From: aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt)
Newsgroups: co.general
Subject: Re: Colorado amendment 2 information / boycott
Date: 22 Jan 93 03:32:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.

In <1993Jan20.032014.2373@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>In article <1993Jan19.055557.8484@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> aburt@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (Andrew Burt) writes:
>>>I didn't mean to say that there was no hate in Colorado, my point was
>>>that the majority of the people who voted for 2 don't hate
>>>homosexauls. They are simply tired of affirmative action. 

>>If so, are we to assume that this is just the foot in the door, and the
>>real motive is to pass laws retracting the various AA laws?  Also, is that
>>what you support?
	
	[I'd still like to hear a response from Eric.  He seems to post
	but never reply to questions.  Disturbing.]

>I though the goal was to eliminate irrelevant factors, like race and sex,
>from hiring criteria, to have people hired purely on the basis of
>ability. If this is the case, how can you defend afirmative action
>laws? They require employers to base hiring on these irrelevant factors,
>instead of looking solely at ability. 

Well... I didn't say I 100% supported AA laws.  In fact, I wrestle with
their benefit/detriment often.  In a perfect world, they would be unnecessary.
I also personally believe that much discrimination would go away faster if
we quit ranting and raving about it all the time.  (I.e., ignore it and
*eventually* -- maybe a hundred years -- it'll go away.)  Also i.e., if
each and every person ignored irrelevant factors, there would be no problem.
Alas, this isn't the way it is.  I'm not personally sure if they're a good
thing or not; I just don't know.

My real purpose in asking it was to see if Eric would yes or not...  In
particular, his silence to my asking this and other "tough" questions
leads me to believe he might answer "no" -- that it's just certain specific
groups he wants to deny rights to.  

>>>Just don't stereotype all amendment 2 supporters as homophobic etc.
>>>Isn't that exactly the type of thing that homosexuals don't want done
>>>to them?

>>But they were singled out by CFV to start with.

>"They hated us first, so it's ok for us to hate them back?" That
>might be a more rational attitude, if the central complaint of homosexuals
>wasn't hatred and intolerance. If they object to these things, and
>want to see them eliminated, its rather hypocritical to practice
>them themselves.

I can clearly understand a supporter of A2 being intolerant, i.e., voting
for it because they're intolerant (I am not implying in this statement that
all voters for A2 *are* intolerant, just that I could understand it if some
were).  I have a harder time seeing how someone who votes against it is
being intolerant.  What would a opponent be intolerant of, "people who are
intolerant of special rights"???  Not!

>>My real question to you is:  Are you against laws protecting homosexuals,
>>or are you against all laws that protect groups who have been (or could
>>easily be) discriminated against?

Again, I'd like to hear Eric answer this...

>Unless there is sufficient evidence of severe and harmfull discrimination,
>I'm against anti-discrimination laws in general.

I guess I take the position that almost all discrimination (i.e., based
on irrelevant factors) is harmful.  So I feel comfortable with your
position.  But, that means I feel that there will be few laws that
cover "harmless" discrimination.  In fact, I'm having a hard time coming
up with an example of a harmless discrimination; I'd sooner believe it's
an empty set than a large one...

>>In other words, would you favor or oppose an amendment with the purpose
>>of saying "all humans are equal" and may not be denied the right to claim
>>discrimination on the grounds of any attribute not relevant to the basis
>>for the discrimination?  Thus, e.g., felons could be denied the right to carry
>>guns, but a government agency wouldn't be allowed to fire someone
>>because they're gay.

>You's also have trouble putting felons in jail, or sentencing them in
>any way: The whole idea of criminal justice assumes it's acceptable to
>violate a convict's rights.

I said "relevant to the basis" -- a crime is a relevant reason to
discriminate in a legal setting.  But skin color, shoe size, sexual
preference, etc. are not.

>since it's based on relevant and proven facts. However, a law
>requiring that all humans are equal, would be fairly surreal: It 
>would prohibit relevant as well as irrelevant distinctions. If all
>humans are equal, then you shouldn't hire a college graduate over
>a high school drop out, for an skilled job.

Again, these may be relevant.  However, I'm not really a big fan of
jobs that "require" a particular degree (knowing, as a professor, heh,
how little a degree can mean in some cases).  I would much prefer some
perfect determiner of ability.  Hence I tend to find experience, references,
answers to questions, a better determiner than what degrees someone has.
Though, it can still be argued that a degree is relevant since it more
or less implies a basic knowledge of a subject.  I don't think one should
rule out degree-less people though.

Further, the issue isn't that everyone must be equal in all ways, at all
times.  The issue is equal chances to make your own life; make your
own mistakes, etc.  If one person messes up their life, that's basically
their problem.  But I don't hold it against everyone else with some
similar genetic trait or other group membership.

>In any case, your 
>alternatives completely miss my point of view: I object to the 
>government dictating how individuals should treat each other. I
>find it morally objectionable, for someone to be unfairly treated
>on the basis of irrelevant issues (e.g. to be discriminated against).
>However, I also object to the government putting a gun to someone's
>head to force them to adopt _my_ moral views on the subject, or
>_my_ opinions of what is, and is not, relevant.

I have no objection to laws that say "this is a fundamental human right",
if, indeed, it is fairly obvious that it is a fundamental right.  I have
no objection to laws that don't harm anyone, but protect others.  (I mean,
who would be *harmed* by saying you can't refuse to serve a gay person,
for example? [not that this is even the issue.])

>>You imply you're just fed up with folks getting a hand from the government,
>>but I'm curious if it's related specifically to homosexuals or not.

>No, "getting a hand from the government" has nothing to do with it.
>That would be an issue strictly between the government and the people
>being helped (wheter or not this is a good use of tax payer's money
>is another debate...) The anti-discrimination laws aren't "a hand
>from the government", they are government control of some individuals,
>in the hopes of assuring "fair" treatment of others. That raises the
>whole problem: The rights of the individuals which are violated in the
>process. The issue of homosexuality isn't, in my opinion, relevant,
>or do I think the law can fairly single them out.

I must be missing something -- whose rights are violated by repealing A2
or by having anti-gay-discrimination laws?  (Note anti-gay-disc. does not
mean an AA law.)  I don't see how anyone is harmed, but I do see some
folks protected.  The only ones harmed, indeed, are those who *want* to
discriminate against group X... I guess I don't mind stepping on *their*
toes (:-) :-) :-)  since I don't think it's in any way right to want
to discriminate; that is, I don't care if the KKK is upset about repealing
A2).
-- 

Andrew Burt 		   					  aburt@du.edu

"But if he was dying he wouldn't bother to carve "Aaaaargh", he'd just say it."
Newsgroups: co.general