Customer Service...

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Companies must meet 'equal' hiring practices. And I can tell when someone is black or not over the phone, based on accent alone.

Letter of the law states that all companies must hire without regard to race, gender, sexual preference, or creed. What's so wrong with that? If people are being hired to meet a quota, then I will be angry. If they are being hired with a blind eye to all but their job qualifications, then we are where we should be.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Letter of the law states that all companies must hire without regard to race, gender, sexual preference, or creed. What's so wrong with that? If people are being hired to meet a quota, then I will be angry. If they are being hired with a blind eye to all but their job qualifications, then we are where we should be.

You see, egalitarian wisdom such as "all companies must hire without discriminating base don race, gender, sexual preference, or creed" is confusing. This assumes that companies will hire the best man for the job, yet hiring the best man for the job is itself discrimination. One cannot do anything without somehow in some way discriminating against someone else. That is a natural human thing, a cognitive ability to differentiate. That above statements shows the idiocy of government policy in creating "equality", by stating some ambiguous phrase and assuming that the companies will not hire based on those criteria. How do we know that someone doesn't disriminate? Are we psychic to somehow tap into the mind of every employer and see their true motive of why they hired certain people?

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You see, egalitarian wisdom such as "all companies must hire without discriminating base don race, gender, sexual preference, or creed" is confusing. This assumes that companies will hire the best man for the job, yet hiring the best man for the job is itself discrimination.

What are you talking about? "All companies must hire without discriminating race, gender, sexual preference, or creed" does not say "do not make any discriminations." It says "do not make any discriminations based on race, gender, sexual preference, or creed." Find a new premise.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked What the fuhck are you talking about? "All companies must hire without discriminating race, gender, sexual preference, or creed" does not say "do not make any discriminations." It says "do not make any discriminations based on race, gender, sexual preference, or creed." Find a new premise.

That's precisely what it means. If you can't offer anything offer any insights other than "find a new premise" you might as well not post.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That's precisely what it means. If you can't offer anything offer any insights other than "find a new premise" you might as well not post.

You see, egalitarian wisdom such as "all companies must hire without discriminating base don race, gender, sexual preference, or creed" is confusing. This assumes that companies will hire the best man for the job, yet hiring the best man for the job is itself discrimination. One cannot do anything without somehow in some way discriminating against someone else. That is a natural human thing, a cognitive ability to differentiate. That above statements shows the idiocy of government policy in creating "equality", by stating some ambiguous phrase and assuming that the companies will not hire based on those criteria. How do we know that someone doesn't disriminate? Are we psychic to somehow tap into the mind of every employer and see their true motive of why they hired certain people?

The core arguement of your post directly above this text is a nonsensical connection that I showed in the following post:

"All companies must hire without discriminating race, gender, sexual preference, or creed" does not say "do not make any discriminations." It says "do not make any discriminations based on race, gender, sexual preference, or creed." Find a new premise.

This is an insight good enough to post. I know I can find far more useless things in your catalogue of commentary.

[patlajan]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You see, egalitarian wisdom such as "all companies must hire without discriminating base don race, gender, sexual preference, or creed" is confusing. This assumes that companies will hire the best man for the job, yet hiring the best man for the job is itself discrimination. One cannot do anything without somehow in some way discriminating against someone else. That is a natural human thing, a cognitive ability to differentiate. That above statements shows the idiocy of government policy in creating "equality", by stating some ambiguous phrase and assuming that the companies will not hire based on those criteria. How do we know that someone doesn't disriminate? Are we psychic to somehow tap into the mind of every employer and see their true motive of why they hired certain people?

OK OK I think I can trnaslate this one: "Bla bla bla I think I'm superior to all and will always get picked first. Screw everyone else they're llamas. " Clear case of Nietzsche syndrome.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked The core arguement of your post directly above this text is a nonsensical connection that I showed in the following post:



This is an insight good enough to post. I know I can find far more useless things in your catalogue of commentary.

You're gettin repetitive. Now all you're doing is posting quote and quote. It's better for you to address my post as it is, then to resort to evasive tactics of "find a new premise". I'm left wondering what the hell you're arguing about.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse You're gettin repetitive. Now all you're doing is posting quote and quote. It's better for you to address my post as it is, then to resort to evasive tactics of "find a new premise". I'm left wondering what the hell you're arguing about.

It is not an evasive tactic. I invalidated your post; that was the point. The only reason I quoted so much is because you were ignoring what has already been written. You are left wondering for one of two reasons: either your mental handicap prevents you from understanding or you are a big fan of "wondering." My diction and purpose were very clear. If your lack of understanding was not so repetitive, my explanations would not be either.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked It is not an evasive tactic. I invalidated your post; that was the point. The only reason I quoted so much is because you were ignoring what has already been written. You are left wondering for one of two reasons: either your mental handicap prevents you from understanding or you are a big fan of "wondering." My diction and purpose were very clear. If your lack of understanding was not so repetitive, my explanations would not be either.

When did you invalidate the post? The point I made is companies are forced and told by Big Brother to "not discriminate" based on this or that criteria, yet everything we do is discriminatory, discrimination is a natural thing. Let's refrain from making obtuse statements, shall we?

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse When did you invalidate the post? The point I made is companies are forced and told by Big Brother to "not discriminate" based on this or that criteria, yet everything we do is discriminatory, discrimination is a natural thing. Let's refrain from making obtuse statements, shall we?

Exactly my point. "Big Brother" says not to descriminate on this or that but does not necessarily prohibit the other.