Sorry, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Employers should not intentionally discriminate between protected classes, but they should not be required to modify behavior because of personality differences between protected classes. Fine line, but in my mind, a valid one.
I almost agree with you. I think if the "personality difference" is innate to a protected class (that is, not explicitly chosen and not an individual trait), then they should be required to modify behaviour around it. That, too, is a fine line but a valid one, in my opinion. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a debate that can be won with a clear, logical proof. I didn't expect to change the minds of those who don't believe in pay equity between the sexes. I was simply providing my own opinion on it.
I always surrender to people who can't read. It stops being worth talking to them. (And no, your inability to read isn't a handicap to protect...you could choose to learn to read, it isn't innate.)
What did I not read correctly? PS: I'd also consider going with the ol' internet forum standby line of "you can't read" if my "argument" was like swiss cheese.
This: I bolded the key passage for emphasis. The fact that you can come up with an example of an innate deficit that I/most/everyone don't think should be remedied by government doesn't in any way invalidate or disprove the principle I was espousing about pay equity. It's obviously a scale of grays and each of us is going to include and not include a different group of possible examples.
My example is one of thousands we could come up with. My example, along with the other thousands of examples absolutely invalidates the principle you were trying to put out there. You're "principle" would fail more often than not. The fact that it is so easy to destroy your "principle" is pretty good evidence. Which is why it is asinine to assume the government should get involved. The government is incredibly bad at issues that have scales of gray.
What? This doesn't even make sense. Unless you are under the impression that fast-twitch muscle fiber density has nothing to do with short-distance speed. Or are you assuming that their reward has nothing to do with performance?
That's fairly ridiculous. I included an example directly in that quoted blurb that you were unable to read, where almost everyone agrees with government intervention: race-based employment discrimination. Just because there are "thousands of examples" where government shouldn't get involved clearly doesn't mean that there aren't examples where government should. Your reasoning skills are weak. The "scale of grays" is about which issues government should be involved in, not the issue itself. Employers barring employment based on race is part of that gray scale, and one that almost everyone would agree government should get involved.
Ah, little Minstrel. Poor little guy. I see that you are feeling irritated. You should keep telling me that I can't read. I'm not sure that will do much good since I would have to read it, but it is worth a try. You need to re-read the discussion. You're the one that started using generalizations about handicaps being intrinsic etc. Then when people point out how stupid your generalizations are, you start getting defensive and wanting to go back to talking about specifics. See above.
the performance of women is not hindered by their lack of being aggressive in requesting pay, while the performance of athletes is hindered by their lack of fast twitch muscles. the reward of women is hindered, but the reward is not different than someone with equal skills.
Ah, right, the tried-and-true Internet tactic of "Oh, you're angry...I'm making you angry," when you've lost an argument. That completely fails to make sense. I said that IF women asking for less money is simply intrinsic to being female, then it's a deficit (or handicap) that should be protected. I then pointed out that this ISN'T some kind of hard-and-fast principle that can be generalized and will hold true for any situation (this is the part you either didn't read or had trouble reading for comprehension). You then essentially started using it as a general principle that must apply to every situation in order to be valid. So, yes, reasoning fail on your part. The idea that it's not a hard-and-fast principle that cannot be generalized to any situation is always the case for discussion of government involvement. Any non-anarchist believes government should be involved in some things. It's trivial to come up with infinite examples where government shouldn't be...that in no way invalidates the idea that there are cases when government should be.
It's ok. You're a tender little guy. No. The fact that you were the first to point out that it can't be applied to professional athletes, for example, because they are too small of a group, implies and shows that you were indeed trying to make a point that was more general than simply the "women's pay" issue. Otherwise there would have been absolutely no need to bring up professional athletes. See above. Nope. I was just proving that it is an idea that is extremely easy to discredit and show as worthless. If you want to apply it to this one specific case, be my guest. You're the one that first brought up other instances. No. PS: You're having trouble reading or with reading comprehension.
Thanks, you're sweet too. Sorry, don't get so angry over being wrong. I'm afraid not. I was simply pointing out ahead of time how this is not a generalized principle. Pointing out how it wouldn't apply in another situation is entirely consistent with that. As a general principle, it is, yes. Happily, no one was using it that way. Yes, I will continue to use it the way I was always using it. Thanks for the encouragement. See, you are a sweet guy. No, you.
Don't be afraid. I'm a lot bigger and stronger than you, but I won't hurt you. You said your principle didn't apply to professional athletes BECAUSE they are a tiny group. The examples I gave are not limited to "tiny" groups.
