What? Why? Get the best workers for the job. Full stop. Special privileges for any group of people treated as a collective, rather than as individuals, is disgusting.
Best is subjective at best. Hence the reason companies diversify. They want to get variance in terms of thought patterns. Picking the same people from the same backgrounds has the potential to limit creativity. This is part of what qualified women and minorities bring to the table that white males do not bring to the table. People from the same backgrounds tend to solve problems and think in the same ways when all problems are not effectively solved best from the same creative thought process.
Best is subjective at best. Hence the reason companies diversify. They want to get variance in terms of thought patterns. Picking the same people from the same backgrounds has the potential to limit creativity. This is part of what qualified women and minorities bring to the table that white males do not bring to the table. People from the same backgrounds tend to solve problems and think in the same ways when all problems are not effectively solved best from the same creative thought process.
I'm well aware of the arguments. When you really get down to it, it amounts to pandering.
Sure. Why don't you tell me exactly how that works...
1. Who elected the people in charge of human rights?
2. Which person or people are responsible for enforcing human rights?
3. What are the penalties for violating one's human rights?
Elected? We have a bill of rights because the US believes that there are basic human rights that people have. Additionally, does someone need to be elected to assert their human rights or human rights on the behalf of others? What do you expect the human rights group to be doing if a company isn't in compliance with basic human rights? While you are asking these non-sensical questions, you could go to the source for answers. This organization is rating companies based on their human rights records. That in and of itself could be reward/punishment and enforcement....
Wow. You are in so much denial, that you are conflating the existence of the concept of Human Rights by conflating it with governmental bodies.
Read that Wikipedia article I posted to you, or don't.
But if you think your time is better spent reading National Review and Breitbart go ahead.
We know the US Constitution limits the US Federal government to protect certain rights of US citizens.*
You continue to claw and fight against answering these questions: Since both the definition of "human rights" is open-ended and ill-defined, what does it legally mean? Where are the mechanisms to protect alleged "human rights" and who is responsible?
Whatever mechanisms are in place are hopelessly political and unevenly applied.
( *and some rights of non-citizens within our territorial borders)
No I didn't. I thought my interpretation of your words was an upgrade to your lazy cliched response of belittling a Wikipedia entry because it wasn't from National Review or Rush Limbaugh.
But you know that if I posted some academic papers, you two could dismiss them as not being National Review, Storm Front or Maha Rushi. Right?
I'm well aware of the arguments. When you really get down to it, it amounts to pandering.
So when these groups were historically discriminated against even when they were the most qualified in favor of straight white men I guess that was pandering too? In the case of the human rights organization it's not pandering. The truth is that people from different backgrounds have a different perspective on things and can help people around them to solve problems in unique ways. The reverse is also true.
Every time life throws someone other than a straight white guy a bone the bigots come out in full force claiming that xyz women and minorities aren't competent. I see a zillion straight white guys in positions and they are terrible at their jobs.
Elected? We have a bill of rights because the US believes that there are basic human rights that people have. Additionally, does someone need to be elected to assert their human rights or human rights on the behalf of others? What do you expect the human rights group to be doing if a company isn't in compliance with basic human rights? While you are asking these non-sensical questions, you could go to the source for answers. This organization is rating companies based on their human rights records. That in and of itself could be reward/punishment and enforcement....
but continue your mental masturbation.
The US has a Bill of Rights. Our laws do not apply to the entire human race. If the US Bill of Rights is core to the argument in support of "human rights" then there is no argument. You've lost.
No I didn't. I thought my interpretation of your words was an upgrade to your lazy cliched response of belittling a Wikipedia entry because it wasn't from National Review or Rush Limbaugh.
And again we see a refusal to communicate intelligently. Enjoy!
No I didn't. I thought my interpretation of your words was an upgrade to your lazy cliched response of belittling a Wikipedia entry because it wasn't from National Review or Rush Limbaugh.
But you know that if I posted some academic papers, you two could dismiss them as not being National Review, Storm Front or Maha Rushi. Right?
Ah, the time-honored "broad brush" ad hominem attack. It's an oldie, but still popular.
So when these groups were historically discriminated against even when they were the most qualified in favor of straight white men I guess that was pandering too? In the case of the human rights organization it's not pandering. The truth is that people from different backgrounds have a different perspective on things and can help people around them to solve problems in unique ways. The reverse is also true.
Every time life throws someone other than a straight white guy a bone the bigots come out in full force claiming that xyz women and minorities aren't competent. I see a zillion straight white guys in positions and they are terrible at their jobs.
You're making an assumption that is unprovable (see bold text).
I personally believe in the value of a wide variety of opinions, however I believe the individual is far more important than a collective. If I hire you because you are Chinese, or black, or from Wyoming instead of because you are qualified, that's wrong.
Not quite sure why Apple's apparent performance regarding this metric is being spun into something bad or illegitimate.
smh
Possibly because it's based on discriminatory, collectivist ideas? "Human rights" is a phrase that is oft repeated, yet it is meaningless and considering the real subject of the scoring is political and in support of LGBT issues, not "humans" in general. It's a bit like giving our president the Nobel Peace Prize just before he drags us into another war...it's just posturing.
"Human Rights" and "Equality", the top two propaganda terms of our time. Forget about human rights or equality if you're conservative, heterosexual, Christian, and male. Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) are fully on the side of repression when it comes to these undesirable groups.
And WTF is wrong with you? :mad:
I don't these people that think others wanting equal rights means their rights are being taken away. Oh, you can't publicly bash people who aren't white, conservative, heterosexual, Christian males like you could in the good ol' days when those people knew their place in society. **** YOU. **** YOU ALL!
Comments
Thanks. I know. I had to do something simple for him.
Sure. Why don't you tell me exactly how that works...
1. Who elected the people in charge of human rights?
2. Which person or people are responsible for enforcing human rights?
3. What are the penalties for violating one's human rights?
I think you may have misinterpreted something.
Sure. Why don't you tell me exactly how that works...
1. Who elected the people in charge of human rights?
2. Which person or people are responsible for enforcing human rights?
3. What are the penalties for violating one's human rights?
Your posts are exercises in intellectual masturbation.
Your posts are exercises in intellectual masturbation.
What does your non-answer indicate? A failure to launch or a failure to think?
What? Why? Get the best workers for the job. Full stop. Special privileges for any group of people treated as a collective, rather than as individuals, is disgusting.
Best is subjective at best. Hence the reason companies diversify. They want to get variance in terms of thought patterns. Picking the same people from the same backgrounds has the potential to limit creativity. This is part of what qualified women and minorities bring to the table that white males do not bring to the table. People from the same backgrounds tend to solve problems and think in the same ways when all problems are not effectively solved best from the same creative thought process.
Sure. Why don't you tell me exactly how that works...
1. Who elected the people in charge of human rights?
2. Which person or people are responsible for enforcing human rights?
3. What are the penalties for violating one's human rights?
Wow. You are in so much denial, that you are conflating the existence of the concept of Human Rights by conflating it with governmental bodies.
Read that Wikipedia article I posted to you, or don't.
But if you think your time is better spent reading National Review and Breitbart go ahead.
Best is subjective at best. Hence the reason companies diversify. They want to get variance in terms of thought patterns. Picking the same people from the same backgrounds has the potential to limit creativity. This is part of what qualified women and minorities bring to the table that white males do not bring to the table. People from the same backgrounds tend to solve problems and think in the same ways when all problems are not effectively solved best from the same creative thought process.
I'm well aware of the arguments. When you really get down to it, it amounts to pandering.
Sure. Why don't you tell me exactly how that works...
1. Who elected the people in charge of human rights?
2. Which person or people are responsible for enforcing human rights?
3. What are the penalties for violating one's human rights?
Elected? We have a bill of rights because the US believes that there are basic human rights that people have. Additionally, does someone need to be elected to assert their human rights or human rights on the behalf of others? What do you expect the human rights group to be doing if a company isn't in compliance with basic human rights? While you are asking these non-sensical questions, you could go to the source for answers. This organization is rating companies based on their human rights records. That in and of itself could be reward/punishment and enforcement....
but continue your mental masturbation.
