beebarfbadger @ beebarfbadger @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

550

Joined

2 yr. ago

"These are my talking points. Go forth and parrot them."

"Amen!"

"Is that a whole egg in your mouth?"

"Hmm-mmm."

"Then whistle."

"..."

Well, SOMEONE is gonna have to make sacrifices and we all know that it can't be the rich guy, so...

It was meant to serve as an example for different treatment based on personal properties:

• different treatment based on the personal feature "age" being called age discrimination and
• different treatment based on the personal feature "race" being called racism.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm sorry, it didn't satisfy whatever additional objectives you're picking now, but then again it was never supposed to (and even if it did satisfy them, you'd just move that goalpost farther anyway).

(But not really)

your analogy is useless

Not quite, it did serve as another example of different treatment that is based on personal features. Mission 100% absolutely successful.

Well, maybe, but did you forget that he's rich?

Your argument basically boils down to they are both fruits, therefore apples also have a lot of vitamin C.

This is where you are wrong. My argument is and has always been "fruit a belongs in the category fruits, just like fruit b".

"Age discrimination consists of the following factors: [different treatment], [based on personal properties] - just like racism, which also consists of the following factors [different treatment], [based on personal properties]". Go look it up up there.

I don't know where you're pulling the assumption that I was ever saying anything different from, but that's all happening on your end.

"We wanna weaken ad blockers because we like money of security."

Okay, once again, to facilitate reading comprehension: I did not say that age discrimination and racial discrimination are exactly the same in all their aspects. Instead, I cited both as examples for

1. different treatment
2. based on personal attributes

In these categories, they are exactly alike. IN. THESE. CATEGORIES. they are the same (again: not in all other features).

I do recognise that there are also differences but IN TERMS OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED CRITERIA,

they

are

exactly

alike.

Yes, one is legal in a wider range of situations than the other. Also one starts with the letter R and the other starts with the letter A, so they are not exactly alike in that regard either, but they ARE both very much both a type of different treatment based on personal features that is rendered illegal by a number of laws (which is the context i used the comparison in up there). THAT group, they absolutely share.

Your objections amount to

"Apples and oranges are both fruits."

"No, they are NOT both fruits because one of them doesn't grow around here!"

Yes, they are indeed different, but the difference you insist on does not matter in how they are both examples of the group I mentioned; they both fall squarely into the category for which I cited them as examples. Just like in your example above

In the same way stealing a candy bar and murder aren’t analogous simply because they’re both illegal.

I am decidedly NOT saying that they are EXACTLY THE SAME, but if I were to enumerate examples of behaviors that are illegal in most cases, then yes, they would actually both fall into that category, despite having differences outside of that.

In conclusion: both examples of different treatment due to specific properties of people? Yes. Exactly the same? No and nobody claimed they were.

Well, then how about you read the other points that supplement that one factor sufficiently and explain that

example of that is that age can often be a permissible reason to differentiate, but race never is.

you are wrong in this regard.

Okay, let's go through the checklist:

Is age a possible criterion one can base the decision to treat someone differently on? Yes. Is this true for race? Also true. One can conceivably treat others differently due to their race.

Do such different treatments have specific names? Yes, age discrimination in one case, racism in the other.

Are there laws in place that forbid treating others differently due to their age in certain contexts? Yes, in the workplace for example, that is illegal. Are there laws in place that make treating others differently due to their race illegal? Yes, there are multiple contexts, where that is illegal.

Are there contexts where one can definitely make decisions based on race? Yes, absolutely - for example one can choose to not vote for a candidate due to their race (it's an absolutely irrational dick move, but no authority will sanction that decision). Can one consider age a disqualifying factor in certain decisions like for example voting, dating, etc too? Yes absolutely.

I don't see how that analogy is lacking in any way, except that the range of laws declaring each illegal differs, but you may not find another factor that has the exact same range of situations covered. What would you consider a better analogy that ticks all these boxes?

Now there's only the Irresponsible AI team left.

Age: can be a reason? Yes. Race: can be a reason? Yes.

In their can-it-be-a-reason property, they are identical - both can be reasons.

I honestly don't care whether they are good reasons or bad reasons each, you're mostly right in that discussion, but that is not part of this discussion.

We were in the legal definition of the term age discrimination, and what i said above is what's relevant there.

Race is a terrible analogy

But both can be reasons for different treatment and in that one particular feature, they are the same, thus the sound analogy.

Age discrimination (in a legal sense) is different treatment because one particular feature (age); racist discrimination is a different treatment because of a particular feature (race) as well.

In that they are the same, the different degrees of legality of both were not in question here.

By that definition, every choice is discrimination because any criteria you set necessarily excludes so other group.

Not quite. We got two factors here, one, the different treatment from other groups, yes. but the second factor - different treatment because of someone's age - limits it to cases of different treatment due to age. It's not age discrimination because someone else gets different treatment, it is age discrimination because age is the reason for that.

And that's why racism is an apt analogy, because that is one possible motivation for different treatment in someone's mind, just like age can be another reason. The different levels of scrutiny do not touch that. These come into play because proving such motivations in court is difficult and needs quasi-tangible standards, but what's being proved is that a factor (such as age, race, gender, etc) IS the main motivation in a case.

Possibly one of the most needlessly pedantic comments I’ve ever received.

Why, thank you, but be aware that flattery will get you nowhere.

Age discrimination is typically, almost entirely, discussed as a legal issue, most often within the arena of employment.

Alrighty, then let's look at your comment from the perspective of legality. Age discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee less favorably because of his or her age. That's the definition. Now if we were to continue here and expand our scope, we could state that this is illegal in working environments because - short version - there are laws making it so in the workplace, but that does not touch what is or isn't age discrimination. Since there are no laws declaring it illegal in an electoral context, age discrimination happening while voting is not illegal there, but it still very much is age discrimination. Just like in our previous example, not voting for a candidate because one doesn't like their race is still racism, but like above, it is not illegal because no law says it is.

True enough, not much difference in your conclusion because it is not a case of illegal age discrimination, but

I mean, it literally isn’t.

it literally is.

I mean, it literally isn’t. Voters can choose any criteria to choose their political candidate.

I don't want to pass any sort of judgement on whether it is or isn't age discrimination, but your way of arriving at this conclusion is flawed. It's like saying voters can choose all sorts of criteria to select their favourite, so going by the criterion of race can't be racism. Those possible criteria can have different names and descriptors, independent of whether they are possible or not.

How is age not relevant?

His age does indeed put him into a risk group for possible dementia, true, but the criterion disqualifying him would be if he specifically does have dementia or not - not his age. Young people can develop dementia with a certain probability too, that does not exclude young people, it only excludes young people who actually do develop dementia.

Why'd you have to go and insult animals?

Translation: "The legal system isn't sufficiently stacked in my favour anymore like all the previous hearings were, so somebody move to illegal means of nudging the results while I hide behind plausible deniability in saying that I did not mean that at all."