TJC1 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Maybe there should be a carriage for men on their own as well then? No I haven't costed it up. I don't need to cost it up, it's pretty obvious. But feel free to prove that it somehow wouldn't be expensive to reduce the capacity of every train by dedicating a carriage to one sex. ---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 15:02 ---------- Easy cop out isn't it. Call it daft and refuse to engage. The entire thread is daft though. Perhaps we should have just all ignored it. They have carriages in delhi...are the indians stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 They have women only carriages in many places. All of those places are highly patriarchal, and have you seen how the trains run in India? They have people riding on the roof, are you going to tell me that ISN'T stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Not being evasive, but im not answering the same question rephrased a million times. The point about discrimination is notes. And muslims.. both I dont agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Im not answering daft questions... Because you'd show the contradiction in your logic. All else being equal, you think it's ok to discriminate on gender but not on religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 They have women only carriages in many places. All of those places are highly patriarchal, and have you seen how the trains run in India? They have people riding on the roof, are you going to tell me that ISN'T stupid? Theres a lot of people in india... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretty_big Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Not being evasive, but im not answering the same question rephrased a million times. The point about discrimination is notes. And muslims.. both I dont agree with. Do you accept that the results so far of this Sheffield forum poll are representative of the rest of the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 You've made up some stats about probability. Even if they are true, the consequences of being blown up by a bomb in the same carriage are somewhat worse than being briefly touched by a pervert. Now, imagine the probability of Muslim terror attacks became exactly equal to the probability of being groped as a woman. Would you then accept, in that scenario, that there should be non-Muslim carriages? Because your logic seems to be that when bad behaviour by a minority reaches a certain level, it becomes acceptable to discriminate against the whole group. I'm interested to find out where you draw that line. Non Muslim carriages would be no protection if a bomb went off in the next carriage or further up as the train would de rail and crash so the example your using isn't really relevant to what's being discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Im not answering daft questions... LOL. What a pathetic dodge. Its just out of stubbornness and trying to save face that you're flogging this dead horse of an argument now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Non Muslim carriages would be no protection if a bomb went off in the next carriage or further up as the train would de rail and crash so the example your using isn't really relevant to what's being discussed. In 7/7, the vast majority of deaths were those in the immediate vicinity. You're reading too much into it though, it's not a serious suggestion, it's a devil's advocate comparison to show the hypocrisy in advocating Corbyn's sexist proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 And carry on ignoring the fact that it's obviously discriminatory since it favours one sex over the other. Discrimination only if it's unjust. But if the problem of assault or harassment of women was so bad, then separate carriages could theoretically be justified, and therefore I don't think it would be discriminatory. Say if, as a woman, you had a one in two chance of being groped every train journey you made, you'd be demanding that the train operators did their utmost to protect you. If it was that bad, then you could even say that NOT providing special provision would discriminate against the women, because without that provision it would be virtually impossible to use the train. Obviously, the problem isn't that bad, and I don't think women-only carriages would be a good idea, for several reasons, but I think discrimination as a reason is a red herring. There are special facilities set aside for disabled people that able-bodied people aren't supposed to use. That's not an unjust discrimination because there's genuine need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now