Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (112250)	6/2/2009 10:30:18 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541777

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, but that's still disdain and discrimination, it's just a passive version. It occurred at the same time as disdain, but its a separate thought, the disdain doesn't requite or imply it, and it doesn't require or imply disdain. When I demonstrate that it is, indeed, different treatment I've seen no such demonstration. "To bring back a previous analogy if a law outlawing begging was passed because of disdain for the poor..." The poor are not an immutable identity group. At least for purposes of the analogy, that doesn't matter. Arguably, the distinction may matter in that different treatment of, and/or different results for, an immutable group might be a more important issue, but the analogy isn't about how important the issue is, or whether what's being done is right or wrong, its directly about whether or not disdain makes what would otherwise be identical treatment in to different/non-equal treatment. It doesn't make it unequal treatment whether or not the group is immutable. Immutability doesn't change that, even if it changes the significance of unequal treatment when it does occur.