Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Jim

Discrimination.

Where and when, in a free society, should we draw the line at discrimination?
Should it be acceptable to discriminate on grounds of race? creed? sexuality? disability?

When does one person's rights infringe another person's right to hold opinion?

Are there circumstances when discrimination is acceptable?


(This is not the Bear Pit.)
Shaker

Can we have an easy question Jimbo? 

Seriously: I think there is, or there are, probably good answer(s) to a serious and important question. My own, very short personal response would be that it is immoral/wrong to discriminate against anyone on the basis of a personal characteristic of theirs which cannot be chosen, therefore gender, age, ethnicity, physical capability, sexuality and the like are out. Discriminating against someone because they're 63 or possess ovaries, a cervix and a vagina or because they find members of their own sex more sexually desirable than the opposite sex or have a higher than ordinary melanin content of their skin or have to use a walker or a wheelchair to get around and about is a no-no. Absolute no-no. Not on. Bad juju. Do not do.

Opinions are freely held and can be about anyone or any thing. No problemo Tonto.

They don't have to be taken seriously or taken into account, though.
Jim

So how far should a society go in accomodating a person who is unable to change who/what they are?
How  much should a society commit socially legally and/or finanxcially?
I mean, it's easy to say that discrimination against someone who is ostracised becauseof who/what they are is wrong...but how far do we go to include them, who might appear morally or even physically repugnant to some - even many - in society as a whole?


(wanna paracetamol?)
bnabernard

Not sure how this elction process works, supposed to work on a majority of opinion which suggest's a minority who are of a different opinion.

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

There is of course this alien suggestion in the bible, What It appears to point out is the visitation of aliens to earth who have observed earth culture and found it wanting.
They themselves have overcome the pitfalls that earth culture encounters and set about putting earth and its inhabitants on a course to achieve a utopian existence.
It suggests that they are met with great resistance and have to take some violent drastic action and after establishing the foundation of this utopian culture spend a thousand years enhancing and experiencing the culture on the earth.
Then, (somewhat like the romans leaving england) they then give earth people the right to chose resulting in a great number option for the original ways prior to the alien interference.

How would we stand if an alien force where to appear in some force offering the option today to allow them to tell us what to do?

bernard (hug)
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Can we have an easy question Jimbo? 

Seriously: I think there is, or there are, probably good answer(s) to a serious and important question. My own, very short personal response would be that it is immoral/wrong to discriminate against anyone on the basis of a personal characteristic of theirs which cannot be chosen, therefore gender, age, ethnicity, physical capability, sexuality and the like are out. Discriminating against someone because they're 63 or possess ovaries, a cervix and a vagina or because they find members of their own sex more sexually desirable than the opposite sex or have a higher than ordinary melanin content of their skin or have to use a walker or a wheelchair to get around and about is a no-no. Absolute no-no. Not on. Bad juju. Do not do.

Opinions are freely held and can be about anyone or any thing. No problemo Tonto.

They don't have to be taken seriously or taken into account, though.


I agree up to a point.

I always say that if people want to tell me that my political and religious beliefs are bollocks and I must be deluded etc etc, then that's fine. I choose my beliefs and I will stand by them. But whereas criticising my beliefs is fine, discriminating against me because of them isn't. (I shouldn't say 'me', it has never happened to me in any serious way. But you know what I mean).

I don't think it is acceptable to say "we won't employ Catholics " or "we will lock up communists" or "Muslims musn't be allocated housing in this area", is it?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
I always say that if people want to tell me that my political and religious beliefs are bollocks and I must be deluded etc etc, then that's fine.

Well, since you mention it ...  It would be preferable in such situations for someone to say why they think something is bollocks, though, rather than simply stating that it is which is not very edifying or enlightening.

Quote:
I don't think it is acceptable to say "we won't employ Catholics " or "we will lock up communists" or "Muslims musn't be allocated housing in this area", is it?

Perfectly true, but then there are other examples where we do indeed discriminate against people for the beliefs they hold rather than actions they perform. (It can in principle be both, obviously). Sometimes this is a good thing: the only dofficulty comes in deciding what's a suitable case for discrimination and what isn't. Inevitably there'll be disagreement on that.
Jim

cyberman;
You know roughly where I live. You will know, therefore, that this area has endured the curse of sectarian discrimination for too many decades.
I'm glad things are infinitely better than they once were...discrimination on the grounds of religious affiliation was a shameful reality when I was a child. One's religion or 'cultural religion' is a consequence, partly, of the society in which one is brought up. For example, a chap I knew was a convert from the RCC to the Plymouth Brethren. Despite this, he was always classed as a 'Tim' no matter how long he lived.
Education has helped enormously in eradicating such absurdities...but there is still a way to go.

However, the thorny issue of discrimination was raised on another thread: discrimination on the grounds of learning disabilities.
How far should society go to be "all inclusive"...and, indeed, is it possible?
cyberman

Jim wrote:
discrimination on the grounds of learning disabilities.


Do you mean in terms of employment, or forced treatment, or what?
Jim

Don't start me on discriminating against disabled people in terms of employment....I don't want to lose my temper this early in the evening..!
Seriously, though, the stigma of mental illness/learning disability is a horrible one to have to bear. Society seems to shun that particular form of disability, in just about every sphere - whether employment, access to learninng, social intercourse, even medical support. From the groups I've been involved with - and there have been a few - Scotland seems slightly (but not much) more enlightened.
This is not a back-patting exercise...far from it. The old attitude of "out of sight, out of mind" still has a long way to go before it bites the dust.

We have a local "half way house" hostel for people wiyth learning disabilities in my town. Several of the residents are members - communicant members - of my congregation. It took a while before we were able to show the vast majority of members that these were people with both needs to meet, and gifts to give. They have proven a very valuable addition to our church fAMILY; INDEED, WHEN ONE LADY MOVED TWENTY FIVE MILES AWAY TO BE WITH HER FAMILY, A MEMBER OF OUR CONGREGATION VOLUNTEERED TO BRING HER TO CHURCH ACTIVITIES EVERY WEE, NOT OUT OF PITY, BUT OUT OF A GENUINE ADMIRATION FOR HER TRUST AND LOVE.
Lexilogio

In my view, discrimination of any form is wrong - but we all do it. Unconsciously, subconsciously, we all discriminate in some ways.

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment based on placing people into a category based on a generalisation.

So - refusing to employ anyone based on their age, or based on hairstyle (such as shaved head) would be wrong.

But - the key word is "unjust" or unjustified. So for example, it would be reasonable not to employ someone who came to work in a tracksuit or hoodie because contravened the organisation's dress code, where there was an acknowledged uniform for good reason. But reasonable accommodation has to be made for things like religion or disability.

Again, generally, people should be given equal chance - but this is within reason. So you wouldn't have a person doing a physical job who wasn't physically capable.
Ketty

Re: Discrimination.

Jim wrote:
Where and when, in a free society, should we draw the line at discrimination?


I think on this issue, our laws have it just about right.  

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/discrimination_e.htm

This is interesting too:  

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/

Returning to what I think prompted your original thoughts Jim, if I was the parent of a child who was being discriminated against because of their disability, and/or if they were being referred to in inappropriate terms, firstly I'd approach the organisation in order to ensure they were aware of what is occurring - in the hope they'd educate their volunteers/workforce.  All organisations have a 'duty of care' in this regard, whether or not the people who work for them are contracted, or otherwise.
gone

deleted
cyberman

Lexilogio wrote:
but we all do it. Unconsciously, subconsciously, we all discriminate in some ways.
.


That can only be a guess
Ketty

I think most of us are prejudiced in one way or another if we're honest with ourselves - very often it's an unconscious reaction.  However, to discriminate based on those prejudices is a conscious action - one over which we should have control.
cyberman

Ketty wrote:
I think most of us are prejudiced in one way or another if we're honest with ourselves - very often it's an unconscious reaction.  However, to discriminate based on those prejudices is a conscious action - one over which we should have control.


Again, I think this is an untested guess. One of those things that we've all got used to saying over the last 30 years or so, but I don't know whether it is true. Maybe people have just been taken in by racists who console themselves by thinking "everyone is as racist as me, really, but I am a bit better than the resty because I admit it".

I am emphatically NOT suggesting that Ketty or Lexi are racist. I am saying that the idea that we are all subconcsiously prejudiced has been current for thirty years or so - perhaps longer - and that perhaps one of the reasons why it retains currency is that racists like to promote it.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Ketty wrote:
I think most of us are prejudiced in one way or another if we're honest with ourselves - very often it's an unconscious reaction.  However, to discriminate based on those prejudices is a conscious action - one over which we should have control.


Again, I think this is an untested guess. One of those things that we've all got used to saying over the last 30 years or so, but I don't know whether it is true. Maybe people have just been taken in by racists who console themselves by thinking "everyone is as racist as me, really, but I am a bit better than the resty because I admit it".

I am emphatically NOT suggesting that Ketty or Lexi are racist. I am saying that the idea that we are all subconcsiously prejudiced has been current for thirty years or so - perhaps longer - and that perhaps one of the reasons why it retains currency is that racists like to promote it.

The possibility - perhaps even the probability - that humans have these low-level prejudices, these automatic and unthinking snap judgements, doesn't seem that great a stretch to me. We're a tribal lot and very much given to aligning ourselves along tribal lines, literally or metaphorically, be it a football team, this village against that bunch of tossers in the next village along, my fine country over your benighted craphole, and so on and so forth. If you're prepared to put in the effort these can obviously be overcome by intelligent, reasoned, rational thought, but effort is the salient word here - you actively and explicitly have to work at it with your rational brain, you have to make a conscious decision to do this, whereas the sort of instinctive judgements we're talking about here are atavistic and come from somewhere much deeper down in the cortex.

I'm confident that there's already enough evidence that the human species is a tribal one given to taking sides along these lines to make this highly plausible. Initial at best suspicion and at worst fear of/hostility to the other - to the different - seems innate as far as I can see.
Ketty

cyberman wrote:

Again, I think this is an untested guess. One of those things that we've all got used to saying over the last 30 years or so, but I don't know whether it is true. Maybe people have just been taken in by racists who console themselves by thinking "everyone is as racist as me, really, but I am a bit better than the resty because I admit it".

I am emphatically NOT suggesting that Ketty or Lexi are racist. I am saying that the idea that we are all subconcsiously prejudiced has been current for thirty years or so - perhaps longer - and that perhaps one of the reasons why it retains currency is that racists like to promote it.



Cybers, the prejudice doesn't have to be a 'big' one like racism.  Pre-judgement before being aware of facts is something that most of us do - often based on generalisations.

It's probably a generational thing, but if had the choice, based on appearance, between a doctor wearing 'sensible' flatties and a doctor wearing 6 inch heels, I'd instinctively feel the 'sensible' one to be more professional because the one wearing 6 inch heels must be more 'flighty' - that is my prejudice, not based in fact, which I recognise and so I'm able to check myself.
Jim

predjudice is fine...I have a few of my own.
Whethere any of those predjudices is founded on solid reason is another matter - and a matter for another thread at that.
What we do with our predjudice; where we go with it - that's the clincher. When we let it boil into antagonism or allow it to threaten the freedom of another person is when that predjudice becomes discrimination. If we find ourselves in a situation where our attitude destroys another person's rights under the law, it's up to us to get out of that situation or face the consequences...whether those be legal or social.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Cybers, the prejudice doesn't have to be a 'big' one like racism.  Pre-judgement before being aware of facts is something that most of us do - often based on generalisations.

It's probably a generational thing, but if had the choice, based on appearance, between a doctor wearing 'sensible' flatties and a doctor wearing 6 inch heels, I'd instinctively feel the 'sensible' one to be more professional because the one wearing 6 inch heels must be more 'flighty' - that is my prejudice, not based in fact, which I recognise and so I'm able to check myself.

Funny - I'm exactly the opposite  
Ketty

That's what makes a balanced world.  
Shaker

A pint in each hand is what makes a balanced world as far as I'm concerned.

But as you please  
bnabernard

Problems problems problems, ............... two hands and one mouth!

bernard (hug)
Ketty

bnabernard wrote:
Problems problems problems, ............... two hands and one mouth!

bernard (hug)


Problem solved:  two straws.
Lexilogio

cyberman wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
but we all do it. Unconsciously, subconsciously, we all discriminate in some ways.
.


That can only be a guess


Nope. Project Implicit. This has been subject to research.
cyberman

Ketty wrote:
if had the choice, based on appearance, between a doctor wearing 'sensible' flatties and a doctor wearing 6 inch heels, I'd instinctively feel the 'sensible' one to be more professional because the one wearing 6 inch heels must be more 'flighty' - that is my prejudice, not based in fact, which I recognise and so I'm able to check myself.


That's not prejudice, that's using the available evidence to form a conclusion. Whereas the colour of someone's skin or their sexuality tells you absolutely nothing whatsoever about their character, their choice of footwear does. If someone thinks it is a good idea to wear high heels while in charge of a clinical environment, I think it is reasonable to question their judgement. Whereas is someone is black and in charge of a clinical environment it is not reasonable to question their competence (at least, not any more than you would if they were white).
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
That's not prejudice, that's using the available evidence to form a conclusion. Whereas the colour of someone's skin or their sexuality tells you absolutely nothing whatsoever about their character, their choice of footwear does.

Does it? I don't see how. Prejudice is exactly what it looks like to me.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Whereas the colour of someone's skin or their sexuality tells you absolutely nothing whatsoever about their character, their choice of footwear does.

Does it? I don't see how. Prejudice is exactly what it looks like to me.


Yes it does. It tells you that you are dealing with someone who puts fashion ahead of safety and practicality; and not only in a night club, but when they're at work making sure I don't die or something.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Yes it does. It tells you that you are dealing with someone who puts fashion ahead of safety and practicality; and not only in a night club, but when they're at work making sure I don't die or something.

Perhaps there are life-threatening hazards with your GP wearing anything other than sensible brogues - I'm not exactly within the demographic who would know - but I'd find it improbable in the extreme.

Additionally, Ketty never mentioned anything about safety or practicality but her snap judgement about the moral make-up of the said sawbones.
Ketty

cyberman wrote:
That's not prejudice, that's using the available evidence to form a conclusion.


An uninformed, prejudicial conclusion.  But fortunately, I recognise my prejudices and therefore check myself.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Additionally, Ketty never mentioned anything about safety or practicality but her snap judgement about the moral make-up of the said sawbones.


Moral make-up?  Hmmm, I really hope not, but you may be correct - I'd have to think about it.  I would like to think that more, it's a erroneous pre-judgement of their ability to do the job.   Either way, it's not a good thing to do - but we can't always help that split second inappropriate thought that creeps into our mind.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:

Perhaps there are life-threatening hazards with your GP wearing anything other than sensible brogues    


There are not. But there are hazards (not necessarily life-threatening) associated with wearing six inch high stilettos.

Shaker wrote:


Additionally, Ketty never mentioned anything about safety or practicality but her snap judgement about the moral make-up of the said sawbones.


She said nothing whatsoever about the moral make up of anyone. She contrasted 'sensible' with 'flighty'. A practical concern, not a moral one.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
She said nothing whatsoever about the moral make up of anyone. She contrasted 'sensible' with 'flighty'. A practical concern, not a moral one.

You must have a different definition of 'flighty' to the one I've been familiar with all my life, then. The Free Dictionary defines the word thusly:

Quote:
1. a. Given to capricious or unstable behavior.
    b. Characterized by irresponsible or silly behavior.
2. Easily excited; skittish.


but the word also has overtones of flirtatiousness and even brazenness:

Quote:
3. flirtatious; coquettish


Ketty herself, when I raised this moral judgement angle, interestingly didn't reject it out of hand as you've done and considered it at least worthy of consideration.
Ketty

Gentlemen, regardless of that digression, the greater point I was making was about prejudice and discrimination, and the fact they don't always have to be 'major' ones such as racial prejudice.   My point was more the fact that I have prejudices, which I recognise and do not like, and so therefore my own prejudices would not progress into being discriminatory.

The danger is when people do not recognise their own prejudices.
Shaker

Ketty wrote:
Gentlemen

Who?

Oh, that's me, then  
bnabernard

Preducies are mostly built on experience in the elightened times, however it would seem that to be that a person should not be allowed to feel comfortable making a discision on his/her own experience in our greater enlightened times?

bernard (hug)
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
She said nothing whatsoever about the moral make up of anyone. She contrasted 'sensible' with 'flighty'. A practical concern, not a moral one.

You must have a different definition of 'flighty' to the one I've been familiar with all my life, then. The Free Dictionary defines the word thusly:

Quote:
1. a. Given to capricious or unstable behavior.
    b. Characterized by irresponsible or silly behavior.
2. Easily excited; skittish.


but the word also has overtones of flirtatiousness and even brazenness:

Quote:
3. flirtatious; coquettish


Ketty herself, when I raised this moral judgement angle, interestingly didn't reject it out of hand as you've done and considered it at least worthy of consideration.


She did suggest that that wasn't what she meant, though didn't she?

I think irresponsible, silly, easily excited, skittish all support my view that it is about sensible v non-sensible, and not to do with morality.

Are you maintaining that 'flighty' necessarily means 'immoral'?

Are you denying that wearing 6 inch high hee;s when treating patient is less sensible than wearing shoes with a loweer heel or a flat sole?

Are you insisting that the choice of such a shoe tells you nothing whatsoever about the doctor's approach to safety and caution?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Are you maintaining that 'flighty' necessarily means 'immoral'?

Not in my personal vocabulary, no, because I don't live in 1946. But if you're unaware that to call a woman flighty has certain associations and overtones which are pretty well coterminous with the use of the words 'fast' or even 'loose', then you can't really be fully up to speed with the English language. Another online dictionary (Cambridge) says:

Quote:
(especially of a woman) not responsible and likely to change activities, jobs, partners, etc. often: a flighty young woman


Quote:
Are you denying that wearing 6 inch high hee;s when treating patient is less sensible than wearing shoes with a loweer heel or a flat sole?

Yes. There are doctors and then there are doctors - Ketty simply said doctor so I don't know if she had a particular member of the medical profession in mind. I for one would certainly raise an eyebrow if anybody was wearing stilettos in an operating theatre - women included - and I would consider that unusual, but in an ordinary GP's surgery if I've gone for something relatively trivial I wouldn't think twice about it. No reason to.

I'd think once, arguably: I'd think hmmmm ... nice shoes.

Quote:
Are you insisting that the choice of such a shoe tells you nothing whatsoever about the doctor's approach to safety and caution?

Yes.
Ketty

Shaker wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Gentlemen

Who?

Oh, that's me, then  


Mais bien sūr, mon petit cupcake  

cyberman wrote:

I think irresponsible, silly, easily excited, skittish all support my view that it is about sensible v non-sensible, and not to do with morality.


Pretty much it.  It was about a sense of professional focus.  
Lexilogio

Shall I take my 6 inch heels off and sit down?  

Interesting isn't it. Our prejudices are often challenged by those we know - new acquaintances.

We might think something is barking, until we meet someone who ascribes to that. There is nothing like a bit of peer pressure to dislike or like.

There is a movement in the US to befriend people from the opposite political spectrum - to go for coffee. The idea is to challenge the idea that those from the opposite end of the political spectrum are mad, or bad. They aren't. They just think of some things differently.
bnabernard

Back in the day, as mods and rockers, we might mix socialy and agree where and when to meet up for our punch up.

bernard (hug)
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
Shall I take my 6 inch heels off and sit down?  

Hell no, keep 'em on, keep' em on

Quote:
There is a movement in the US to befriend people from the opposite political spectrum - to go for coffee. The idea is to challenge the idea that those from the opposite end of the political spectrum are mad, or bad. They aren't. They just think of some things differently.

