tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post6091229396757699448..comments2024-03-18T15:42:43.140+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: Discriminating against the uglyEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-45048105295909485122011-09-11T06:09:56.822+12:002011-09-11T06:09:56.822+12:00@John: Yup, agreed. But at least with the ADA, it&...@John: Yup, <a href="http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2010/07/feeling-good-doing-harm.html" rel="nofollow">agreed</a>. But at least with the ADA, it's at least easier to tell who's in the protected class!Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-69855935394063357762011-09-10T06:11:19.993+12:002011-09-10T06:11:19.993+12:00The law already bans several kinds of discriminati...The law already bans several kinds of discrimination it can't detect and won't try; for instance, job discrimination against those over 40. The only results of these laws are to offer false hope to victims and make lawyers richer and business insurance more expensive, as a few angry people with more money than brains try to convince juries of what is impossible to prove.<br /><br />The latest (so far) chapter in these stupid crusades is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which "works," to the extent it does, only by putting the burden of proof on the wrong side. Most of the time, asking for accommodation in an interview guarantees you won't be hired, because ADA-protected people are huge walking liabilities from the point of view of the potential boss. (And that's not even touching on the fact that ADA protects some non-deserving people, like the recent case of the alcoholic truck driver.)<br /><br />So however righteous you may think these causes are, it's time to roll back these laws and stop "protecting" any new classes of people from discrimination until the proponents of these laws come up with a way to make it possible to enforce them without imposing undue burdens on everyone else.jdgalthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13236899779621301830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-5188921570916175522011-09-05T21:06:05.110+12:002011-09-05T21:06:05.110+12:00They take the bottom few categories of attractiven...They take the bottom few categories of attractiveness; most folks are in the middle range.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-70628506446611897152011-09-04T23:29:59.485+12:002011-09-04T23:29:59.485+12:00'10 to 15 percent or so of the population fall...'10 to 15 percent or so of the population falls into the “below-average attractiveness"'<br /><br />Really? Surely for it to be a true average, half have to be above it, and half below. <br /><br /><br />I do understand your point though, that ugly-enough-to-be-descriminated-against is a relatively small proportion of the population.my honest answerhttp://www.myhonestanswer.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-22952341698517695992011-08-16T06:18:06.716+12:002011-08-16T06:18:06.716+12:00The "average" category is wide.The "average" category is wide.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-31103648936206177012011-08-15T23:40:04.573+12:002011-08-15T23:40:04.573+12:00I'm still mulling over the '10 to 15 perce...I'm still mulling over the '10 to 15 percent or so of the population falls into the “below-average attractiveness” category'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com