I wrote:
> The same applies to choosing my neighbors, daycare personnel,
> customers. And it is my inalienable right (except in certain
> unusual situations) to choose with whom I associate.
>
Samantha Atkins replied:
Sure. But I choose differently as is my right. And I expect
not to be discriminated against in employment and housing simply
because I do not choose to have my brain scanned or my property
and affairs examined in minute detail.
#### You are using the word "to discriminate against". As far as I can tell,
it means "to make reprehensible choices regarding other people, usually
resulting in unjust harm to those persons". It is an expression of an
attitude, not the description of an objective finding. Now, if you say that
my choice not to employ as babysitter a person who refuses to provide
adequate references, is in fact "discrimination", you are condemning my
behavior, and probably setting the stage for a forceful intervention on
behalf of the "discriminated" person.
What is the moral axiom on which you are in this case basing your
expectation "not to be discriminated against"? If you can provide such a
rule, it turns out to be a rule I share with you, and your reasoning from
that rule to a ban on the use of threat recognition testing(TRT) in the
hiring of babysitters is logically correct, then I will of course accept
your point of view.
But, if you merely express an indignation with TRT, I would disregard it and
still not hire the untested stranger. And, if you bring the government goons
to prevent me from acting out my choice, I would have to conclude that you
are using a double standard, allowing yourself to "choose differently as is
my right" but preventing my own noncoercive, non-monopolistic choices simply
because you choose to do so.
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
smigrodzkir@msx.upmc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:12 MDT