Recruitment of white officers must be slowed down Watch

Poll: Should White Recuits be cut back?
Yes (13)
13.98%
No (76)
81.72%
Not Sure (4)
4.3%
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#161
Report 12 years ago
#161
(Original post by tehjonny)
I cannot argue with you. You seem to expect me to take in and adapt to every piece of tripe you type, like it is gods law. If I do not do this, you continue to demand 'rebuttals' (in reality you wish me to nod my head at you and say 'yes mistress'). 'Correct before using as part of your arguement'...can anyone say arrogance :p:.



We are arguing about whether the policy is sound, or at least I was earlier. It is only in the last few pages we been side-tracked into the racism :p:.
The policy is not sound, but it is not racist, as I have shown. It would be racist of racial differences were the sole justification and reason for "discriminating on the basis of race". You and I know this is not the case. It cannot be racist unless race is the sole reason and, or, justification for a policy. I have shown you too, that occasionally individuals can be discriminated against with a correlation to race, though race is not the reason in and of itself
Please be more mature about this. If your argument is logically incorrect, well, then it is. How is it arrogant of me to point it out? I don't make the laws of Logic. There is an undistributed middle term in your syllogism and that is why it is wrong. If I am to be called arrogant for pointing this out, well, so be it then.

You got at least one thing right: you cannot argue with me.
0
quote
reply
tehjonny
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#162
Report 12 years ago
#162
(Original post by GreenMonstrosity)
The policy is not sound, but it is not racist, as I have shown. It would be racist of racial differences were the sole justification and reason for "discriminating on the basis of race". You and I know this is not the case. It cannot be racist unless race is the sole reason and, or, justification for a policy. I have shown you too, that occasionally individuals can be discriminated against with a correlation to race, though race is not the reason in and of itself
Please be more mature about this. If your argument is logically incorrect, well, then it is. How is it arrogant of me to point it out? I don't make the laws of Logic. There is an undistributed middle term in your syllogism and that is why it is wrong. If I am to be called arrogant for pointing this out, well, so be it then.

You got at least one thing right: you cannot argue with me.
My arguement is not illogical, yours is. It becomes increasing difficult to counter as a result of that illogic, and so the entire debate is muddied. Simply put, you contradict yourself constantly, draw false comparisons, and have such belief that your opinions constitute fact that cannot be brooked nor contradicted you are near impossible to debate with.

If this seems and admission of defeat to you so be it. I see it as a 'positive' defeat .
0
quote
reply
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#163
Report 12 years ago
#163
(Original post by tehjonny)
My arguement is not illogical, yours is. It becomes increasing difficult to counter however, and so the entire debate is muddied.
Your argument is unsound - you still cannot explain away over your syllogistic error and you are refusing to admit that it exists. My argument follows from the premises, and the premises are true (at least have not yet been shown by you to be false). If you think that either of these conditions for logical soundness are not met in my argument, point them out systematically. If you are actually interested in debating this rather than cheap personal shots, then I can quite easily restate my starting position for your benefit. Tell me if you want me to do that and we can start from scratch.
0
quote
reply
GreenMonstrosity
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#164
Report 12 years ago
#164
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.
0
quote
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#165
Report 12 years ago
#165
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
0
quote
reply
dyslexic_banana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#166
Report 12 years ago
#166
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.
0
quote
reply
cottonmouth
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#167
Report 12 years ago
#167
(Original post by dyslexic_banana)
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.
You've cracked it. Its a simple as that. No complexities, no thought needs to go into it. If your skin has less melanin, you respect laws more than other people. You have less intelligence than a dyslexic banana. You are like a bruised dyslexic banana. With the stringy bits not quite peeled off.
0
quote
reply
coaster
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#168
Report 12 years ago
#168
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?
0
quote
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#169
Report 12 years ago
#169
(Original post by cottonmouth)
You've cracked it. Its a simple as that. No complexities, no thought needs to go into it. If your skin has less melanin, you respect laws more than other people. You have less intelligence than a dyslexic banana. You are like a bruised dyslexic banana. With the stringy bits not quite peeled off.
hey cottonmouth - don't be meen to dyslexic people.
0
quote
reply
dyslexic_banana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#170
Report 12 years ago
#170
(Original post by cottonmouth)
You've cracked it. Its a simple as that. No complexities, no thought needs to go into it. If your skin has less melanin, you respect laws more than other people. You have less intelligence than a dyslexic banana. You are like a bruised dyslexic banana. With the stringy bits not quite peeled off.
On average, you godforsaken pillock. It's well known that black people commit more crime, so it kind of figures that fewer blacks will be interested in a career in the Police Force; avoid facts all you want, with your constant politically correct bulls**t, but I prefer to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Oh, and I'm a member of Mensa, thank you very much.
0
quote
reply
kizer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#171
Report 12 years ago
#171
(Original post by cottonmouth)
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

Is this meant to be sarcastic?? Or do you too not know all the meaning of the word 'racist'?

I agree it is a side to the debate, but I kept on trying to get him to understand the usage of the word 'racist' I was referring to. I was just flabbbergasted the extent to which he went to avoid just admitting the policy was racist, but not necessarily in a bad way.
0
quote
reply
kizer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#172
Report 12 years ago
#172
(Original post by cottonmouth)
You've cracked it. Its a simple as that. No complexities, no thought needs to go into it. If your skin has less melanin, you respect laws more than other people. You have less intelligence than a dyslexic banana. You are like a bruised dyslexic banana. With the stringy bits not quite peeled off.

Are you denying black people commit more crime, on average, in the UK? Seriously?
0
quote
reply
dyslexic_banana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#173
Report 12 years ago
#173
(Original post by kizer)
Are you denying black people commit more crime, on average, in the UK? Seriously?
He probably is; politically correct morons deny anything that show non-whites in a negative light.
0
quote
reply
fellicia
Badges: 0
#174
Report 12 years ago
#174
hey,

There definatly is rasism in the police, alike every other large institution, but the solution is not discriminating against the majority, if anything this causes more rasism on both sides. What people always forget is that there is rasism toward whites as there is to blacks.

As for being representative, I don't think this is right, if there is a white guy who is very good at the Job description and a black girl who is very poor at the job, the black girl will get it, this is not going to make our police service more secure!

As for more black people and crime, this is correct according to figures. The reason for this! well you have to think where do many black people live, in gheto like small areas, with much rasism and crime around them, it is not that it is more black people commiting crimes it is that there is more black people in these kind of areas due to immigrants etc.

Also the amount of black people with a higher education is small because of there upbringing in these sorts of low disadvantaged areas. If we are to tackle problems of rasism and crime, we must tackle this problem disadvantage and ghetto like areas.

At the moment i can only find the figure for men and women and crime...so take a look at that, it a similar type of thing...some people also say that its not that htey are more likely to commit crime its just tahat they are more likely to be caught because police watch them more closely.
http://www.crimlinks.com/
0
quote
reply
dyslexic_banana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#175
Report 12 years ago
#175
How sexist against men!!!!!!! The figures show that more men are imprisoned, than women!!!!!! Sexism in the Police force!!!!!
0
quote
reply
fellicia
Badges: 0
#176
Report 12 years ago
#176
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.

Jen
0
quote
reply
dyslexic_banana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#177
Report 12 years ago
#177
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.
0
quote
reply
Thud
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#178
Report 12 years ago
#178
(Original post by dyslexic_banana)
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.
Hello Dr. Ellis, I was wondering what you'd do with your early retirement.
0
quote
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#179
Report 12 years ago
#179
(Original post by dyslexic_banana)
Oh, and I'm a member of Mensa, thank you very much.
Big deal. You only need a 145 IQ for Mensa don't you? Hardly that demanding.
0
quote
reply
dyslexic_banana
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#180
Report 12 years ago
#180
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.
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you like exams?

Yes (205)
18.69%
No (665)
60.62%
Not really bothered about them (227)
20.69%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed