>up until now, i invited YOU
>to make up your own
>hypothetical details by leaving the
>question open-ended.

and i did

>Scroll back up, you didn't answer
>at all. The answer to
>a question starting with "how...?"
>involves an explanation. Instead of
>explaining how a judge would
>handle such a case, you
>stuck to odd analogies with
>Jews and gays which did
>not fit

you've allowed it so it must have fit.

(because in your
>examples, the judge still would
>have to acknowledge differences religion
>or sexuality in order to
>determine whether discrimination occurred across
>those lines).

YUCK- the point was that he wouldnt have to adopt ether philosophy to make so a ruling- you left that part out eh sparky. He wouldnt have to be gay, he wouldnt have to be christian, he wouldnt have to be a jew- he would need only understand the ideologies and judge the acts committed.

see it doesnt work if you leave out the conclusion

>>a judge can only act
>>on acts committed and acts
>>in evidence. The matter of
>>prejudice may be material to
>>quantifyin punitive measures for acts
>
>No idea what you're talking about.

then you dont understand law and probablys houldnt bother discussing it

>I'm talking about job discrimination.

which is settled in civil litigation- law

>If the plaintiff can't establish
>the act was prejudicial (biased
>against the plaintiff's group membership),
>there goes his/her case, to
>keep it simple.

but he can establish an act as prejudicial- the judge doesnt need to adopt either philosophy to issue a fair warning. If that plaintiff were Black you're saying the judge would have to consider himself "white" to make a propper ruling. If that plaintiff were gay you're saying that either the judge would have to be gay or homophobic to rule. That doesnt make sense.

>>for example:"black" plaintiff, "white" defendant, where
>>"black" plaintiff claims "white" defendant
>>
>>discriminated against him. Ok now lets
>>establish the facts of the
>>case, was there violence involved,
>
>wtf? it's a discrimination case. "black
>plaintiff" claims he was not
>promoted due to blackness. sues
>for difference in back pay
>he would have received had
>he been promoted (which he
>would have absent his skin
>color, or so he seeks
>to show).

Yuck- so i can make my own hypothetical unless it doesnt comply with the one you want me to set-up.

this is a horrible discussion

ive already demonstrated how a judge would see this case through. He'd take account of the evidence of disparity and if that is the case who would rule with consideration of ideology which add to punitive measure (calculation, pre meditation, conpiracy etc)

but you dont understand law- so why am i still explaining it?

>>These questions dont even need to
>>involve race as discrimination cases
>>are judged not on the
>>merit of ideologies but rather
>>on the inproprieties committed by
>>the accused party.

>You're babbling here. Discrimination cases ARE
>judged on something analogous to
>"ideology", in religious cases for
>example. The judge must recognize
>religious difference between the parties
>to proceed (for if the
>judge made a factual finding
>that there was no distinction
>b/t the religion of the
>party claiming harm and the
>party granted the benefit --
>here, a promotion -- then
>discrimination could not be shown
>on that basis).

You're a hack-neyed attorney spirit quit guessing at what should happen in court and read a bookj on judicial procedure. A judge cant make any ruling on his presumption of the merit of a belief system. That means he cant hold you accountable for what you think- especially since he can initially only muster his presumption or- what he thinks you think.

Evidence of ideology however can go to characterize acts of calculation which go to punitive considerations.

If a mormon lynched a follower of wicca he would charged with murder and his punitive damages would comply with those of hate crimes as for the premeditation; the judge would neither need to be wiccan or mormon to make a ruling.

>Ex: "black" plaintiff claims he wasn't
>hired due to blackness, yet
>"white" defendant hired another "black
>person" to fill the position.
>"black" plaintiff" claim likely fails.
>
>
>in your race-ideology world, what occurs
>in the following scenario, from
>three parties, all born in
>Brooklyn: Brooklyn employee ("white") hires
>Brooklyn construction worker ("white") over
>another Brooklyn construction worker ("black").
>All of the construction workers
>on site are from Brooklyn
>(and "white") but there are
>no "blacks" from Brooklyn hired
>to the site, ever. How
>does your philosophy deal with
>that?

