10-17-2004, 04:44 AM | #281 (permalink) |
Illusionary
|
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?
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
10-17-2004, 06:23 AM | #282 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
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. |
|
10-17-2004, 08:29 AM | #283 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
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:
What you mean is that we are all unique because we are individuals. Deviancy is taken as relative to society as a whole. |
||
10-17-2004, 08:31 AM | #284 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by adysav; 10-17-2004 at 08:41 AM.. |
||
10-17-2004, 10:07 AM | #285 (permalink) | |
Illusionary
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha |
|
10-17-2004, 10:09 AM | #286 (permalink) |
Twitterpated
Location: My own little world (also Canada)
|
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.
|
10-17-2004, 12:28 PM | #287 (permalink) | |||
Insane
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
|||
10-17-2004, 01:09 PM | #288 (permalink) | ||
Junkie
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
||
10-17-2004, 01:18 PM | #289 (permalink) | ||
* * *
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Innominate. |
||
10-17-2004, 01:27 PM | #290 (permalink) | |
Insane
|
Quote:
On the other point it seems I misunderstood you, and then you misunderstood me. We're on the same plane though, effectively. |
|
10-17-2004, 01:37 PM | #291 (permalink) | ||
Insane
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Tags |
homosexuality |
|
|