What is equality to you?

[danot 10]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

No he is debating equality as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

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

[SnailyBoy 10]

21 minutes ago, danot said:

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

As much I enjoy the thought of having a free spokesperson, it's a little weird them deciding for me what I'm debating.

Edited March 12, 2019 by SnailyBoy

[danot 10]

4 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

As much I enjoy the thought having a free spokesperson, it's a little weird them deciding for me what I'm debating.

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'? 

[SnailyBoy 10]

14 minutes ago, danot said:

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'? 

That's all about questioning the motives of doing a particular thing, ie perfunctory or symbol effort.

 

You'll have to look at each example of where positive action is used to see if the ambition is 'perfunctory of symbol effort' and therefore tokenism or a  real attempt at achieving genuine equality.

 

Nice try though.

 

PS, Just so we're sure, I'm still debating equality.

[danot 10]

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. 

[woodview 10]

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

No he is debating equality as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

So, is this now a thread devoted to moot of legal points? Or are we allowed to discuss OPINION of what is right and wrong????

[Halibut 12]

46 minutes ago, danot said:

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. 

Care to expand on that?

[WiseOwl182 10]

18 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

You mean not accepting your claim that "positive action" is a euphemism for discrimination?

 

That's not double standards.

 

Yes it is, because it's not a claim, it's a fact, by definition.

18 hours ago, makapaka said:

 

no one can adequately explain why positive action is  discrimination.

 

other than say it prejudices a white person over a black person seemingly - bizarre.

Other than providing the very definition of discrimination you mean.

[SnailyBoy 10]

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Yes it is, because it's not a claim, it's a fact, by definition.

No it isn't.

 

Demonstrate my so called double standard then.

 

You must have examples.

[WiseOwl182 10]

10 hours ago, Halibut said:

I just try to strive towards equality. I think it's really illuminating that you use that phrase ''or do you just hate white men?'' though, it says a lot about your motivation. 

I don't hate white men at all, I'm one myself as was my father and his father, as are my brothers. Unlike yourself though, I have a realistic understanding of the way that the world - and our corner of it in particular - is largely run by and set up for white men.  I know that institutional racism is real and limits other people's chances. I believe it's important that the police force for example, should reflect more accurately the communities they serve.  So the idea that a white man occasionally misses getting a job as an equally qualified black man gets it doesn't trouble me. Mr White, living as he does in a country largely run by and for people like him, will readily find work.

     You seem quite distressed by this idea, and frankly I'm struggling to see why - it's almost as if you have the mindset that a few non whites getting a fair crack of the whip equates to a war on white men. I wonder if you see feminism as a threat too? 

The idea doesn't "trouble" me either. My problem is the hypocrisy on display. Call positive action for what it is - discrimination. Accept that one method of addressing existing discrimination is to introduce counter discrimination to try to balance things out. Because that's what it is. Fighting discrimination with discrimination. I'm more of an idealist and would prefer for everybody to just be treated equally as human beings.

[WiseOwl182 10]

5 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

 

Inventing scenarios that suit your agenda adds nothing to the debate. 

That's rich considering you spent 4 pages repeating the same irrelevant scenario about dishing out fivers.

 

5 hours ago, SnailyBoy said:

No, you simply can't grasp that equality doesn't advantage those that have the disadvantage.

 

 

At the point of 2 job candidates being equally qualified for the job, neither candidate has the advantage nor disadvantage. It's a tie. The employer can choose to:

 

- Discriminate (either way) based on gender, skin colour, etc

 

- Toss a coin

[Vaati 11]

As you think it's fine to carry on with the baiting etc, closing. Do not start a new thread/post etc.