🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <gall-0704980053300001@usrts1m7.uwinnipeg.ca>, gall@uwinnipeg.ca 
(Norman Gall) wrote:

>In article <6gc9op$q7i$1@usenet53.supernews.com>, HiThere@outtatown.com
>(HiThere) wrote:
>
>> In article <gall-0604981141300001@usrts2m3.uwinnipeg.ca>,
>gall@uwinnipeg.ca (Norman Gall) wrote:
>
>> >Yawn.  You should really try to get a grip on the concept of relevance.
>
>> _You_ get a handle on it. The concept of  *relevance* includes the attribute 
>> *relevant  _to _whom_* The situation right now is that it is not the owner of
> 
>> the property who gets to decide what is relevant, but a third--or 20 
>> millionth) third party.
>
>You are confusing logical relevance which contains a consideration for the
>context and purpose of the argument (which is independent of persons) and
>personal relevance (otherwise known as personal stake or interest) which
>is as you say it is. My arguments are examining the goodness of the
>arguments and as such the concept of logical relevance is relevant. My
>personal stake in the matter is no more than what any citizen has.
>

Relevance in the issue of discrimination relating to employment is not 
independant of persons, even logically. You made a reference in an earlier 
post to the difference between liking ice cream and discriminating on the 
basis of, say, sexual preference--stating the former was purely personal and 
the latter not. I disagree.

Say I put an ad in the paper looking for a mate, or a person to fill a job 
position. In both cases, I am stating that I am open to a relationship and 
looking for one--but it would be premature to say that I *have* one.

Someone answers either ad. They are also stating that they are open to a 
relationship, and that they may wish one--but it would be premature to say 
that there _is_ a relationship. Indeed, the issue betweent the parties is 
*whether or not there will _be_ a relationship*.

A person who wants me to hire them (or to be my romantic partner) does not 
_have_ a relationship with me. They *wish* a relationship, perhaps--but that 
is all. If I say *no* for whatever reason, there _was_ no relationship--it 
never got that far. It failed in the negotiation stage, the same as if they 
say *no* in the negotiation stage.
 
Any decision I (or the potential lover/employee) make _before- the 
relationship is entered into is _personal_. I am sure you wouldn't suggest 
that I have to accept all or any given comers--regardless of suitability (on 
my terms)--in a romantic relationship--why would you state that I must need to 
dismiss criteria I think important in the employment relationship? Note that I 
said *must need* and not *should*. I think it is wrong to be a bigot--but I 
support no legal sanction for such errors..

In the romantic or employment arena, any potential lover or employee has the 
right not to enter into the relationship for _any_ reason they see fit--no 
matter how it affects my interests, and properly so--and the reasons on either 
side may fall short of satisfying a personal moral view. Why is it different 
on the employer issue, on the employer side?  As I said, my objection is broad 
enough that I think the Charter addresses this poorly.

>> That--among other things--is a real problem. You don't see it at present 
>> because it is not your ox that is being gored. 
>
>See above.
>
>> It would be better if you stopped the yawning and paid more attention; a 
>> philosophy prof (no ad hominem intended) should have a (better than you 
>> illustrate so far) handle on the relationship of
>attributes/characteristics to 
>> concepts.
>
>You haven't demonstrated that anything I've said indicates that I don't.
>If anything, you demonstrate (see above) a rather simplistic notion of
>most argumentative terms.
>

I think not, actually :-)

As to dispensing with *all laws*...I don't argue for that, but I do argue that 
laws should properly only be sanctions against the initiation of 
aggression/the instigation of force. Laws that do not fit this criteria I 
thing are best handled in other arenas. By the way--I don't know if you are 
familiar with it, but I highly recommend Bruno Leoni's book *Freedom & the 
Law*, Nash, Los Angeles, 1961/1972 on the issues regarding this area. Leoni 
was the Professor of Legal Theory and the Theory of the State at the 
University of  Pavia, where he was also Chair of the faculty of Poli/Sci. 
He lectured at Oxford, Manchester, Yale and U Virginia. How about you maybe 
suggest a similarly relevant reading for me?

 Also, please excuse my tone in  earlier posts--you clearly did not deserve 
it.

Ron