(March 7, 2011 at 11:11 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Right... and that rottweiler can still barrel me over in his happiness. That little dog will be kicked like it's a football, and I will have won that little "game". See a rat, kick a ratI do understand your argument, and I agree with it to an extent. However, it isn't quite accurate in a fair number of situations.
The truth is that there is first a level of what can possibly be done by a being, which is easy to discriminate along the lines of. The second level is that which a being does. This is merit... and I would agree that it is often a much better guide to people. But to ignore the first level is to do a disservice to future talent that can be trained to be much more potent than anything current in favor of dogs whose days are done.
Examples: when it comes to potency in bearing children, i discriminate hard against males. This is because they by definition have no capacity to perform such a task without strong interference from technology far today's superior.
When it comes to tasks requiring a great deal of strength, I will discriminate strongly against females, as their capacity for strength and men's are wildly different in most cases... and it would be senseless of me to employ a female for this task and expect her strength to be equivocal to the men i hire. If a truly exceptional female came forward, then I might consider her... but the flat out truth is that the vast majority of the female human population is less powerfully built, and that it is a workable policy to enforce along those lines.
These discriminations even apply to such intellectual tasks as chess. For all the arguments I hear that women and men are similar intellectually, I find that the best among the female chess players ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár ) is also arm and leg and head above the rest of her sex, and has been training to be so for her entire life. Note, i do not use this to argue the point that women are not intelligent... i use this to clarify my spite to the sacrosanct 'equality' that is lobbied for between men and women. I do not believe in it, any more than I would believe that all of the same gender are equals (they are not, as i should hope Polgar provides evidence).
People belong in "groups" for a reason, and to not judge groups based on similarities many of them share is to do a disservice to efficiency and the invention of the group to begin with. It is efficient to discriminate, and to anyone that thinks otherwise: go and greet every tree you see according to what it is individually. I'll be sitting back with my tea and doing something constructive while you're busy with that.
Yet you still say that people are defined in groups when you said they weren't
People are complex, deal with it
