"Refusing service" vs. "providing inferior service" — this may well be how the actual law is designed, but it is what I question, too, because to me, refused service looks like a degenerate case of inferior service. In fact, why limit the discussion to B2B or B2C: it's the general issue of discrimination. For example, the notion of gender pay gap is structurally very similar to inferior service. Furthermore, "financial incentives for abuse" is just one way of seeing things, another being "costs and/or risks". So the question here is why exactly addressing these costs and/or risks is considered abuse in the first place.
I'm opposed to all protected classes because their existence takes the freedom from private persons to non-violently associate or not associate with each other. Basically, anyone should be able refuse business to anyone else just as you can refuse sex to anybody for any reason, even if otherwise that person is fit for sex with you based on objective criteria, down to causing physically measurable sexual arousal in you.
Apart from that fundamental reason, there may be objective monetary and non-monetary costs and/or risks associated with any class you mention in various scenarios, and it's not obvious to me that it's ethical to force a party to incur or bear them. Take gender: one may want to avoid male babysitters for one's daughter expecting lower likelihood of sexual abuse in case of females (whether it's actually true, I don't know, but this it's not an unreasonable idea.) Or one may refuse to hire females to certain positions in the military because they're less physically fit for them.
I still really, honestly cannot see the basic difference. Both hosters and ISP do business, which (of course) costs money. Why shouldn't both be able to refuse or provide inferior service for any reason within the bounds of the law? Or why shouldn't both be forbidden from doing that? (First Amendment shouldn't apply to private entities, and not all ISP are monopolies, so monopoly is a different issue.)
Speaking of the law, "protected classes" are bullshit. They should be eliminated. Even disregarding the more fundamental and general reasons of individual freedom, this especially concerns religion, because nothing prevents it from including smth as bad as Nazi ideology as its part. The rules should not be different for any classes.
This. I wonder how many people who are for network neutrality at the same time support disconnecting someone they disagree with, such as white supremacists, racists, Nazis etc.
So, why would it not be natural to observe the types and percentages of violent crimes committed by "X" race/gender categories?
But I want my equal outcome! Hmmm, then maybe let's pretend some crime is not a crime if commited by race X and vice versa if it's about race Y. That'll sure eliminate all racism!
I'm trying to make a different point altogether. "Female drivers are bad (as drivers)" seems to be about an unprotected class but is really the same as "females are bad drivers", which is about a protected class.
The usual stereotype about female drivers is that most female drivers are bad. In other words, that females en masse are bad as drivers. I fail to see how it's not about a protected class, unless some other stereotype is meant here.
Yeah. Just found the list I'm talking about. It was different: damn (+ related) fuck (+ related) motherfucker bitch (+ related) ass (+ related) the "N" word
Once I saw a list of words that weren't allowed on some resource (a newspaper or some other website, cannot remember now). There was exactly one word that wasn't spelled as it is on that list, and it wasn't "fuck".
You're hasty with your conclusions. What if I hate whites and heteros for their privilege? Anyway, all I'm saying is that you should either or disallow discrimination in all of these areas to an equal extent.
Yep. There's nothing illogical. Private business, friendship, and sex are all types of voluntary exchange between humans (the voluntary part was something that I missed in the last comment). They should have an equal legal status, whatever that status may be.
Being a translator still kind of forces me onto Windows because of the lack of quality GUI OCR tools in the Linux ecosystem. (The commercial ABBYY engine does exist and is really not that expensive, but I need manual area selection and categorization, heuristics still suck big time.) That may change in the (not so distant) future but still is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're arguing that it's more or less about the degree of monopolization. That's a consistent approach.
"Refusing service" vs. "providing inferior service" — this may well be how the actual law is designed, but it is what I question, too, because to me, refused service looks like a degenerate case of inferior service. In fact, why limit the discussion to B2B or B2C: it's the general issue of discrimination. For example, the notion of gender pay gap is structurally very similar to inferior service. Furthermore, "financial incentives for abuse" is just one way of seeing things, another being "costs and/or risks". So the question here is why exactly addressing these costs and/or risks is considered abuse in the first place.
