Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[RogueHanger]

The reason for the confusion is your assertion that positive action and positive discrimination are the same thing, they're not

The process and the result is the same. They have different labels.

and, to be honest, I am surprised that you are supportive of illegal discriminatory practises!

I don't. It's illegal. But I do support Positive Action.

Where's the report racist thread button...

There isn't one. But you can alert the mods.

 

[groovynooby]

...

and, to be honest, I am surprised that you are supportive of illegal discriminatory practises!

I don't. It's illegal. But I do support Positive Action...

I refer the honourable gentleman to the second sentence of the OP.

I rest my case, your Honour.

 

[RogueHanger]

...

and, to be honest, I am surprised that you are supportive of illegal discriminatory practises!

I don't. It's illegal. But I do support Positive Action...

I refer the honourable gentleman to the second sentence of the OP.

I rest my case, your Honour.

And I refer the honourable gentleman to my post in (about) page 11 where I clarified, differentiated between PD and PA because I became aware that the EHRC had drawn the distinction.

To take yet another analogy:
I disagree with banks taking money out of your account, for bank charges, etc, without your permission.
But I agree with PAYE, (the pinciple, not the degree).

Bot legal, lawful, justified actions.

I disagree with credit card fraud, and its like, which is a similar process, but illegal and unjustifiable.

 

[groovynooby]

Guilty as charged... take him down.

 

[Big Tone]

Not buying it Rogue. For me, you lost credibility when you categorically stated on the one hand, and I quote, “There is no difference” but also state and recognise that one is illegal yet the other legal. That, Mr. Hanger, is illogical. So I'll test your maths next.

A + B = X
A + C = X

Therfore

B = C

Get it? Got it? Good...

 

[RogueHanger]

Guilty as charged... take him down.

I thought I'd managed to clear up all your confused perceptions. Evidently not. It's no wonder you were confused. I now realise how easily you are confused and deluded.

I referred you to my post, actually on page 13, which you obviously did not read. I repeat it for you here:

I've changed the heading to read "Positive Discrimination - Positive Action" in recognition of my mistaken use of an incorrect terminology.

To all intents and purposes, I meant "Positive Action" which is the same in the concept, meaning and results as Positive Discimination.

I now realise and accept that Positive Discrimination is illegal (under EHRC) whereas Postive Action is legal.

I made this post on Sunday 20th April.
Now if you have no intention of making yourself aware of all of the discussion that has gone on before on this thread and regugitating old arguments, then be a good lad, run along and play with your toys for a while. Give us adults a rest from your silly childish ideas.

 

[RogueHanger]

Not buying it Rogue. For me, you lost credibility when you categorically stated on the one hand, and I quote, “There is no difference” but also state and recognise that one is illegal yet the other legal. That, Mr. Hanger, is illogical. So I'll test your maths next.

A + B = X
A + C = X

Therfore

B = C

Get it? Got it? Good...

That's fine, BT. The government, the EHRC, or whoever have decided that anyone guilty of B is acting illegally, whereas anyone acting in accordance with C is acting lawfully.

Just how many times does it take?
I'll try to think of a simpler analogy.

 

[groovynooby]

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.

Hmm... read the post above (posted yesterday), even after it was established that positive discrimination was an illegal practice you explicitly express your support for said practise.

I'm not sure why you are resorting to abuse, that's not nice, I was having a laugh, a bit of banter... your final paragraph of your previous post somewhat ironic in subject matter given that it looks as if it was penned by a petulant 8 year old... poor, poor show.

 

[RogueHanger]

Hmm... read the post above (posted yesterday), even after it was established that positive discrimination was an illegal practice you explicitly express your support for said practise.

I'm not sure why you are resorting to abuse, that's not nice, I was having a laugh, a bit of banter... somewhat ironic given that the final paragraph looks as if it was penned by a petulant 8 year old... poor, poor show.

You may continue with your confusion and delusion in future.
I've become bored with your version of banter. I perceived it as belligerence.

 

[Dextraneous]

A + B = X
A + C = X

Therefore

B = C

Mathematically, this isn't necessarily true

 

[RogueHanger]

A + B = X
A + C = X

Therefore

B = C

Mathematically, this isn't necessarily true

It may be in this context.

 

[Big Tone]

I am going to hunt you down and kill you with an axe Dext!

 

[RogueHanger]

I am going to hunt you down and kill you with an axe Dext!

Make it a blunt one.

 

[Dextraneous]

 

[Brigadier]

Some are more concerned with being 'legal', than being fair?

Thought the purpose of the law was to verify what is fair

Emphasis being on the "was"