Another Unlawful PDB Ad - Page 5

Pedigree Database

IPO3 V Dark Sable
Male for sale

IPO3,ZVV2 ,FH1’and many title male for sale
Male for sale

Started Green Pup
Female for sale

by JonRob on 10 December 2017 - 16:12

Hundmutter, show me a single post where I asserted "that anyone associated with PDB was bound to argue there was no discrimination in that advert."

There isn't one of course. I have expressed a low opinion of any website that posts and defends discriminatory ads. But there may be many PBD lurkers who don't support discrimination.

My lawyer friend just raised the interesting issue of the personal/individual liability of the PDB admins who approve of, allow to be posted, and defend discriminatory ads, and who threaten to retaliate against someone who objects to this discrimination. In plain English, can PDB admins be sued for this?

If a PDB admin is in the US, possibly but this is complicated. But there is a risk.

If a PDB admin is in Iceland, we don't know. The Iceland legal system is very different from ours.

If I were a PDB admin I would consult an attorney about this, especially if I lived in Iceland where you can go to jail for disability discrimination. Unlikely but you never know when a government is going to get serious about enforcing its discrimination laws. Especially when the discrimination is as clear-cut and public as it is here.

Of course, if I were a PDB admin I wouldn't discriminate in the first place thereby avoiding all kinds of potential legal problems.

by beetree on 10 December 2017 - 17:12

Jon Rob, I usually find your posts levelheaded and compassionate. I think you have gone overboard with this, and one wonders what could be driving your own doggedness and inability with flexibility and thinking besides the idea that you are being buoyed by your lawyer friend who projects though you that he has the only working brain about these matters. If there weren't more than one side or view to a matter then who would need courts or a lawyer, ever, any way!

I personally do not agree with discrimination against individuals only because of biases against physical impairments or sex, or the ever increasing number of genders! The point is that truth and laws are not static, they change with times and the values of the people who make them. The internet is new and still changing.

I am so glad you did take my advice to look up the Icelandic law because if you are serious about getting this singular site to address ad content based on discrimination laws that would be a practical step. The holier than thou and cerebral insults flung when in disagreement certainly have not bolstered your POV or moral authority.

Besides living only through a lawyer lens, there are the pragmatics of living with common sense.

A few things we know about the WWW and participation on privately owned websites. In particular this one which is not unlike most websites. We are allowed to become members by agreeing to honor a TOS. Ads and posts are not pre-screened. People posting ads aren't all lawyers. You haven't proven your case that the ad writers words are a screening based on bigotry against being disabled or female. Rather, I would argue that it is the degree of disability or a woman's stature that affects the difference in safety due to the advertisements stated oversized weight of the dog at 105 lbs and his Navy training that makes him a dangerous dog. It was inelegantly stated, but certainly not anything I would take to a Federal Court. I easily could read between the lines and realize the ad writer had already fielded too many candidates that were not physically capable of controlling his particular dog.

You probably are of the mind that equal means the same. I maintain we are not the same, but we are equal.

You might, then, well, good luck with that.

by JonRob on 10 December 2017 - 17:12

Again, Beetree, the liability of this site and its admins for discriminating is a complicated side issue.

But whether you like the law or not, it clearly prohibits the seller from doing what he is doing. In legal terms, the ad is a "smoking gun."

Why you interpret my objections to discrimination as a lack of "compassion" and a lack of "levelheadedness" is beyond me.

I persist because that's what it takes to defeat bigotry. If it weren't for people who feel the way I do and who persist, you would not be allowed to vote in the US (because you are a woman) and slavery would still be legal in the US. I guess the folks who fought those battles also lacked compassion and levelheadedness. Certainly they were accused of that at the time.
Hundmutter

by Hundmutter on 10 December 2017 - 17:12

Sometimes its not that one persists , but how one persists.

 

"I was curious to see ... As I expected, they have." How is that not an assumption ?  Particularly if you are not giving any time for a selection of responses.  You bring stuff down on your own head.


by JonRob on 10 December 2017 - 17:12

"Sometimes its not that one persists , but how one persists."

One thing I learned as I got older: When you fight discrimination the bigots will throw a screaming fit no matter how you persist.

"I was curious to see ... As I expected, they have."

Yes, I expected negative posts defending discrimination. And this is exactly what happened. But nowhere have I said, as you claimed, "that anyone associated with PDB was bound to argue there was no discrimination in that advert."

Very old tactic: If you haven't got a good argument against something someone said, make up something they didn't say and argue against that. I would expect better from you, Hundmutter.

by beetree on 10 December 2017 - 17:12

Your Topic Header squarely places the blame on the site at the same time being deliberately vague about the lawful jurisdiction.

You also like to employ the trick of labeling when they are really unproved assertions. When we start to go around in circles I know there is no longer a conversation happening.

You have a nice day!

by JonRob on 10 December 2017 - 18:12

More on the side issue: Facebook got in a lot of trouble for posting discriminatory ads (which were a lot more subtle than the blatant PDB ad) and is still having problems with this. Instead of indignantly defending discrimination, Facebook adopted the following non-discrimination ad policy:

"It is a violation of Facebook's advertisement policies to discriminate based on personal characteristics such as race, ethnicity, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, family status, disability, medical or genetic condition."

https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/08/facebook-updates-its-ad-policies-and-tools-to-protect-against-discriminatory-practices/

And Facebook has a lot more ads to keep track of than PDB.

Facebook is not based in Iceland but Iceland does have anti-discrimination laws. How this affects Oli and his admins is their job to figure out.

Baerenfangs Erbe

by Baerenfangs Erbe on 10 December 2017 - 18:12

I'm in the wrong movie... is this even real life? A: Look at WHO placed the add and that explains everything...


by beetree on 10 December 2017 - 19:12

BE....Who is this guy? Please enlighten those of us without a clue....

by beetree on 10 December 2017 - 19:12

Jon Rob,

Is physically incapable even the same as physically disabled? Might you be fitting a square peg into a round hole?

You must be logged in to reply to posts










Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!