b wrote:
> > You have supported his point - I think he's asking about affirmative
> > action programs. Just as there is no reason to discriminate *against*
> > someone, there is no reason to discriminate *for* someone either.
>
> Jim has already exmplained this once. I'll try.
>
> People discriminate based on whatever criteria they choose. This happens,
> it's a fact.
>  Discrimination can be based on physical traits (weight, disabilities, skin
> pigmentation, country of origin, culture, name, religion, height, language,
> sexual orientation, habits, lifestyle, dress, bodily techniques
> whatever...).
>
> To make things clearer, if people dressing a certain way, or attracted to
> one particular gender, or in a wheelchair, or having one physical trait such
> as a dark skin pigmentation are discriminated against, for instance  say not
> given jobs, or refused public representation, what might be the case,
>
>  then *even though* you recognize that there is "no reason to discriminate
> against" people classified in one particular group (group which may or may
> not : there is a difference between a person in a wheelchair and one which
> has darker skin than average, in the cutural construction which serves as a
> base for discrimination) , why should a government not recognize this
> situation, and take action *based on the actual discrimination process at
> stake* to try and level things out  ?
>

I believe in the freedom of association.

And I believe that people should be held to the same standard, not to a
different standard.


> Which doesn't mean there is a reason to "discriminate against", it doesn't
> validate anything else than recognize that discrimination exists...
>
> Positive discrimination is debatable as a mode of action, and many countries
> have not chosen to develop these types of programs.