Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zendawn
Yeah, keep twisting my words till they say what you wanna say. 'An issue for me' is in relation to this thread and discussion forum. It is both 'an issue' and 'an issue for me'.
I dont care who the rules are written for, they are discriminatory. If you dont understaind how they are discriminatory then look up the word.
I've made my point plain and simple. if women can wear earrings then so should men, any law that says otherwise is discrimination.
As to the phrasing of the thread. Again its predudicial to gays, not only do they have to fight for the right to wear earrings, but they also have to face being labled as trouble makers and 'screaming queens' before they can actually get to the problem at hand.
'Police discriminate' is much more fair and still others a provocative title but like I said before Im not predudiced against gays but I am against the police so my choice of wording would be like that.
Stop trying to score points and acdtually give a reason why you think its ok to discriminate against a section of society?
|
As I have said several times now, you cannot win an argument simply by re-stating your conclusion. You can keep repeating †˜itâà¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÃ ‚¢s discriminationâââ₠¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ until youââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢re blue in the face, but until you give reasons for the conclusion you have arrived at, you have proven nothing.
†˜Any law that says otherwise is discriminationâââ₠¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ is a classic example of this. Why is it discrimination? If you were writing an exam essay on this subject you would be scoring very poorly indeed. Come on, give some reasons for what you believe!
If Gaham were online just now, he might have suggested your argument is flawed by a Circular Reasoning fallacy. Assuming something is true is not evidence that it is true. Have a look at:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html
Trying to avoid answering my question by turning it round onto me is really a very poor debating tactic indeed. I have explained several times in this thread why I think, in this specific instance, discrimination is acceptable. It is you, rather, who has failed to say why it is not acceptable. Your appeal to the vague concept of †˜moral discriminationâââ₠¬Ã…¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ is not an explanation, it is yet another way of avoiding an explanation.
I am happy, however, to state, once again, why I believe it is acceptable to prevent only men from wearing ear-rings:
1. Certain parts of society have a problem with men wearing ear rings.
2. Police men must be seen to command respect and wield authority across the whole of society.
3. The need for good community relations is more important than a police officerââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s right to express his own dress sense while on duty and in uniform.
4. Police men should therefore not wear ear rings, as this is the most simple solution to the problem of lack of respect from certain sections of the community that the wearing of ear rings by male police officers can cause.
5. To similarly bar women from wearing ear rings, even though this is considered quite acceptable in society at large, reduces the process to the extremely childish and selfish level of †˜if I canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t have it, then nobody else can.ââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ There is no need to ban women from wearing ear rings, so in a mature and adult fashion we just let them get on with it.
As a footnote, can I please remind you that I have further said, several times in this thread, that I have looked up the meaning of the word †˜discriminationÃƚ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢âà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã…¾Ã‚¢. According to dictionary.com, there are three common meanings, and only one of them has any possible †˜moralâà ¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€Š¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¢ connotation:
Quote:
1. The act of discriminating.
2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination
|
Even the third common meaning is only morally loaded if you believe that merit is always the only valid consideration when choosing between one person and another.