He is differentiating that the past was a problem rather than the present. See, if the guy was a 37yo rookie because of current, actively on-going problems, then the past would still not matter, but there would be good reason to be wary. So finding out that the thing is in the past is an exercise in finding out enough to dismiss qualms.
You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all.
>You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all.
I beg to differ. Could you provide some reasoning?
>but there would be good reason to be wary
If you're not discriminating then it doesn't matter if they're a current drug addict, a past drug addict, partner of a drug addict - you judge them solely on their performance at work.
You are disingenuous because you are trying to change the discussion from "does not get preferential treatment" to "is not the subject of discrimination". You realize these are different right? (First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved).
As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders).
Edit: also I'm not blanket saying discrimination is bad, some types of discrimination are OK some aren't. For instance, discriminating based on "this applicant doesn't have the required skills" is perfectly reasonable. Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either.
>(First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved).
Haha, condescending ever.
The connotations are different, that's the slant someone is trying to put on whether their discrimination is good or bad. We change how we act towards one person such that they benefit relative to another's detriment. Whether it be preferential treatment by omission of detriment or preferential treatment by application of benefit if the treatment alters according to the characteristics of the subject then we have discriminated.
discrimination - "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" (Random House Dictionary)
preference - "a practical advantage given to one over others" (ibid)
>As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders).
The question doesn't bother me. I don't think your assumption stands to much inspection - I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios that would leave someone in an "entry level" position against their will. Why does it matter how old the person is, can they do the job, will they do the job? One can change one's age no more easily than one can change one's sex.
>Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either.
I love these sorts of closing statements, they must be the thinking man's ad hominem "anything that disagrees with my stated position would be idiocy", that's almost the definition of tiny-minded simpleton. </sarc>
Not sure what you are saying here. Please use grown up sentences.
> The connotations are different, that's the slant someone is trying to put on whether their discrimination is good or bad. We change how we act towards one person such that they benefit relative to another's detriment. Whether it be preferential treatment by omission of detriment or preferential treatment by application of benefit if the treatment alters according to the characteristics of the subject then we have discriminated.
You are a one trick pony -- once again you try to deflect. The guy declared he was not giving someone preferential treatment. It does not matter whether this is by lack of advantage or by taking away disadvantage, non-preferential treatment by definition is not preferential -- therefore no one is getting advantage to another's relative detriment.
> The question doesn't bother me. I don't think your assumption stands to much inspection - I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios that would leave someone in an "entry level" position against their will. Why does it matter how old the person is, can they do the job, will they do the job? One can change one's age no more easily than one can change one's sex.
Hrm.... deflection again! The fact that a reasonable assumption can be made does not eliminate other possibilities. Yes, a person's age is strictly a product of forces outside his control, however getting an entry level position at that age is certainly within his control. Why choose that route? There are other options. Why not choose them. In these cases of choice, it is worthwhile to examine the candidate. See by examining one's choices, you can maybe learn about their ability and willingness to do the job. (remember, these are the things you claim to care about, and now we can learn about them!)
> I love these sorts of closing statements, they must be the thinking man's ad hominem "anything that disagrees with my stated position would be idiocy", that's almost the definition of tiny-minded simpleton. </sarc>
Ohh, man out of nowhere-- deflection! I never saw it coming-- honest. It's not really ad hominem. Not even kind of. Im not even declaring you to be idiotic, in fact, since disingenuous is pretending to know less, I sort of did the opposite. I have no problem even with you disagreeing with my position. I was merely preempting a disingenuous position of moral absolutes being attached to a word that has vague boundaries on its applicability (rendering absolutes impossible). You have clearly demonstrated your understanding of the vague edges of the word discrimination by using it in two different senses already, so any claims of not knowing at this point would be false. Looking up the definition of disingenuous will get you the rest of the way to my statement.
You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all.