[ZrByte]

Originally Posted by towny

OK, so we're going to have to compare what I'm actually saying with what you claim I'm saying.

To kick off, I originally said:

but for a great many older people an ear-ring in a man's ear says a whole lot of things about him that might lessen or destroy their trust in him and his authority. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that a good reason for discriminating against men wearing earings is that some people from older generations may make mental accusations about thier sexuality - zrbyte

and I said:

It is not appropriate to expect these people to change their thinking to accommodate policemen who want to wear ear rings. It is the policeman who is the public servant and it is his duty to be accessible and approachable to all sections of society. - towny

which you interpreted as:

you basicly said in your first post that it is ok to discriminate to satisfy the small minded minority (i.e. those who think that males who wear earings are gay, what a silly concept - zrbyte

Now I could be reading those wrong but even you reiteration seems to prove my point.
You do infact seem to be saying it is ok to discriminate against a group based on what a minority think of them.

Originally Posted by Towny

As you can see when you put our posts side by side, I said nothing at all about sexuality. As a matter of fact, the ruling by thse who have introduced the new dress code said nothing about sexuality either. It is certain un-named gay police officers, who have not even talked directly to the BBC, who are 'said to be' making a sexuality issue out of this. In my original post I complained that some people insist on looking for anti-gay discrimination where there is none. What you are saying really just proves this.

This is true, you did not mention sexuality, however it was implied. If this is not what you are implying then I appologise but I dont see how that makes my point any different anyway.
What might people find less approachable about a man with an earing? is it as someone said earlier that he may be considdered a thug? if so wouldnt a skinheaded woman with an earing be percieved the same way? yet there is nothing to stop that.
As I have also said in some of my other posts Im not really hung up on the anti gay side of this, that was just my example. This is discrimination pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Towny

Now, as for bigotry: You have insisted on sprinkling your reading of my opinion with a liberal dose of your own value judgements. This never makes for a clear discussion of issues, unless you have no interest in understanding points of view that differ from yours.

Here is what dictionary.com says of the word 'bigot':

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. - Dictionary.com

By the deffinition you just posted, people who are intollerent of someone for beeing different to themselves (Like how an old fashioned person may have a problem with a man wearing an earing) are Bigoted.

So, a person is not a bigot simply for having a strong opinion. It is intolerance of those whose opinions differ that is the deciding factor. Your readiness to dismiss those that have a problem with ear rings as the 'small minded minority' with 'silly ideas' is making you look like a bigot.

Intollerence of ideas that discriminate against minorities may actually be a form of bigotry, however I see it as an acceptable form if it is opposed to a form of bigotry wich actually discriminates against a small group, especially one as small minded as someone thinking (all males who wear earings are gay, or all males who wear earings are thugs), no matter how you look at it this is a misguided and silly concept.

Originally Posted by Towny

Race is absolutely not a comparable issue in this case. The scale of the issue is relevant: there are many races, and it is impossible to find one single race that absolutely everyone from every race will be happy with. The very scale of the problem makes it impossible to deal with by simply banning one thing or another. So, we do the best we can: rather than have no police officers of any race, we strive to have representative numbers of each race.

Yes we do, just as officers of all genders shouldnt be allowed to wear earings, not just the men.

Originally Posted by Towny

The scale and nature of the potential ear ring problem is completely different. It is most likely only older people who have a problem, and relatively small numbers of police officers who would wear an ear ring. So, it is a simple matter to deal with the problem quickly and decisively by requiring them to remove their ear rings for the 8 hours they are on shift. If it is a problem because of older people, then time will solve the problem for us. All we need is a little patience.

So again you say it is ok to discriminate against the minority based on the opinions of the small minded few.
I do agree they should not be allowed to wear them (For different reasons mind you) but in my opinion it should be 'One off, all off' and the female officers should not be allowed to wear them either in the interest of equality.

Originally Posted by Towny

So, I have given reasons why I think that scale of problem is a relevant factor when deciding what to do about claims of 'discrimination'. (Note I say what to do about, not whether to ignore). Can you give reasons why you think scale of problem is not relevant?

I never said to ignore the problem in the first place, I have repeatedly stated in this post that I think niether sex should be allowed to wear them.(This to me sounds like affirmative action rather than ignoring something)

I really cant see a good reason in any of your postings, except some people might not like it. I would like to point out that the same people may have a problem with a butch skinheaded female officer yet there is precident of discrimination against them (Lets face it, any government that tried to enforce that would be commiting political suicide due to how one sided the equality balance is at the moment).

And I do agree with the topic title, the gays do seem to be taking this personal, however as other people have pointed out its not just gays that wear them, this is discrimination against men as a gender.

Edit: I may have to repost bits of this later as I rushed it slighly since I need to leave the house in 20seconds