Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
To take this back to something I said earlier, I'm saying that discrimination
per se is not fundamentally wrong. Just discrimination in certain cases. UK Law recognises this, as is demonstrated in this specific instance. Differences in male/female dress are specifically allowed in the Law.
Quote:
|
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.
|
It is not what I was implying. Apology accepted.
It makes your point different in the context of my original post, in which I complained that this was being made a sexuality issue even though it clearly is not.
Quote:
|
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?
|
All you are doing here is interpreting the image of a policeman with an ear ring according to your own understanding, norms and assumptions. The question is not controversial to you because your subculture has grown up with men wearing ear rings. The ability to understand and resolve conflict lies in attempting to ask (and answer) these questions from the point of view of those who have the differing opinion, not answering them to your own satisfaction as if that were ample proof that you are right and they are wrong.
Quote:
|
if so wouldnt a skinheaded woman with an earing be percieved the same way? yet there is nothing to stop that.
|
I don't see the necessary connection between a skinhead man with an ear ring and a skinhead woman with an ear ring. Again, you are applying your own assumptions to the situation and failing to try to understand
why somebody might answer differently to you.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I'm glad you're not making sexuality the core issue. I think you and I agree that it is not. However, on the issue of 'discrimination', you are wrong. The Law says what is discrimination and what is not. In this case, the Law says that differing dress codes for men and women is not discrimination.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You draw a false conclusion here by making 'intolerance' = 'have a problem with'. They are not the same. As a Christian, I 'have a problem with' people whose faith is different to mine, as I believe my faith to have the answers to life's important questions. I wish to try to persuade people of my point of view. That is a whole world away from me being 'intolerant' of people who do not share my point of view. If I were intolerant, then I would be constantly picking religiously-motivated fights with the majority of members of this forum and finding it impossible to form friendships with them. I hope that it is obvious that this is not the case.
Intolerance is bigotry. Having a problem with someone (or with their point of view) is not.
Quote:
|
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.
|
So, you accept that bigotry is
in some cases acceptable because it serves a worthwhile purpose in dealing with an issue that you see as a problem (in this case, 'small-minded thinking'). Similarly, I think that discrimination is
in some cases acceptable where it serves a worthwhile purpose in dealing with an issue I see as a problem (in my case, people who need to trust the police and, for whatever reason, might not be able to).
Quote:
|
<snip> I really cant see a good reason in any of your postings, except some people might not like it.
|
Well spotted - that
is the reason, although you caricature what I actually said in order to trivialise it. Trivialising a point of view is a useful substitute for countering it with a good argument.
Quote:
|
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).
|
This is the second time you have mentioned butch skinhead women. Frankly, I have no idea what the ruling is here. I would not be surprised if there are rules about how both male and female police officers keep their hair. If so, I would support them. As I have said all along, the need for the public to respect the police and also to find them approachable far outweighs the rights of the police officers, as pubilc servants, to express themselves while on duty.