Positive Discrimination - Positive Action

[RogueHanger]

I hadn't anticipated you would struggle to take the point, I will bear in mind you have to have everything spelled out for you in future.

Please explain why a claim you support discrimination is an absurd one, as you said so in your opening post in this very thread, copied below for ease of your comprehension.

Roguehanger said:
"So if a person from ethnicity A and a person from ethnicity B both apply and both meet the minimum requirement, but person from ethnicity B meets the preferred requirement in order to meet or maintain targets, they are employed.

What’s the problem?"

So not only do you support discrimination on a person's race/ethnicity, you don't see the problem with it.

I did not use the term "discrimination" in that same post, despite your claim that I did. However that is a minor point.

I do support Positive Action, which we have confused with the term "discrimination".
I understand the difference, but it's pointless discussing a concept with you unless or until I know that you appreciate the difference.

So if you'd be kind enough to clarify the difference, we can move on.

To describe it as "racism" is absurd given the colloquial connotation that "racism" has gathered.

However, if you want we can adopt the terms Positive Racism and Negative Racism.

To repeat myself and the comment to BT (FMT) re repetition:
"What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;" Romeo and Juliet.

As long as we are sure that we are both understanding what the concepts mean.
So your understanding of the differences are:...........

 

[cajar]

I would suggest a small study break, where you read and digest the meaning of the word 'discrimination'.

 

[RogueHanger]

I would suggest a small study break, where you read and digest the meaning of the word 'discrimination'.

So assist me, what is your understanding of the difference between Action and Discrimination?

Then we'll see who needs the study break.
You backed out of the discussion last night because you'd talked yourself into a corner and you're doing exactly the same thing this morning.

Norcon, please come back, you were a little bit more sensible.

 

[LastMagicBean]

BTW, my sincere apologies if I offended anyone last night during the three pages of alcohol-fuelled drivel.

Apologies accepted. Just don't make a habit of it.

 

[RogueHanger]

BTW, my sincere apologies if I offended anyone last night during the three pages of alcohol-fuelled drivel.

Apologies accepted. Just don't make a habit of it.

I don't!
And your behaviour???

Sadly, the sensible civilised discussion didn't last long.

 

[cajar]

Let me know when you've understood what discrimination means and we can proceed.

 

[RogueHanger]

Let me know when you've understood what discrimination means and we can proceed.

Last night, I asked you to differeniate between Discimination and Action. You failed and went "off-air". You return this morning, pretending that you now understand the difference, but fail to be able to express the differences.

There's probably a few words that aptly describes you. I suspect that "buffoon" is the most appropriate one.

 

[cajar]

Well, we can draw conclusions when a person resorts to ad hominem attacks.

 

[Dextraneous]

Reductio ad testicular nonsense!

 

[Big Tone]

Okay, someone's gotta do it and it may as well be me. From the OED.

Discrimination:
"The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex"

Racism:
"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"

Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me.

I like quotes too. "Speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret"

 

[Brigadier]

I prefer the term Positive Action but the definition, as it appears to stand, needs tweaking because it's still discrimination in its current form. I.e.

Positive action - " In the United Kingdom in Harriet Harman's Equality Act 2010 ss 158-159,the term is used in the context of employment to allow selection of a candidate from an "under-represented" group so long as he or she is no less than equally qualified compared to another potential candidate that is not from the under-represented group."

Which could equate to "We are giving the job to someone else, because you are the wrong gender / colour / race / religion."

If the above is a fair and true representation of PA, I wouldn't support that, either.

No no no! You encourage, train, fund even. You don't just automatically give someone a job based on their colour.

Let's ban boys' grammar schools from teaching science then, to encourage and advantage girls into this area (in which they are currently under-represented).
Free uni places for girls to study science.
No matter how it is termed, it is always shafting someone, to advantage someone else.

 

[Big Tone]

Now you're being a goof. I didn't say, and no one has said, you ban anyone or anything! What's next, let's sack a bunch of male MP's to encourage women into it? So let's try and be serious for a minute.

What's the answer, law of the jungle? Survival of the fittest?

The bottom line and truth of the matter is probably that life is not fair and never will be. We can all probably come up with a sob story. I was disadvantaged. Dad pegged it when I was six, plunged us into abject poverty. Mocked at school for my raiment. No confidence and $hite education system and blah blah blah. (Get the smallest violin in the world out for me someone).

It's too late for me but, as intelligent human beings in the 21st century, we try to make the world a fairer place. I know that's a big joke but that's the theory at least. How we do that or what we call it on this particular issue is the sticking point here.

So for me, and as the MP said so well, a fairer way is to encourage people into whatever area the Government feels is in need of better representation. That isn't shafting anyone AFAIK. I shouldn't be dragged over hot coals for that Brigadier and I though we were in agreement.

Right then. The sun's out and I've got a motorbike. Laters...

 

[Brigadier]

Pay girls to go to uni to study science. Boys go into debt for £40k. Fair enough?

 

[jeds]

...what is your understanding of the difference between Action and Discrimination?

As per my previous post. Positive action necessarily discriminates against somebody else and the person benefitting from the action is discredited. Proven by the point I made. Nobody wins.

 

[RogueHanger]

Well, we can draw conclusions when a person resorts to ad hominem attacks.

Kettle, pot, black.
As you can't tell the difference between Positive Discrimination and Poistive Action, allow me to give you my take on the difference.

There is no difference!
Harriet Harman, Joe Swinson and the reporter use the two terms interchangably, which perhaps indicates the confusion.
Would you agree? If not, why not?