What is equality to you?

[WiseOwl182 10]

5 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

That's the part, thanks

 

Once again, brilliant.

 

If you're going to try and replicate the real world, at least make it believable and how an employer would actually recruit and not some fantasy to satisfy your own agenda.

 

 

They would "realise" by referring to the quotas that were set for that very reason. That's the whole basis for "positive action". Now answer my question please.

[leviathan13 348]

OK, new discussion:

 

A woman is given £1m

 

A man is given £1m

 

Is this fair?

[SnailyBoy 10]

1 minute ago, leviathan13 said:

So what is the point of your analogy, other than to say it's fair if everyone is given £10?

Actually it was to highlight some rather strange thinking on your part.

 

I highlighted the key words

11 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'.

 

11 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?

Remember, the money isn't real and there's no backstory, simply highlighting how making one group equal to another doesn't advantage one group and discriminate the other.

[nikki-red 308]

4 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Thanks, I've reported all the SnailyBoy re-posts to assist your moderation.

 

Thanks for taking the time to do that, but to remove them and all the posts quoting them and referring to them would mean removing pretty much all of the last 8 pages.

So we wont be doing that. We could just close the thread instead? 



 

[WiseOwl182 10]

9 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Actually it was to highlight some rather strange thinking on your part.

 

I highlighted the key words

 

Remember, the money isn't real and there's no backstory, simply highlighting how making one group equal to another doesn't advantage one group and discriminate the other.

When will you answer my question? Or can't you?

[SnailyBoy 10]

3 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

They would "realise" by referring to the quotas that were set for that very reason. That's the whole basis for "positive action". Now answer my question please.

There's only only job, the employer choose to give the job to the person who whilst equally qualified, enabled the employer to meet their aspirations for a workforce that equally represented the diversity (proportionally) of the country.

 

 

[WiseOwl182 10]

2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

There's only only job, the employer choose to give the job to the person who whilst equally qualified, enabled the employer to meet their aspirations for a workforce that equally represented the diversity (proportionally) of the country.

 

 

And by doing so, discriminated against the candidate who didn't meet said aspirations.

 

Ps. You didn't answer the "How is Person A disadvantaged?" question.

Edited March 11, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[leviathan13 348]

5 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Actually it was to highlight some rather strange thinking on your part.

 

I highlighted the key words

 

Remember, the money isn't real and there's no backstory, simply highlighting how making one group equal to another doesn't advantage one group and discriminate the other.

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.

[SnailyBoy 10]

Just now, WiseOwl182 said:

And by doing so, discriminated against the candidate who didn't meet said aspirations.

No, they just didn't get the job.

 

Does that mean that everyone else who applied and didn't get the job was discriminated against?

[leviathan13 348]

1 minute ago, SnailyBoy said:

No, they just didn't get the job.

 

Does that mean that everyone else who applied and didn't get the job was discriminated against?

If they scored equally, yes!

 

OK... two black people score equally - how do they decide who gets the job?

Edited March 11, 2019 by leviathan13

[SnailyBoy 10]

5 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

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.

Wow, there is no backstory, replace money with whatever you want.

 

The principal is the same.

3 minutes ago, leviathan13 said:

If they scored equally, yes!

 

OK... two black people score equally - how do they decide who gets the job?

Great point, they choose one of them, there's only one job.

 

Does that mean the one who didn't get the job is discriminated against?

Edited March 11, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[leviathan13 348]

2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Wow, there is no backstory, replace money with whatever you want.

 

The principal is the same.

Great point, they choose one of them, there's only one job.

 

Does that mean the one who didn't get the job is discriminated against?

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?

Edited March 11, 2019 by leviathan13