• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you define as discrimination

What do you define as discrimination

  • Only physical acts of hatred. All else falls under free speech.

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Only directed and purposeful discrimination against a group. Adverse impact is allowed

    Votes: 6 46.2%
  • Unintentional adverse impact is not okay.

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Any vocal or active support for policy that would be beneficial to a "dominant" group.

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Not checking yo privilege!

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • Anything goes.

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Pretty straight forward. I hear people call X racist/sexist/[insert term here]ist all the time and I want to know how you define it in your mind. What defines someone as being discriminatory a particular group? Discuss.
 
Are you asking what kinds of discrimination are OK?
 
Are you asking what kinds of discrimination are OK?

No, I'm asking where is the line drawn for when something is discrimination. So if the line isn't drawn until physical force, you'd check the first one. If the line is drawn by not "checking ones privilege" where that is enough to consider someone to be discriminatory, then that one would be selected.
 
Pretty straight forward. I hear people call X racist/sexist/[insert term here]ist all the time and I want to know how you define it in your mind. What defines someone as being discriminatory a particular group? Discuss.

I would suggest you give more thought to your poll options before you post. This poll is useless, in my opinion.

Discrimination in legal terms involves unequal (lesser) commercial treatment of a group of people based upon their gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, color or religion. (I think that catches all of them.)

In every day terms, it would involve pretty much the same categories of people and cover one's general attitudes -- which may be better described as bigotry or prejudice.
 
I would suggest you give more thought to your poll options before you post. This poll is useless, in my opinion.

Discrimination in legal terms involves unequal (lesser) commercial treatment of a group of people based upon their gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, color or religion. (I think that catches all of them.)

In every day terms, it would involve pretty much the same categories of people and cover one's general attitudes -- which may be better described as bigotry or prejudice.

Age or national origins, Maggie. Don't forget that is why banks have to give 30 year loans to 80 year olds ;)
 
No, I'm asking where is the line drawn for when something is discrimination. So if the line isn't drawn until physical force, you'd check the first one. If the line is drawn by not "checking ones privilege" where that is enough to consider someone to be discriminatory, then that one would be selected.

There is no formula. Each circumstance is different.
 
I would say that directing mean or hurtful words toward a group of people is racist, which I suppose it is, but TV shows do it all the time, so while it may or may not be, it's still protected under the first amendment.
 
Discrimination, as interpreted as being an unfair treatment of another(s), is when in violation of definitive propriety something is withheld from another(s) to which they are fairly entitled.

For example, a man wants to enter his beagle in a dog show. However one of the dog show administrators in charge that day doesn't want any more beagles entered in the show, and, even though there is no rule on the number of beagles in the show, he refuses to let the man enter his beagle in the dog show. The man says he's being discriminated against .. and indeed that's discrimination, as with respect to definitive propriety, his beagle is a dog and thus qualifies to be entered in the dog show, and the man entering his beagle violates no rules governing the show.

However, a man wants to enter his cat in a dog show. The administrator in charge that day doesn't want to allow him to enter his cat in the dog show. Thus he is refused. The man claims discrimination .. but that's not discrimination as with respect to definitive propriety his cat doesn't qualify as an entry in a dog show and thus the man is not failry entitled to enter his cat in the dog show.
 
Discrimination is any act that limits an individual or group's ability to receive fair and equal treatment due to gender, race, creed, religion (or lack thereof) or sexual orientation. Thought crimes are not discrimination, only actual actions are.
 
I would say that directing mean or hurtful words toward a group of people is racist, which I suppose it is, but TV shows do it all the time, so while it may or may not be, it's still protected under the first amendment.

It doesn't matter if it's racist, speech is still protected no matter who it bothers.
 
Age or national origins, Maggie. Don't forget that is why banks have to give 30 year loans to 80 year olds ;)

That's not a bad business decision. Once the 80-year old dies, the house either goes to an inheritor who has to assume the loan or the bank gets the house. Why do you think they're pushing reverse mortgages so hard these days?
 
Pretty straight forward. I hear people call X racist/sexist/[insert term here]ist all the time and I want to know how you define it in your mind. What defines someone as being discriminatory a particular group? Discuss.

It's only racist if it's white -----> black, hispanic, etc etc.

Sadly, this is the state of the PC landscape.
 
It doesn't matter if it's racist, speech is still protected no matter who it bothers.

Unfortunately, some people have more freedom to speak than others and not have to make public apologies or risk their jobs.
 
That's not a bad business decision. Once the 80-year old dies, the house either goes to an inheritor who has to assume the loan or the bank gets the house. Why do you think they're pushing reverse mortgages so hard these days?

Well they sort of stopped that heavy promotion once the boom went bust. I haven't paid attention to the details, but I understand that the government is starting to take a hard, skeptical look at those even though they once encouraged them too. Apparently a lot of the folks are complaining they didn't understand what they were getting into--basically all those folks who took lump sum payments, spent it, and then want more money or kids who find out they are not getting mom's house after all and are saying mom was tricked would be my gut instinct as to who the complainers are.
 
Unfortunately, some people have more freedom to speak than others and not have to make public apologies or risk their jobs.

Yeah, usually minorities. That needs to change. Equality means equality for all, not just for the politically correct.
 
Well they sort of stopped that heavy promotion once the boom went bust. I haven't paid attention to the details, but I understand that the government is starting to take a hard, skeptical look at those even though they once encouraged them too. Apparently a lot of the folks are complaining they didn't understand what they were getting into--basically all those folks who took lump sum payments, spent it, and then want more money or kids who find out they are not getting mom's house after all and are saying mom was tricked would be my gut instinct as to who the complainers are.

Sorry, I'm just not sympathetic to that. Unless you've been declared legally incompetent and cannot enter into legal contracts, you are responsible for your own actions. If you didn't understand it, you shouldn't have signed the agreement. The only recourse ought to be to prove that the person wasn't legally in their right mind at the time they signed the contract, at which point, the contract is broken and the money is owed back to the lender.
 
Sorry, I'm just not sympathetic to that. Unless you've been declared legally incompetent and cannot enter into legal contracts, you are responsible for your own actions. If you didn't understand it, you shouldn't have signed the agreement. The only recourse ought to be to prove that the person wasn't legally in their right mind at the time they signed the contract, at which point, the contract is broken and the money is owed back to the lender.

Didn't say I was sympathetic to it. Just pointing out that those are under scrutiny.
 
Didn't say I was sympathetic to it. Just pointing out that those are under scrutiny.

And the liberals will probably let people screw the system through claims of ignorance, that's just the kind of people liberals are.
 
I would suggest you give more thought to your poll options before you post. This poll is useless, in my opinion.

Discrimination in legal terms involves unequal (lesser) commercial treatment of a group of people based upon their gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, color or religion. (I think that catches all of them.)

In every day terms, it would involve pretty much the same categories of people and cover one's general attitudes -- which may be better described as bigotry or prejudice.

yes the poll is worded horribly but i agree with you mags
 
I would suggest you give more thought to your poll options before you post. This poll is useless, in my opinion.

Discrimination in legal terms involves unequal (lesser) commercial treatment of a group of people based upon their gender, marital status, sexual orientation, race, color or religion. (I think that catches all of them.)

In every day terms, it would involve pretty much the same categories of people and cover one's general attitudes -- which may be better described as bigotry or prejudice.

While you limited yourself to the legal definition, I'd expand that to say a lesser treatment of a given group of people over the others or a greater treatment of a group one is included in over others. It's discrimination if one treats blacks differently, even if they are not treating hispanics or asians or any other minority differently. Most people only see discrimination as treating all minorities differently as a single group, or at least all others than one's own group differently. It doesn't have to be the catgories you have listed above. Nerd/geek discrimination was quite a real event in my experience, even if no one ever talked about it.

I will say that this poll and most likely even the premise of the thread, isn't well thought out. I am left wondering if there is a particular mind set that the poster was going for. Discrimination is not automatically right or wrong. Context plays a large part in that, and in addition the rightness or wrongness of it does not automaticaly dictact whether or not the discrimination should be legal or illegal.
 
While you limited yourself to the legal definition, I'd expand that to say a lesser treatment of a given group of people over the others or a greater treatment of a group one is included in over others. It's discrimination if one treats blacks differently, even if they are not treating Hispanics or Asians or any other minority differently. Most people only see discrimination as treating all minorities differently as a single group, or at least all others than one's own group differently. It doesn't have to be the categories you have listed above. Nerd/geek discrimination was quite a real event in my experience, even if no one ever talked about it.

I will say that this poll and most likely even the premise of the thread, isn't well thought out. I am left wondering if there is a particular mind set that the poster was going for. Discrimination is not automatically right or wrong. Context plays a large part in that, and in addition the rightness or wrongness of it does not automatically dictate whether or not the discrimination should be legal or illegal.

interesting, first let me be clear im not disagreeing, im curious about these statements cause i liked them but could not come up with a scenario to fit the last one.

I cant think where discrimination could be deemed "wrong" but shouldnt be illegal, im probably just not thinking to hard though.
Or it will simply be a situation where the "wrong" label is very subjective.

do you have an example in mind?
 
interesting, first let me be clear im not disagreeing, im curious about these statements cause i liked them but could not come up with a scenario to fit the last one.

I cant think where discrimination could be deemed "wrong" but shouldnt be illegal, im probably just not thinking to hard though.
Or it will simply be a situation where the "wrong" label is very subjective.

do you have an example in mind?

Let's keep it real simple. I'll even take on the "bad guy" role. ;)

Let's say that I really hate blacks. By saying that no black was allowed in my house simply because they were black is discrimination. No doubt about it there. And in this case I would have to classify that as "wrong". However, this should always be a very legal type of discrimination.

Now let's look at one where it's not so easy to put right or wrong to it. I'm Pagan and I've decided that I do not want anyone Christian in my house. Not because I hate them but because some religious aspect of the specific subset says that I am not allowed to have someone from outside my religion in my house. This is really neither right nor wrong, or at the least a very subjectable reasoning. Again it is a form of discrimination that should be kept legal.
 
Let's keep it real simple. I'll even take on the "bad guy" role. ;)

Let's say that I really hate blacks. By saying that no black was allowed in my house simply because they were black is discrimination. No doubt about it there. And in this case I would have to classify that as "wrong". However, this should always be a very legal type of discrimination.

Now let's look at one where it's not so easy to put right or wrong to it. I'm Pagan and I've decided that I do not want anyone Christian in my house. Not because I hate them but because some religious aspect of the specific subset says that I am not allowed to have someone from outside my religion in my house. This is really neither right nor wrong, or at the least a very subjectable reasoning. Again it is a form of discrimination that should be kept legal.

ahhhh see i was right, while i do agree thats wrong im totally ok with that because its your house and i also believe thats right, but only because its your house. I could never call someone wrong for that.

but good example i now understand where you were coming from, thanks

I guess i was thinking there might be examples where it was discrimination not protected by current rights.
 
Are you asking what kinds of discrimination are OK?

Legally, any kind of discrimination should be ok by private individuals. Only the government should be prohibited from discriminating based on arbitrary reasons.
 
ahhhh see i was right, while i do agree thats wrong im totally ok with that because its your house and i also believe thats right, but only because its your house. I could never call someone wrong for that.

but good example i now understand where you were coming from, thanks

I guess i was thinking there might be examples where it was discrimination not protected by current rights.

Probably where you and I would disagree is where does the "public/private" line get drawn. I am pretty much with Quik as far as the legality of it is concerned. A business should be considered a private holding and as such allowed to discriminate should it choose, both in hiring and with whom it does business with. That does not mean that I fell that any business that engages in such practices is in the right. Only the government should not be allowed to discriminate on ANY basis except individual action. The only exception to that is age where the line needs to be drawn between "child" and adult.
 
Back
Top Bottom