I don't think sexual orientation is a protected class. I think it's just something the government is not allowed to discriminate against within itself due to the fact that it is based on executive order and not law written by elected officials.
Anyway, you are right about the connotation people get when they hear the word "discrimination", but there is a bait and switch going on here: it's OK for Hollywood to "discriminate" against ugly, old, fat people (this is the Hollywood which is supposed to be so inspiring at the academy awards, right?) but it's bad for religious people to "discriminate" against people who have different values (or the lack thereof).
I don't understand why the government is determining why we should give people special privileges because we can lump them in with a "class".
Seems like a technicality to me.
Should people in a certain age demographic be treated with better rights than "people who like to garden"? Etc.
It sounded like you were saying there was something meaningful about that earlier, but now I'm not sure if you're saying it's a formality we have to go along with.
If someone walks into a business with a menacing look on their face and is refused service, is that discrimination against people with menacing looks on their faces?
Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against polygomists? Or pedophiles?
Sounds like a lot of work deciding how to police these businesses. I guess the government doesn't mind because they want to control everything everyone does all the time.
... Or, you know, we could just let businesses decide who they want to do business with.
At 29 I left my big government contractor company to go to a small company. My motivations were (1) An affordable place to raise a family (Raleigh, NC) and (2) C++ being on the decline.
The switch was a MAJOR hurdle since I had to take a pay cut (about 25%, but about the same considering the locale cost of living differences). After 3 years I'm at a company that pays me what I was making earlier except it is totally private sector and no beaurocracy nonsense and I feel like I'm contributing something real in the world. The demand for.NET programmers is outrageous, and all over the place so that helped.
Anyway, I'm sure your factors weigh differently in some of these things (age, location, technology you are leaving, technology you are moving toward).
Zero sum is wrong. The rising tide lifts all boats.
Ronald Raegan lowered margin tax rates for the wealthy and raised them for the lower brackets (so they payed closer to the same amount) and the unemployment rate went from 10.8% to 5.4%. Read about the Laeffer curve for more examples.
You are really resting your evidence on your own presuppositions. I guess all sides do that, and it's better than name calling.
"When people can deny 4 billion years worth of evidence..."
Why is it so distrubing to entitle people to their own opinions? That's why my ancestors left Europe.
I include the East Anglia scientists who falsfied data to support the existence of global warming -who don't themselves believe global warming is real!
So business can make people with certain political views pay more taxes?
Businesses can see what I'm thinking as I'm typing my email?
Businesses can drop bombs on people?
Businesses are legislatively prohibited from doing much of anything, but government takes it upon itself to do all kinds of nasty things that you (as an individual) can't opt out of.
When I see "pretty much by definition" I get the feeling that someone is trying to disguise their opinion as somekind of monolithic truth.
If BoA can crash the global economy it's because enough human beings personally decided (i.e. not by beaurocratic policy) to trust them. If people lose trust in BoA (i.e. it nosedives, as in the scenario you are describing) customers, clients, investors will stop doing business with BoA. Then their share price drops. Then their CEO panicks. Then the board/investors give the reins to someone they deem more competent.
If the government crashes the global economy (e.g. Smoot Haley) what recourse do you have? You are required by law to pay taxes. You can vote another policitian to come in, but you have to wait for an election. And if both sides fail to produce a viable candidate you're just as worse off.
A more likely scenario is the government just sucks up slowly growing piece of the pie. The economy does not crash per se, but it lurchs at 1-2% and hiring is very meager. This is what happens when the do-ers can't take risks and stick their money under their mattresses.
Slashdot Mirror
If endanger species followed the free market, the demand for this treatment (if it was worthwhile) would drive people to farm them.
And then they wouldn't be endangered anymore.
I don't think sexual orientation is a protected class. I think it's just something the government is not allowed to discriminate against within itself due to the fact that it is based on executive order and not law written by elected officials.
Anyway, you are right about the connotation people get when they hear the word "discrimination", but there is a bait and switch going on here: it's OK for Hollywood to "discriminate" against ugly, old, fat people (this is the Hollywood which is supposed to be so inspiring at the academy awards, right?) but it's bad for religious people to "discriminate" against people who have different values (or the lack thereof).
How is that not a double standard?
I don't understand why the government is determining why we should give people special privileges because we can lump them in with a "class".
Seems like a technicality to me.
Should people in a certain age demographic be treated with better rights than "people who like to garden"? Etc.
It sounded like you were saying there was something meaningful about that earlier, but now I'm not sure if you're saying it's a formality we have to go along with.
If someone walks into a business with a menacing look on their face and is refused service, is that discrimination against people with menacing looks on their faces?
... Or, you know, we could just let businesses decide who they want to do business with.
Should businesses be allowed to discriminate against polygomists? Or pedophiles?
Sounds like a lot of work deciding how to police these businesses. I guess the government doesn't mind because they want to control everything everyone does all the time.
At 29 I left my big government contractor company to go to a small company. My motivations were (1) An affordable place to raise a family (Raleigh, NC) and (2) C++ being on the decline.
.NET programmers is outrageous, and all over the place so that helped.
The switch was a MAJOR hurdle since I had to take a pay cut (about 25%, but about the same considering the locale cost of living differences). After 3 years I'm at a company that pays me what I was making earlier except it is totally private sector and no beaurocracy nonsense and I feel like I'm contributing something real in the world. The demand for
Anyway, I'm sure your factors weigh differently in some of these things (age, location, technology you are leaving, technology you are moving toward).
Zero sum is wrong. The rising tide lifts all boats.
Ronald Raegan lowered margin tax rates for the wealthy and raised them for the lower brackets (so they payed closer to the same amount) and the unemployment rate went from 10.8% to 5.4%. Read about the Laeffer curve for more examples.
You are really resting your evidence on your own presuppositions. I guess all sides do that, and it's better than name calling.
Using WASP as a derogatory term is racist, btw.
The shareholders put their money in the game.
If everything goes under the workers can go work somewhere else.
I guess Wikipedia wants contributors who have "chosen" to be "liberated" from work, per the CBO's language.
... in other words, people who live off tax payers.
The government needs to get out of the business of policing ideas.
How is this more anti-competitive than McDonalds' refusing to sell Wendy's products?
I refuse to consider half-digested opinions disguised as objectivity
"When people can deny 4 billion years worth of evidence ..."
Why is it so distrubing to entitle people to their own opinions? That's why my ancestors left Europe.
I include the East Anglia scientists who falsfied data to support the existence of global warming -who don't themselves believe global warming is real!
Indian is not an ethnicity.
The annual number of people died from war nosedived directly as a result of MAD.
Nuclear weapons are what ended WWII.
Oil production hasn't even peaked yet. Why are you already talking about a decline?
That is exactly why government should be limited. So people aren't juiced to pay for things they don't believe in.
Instead we have unlimited government.
Iron Maiden who?
You sound like you're talking to a judge and justifying theft.
If you want to get paid for your work, you should pay for others' work.
Wish I could mod this up.
The summary mentions "theft of digital wallets".
...?
Is this a reference to the FBI
I can't believe you are equating the Patriot Act with what the NSA is doing today.
You said business answers to no one, but I'm telling you who it answers to.
Your only recourse with gov is voting every X years.
So business can make people with certain political views pay more taxes?
Businesses can see what I'm thinking as I'm typing my email?
Businesses can drop bombs on people?
Businesses are legislatively prohibited from doing much of anything, but government takes it upon itself to do all kinds of nasty things that you (as an individual) can't opt out of.
When I see "pretty much by definition" I get the feeling that someone is trying to disguise their opinion as somekind of monolithic truth.
If BoA can crash the global economy it's because enough human beings personally decided (i.e. not by beaurocratic policy) to trust them. If people lose trust in BoA (i.e. it nosedives, as in the scenario you are describing) customers, clients, investors will stop doing business with BoA. Then their share price drops. Then their CEO panicks. Then the board/investors give the reins to someone they deem more competent.
If the government crashes the global economy (e.g. Smoot Haley) what recourse do you have? You are required by law to pay taxes. You can vote another policitian to come in, but you have to wait for an election. And if both sides fail to produce a viable candidate you're just as worse off.
A more likely scenario is the government just sucks up slowly growing piece of the pie. The economy does not crash per se, but it lurchs at 1-2% and hiring is very meager. This is what happens when the do-ers can't take risks and stick their money under their mattresses.
Business regulating itself is far better than government regulating everyone.
I don't remember anything in the news two years ago where the govt could see 'what you are thinking'. The IRS thing is another completely new monster.
I remember either the FBI or CIA had some kind of carnivore program that could rifle through emails and that got canned.