What is equality to you?

[Halibut]

9 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

 Do you really strive for equality or do you just hate white men?

I just try to strive towards equality. I think it's really illuminating that you use that phrase ''or do you just hate white men?'' though, it says a lot about your motivation. 

I don't hate white men at all, I'm one myself as was my father and his father, as are my brothers. Unlike yourself though, I have a realistic understanding of the way that the world - and our corner of it in particular - is largely run by and set up for white men.  I know that institutional racism is real and limits other people's chances. I believe it's important that the police force for example, should reflect more accurately the communities they serve.  So the idea that a white man occasionally misses getting a job as an equally qualified black man gets it doesn't trouble me. Mr White, living as he does in a country largely run by and for people like him, will readily find work.

     You seem quite distressed by this idea, and frankly I'm struggling to see why - it's almost as if you have the mindset that a few non whites getting a fair crack of the whip equates to a war on white men. I wonder if you see feminism as a threat too? 

[woodview]

13 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

We've been through this before, it's tiring.

 

No, they choose the candidate they wanted based on their aspirations for their workforce, in keeping with the Equality Act 2010.

 

As for your question, if the employer felt that white people were proportionally under represented in their company, and the candidates were equally qualified, etc.

 

Then yes, I would say that the employer would be justified in choosing the candidate who would meet their aspirations for a proportionally representative workforce.

 

 

 

 

By definition they are disadvantaging someone.

Let's say Amazon opened a new warehouse in Sheffield needing 100 people. They need GCSE English and Maths from any employee for warehouse work. They could calculate, all the staff need to be BAME, to balance out the overall UK company ethnicity profile. Eg 100 prospective white people are disadvantaged by the legal option for Amazon to do that.

In my opinion that is morally wrong, and will cause more division than exists now.

The way to end inequality is for everyone to act in an equal way to all people. NOT to artificially engineer situations to give advantage to one group over the other.

Claiming that you can give advantage to one set of people and it not affecting anyone else is ridiculous.

[SnailyBoy]

26 minutes ago, woodview said:

By definition they are disadvantaging someone.

Let's say Amazon opened a new warehouse in Sheffield needing 100 people. They need GCSE English and Maths from any employee for warehouse work. They could calculate, all the staff need to be BAME, to balance out the overall UK company ethnicity profile. Eg 100 prospective white people are disadvantaged by the legal option for Amazon to do that.

In my opinion that is morally wrong, and will cause more division than exists now.

The way to end inequality is for everyone to act in an equal way to all people. NOT to artificially engineer situations to give advantage to one group over the other.

Claiming that you can give advantage to one set of people and it not affecting anyone else is ridiculous.

We've been though this yesterday, it's getting tiring........again.

 

Inventing scenarios that suit your agenda adds nothing to the debate. Especially when you can't appear to grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

Further information can be found below to help clear up any confusion you might have.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85046/positive-action-recruitment.pdf

Edited March 12, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[leviathan13]

10 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

We've been though this yesterday, it's getting tiring........again.

 

Inventing scenarios that suit your agenda adds nothing to the debate. Especially when you can't appear to grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

Further information can be found below to help clear up any confusion you might have.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85046/positive-action-recruitment.pdf

Like a scenario where everyone is given £10...

 

But 'positive action' isn't equality, it's discrimination against a group of people on the grounds of race and sex.

Edited March 12, 2019 by leviathan13

[SnailyBoy]

Just now, leviathan13 said:

Like a scenario where everyone is given £10...

Which was in response to your bizarre claims.

 

So what's my agenda?

[woodview]

15 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

We've been though this yesterday, it's getting tiring........again.

 

Inventing scenarios that suit your agenda adds nothing to the debate. Especially when you can't appear to grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

Further information can be found below to help clear up any confusion you might have.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85046/positive-action-recruitment.pdf

It is a scenario that exactly matches what we are talking about. Exactly the reason you won't talk about it. Sorry if it tires you. Good people being denied opportunities is tiresome too.

I don't have any confusion on what PA is. My scenario is legal and exactly the reason people are against it.

Will you respond to the posted scenario?

[SnailyBoy]

Just now, woodview said:

It is a scenario that exactly matches what we are talking about. Exactly the reason you won't talk about it. Sorry if it tires you. Good people being denied opportunities is tiresome too.

I don't have any confusion on what PA is. My scenario is legal and exactly the reason people are against it.

Will you respond to the posted scenario?

No, you simply can't grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

I went through scenarios yesterday, read those. Even one where I suggested that it could be justified that white people could be recruited using Positive Action, if they came from a disadvantaged group, as per the Equality Act 2010.

 

Frankly, it's getting boring now.

[leviathan13]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

No, you simply can't grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

I went through scenarios yesterday, read those. Even one where I suggested that it could be justified that white people could be recruited using Positive Action, if they came from a disadvantaged group, as per the Equality Act 2010.

 

Frankly, it's getting boring now.

Who is more advantaged - someone from the middle class or someone from a single-parent family on a council estate?

[SnailyBoy]

Just now, leviathan13 said:

Who is more advantaged - someone from the middle class or someone from a single-parent family on a council estate?

Please provide more information, a background story, family tree, education information, medical records for each person involved.

 

Let's get into the detail and really hammer it out.

 

[woodview]

7 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

No, you simply can't grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

I went through scenarios yesterday, read those. Even one where I suggested that it could be justified that white people could be recruited using Positive Action, if they came from a disadvantaged group, as per the Equality Act 2010.

 

Frankly, it's getting boring now.

So, can you answer two very simple questions for me, with Yes or No.

 

1. Is my scenario legal.

2. Do you think it is morally ok.