Jump to content

leviathan13

Members
  • Content Count

    5,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by leviathan13

  1. I thought calling people names was for kids... #bekind
  2. The problem is that it takes so long and costs so much for SCC to take back possession of a property. And there are people living in properties that are too big for their NEEDS, but they see it as their home so why should they downsize to allow people who need it to have it. The council receive a lot of criticism when it's actually tenants who need to change their attitude and expectations towards social housing.
  3. How else do you expect people to bid for SCC properties?
  4. I always use Martin Lewis' website - Money Saving Expert. Loads of info and advice. You can also join his free Credit Club which tracks your credit score and history. It's not perfect, but gives a good indication of how successful you'll be when applying for credit.
  5. He may disapprove of gay marriage and be all Christian and stuff, believing the crap in the Bible... But, what if he was actually able to put that aside for his job and help people whose lifestyle he disagreed with? I get paid to help people from all backgrounds, whether i believe in their life choices/religion/political leanings etc. or not. I personally disagree with the geezer's beliefs, as i'm atheist and everything, but it doesn't mean that, whilst on the clock, i don't think he wouldn't help those he has chosen to help.
  6. Answer that question and then we'll progress the point.
  7. Who is more advantaged - someone from the middle class or someone from a single-parent family on a council estate?
  8. 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.
  9. Doesn't mention 'representation', though...
  10. So... why not bring them both back for further testing and questioning?
  11. How do they choose one of them? If it's the toss of a coin then how do you know you're getting the best person for the job?
  12. If they scored equally, yes! OK... two black people score equally - how do they decide who gets the job?
  13. But it depends on the group. Using your analogy of everyone being given the same amount of money: Group A live in an affluent area - they've gotten there because of the amount of money they have. A 'do-gooder' feels that this isn't fair and gives Group B a wedge of cash to make them equally as well-off as you. Suddenly, there's an influx of people to your area because more people can now afford to live there. This means that the shops can now raise prices because of more competition. House prices rise because of the popularity of the area and it means that your child is now no longer able to afford to live/rent in the area.
  14. OK, new discussion: A woman is given £1m A man is given £1m Is this fair?
  15. So what is the point of your analogy, other than to say it's fair if everyone is given £10?
  16. Exactly - so if black people automatically have an advantage just for being black, then he's going to struggle. Unless you're now claiming that black people aren't as disadvantaged to try and prove your point...
  17. But he won't if his skin colour is a barrier... do you not see the irony in your comment?
  18. I don't get what you're trying to explain with this analogy - all you're saying is that, if everyone is given £10 then that's equality. But it depends on the person's situatuation who is receiving it as to whether it's fair or not. And, why is someone randomly dishing out £10s??
  19. There's encouragement to get people to apply, but it's discrimination to say, pretty much, that you don't need to be the best - just be equally as good and the job is yours because of your skin colour or sex. All i want is the best person for the job...
  20. Because 'positive action' is a million miles away from your simplistic notion! White person and black person score the same in an interview for a job. Black person is offered it simply because of the colour of their skin to meet a representation quota. Fair? Personally, no - further testing is required to evidence suitability for the job. The white person is from a council estate and had to fund themselves through further education by working part time jobs. The black person is from a wealthy family who have been able to fund them and introduce them to people who mingle in the correct circles. Fair? It's not the black person's fault that they were born in to that position, but they have had an easier ride to get where they are. The white person is a woman and the black person is a man. In the employment that they have applied for, women are underrepresented, too. So, which should take precedent - race or sex? Obviously, you then start to get to the SJW mindset of well, even though the black person has had a more financially stable and privileged upbringing, the white person simply by being white has more privilege, despite their background. So, apologies for not taking your version of 'equality' but, for me, it's not as simple as 'give everyone the same amount of money'.
  21. In your one, childish, scenario, it does make sense. However, if you add in just one variable, it starts to break down your 'argument' because other factors then need to be taken in to consideration.
  22. Why were people given different amounts initially?
  23. What if majority group A are earning less than group B? You've just made the rich richer... My spin on this was that both groups can claim benefits, but group A are earning less so require more benefits to bring them up to the earnings of B. But, to be 'equal', you've now given group B more cash, even though you'd already made it fair by giving A more money.
  24. Because, in a nutshell, it's using discrimination to try and cure discrimination. No matter how it's dressed-up; labelled; packaged etc. - people are being given an advantage based purely on the colour of their skin or their sex/gender. This is called 'discrimination'.
  25. 'Protected groups' = people being given special treatment due to race/sex/gender etc. So if 2 people are equally appointable, one black and one white, the black person should automatically be offered the job simply due to their colour if that colour/bavkground is underrepresented in that organisation/position etc. But that doesn't take in to account the opportunities open to the individual. So, if the black person comes from a family in a position of wealth and power (an MP's child, for example), and the white person lives on a council estate and has had to take a number of jobs to fund their education to get to the point where they are qualified enough to be appointable to that kind of job, well the black person, it could be argued, has a distinct advantage on both counts because they come from a more privileged background, and they are black. That doesn't sound fair. Also, what if women are underrepresented and the white person is a woman, the black person a man? Does the man getting it mean 'patriarchy'? Or does the woman getting it mean 'white privilege'? Intersectionality will eventually disappear up it's own backside... hopefully!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.