Wow. You are in so much denial, that you are conflating the existence of the concept of Human Rights by conflating it with governmental bodies.
Read that Wikipedia article I posted to you, or don't.
But if you think your time is better spent reading National Review and Breitbart go ahead.
We know the US Constitution limits the US Federal government to protect certain rights of US citizens.*
You continue to claw and fight against answering these questions: Since both the definition of "human rights" is open-ended and ill-defined, what does it legally mean? Where are the mechanisms to protect alleged "human rights" and who is responsible?
Whatever mechanisms are in place are hopelessly political and unevenly applied.
( *and some rights of non-citizens within our territorial borders)
I think you may have misinterpreted something.
No I didn't. I thought my interpretation of your words was an upgrade to your lazy cliched response of belittling a Wikipedia entry because it wasn't from National Review or Rush Limbaugh.
But you know that if I posted some academic papers, you two could dismiss them as not being National Review, Storm Front or Maha Rushi. Right?
I'm well aware of the arguments. When you really get down to it, it amounts to pandering.
So when these groups were historically discriminated against even when they were the most qualified in favor of straight white men I guess that was pandering too? In the case of the human rights organization it's not pandering. The truth is that people from different backgrounds have a different perspective on things and can help people around them to solve problems in unique ways. The reverse is also true.
Every time life throws someone other than a straight white guy a bone the bigots come out in full force claiming that xyz women and minorities aren't competent. I see a zillion straight white guys in positions and they are terrible at their jobs.Elected? We have a bill of rights because the US believes that there are basic human rights that people have. Additionally, does someone need to be elected to assert their human rights or human rights on the behalf of others? What do you expect the human rights group to be doing if a company isn't in compliance with basic human rights? While you are asking these non-sensical questions, you could go to the source for answers. This organization is rating companies based on their human rights records. That in and of itself could be reward/punishment and enforcement....
but continue your mental masturbation.
The US has a Bill of Rights. Our laws do not apply to the entire human race. If the US Bill of Rights is core to the argument in support of "human rights" then there is no argument. You've lost.
And again we see a refusal to communicate intelligently. Enjoy!
No I didn't. I thought my interpretation of your words was an upgrade to your lazy cliched response of belittling a Wikipedia entry because it wasn't from National Review or Rush Limbaugh.
But you know that if I posted some academic papers, you two could dismiss them as not being National Review, Storm Front or Maha Rushi. Right?
Ah, the time-honored "broad brush" ad hominem attack. It's an oldie, but still popular.
smh
Every time life throws someone other than a straight white guy a bone the bigots come out in full force claiming that xyz women and minorities aren't competent. I see a zillion straight white guys in positions and they are terrible at their jobs.
You're making an assumption that is unprovable (see bold text).
I personally believe in the value of a wide variety of opinions, however I believe the individual is far more important than a collective. If I hire you because you are Chinese, or black, or from Wyoming instead of because you are qualified, that's wrong.
Not quite sure why Apple's apparent performance regarding this metric is being spun into something bad or illegitimate.
smh
Possibly because it's based on discriminatory, collectivist ideas? "Human rights" is a phrase that is oft repeated, yet it is meaningless and considering the real subject of the scoring is political and in support of LGBT issues, not "humans" in general. It's a bit like giving our president the Nobel Peace Prize just before he drags us into another war...it's just posturing.
Westboro Baptist Church would like to offer you a job.
Westboro Baptist Church would like to offer you a job.
I thought the leader of that church was anti-Muslim, not into promoting "whites only".
WTF is wrong with you? :grumble:
And WTF is wrong with you? :mad:
I don't these people that think others wanting equal rights means their rights are being taken away. Oh, you can't publicly bash people who aren't white, conservative, heterosexual, Christian males like you could in the good ol' days when those people knew their place in society. **** YOU. **** YOU ALL!