Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[RogueHanger]

Definitely a brilliant post, BT. Perhaps you should write a few more after a tipple.

But to refer back to your question about what is sometimes legal and other times illegal, depending on its label (you refered to murder in UK or France)

Certainly killing someone in, both UK and France, has been legal in the past. (I did say "sometimes").
But that was not the only analogy I could have used.
Soemtimes it's legal to deprive someone of their liberty, other times it isn't.
Sometimes it's legal to take money from someone against their will, other times it isn't.
Sometimes it's legal to force your way into peoples' homes against their will, other times it isn't, etc.
I'm sure there are lots of other analogies that could be used. It all depends on the label that is attached to the pocess.

Sometimes we may disagree with the process, per se, e.g. capital punishment, and of course, the topic under discussion. But it's been determined to be legal, and as such we accept it and behave within its limits. Or we reject it and act outside of the law (although it is not compulsory), or we campaign for its repeal, via our repesentatives, as one option.

I personally would object to capital punishment and I'm in favour of Positive Action. That is my right to that opinion. Others have the same rights.
But no-one has the right to practise racism, and/or negative discrimination because they are both illegal activities. I publicly and privately denounce both activities.

ps three more pages and we'll beat the previous thread "ban me".

What is the record for the longest thread?

 

[RogueHanger]

It could leave certain people feeling that they only got the job through "Positive Action" and not on their own merits. It will also leave others feeling angry, as in "I was better qualified than the person who got the job, I was just the wrong colour/race."

That's a fair comment Jockscott. It's about the only argument, that I could accept, against Positive Action and the argument that I refered to in the post about Joe Swinson being a little hesitant in her support for "positive discrimination"

 

[RogueHanger]

I think people of all colours have always (rightly) complained about discrimination; why should the complaints of the indigenous population carry less weight?

Your first sentence is fair comment, except for the "rightly" bit. I would agee that some races have suffered discrimination far more so than others, therefore have more "right" to complain.
As far as the indigenous population's complaint having less weight, I don't think that is fair comment. If an indigenous person was unfailrly discriminated against purely and simply on race, their complaint would carry equal right, morally and in court. I'm referring to a hypothetical case of two equally skilled people and one is unsuccessful purely and simply because they are not of the appropriate race and there is no justifiable reason for the discrimination.
In addition, sometimes it's been the indigenous population that have suffered the discrimination (and worse), Africa, Australia, India, North America to name a few.

My ancestors may have been racist but I'm not and my kids certainly aren't, why should I, any more than an asian guy who is discriminated against, accept it?

If you think that you have been unfairly discriminated against you have a right to ask the Employment Tribunal to consider your case.

 

[RogueHanger]

See now you're just resorting to insult after insult, where others are showing restraint Rougue!

You are not, as I once said of you in another thread, "holding your own". You are looking like you are losing it sorry.

I think, BT, that if you looked carefully, you will see that I react to abuse with abuse. But when there is a sensible comment, argument (for or against) I respond with a reasoned and sensible argument.

Are you accusing me of unjustified abusive behaviour?

I also ignore some of the more outrageously absurd comments. They're just insulting little people standing on the periphery, throwing in an absurd comment occasionally. Fortunately, it is only occasionally because their little brains only work occasionally.

 

[RogueHanger]

So, after 22 pages, we have it.
Red is happy to discriminate, but their liberal conscience struggled with the terminology. But finally, we have resolution - do as you wanted, but just faffle the words to suit.

You had that on page one. But obviously you'd forgotten that by now.
If you'r referring to me as "Red" then, yes, I support Positive Discrimination, except I can't call it that. I must call it Positive Action.

Labels are important, but you already knew that, didn't you?

Have you been keeping up, Brigadier.
This will not do! You are supposed to be a leader amongst men, and you're just following the crowd for comfort.

 

[groovynooby]

I think people of all colours have always (rightly) complained about discrimination; why should the complaints of the indigenous population carry less weight?

Your first sentence is fair comment, except for the "rightly" bit. I would agee that some races have suffered discrimination far more so than others, therefore have more "right" to complain.
As far as the indigenous population's complaint having less weight, I don't think that is fair comment. If an indigenous person was unfailrly discriminated against purely and simply on race, their complaint would carry equal right, morally and in court. I'm referring to a hypothetical case of two equally skilled people and one is unsuccessful purely and simply because they are not of the appropriate race and there is no justifiable reason for the discrimination.
In addition, sometimes it's been the indigenous population that have suffered the discrimination (and worse), Africa, Australia, India, North America to name a few.

My ancestors may have been racist but I'm not and my kids certainly aren't, why should I, any more than an asian guy who is discriminated against, accept it?

If you think that you have been unfairly discriminated against you have a right to ask the Employment Tribunal to consider your case.

Firstly "rightly" was in the respect that it is right/correct to complain about discrimination, I'm not sure how you can disagree with this?

Secondly, above you state that "...there is no justifiable reason for the discrimination." but earlier stated "Now that Positive Discimination, oops, can't call it that, Positive Action is being used some of the indigenous popoulation are complaining"... to be honest I'm confused.

I don't think that I have been unfairly discriminated against, however, I appears to be legal to do so and you appear to support such discriminatory practises... I think that what your saying is that it's ok to discriminate against a white person but I really do not understand why?

 

[JBR]

Your right JBR, but I fear the powers that be, will never allow smoking in pubs again. Personally, I think it should have been "Landlords Choice" . whether to make his pub a smoking or non smoking premises. But the government of the day, realised most pubs would have chosen to allow smoking... In Spain, they have a smoking ban, but many (if not most) of the bars choose to ignore it.

Perhaps when we have left the EU?

(Why are we the only country to NOT ignore EU diktats?)

 

[RogueHanger]

I think people of all colours have always (rightly) complained about discrimination; why should the complaints of the indigenous population carry less weight?

Your first sentence is fair comment, except for the "rightly" bit. I would agee that some races have suffered discrimination far more so than others, therefore have more "right" to complain.
As far as the indigenous population's complaint having less weight, I don't think that is fair comment. If an indigenous person was unfailrly discriminated against purely and simply on race, their complaint would carry equal right, morally and in court. I'm referring to a hypothetical case of two equally skilled people and one is unsuccessful purely and simply because they are not of the appropriate race and there is no justifiable reason for the discrimination.
In addition, sometimes it's been the indigenous population that have suffered the discrimination (and worse), Africa, Australia, India, North America to name a few.

My ancestors may have been racist but I'm not and my kids certainly aren't, why should I, any more than an asian guy who is discriminated against, accept it?

If you think that you have been unfairly discriminated against you have a right to ask the Employment Tribunal to consider your case.

Firstly "rightly" was in the respect that it is right/correct to complain about discrimination, I'm not sure how you can disagree with this?

OK, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Secondly, above you state that "...there is no justifiable reason for the discrimination." but earlier stated "Now that Positive Discimination, oops, can't call it that, Positive Action is being used some of the indigenous popoulation are complaining"... to be honest I'm confused.

I'm not sure to exactly what you are referring to here. You seem to be mixing up several different posts, which were in different contexts and responses to different comments/posters. Hence your confusion. You nearly confused me.
Firstly, Justifiable is loosely defined in law. I don't know the precise wording and it may be at the discretion of the judge/jury and their interpretation of the ruling, etc.
Secondly, re the "now Positive Action is now allowed" I was implying that negative discrimination was acceptable amongst racially prejudiced people, but now that "Positive Discrimination", albeit we can't call it that, is now allowed, the racially prejudiced people have started to complain. Edit: Perhaps the racially prejudiced people are now complaining because they perceive that they are losing the inherent advantage that they enjoyed because they were part of the majority.Does that clear up the confusion?

[I don't think that I have been unfairly discriminated against, however, I appears to be legal to do so and you appear to support such discriminatory practises... I think that what your saying is that it's ok to discriminate against a white person but I really do not understand why?

Are you asking me for guidance, or just wasting my time?
If it's the former, I'm happy to oblige, but bear in mind that time is a resource that none of us have a surfeit. If it's the latter, just go study somewhere away from me.

 

[Brigadier]

So, after 22 pages, we have it.
Red is happy to discriminate, but their liberal conscience struggled with the terminology. But finally, we have resolution - do as you wanted, but just faffle the words to suit.

You had that on page one. But obviously you'd forgotten that by now.
If you'r referring to me as "Red" then, yes, I support Positive Discrimination, except I can't call it that. I must call it Positive Action.

Labels are important, but you already knew that, didn't you?

Have you been keeping up, Brigadier.
This will not do! You are supposed to be a leader amongst men, and you're just following the crowd for comfort.

Re: page one, you had to edit it on Saturday - nice body-swerve

I have to admire your self-belief, if nothing else. Although self-delusion might be closer to the truth.

I personally wouldn't be proud to be discriminatory (however you want to term it) but, if you find a word that soothes your conscience while you carry on "discriminating", you go for it.

We all have opinions. What were you hoping to do - bore everyone into changing theirs, to yours?

 

[RogueHanger]

Re: page one, you had to edit it on Saturday - nice body-swerve

Come on Brigadier, don't credit me with the same integrity as you possess.
I edited the title of the thread only, not the posts on page one.! Edit: And I made it public knowledge around about page 11. Now who's body-swerving?

I have to admire your self-belief, if nothing else. Although self-delusion might be closer to the truth.

You're deluding yourself about the editing of posts on page one, and you accuse me of delusion?

I personally wouldn't be proud to be discriminatory (however you want to term it) but, if you find a word that soothes your conscience while you carry on "discriminating", you go for it.

What about Positive Action then? Do you support that?
I was happy to continue labelling it as Positive Discrimination. My conscience didn't need soothing.

We all have opinions. What were you hoping to do - bore everyone into changing theirs, to yours?

Reason with them, Yes. But if you're bored why do you continue to comment? Is it because you have nothing better to do?

 

[RogueHanger]

Your right JBR, but I fear the powers that be, will never allow smoking in pubs again. Personally, I think it should have been "Landlords Choice" . whether to make his pub a smoking or non smoking premises. But the government of the day, realised most pubs would have chosen to allow smoking... In Spain, they have a smoking ban, but many (if not most) of the bars choose to ignore it.

Perhaps when we have left the EU?

(Why are we the only country to NOT ignore EU diktats?)

Instead of hijacking threads, can I politely suggest that you create a new thread to discuss smoking in pubs or Brexit from EU, (Brexit = British Exit)

 

[groovynooby]

I think people of all colours have always (rightly) complained about discrimination; why should the complaints of the indigenous population carry less weight?

Your first sentence is fair comment, except for the "rightly" bit. I would agee that some races have suffered discrimination far more so than others, therefore have more "right" to complain.
As far as the indigenous population's complaint having less weight, I don't think that is fair comment. If an indigenous person was unfailrly discriminated against purely and simply on race, their complaint would carry equal right, morally and in court. I'm referring to a hypothetical case of two equally skilled people and one is unsuccessful purely and simply because they are not of the appropriate race and there is no justifiable reason for the discrimination.
In addition, sometimes it's been the indigenous population that have suffered the discrimination (and worse), Africa, Australia, India, North America to name a few.

My ancestors may have been racist but I'm not and my kids certainly aren't, why should I, any more than an asian guy who is discriminated against, accept it?

If you think that you have been unfairly discriminated against you have a right to ask the Employment Tribunal to consider your case.

Firstly "rightly" was in the respect that it is right/correct to complain about discrimination, I'm not sure how you can disagree with this?

OK, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Secondly, above you state that "...there is no justifiable reason for the discrimination." but earlier stated "Now that Positive Discimination, oops, can't call it that, Positive Action is being used some of the indigenous popoulation are complaining"... to be honest I'm confused.

I'm not sure to exactly what you are referring to here. You seem to be mixing up several different posts, which were in different contexts and responses to different comments/posters. Hence your confusion. You nearly confused me.
Firstly, Justifiable is loosely defined in law. I don't know the precise wording and it may be at the discretion of the judge/jury and their interpretation of the ruling, etc.
Secondly, re the "now Positive Action is now allowed" I was implying that negative discrimination was acceptable amongst racially prejudiced people, but now that "Positive Discrimination", albeit we can't call it that, is now allowed, the racially prejudiced people have started to complain. Edit: Perhaps the racially prejudiced people are now complaining because they perceive that they are losing the inherent advantage that they enjoyed because they were part of the majority.Does that clear up the confusion?

Not really, I don't agree that a dislike of positive discrimination implies racial prejudice, nobody likes to be discriminated against, and as already stated favourable discrimination of one group is at the expense of another group who are negatively discriminated against.

[I don't think that I have been unfairly discriminated against, however, I appears to be legal to do so and you appear to support such discriminatory practises... I think that what your saying is that it's ok to discriminate against a white person but I really do not understand why?

Are you asking me for guidance, or just wasting my time?
If it's the former, I'm happy to oblige, but bear in mind that time is a resource that none of us have a surfeit. If it's the latter, just go study somewhere away from me.

This last paragraph comes across as a little bit arsey, can I ask why? I've been polite and well mannered and I've been enjoying our discussion. Sorry if my comment re. it being ok to discriminate against a white person offended you that's just what the essence of your stance appeared to be, as I said, sorry, no offence intended, I'd rather see an end to discrimination but it seems the more considered approach is to try and establish some kind of discriminatory equilibrium which, in my opinion wont end discrimination but perpetuate it.

Just my thoughts, I've no axe to grind.

 

[RogueHanger]

This last paragraph comes across as a little bit arsey, can I ask why? I've been polite and well mannered and I've been enjoying our discussion. Sorry if my comment re. it being ok to discriminate against a white person offended you that's just what the essence of your stance appeared to be, as I said, sorry, no offence intended, I'd rather see an end to discrimination but it seems the more considered approach is to try and establish some kind of discriminatory equilibrium which, in my opinion wont end discrimination but perpetuate it.

Just my thoughts, I've no axe to grind.

In that case, please except my apologies. Your ability to mix and confuse different posts, possibly in order to try to confuse the issue, led me to suspect that you are capable of a reasonable level of intellect. But then you ask me why sometimes discrimination is right and other times it's wrong. And invite me to explain, when that's what I've been doing all throughout the thread.

Have you been following the thread? If you refer back to page one, the OP (original post) you should gain a good understanding of my reasoning for Positive Discrimination, ooops I meant Positive Action.

If you have and you still need it explainig, then I'm happy and willing to do so.
Again my apologies if I offended you. That was not my intention. My intention was to diiferentiate between the genuine students and the timewasters.

 

[Brigadier]

I'm not body-swerving. I have no need to.
I do not support positive action - I clearly stated so, on page 17.
To borrow your condescending style, "Do keep up."

 

[RogueHanger]

Not really, I don't agree that a dislike of positive discrimination implies racial prejudice,

I didn't say, imply or suggest that.
But it could be a reason, one of many, for now complaining against discrimination. I use the word" perhaps" in the post.