What is equality to you?

[SnailyBoy 10]

Just now, woodview said:

In your irrelevant example, with a free supply of fivers, and people who were originally gifted £5 or £10, it makes no difference.

So, now you've satisfied that, can you answer my example?

Oh dear, you're really struggling aren't you?

 

Come on try again

 

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

 

[woodview 10]

3 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Oh dear, you're really struggling aren't you?

 

Come on try again

 

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

 

Oh dear you are struggling reading. I clearly said it makes no difference, based on your meaningless assumptions. 

So answe mine now please.

[leviathan13 348]

5 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Oh dear, you're really struggling aren't you?

 

Come on try again

 

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

 

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.

 

 

[woodview 10]

2 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

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.

 

 

He's not interested in that. He wants to bang on an irrelevant example, that uses the word minority, and if that isn't discrimination, then therefore the real issue isn't either. Think its a waste of breath tbh.

[SnailyBoy 10]

5 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

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.

 

 

You're confusing childish with simple.

 

Glad you see it makes sense, now expand the same thinking to Positive Action.

 

However, I fear from your second sentence, more cognitive dissonance is on the way.

7 minutes ago, woodview said:

Oh dear you are struggling reading. I clearly said it makes no difference, based on your meaningless assumptions. 

So answe mine now please.

Wow, where are the assumptions?

 

2 minutes ago, woodview said:

He's not interested in that. He wants to bang on an irrelevant example, that uses the word minority, and if that isn't discrimination, then therefore the real issue isn't either. Think its a waste of breath tbh.

The example is ideally relevant, cuts through your 'poor white guy' nonsense to show your real thinking.

Edited March 11, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[woodview 10]

2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

You're confusing childish with simple.

 

Glad you see it makes sense, now expand the same thinking to Positive Action.

 

However, I fear from your second sentence, more cognitive dissonance is on the way.

Wow, where are the assumptions?

 

Are you going to use your vastly superior intellect to answer my example about the doctor and labourers kids?

[SnailyBoy 10]

Just now, woodview said:

Are you going to use your vastly superior intellect to answer my example about the doctor and labourers kids?

Minority groups are, on the whole, disadvantaged.

 

Making up an indvidual scenario where that's reversed does what exactly?

 

It still doesn't help you honestly answer my question, despite your tap dancing distraction.

 

[leviathan13 348]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

You're confusing childish with simple.

 

Glad you see it makes sense, now expand the same thinking to Positive Action.

 

However, I fear from your second sentence, more cognitive dissonance is on the way.

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'.

[woodview 10]

9 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Minority groups are, on the whole, disadvantaged.

 

Making up an indvidual scenario where that's reversed does what exactly?

 

It still doesn't help you honestly answer my question, despite your tap dancing distraction.

 

I really cba with you.

What you fail to see is that maybe only 2 or 3 people post, but dozens view. If you think you've made a clever,  persuasive point, you are sadly mistaken.

Nice use of the phrase 'cognitive dissonance' , and bold font. It made other posters look really daft. You can tell them about it at Dungeons and Dragons club next week, you'll be the star.

 

[SnailyBoy 10]

28 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

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'.

I know you don't accept that minority groups are generally disadvantaged, or do you?

 

I get confused.

 

We've all seen your reversal of the situation, rich black guy v poor white guy argument. Do you really think that's an argument against trying equal things out for minority groups on the whole?

 

Then were back to the 'simplistic notion' below, in response that equalling things out is discrimination.

 

 

3 hours ago, makapaka said:

Can you explain why it is unjust or prejudicial to try and correct inequality borne out of unjust or prejudicial treatment?

 

3 hours ago, leviathan13 said:

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'.

 

3 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

As you said, it makes sense (even though you didn't actually admit it isn't an advantage or discrimination, I guess that was going too far) .

 

So where does your 'discrimination' argument go now, are you going to concede that attempting to equal things out isn't really discrimination?

19 minutes ago, woodview said:

I really cba with you.

What you fail to see is that maybe only 2 or 3 people post, but dozens view. If you think you've made a clever,  persuasive point, you are sadly mistaken.

Nice use of the phrase 'cognitive dissonance' , and bold font. It made other posters look really daft. You can tell them about it at Dungeons and Dragons club next week, you'll be the star.

 

Lol, thanks, don't forget to try again another time.

Edited March 11, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[danot 10]

1 hour ago, SnailyBoy said:

Oh dear, you're really struggling aren't you?

 

Come on try again

 

The majority group has been given £10

 

The minority group has been given £5

 

The minority group is given an additional £5 to make things equal with the majority group.

 

How is that an advantage for the minority group and discrimination against the majority group?

 

This example doesn't accurately illustrate the premise of positive action though.  A fitting example would be- giving a £10 to someone from a minority group and only giving £5 to someone from a majority group, because someone from a majority group has to lose out to someone from the minority. Therefore,  any example as to be based on a one-to-one basis. You can't base your example on majority vs minority ratio since the majority will always outnumber the minority. 

[SnailyBoy 10]

1 minute ago, danot said:

This example doesn't accurately illustrate the premise of positive action though.  A fitting example would be- giving a £10 to someone from a minority group and only giving £5 to someone from a majority group, because someone from a majority group has to lose out to someone from the minority. Therefore,  any example as to be based on a one-to-one basis. You can't base your example on majority vs minority ratio since the majority will always outnumber the minority. 

Oh dear, nice try.