Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 5:13:30 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2023 5:13:30 GMT
Sorry my fault. I was asking Red Rackham a question (which he ran away from anyway) not yourself Red Rum. Red Rackham brings up every now and then that not only did the Dorset Police illegally racially discriminate against his son (unlikley but conceivable) but they also TOLD him they had done so (simply didn't happen but Red's story depends on this lie). By now he knows full well it's a lie but nonetheless he keeps bringing it up pretending its true and then runs away when his lie is again highlighted. Very odd behaviour. No problem.
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 9:33:00 GMT
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 9:33:00 GMT
But Red Rum nuanced his reply to indicate there are times when it may not be, which was teh point I was making, it always is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 9:55:56 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2023 9:55:56 GMT
Fair enough as usual I will answer you question but I do not expect reciprocal decency from you. Both situations can be seen as racist or not racist depending on your view point. In example 1 a white person having been refused could consider it a racist policy, on the other hand they may consider it is a sensible policy for given the need for equality across the spectrum. In example 2 a black person having been refused could consider it a racist policy, on the other hand they may consider it is a sensible policy for given the need for equality across the spectrum. A black person could consider it racist because they are black and a white person could consider it racist because they are white. You also have the point whereas a white person could consider it racist because they are entitled to a job because they are white and born in this country. Is it racist, isn't it racist is not a simple question and a simple answer is not possible but I have tried, will you. What do you think the answer is? (please note the question mark). In both cases individuals are discriminated against because of their race. If we look at the Universal declaration of human rights we find.. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Bear in mind the UDHR if signed is a binding contract between our government and our people and as such no laws should be made that contravenes the Declaration and specifically 'without distinction of any kind'. What you have set out is a reason why racial discrimination can be applied but having what you believe is a good reason still makes it racial discrimination by the State which directly contravenes this article and should be illegal. I have not said that it is not racism, I have merely pointed out that 'racism' and I'll call it that, can be used as a 'tool' to combat inherent racism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 10:01:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2023 10:01:10 GMT
But Red Rum nuanced his reply to indicate there are times when it may not be, which was teh point I was making, it always is. Oh dear, I think I said 'could be considered' and not that it acceptable, why do you attempt to twist my words? Positive discrimination is not legal, it is still discrimination, what you are talking about is positive action which is different.
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 15:08:31 GMT
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 15:08:31 GMT
In both cases individuals are discriminated against because of their race. If we look at the Universal declaration of human rights we find.. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Bear in mind the UDHR if signed is a binding contract between our government and our people and as such no laws should be made that contravenes the Declaration and specifically 'without distinction of any kind'. What you have set out is a reason why racial discrimination can be applied but having what you believe is a good reason still makes it racial discrimination by the State which directly contravenes this article and should be illegal. I have not said that it is not racism, I have merely pointed out that 'racism' and I'll call it that, can be used as a 'tool' to combat inherent racism. Which places racism outside of moral parameters. We know theft is wrong and it is always wrong, we do not steal from A to correct B having something stolen from him. Theft is a clear moral choice. However now you are saying we can apply racism to correct specific racism, so it is only specific racism that is at odds with your moral judgement, racism otherwise is fine and dandy. As regards the article above you seem to be agreeing that any law made to combat racism that is actively racist is at odds with the UDHR which I suppose is a good start.
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 15:15:43 GMT
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 15:15:43 GMT
But Red Rum nuanced his reply to indicate there are times when it may not be, which was teh point I was making, it always is. Oh dear, I think I said 'could be considered' and not that it acceptable, why do you attempt to twist my words? Positive discrimination is not legal, it is still discrimination, what you are talking about is positive action which is different. Positive action is discrimination, a final choice based on ethnicity is discrimination, selecting on the basis of ethnicity to give additional or new training is discrimination, increasing diversity by these methods is undoubtedly racial discrimination and if it is law made by government it is at odds with their signing of the UDHR and considering how much money we spend to protect those human rights for others then at least the majority should receive the same protection in law, we call that equality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 18:19:02 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2023 18:19:02 GMT
I have not said that it is not racism, I have merely pointed out that 'racism' and I'll call it that, can be used as a 'tool' to combat inherent racism. Which places racism outside of moral parameters. We know theft is wrong and it is always wrong, we do not steal from A to correct B having something stolen from him. Theft is a clear moral choice. However now you are saying we can apply racism to correct specific racism, so it is only specific racism that is at odds with your moral judgement, racism otherwise is fine and dandy. As regards the article above you seem to be agreeing that any law made to combat racism that is actively racist is at odds with the UDHR which I suppose is a good start. You are starting from a position that says racism does not exist in this country today and it does.
