I saw it last night and at a probability of 0371724 to 1, enjoyed it. The cast were excellent. Perhaps it helps that I'm not a huge fan of the books but I don't think that's a serious issue. Contrary to a lot of people warning that it's been dumbed down, it goes so fast you have to be very alert to appreciate it. Example, late on in the film, Ford tells Zaphod that the job of President isn't to hold power, but to distract attention away from it, the line goes by in the blink of an eye and you have to be overclocked to catch it and digest it before you're on to the next lightening line. There is a lot of this. The bit about needing the Ultimate Question to understand the ultimate answer blasts past the audience in about three seconds. I expect that most people are lost about twenty-minutes into the movie.
The cast are excellent however. Arthur Dent gets a bit bold and intrepid towards the end and doesn't quite pull it off. Ford is quite alien, Malkovich is creepy and utterly pointless to the plot (and still isn't resolved at the end of the film)
To sum up, the film is a mess, a total mess, but I think my critical faculties fused at some point during the Dolphin musical number so I wasn't really in any fit state to complain. Boffo - a good one.
Addendum: It was really good to see Trillian played by someone so none-bimbo'ish. She was utterly convincing and wore cool socks.
Come on! You always have the choice to *not see* the movie.
Yes, and I'm free to complain about a world where the movie has to be avoided because it's no good. If I see a horrible mangling of something do I shrug my shoulders and say, they have a right to make crap movies? Perhaps people do, but it's irrelevant to the point of whether they should. It is my civic duty to point out such cases and say: "look here, you could have done better if you'd done x,y and z."
However, I was mainly addressing the previous poster's idea that a bad movie couldn't negatively affect your enjoyment of the book and clearly it could. I saw the film last night and enjoyed it (but not the plummy "I'm so English" Stephen Fry as narrator).
Yes, actually. A movie can spoil a book you've previously read. A movie presents powerful images that are difficult to un-see. If I re-read Hitchhiker's and I find that I'm hearing Douglas Adams' writing in Stephen Fry's voice, then that is definitely a negative. Worst voice of guide, ever (mainly if you're British).
But I would say that you would notice that it was a parody. I'd go so far as to say that to me it is pretty clearly a parody. So at what level do we pitch this? If there is this much allowance for people who do not notice then surely the law should err on the side of the observant? Or must satirists poll people to ensure they are targeting the lowest common denominator?
Addendum: I'm not calling the parent a "low-denominator" because he says it isn't immediately apparent that it is a parody to him. We all are familiar with different things, and as he says - once you read the articles it becomes apparent. So if you read the articles then you know it's a parody, and if you don't read the articles then what is Walmart concerned about... he's saving them bandwidth.;)
I work in the NHS and the muppets who wrote our critical mandated must-use clinical software wrote it so that it has to be run with local administrator privelages. Rrrrr.
Hmmm... IIRC this whole thread arose because many antecedent posts ago, you said that the anonymity of the Internet is a blessing, not a curse.
Hmmm, I haven't checked, but I think I just highlighted the advantages of anonymity. There are risks, but I think on-balance anonimity is a blessing not a curse. Bearing in mind that it is voluntary anonymity, of course.
Well, if you want to avoid 10 year olds, I'm sure/. is the right place to do it.;)
Of course an argument should stand on its own merit. I am merely observing a correlation that saves me from wasting some time.
Well put, but given that we are discussing Internet debate then it is probably quicker to identify poor reasoning than it is to reliably determine a poster's age. Unless we are suggesting age-limited forums, in which case we might want to move this argument from the highly-hypothetical realms and consider what effort would be required by actually implementing this, and weigh it against the trial of tolerating the legions of political ten year olds. Yes, I've fallen to exageration to make my point, but really, if a ten year old feels motivated to post opinions on political matters (let alone more than once), then fine by me. I'll just read the posts and value them accordingly.
However, surely all of this is redundant. The original point was that an argument should stand on its own merit, not on your view of the one who makes it. If people are now arguing that ten year olds should be barred from the discussion because they can't make a strong argument then you've added a unnecessary extra layer. There are many reasons why someone might produce a weak argument and none of them would be without exception. So we should just come back to looking at an argument itself and saying, this makes sense or this does not.