Sounds like an absolutely charming idea.

I fear it may founder on the rocks of those people who actually are both mad and bad, however. All generalisations are bad, as we all know, and we're not without such types over here but America does have something about it which seems to foster such people or at least make them more visible. (The Phelps family, abortion-doctor-killing types, etc). We've already seen what attempts to be civil and civilised discussion with that kind of person and it really doesn't work.
Lexilogio

Shaker wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Shall I take my 6 inch heels off and sit down?  

Hell no, keep 'em on, keep' em on

Quote:
There is a movement in the US to befriend people from the opposite political spectrum - to go for coffee. The idea is to challenge the idea that those from the opposite end of the political spectrum are mad, or bad. They aren't. They just think of some things differently.

Sounds like an absolutely charming idea.

I fear it may founder on the rocks of those people who actually are both mad and bad, however. All generalisations are bad, as we all know, and we're not without such types over here but America does have something about it which seems to foster such people or at least make them more visible. (The Phelps family, abortion-doctor-killing types, etc). We've already seen what attempts to be civil and civilised discussion with that kind of person and it really doesn't work.


 

Oh I agree, there will always be some for whom conversation is almost impossible.

Interestingly I was having a discussion with a colleague this afternoon about the difficulties of having to deal with people we really couldn't abide.
It's been one of those days....
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
 There is a movement in the US to befriend people from the opposite political spectrum - to go for coffee. The idea is to challenge the idea that those from the opposite end of the political spectrum are mad, or bad. They aren't. They just think of some things differently.

Sounds like an absolutely charming idea..


I agree. It would make debate and understanding far better than it is if people like me discover that Tory voters aren't all uncaring bastards, and for others to discover that being pro-life doesn't make me a slavering misogynistic fascist.

I'm really not, you know.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
I agree. It would make debate and understanding far better than it is if people like me discover that Tory voters aren't all uncaring bastards

Bad example - that one's true.
Lexilogio

 

I'm trying to think if I know anyone (in real life) who votes Tory....

I may be in thought some time....
Jim

er....
Wot's a Tory?
Richie

Jim wrote:
er....
Wot's a Tory?


A Laird

Though I guess they are a rare breed in Strathclyde's big smoke these days,
Richie

Lexilogio wrote:
 

I'm trying to think if I know anyone (in real life) who votes Tory....

I may be in thought some time....


Depressingly they are numerous amongst us. They live, breath, and vote, hence Cameron in No 10 and if you are English and the Scottish vote to leave may I introduce you to the One Party State government that you will be living with in England from now until hell freezes over    
genghiscant

Richie wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
 

I'm trying to think if I know anyone (in real life) who votes Tory....

I may be in thought some time....


Depressingly they are numerous amongst us. They live, breath, and vote, hence Cameron in No 10 and if you are English and the Scottish vote to leave may I introduce you to the One Party State government that you will be living with in England from now until hell freezes over    


Please don't go & leave us with this bunch of bastards!
Shaker

Hell no! We want an identical to the point of indistinguishable bunch of bastards instead!
Ketty

Lexilogio wrote:
Shall I take my 6 inch heels off and sit down?  


Show off!

Send me the person wearing these:  



PS, I was careful to not state which sex were the hypothetical doctors wearing the sensible flatties and the stilettos, 'cos that might be another prejudice.  
cyberman

genghiscant wrote:
Richie wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
 

I'm trying to think if I know anyone (in real life) who votes Tory....

I may be in thought some time....


Depressingly they are numerous amongst us. They live, breath, and vote, hence Cameron in No 10 and if you are English and the Scottish vote to leave may I introduce you to the One Party State government that you will be living with in England from now until hell freezes over    


Please don't go & leave us with this bunch of bastards!


I agree with genghis. We need Scottish Labour voters returning Labour MPS to Westminster. Without you, we're fucked.
gone

deleted
The Boyg

Floo wrote:
My middle daughter has a purple pair.


Is she a doctor?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum