Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: This is why affirmative should remain in tact  (Read 25807 times)

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #80 on: August 29, 2007, 11:27:58 AM »
?????

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.

Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.

Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?


Because it still supports his position? 

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.

Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.

Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.

Did you quote a study? I don't remember you ever providing a link. And does this study compare single wonmen to married men. If so, it is an "apples to oranges" comparison.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #81 on: August 29, 2007, 09:50:43 PM »
The problem isn't that traditional roles are reality. The problem is the traditional roles are confining. And, "Or, maybe guys just don't want to work with argumentative women.  Go figure." is a sexist statement. It isn't that women are argumentative. The perception is that they are argumentative when they attempt to negotiate wages.

Well, I think Lindbergh agrees that traditional roles are confining. But you're attempting to argue that the pay differential is caused by discrimination. Lindbergh is saying that the pay differential is caused by women adhering to traditional roles.

Women may be adhering to these roles due to discrimination, or because they voluntarily accept these roles. But regardless, the fact is that these roles exist, and if a significant number of women are voluntarily adhering to them (that is, not adhering to them because other opportunities are closed by genuine discrimination), then this adherence would provide a non-discriminatory explanation for the pay differential. And that would refute your argument.

How can roles be confining if adherence is optional?  


Marriage is confining, but people choose adherence to it every day.

However, if you really believe it's only confining if it's non-optional, then I guess it's not truly confining.  After all, people generally voluntarily assume this role.

indeed.

Heck, any commitment you make (any option you choose) necessarily confines your options. Going to law school prevents me from doing other things, like joining the military or entering the movie industry. This should be pretty obvious.

Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #82 on: August 29, 2007, 09:55:48 PM »
?????

How are you defining competent?  If the AA policy in question is simply giving the nod to the minority/female when applicants are otherwise evenly matched, no one would oppose it.  But if you're selecting less-qualified people over more-qualified people, that's inevitably going to hurt the company somewhat.

How are you defining qualified?

The HR department for that company will have a better idea what constitutes "qualified" than any outside observer. Since the HR staff will be fired by upper management if they hire people who don't contribute at the level expected of them, the HR staff has a stronger incentive than an outside party to accurately gauge the qualifications of a candidate for the role being filled.

Furthermore, there may be attributes that are uniquely detrimental to the particular role being hired for. You probably wouldn't want to hire a narcoleptic to operate heavy machinery, or someone suffering from Tourettes to do sales calls. This negative human capital is more likely to be spotted by an HR staffer than by an outside party.

Basically, we shouldn't substitute what we think constitutes being "qualified" for what the HR staff thinks constitutes being "qualified," because if the hire is underqualified, it's the HR staffer that will get canned, not us.

Economics isn't the same thing as engineering.

And the fact that single female economics professors w/ PhD's earn slightly more than their male counterparts does support my argument that if you hold various other factors constant, the pay differential between sexes vanishes. This evidence doesn't conclusively prove my argument, but it certainly supports it by giving one instance where the observable consequences of the argument occur.

I didn't attempt to try and deductively prove my argument with my example, but merely gave an example that supports it.

My bad on the economics/egineering. Why would you give data to prove a point that can't be deductively proven?


Because it still supports his position? 

His original position is that MY argument is wrong. So no, his position isn't supported.

Your original argument was that the pay disparity was caused by discrimination, and you supported that conclusion with a study showing that female professors earn less than male professors. I counter-argued by saying that a study which held constant three non-discriminatory variables that would affect professorship pay (marital status, level of education, and field of education) showed that this disparity is non-existent when these 3 factors were held constant for single female PhD-holding economics professors.

Since your argument requires the existence of a pay disparity, and that evidence suggests that there is no disparity when you are comparing "apples to apples," this evidence undermines a premise crucial to supporting your argument.

Furthermore, this evidence directly supports my conclusion that there is no disparity when other influencing factors are controlled for. In fact, I'm basing my conclusion directly on what is shown by the study, which is why it makes no sense for you to assert that my conclusion is not supported by the study.

Did you quote a study? I don't remember you ever providing a link. And does this study compare single wonmen to married men. If so, it is an "apples to oranges" comparison.

I didn't quote a study, I mentioned a study that I found in a book. I've already explained this to you.

Since I don't own the book, nor live close to an English-language bookstore, I can't look up the study and provide you an explanation of its details.

If you're interested in reading the details of the study for yourself, I found it mentioned in the book "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy." I'm guessing that the study compared single women to single men, although since I don't have the book in front of me, I can't be sure.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #83 on: August 30, 2007, 02:32:22 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #84 on: August 30, 2007, 02:46:22 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."

H4CS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2527
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #85 on: August 30, 2007, 02:46:39 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #86 on: August 30, 2007, 02:48:21 AM »
Again, how can roles be confining if adherence is optional? 

Well, I just explained how. If I decide to go to work today, then I can't go to the beach during work hours (I don't work anywhere close to the beach).

In this example, I've taken the option of going to work. Therefore, I no longer have the option of going to the beach, confining my choices.

Going to work today allows me to draw a day's salary and maintains my relationships with my coworkers, which I think is more important than spending a weekday at the beach. But because I've chosen to go to work, I've confined my options, as I can no longer opt to go to the beach.

Your decision is only "confining" because you choose to adhere to it. Even after you've decided to go to work, if anytime you decide the beach is more appealing you can simply get up and leave. The option of going to the beach was never off the table and choosing to go to work was NEVER confining.

Conversely, if the beach had somehow been inaccessible or say you wanted to turn back time and change your decision, well those confinments won't allow you a choice.
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #87 on: August 30, 2007, 02:57:47 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #88 on: August 30, 2007, 02:58:46 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

I don't remember the author or title of the study, so how can I google the correct one?

I've never read anything written by Sowell that characterized AIDS as a "gay disease."

I know this is a messageboard and all, but come on. If you're gonna make an argument can you please quote some sources?  ;)
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.

7S

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Self-determination.
    • View Profile
Re: This is why affirmative should remain in tact
« Reply #89 on: August 30, 2007, 03:00:06 AM »
you can't google it?  ???

Isn't Thomas Sewell that same guy that perpetuates AIDS as a gay disease?

Yeah, that's him.  He's a generic hack.  He can't cut it in legit papers (you know, the ones that follow market principles and worry about the bottom line) so he publishes his tripe in right-wing jokes like the Washington Times that have money flowing in from their rightist backers and can credential jokers like Sowell.  When he's brought up in conversation, red flags go up in the minds of anyone with half a brain.  Doesn't mean it's not fun to play with Pseudo.  He's like a big, cuddly bull of dumb.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501050003

Oh, wonderful, the leftist troll is following me around and posting links to attack sites funded by left-wing extremists that attack the motives, rather than the arguments, of their ideological opponents.

Why don't you move to Venezuela or something?

aren't motives important?
It is easy to change the language of oppression without changing the sociopolitical situation of its victims.