Here is another way of looking at it. First you are basing your entire argument on the unreasoned application of the second of two dictionary definitions of racism. But more importantly, let me ask you, is an act or thought racist by consequence, ommission or motivation? This may be where we disagree.
In my view, an act cannot be racist by consequence, though it can have adverse, unintended or unavoidable effects on a particular racial group. Even, if the cause for this adverse effect is avoidable, but still not avoided, and there is a reason beyond race that justifies its continuation, it is not racist. This is the case here. There is no conscious, intended or designed motive to discriminate on the SOLE qualification of race, though there is a contingent discrimination on the qualification of race. Yet the fact that it is a contingent and not necessary condition, this renders it inadmissable as the definitive principle. This is why you are wrong.
An act cannot be racist by ommission either, because it requires a conscious decision to discriminate.
An act can only therefore be racist by motivation, because it would then be based on a deliberate decision to discriminate based only, and solely, on race, the intention being to give a relative advantage solely on a perception that one race is more deserving of it by racial qualification ALONE. In the case of the police here, it is not merely or solely by racial qualification that black recruits are sought, but ALSO and primarily the qualification of "their ability to enable the police to meet a policy objective".
Raw and literal dictionary definitions are often impractical when it comes to real life propositions and frequently need to be qualified in logical discourse.
Just jumping in to say a few unnecessary things.
First, that was one hell of a brilliant debate, and we need more of them on TSR, as opposed to the usual tripe.
GreenMonstrosity, you are terrifyingly brilliant, and completely owned the whole thing. You forced them to renege on pages of asserting that it was racist, and i had to giggle, when after aaaaall that effort, Tehjonny said, "okay.forget racism.isn't it discriminatory?".
And the one foolproof way of knowing you have won something is when they start attacking the way you use language, or splitting hairs over semantics. I have to say, your language was fine, sophisticated, and not over-complex(like Profesh for example).
Cant actually add anything to the debate, as it would just be a less-intelligent way of repeating what you've already said.Rep coming your way
The reason there are more white Police Officers, than officers of any other ethnic background, is because white people have the most respect for the law.
The reason there are more white Police Officers is that there are more white people in this country. Simple.
However, I think the real issue here (pardon if this has already been covered, haven't read the entire thread) is how representative public servants ought to be, if at all. I believe strongly in meritocracy and believe that the best man for the job is the best regardless of his ethnicity. Population demographics needn't come into it - the best should be recruited.
Also, hate the way that people argue that the Commons should be more representative. Since when does an MP have to be a certain colour to be a good representative? Didn't a certain Mr Galloway get elected fighting the cause of a cosmopolitan community?
How sexist against men!!!!!!! The figures show that more men are imprisoned, than women!!!!!! Sexism in the Police force!!!!!
Yeah that to lol it links in with rasism too though... Its not just that though...men are more inclined to commit those types of crimes than women...women tend to commit more white collar crime and therefore are not caught as much....Men are generally more aggressive than women etc...also just a point those blacks that are semarlians are also more likely to commit crime because of how they live in their country is not how we live.
Men are more inclined to commit crime, although, actually, I believe that the law is softer, on women; however, I put the figures down, mainly, to men being more likely to commit crime; it's the same principle as with black people. Black people, on average, are not as intelligent as white people, and hence don't perform as well at school, and hence are more likely to commit crime; it then becomes a self-perpetuating problem, as they are bought up in areas of high crime and where education isn't highly valued, and may know no other way.
It's 148, and that represents the top 2% of the population, meaning 98% of the population, thoretically, are unable to achieve 'Mensa' status, you Yankie tw*t; oh, and I was merely defending myself against accusations of being thick, rather than showing off.