Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 31 of 31

Thread: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

  1. #17
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    746 times in 442 posts

    Re: Attacks in Paris

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    A gyneacologist who doesn't want to treat women won't have any patients, ergo won't have a job, and won't be a gyneacologist. That's a dumb example. That's like a pilot taking all his qualifications just to turn round and say he doesn't want to fly. He is not therefore a pilot.

    A general nurse whose shift manager asks her to assist with abortions because they are short staffed and won't rearrange rosters to allow for her conscientious objection is discriminating against her. She should be able to work in another role, but the choice is not always respected. In theory she should therefore be able to complain - but it doesn't quite work like that in practice. That's anecdotal evidence, I can't reference it on the web. (it's not in the press SFAIK)

    This is slightly detracting from the thread however. Feel free to start a new one. But coming back on track - it's time to start calling it Daesh folks: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hear-presi...1.html#ITJ9gZT
    So how is it different? Someone refuses to do a job because of their religion, and then claims discrimination because they are refused. Again, you're calling it dumb, but not explaining the difference. The nurse in your example, if that were to happen, can work in another role and can make that choice. Again, there is no slavery in the UK, people always have a choice.

  2. #18
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,701
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked
    1,434 times in 1,057 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Attacks in Paris

    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee View Post
    So how is it different? Someone refuses to do a job because of their religion, and then claims discrimination because they are refused. Again, you're calling it dumb, but not explaining the difference. The nurse in your example, if that were to happen, can work in another role and can make that choice. Again, there is no slavery in the UK, people always have a choice.
    No that nurse was bullied out of her job in the NHS, was smeared with bad references hindering getting other posts, and when the misery got too much returned to Oz to escape it. The theory is very different from the practise.

    It is very different from someone training in a highly specialised role with a clear and obvious implication that working on women would be required - it is the only requirement of the job - and then saying they don't want to do it. Your example is a joke. Start a new thread if you want to debate this any further.

  3. #19
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    746 times in 442 posts

    Re: Attacks in Paris

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    No that nurse was bullied out of her job in the NHS, was smeared with bad references hindering getting other posts, and when the misery got too much returned to Oz to escape it. The theory is very different from the practise.

    It is very different from someone training in a highly specialised role with a clear and obvious implication that working on women would be required - it is the only requirement of the job - and then saying they don't want to do it. Your example is a joke. Start a new thread if you want to debate this any further.
    Fired for refusing to do part of her job sounds more believable. She should not have taken a job with part of the required duties being something she is morally opposed to. So you think that there should be a legal difference between someone who doesn't want to do one of the requirements of their job, and someone who doesn't want to do the only requirement of their job? How many of the things your job requires you to do should you be legally allowed to avoid? If your job has ten requirements, and you are willing to do only one of them, should you be protected from repercussions?

  4. #20
    RIP Peterb ik9000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,701
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked
    1,434 times in 1,057 posts
    • ik9000's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P7H55-M/USB3
      • CPU:
      • i7-870, Prolimatech Megahalems, 2x Akasa Apache 120mm
      • Memory:
      • 4x4GB Corsair Vengeance 2133 11-11-11-27
      • Storage:
      • 2x256GB Samsung 840-Pro, 1TB Seagate 7200.12, 1TB Seagate ES.2
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB SuperOverClocked
      • PSU:
      • NZXT Hale 90 750w
      • Case:
      • BitFenix Survivor + Bitfenix spectre LED fans, LG BluRay R/W optical drive
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Professional
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell U2414h, U2311h 1920x1080
      • Internet:
      • 200Mb/s Fibre and 4G wifi

    Re: Attacks in Paris

    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee View Post
    Fired for refusing to do part of her job sounds more believable. She should not have taken a job with part of the required duties being something she is morally opposed to. So you think that there should be a legal difference between someone who doesn't want to do one of the requirements of their job, and someone who doesn't want to do the only requirement of their job? How many of the things your job requires you to do should you be legally allowed to avoid? If your job has ten requirements, and you are willing to do only one of them, should you be protected from repercussions?
    that doesn't look like starting a new thread to me.

  5. #21
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,367
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked
    746 times in 442 posts

    Re: Attacks in Paris

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    that doesn't look like starting a new thread to me.
    It looks like your argument failing the most basic logical test. That was a lot faster than wasting a whole other thread.

  6. #22
    The late but legendary peterb - Onward and Upward peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Looking down & checking on swearing
    Posts
    19,378
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked
    3,403 times in 2,693 posts

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    I have broken out the sub thread from the Attacks in Paris thread. It was clear that it was generating its own content that while interesting, had little to do with the original topic. I have chosen a thread title that I hope reflects the content.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

    Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
    My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute

  7. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,129
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked
    189 times in 160 posts

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.

  8. #24
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,023
    Thanks
    1,870
    Thanked
    3,381 times in 2,718 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    Quote Originally Posted by abaxas View Post
    I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.
    You're not allowed to discriminate on age in most cases. There are some health etc. exceptions, just as there are some exceptions for sex where it makes sense.

  9. #25
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    As far as I can see, anti-discrimination laws came about and continue to exist, in order to protect and promote a notion of equal worth among all human beings, in response to various abuses based on notions that one 'demographic' was or could be worth less than some other demographic (black are worth less/less human than whites, or women than men or homosexuals than heterosexuals). All of that, to me, seems well and good. The equality in being of all humans is a vital truth to be upheld and defended courageously.

    I think a lot of the problems with whether these laws have been going stems from the conflation of a person's being with their actions so that, whereas the laws rightly protect against discrimination on the basis of a person's inherent worth or being and deny or elevate worth unjustly and incorrectly, it's becoming the case that discrimination is not permitted even on the basis behaviour. That is, while one may be able to recognise and respect the full value and inherent worth of a given individual, and even treat them with due respect and civility, one may not be permitted to hold meaningful disagreement with views that person holds, or practises in which that person engages, if they are in some way tied to a protect aspect of their being.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  10. #26
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,023
    Thanks
    1,870
    Thanked
    3,381 times in 2,718 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    That is, while one may be able to recognise and respect the full value and inherent worth of a given individual, and even treat them with due respect and civility, one may not be permitted to hold meaningful disagreement with views that person holds, or practises in which that person engages, if they are in some way tied to a protect aspect of their being.
    I don't think that's the case though. Disagreement with views and practises is fully allowed in law, because they are by their nature not inherently discriminatory. Actions or statements that encourage/lead to actions against inherent aspects are.

    Example:
    Saying I disagree with the Christian practise of baptism is not discriminatory.
    Saying I will treat Christians differently to non-Christians *is* discriminatory.

    Interesting one about gender and sexual preference though: Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women?

  11. #27
    MCRN Tachi Ttaskmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Reading, UK
    Posts
    6,917
    Thanks
    672
    Thanked
    806 times in 668 posts
    • Ttaskmaster's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Aorus Master X670E
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7800X3D
      • Memory:
      • 32GB Corsair Dominator DDR5 6000MHz
      • Storage:
      • Samsung Evo 120GB and Seagate Baracuda 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Aorus Master 4090
      • PSU:
      • EVGA Supernova G2 1000W
      • Case:
      • Lian Li V3000 Plus
      • Operating System:
      • Win11
      • Monitor(s):
      • Gigabyte M32U
      • Internet:
      • 900Mbps Gigaclear WHOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    Re: Attacks in Paris

    Quote Originally Posted by BobF64 View Post
    A can say things about B because B doesn't have any anti-discrimination laws protecting them.
    Other way around - B can say what they like about A, because B has no such laws and is therefore not subject to them. Just because A has some law in their country, it doesn't mean the same law applies to B in theirs.

    Quote Originally Posted by BobF64 View Post
    Just because *some* acts are discriminatory, doesn't mean all are.
    ALL acts are discriminatory, but some are more discriminatory than others!

    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee View Post
    That's the same silliness that happens here. That doesn't mean religious belief is 'lesser', reverse the scenario and the result would be the same.
    I would like to see such cases tried, actually....
    You cannot choose your race, gender, sexual orientation, age etc.
    You can choose your religion, though. In order to follow a religion, you must actively make yourself a part of it, so IMO that does put your choice below what someone else has no choice in... more so if you choose something that actively discriminates against those others.
    Extreme example, but if that were not so I could join something like the KKK and claim it as my religious right to lynch certain folk...

    Quote Originally Posted by ik9000 View Post
    A general nurse whose shift manager asks her to assist with abortions because they are short staffed and won't rearrange rosters to allow for her conscientious objection is discriminating against her. She should be able to work in another role, but the choice is not always respected.
    This happens a lot more than you think in the NHS.

    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee View Post
    The nurse in your example, if that were to happen, can work in another role and can make that choice. Again, there is no slavery in the UK, people always have a choice.
    No, she cannot and that is what the issue is - She should and on paper she can... but in reality the whole institution would (and do) drum people like her out, either directly or by making the working environment so intolerable they voluntarily quit.
    It's what we do here in engineering, too and why all the actual engineers have left.

