tolerating unequal outcomes

[variant]

I dont think there is anything immoral in his position in the least--with the possible exception that he is jeopardizing something of greater value--his liberty--for something of lesser value--his money. As far as not hiring people you disagree with politically, he is a free man and free to associate and hire whoever he likes. In the end it is only himself that he harms because in not hiring a person because they are liberal may cost him a very productive individual (although thats not very likely)

Not hiring someone for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance is of no harm to them? What it is, is trying to enforce views on society through economic coercion. Have the right views or don't get hired.

Taken to the extreme people with money thus would dictate what views people were allowed to have. We would of course find this as aberrant as we would the government censoring speech.

Unless there is a negative correlation between liberalism and being a good mason that I am not aware of, of course the man is doing something immoral.

You're a libertarian, we should expect you to not consider anything immoral about an antisocial philosophy that is destined to destroy any society that takes it seriously enough to let it fester.

 

[Harpuia]

Well, it is just a claim of the moral high ground, It's not really something we have to embrace.

Did you see what the slander the guy wrote about me based only on the idea that we often disagree politically?

Then he has the audacity to say he doesn't think he's better than me.

It seemed more along the lines of "define better".

And I have no idea what is going on between you two, but I wanted to counteract the argument that us "low tolerance for unequal outcomes" people are all this way because we don't perform (or tax evade) to the best of our ability.

I dont think there is anything immoral in his position in the least--with the possible exception that he is jeopardizing something of greater value--his liberty--for something of lesser value--his money. As far as not hiring people you disagree with politically, he is a free man and free to associate and hire whoever he likes. In the end it is only himself that he harms because in not hiring a person because they are liberal may cost him a very productive individual (although thats not very likely)

You're right on a small scale (but as variant pointed out this can be taken to extremes and systematically oppressing people of an unaccepted view)... but I was thinking also that if you admit to it being the reason of not hiring someone of equal ability, that it would also in this day and age be illegal.

 

[variant]

You're right on a small scale (but as variant pointed out this can be taken to extremes and systematically oppressing people of an unaccepted view)... but I was thinking also that if you admit to it being the reason of not hiring someone of equal ability, that it would also in this day and age be illegal.

It's also generally wrong to treat people in a definitively unfair manner simply because you have the power to and can get away with it.

Here he is sneering at peoples intolerance of unequal outcome due to ability, when he actively pro-ports to enforce unequal outcomes at a whim.

 

[variant]

It seemed more along the lines of "define better".

And I have no idea what is going on between you two, but I wanted to counteract the argument that us "low tolerance for unequal outcomes" people are all this way because we don't perform (or tax evade) to the best of our ability.

He did sneer at me because he didn't think I have the ability to be a proper tax cheat.

Which I am not sure what kind of insult that is supposed to be.

 

[Harpuia]

He did sneer at me because he didn't think I have the ability to be a proper tax cheat.

Which I am not sure what kind of insult that is supposed to be.

There's ways to be a proper tax cheat? Color me surprised.

Some of us CAN'T cheat on our taxes because our companies and investments have already sent their W-2s, 1099-INTs and 1099-Bs to the IRS. I GUESS you could try but...

I really can't stand that kind of tone though even if they DID have a moral high ground which in this case I don't see how it would be moral to evade one's taxes. (Lordbt showing me opinions/moralities are different notwithstanding)

 

[kermit]

It's also generally wrong to treat people in a definitively unfair manner simply because you have the power to and can get away with it.

Here he is sneering at peoples intolerance of unequal outcome due to ability, when he actively pro-ports to enforce unequal outcomes at a whim.

Let's also not overlook that the outcome of his job candidates getting a job apparently has a lot to do with the his feeling on them rather than the quality of their output.

 

[variant]

There's ways to be a proper tax cheat? Color me surprised.

Sarcasm on my part.

The direct quote is this:

You have rarely been in a position to lie on your taxes and every time you were confident that you would never get caught, you did.

As a characterization of what he thinks I'm like. I took this to be sneering at my inability to cheat on my taxes.

Which is an interesting insult as if we should aspire to be the best tax cheats.