My philosophy establishes that all the people you just mentioned are being unfairly categorized by racial philosophies that hold no scientific or biological wieght and go to establish nothing but a demeaning social order. As such seeing as this compy has acted in an infringing manner on the basis of the ideology against another citizen then aa a civil crime is demonstrated and proven so too will it be judicated.

>"African" can't be the culture ascribed
>to "black" people, because (1)
>all African born people are
>not "black" and (2) all
>'black' people were not born
>in Africa. Further, most black
>people in America cannot trace
>their lineage back to specific
>ethnic groups (Ethiopia, Egyptian, etc.).
>Confusing the issue even further,
>many anthropologists agree that all
>people originate from Africa.

I dont see what this has to do with anything.

>>In an extreme example- if a
>>White man lynched a man
>>cuz he was Black does
>>the judge need to believe
>>in the racial ideology of
>>either party to convict the
>>white man of murder- nope.
>
>We're talkign about job discrimination, not
>lenching. So, your "extreme example"
>is actually a worthless example.

YUCKITY YUCK YUCK

remember when you said this...

"Create the hypothetical, from top to bottom. Create the hypothetical case of racial discrimination and how the judge handles the case without acknowledging the existence of race."

and then this

"GIVE ME YOUR HYPOTHETHICAL AND STOP AVOIDING THE QUESTION."

it went from racial discrimination to job discrimination but all the while you're telling me Im supposed to create the hypothetical from "top to bottom" even.

this is the nastiest debate ive evern seen

>>In a common example If a
>>company doesnt hire a guy
>>cuz he's Black if they
>>hire somebody of lesser talent
>>then discrimination is not hard
>>to demonstrate or prosecute.

>You're assuming "talent" is (1) easy
>to quantify when often applicants
>have similar credentials and (2)
>the only thing employers look
>for (they also look for
>whether they think the applicant
>will fit in and other
>factors). if two applicants are
>close to equal, one white
>and one black, and a
>certain firm continues to hire
>whites at a disproportionate rate,
>how could such discrimination be
>proved if a court did
>not recognize "whiteness" as an
>identity trait? "your honor, our
>firm is very diverse: we
>have Norwegians, French people, British
>people..."

so i guess we're back to you creating this hypothetical again eh. look if a company hires only European american people- then thats still discrimination , easy as that. Any African American still has a very good case. And if we're dealing in your hypothetical were teh parties are close to even well then the plaintiff will have just as hard of a case under either circumstances; although i think hed be better off in the one where the judge wasnt under the ideological impression that that black man subhuman- dont you?

>>The point is it doesnt matter
>>what either party thinks- that
>>is not what will be
>>prosecuted and i dont think
>>any reasonable person would conclude
>>that people should be prosecuted
>>for their beliefs.
>
>In discrimination law, people are indeed
>prosecuted for their beliefs if
>their belief is that certain
>groups should not be hired,
>promoted, or housed....

BULLSHIT- when did you start studying discriminatory law. You can not prosecute someone for what they think- if that were the case we'd all be locked up. It is the thoughts you act upon that will be prosecuted and in that instance the thoughts can only be used to substantiate punitive damages. If their belief is that certain groups should not be hired or promoted they are welcome to such thoughts- the freedom of speech even entitles them to say it; but if they DO IT and ONLY if they do it- then youve got a case against them.

this is ridiculous- this is fundamental law

>>hereby people are held accountable to
>>their actions not their beliefs-
>>and not your acceptance or
>>dispute of their beliefs.
>
>You're still in the abstract theoretical,
>not the world of concrete
>application. How does this work
>in an actual case?

Already told you- and if you think the law is anything more than abract theoretics then thats why you dont understand what im trying to tell you.

>The question remains...

Why do i bother trying?


K