Does really exists such a thing as “positive” discrimination?

[el22]

I wonder, since when discrimination lost its color, and now you need to recolor it with this “positive” adjective thing.

I don’t remember people that now enjoy the benefits of positive discrimination complaining, earlier on, about “negative” discrimination.

I think not only is “positive” discrimination BAD, but it is far worse than simply ‘discrimination’, because under this dogma, you discriminate people and mock at them in the same time.

I believe in fairness and justice.
I don’t think there really is such a thing as “positive” discrimination.

What do you think?

[Kazimiera]

In my book, discrimination is discrimination regardless of what its called.

I just answered in a thread about political correctness, and this seems to be more PC nonsense.

[Stefan]

Do you mean something like affirmative action? If not, can you provide an example of the concept you're explaining. Sorry, for my poor comprehension abilities.

[Frosty]

There isn't of course.People should be judged by their deeds and nothing else.
For a first time i hear,"positive discrimination" as a terminology...Can you give an example for such discrimination?

[Breedingvariety]

Does such a thing as “positive” discrimination really exist?

It is a matter of taste. I like discrimination originate in a theory as opposed emotions. I discriminate against overtly emotional people. I respect if discrimination of me is grounded in a theory.

Discrimination is synonymous with distinction. Your eye sight distinct shapes and colors, your hearing distinct sounds, your taste distinct flavors, your smell distinct odors. Your senses discriminate sensations.

The slight difference between distinction and discrimination is that discrimination involves evaluation and favoring of some distinctions over others. But if you think, like I do, evaluation happens like reflex the moment distinction is made, then the difference between these words becomes even more trivial.

[el22]

There isn't of course.People should be judged by their deeds and nothing else.
For a first time i hear,"positive discrimination" as a terminology...Can you give an example for such discrimination?

For example, let’s say that in some field of human activity, there are many males, but very little females.
First, you suspect that there might be something that discriminates females the cause of this unacceptable thing.
You scrutinize the system, correct any thing (if there is) that you suspect as a cause for woman discrimination, but still, very little changes.

And because you started with the dogma, that males and females are equal (which in your mind means not only that they should have equal chances, but that they have equal capabilities), so, if they are equal, and are given equal chances, how come I don’t get equal participation here?

So you come up with “positive” discrimination, which might mean a system as simple as “there should be at least xx% woman in this place.

Now, imagine the quota is not reached yet, a job position opens, and 2 candidates present themselves: a male and a female. Let’s assume (for the sake of experiment) that this particular man is a better candidate that this particular woman for this job.

However, he doesn’t get the job, not because he is a less fit for it, not even because he has the wrong sexual organ between his legs, but because there are too many people in this job which have the same sexual organ as his.

[Frosty]

For example, let’s say that in some field of human activity, there are many males, but very little females.
First, you suspect that there might be something that discriminates females the cause of this unacceptable thing.

It depends on the activity.For hard working jobs it's normal to prefer a man than a woman for example,and also in technical jobs-most of women do not choose technical education.Thus I'll not suspect some kind of discrimination.

And because you started with the dogma, that males and females are equal (which in your mind means not only that they should have equal chances, but that they have equal capabilities), so, if they are equal, and are given equal chances, how come I don’t get equal participation here?
This dogma is not true.People no matter men or women are equal in the ability to have chances for education,work,etc. but how things will develop is a matter of personality.You see man differs from a man,and brother from a brother.You have the right to participate for a certain job,but you'll have to prove that you're the right person to be chosen.

So you come up with “positive” discrimination, which might mean a system as simple as “there should be at least xx% woman in this place.
What does it mean "there should be"?There should be at least xx% woman/man if they are suitable for the position.If they aren't,the proper candidate should be picked no matter of the sex.

However, he doesn’t get the job, not because he is a less fit for it, not even because he has the wrong sexual organ between his legs, but because there are too many people in this job which have the same sexual organ as his.
That's ridiculous i think.

[Sally]

I think there's a real chance freedom of choice will be compromised. I find that positive discrimination makes differences more pronounced, and there's always a chance people will be chosen because of their ethnic group, and not for their competence. If anything, positive discrimination measures should only be temporary. Once the objectives (whatever they are) are achieved, they shouldn't be kept in force.

[Chego]

http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/5/13/awhellno128552202651855186.jpg

[Breedingvariety]

Half of Negroes living in the Eastern Europe work in TV (the other half- in sports). Yes, there is positive discrimination.

[Bobcat Fraser]

Uh, discrimination can be good or bad. Do you prefer fresh fruit over rotten fruit when you shop at a store? If so, you're engaging in positive discrimination. The word isn't constrained by modern racial connotations.

[Breedingvariety]

Ant- discrimination teletubbies have declared a war against nature. Hopefully they will be less successful than real TV teletubbies.

[Frosty]

Uh, discrimination can be good or bad. Do you prefer fresh fruit over rotten fruit when you shop at a store? If so, you're engaging in positive discrimination. The word isn't constrained by modern racial connotations.

You can't compare people with fruits.:rolleyes2:They/fruits/ don't speak,act,compete or show test results when applying for a job.
Discrimination is based on prejudice.Without knowing who will be a better worker to reject one of them concerning his origins,religion,etc...
Or the opposite-knowing who's doing better,but again rejecting him just because of...something whatever it is, that has nothing to do with the work he is hired for.
I don't believe there''s a serious businessman who would prefer low qualified applicants to high educated ones just because of something out of the work field.Sooner or later he is doomed to failure.

[Bobcat Fraser]

You can't compare people with fruits.:rolleyes2:They/fruits/ don't speak,act,compete or show test results when applying for a job.
Discrimination is based on prejudice.Without knowing who will be a better worker to reject one of them concerning his origins,religion,etc...
Or the opposite-knowing who's doing better,but again rejecting him just because of...something whatever it is, that has nothing to do with the work he is hired for.
I don't believe there''s a serious businessman who would prefer low qualified applicants to high educated ones just because of something out of the work field.Sooner or later he is doomed to failure.

You missed my point. I didn't compare people to fruit. I tried to explain the complete definition of the word to show that it's wise to discriminate in certain situations in which one must use available information to make informed choices. The word, "discrimination", is not limited to things like race and religion.

[Γέλως]

Yes, only "bad" is bad by definition. Every other entity could be good or bad, except for the entity "good", that can of course only be good.


Discrimination is based on prejudice.Without knowing who will be a better worker to reject one of them concerning his origins,religion,etc...
Or the opposite-knowing who's doing better,but again rejecting him just because of...something whatever it is, that has nothing to do with the work he is hired for.
I don't believe there''s a serious businessman who would prefer low qualified applicants to high educated ones just because of something out of the work field.Sooner or later he is doomed to failure.Prejudice should be used only when proper judgment can't be made. A job interview gives you the ability, more or less, for a proper judgment of the applicant. There's no need to involve prejudice in this case, except perhaps for special cases. But if you, hypothetically, walked in a ghetto, where it is known that whites get attacked often, and you are not prejudged against the residents of the ghetto, you are probably an idiot.