[dragonwriter]

#1 was not an "embedded an unexamined assumption", it was the explicit condition of the stated conditional. ("If they have reasons to prefer a diverse workforce...")

#2 is, insofar as it appears to be an "embedded and unexamined assumption", simply a result of brevity in omitting "...insofar as doing so is practical without costs that make it a net loss" at the end. Obvious qualification is obvious.

> I would also question the premise of the posting, that "diversity" in terms of race and sex is a highly desirable thing.

"Desirable" is subjective. Google expressly claims to value that kind of diversity. Obviously, you might have different values, which, to the extent that the means you choose to pursue them are not themselves illegal, you are free to pursue in your own company.

> The evidence for this is very thin

The evidence is actually very strong that its a thing that some people value independently of whether it contributes to any other thing that they value.

[paulwolf]

>Obvious qualification is obvious.

Don't form arguments this way. Dumping tautologies into an argument sounds childish.

[dragonwriter]

The quoted bit that you object to wasn't part of an argument in the first place.

[girvo]

I agree with you. But "you are free to do them in your own company" seems to be less and less true, as the amount of shaming hit pieces in the media rise. Whether that's a good thing, I pass no judgements on. It's interesting watching a community's values change in real time.

[dragonwriter]

Freedom to do something doesn't imply freedom from criticism from people who disagree with you doing it.