I hope someone Mods you up because as you're AC some people might miss your reply. You make a very good counter to what I said, but I have a few answers for you.;)
The chief thrust of my argument should have been that debate in a written format is naturally less vulnerable to rhetoric (in the traditional sense) than confrontational argument in person. You are absolutely right that presuasive people can distort the truth by omissions, straw-man arguments and all the usual tricks. But the volume techniques of talking over them, interrupting, platform-hogging, threatening body-language, heckling, etc, are mitigated or annulled when debating in a near-essay style like us. Furthermore, much persuasive argument depends on the listener not being able to re-read and analyse what is said. If I slip a couple of body-blows that I couldn't justify into a larger argument against you, then conversationally, you can either try and nitpick (meaning you get hit by the big point) or let them slip through. Well, that still happens in a written format, but as I've said, it's mitigated.
I like your point about knowing the arguer being an important part of knowing whether to trust his or her arguments, but I think it is not a safe technique - we should relinquish our own judgement only as a last resort because those we trust can let us down. The Green Party in the UK had people join who were found to be members of the British Intelligence agency, as did CND. It is naive to think that there are not people out there smart enough to take this approach. There are also many people who, though genuinely sincere, I would rather not have on my side in an argument. The debate is what matters and where the source is important it should be referenced. In your example of the reports, I would expect both to be attributed to their sources before people were able to consider them as evidence.
Ultimately, the only way to reliably sway people to your argument, is to have a sufficiently educated and intelligent audience that they can see the rhetoric for what it is. This of course assumes that you are in fact right, but I think a conditon that favours this is a good thing. I believe this condition is enhanced on the Internet for the reasons above.
You have a valid point about people drowning others out - with sufficient motivation, a small group can sound large. But this is a problem with both modes of communication and in a written debate like this, they can at least not stop the other point of view from being put.
(Yes, I know I was taking that quote out of context.)
Damn right you were.;) But on the Internet I can take the time to point it out without diminishing the main thrust of my argument.:D
Addendum: I've re-read my post and realized that it comes across as if I were taking your post as a direct argument to mine and I realize that it wasn't. I agree with what you say, and am merely making a supplementary point that the anonymity is not (I believe) the problem it might seem. Essay style debate on the Internet (not IRC;) still has great advantages over face-to-face. But it's not an either or. Perhaps the best process would be. Internet debate, followed by live meeting, followed by post-meeting Internet debate, repeat until decision == true.
This bill would make it illegal to discriminate against gays because they are gay, similar to how it is illegal to discriminate against women and minorities for that fact.
Are you kidding me? I've read half way through the comments here and it was only when I read yours that it actually sank in. Are you saying it's legal to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation over there? For example, could an employer say "We're firing you because you're gay" ? That's Dark Ages stuff.
Oddly, all the things you list as negatives, I think of as positive. The Internet stops you knowing if the person talking is a minor? Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions. Doesn't pay taxes in your area? Shouldn't matter - they still have to argue against the consequences to convince those who do. We should be able to accept the truth from Mickey Mouse if it is the truth. And likewise, we should be able to use rational argument against those who would otherwise use volume, intimidation or mobs to drown us out.
Reducing people to making their case in a written form where we can read at our own pace, re-read at our leisure and respond without the pressure of being interrupted, lays bare that which we should be basing our decisions on - the ideas and the logic, not the people.
And if I did give $10, there would still be someone dying because I didn't give $20.
Well, you have a point. Where on the Cheney-Jesus scale are we comfortable? And why? I think it's good to be made uncomfortable from time to time as you have done me - as you say, the fact that you could give $20 is a feeble excuse for not giving $10. I'm going to up my donations a little bit tonight.
We're talking about different things then. I'm talking about the code required to unlock encrypted information, NOT the photograph, which is most certainly not owned by anyone but the photographer.
One and the same - what good is owning something if the access to it is owned by someone else?
Just to be rebellious and show some faith in mankind, a google for 'Nikon' produces the two top news stories about this issue. A search for 'Nikon cameras' has a story about DMCA preventing Photoshop compatability in the first three. A a professional digital camera is an expensive piece of kit (at least to me) and I'd expect people to do a bit of research before they buy one. Maybe just maybe, people will hear the voices of many pissed off developers and question Nikon's direction. People can be frighteningly smart sometimes. I'm sure that some people in Nikon's marketing / PR department are having a pisser of a time right now.
There are children starving because of me. Dying. Seriously. I either have to not think, be okay with that, or go insane. I'm wavering between the first two.
Seriously, $10.00 can buy the antibiotics to save someone's life in for example, Bangledesh. Give that once a month and at the end of the year think to yourself there are twelve people alive because of you.
Sure, I'm preaching, but don't pretend there's nothing you can do.:)
I like plump. I guess I have normal "abnormal" image.
No you don't. The pressure on women to be skinny is huge, but it doesn't usually come from men. Yep - there are bastards who'll take the piss out a woman for being overweight, but the majority of men prefer a girl who has a little padding. This is shown again and again in surveys and anecdotally, but the fashion mags and the who's-shagging-who magazines are always full of article on weight-loss and which celebrity has (oh the Horror!) a bit of fat on some part of their body.
My belief is that it's just competitiveness. If average people could be considered sexy then where's the scope for women to put each other down? Once, pale was sexy, because if you weren't a spoilt rich woman, it was hard to avoid going out and getting a tan. Now tanned is sexy because it shows you can holiday somewhere sunny. And fat itself was sexy in leaner times. And through all these cultural shifts, men have still wanted exactly what they always want from women just the same. Best thing you can do is pay it no attention and be happy with your body. That's sexy, whining or worrying about it isn't.
;) Yes, it's normally spelt 'Tao' in the Western Alphabet, and technically, the movie is called 'Tao...,' but at least in Mandarin the word begins with a sort of sharp 'D' sound so the GP is fair in what he says.
On-topic: Being your natural weight is what's healthy. Eat natural (i.e. traditional) food and always leave a little space in your stomach after a meal. Doesn't mean you'll be rake thin, but you'll be healthy.
But most countries are socialist-leaning, so I'm not surprised you think so lowly of people who actually have to "sing for their supper".
How is it that so many people in the US see everything in an axis of Capitalism-Socialism?
The situation is as follows: Restaurant owners make money from the work of waiting staff. However, the waiting staff are paid on the whim of the customer (with less than minimum wage from owner contribution). The restaurant owner is essentially getting a free ride from the waiting staff. The waiter or waitress has no security and never mind the fact that many of the factors that contribute to "good service" are outside of the waiting staff's hands. If the restaurant owner understaffs, serves bad food or hassles the waitress so that maybe she doesn't feel like smiling or flirting with a customer, then it's not his problem because he's not the one that will be short-changed.
There's a lot to be said for a system in which everyone knows how much they're getting paid and how much they're expected to pay.
Permissive parenting - bad... Authoritarian parenting (like the 50s) - still bad.
Children learn from their parents in many ways the parent doesn't expect. The problem with "permissive" parenting - if the parent has broad values then not necessarily any problem, but in this sense I think the meaning is submissive parenting - avoid confrontation even when you think the child is wrong. In this case, the child will learn the same pattern of behaviour, and will grow to not argue his case as a teenager. This leads to the low self-esteem etc, that you're talking about.
The authoritarian approach? Your child will learn that power equates to right, that the ability to punish replaces the need to justify.
The middle approach? Always speak up, never act without explanation. Listen to child so that child learns to use reason to get her way. Above all, avoid yelling and other resorts of force / power. 'Cause very soon, your child will be using the same techniques on you.
...taking him out of the limelight just long enough for the public to forget any transgressions he might have committed.
Oh, I don't know about that... there are plenty of us who remember him well enough to want him out of British politics permanently. But then that's why he was handed the position in the EU - power without visibility. The hand of Tony Blair reaches far.
Positive discrimination is a dubious area that I think is probably a bad thing for the ethnic groups that it's supposed to benefit. It's essentially a statement that people of that race require special favours, as if they can't get by on merit.
This is different to preventing negative discrimination however.
tell me why not hiring someone is such a gross violation of their basic rights that it requires legal action?
I believe that someone's ethnic group is not a factor in someone's capabilities. Therefore a society that makes decisions based on this is hamstringing itself. Illustration: There could be a black Einstein out there trying to get tenure and failing due to discrimination. But a less prejudiced society will be making maximum use of its members.
Moving to a more personal level, everyone should be given a fair chance and assessed on what they can actually do. This is fair and fair is good. Imagine walking into a company where everyone was of a different ethnic group than you and being told they didn't want you because of your skin colour. I'm not being rhetorical - really imagine it. You would be wanting (justifiably) to address this challenge.
Implementing laws that support this are difficult and sometimes counter-productive (see some of the efforts at positive discrimination), but there must be some attempt to address this as a society, because it is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw it last night and at a probability of 0371724 to 1, enjoyed it. The cast were excellent. Perhaps it helps that I'm not a huge fan of the books but I don't think that's a serious issue. Contrary to a lot of people warning that it's been dumbed down, it goes so fast you have to be very alert to appreciate it. Example, late on in the film, Ford tells Zaphod that the job of President isn't to hold power, but to distract attention away from it, the line goes by in the blink of an eye and you have to be overclocked to catch it and digest it before you're on to the next lightening line. There is a lot of this. The bit about needing the Ultimate Question to understand the ultimate answer blasts past the audience in about three seconds. I expect that most people are lost about twenty-minutes into the movie.
The cast are excellent however. Arthur Dent gets a bit bold and intrepid towards the end and doesn't quite pull it off. Ford is quite alien, Malkovich is creepy and utterly pointless to the plot (and still isn't resolved at the end of the film)
To sum up, the film is a mess, a total mess, but I think my critical faculties fused at some point during the Dolphin musical number so I wasn't really in any fit state to complain. Boffo - a good one.
Addendum: It was really good to see Trillian played by someone so none-bimbo'ish. She was utterly convincing and wore cool socks.
Come on! You always have the choice to *not see* the movie.
Yes, and I'm free to complain about a world where the movie has to be avoided because it's no good. If I see a horrible mangling of something do I shrug my shoulders and say, they have a right to make crap movies? Perhaps people do, but it's irrelevant to the point of whether they should. It is my civic duty to point out such cases and say: "look here, you could have done better if you'd done x,y and z."
However, I was mainly addressing the previous poster's idea that a bad movie couldn't negatively affect your enjoyment of the book and clearly it could. I saw the film last night and enjoyed it (but not the plummy "I'm so English" Stephen Fry as narrator).
Yes, actually. A movie can spoil a book you've previously read. A movie presents powerful images that are difficult to un-see. If I re-read Hitchhiker's and I find that I'm hearing Douglas Adams' writing in Stephen Fry's voice, then that is definitely a negative. Worst voice of guide, ever (mainly if you're British).
But I would say that you would notice that it was a parody. I'd go so far as to say that to me it is pretty clearly a parody. So at what level do we pitch this? If there is this much allowance for people who do not notice then surely the law should err on the side of the observant? Or must satirists poll people to ensure they are targeting the lowest common denominator?
Addendum: I'm not calling the parent a "low-denominator" because he says it isn't immediately apparent that it is a parody to him. We all are familiar with different things, and as he says - once you read the articles it becomes apparent. So if you read the articles then you know it's a parody, and if you don't read the articles then what is Walmart concerned about... he's saving them bandwidth.
I work in the NHS and the muppets who wrote our critical mandated must-use clinical software wrote it so that it has to be run with local administrator privelages. Rrrrr.
Hmmm... IIRC this whole thread arose because many antecedent posts ago, you said that the anonymity of the Internet is a blessing, not a curse.
Hmmm, I haven't checked, but I think I just highlighted the advantages of anonymity. There are risks, but I think on-balance anonimity is a blessing not a curse. Bearing in mind that it is voluntary anonymity, of course.
Well, if you want to avoid 10 year olds, I'm sure
-H.
Of course an argument should stand on its own merit. I am merely observing a correlation that saves me from wasting some time.
Well put, but given that we are discussing Internet debate then it is probably quicker to identify poor reasoning than it is to reliably determine a poster's age. Unless we are suggesting age-limited forums, in which case we might want to move this argument from the highly-hypothetical realms and consider what effort would be required by actually implementing this, and weigh it against the trial of tolerating the legions of political ten year olds. Yes, I've fallen to exageration to make my point, but really, if a ten year old feels motivated to post opinions on political matters (let alone more than once), then fine by me. I'll just read the posts and value them accordingly.
First off, IANA10YO.
However, surely all of this is redundant. The original point was that an argument should stand on its own merit, not on your view of the one who makes it. If people are now arguing that ten year olds should be barred from the discussion because they can't make a strong argument then you've added a unnecessary extra layer. There are many reasons why someone might produce a weak argument and none of them would be without exception. So we should just come back to looking at an argument itself and saying, this makes sense or this does not.
And by the way, *cough*Ender's Game*cough*
Real Daleks don't use stairs, they just level the building.
I hope someone Mods you up because as you're AC some people might miss your reply. You make a very good counter to what I said, but I have a few answers for you.