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 29, 2023 19:34:58 GMT
Post by sandypine on Nov 29, 2023 19:34:58 GMT
Which places racism outside of moral parameters. We know theft is wrong and it is always wrong, we do not steal from A to correct B having something stolen from him. Theft is a clear moral choice. However now you are saying we can apply racism to correct specific racism, so it is only specific racism that is at odds with your moral judgement, racism otherwise is fine and dandy. As regards the article above you seem to be agreeing that any law made to combat racism that is actively racist is at odds with the UDHR which I suppose is a good start. You are starting from a position that says racism does not exist in this country today and it does. However you are starting from the position of saying racism is morally wrong and must be corrected. Is it morally wrong?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Nov 30, 2023 8:07:01 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2023 8:07:01 GMT
You are starting from a position that says racism does not exist in this country today and it does. However you are starting from the position of saying racism is morally wrong and must be corrected. Is it morally wrong? No, it is not. But your belief that racism in this country does not exist is surreal.
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 30, 2023 15:41:04 GMT
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2023 15:41:04 GMT
However you are starting from the position of saying racism is morally wrong and must be corrected. Is it morally wrong? No, it is not. But your belief that racism in this country does not exist is surreal. I have not said it does not exist but if it is not morally wrong why is it a problem?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Nov 30, 2023 18:57:36 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2023 18:57:36 GMT
No, it is not. But your belief that racism in this country does not exist is surreal. I have not said it does not exist but if it is not morally wrong why is it a problem? Are you saying that racism is morally right? So racism does exist you do not think it should be tackled.
|
|
|
Racism
Nov 30, 2023 21:43:25 GMT
Post by sandypine on Nov 30, 2023 21:43:25 GMT
I have not said it does not exist but if it is not morally wrong why is it a problem? Are you saying that racism is morally right? So racism does exist you do not think it should be tackled. I am saying if it is not morally wrong then what is the problem with it existing. You seem to want to do something about something that you do not find morally wrong. I do not understand why you would do that. It is a bit like saying golf is not morally wrong but needs to be stamped out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Dec 1, 2023 8:12:24 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2023 8:12:24 GMT
No, it is not. But your belief that racism in this country does not exist is surreal. I have not said it does not exist but if it is not morally wrong why is it a problem? I have to admit, I also thought it was a little strange. Perhaps a major issue here is that he only perceives racism when it's from white people, which by itself is racism if we look at it objectively with a dash of equality, too. If it's as selective as they make out then admitting it immoral would be used against them. It's just a guess, especially if they are, in all sense and purposes, anti-white. At least (not exclusively) where western institutions and countries are concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Racism
Dec 1, 2023 8:24:09 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2023 8:24:09 GMT
Are you saying that racism is morally right? So racism does exist you do not think it should be tackled. I am saying if it is not morally wrong then what is the problem with it existing. You seem to want to do something about something that you do not find morally wrong. I do not understand why you would do that. It is a bit like saying golf is not morally wrong but needs to be stamped out. When have I said I do not think racism is morally wrong, even positive discrimination?, again you attempt to twist the points. What I do understand is the need to address racism and if you have any better ideas, please tell.
|
|
|
Racism
Dec 1, 2023 8:39:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by dappy on Dec 1, 2023 8:39:51 GMT
To answer Sandy’s question, I suppose it depends on what you define as racism. Generally though my view of an optimum society is that we should try to create a world where as much as possible all human beings have equality of opportunity and hence discrimination based on sex, sexuality, age , colour of skin is very much “morally wrong”.
|
|