X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:10:13 -0400
From:         The Integral Differential <DEMON@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Brett's dubious propositions
Comments: To: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU

>>
>>>Brett,
>>>
>>>>  Which is why hate crimes will always (hopefully) be struck down.  You
>>>>can't pove what people are thinking.
>>>
>>>Brett chooses to ignore a lengthy exchange between me and Joe
>>>and Andy. (Me on the one hand, Andy and Joe on the other.)
>>
>>        This is why "thought crimes" are a bad idea.  Jamie *thinks* he knows
>>what my motivation is/was.  His being very wide of the mark is ample reason to
>>discard all such crimes that rely on *pretending to know* what the person was
>>thinking when they performed a certain action.
>
>Huh?
>I don't have a clue as to what your motivation was. I never said I
>knew what your motivation was. What are you talking about?

        You said "chooses to ignore".  I didn't ignore it, I cut it out for
reasons of length.

>>>A great many convictions depend on proving what people are
>>>thinking. Are you, Brett, willing to say that all such convictions
>>>result from laws which should be struck down?
>>
>>        Like...?  Crimes need *proof*.  What exactly does proof of thought
>>constitute?
>
>Like... murder. To prove someone guilty of murder, you have to prove
>that he had a certain intent. Next question.

        Intent: buying a gun, stalking, etc.  Physical proof.

>What does proof of thought constitute? Uh, it constitutes grounds
>for conviction. Or what were you asking?
>
>Brett, you declined to say whether you want to strike down every
>law such that conviction for violation of that law would require
>"proof of thought." Do you want to do that, or not?

        There aren't any (at least here in OH.)  Our thought crimes law was
struck down.

>>>A separate issue:
>>>
>>>> You're missing the point.  Quotas were supposed to enable minorities
>>>> proportional access.  According to an earlier post, black
>>>> professionals still have a low (2.2%) participation rate in
>>>> some professions.
>>>
>>>As it stands, this is a pretty silly argument.
>>>Laws against murder were supposed to stop people from being
>>>killed. But in some places murder is still a very serious
>>>problem.
>>
>>The laws against murder are reactive.  Quota laws are supposed to be
>>proactive.
>
>A) I don't understand this distinction, please explain it.

        Reactive: in response to an action.  Proactive: in anticipation of an
action (or inaction).  Obviously murder is after someone dies, the so-called
quota bills are in anticpation of a lack of hiring/promotion.

>B) If there is some interesting distinction here, why is it relevant?

        The first is in response to actual wrongs, the second is done in order
to socially engineer society to prevent supposed wrongs that might occur.  Kind
of like making your kids do extra chores in the anticipation that they will at
some point forget to do their assigned ones.

>>>It obviously does not follow that murder laws are ineffectual,
>>>nor that they ought to be scrapped.
>>
>>        Some would argue that since capital punishment hasn't put a noticeable
>>dent in murder rates, that either the process should be abolished or made more
>>efficient (fewer appeals, etc.).
>
>Oh, sure, I agree with THAT line of reasoning. I mean, in general, not
>just for capital punishment.
>
>But were you, Brett, claiming to have shown that affirmative action
>has not placed a noticeable dent in discrimination? If you were

        No, that the current laws are ineffective, and can be used to shield
employers in the same way tobacco companies use the Surgeon General's warning
as a shield against liability.
        "The government said this is all we had to do."

>claiming to have shown that, you were very much mistaken. It is
>in fact, pretty obvious that your little example is FAR from
>showing that.

        Strawman.

>>>That, clearly, would be a silly quota law.
>>
>>        That is the kind we have.
>
>Give one example.

        Universities setting aside a certain amount of scholarships for
minorities (lest they lose federal aid).

>I already asked you to give an example. So did Peter. Why won't
>you do it? Why won't you give even ONE example?

        I just did.

>>>Let's see if Brett can cite an example of such a law. Let's
>>>see if he can give one example of a "government mandated
>>>system" that works that way.
>>>Jamie
>>
>>        Every current law that has a numerical quota.
>
>You STILL don't give an example.

        See above.  Why limit yourself to one?

>And, even if you did give an example of a "current law that has
>a numerical quota, do you think that would show that it works
>the way you outlined in your fanciful imaginary example?

        Depends on the law and the loopholes that have been discovered.

>This is pretty disappointing, Brett.
>Jamie

        Yes, it is, which is why I think the government shouldn't have the
power to enforce prejudices and discrimination.

Brett'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU