Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amjw)
    You seem to completely (and conveniently) sidestep the fact that positive discrimination brings no benefits to reducing discrimination in comparison with selecting on ability to work. You seem to think that as long as the representative ratios of men and women are similar, discrimination does not exist. No.

    I am not going to lie and say that there has not been discrimination in men's favor in the past. Of course there has been. And I will concede there probably still exists a very small amount of discrimination in men's favor even today. But the answer is NOT to favor selecting people because of their gender. The answer lies in ensuring that employers make selections based on merit and ability alone, not gender. It is that simple.
    Discrimination isn't even the relevant point here: discrimination is immoral and illegal. End of.

    The problem is a continuation of the past discrimination consequences which help maintain the disproportional representatives in politics. Even if we end discrimination, that doesn't mean that suddenly people all do what they want and everyone is happy. We need to erase the social dogma that came as a result of past discrimination - and that is a more complicated process, part of which affirmative action may be.

    Do you understand what I'm saying? Just beause women can now join some political job doesn't mean they will - just because there's no more discrimination doesn't mean that people will lose all their attitudes towards women in politics. Women as well, are aware of that attitude and are put off being politicians. This means that the discriminative past is kept alive despite new laws against discrimination and that something must be done about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Discrimination isn't even the relevant point here: discrimination is immoral and illegal. End of.
    Completely wrong.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Completely wrong.
    Care to elaborate? Oh wait, didn't we talk about this before? Are you the one who claims discrimination is good?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrBOOBOO)
    I can’t believe Ms Harman can get away with making statements like this.

    “One of Labour's top two posts should always be held by a woman, Deputy Leader Harriet Harman has told a paper”

    “She does "not agree with all-male leaderships" because men "cannot be left to run things on their own" she told the Sunday Times.” --to me this is so sexist and if a man said this about women, he would be forced to resign.

    And Under her controversial new equality bill, women will find it easier to demand equal pay and employers will be given a legal right to discriminate in favour of female candidates.

    That’s like saying, just because there are more women at universities, we should favour more male students rather than making men work harder in their exams!

    Its about time men voted her out as their MP, she does nothing for men and gets their vote to get in to power and rants and makes sexist laws against men.
    this is ridiculous. It should be about how hard you worked etc...to gain such position...be it man or woman...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Care to elaborate? Oh wait, didn't we talk about this before? Are you the one who claims discrimination is good?
    Yes, we did yesterday and you kept inventing definitions of "discrimination" to suit your leftist agenda.

    Discrimination isn't inherently a good thing but neither is it bad thing. It depends on the context. Some discrimination is good, some is bad.

    No discrimination at all is certainly bad as it means being completely illogical.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Yes, we did yesterday and you kept inventing definitions of "discrimination" to suit your leftist agenda.

    Discrimination isn't inherently a good thing but neither is it bad thing. It depends on the context. Some discrimination is good, some is bad.

    No discrimination at all is certainly bad as it means being completely illogical.
    I think you can't understand the difference between "discrimination" and "making a choice". Making a choice is something that people do to get to a certain result they like, e.g. The Government makes a choice of 10 scientific consultants to represent whatever issue on a summit.

    There are two invariables in this process (and discrimination as well):

    AIM and FILTER

    In the example above, the aim is the representation of the issue in the summit; the filter (for selection) is the scientists' qualification and experience in the issue.

    Now the difference between making a choice and discrimination comes up when the filter doesn't suit the aim e.g. the aim is to employ a good teacher and the filter is race/age/sex/religion/ability to drive/skiing skills/etc. rather than qualification and experience.

    Seriously now, it's getting very frustrating, do you understand it?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Women have no place in politics.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    I think you can't understand the difference between "discrimination" and "making a choice". Making a choice is something that people do to get to a certain result they like, e.g. The Government makes a choice of 10 scientific consultants to represent whatever issue on a summit.

    There are two invariables in this process (and discrimination as well):

    AIM and FILTER

    In the example above, the aim is the representation of the issue in the summit; the filter (for selection) is the scientists' qualification and experience in the issue.

    Now the difference between making a choice and discrimination comes up when the filter doesn't suit the aim e.g. the aim is to employ a good teacher and the filter is race/age/sex/religion/ability to drive/skiing skills/etc. rather than qualification and experience.

    Seriously now, it's getting very frustrating, do you understand it?
    Both of those are forms of discrimination but one is rational and the other is irrational. The difference is in rationality.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonnyofengland)
    What a crazy fool. I bet she's with Sheila's Wheels as well.
    She can't be? That would just be a joke. We can't have members of parliament having car insurance. Total joke.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If said woman was competent enough to fulfil the job at hand then it's all good. More women in politics in general would provide more able candidates, no? That's probably the issue Ms Harman should be addressing
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Both of those are forms of discrimination but one is rational and the other is irrational. The difference is in rationality.
    Rational and irrational? Are you trying to say that discrimination in the case of the teacher is irrational? Well of course, that's exactly what makes it bad.

    And surely rationality and irrationality must be opposite things and one of them must be at least relatively to the other, bad.

    Plus, if by irrational you mean thoughtless (or simply, wrong), then note that whoever had to choose the teacher was perfectly aware of the correct filter for the certain aim, but simply chose to do wrong due to their attitude. Which... was... wrong.

    Another thing, if the filter suits the aim, then no-one is discriminated against. In the example with the scientists, those who were not elected lacked the qualifications which would meet the aim, so it was their fault they were not elected, not the electors' fault. Therefore, it would be incorrect to call that example an example of "discrimination".

    Discrimination is simply an error made by whoever makes the decision to use the unsuitable filter for their aim, resulting in those who would have had the suitable filter not being selected and, ultimately, reaching the aim with more difficulty or not reaching it at all.

    Example: The DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) policy in the USA which prevents gays from serving in the military is discrimination and is bad.

    The aim is keeping the USA safe (well, the irony, but still). The suitable filter would be physical fitness, knowledge and training. This would meet the aim. The DADT policy uses the filter of sexual orientation which proves itself irrelevant to defending the USA. As a result, since gays are fired, the military becomes weaker and the aim of protecting the USA becomes more difficult to reach, if not imposible (theoretically).

    The "suitable" filter of physical fitness, etc. does not constitute discrimination, simply because it works for the aim.

    And to prove that the meaning of the derivate of the word "discriminate" which is "indiscriminately" that you pointed out yesterday, I will use an example.

    "The teenager shot people in the school indiscriminately"

    The meaning is that the teenager shot people in the school without using any secondary filter (the primary filter was the people in the school). So there was no particular filter for his aim because all the people in the school met his aim. Therefore, when the filter suits the aim, there is no discrimination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Rational and irrational? Are you trying to say that discrimination in the case of the teacher is irrational? Well of course, that's exactly what makes it bad.

    And surely rationality and irrationality must be opposite things and one of them must be at least relatively to the other, bad.

    Plus, if by irrational you mean thoughtless (or simply, wrong), then note that whoever had to choose the teacher was perfectly aware of the correct filter for the certain aim, but simply chose to do wrong due to their attitude. Which... was... wrong.

    Another thing, if the filter suits the aim, then no-one is discriminated against. In the example with the scientists, those who were not elected lacked the qualifications which would meet the aim, so it was their fault they were not elected, not the electors' fault. Therefore, it would be incorrect to call that example an example of "discrimination".

    Discrimination is simply an error made by whoever makes the decision to use the unsuitable filter for their aim, resulting in those who would have had the suitable filter not being selected and, ultimately, reaching the aim with more difficulty or not reaching it at all.

    Example: The DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) policy in the USA which prevents gays from serving in the military is discrimination and is bad.

    The aim is keeping the USA safe (well, the irony, but still). The suitable filter would be physical fitness, knowledge and training. This would meet the aim. The DADT policy uses the filter of sexual orientation which proves itself irrelevant to defending the USA. As a result, since gays are fired, the military becomes weaker and the aim of protecting the USA becomes more difficult to reach, if not imposible (theoretically).

    The "suitable" filter of physical fitness, etc. does not constitute discrimination, simply because it works for the aim.

    And to prove that the meaning of the derivate of the word "discriminate" which is "indiscriminately" that you pointed out yesterday, I will use an example.

    "The teenager shot people in the school indiscriminately"

    The meaning is that the teenager shot people in the school without using any secondary filter (the primary filter was the people in the school). So there was no particular filter for his aim because all the people in the school met his aim. Therefore, when the filter suits the aim, there is no discrimination.
    Yes, I would say that harmful and irrational discrimination is bad. But what you are talking about is contary to the definition of discrimination. Discrimination isn't always irrational or wrong but it sometimes is. It seems your trying to cling onto this wrong definition which means that discrimination is always bad but the fact is that all this stuff about "aims" and "filters" (I could also think of many of bad discrimination that correctly uses "aims" and "filters" as you put it) but yur definition makes little sense in reality. You are trying to cling on to the belief that "discrimination=bad" which has been proven incorrect.

    And the DADT policy isn't like that but that's a diifferent conservation.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Yes, I would say that harmful and irrational discrimination is bad. But what you are talking about is contary to the definition of discrimination. Discrimination isn't always irrational or wrong but it sometimes is. It seems your trying to cling onto this wrong definition which means that discrimination is always bad but the fact is that all this stuff about "aims" and "filters" (I could also think of many of bad discrimination that correctly uses "aims" and "filters" as you put it) but yur definition makes little sense in reality. You are trying to cling on to the belief that "discrimination=bad" which has been proven incorrect.

    And the DADT policy isn't like that but that's a diifferent conservation.
    I think I've proven you that discrimination=good is incorrect. What have you proven? Come on, prove that discrimination can be good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    I think I've proven you that discrimination=good is incorrect. What have you proven? Come on, prove that discrimination can be good.
    For example if I was an employer and wished to hire the most intelligent person possible and I picked an intelligent black man over a less intelligent asian women, then clearly I have made the correct choice. But I have also discriminated against the asian women but in a good way.

    That was a very (let's say) PC example but an example nonetheless.

    There I just showed a form of discrimination that is good.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    For example if I was an employer and wished to hire the most intelligent person possible and I picked an intelligent black man over a less intelligent asian women, then clearly I have made the correct choice. But I have also discriminated against the asian women but in a good way.

    That was a very (let's say) PC example but an example nonetheless.

    There I just showed a form of discrimination that is good.

    The filter was perfectly suitable for the aim, the aim was reached. Because the filter was intelligence, the asian woman failed to be chosen because she didn't meet the filter, not because she was asian or female. That's why this is not discrimination. I don't see how you did a good to the woman though, she doesn't have a job :laugh: The point is that the employer chose a correct filter for the aim, therefore this is not an example of discrimination.

    Check mate, mate.

    The only way you're going to get out of the check is to give an example where the filter does not suit the aim and the discrimination is good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    The filter was perfectly suitable for the aim, the aim was reached. Because the filter was intelligence, the asian woman failed to be chosen because she didn't meet the filter, not because she was asian or female. That's why this is not discrimination. I don't see how you did a good to the woman though, she doesn't have a job :laugh: The point is that the employer chose a correct filter for the aim, therefore this is not an example of discrimination.

    Check mate, mate.

    The only way you're going to get out of the check is to give an example where the filter does not suit the aim and the discrimination is good.
    What is this nonsense about "filters" and "aims"? That has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of discrimination:

    the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.

    Clearly your definition is utter nonsense.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    She does "not agree with all-male leaderships" because men "cannot be left to run things on their own" she told the Sunday Times.

    A balanced team of men and women make "better decisions," she added.


    That's just blatant sexism.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_Farquad)
    Women have no place in politics.
    Why? :curious:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    She is a stupid radical feminist moron. The reason men hold the top jobs are because they are better natural leaders.
    Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just spewing your ignorant, ill-informed and misogynisic views?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Do you have any evidence for this, or are you just spewing your ignorant, ill-informed and misogynisic views?

    Surely all the great male leaders throughout history and the lack of female leaders is proof of this.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.