I'm really tired of hearing about ageism. Why? Because I think it's inaccurate to compare discrimination based on age with discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. If anything, this seems like a parody "-ism" that old white conservatives can rally behind.

So why discount ageism? Because there are many circumstances in which discriminating based on age makes sense, where discriminating based on race, gender, or sexual orientation would be unjust.

Examples include:
- Minimum age to consume certain drugs (alcohol, tobacco)
- Age of consent for the military
- Age of consent for sexual activity (not allowing older people to engage in sexual activity with people who are too young)
- Maximum age for driving (it just makes sense to have something like this -- at a certain age, peoples' faculties begin to decline and they become a hazard. They have the right to be free, but not in a moving, dangerous steel object.)
- Expecting people past a certain age not to engage in activities typically reserved for younger people. It makes sense to frown upon adults playing in the ball pit at McDonald's. It also makes sense to frown upon the college kid or college grad who hangs out in the high school parking lot with his cool car. This is the same reason why it's frowned upon when older people join the wolf web so that they can be disparaging to kids of a college age (who the site is designed for).

Can we just shut the fuck up about ageism, please? If we're going to talk about "-isms," let's talk about legitimate ones.

1/25/2007 8:17:41 AM

i can't say i've heard much about it....

1/25/2007 8:20:49 AM

Quote :

"i can't say i've heard much about it...."

1/25/2007 8:49:03 AM

By law, discriminating on the basis of age in the workplace is considered just as bad as discrimination on the basis of color, religion, gender, sexuality ect....

1/25/2007 9:19:07 AM

i can't say i've heard much about it....

1/25/2007 9:26:39 AM

i didnt know that a lot of people were talking about ageism

1/25/2007 9:39:29 AM

Quote :

"I think it's inaccurate to compare discrimination based on age with discrimination based on race, gender, or sexual orientation"

why?

1/25/2007 9:46:05 AM

because there is generally no proof or scientific evidence that shows sex, race, sexual orientation, etc, explicitly inhibit or enhance normal physical or mental abilities (apart from obvious, inherent male vs. female body types).

There is clear evidence that young age and old age have adverse or otherwise different effects on the human mind and body.

1/25/2007 9:49:04 AM

so white people can play basketball or run track as well as black people in general? arent gay people better at designing clothes and stuff?

let alone you just admitted that there is scientific vidence that shows sex can inhibit or enhance normal physical or mental abilities.

1/25/2007 9:52:59 AM

That doesn't relate to ageism. Stay on the topic.

1/25/2007 10:00:49 AM

i think it relates to how ageism can be compared to racism, sexism, etc

let alone age, sex, race, etc are all things that you cant control

1/25/2007 10:03:56 AM

no, i "admitted" that males are clearly, generally more muscular and stronger than females. That's a simple fact. i made no implications of how that impacts physical abilities

1/25/2007 10:06:41 AM

Quote :

"There is clear evidence that young age and old age have adverse or otherwise different effects on the human mind and body."

if it can be shown that the age of an employee directly puts others at risk, it is acceptable to use the age as a reason for termination (i.e. a commercial pilot, bus driver ect...) otherwise, age cannot be a factor.

1/25/2007 10:07:42 AM

well i did because it does impact (some) physical abilities

i just dont know whats wrong with comparing it to other forms of discrimination

1/25/2007 10:08:30 AM

You didn't compare age to other forms. You compared black and white.

You claimed gay people are better at designing clothes for fucks sake.

What the fuck does that have to do with age?

Do you think before you post?

1/25/2007 10:14:04 AM

imo the kicker is that there are express laws against age discrimination against older people, but not younger ones.

i.e. if a younger person is hired over an older one, there is a possibility for a eeo case, but nothing for vice versa even if the employer blatantly says "I didn't hire you b/c I think you're too young to do a good job, eventhough you are more qualified than this older person"

1/25/2007 10:21:07 AM

Quote :

"What the fuck does that have to do with age?"

it doesnt...it has to do with comparing different forms of discrimination which is what agentlion had commented on...sorry it was over your head

Quote :

"there is generally no proof or scientific evidence that shows sex, race, sexual orientation, etc, explicitly inhibit or enhance normal physical or mental abilities "

sure...but i just gave anecdotal evidence...there ARE differences in different people...you can have equal rights while having unequal abilities

1/25/2007 10:23:09 AM

Quote :

"if it can be shown that the age of an employee directly puts others at risk, it is acceptable to use the age as a reason for termination (i.e. a commercial pilot, bus driver ect...) otherwise, age cannot be a factor."

Yet there are better ways to do this than simply slapping on a blanket age. Why not use a battery of physical and mental tests to ensure that the person is still qualified for the job? Commercial pilots are a good example: instead of simply forcing them to retire at some arbitrary age, why not just have them retest at some regular interval to ensure that they're physically still healthy enough and mentally are able to remember all the rules and procedures? Same goes with bus drivers and other skilled labor. No reason to discount them simply because they hit some magic number.

1/25/2007 11:04:14 AM

Quote :

"it has to do with comparing different forms of discrimination which is what agentlion had commented on...sorry it was over your head"

But you didn't compare anything is the point. You just offered up other examples of discrimination without any real purpose to the argument. You don't show at all how they compared, just that they existed.

1/25/2007 11:14:59 AM

in response to the claim that there is no proof or evidence that sex, race, sexual orientation, etc inhibit or enhance normal physical or mental activities, i gave examples where they did inhibit or enhance normal physical or mental activities

1/25/2007 11:19:18 AM

^^^i agree....I assume the testing and what not would come if the employee pursues a wrongful termination suit, but I haven't heard much about it, so I don't think it even comes up that often.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 11:19 AM. Reason : ^]

1/25/2007 11:19:36 AM

Quote :

"in response to the claim that there is no proof or evidence that sex, race, sexual orientation, etc inhibit or enhance normal physical or mental activities, i gave examples where they did inhibit or enhance normal physical or mental activities"

Well, do you care to back up your comments with articles from respected journals? Because I don't take a pothead wannabe hip hop thug on his word.

1/25/2007 11:22:08 AM

so you need a journal article to prove to you that some black people are better at track and basketball than some white people and some gay people are better at designing clothes than some straight people?

Your ass would get laughed out of Europe with that attitude.

1/25/2007 11:26:19 AM

I don't think age should be a factor in hiring, as long as the person can do the job.

It is a factor in insurance, even if your health is the same at age 40 as age 60. This does make sense, since the longer someone lives, the closer they are to health problems / death.

1/25/2007 11:27:20 AM

^^, and^^^your back and forth banter is pointless.

If a woman applies for a job where she has to routinely lift 75+ lbs, and admittedly or not can't do it, she doesn't have to be considered for a job, same with a man. if a person can't perform their job duties after reasonable accomodations for whatever reason, they will be refused employment. The law recognizes that there are differences between certain protected groups. It's just there to ensure that job relatedness is the reason for decisions.

remember this:

There cannot be discrimination if an employment decision is based on job related factors.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason : ^]

1/25/2007 11:28:39 AM

which goes back to what i said

Quote :

"you can have equal rights while having unequal abilities"

1/25/2007 11:30:34 AM

Quote :

"so you need a journal article to prove to you that some black people are better at track and basketball than some white people and some gay people are better at designing clothes than some straight people?"

But this doesn't in any way relate to ageism, which was what you claimed. This is just a statement of fact. Indeed, there are all types of people better than all types of other people for any given topic.

1/25/2007 11:34:36 AM

Yes it does clearly relate to ageism...the claim was (simply put) "ageism should be differentiated from sexism, racism, etc, because theres no proof that sex, race, etc can hinder or help your abilities, but age can"...I gave examples of how the other discrimination forms based on sex, race, could validly hinder or help certain abilites just like age...so it does completely relate to ageism, as everyone else in this thread realizes

1/25/2007 11:38:40 AM

Quote :

"I gave examples of how the other discrimination forms based on sex, race, could validly hinder or help certain abilites just like age.."

You gave examples that have no scientific foundation, as agentlion pointed out.

I asked you to provide evidence to back up your claims.

Do you even know what your claims are? You claimed that because black people can be found to be better than white people at a given taks, that there is something genetically inherent to make racism valid, as ageism is valid, which is what McDanger is claiming.

I called you on this, and you offered up this nugget

Quote :

"so you need a journal article to prove to you that some black people are better at track and basketball than some white people"

Well, no I don't need a scientific journal to make an observation. But if you leave your statement at that, then it doesn't in any way related to ageism. How many more times will I have to point this out.

Here it is in big words


BEFORE YOU CAN REFUTE WHAT MCDANGER HAS SAID

YOU NEED TO FIND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO YOUR CLAIMS

SIMILAR TO HOW SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SUPPORT AGESIM

AND WHY AGESIM AND RACISM ARE RELATED ONLY IN THAT THEY CAN BE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION.

Can you do that in any semi-coherent way?

1/25/2007 12:00:49 PM

Quote :

"SIMILAR TO HOW SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SUPPORT AGESIM"

such as? there hasnt been a single solitary scientific resource used in this thread for any argument...so why are you claiming there is scientific evidence to support ageism? where the fuck is it? why are you talking shit to me for not posting any scientific links when theres not a single source in this whole thread!

Quote :

"BEFORE YOU CAN REFUTE WHAT MCDANGER HAS SAID YOU NEED TO FIND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO YOUR CLAIMS"

so you just take his word without any scientific sources? you dismiss my antecdotal evidence but claim i must show scientific evidence to go against his anecdotal evidence? Your ass would get laughed out of Europe with that attitude.

1/25/2007 12:07:41 PM

McDanger already provided examples where ageism is valid in a situation where racism isn't.

Do you have any situations where racism is valid?

A 20 second google search

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

Quote :

"Age Although most basic research finds that older people respond slower than younger ones, the data on older drivers' braking times are not entirely clear. One problem is that different studies have used different definitions of older; that is, sometime "older means 55, sometimes it could mean 70. Moreover, some studies find no slowing of reaction time with age. Instead, they conclude that the older driver's greater experience and tendency to driver slower compensate all or in part for the decline in motor skills. Never the less, I would place the slowing with age to be about 0.3 seconds for a "moderately" older driver, say 65-70. On the other hand, older drivers generally compensate for slower reaction times with reduced speeds."

Please, feel free to comment the "no slowing of reaction" part as some sort of "win" for your cause.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:12 PM. Reason : x]

1/25/2007 12:10:16 PM

yes i already provided examples as well

and just like McDanger's examples, they werent scientifically sourced

Quote :

"Do you have any situations where racism is valid?"

I'm probably not going to get a bunch of white people to take either a drug or a placebo when doing tests on how people with sickle cell anemia respond to different treatments

Quote :

"YOU NEED TO FIND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO YOUR CLAIMS"

scientific evidence = "A 20 second Google search"? bwahahah

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2007 12:11:18 PM

Exactly what point are you arguing? Do you know?

And a 20 second googling is infinitely more than you have done to defend your claim.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:17 PM. Reason : a]

1/25/2007 12:15:52 PM

I've already shown you a situation where "racism is valid" as well as giving a number of anecdotal examples where different races or sexes or sexual preferences might be better or worse suited for a particular task...all the while giving just as much actual scientific evidence as mcdanger...are you trolling me for the fun of it or are you really this stupid?

1/25/2007 12:18:54 PM

What do you mean by "racism is valid"?

So you're saying you're a racist?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11294037&dopt=Abstract

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:21 PM. Reason : more evidence]

1/25/2007 12:20:17 PM

my dad has been the victim of ageism. jhe got forced out of a Director of Maintenance job, and had to take about lesser job with a 50% cut in salary because no one wants to hire a guy that's close to retirement. needless to say, he was the primary earner in his house. now my mom has to work fulltime at a crap job to help pay bills

its easy to sit and scoff at it when youre 20-something years old.

but when it happens to your family, it makes you stop and reconsider.

1/25/2007 12:24:26 PM

Edit: ^ That's unfortunate -- how was his job performance as he aged? We don't know everything about the situation, and he might have had a legitimate legal claim in that circumstance.

This thread is going down the wrong path.

I think that Twista's example of the sickle-cell experiment is flawed. I'm not talking about discriminating for scientific purposes, or for other such socially "neutral" purposes. I'm talking more along the lines of how we restrict peoples' liberty, either through laws or through social pressure (the fear of being looked down upon, etc).

That at least is how I aimed my examples... not sure how things got on this road.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2007 12:26:15 PM

^ He was a director of aviation maintenance at a fortune 250 company.

he lost his job due to corporate politics.

hes got 30+ years of progressive aviation and facilities management experience but cant get a suitable replacement because hes 60 years old.

no one wants to hire an old guy. the job is not labor. its management.

my dad could have sued teh company he lost his job at. but it would have been difficult, and my family is not litigious. he doesnt think like that.

but theres no way you can really prove discrimination in the hiring process. its impossible to prove.





[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2007 12:27:27 PM

That sucks, but I'm sure you understand why places don't want to hire a guy who's close to retirement. You don't get much ROI on that, and that's not necessarily "ageism," but just a decent way to run a business.

Edit: It's too bad he wouldn't stand up for himself in court. We don't get the rights we don't insist on getting.

[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/25/2007 12:31:51 PM

ROI? hes an expert in his field. he's built and run maint. facilities. not like hed ahve to be trained.


like i said, its easy to scoff at a distance,

i hope it doesnt happen to someone you care about.

1/25/2007 12:35:30 PM

Return on investment.

Look I hope it doesn't happen to me too, and I'm not scoffing at your situation. Looks like he had options and chose not to take them. Not sure what to think about that, or why I'm supposed to feel as bad as you think I should.

1/25/2007 12:37:40 PM

i know what ROI means. I was responding.

and you are scoffing. not at me personally, but at the whole concept of ageism. because you've never experienced discrimination. i havent experienced it, but ive seen it happen to my dad.

and that has changed my opinion of discrimination.


[Edited on January 25, 2007 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ]

1/25/2007 1:08:57 PM

same thing happened to my dad. now no one will hire him because he had gotten paid well in his previous job and he's fairly close to retirement (mid 50s)

1/25/2007 1:54:55 PM

Quote :

"What do you mean by "racism is valid"? So you're saying you're a racist?"

Quote :

"TypeA All American 3122 Posts user info edit post McDanger already provided examples where ageism is valid in a situation where racism isn't. Do you have any situations where racism is valid? "

its a shame when large companies would rather hire kids right out of school so they can pay them less but regardless of age, race, etc, its still discrimination based on something out of your control

1/25/2007 2:00:01 PM

How does any of that relate to some sort of a point you are trying to make?

1/25/2007 2:16:38 PM

i think thats clear to everyone but you

1/25/2007 2:35:35 PM

Hahaha, you can't connect it back. You do it every time I or anyone else asks you a simple question.

And this turns into another retarded back and forth. I try to be straight up. I try to ask the proper questions. And you eventually crack and post some crap like that.

This pisses everyone off. Why don't you answer the question I asked you. I and others have to restate ourselves multiple times for you, why don't you do us the favor of the same?

1/25/2007 2:43:35 PM

believe it or not, you're the only one having trouble following what i'm saying, probably because you're just trolling me

1/25/2007 2:46:26 PM

this is cute.

1/25/2007 2:49:47 PM

Ok then, those that are viewing this thread, can you please decipher what point TreeTwista is trying to make, since he is apparently too much of a dick to state it another way for me?

1/25/2007 2:56:59 PM