Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Well thanks for not burning the thread down while I was gone guys, but it appears the thread's tracks are now on the moon.

It was running the great wall of China for a while, but after Someone linked the actual Holy books it started going into orbit. At this rate it's escape the Earth's gravity entirely.

You cannot escape Earth's gravity, or anything else's gravity. All matter is gravitationally affected by all other matter, regardless of distance, though eventually the pull becomes infinitesimal compared to closer objects.

It will when it escapes the Universe (of Cultures)

And it could easily do that.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Since it IS a crime in some countries, did you mean to make another more sensible statement, like "It shouldn't be a crime because"?

Not hiring a person is a crime in some countries? Doubt it. Not hiring a specific kind of person is a crime in some countries and this is a clear discrimination and inequality in the eyes of Law (either not hiring any person on any job he\she desired is a crime or it's not a crime to not hire any person) So it shouldn't be a crime
I find it funny how fight with discrimination is turned into descrimination, and how Western European tolerance turned into intolerance to intolerant people

Because people disagree about what's wrong or right, and people disagree about whether or not something is wrong ENOUGH to be a crime, but the actuality of whether something is against the law or not is a simple fact.

My opinion is that crime\not crime should be based on violation of rights, not on morals, because morals are subjective.... Yes, problems with interpretation exist. Problems with priority exist  (Like abortion issue: Who's right to defend? Women's or unborn child's)  Problem with what rights should be granted exist. No easy stuff here

Before anyone brings that, refusal to hire anyone is not violation of right to work, because right to work isn't the same to right to get any work person wants.

Also, are you saying the population of a country shouldn't have any legal recourse for modifying their own country to be a superior culture?

I am quite confused by the question...
Everyone should be equal in the eyes of law
The only division that really should exist inside the country is citizen\not citizen  else countries may very well not exist...
Edit: Important. In my sets of beliefs groups of people can have shared rights, like the right to have own self governed country for ethnic groups

[10ebbor10]

•Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

You're not allowed to not hire people just because of their gender, race, or any other status that isn't relevant to their competence in the job.

On the other side, you got people who're proposing to implement quotas (Ie, you must higher at least 20% women, or I dunno, stuff like that), which well, doesn't work out. You shouldn't force companies to hire people*, but you can't prevent them from ignoring people for arbitrary reasons. After all, if you leave said hole open, it forms a source for corruption and other problems.


*We have a similar system for public contracts, where the government is forced to use the cheapest contract that promises to fulfill the contractual obligations. Didn't quite work out. We got trains that were rusting before they arrived, spontaneously ignited, spontaneously fell apart, and had their important parts exposed to the outside.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

You're not allowed to not hire people just because of their gender, race, or any other status that isn't relevant to their competence in the job.

And exactly what right set in the UN declaration is violated?  I think this?

Article 23.
 (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
 (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
 (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
 (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

I think exactly this part?

to free choice of employment

Problem is that if you want to interpret it in a way that person should be allowed to work whenever he wants, I can say my right for free choice of employment is violated because I want to be NASA astronaut
Free here is not - allowed to work in any place person wants, but - not forced to work at some place.

Also, due to USSR pressure, UN declaration has no adequate private property rights section. Like the necessary  right to deny access to your private property, that very well includes own business.

[10ebbor10]

Nope I said:

You're not allowed to not hire people just because of their gender, race, or any other status that isn't relevant to their competence in the job.

Meaning that well yes, I think it's discriminatory for NASA to only hire American citizens, but well, they got tons of other grounds to disqualify people on. Stuff that actually matters to a spaceprogram.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

UN declaration says Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment

Everyone, you see? EVERYONE. No adequately skilled, no suited for the job  Just everyone

[MonkeyHead]

Yea, I have the right to choose what jobs to apply for, and be considered for any job. Doesnt mean that the job has to given to me though.

However, what the right in question means IMHO is that nobody has the right to say to me "From now until the day you die, you will be a rice farmer" - instead I get to choose what I pursure, regardless of if I will manage to attain a position or not.

Anyway, I am also opting out of posting in this thread until it approaches something more resembilng what it was intended to discuss. I accept that I played a big part in the derail, and apologize for doing so. Until the discussion moves on from the current model of many people banging thier heads against a smaller number of walls which refuse to budge from its position despite many points being made all suggesting the walls should be at least a little flexible, I will watch, with popcorn, but hold my tounge to save myself the range caused by daring to dip my toe in.

[Descan]

I live in a pretty multicultural city, near an even more multicultural city, in a multicultural country.

Quite frankly, there's been little to no problems related to it, everyone gets along fairly well. In "Chinatown" maybe half the people are "asian" (let alone Chinese only) and the rest are other ethnicities. It's not segregation (self or otherwise) so much as "If you can only speak Chinese, there's a place for you to thrive". As in, Chinese (and english) signage, workers, foods and such. Kind of acclimatising to Canada, ya know? Aside from like, 60-70 year old Chinese who've been there all their life, most of them are recent immigrants from what I can tell.

I'm pretty sure it's the same elsewhere in the city. Kind of like a stopping-off area before they intregate into the larger "multicultural" landscape.

Of course, to me "multicultural" is a nebulous term. To me it's more of a stance that as long as you obey the law and pay your applicable taxes, it doesn't matter what you do. And the benefits are that if you don't feel like you belong to a culture (Like I don't. I like a lot of stuff but I don't do anything consciously because "That's what Scots'/Canadians" do) you can feel free to basically shop around :3

[Leafsnail]

UN declaration says Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment

Everyone, you see? EVERYONE. No adequately skilled, no suited for the job  Just everyone

I think what you're trying to say is "I don't understand how rights work".

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Leafsnail, I understand how rights work quite well, if you don't see that post was full of obvious sarcasm.
________________________________
OK, going from another direction on the work rights issue

1) Do you agree that I have a right to have private property: Yes\no?
2) Do you agree that I have a right to not let anyone* enter into my house for whatever arbitrary reason: Yes\no?. 
3) Do you agree that I have a right to hire... let's say housemaid to work in and use whatever arbitrary reasons I want to deny applicants?: Yes\no. If no: Why it's different to 2?
4) Do you agree that I have a right to setup workshop in my house hire several workers,  and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny applicants? Yes\no? If no why it's different to 3?
5) Do you agree that I have a right to buy a building, setup factory here, start hiring workers to work on it, and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny applicants? If no, why it's different to 4?

*but government officials  in some special cases

[Graknorke]

The reason why 3, 4 and 5 and no is because it's the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_employment_equality_law
You're not allowed to turn people down unless it's related to their ability at the job.

[10ebbor10]

3,4,5 Negative

For what other reason would you want to have this "right" than to discriminate people. It only enforces stereotypes, problems and ethnic discrimination.

Because well, If you answer 5 positive, well then
6 ) Do you agree that I have a right to buy a building, setup a restaurant there and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny possible clients? If no, why it's different to 5?
7 ) Do you agree that when I exercise a profession, I may use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny possible clients? If no, why it's different to 6?
8 ) Do you agree that when I exercise a profession, I may use whatever arbitrary reasons to determine how much I want to be payed? If no, why it's different to 7?
...
X ) If the people are allowed to do this, why not the government. ((Hello apartheid))

[LordSlowpoke]

So far, in the spirit of the free market, I find myself answering everything with a yes. Except Ebbor's X. Why? Because democracy, also taxes. Don't want to provide service, don't take payment (taxes) for it - simple as this.

[GlyphGryph]

1) Do you agree that I have a right to have private property: Yes\no?

A limited right, as enshrined in general law. You have the right to possess property. You do not have the right to possess any property you want, you do not have the right to possess particular property under specific circumstances, and you don't have the right to maintain possession of property if you demonstrate that you are unable to be responsible with it, or if the law decides that we're better off with you not possessing the property. The last bit certainly gets us into some stick situation in regards to things like Eminent Domain, but if you're arguing that an absolute right to personal property is something people SHOULD have that's different than agreeing that it is something anyone DOES have. So the answer is: Yes, technically, you have a right to own personal property, but no, not really to the extent your statement seems to apply. It's not a general right to personal property if it's conditional, is it?

2) Do you agree that I have a right to not let anyone* enter into my house for whatever arbitrary reason: Yes\no?.

Certainly not. You're not allowed to let yourself (or anyone else) enter a house you own but which you are currently letting, without reason and advanced notice. You are not allowed to prevent those authorized by a court warrant to search your house from doing so. You are not allowed to allow people to enter your home in order to conduct illegal activity. You are not allowed to kick out tenants or dependents without notice, or deny them the ability to return and gather their belongings. I think all of these are good things.

3) Do you agree that I have a right to hire... let's say housemaid to work in and use whatever arbitrary reasons I want to deny applicants?: Yes\no. If no: Why it's different to 2?

No. I said no for 2 as well, though. This one is simply practical application of logic, though. If it's against the law, it's a crime, which means it's obviously not a right now is it?

4) Do you agree that I have a right to setup workshop in my house hire several workers,  and use whatever arbitrary reasons to deny applicants? Yes\no? If no why it's different to 3?

See (3)

[Ukrainian Ranger]

To not derail thread further: http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=126782.0