The chief thrust of my argument should have been that debate in a written format is naturally less vulnerable to rhetoric (in the traditional sense) than confrontational argument in person. You are absolutely right that presuasive people can distort the truth by omissions, straw-man arguments and all the usual tricks. But the volume techniques of talking over them, interrupting, platform-hogging, threatening body-language, heckling, etc, are mitigated or annulled when debating in a near-essay style like us. Furthermore, much persuasive argument depends on the listener not being able to re-read and analyse what is said. If I slip a couple of body-blows that I couldn't justify into a larger argument against you, then conversationally, you can either try and nitpick (meaning you get hit by the big point) or let them slip through. Well, that still happens in a written format, but as I've said, it's mitigated.
I like your point about knowing the arguer being an important part of knowing whether to trust his or her arguments, but I think it is not a safe technique - we should relinquish our own judgement only as a last resort because those we trust can let us down. The Green Party in the UK had people join who were found to be members of the British Intelligence agency, as did CND. It is naive to think that there are not people out there smart enough to take this approach. There are also many people who, though genuinely sincere, I would rather not have on my side in an argument. The debate is what matters and where the source is important it should be referenced. In your example of the reports, I would expect both to be attributed to their sources before people were able to consider them as evidence.
Ultimately, the only way to reliably sway people to your argument, is to have a sufficiently educated and intelligent audience that they can see the rhetoric for what it is. This of course assumes that you are in fact right, but I think a conditon that favours this is a good thing. I believe this condition is enhanced on the Internet for the reasons above.
You have a valid point about people drowning others out - with sufficient motivation, a small group can sound large. But this is a problem with both modes of communication and in a written debate like this, they can at least not stop the other point of view from being put.
(Yes, I know I was taking that quote out of context.)
Damn right you were.
Addendum: I've re-read my post and realized that it comes across as if I were taking your post as a direct argument to mine and I realize that it wasn't. I agree with what you say, and am merely making a supplementary point that the anonymity is not (I believe) the problem it might seem. Essay style debate on the Internet (not IRC
This bill would make it illegal to discriminate against gays because they are gay, similar to how it is illegal to discriminate against women and minorities for that fact.
Are you kidding me? I've read half way through the comments here and it was only when I read yours that it actually sank in. Are you saying it's legal to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation over there? For example, could an employer say "We're firing you because you're gay" ? That's Dark Ages stuff.
Oddly, all the things you list as negatives, I think of as positive. The Internet stops you knowing if the person talking is a minor? Good - maybe we shouldn't use our age to discount opinions. Doesn't pay taxes in your area? Shouldn't matter - they still have to argue against the consequences to convince those who do. We should be able to accept the truth from Mickey Mouse if it is the truth. And likewise, we should be able to use rational argument against those who would otherwise use volume, intimidation or mobs to drown us out.
Reducing people to making their case in a written form where we can read at our own pace, re-read at our leisure and respond without the pressure of being interrupted, lays bare that which we should be basing our decisions on - the ideas and the logic, not the people.
And if I did give $10, there would still be someone dying because I didn't give $20.
Well, you have a point. Where on the Cheney-Jesus scale are we comfortable? And why? I think it's good to be made uncomfortable from time to time as you have done me - as you say, the fact that you could give $20 is a feeble excuse for not giving $10. I'm going to up my donations a little bit tonight.
Such a beautiful and touching commentary on love and sexuality from... "Mankey Wanker." ROFLMAO!!!
(Not knocking your message though. If ever there was a post many of the younger
We're talking about different things then. I'm talking about the code required to unlock encrypted information, NOT the photograph, which is most certainly not owned by anyone but the photographer.
One and the same - what good is owning something if the access to it is owned by someone else?
Just to be rebellious and show some faith in mankind, a google for 'Nikon' produces the two top news stories about this issue. A search for 'Nikon cameras' has a story about DMCA preventing Photoshop compatability in the first three. A a professional digital camera is an expensive piece of kit (at least to me) and I'd expect people to do a bit of research before they buy one. Maybe just maybe, people will hear the voices of many pissed off developers and question Nikon's direction. People can be frighteningly smart sometimes. I'm sure that some people in Nikon's marketing / PR department are having a pisser of a time right now.
There are children starving because of me. Dying. Seriously. I either have to not think, be okay with that, or go insane. I'm wavering between the first two.
