Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?

Originally Posted by zendawn

1. Certain sections of society are against gays too but that shouldnt mean they arent allowed in the police force.

Nobody is saying gay ment should not be allowed in the police force. Nobody is saying that men who like to wear ear rings should not be allowed in the police force. They are saying that those ear rings should be removed while on duty. Please, if you want to argue by analogy do try to use one that is at least a little equivalent.

2. The police force lose repect in various ways, just because people prejudge people who wear earrings doesnt mean they should be pandered too. Still applies to women as well.

Why?

3. Wearing an earring is not just about expression, again it applies to women as well as men.

Why?

4. Again its discrimmination against men.

Why?

Women wearing earrings on duty is just as bad

Why?

its only people predudice that makes men wearing earrings seem wrong.

Aha, the promise of a logical argument ... I agree with you. In my opinion it is an unjustified prejudice on the part of those who think men wearing ear rings is wrong. However I do not think that the premise that the prejudice is unjustified leads necessarily to the conclusion that it is wrong to ban only men from wearing ear rings. The problem of lack of respect for the police is far more potentially damaging than the problem of some people being prejudiced against men wearing ear rings.

5. No, the immature attitude is that its wrong for men to wear earrings in general.

Another fallacy. It may be immature to believe there is something wrong with men wearing ear rings, but it does not therefore follow that it is not immature to decide to ban everyone from doing something simply because there are good reasons to stop one group of people from doing it.

I do not need to explain why its discrimination, the definition of the word is enougth.

By which you demonstrate that you really are not capable of forming a reasoned argument to back up your point of view. That said, I can see I am wasting my time trying to carry on a debate with you on this subject.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by scastle

And ,while I disagree with Discrimination generally, I do think that the fact that the ex-police officer is trying to fight this cheapens more serious complaints of discrimination. The more we have cases like this, the more likely that the public will assume a gay person who suffers serious abuse is just "being a whinging queen" when he reports it. The same applies for Lesbians and any minority group.

Again it just shows a level of predudice. If you or anyone who IS* against homosexuality wanna use this as an excuse for calling gays 'screaming queens' then thats their predudice. Personally I can allow for the fact that people will find something 'small' offensive and still allow for people to fight the 'bigger' issues without fear of it being lessened.

(I've capped 'IS' just incase you think I'm assuming YOUR against homosexuality, which I dont).

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

By which you demonstrate that you really are not capable of forming a reasoned argument to back up your point of view. That said, I can see I am wasting my time trying to carry on a debate with you on this subject.

Fine by me, if you wanna be predudiced against people, be it. No need to justify yourself to me.
There is absolutly no justification for women being allowed to wear earrings over men. By definition it is discrimination, no logical argument is needed.

w00t! I am now a fully paid-up member of the zendawn red-rep club!! All for the controversial contents of post 163.

And the constructive comment that accompanied that little strawberry-flavoured pill?

Originally Posted by red rep commment from zendawn

whatever

Zen buddy, if I'm suggesting you have difficulty constructing a logical argument to back yourself up, wouldn't you agree that tactics like that only help to prove my point?

I don't suppose you would like to take the opportunity to explain why you are so willing to dish reps out, yet rather less willing to acknowledge what you receive?

Originally Posted by zendawn

Fine by me, if you wanna be predudiced against people, be it. No need to justify yourself to me.

Umm ... I wasn't. Here's another logical fallacy you might be interested in. It's called 'appeal to emotion':

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...o-emotion.html

Are you really expecting me to yelp 'Hey, I'm not prejudiced! OK, I admit it, you were right all along!'

Pathetic.

There is absolutly no justification for women being allowed to wear earrings over men. By definition it is discrimination, no logical argument is needed.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

Are you really expecting me to yelp 'Hey, I'm not prejudiced! OK, I admit it, you were right all along!'

Pathetic.
l

By definition (again) you ARE prejudiced. You would alllow women to wear earrings but not men, based on yours or other peoples prejudging that men who wear earrings are not to be respected.

Can't make it any plainner than that.

[Russ]

People people people!!!

This is a thread about my asking if gays are overreacting regarding the police force in question having this policy.

Can we get this back on topic please, if anyone wants to discuss who has misunderstood who etc please go to PM or msn.

Originally Posted by zendawn

By definition (again) you ARE prejudiced.

By whose definition? This is one of the many questions I and others haveposed to you that you have completely ignored. You made a vague appeal to 'moral' discrimination yet without explaining where these morals come from and why they are superior to the morals of someone who disagrees with you. Once again, you seem to believe that you only have to say something is the case in order for it to be true. Not good enough.

You would alllow women to wear earrings but not men, based on yours or other peoples prejudging that men who wear earrings are not to be respected.

Can't make it any plainner than that.

If there's one certainty in all this, it is that you have completely failed to make anything plain.

That I agree with the decision to vary the male/female dress codes is not in dispute. That the reason for this is the prejudice of certain sections of society is not in dispute.

The core issue is discrimination, which in its strict linguistic sense does not necessarily carry any positive or negative meaning.

Can I ask you another question:

Do you believe that discrimination of any kind is ever justified under any circumstances?

[downquark1]

I think the question is, should we allow the prejudices of others affect the rules we set.

If nobody found earrings a problem we wouldn't be haven't this conversation.

If people think blonde women are stupid, should they be required to dye their hair?

PS: I apologise if this has already been said - I haven't read the entire thread yet.

[zendawn]

YES, they are over reacting, they are a bunch of 'screaming queens' who have nothing better to do than fight silly little rules, that pander to the prejudices of a certain section of society.
If your male and wear an earring your either a poof or a yob, neither of which command much respect in society.
If your female, weariing an earring is decorative and makes you look attractive so we wouldnt want to stop them wearing them, incase their piercing heals over and they cant get the earrings back in.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by towny

Can I ask you another question:

Do you believe that discrimination of any kind is ever justified under any circumstances?

No it's wrong in any circumstance. I believe we only live once, so to be treated as different because I was born in a different body to another, is in my opinion wrong.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

No it's wrong in any circumstance. I believe we only live once, so to be treated as different because I was born in a different body to another, is in my opinion wrong.

I was born in a different kind of body to my sister. She works for a female rape crisis charity. The fact that she was born in to that kind of body makes her more ideal for that job than I.

In which case discrimination was appropriate.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think the question is, should we allow the prejudices of others affect the rules we set.

If nobody found earrings a problem we wouldn't be haven't this conversation.

If people think blonde women are stupid, should they be required to dye their hair?

PS: I apologise if this has already been said - I haven't read the entire thread yet.

Very well put and I like the blond analogy .

Originally Posted by zendawn

No it's wrong in any circumstance. I believe we only live once, so to be treated as different because I was born in a different body to another, is in my opinion wrong.

So 'positive' discrimination, designed to remedy the effects of past prejudice by over-recruiting from formerly overlooked sections of society, is also wrong?

The kind of discrimination that prevents male social workers from working with prostitutes is wrong?

Discrimination that says people who take senior jobs at faith-based organisations must be in sympathy with that faith, is wrong?

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I was born in a different kind of body to my sister. She works for a female rape crisis charity. The fact that she was born in to that kind of body makes her more idea for that job than I.

In which case discrimination was appropriate.

Well again we will differ in opinion (nothing wrong with it tho).
They are just allowing the perceptiion that ALL men are bad if only women can council women on this issue. Rape affects both sexes.