    Quote Originally Posted by abaxas View Post
    I find it weird how you are allowed to discriminate on age but not on sex.
    Would you be more upset to have a platoon of women deployed in combat, or a platoon of toddlers?
    Generally, you're not allowed to discriminate on age, but there are a lot of situations where time lived and thus likely experience gained, or time left and likelihood of paying off the mortgage before you die are the inescapable (and often only) driving factors.

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women?
    Yes, you are. You should date enough men to be in proportional keeping with the percentage of attraction you do feel toward men.
    If you don't find men attractive at all, however, it could be argued that you're fine...

    Nah, generally discrimination is only an issue if you're treating someone negatively precisely because of the one factor (race, age, gender, etc) and especially if it's not something they can choose in the first place. However, it also applies if you're treating someone positively because of the same factors, often at the expense of everyone else.
    Doesn't work if you treat everyone badly either, though, as you're then just a nasty nasty git!

  12. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,495
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked
    143 times in 119 posts
    • BobF64's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z77-V Pro
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core i7-3770K
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Corsair XMS3 PC3-12800
      • Storage:
      • Multiple HDD and SSD drives
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS DUAL-GTX1060-06G
      • PSU:
      • 750W Silverstone Strider Gold Evolution
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT02
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP ZR24w

    Re: Attacks in Paris

    Quote Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster View Post
    ALL acts are discriminatory, but some are more discriminatory than others!
    Well, in a legal sense.

    All acts are a choice, which happens to be discriminatory via its very nature.

  13. #29
    The late but legendary peterb - Onward and Upward peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Looking down & checking on swearing
    Posts
    19,378
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked
    3,403 times in 2,693 posts

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    Anti-discrimination laws often have unintended consequences. One example was the EU ruling that insurance companies were not allowed to take gender into account when assessing risk for car insurance, so they could not offer lower premiums to young female driver, even though statistically they have fewer claims and represent a lower risk. As a consequence, the insurance premiums for young female drives rose massively, which seems blatantly unfair. Although I expect the EU naively thought that male premiums would reduce!
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

    Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
    My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute

  14. #30
    LUSE Galant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gibraltar
    Posts
    3,252
    Thanks
    502
    Thanked
    555 times in 339 posts

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    Quote Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
    I don't think that's the case though. Disagreement with views and practises is fully allowed in law, because they are by their nature not inherently discriminatory. Actions or statements that encourage/lead to actions against inherent aspects are.

    Example:
    Saying I disagree with the Christian practise of baptism is not discriminatory.
    Saying I will treat Christians differently to non-Christians *is* discriminatory.

    Interesting one about gender and sexual preference though: Say I find women more attractive than men, am I being discriminatory if I only date women?
    I was thinking more along the lines of:

    Saying I don't value as equal Arab individuals is wrongful discrimination.
    Saying I don't value as equal the polygamous marriage of a given Arab is not wrongful discrimination. In that reasonable people can hold meaningful and important on different types of marriage but not meaningful and important views on different races or sexual orientation.
    The same could be applied to gay marriage.

    It's one thing for a society to require us to, rightly, recognise the equality of all individuals and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion and value on that matter. It's something else to require people to recognise the equality of any given behavior or relationship and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion or value on the matter.

    The protection afforded is to the person of the individual, not any given expression that individual chooses to make. It's an important distinction if we wish to maintain as free a society as possible.
    No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.

  15. #31
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,023
    Thanks
    1,870
    Thanked
    3,381 times in 2,718 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: Anti-Discrimination laws - good or bad

    Quote Originally Posted by Galant View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines of:

    Saying I don't value as equal Arab individuals is wrongful discrimination.
    Saying I don't value as equal the polygamous marriage of a given Arab is not wrongful discrimination. In that reasonable people can hold meaningful and important on different types of marriage but not meaningful and important views on different races or sexual orientation.
    The same could be applied to gay marriage.

    It's one thing for a society to require us to, rightly, recognise the equality of all individuals and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion and value on that matter. It's something else to require people to recognise the equality of any given behavior or relationship and not tolerate meaningful differences of opinion or value on the matter.

    The protection afforded is to the person of the individual, not any given expression that individual chooses to make. It's an important distinction if we wish to maintain as free a society as possible.
    Right, but isn't that the case already? It is the individual that is protected, not a given behaviour.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •