danot

Yearly Physical examinations of vulnerable girls? Or would this be too invasive?

If there'd been only one conviction for burglary since the 1980's I'd agree with you.

You mean the issue of colourism, or 'colour prejudice' that you failed to recognise only last week? As you know, I'm fully aware it. I've harped on about it enough.

I'm mixed- Black father, white mother. You know this.

Yeah, colourism, or 'colour prejudice', as I've always known it is rearing its ugly head in black society nowadays. But either light skinned black or dark skinned black you're equally as black in racial status. Lighter skinned black/white mixed differ obviously.

https://www.hg.org With virtual multi-player worlds growing in popularity, there's real concern over virtual crimes spilling over into the real world, blurring the distinction between the two. Conversely, it has also been said that the connection between virtual crimes and real crimes is tenuous at best. Which makes me wonder about offences committed in virtual worlds of the future. For instance. If future technology enables the minds of multiple players to reside in virtual worlds indefinitely, physically interacting, seeing through their own eyes so to speak whilst their physical self is zoned-out somewhere- matrix like. would committing virtual crimes such as robbery, assault, rape and murder warrant appropriate charges being brought against the actual person? This may have been raised many times before, there may well be a novel or movie that relates to it, I'm not sure. I'm just exploring the idea that's all.

Should've said stamped-out. Only ever conviction was February this year though. And that's in spite of the practice still being used.

Thing is. We're too mindful of religious and cultural diversity to ever outlaw the customary practices that signify their faith and cultural heritage. It'll never happen in my lifetime.

Absolutely not. And I haven't made any kind of comparison that would lead to you think I might. I just think the issue of 'not having a baby's consent' is redundant. And just for the record, I'm totally against FGM.

You can't gain the consent of a baby. Every action, every decision we make is done without their consent. Washing their body is invasive if we're comparing it with our own body.

I accept that the objective of positive action shouldn't be perfunctory, but there's plenty of reasons to think of it as being a symbolic gesture.

I'll go one better than that. I'll give you the literal definition of 'Tokenism'- "The practice of making only a perfunctory or symbol effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from a under-represent groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equallity in the workforce" There it is in black and white. And this isn't my interpretation of 'Tokenism', it's the literal definition of it. Equallity on the other hand is -" The state of being equal, especially in status, rights and opportunities". Now, which one best defines 'positive action'?

He quite literally isn't. Not that he's responsible for it. Like I said, the confusion lies in the terminology.

Precisely. It's your terminology that's at fault. You keep calling it 'equallity' when it's actually 'tokenism'. Maybe you should check their definitive meanings.

The confusion lies in the term 'equallity' we're not debating equallity, we're debating 'tokenism' to be precise.

Every scenario so far has been in our heads. You've no idea who should be employed? Okay, I'll ask you this. Should not having any white employees give either candidate an advantage over the other or influence the boss's decision in any way? Yet you're able to explain why discrimination is discriminatory.

It's the moralizing, self righteous 'white male savour' attitude towards the so-called "disadvantaged" that's at risk of becoming tiring nonsense.

Would it be fair to employ the privileged white man? Not my term by the way. I'm just quoting others.

I'm no longer sure to be honest.

And what if the boss of a black orientated workplace had to choose between a black candidate and a white candidate?

Nonsense. Stating my position on tackling inequally using 'positive action' hasn't betrayed me at all. Here it is again. Using 'positive action' to tackle social inequality without discriminating against 'anyone' isn't possible. But, you and others disagree, claiming 'positive action' is not discriminatory in the slightest, adding- positive action actually tackles discrimination and the social inequalities that unrepresented minorities who generally lose-out to so-called 'privledged white men' often face. You and others have routinely refered to these unrepresented minorities as 'disadvantaged', even suggesting that thier advancement is semi-relient the good grace of the so-called 'privledged white men' who ought to give them "a leg up" occasionally. Does that sound about right?

Calling minority groups 'disadvantaged' isn't a term I chose. I've been quoting you snailyboy. Check-out post 538.

Now this example works much better doesn't it. On a one-to-one basis, it wouldn't be discriminatory at all, but when you talk about addressing inequality and the disproportionate imbalance of the so-called privledged in relation to the so-called disadvantaged, the inequality, or the imbalance so to speak, cannot be aligned unless the majority are treated less favourably. You must realise this?

Group A being the majority and group B being the minority. Yeah. You're still treating group A unfairly.

Are the one's getting the most opportunities in the minority? 🤔