Waldo Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Positive discrimination is illegal. It creates a level playing field in recruitment for example. Positive discrimination is just another word for discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Someone is gaining an advantage due to their characteristics - sex/colour/religion etc. Whether it's 'good' or 'bad' discrimination, it doesn't matter, it's still discrimination. One person will see it one way, and another will see it a different way - that's not a very stable basis for law. Word semantics again, look at the usage of words, not simply their meaning/definition. WOW! I didn't realise I'd have to spell absolutely everything out for you. I want us to be able to have choice, but due to human nature we do need to have some things in place to protect us from certain people. Children/animals/vulnerable people need protecting and we have laws in place. The taking of life is, for the most part, illegal as that is one of the most extreme things you can do to someone and there should be consequences, as there are. However, it's finding that line between everything you disagree with being illegal and keeping us safe whilst retaining some level of 'freedom'. We're now in a world where South Yorkshire Police have an initiative trying to tackle 'hate speech' and the like. Is someone being called a name more serious than a burglary/rape/murder? If I called the police everytime I was bullied at school, or had names thrown at me on the street for my appearance, there'd be a fair few more police hours being wasted. Since when did sticks and stones stop being relevant? So, I recognize the need for some level of authority, but the more people call for the banning of things, no matter how small, the further it takes us in to a fascist state where saying or doing anything that can be construed as offensive or discrimination is punishable, before finally having the word banished altogether. Like in '1984' - words will be removed from our vocabulary for being negative and replaced with other, more positive, words. Eventually, no one will know what discrimination is and if it does happen, there'll be no words to explain it. Wow, this is from someone who posted that they didn't care if there was refusal of service based on protected characteristics or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Positive discrimination is just another word for discrimination. Wrong. It's called positive discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker7 Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Wrong. It's called positive discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance. Right. Its called discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance. Spot the difference. Is there one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Right. Its called discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance. Spot the difference. Is there one? This is the difference. ,https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/discrimination-at-work/what-doesn-t-count-as-discrimination-at-work/discrimination-at-work-positive-action/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 Wrong. It's called positive discrimination to highlight the fact that it's intended to redress an imbalance. The intent (behind positive discrimination) may well be a good one, however, the effect is to create more division, and increase discrimination, resentment and tension between groups of people. People need to be free to look past differences, and see each other's shared humanity. I don't think that's something you can force on people, they need to find it for themselves, and the more you try to legislate and force the issue, the less likely that is to happen. When the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, you don't make it stop by pushing it the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 The intent (behind positive discrimination) may well be a good one, however, the effect is to create more division, and increase discrimination, resentment and tension between groups of people. People need to be free to look past differences, and see each other's shared humanity. I don't think that's something you can force on people, they need to find it for themselves, and the more you try to legislate and force the issue, the less likely that is to happen. When the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, you don't make it stop by pushing it the other way. However the consequences of not being able to positively discriminate could be that people cannot access services. Is that a price worth paying? I don't think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 However the consequences of not being able to positively discriminate could be that people cannot access services. Is that a price worth paying? I don't think it is. If you mean less fortunate people should be allowed more access to services? I don't think there's much wrong with that. Or do you mean, people who are, let's say, a particular ethnicity, or sexuality, or gender; and who may also happen to be less fortunate, should be allowed more access to services? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 If you mean less fortunate people should be allowed more access to services? I don't think there's much wrong with that. Or do you mean, people who are, let's say, a particular ethnicity, or sexuality, or gender; and who may also happen to be less fortunate, should be allowed more access to services? Well, I was just thinking in terms of anyone, fortunate or not, who would prefer personal care to be provided by someone of the same gender. Many women's refuges, for obvious resons, may wish only to employ women at their crisis centres. Similarly services that offer support to men who have experienced rape, may want to employ men on the basis that men may need to divulge what happened to those of same gender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top Cats Hat Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 I like free nations where no one is forced to behave contrary to their conscience or belief. So let's put it country simple. In your ideal world the Paedophile Information Exchange would be free to operate without interference? Yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts