gay as well?

martinguerre 10-17-2004 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alansmithee
Businesses discriminate daily. It's called the hiring process. It's when people are allowed to work for a company based on behaviors they may or may not have taken in the past. If I take part in behaviour that the owners of a company does not approve of, they should not be forced to subsidize it.

yeah...i'm glad that's true. I never hire irish, or any other bloody papists for that matter. And i'd rather go out of business than hire colored folk.

I'd go on further...but i've used up all the anachronistic ethnic and racial slurs i can think of. Point is...employers don't have a right to hire based on idenitity and lifestyle, but ONLY characteristics relevant to the job.

adysav 10-17-2004 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, being based on how people define normal, as opposed to what normal actually is. Using your definition devalues rational argument in favor of the whims of the majority.

I hate to criticise you, again, but this is a strange statement.

Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, [being based on how people define normal,] <- subjectivity [as opposed to what normal actually is.] <- objectivity

Anyway, weren't you one of the people slamming my natural predisposition statement on the grounds that you can't discuss human activity outside a social context? Deviant in terms of the whims of the majority is the only valid definition.
Anyone who attempts to compare human behaviour to some official predefined objective standard is only really comparing it to their own beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
Besides, everyone is deviant. I am a deviant. You are a deviant. It's not so bad not being a robot, is it?

This is what happens when you try to apply the term deviant to one persons beliefs.
What you mean is that we are all unique because we are individuals. Deviancy is taken as relative to society as a whole.

adysav 10-17-2004 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah
What if Bill Gates was Gay and all 200,000 MS employees were Gay as well?

Perhaps the default Windows colour schemes would be better than they are now.
Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre
I'd go on further...but i've used up all the anachronistic ethnic and racial slurs i can think of. Point is...employers don't have a right to hire based on idenitity and lifestyle, but ONLY characteristics relevant to the job.

Well, except in cases of affirmative action.

tecoyah 10-17-2004 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Perhaps the default Windows colour schemes would be better than they are now.

Well, except in cases of affirmative action.

You have....as Usual, answered my question by dodging it. I would very much like your take on this, Perhaps if I clarify:

If indeed it is acceptable for a company to hire individuals based on personal bias, or discomfort with an aspect of chosen lifestyle. Is it then, also acceptable for Society as a whole to accept the obvious discrimination, and instead work through economic means (boycott, Advertisement, etc...) to correct what is percieved as a wrong?

Or does the lack of majority, make the percieved wrong by the minority irrelevant in a civilized society?

Suave 10-17-2004 10:09 AM

The only reason affirmative action has been put into place is to try to fix some of the fuckups of institutionalised and personal racism. Maybe if you didn't live somewhere that actually has cities split up between "black" communities, "white" communities, and whatever else, you wouldn't have cause to piss and moan over affirmative action. IF YOU ARE BETTER QUALIFIED, YOU WILL GET THE JOB.

adysav 10-17-2004 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah
You have....as Usual, answered my question by dodging it. I would very much like your take on this

Well, I wasn't arguing this point at all, just trying to inject some humour.
But since you're interested, yes I think companies should be able to hire whoever they please. It would also be acceptable (as it is now) to boycott a business for any reason you see fit.
If someone opens a business called Jose's Hispanic Accountants and employs only hispanic folk, you have every right to tell all your friends "hey dont go to Jose's, he's a racist fker".
Now back in reality, Jose actually does open an accountanting firm. I (a white guy) apply for an open position and to fill his quota of white folk he hires me. Do I want to work for someone who hates me? Fuck no.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave
The only reason affirmative action has been put into place is to try to fix some of the fuckups of institutionalised and personal racism. Maybe if you didn't live somewhere that actually has cities split up between "black" communities, "white" communities, and whatever else, you wouldn't have cause to piss and moan over affirmative action.

I take it you're talking about the US. I'm not a US resident but as it happens my city does have an ethnic divide. Not enforced, out of the residents' choice.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave
IF YOU ARE BETTER QUALIFIED, YOU WILL GET THE JOB.

Actually, no, that's the whole point of affirmitive action. Applicants of whatever ethnic origin are given preference in order to fill quotas, so your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.

filtherton 10-17-2004 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
I hate to criticise you, again, but this is a strange statement.

Sure, whatever, let's go off on another tangent, shall we?

Your definition is kind of wormy too, since it lacks any kind of subjectivity, [being based on how people define normal,] <- subjectivity [as opposed to what normal actually is.] <- objectivity

Anyway, weren't you one of the people slamming my natural predisposition statement on the grounds that you can't discuss human activity outside a social context? Deviant in terms of the whims of the majority is the only valid definition.
Anyone who attempts to compare human behaviour to some official predefined objective standard is only really comparing it to their own beliefs.[/quote]

Even if i was one of the people "slamming your natural predisposition statement", it isn't even relevant to the idea of deviance. It would seem to me, by your assertion that nobody is limited by society's expectations of them, that it would be inconsistent of you to acknowledge the existence of deviance at all.

But no, your right, there is no objective reality. There are no statistics. We cannot use these nonexistent statistics to determine what kind of behavior the majority engages in. All we have are the intangible opinions of the majority. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
This is what happens when you try to apply the term deviant to one persons beliefs.
What you mean is that we are all unique because we are individuals. Deviancy is taken as relative to society as a whole.

Deviancy can be taken as relative to society as a whole, but society as a whole is irrational and shortsighted. If you want to denounce a behavior on the sole basis that society frowns upon it than you haven't put a lot of thought into what you're saying. If you have that much faith in the wisdom of groupthink than just stop arguing with me right now please because we will never see eye to eye.

If you look at deviance in terms of what people actually do, instead of what they think everyone else is and should be doing, you will see that deviance can easily be defined as the behavior the majority engages in rather than the behavior the majority accepts.

wilbjammin 10-17-2004 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adysav
Do I want to work for someone who hates me?

Our society is structured around unemployment. The Fed actually bases its entire economic policy around the reserve of employers. Full employment is considered bad economically by the Fed, because it creates competition for employees which creates upward pressure on wages (which will theorhetically cause businesses to lose money and ruin the economy). In any event, unemployment and a need for jobs in this system is a constant, and more of an imminent problem for people of historically impoverished groups than others. You might not be strapped for cash, but there are hundreds of thousands of people that will take a job that will get the bills paid if they could, even if the social climate isn't that great (or just bad). And truly, there are all kinds of harassment laws and unfair practice laws that are meant to protect employees from other employees and their employers. Boycotts are helpful when the law is failing, however, I don't think that is should be the #1 tool of choice for solving problems when we have laws that are meant to protect people. Boycotts typically hurt the economy and burn bridges rather than build bridges.

Quote:

Applicants of whatever ethnic origin are given preference in order to fill quotas, so your statement doesn't really make a lot of sense.
I think you're mischaracterizing Affirmative Action like most people do. Affirmative Action states that employers/schools are to take every <i>reasonable</i> action to level the playing field and to set <i>reasonable</i> <b>goals</b> for employment/enrollment of minorities. If goals aren't met and there is documentation that all reasonable efforts were made to meet those goals, then the chances of a case being filed against the school or business are very low. There are no quotas. For more information see Facts on Executive Order 11246 - Affirmative Action .

Additionally, it is very important to note that the vast wealth of the United States has been predicated on a system of exploitation. Previously, of course, the exploited class of people were African America slaves. After Reconstruction, if you know our history, freed slaves had so many barriers to economic success that their ability to rise up the economic ladder were ridiculously small. You can claim a sort of indignant stance that you only want to work for people that like you, but that does not create a social structure where enough of your people are employers to provide jobs that will give you enough money to live on. I think it is absolutely necessary to have laws and checks and balances to prevent and break down institutionalized racism and prejudice (women and homosexuals, for instance) to help create the society that best serves all of its citizens of all walks of life. Typically, the arguments against this, as I see them, are based on beliefs of people that are afraid of losing their privilige and think that laws that help level the playing field are allowing minorities to oppress the majority. And typically, this is not the case, and the exceptions where the laws didn't work perfectly get blown up in the media. Affirmative Action has had more successes than failures, which is better than a laissez-faire approach to employment/enrollment historically has had. This is not to say that Affirmative Action could use some reworkings, but it is better than nothing.

adysav 10-17-2004 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton
It would seem to me, by your assertion that nobody is limited by society's expectations of them, that it would be inconsistent of you to acknowledge the existence of deviance at all.

If everyone acts a certain way because they want to, that's different to everyone acting a certain way because they're expected to. The observable result is still the same.

On the other point it seems I misunderstood you, and then you misunderstood me. We're on the same plane though, effectively.

adysav 10-17-2004 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wilbjammin
I think you're mischaracterizing Affirmative Action like most people do.

I don't live in the US so perhaps some of the details are different.
Quote:

Originally Posted by wilbjammin
You can claim a sort of indignant stance that you only want to work for people that like you, but that does not create a social structure where enough of your people are employers to provide jobs that will give you enough money to live on.

There's always the folk who aren't racist/sexist/whatever. I would have thought that overtly racist companies would do a lot less trade than their competitors, evening out the playing field somewhat.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360