I really can't stand that kind of tone though even if they DID have a moral high ground which in this case I don't see how it would be moral to evade one's taxes. (Lordbt showing me opinions/moralities are different notwithstanding)

Well morality is a matter of perspective. A lot of people consider their positions virtuous and justify back to principles from their actions.

 

[variant]

Let's also not overlook that the outcome of his job candidates getting a job apparently has a lot to do with the his feeling on them rather than the quality of their output.

Well he says he's a good judge of character.

My guess is that people that disagree with him politically generally don't thrive under him for some reason.

It's probably what we call a self fulfilling prophecy I think.

 

[kermit]

Well he says he's a good judge of character.

My guess is that people that disagree with him politically generally don't thrive under him for some reason.

It's probably what we call a self fulfilling prophecy I think.

He has admitted to firing people for political difference.

Whenever I see a thread started by the OP, my first thought before I even click the link is "Looks like he's trying to justify his admitted poor behavior again".

 

[Belk]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

What do you think?

Was the possibly going to jail for stabbing someone through the thigh a quality outcome?

What do I think? I think I would not trust your judgement to tell me water is wet.

 

[DaisyDay]

It is my experience that the vast majority of those I have personally encountered who have a low tolerance for unequal outcomes are also the least able to produce quality outcomes.

How do you determine if someone has "a low tolerance for unequal outcomes"?

Is one's tolerance for unequal outcomes a good measure of that one's ability to produce quality outcomes?

What does "tolerance for unequal outcomes" mean? That's pretty vague.

When hiring, it is one of the "telling" things I attempt to get a feel for.
I have taken it as a baseline assumption for years, and it has never failed me.

Confirmation bias?

What do you think?

I think you like symmetry more than clarity.

 

[Harpuia]

Was the possibly going to jail for stabbing someone through the thigh a quality outcome?

Wait what?

What do I think? I think I would not trust your judgement to tell me water is wet.

Ouch...

 

[Belk]

Wait what?

The OP apparently got mad at someone for walking on his wet cement and stabbed a trowel through their leg.

Ouch...

I'm sure he would feel the same about me.

 

[Harpuia]

The OP apparently got mad at someone for walking on his wet cement and stabbed a trowel through their leg.

O_O

...

...

...

When was this post?

I'm sure he would feel the same about me.

I'm still kinda taken aback at what I just learned.

EDIT: Wait a tick... how do you stab someone with a trowel anyway?

 

[Belk]

O_O

...

...

...

When was this post?

About a month ago I think.

I'm still kinda taken aback at what I just learned.

EDIT: Wait a tick... how do you stab someone with a trowel anyway?

 

[lordbt]

Not hiring someone for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance is of no harm to them? What it is, is trying to enforce views on society through economic coercion. Have the right views or don't get hired.

You dont have a right to work for me. I hire who I please and use whatever qualifications I please. Its reall none of your business. Besides, if I am turning away qualified people for silly reasons, a more enlightened business like the one you own will have that many more qualified applicants to choose from. In the end, it only makes my business less likely to survive.

Taken to the extreme people with money thus would dictate what views people were allowed to have. We would of course find this as aberrant as we would the government censoring speech.

Except that wouldnt happen for the reasons I stated above. You might have a few insignificant companies operating the way the OP suggests he might, but most businesses are motivated by money, not political purity.

Unless there is a negative correlation between liberalism and being a good mason that I am not aware of, of course the man is doing something immoral.

You calling it immoral does not make it so.

You're a libertarian, we should expect you to not consider anything immoral about an antisocial philosophy that is destined to destroy any society that takes it seriously enough to let it fester.

I defend human liberty. If freedom leads to mans destruction than so be it.

 

[kermit]

You dont have a right to work for me. I hire who I please and use whatever qualifications I please. Its reall none of your business. Besides, if I am turning away qualified people for silly reasons, a more enlightened business like the one you own will have that many more qualified applicants to choose from. In the end, it only makes my business less likely to survive.

Of course anyone has the right to hire or not for any reason they choose. Even outright discrimination is very difficult to prove. But of the reasons to hire or not some are ethical and some are not. Hiring or not due to race, gender, age, faith, sexual orientaion, and even politics falls squarely under the unethical category.

 

[variant]

You dont have a right to work for me. I hire who I please and use whatever qualifications I please. Its reall none of your business. Besides, if I am turning away qualified people for silly reasons, a more enlightened business like the one you own will have that many more qualified applicants to choose from. In the end, it only makes my business less likely to survive.

I think I was arguing the immorality of such a decision to turn away qualified applicants because you are narrow minded.

I did not assert a right to work for you I said it was immoral for you to not hire qualified people for unrelated reasons.

Besides, if I am turning away qualified people for silly reasons, a more enlightened business like the one you own will have that many more qualified applicants to choose from. In the end, it only makes my business less likely to survive. Except that wouldnt happen for the reasons I stated above. You might have a few insignificant companies operating the way the OP suggests he might, but most businesses are motivated by money, not political purity.
You calling it immoral does not make it so.

Yeah yeah the free market sorts everything out, which is why we kept all this guiled age thinking in the first place right?

People don't enforce religious, political or ethic ideas through economic coercion, it's never happened ever in the history of the world.

I defend human liberty. If freedom leads to mans destruction than so be it.

In practicality you defend a certain sort of liberty for a very select few. Those people who will end up with most of the money when your grand experiment is done.

It of course will not work very well like it didn't work very well in the past, which will lead us down a dark path that will take us a long time to recover from.

See the real difference between us is that I realize what happens if we get carried away on my side of the equation and forget about economic liberty.

 

[lordbt]

Of course anyone has the right to hire or not for any reason they choose. Even outright discrimination is very difficult to prove. But of the reasons to hire or not some are ethical and some are not. Hiring or not due to race, gender, age, faith, sexual orientaion, and even politics falls squarely under the unethical category.

What is unethical about it?

I think I was arguing the morality of such a decision to turn away qualified applicants because you are narrow minded.

waht difference does that make? I have the right to associate with who I please. If I choose not to associate with you for stupid reasons, that is my right. You dont get to decide who I associate with or who I wish to do business with.

Yeah yeah the free market sorts everything out, which is why we kept all this guiled age thinking in the first place right?

I suppose if you actually think about it, the market would and already has sorted that sort of thing out. I shouldnt need to remind a liberal of the main reason for their hatred of business--that they are motivated by money. That motivation for money drives 99% of business to hire people they might not otherwise associate with because it will make them more money.

People don't enforce religious, political or ethic ideas through economic coercion, it's never happened ever in the history of the world.

Funny how you are terrified of 'economic coersion' by free people but unconcerned about state coersion. Its not like the state has ever done anything bad ever in the history of the world.

In practicality defend a certain sort of liberty for a very select few. Those people who will end up with most of the money when your grand experiment is done.

False. I defend everyones liberty equally. That some may prosper more in a free society is a burden to you, not me. I dont let envy get the better of me.

It of course will not work very well like it didn't work very well in the past, which will lead us down a dark path that will take us a long time to recover from.

Human liberty and individual rights didntwork well in the past? Thats news to me. Servitude worked out so much better I presume.

See the real difference between us is that I realize what happens if we get carried away on my side of the equation and forget about economic liberty.

Economic liberty is the freedom to achieve your own level of economic success bsed upon your own ability and effort. Good to see we suport the same thing.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Doesn't play well with people he disagrees with, that one.

Pot, meet kettle.

Not hiring someone for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance is of no harm to them?

It's also generally wrong to treat people in a definitively unfair manner simply because you have the power to and can get away with it.

Let's remember that for next time Christians are discriminated against, and *some people* shrug it off.

About a month ago I think.

Link, or it didn't happen.

Of course anyone has the right to hire or not for any reason they choose. Even outright discrimination is very difficult to prove. But of the reasons to hire or not some are ethical and some are not. Hiring or not due to race, gender, age, faith, sexual orientaion, and even politics falls squarely under the unethical category.

I agree with you - just pointing out that the bolded part (which was mine) has happened many times to Christians, with liberals shrugging it off as "Hey, of course. They're dangerous fundamentalists".