Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    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.
    My terminoloy of aim and filter is quite brilliant, you must admit, because it just proves to you very clearly that there is no such thing as good discrimination.

    The example with the colours is not applicable because it's about colours and not people and it's about opinions not facts, and because the filter suits the aim (of liking the colour), therefore in my books that's not discrimination.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Why? :curious:
    Did you not see Hillary Clinton? :yes:
    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?
    If you're anything to go by, we should be banned from politics altogether.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    Surely all the great male leaders throughout history and the lack of female leaders is proof of this.
    The gender inequality inherent in a patriachal society meant that throughout history, women were prevented from reaching those positions, indeed from even accessing an education. You would not argue men are more intelligent would you? Therefore why argue men make better leaders? There is no evidence for this.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    If you're anything to go by, we should be banned from politics altogether.
    Using your argument, if Hitler is anything to go by men should be banned from politics altogether. It doesn't really work does it?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_Farquad)
    Did you not see Hillary Clinton? :yes:
    Hillary Clinton is a very experienced and capable politician.
    :shifty:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    If you're anything to go by, we should be banned from politics altogether.
    QFT.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Using your argument, if Hitler is anything to go by men should be banned from politics altogether. It doesn't really work does it?
    I call Godwin's law.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Hillary Clinton is a very experienced and capable politician.
    :shifty:

    Oh I see, your one of those, new age feminist hippies.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forbidden Fruit)
    I call Godwin's law.
    Stalin, Amin, Pinochet ... there are many examples who undermine your flawed argument.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_Farquad)
    Oh I see, your one of those, new age feminist hippies.
    No. But I see your argument has crumbled.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord_Farquad)
    Oh I see, your one of those, new age feminist hippies.
    She wants to lead the next 'revolution'. :rolleyes:
    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?
    In every society, men have been more involived in it's politics.

    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    My terminoloy of aim and filter is quite brilliant, you must admit, because it just proves to you very clearly that there is no such thing as good discrimination.

    The example with the colours is not applicable because it's about colours and not people and it's about opinions not facts, and because the filter suits the aim (of liking the colour), therefore in my books that's not discrimination.
    You seem to have this weird definition of discrimination. I understand your argument but you are making a flaw. You making it out as if discrimination is only when your "aims" test doesn't apply, but that isn't true.

    If someone does something according to your aims test then they are discriminating according to the definition of the word but they are doing so rationally.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    In every society, men have been more involived in it's politics.

    .
    Men have been more involved in every sphere; why single out politics? This thankfully however, is changing, and there is no reason why a 50-50 gender distribution in politics will not be achieved in the near future.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Men have been more involved in every sphere; why single out politics? This thankfully however, is changing, and there is no reason why a 50-50 gender distribution in politics will not be achieved in the near future.
    First of all, I don't see why a 50-50 share of the political power is necessarily desirable.

    And second of all men have more leadership attributes that women don't. Women are more submissive and intitutive while men are physically stronger, stronger leaders and more rational.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    In every society, men have been more involived in it's politics.


    You seem to have this weird definition of discrimination. I understand your argument but you are making a flaw. You making it out as if discrimination is only when your "aims" test doesn't apply, but that isn't true.

    If someone does something according to your aims test then they are discriminating according to the definition of the word but they are doing so rationally.
    You call the definition weird because you can't refute it logically. My assumptions are valid.

    Of course people are doing so "rationally", if someone discriminated irationally, then it wouldn't be discrimination at all, it would simply be "being irational". Discrimination involves the knowledge and confidence of making whatever choice you're making.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    You call the definition weird because you can't refute it logically. My assumptions are valid.

    Of course people are doing so "rationally", if someone discriminated irationally, then it wouldn't be discrimination at all, it would simply be "being irational". Discrimination involves the knowledge and confidence of making whatever choice you're making.
    First of all you contradicted yourself. For the whole time you've been saying discrimination is inherently irrational but now you saying that it is never irrational.

    You seem to have little connection with the actual definitions of "irrationality" and "discrimination".

    Being "irrational" doesn't mean that you doing something without using any knowledge or confidence in your choice. Many confident people are irrational. Irrationality means acting illogically, it means doing something that is wrong.

    And discrimination is always about hurting someone (it's more often than not, not even used in a human context) but it means distinguising between one thing and another. You can do this rationally or irrationally.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    First of all, I don't see why a 50-50 share of the political power is necessarily desirable.

    And second of all men have more leadership attributes that women don't. Women are more submissive and intitutive while men are physically stronger, stronger leaders and more rational.
    What rubbish is this?
    How does being physically stronger render one better able to be a political leader? What evidence have you to suggest that men are more 'rational'? Arguably the numerous wars instigated by men actually point to the contrary.
    Men do not have any innate skills that make them good leaders and there is no evidence to suggest that women make worse leaders than men; you are spouting ill-informed, outdated nonsense.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    And discrimination is always about hurting someone (it's more often than not, not even used in a human context) but it means distinguising between one thing and another. You can do this rationally or irrationally.
    ^ I'm glad you said that. Debate won, check mate.
    Offline

    9
    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.
    Indeed, I agree.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.