Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zendawn
No I don't claim any such thing, that is your inturpretation of my posts.
|
Judging by your previous posts in this thread, this is your standard reply to someone when you don't like their reaction to your opinions. In the interests of mutual understanding and continuing dialogue, if you think my interpretation is wrong, it would be nice if you could explain why you think that.
Quote:
|
So my accusation of being 'inflammatory' would stand??
|
In this context, no. We are meant to be discussing the subject of the question, not the question itself. Getting hung up on the wording of the question just avoids the substantive issue.
Quote:
|
Again your inturpritation of my posts. I see the phrasing as biased and predudicial, not the same as saying Russ had that intent. Nor does a person have to intentionally be homophobic to do something homophobic. In a similar way Ron Atkinson didnt mean to be racist when he called that player a N***.
|
My previous comments were intended to take in suggestions of both intentional and subconscious prejudice, and again by quibbling over the words I use you miss the substantive point. You claim the phrasing is biased and prejudicial (whether Russ consciously intended this or not). I claim the phrasing is an effective means of starting a debate and
nothing more.
Quote:
Yes, its an issue for me, thats why Im discussing it here.
That's a poor excuse for allowing discrimination. Women wearing earrings can look just as disrepectfull.
|
Right, now we're getting somewhere. Previously you have claimed that this is 'an issue'. Now you say it is 'an issue for me'. The dress code rules were not framed to address your issues. They were written for a section of society that still has problems with its perception of men wearing ear rings. My contention - and presumably that of those people who wrote the rules - is that the right of men to wear ear rings is secondary to the needs of those in the community who have a problem with men wearing ear rings.
Quote:
|
I'm talking about moral discrimination, the law is an arse at the best of times, so it's not suprising that it would allow discrimination on an ad hock basis.
|
And this, I think is the nub of the issue. Moral discrimination? By whose code of morality, exactly?
When you dismiss the Law as an ass, you similarly dismiss the opinions of those who wrote it, argued for it and passed it. The Law has no life or existence outside of that which is given to it by people just like yourself. It is passed by people, it is repealed by people. By claiming that the Law's rulings on discrimination are made on an
ad hoc basis, you pass judgement on the opinions of those who passed the Law and declare that your own moral code, which has a different view of what is discrimination and what is not, is morally superior.
While I would agree with anyone who believes that moral equivalence is a myth, I would expect that person to give some account of why they think their morality is better than someone else's. You have not done this so far. As said previously, merely uttering the word 'discrimination' does not prove your point. Why is such discrimination wrong in your point of view?
Quote:
|
Again, this is only a reason why BOTH sexes shouldnt wear earrings, not a reason for discriminating against one gender in favour of another.
|
Ok, so it appears you accept that it is valid to ask serving police officers to modify their dress and self expression in the interests of community relations. The question is, if it is only the issue of
men wearing ear rings that is the problem, why is it not reasonable only to ask the men to remove them? Again, the charge of 'discrimination' is not an explanation in and of itself. You must give an account of why, in your moral code, it is so important that everything else appears secondary to it.