Soldato
must you keep posting?Must I bring up the racist Hallmark card?
you're either a troll or a fruitloop.
must you keep posting?Must I bring up the racist Hallmark card?
To believe that all criticism of President Obama is racism is wrong but equally to suggest that some of the criticism is not racially motivated is also wrong.
I dare you to look up the hate crimes that happen towards whites, crimes that you ignore because racism only happens to minorities doesn't it? well some places we are a minority, maybe you should go live in one of those places and see what it's like to have bricks through your window telling whitey to get out of their BLACK neighbourhood. That's it I'm not going to continue to discussion any more as it's falling on deaf ears.
I dare you to look up the hate crimes that happen towards whites, crimes that you ignore because racism only happens to minorities doesn't it? well some places we are a minority, maybe you should go live in one of those places and see what it's like to have bricks through your window telling whitey to get out of their BLACK neighbourhood. That's it I'm not going to continue to discussion any more as it's falling on deaf ears.
It's done it's job, raised the profile of legislation.
Positive discrimnation just lengthens the time society discriminates. Policies need to totally ignore such things and go on merit.
Ideally they should be at an earlier stage though, to level to playing field. And even then they should be targetted at addressing the impact of economic imbalance rather than purely being targetted at race.Ideally I would agree with you, however in some circumstances positive discrimination is needed to readdress historical discrimination and racism to open opportunities and encourage equality. These should always be temporary measures and not interfere with merit based decision making.
Ideally I would agree with you, however in some circumstances positive discrimination is needed to readdress historical discrimination and racism to open opportunities and encourage equality. These should always be temporary measures and not interfere with merit based decision making.
Ideally they should be at an earlier stage though, to level to playing field. And even then they should be targetted at addressing the impact of economic imbalance rather than purely being targetted at race.
Irrational discrimination and prejudice is always positive to people who agree with it.
You're advocating that racism and sexism is the correct response to racism and sexism. If the correct response to racism and sexism is racism and sexism then the correct response to racism and sexism is racism and sexism and the correct response to racism and sexism is racism and sexism and...you see my point?
Either you think it's wrong or you don't...and you don't. I have more respect for people who are honestly racist and/or sexist because at least they have the integrity to openly oppose equality rather than trying to destroy it from within by claiming that irrational prejudice and discrimination is equality.
If the objective is to provide additional help to people who are at a
disadvantage, then the appropriate course of action is to provide additional help to people who are at a disadvantage. Not to be racist and sexist. That's not the same thing, no matter how many times dishonest racists and sexists say it is.
I think you don't understand what positive discrimination is, if you think it is some kind of acceptable racism then you are wrong. It is about helping disadvantaged people and bring a balance of equality in a society which has been inherently discriminatory for generations.
I am not advocating irrational discrimination at all, you will have to show me where I have done so. I am advocating equal representation in society and measures that work toward that.
If you are suggesting that I am racist, which it seems you are then you clearly do not understand what I have said.
Surely it depends on what form the positive discrimination takes? All women short lists for example were specifically aimed at getting more female members of parliament. They were however discriminatory against any men that wanted to run as an MP for that party in that area. Positive discrimination against sexism that ends up being sexist itself.
Ideally I would agree with you, however in some circumstances positive discrimination is needed to readdress historical discrimination and racism to open opportunities and encourage equality. These should always be temporary measures and not interfere with merit based decision making.
Well I am surprised that you have three halves, as for myself, I was born in England to a British Father and American Mother. Nothing too unusual in that.
I think you don't understand what positive discrimination is, if you think it is some kind of acceptable racism then you are wrong. It is about helping disadvantaged people and bring a balance of equality in a society which has been inherently discriminatory for generations.
I am not advocating irrational discrimination at all, you will have to show me where I have done so. I am advocating equal representation in society and measures that work toward that.
If you are suggesting that I am racist, which it seems you are then you clearly do not understand what I have said.
Positive Discrimination, or Affirmative Action as it is called in the United States doesn't promote opposite racism or sexism, it is about promoting and Enforcing equal opportunities and ensuring that all ethnic groups are represented equally and fairly. I do not agree with Quotas or increasing representation without merit.
Call it "Affirmative Action" if you want, but the more accurate assesment would be "Positive Discrimination". Please note the second word of the latter description.
Like in Zimbabwe perhaps?