Then I'm glad to offer you a way out: You could support: Oxfam, or Save the Children, or Medecins Sans Frontiers, or any of countless others.
Seriously, $10.00 can buy the antibiotics to save someone's life in for example, Bangledesh. Give that once a month and at the end of the year think to yourself there are twelve people alive because of you.
Sure, I'm preaching, but don't pretend there's nothing you can do.
I like plump. I guess I have normal "abnormal" image.
No you don't. The pressure on women to be skinny is huge, but it doesn't usually come from men. Yep - there are bastards who'll take the piss out a woman for being overweight, but the majority of men prefer a girl who has a little padding. This is shown again and again in surveys and anecdotally, but the fashion mags and the who's-shagging-who magazines are always full of article on weight-loss and which celebrity has (oh the Horror!) a bit of fat on some part of their body.
My belief is that it's just competitiveness. If average people could be considered sexy then where's the scope for women to put each other down? Once, pale was sexy, because if you weren't a spoilt rich woman, it was hard to avoid going out and getting a tan. Now tanned is sexy because it shows you can holiday somewhere sunny. And fat itself was sexy in leaner times. And through all these cultural shifts, men have still wanted exactly what they always want from women just the same. Best thing you can do is pay it no attention and be happy with your body. That's sexy, whining or worrying about it isn't.
Mod Parent: Non-Chinese +1
On-topic: Being your natural weight is what's healthy. Eat natural (i.e. traditional) food and always leave a little space in your stomach after a meal. Doesn't mean you'll be rake thin, but you'll be healthy.
But most countries are socialist-leaning, so I'm not surprised you think so lowly of people who actually have to "sing for their supper".
How is it that so many people in the US see everything in an axis of Capitalism-Socialism?
The situation is as follows: Restaurant owners make money from the work of waiting staff. However, the waiting staff are paid on the whim of the customer (with less than minimum wage from owner contribution). The restaurant owner is essentially getting a free ride from the waiting staff. The waiter or waitress has no security and never mind the fact that many of the factors that contribute to "good service" are outside of the waiting staff's hands. If the restaurant owner understaffs, serves bad food or hassles the waitress so that maybe she doesn't feel like smiling or flirting with a customer, then it's not his problem because he's not the one that will be short-changed.
There's a lot to be said for a system in which everyone knows how much they're getting paid and how much they're expected to pay.
Permissive parenting - bad
Children learn from their parents in many ways the parent doesn't expect. The problem with "permissive" parenting - if the parent has broad values then not necessarily any problem, but in this sense I think the meaning is submissive parenting - avoid confrontation even when you think the child is wrong. In this case, the child will learn the same pattern of behaviour, and will grow to not argue his case as a teenager. This leads to the low self-esteem etc, that you're talking about.
The authoritarian approach? Your child will learn that power equates to right, that the ability to punish replaces the need to justify.
The middle approach? Always speak up, never act without explanation. Listen to child so that child learns to use reason to get her way. Above all, avoid yelling and other resorts of force / power. 'Cause very soon, your child will be using the same techniques on you.
Metaphorical AND literal in this case. LOL!
Oh, I don't know about that... there are plenty of us who remember him well enough to want him out of British politics permanently. But then that's why he was handed the position in the EU - power without visibility. The hand of Tony Blair reaches far.
I want a color blind society. You can't get one of those by making distinctions based on color.
Amen! Racism is out of date and it's long overdue we moved on as a society.
Positive discrimination is a dubious area that I think is probably a bad thing for the ethnic groups that it's supposed to benefit. It's essentially a statement that people of that race require special favours, as if they can't get by on merit.
This is different to preventing negative discrimination however.
tell me why not hiring someone is such a gross violation of their basic rights that it requires legal action?
I believe that someone's ethnic group is not a factor in someone's capabilities. Therefore a society that makes decisions based on this is hamstringing itself. Illustration: There could be a black Einstein out there trying to get tenure and failing due to discrimination. But a less prejudiced society will be making maximum use of its members.
Moving to a more personal level, everyone should be given a fair chance and assessed on what they can actually do. This is fair and fair is good. Imagine walking into a company where everyone was of a different ethnic group than you and being told they didn't want you because of your skin colour. I'm not being rhetorical - really imagine it. You would be wanting (justifiably) to address this challenge.
Implementing laws that support this are difficult and sometimes counter-productive (see some of the efforts at positive discrimination), but there must be some attempt to address this as a society, because it is wrong.