User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 27

  1. #11
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    So what's your stance: Equality in all cases, or positive discrimination can help society?
    Depending on what one means by "positive discrimination"; both concepts can be hurtful to society.

  2. #12
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    The goal of positive discrimination is to favor groups of people who have been historically disfavored or disadvantaged. Even if it's suppose to be positive, it's still discrimination, so the case against it is clear. Trying to achieve more equality by increasing opportunity for a certain disadvantaged group is a noble goal. But trying to do this directly requires the larger group to be disadvantaged in way, even if it only causes a small incremental disadvantage.

  3. #13
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    The goal of positive discrimination is to favor groups of people who have been historically disfavored or disadvantaged.
    In that case, I'm opposed to both concepts.

    "Our democracy is willing to destroy any or all freedoms for the sake of equality."
    --Nikolai Berdyaev

  4. #14
    Enigma Nadir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    544

    Default

    In my view there aren't really any positive or negative distinctions or forms of discrimination. It can be argued that "positive discrimination" serves to establish gender equality within jobs, but the reality is that there's no such need for an equality for the sake of equality alone, nor is it beneficial. This might sound counter intuitive to you, but think about it: you'll prove exactly nothing to people if you pride yourself on your employing of 75 men and 75 women, give or take 5 from each group, in your workplace of 150. Inasmuch as it feels like the "right" thing to do, correcting inequality won't serve any purpose when you keep in mind that inequality is the result, the symptom of certain sociological mechanisms, and that there's nothing particularly humane or egalitarian about utilizing the very same mechanisms to correct these results. If you stop the bleeding, the wound will heal anwyay. But positive discrimination sounds like it could lead to an opening of a newer wound eventually. It's a subjective method, and thus runs the risk of not being as consistent as a merit-based, objective consideration.
    Not really.

  5. #15
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    "Our democracy is willing to destroy any or all freedoms for the sake of equality."
    --Nikolai Berdyaev
    No it's not.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    INxJ
    Posts
    3,917

    Default

    Genetic discrimination (survival of the fittest), is quite useful.

  7. #17
    Senior Member edel weiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    147

    Default

    As far as I'm aware about American society, you guys generally have a guaranteed decent education uptil high school, and girls are educated to that extent as well. What kind of affirmative action do you all have, and for which groups of people?

    I didn't know there was affirmative action for women at all.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    xxxx
    Posts
    735

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    My views with regards to discrimination in general is quite a bit more complex. Our cognition is reliant on discrimination to make decisions. We need it to decide if something is "good" or "bad". Often, many people don't realise that they're discriminating against groups of people based on personal prejudice.

    As such, when an employer is looking to hire people, he may feel a stronger connection to a male, who talks sports etc. with him as opposed to the shy female contender who has better qualifications but stutters and blushes. He's not discriminating against the female because of her sex. He's choosing the male because he feels a stronger connection to other guys.

    Multiply this several-million-fold (most high-level management is male) and you have what looks like systematic, sexist discrimination.
    It doesn't just look like systematic discrimination, it is. Most people agree that there should be equality, but how do you get true equality in the system you described? Without introducing a positive bias into the system it will not change. Women need equal opportunity and positive discrimination (affirmative action, incentives, social pressure, whatever you want to call it) is a way to balance out the negative discrimination and create that.

    Note that I'm only advocating equal opportunity, not equal numbers.

  9. #19
    Lallygag Moderator Geoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INXP
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pippi View Post
    It doesn't just look like systematic discrimination, it is. Most people agree that there should be equality, but how do you get true equality in the system you described? Without introducing a positive bias into the system it will not change. Women need equal opportunity and positive discrimination (affirmative action, incentives, social pressure, whatever you want to call it) is a way to balance out the negative discrimination and create that.

    Note that I'm only advocating equal opportunity, not equal numbers.
    How does one create an "incentive" in a way that doesnt discriminate against men?

  10. #20
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    So what's your stance: Equality in all cases, or positive discrimination can help society?
    I'd say "equality in all cases"... with the provision that it's equality of *opportunity*, not equality of outcomes. I'm a firm believer that everyone deserves an equal chance to pursue what they want to do, and who they want to be, no matter what their gender, ethnicity, upbringing, economic status as a child, etc. It comes to respect for individual achievement, ability, and effort - and that's why I'm against discriminating against people on the basis of "they belong to a historically disadvantaged group."

    Don't get me wrong - I'm *all* for "help people who're disadvantaged" - which is why I'm all in favor of social programs, help for low-income schools, financial aid for people who wouldn't be able to afford college, and pretty much anything that helps people get a fighting chance for an equal footing. I know that not everyone gets off to life on an equal footing (and realistically, likely never will) - but I'd much rather address the issue by addressing people as individuals who may need a bit of help, rather than to say "you're a member of group A, so you get help, but this other person who's in the same circumstances isn't a member of group A, so they get nothing." Yes, I do believe this even if I'm a member of group A.

    I think the main issue here is that it's *much* easier to *say* you're doing something if you can point to numbers like "look, see? We hired X people of disadvantaged group A" than to actually, as a society, address the issues that drive inequality of opportunities. Now there's no question that this is harder, probably more expensive, and not a short-term solution. But I do believe that it's the right way to address the problem. I'm all for laws, regulations, etc. that prohibit discrimination immediately... but the whole "I hired him because he's a man is bad, I hired her because she's a woman is good" thing is bad... for everyone involved, men and women.

    Now, it's certainly true that in *some* circumstances, there's not much of an option - the civil rights movement of the 60's (in the US) is a good example. People who are "advantaged" will sometimes fight and scream if they aren't guaranteed to have their advantages maintained at all costs - and *that* needs to go by the wayside.

    I know that this is probably anti-PC, and quite idealistic (perhaps hopelessly so). I know that as a white guy, I probably don't often see the hardships that people go through to get their equal shot. I fully agree that those hardships should be removed - but treating people as individuals, instead of members who may be "progressively" discriminated against because they share often-superficial qualities (for the question at hand) with a certain set of people strikes me as wrong. In many cases, I think that it can make things worse - the whole "they only hired her because she's a woman, she can't be any good" issue.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Positive Disintegration
    By GZA in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 12:26 PM
  2. Something positive about your type opposite
    By proteanmix in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 06:32 PM
  3. Positive and Practical Uses of Type
    By ygolo in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08-24-2007, 03:25 AM
  4. Kama Sutra Positions for Internet Writers
    By sdalek in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 11:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO