Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Another example. Some company are wanting to market their product. They discover that having an asian salesperson makes the product more popular with their demographic. Should they be allowed to specify asian male?
    Yes, because the Asian person will do a better job by selling more of the product. Referring back to the original topic, Asian police officers don't do a better job at policing than white ones.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Another example. Some company are wanting to market their product. They discover that having an asian salesperson makes the product more popular with their demographic. Should they be allowed to specify asian male?
    If the employer is a restaurant they are legally entitled to specify the ethnic origin of their waiters, e.g. in a Chinese restaurant. However, im not sure if the law allows the above scenario in general marketing. IMO I don’t feel this would be ok, as the promotion of a product isn’t directly related to a person’s welfare (although a tenuous link could be established), while the situations we have examined are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    You make blunt and childish statementsusually without evidence in order to make yourself look smart, such as "You are wrong" (no evidence), "Very many situations" (yet you name one), "Er.. is that not discrimination?"
    (rhetorical "Ooh, aren't I smart" type question), "are you saying your original stance was wrong?"... and so on! You are obviously trying to appear superior or more intelligent instead of simply giving your argument.
    *looks shocked* and you suggest i am insecure?
    (Original post by calumc)
    "You are wrong (no evidence)"
    I explained why you are wrong, backed up with evidence. Where was yours?
    (Original post by calumc)
    ""Very many situations (yet you name one)"
    The GOQ's in the Race Relations Amendments Act 2000 are the very many situations i was referring to (which i pointed out)
    (Original post by calumc)
    "are you saying your original stance was wrong?"
    What do you expect? Your two posts contradicted each other!
    (Original post by calumc)
    Yet again you cannot resist the opportunity. I'm making "contradictory statements", I "take this place too seriously", I'm "offended by smilies". Are you one of these people that tries to act hard because they're hiding behind the anonymity of the internet? Grow up
    I am trying to act hard? :confused: I have obviously hit a nerve with you somewhere along the line. I don’t feel i am exceptionally "smart", i have not been trying to act "hard" and i feel you are getting quite personal (this is a debate forum remember).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Wow... I'm pleased my thread has insipred some lively debate! I personal think that any kind of quota-filling discrimination is abhorent and an insult to ALL the applicants involved, regardless of their ethnicity.
    Imagine if you were an Asian applicant, with the good fortune of being accepted into the police force. Not only may you be plagued by the inkling that you were only recruited because of a tolkenist policy but you also may face prejudice within the force, by others holding the same opinion.
    Wouldn't they rather know they got the job fair and square? I think so.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    *looks shocked* and you suggest i am insecure?
    That statement was accompanied by 4 quotes (one of which you ignored), all of which fitted the blunt/childish/usually without evidence description exactly, so it was hardly an insecure dig. There are several more examples, one as low as pointing out a typo. Why do you seem to constantly try to appear superior, rather than just providing a convincing argument?

    Once again you repeat the same drivel about me being wrong and/or contradictory, despite me having replied showing otherwise. Given that you ignored the part of my post relevant to the argument, am I to assume you now acknowledge that you were wrong?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here are some of your contradictions, factually incorrect conclusions and insults. I hope this will enable you to see my point.
    You said:
    (Original post by calumc)
    positive discrimination is like fighting fire with fire. It achieves nothing but "shifting" the discrimination from one group to another which is several times the size, so is totally counter-productive!.
    I show you an example of “positive” discrimination that you deem ok because:
    (Original post by calumc)
    they had a geunine reason.
    This is contradictory.
    You then define discrimination as:
    (Original post by calumc)
    "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice".
    The example I showed you was based on race and NOT individual merit. (as I have already pointed out)
    You then infer that the example I showed you was based on:
    (Original post by calumc)
    the ability to speak in Afro-Caribbean dialect.
    When the link and my post CLEARLY state this is not the case, it is in fact race. I do not know how you managed to come to this conclusion seeing as patois is Jamaican slang and would not be used in a nursery to teach children. I point this out to you and you say:
    (Original post by calumc)
    I don't care what the outcome was or why,
    :confused: You then call me a:
    (Original post by calumc)
    ****!
    I think my pointing out one spelling mistake was a bit pedantic on my behalf and I apologise. However, I am not a cu*t and I feel you have steered this debate way off track into a silly assault on my use of “smileys”. This is very childish and selfish to other d&d users. Anyway, I feel the need to reiterate that I am not superior to you, I do not think I am superior to you, I have not tried to come across as such and my posts have been backed up with explanations and evidence. Your posts have lacked evidence, resulted to name-calling and have been totally off the subject of the debate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No discrimination is discrimination and its wrong. :mad:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Here are some of your contradictions, factually incorrect conclusions and insults. I hope this will enable you to see my point.
    You said:I show you an example of “positive” discrimination that you deem ok because:This is contradictory.
    You then define discrimination as:The example I showed you was based on race and NOT individual merit. (as I have already pointed out)
    You then infer that the example I showed you was based on:When the link and my post CLEARLY state this is not the case, it is in fact race. I do not know how you managed to come to this conclusion seeing as patois is Jamaican slang and would not be used in a nursery to teach children. I point this out to you and you say: :confused: You then call me a:
    I think my pointing out one spelling mistake was a bit pedantic on my behalf and I apologise. However, I am not a cu*t and I feel you have steered this debate way off track into a silly assault on my use of “smileys”. This is very childish and selfish to other d&d users. Anyway, I feel the need to reiterate that I am not superior to you, I do not think I am superior to you, I have not tried to come across as such and my posts have been backed up with explanations and evidence. Your posts have lacked evidence, resulted to name-calling and have been totally off the subject of the debate.
    You appear to have missed my point entirely. My argument is and has been all along that the example you gave was not infact positive discrimination atall, and I infact replied to your "example" of positive discrimination saying "But that's not a case of racial (or any) discrimination", and NOT saying "it was okay" as you suggest - twisting words out of context is very childish. Where is the contradiction, or did you simply "forget" that post?

    Yes, it clearly was based on race, but BECAUSE of a genuine reason and therefore not discrimination - a person of certain race will be better at the job. I quoted one example of why this is the case from your own source, which you appear to have dismissed despite it being stated in the job description!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    You are wrong, there are certain situations where positive discrimination is needed.
    No. You should create new opportunities for people of minority origin to enter the police force, but this should be a seperate thing, not just introducing discrimination into the mainstream entrance procedure (although it strikes me as odd that the police would be turning down any suitable candidates regardless of ethnic origin).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eleenia)
    . Not only may you be plagued by the inkling that you were only recruited because of a tolkenist policy but you also may face prejudice within the force, by others holding the same opinion.
    Wouldn't they rather know they got the job fair and square? I think so.
    Finally someone who cares for the difficult position of hobbits in the police force!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macworld)
    Finally someone who cares for the difficult position of hobbits in the police force!
    Macworld, you can't even read. Those are not tolkienist policies!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Yes, it clearly was based on race, but BECAUSE of a genuine reason and therefore not discrimination - a person of certain race will be better at the job. I quoted one example of why this is the case from your own source, which you appear to have dismissed despite it being stated in the job description!
    Also consider Indian and Chinese restaurants and perhaps even British ones you get in London
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    BECAUSE of a genuine reason and therefore not discrimination - a person of certain race will be better at the job.
    I disagree. If the applicant had been white but brought up in Jamaica, he would still have been refused the job yet he would have possessed the cultural knowledge to perform the job as well as any black applicant. Discrimination on the basis of race is not acceptable for ANY reason IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    I disagree. If the applicant had been white but brought up in Jamaica, he would still have been refused the job yet he would have possessed the cultural knowledge to perform the job as well as any black applicant. Discrimination on the basis of race is not acceptable for ANY reason IMO.
    How do you know? Had that been the case I would agree it was unfair discrimination, but it wasn't. The centre asked for an Afro-Caribbean because they believed they would be better for the job, as was reflected in the job description- and in the vast majority of cases they would be correct. Somewhat presumptious, yes, but discriminatory, no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    How do you know? Had that been the case I would agree it was unfair discrimination, but it wasn't. The centre asked for an Afro-Caribbean because they believed they would be better for the job, as was reflected in the job description- and in the vast majority of cases they would be correct. Somewhat presumptious, yes, but discriminatory, no.
    Please tell me exactly how the colour of the applicants skin made them better for the job.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Please tell me exactly how the colour of the applicants skin made them better for the job.
    You're twisting words again, how childish. They asked for a person of a certain ethnic origin, colour of skin is an indirect consequence of this. Obviously colour of skin alone doesn't make anyone better at the job, genius, but in this case the applicant was required to have a personal awareness of Afro-Caribbean culture and the ability to read/talk in Afro-Caribbean dialect, which made an Afro-Caribbean the obvious choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    You're twisting words again, how childish. They asked for a person of a certain ethnic origin, colour of skin is an indirect consequence of this. Obviously colour of skin alone doesn't make anyone better at the job, genius, but in this case the applicant was required to have a personal awareness of Afro-Caribbean culture and the ability to read/talk in Afro-Caribbean dialect, which made an Afro-Caribbean the obvious choice.
    But the only difference between a black British person and white British person skin colour. I can assure you that belonging to a certain ethnic minority does not automatically give you an in-depth knowledge of the minority culture. Also, any Black British applicant would surely have an English dialect, the same as a white applicant. A white Jamaican would have more knowledge about Caribbean culture than a black British applicant, yet the white applicant was refused as soon as he informed the employer of his colour, so he was discriminated against because of his colour and it was assumed he would have no useful knowledge for the job. This is wrong IMO.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    But the only difference between a black British person and white British person skin colour. I can assure you that belonging to a certain ethnic minority does not automatically give you an in-depth knowledge of the minority culture. Also, any Black British applicant would surely have an English dialect, the same as a white applicant. A white Jamaican would have more knowledge about Caribbean culture than a black British applicant, yet the white applicant was refused as soon as he informed the employer of his colour, so he was discriminated against because of his colour and it was assumed he would have no useful knowledge for the job. This is wrong IMO.
    But it makes that knowledge far more likely, and I'm sure an Afro-Carribean who was found to be clueless wouldn't have got the job either. The applicant was asked his ethnic origin, not his "colour" as you keep referring back to (there were almost a dozen references in that post), presumably this is an effort to trivialise it or something. Had the applicant read the advertisment he would have been able to justify his suitability despite being of a different ethnic origin and may well have got the job. As I said earlier, I agree that they were presumptious in specifying a preferred ethnic origin before even having any applicants, however they only did this because they believed this would make the person better suited to the job, thus making it a fair preference and not discrimination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    The applicant was asked his ethnic origin, not his "colour" as you keep referring back to (there were almost a dozen references in that post), presumably this is an effort to trivialise it or something.
    I am not trying to trivialise anything, colour and race are inextricably linked as you have pointed out.
    (Original post by calumc)
    Had the applicant read the advertisment he would have been able to justify his suitability despite being of a different ethnic origin and may well have got the job.
    This is debateable. I think it is wrong for the law to allow the employer to reach the same conclusion even if the applicant had tried to justify his suitability
    (Original post by calumc)
    they believed this would make the person better suited to the job, thus making it a fair preference and not discrimination.
    I agree that this was their motive but i dont believe the motive to be fair and just. This is where we shall never agree or come to a compromise and so i think it would be pointless for me to continue with this debate. Good day.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I've always been completely against positive discrimination for the reasons mentioned in this thread. One's ability/potential should be the sole discriminator, and a good way to resolve a problem of under-representation is to promote yourself in the area/media of that minority.

    However, consider this... often a major reason why some groups are under-represented is because there's a complete lack of them in that industry in the first place. So there's no 'role model' / peer figures making them consider that field. Therefore having a few 'pioneers' from that minority getting slightly favoured with the aim of addressing the under-representation problem in the long term subsequently without any positive discrimination might be a good idea.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.