I'm opposed to all protected classes because their existence takes the freedom from private persons to non-violently associate or not associate with each other. Basically, anyone should be able refuse business to anyone else just as you can refuse sex to anybody for any reason, even if otherwise that person is fit for sex with you based on objective criteria, down to causing physically measurable sexual arousal in you.
Apart from that fundamental reason, there may be objective monetary and non-monetary costs and/or risks associated with any class you mention in various scenarios, and it's not obvious to me that it's ethical to force a party to incur or bear them. Take gender: one may want to avoid male babysitters for one's daughter expecting lower likelihood of sexual abuse in case of females (whether it's actually true, I don't know, but this it's not an unreasonable idea.) Or one may refuse to hire females to certain positions in the military because they're less physically fit for them.
I still really, honestly cannot see the basic difference. Both hosters and ISP do business, which (of course) costs money. Why shouldn't both be able to refuse or provide inferior service for any reason within the bounds of the law? Or why shouldn't both be forbidden from doing that? (First Amendment shouldn't apply to private entities, and not all ISP are monopolies, so monopoly is a different issue.)
Speaking of the law, "protected classes" are bullshit. They should be eliminated. Even disregarding the more fundamental and general reasons of individual freedom, this especially concerns religion, because nothing prevents it from including smth as bad as Nazi ideology as its part. The rules should not be different for any classes.
This. I wonder how many people who are for network neutrality at the same time support disconnecting someone they disagree with, such as white supremacists, racists, Nazis etc.
Yep. Just a clickbait. Saying as someone who is against this kind of taxes.
You could use a forwarder like MyUS.com, Shipito.com etc. — however, the warranty may not apply to you in that case.
So, why would it not be natural to observe the types and percentages of violent crimes committed by "X" race/gender categories?
But I want my equal outcome! Hmmm, then maybe let's pretend some crime is not a crime if commited by race X and vice versa if it's about race Y. That'll sure eliminate all racism!
They are afraid it will suppress "voters" that are not entitled to vote. Because it's "racist" or somesuch.
I'm trying to make a different point altogether. "Female drivers are bad (as drivers)" seems to be about an unprotected class but is really the same as "females are bad drivers", which is about a protected class.
The usual stereotype about female drivers is that most female drivers are bad. In other words, that females en masse are bad as drivers. I fail to see how it's not about a protected class, unless some other stereotype is meant here.
Yeah. Just found the list I'm talking about. It was different:
damn (+ related)
fuck (+ related)
motherfucker
bitch (+ related)
ass (+ related)
the "N" word
You mean, this GNAA thing has ever been a clever troll?
Once I saw a list of words that weren't allowed on some resource (a newspaper or some other website, cannot remember now). There was exactly one word that wasn't spelled as it is on that list, and it wasn't "fuck".
The fact that I'm CCing the boss says: 'I don't trust you' not 'you should feel less trusted'.
This. I mean, whoop-de-doo, not trusting someone makes them feel less trusted!
So you're able to predict that people who don't agree with you will come here.
Does that somehow mean that you're right and they are not?
Nope.
In Soviet Union, schematic diagrams were routinely included with consumer electronics.
Best comment.
Perhaps anything more complex than that is too complex for a leftist mind.
I think you meant sociophobic.
You're hasty with your conclusions. What if I hate whites and heteros for their privilege? Anyway, all I'm saying is that you should either or disallow discrimination in all of these areas to an equal extent.
Yep. There's nothing illogical. Private business, friendship, and sex are all types of voluntary exchange between humans (the voluntary part was something that I missed in the last comment). They should have an equal legal status, whatever that status may be.
There is no reason for this distinction. Selling and buying is just one possible type of exchange which is the general basis of human action.
N/T
Being a translator still kind of forces me onto Windows because of the lack of quality GUI OCR tools in the Linux ecosystem. (The commercial ABBYY engine does exist and is really not that expensive, but I need manual area selection and categorization, heuristics still suck big time.) That may change in the (not so distant) future but still is the case.
Does it work with non-English source documents while presenting the output in English?