Lawtonfogle

Reminds me of paying more for faster internet, yet the contract states they have to provide UP TO what ever speed. You can technically get less speed while paying more. Just another way companies write the contracts in their favor.

It wouldn't surprise me if this becomes the norm in any 'place in line' list with high value items. Companies would love the ability to offer the chance to consumers to put a down payment for a place in line while at the same time removing any liability in case they have to break that agreement.

I'm not one to believe the official explanations given. It is too easy to lie than to give the truth, even when that truth isn't bad. So I wouldn't put too much work into you being inexperienced. Instead, I would say that they had a different reason for not choosing you but that was the simplest lie they could come up with on the spot by looking over your resume.

Using person experience with light, I know there are times when I have to turn down the brightness of my laptop because it hurts to look at it, and their are times when I wish it could be made brighter because even at max it is hard to see. The former times happen at night when I have other lights off (and I hear the doctor telling me I shouldn't use my laptop like that) and the latter times happen in the day when the sunlight is very bright.

So to hear that someone who was in the dark is blinded by the light is not surprising.

But, it does sound like there was a second factor, which is that he also saw a greater ugliness in people that he hadn't seen before. It sounds like he had a sense of naivety that hadn't been seen before.

So really, this is less like walking out of a dark room into bright sunlight and more like walking out of a dark room into sunlight illuminating a tragic accident.

Blaming B for discrimination done by A only makes B less likely to care.

Another poster has raised the claim that this only holds true for questions related to certain time frames.

But even ignoring that and assuming this was fully for racist reasons, should that have any impact on those choosing to hire people? Even if the justice system is racist, that is a problem that belongs to the justice system.

The time would be better spent redoing the scientist's work.

>But how would a judge have the technical know-how to make that determination?

They would ask a jury of people not sly enough to get out of jury duty (maybe with one or two people who are there because they want to do their civil duty). It will not be your peers, but it will be your peers as the government determines.

totalitarian

>of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

When the rule of law says obey or else, then it is totalitarian. You can't just point at some other government and say "But they are worse."

Can the court order you to do something you don't know how?

If you can show these people would know how to do it, then it must be common enough knowledge that the courts could find someone else.

If it is highly specialized knowledge that only these people might even know, then you can't prove that they do know how to do it.

Either way, you can't justify forcing them to do it. And it is if we are even fine with slavery to begin with, which I'm not.

If the context is relevant, it needs to be explicitly denoted. To otherwise expect context to matter when it cannot be made part of the argument is special pleading. Even if it is popular to use special pleading in day to day life does not mean we should accept it as valid.

So is adding more protected classes progress in all cases, are are there certain criteria as to what counts as a protected class? And is this really progress (imagine how protected classes works in certain jobs related to the sex industry), you are basically overriding a persons ability to consent, and even if the action is only something physical, is it really progress for the government to force consent under threat?

And maybe we could even break it down. Maybe protected classes for employment is great and maybe protect classes for service aren't. Or maybe protected classes for employment is actually regressive because it is endorsement of all the factors you can discriminate on. For example, orientation isn't a protect class (at least not federally), and thus in many places is legal to discriminate based on. Perhaps progress would be that employment discrimination is only allowed for factors actually relevant to the job, and adding protected classes is a regression from this.

How does one measure social progress? Without an agreed upon definition of what is forward, how can we label something back?

>So now those same security people caused a considerably greater threat to national security.

The logic here is that one adult's actions can be blamed on a second adult if the second adult doesn't allow the first one to get their way. Now imagine applying that to other situations.

You cannot have a right to rebel against that which grants the rights. If the government is what grants rights, then there is no problem with any rights violation as long as they declare you don't have that right.

But we tend to agree that rights are not granted by the government, and while we may not agree what does grant it, the right to rebel against that which does not grant rights does still exist.

>It isn't that they don't care

They don't care. While Oliver was able to ask questions to revoke a current response, you could ask similar questions that preyed upon the 'anything to catch the bad guy' mentality and you would see people handing over their rights. The core of this is that the people have been conditioned to hand over their rights and have been conditioned to not realize they are even doing such. Oliver exposed the latter, but the former still exists.

>Long ago, Rosa Parks declined to give up her seat on the bus in favor of a white passenger.

And before her others did the same (such as Claudette Colvin), but they weren't considered sympathetic enough, and so nothing happened. We need to remember that Parks was a calculated political tactic, less we find ourselves with a bunch of Colvins and not a single Parks.

>but tax payers around the world are thankful for having to pay additional taxes for your privilige.

Those tax payers should be thanking their law makers who allow for entities within their jurisdiction to make use of laws elsewhere to avoid local laws.

If I had some process that fit male candidates far better than female candidates, with no clear benefit compared to other processes that had less of a biased fit, would that be a problem?

>Sure, they also interview older middle-aged candidates but the benchmark tolerance for hoop-jumping is set by the 22-year olds therefore you won't get sympathy from employers about disrupting your life to stay in the running.

So basically they find a legal way to discriminate against older candidates?

>3. 2-week paid trial doing real work.

That could work for those without a job, but if I'm securely in a job, if I'm going to be switching to a 2 week contract, there needs to be a significant bonus attached.

To answer his question, we don't. I am so sick of them using this as a justification for stripping away all rights that I'm ready to apply first amendment protections to all digital data to stop this Trojan horse.

Yes, there are bad people doing bad things. But we are enabling much worse people to do much worse things trying to stop the bad people (also, if you make it so the low handing fruit of people who only possess digital data can no longer be used to score political points and to give the appearance of helping, it could force law enforcement to dedicate even more resources to the producers, thus being a win for both freedom and for the innocents needing protection).

>You, the people choose the government

We do not. Simple as that.

I'm not sure how much of this is on John Oliver's show and how much of this is due to his followers, but the sentiment to pick on Trump because his last name used to be different when his father immigrated. Imagine if conservatives found that Sanders originally had a more ethnic sounding name and made fun of that... would that have been treated the same? I don't think so.

>Having been on both sides of some of John's issues, I have to say that he is a master of making you think you understand an issue, when in fact you are carefully sealed off from getting even a whiff of what the other side's points may be, with snark and mockery substituted instead.

It is like the people who, when asked about why some thing should be, they respond "Because it is 2016!" And all their supporters laugh and agree and think the argument has been made. Both sides are really strongly set on talking past each other, and on some issues they are often far closer in opinion than they would ever be willing to admit (especially after all the extreme rhetoric was thrown around).

And my absolute favorite, when you make a careful comparison between two issues to show a comparable line of reasoning, a lot of people will just go "They aren't comparable." No discussion, no attempt to explain why they are different, and if you can manage to get them to keep going, you are going to be swimming in a flood of logical fallacies.

Has any study shown this as a causation, or only a correlation?

Police has no requirement to protect. Also, there are people who live in areas where the police response time is 1+ hours even for the most drastic issues.

You can communicate with your bank safely, you'll just be limited in ways to do so. Just like without guns, you can still defend yourself from a home intruder, but you are limited. To my knowledge, there is not a right to be able to communicate securely using the internet.

>I don't think anyone believes this (correct me if I'm wrong).

While not exactly what you wrote, people do think that someone is a genius at some subject can become a genius at another area with less work than it took for someone in either field to originally become a genius at that field, especially society groups the areas together (so sports star becoming master programmer is far less likely to be believed than chess master becoming master programmer).

I was talking about different forms of gun violence. Namely, bigger, scarier, more powerful weapons are the least likely to be used in a crime but which receive the most regulations. Such as 'assault weapon' laws which ignore all the handguns used in gang violence.

I remember reading a story about farmers who like to play farming simulator games in their off time and truck drivers who like truck driving games. It was kinda weird, but it seems that people who found employment with something they enjoy will have fun playing games simulating their day jobs but without the stress and consequences (and annoying bits that reality forces us to deal with).