Are any forms of discrimination 'ok'? Why? Why not?

1. 76

   jlparkposted 10 years ago

   Are any forms of discrimination 'ok'? Why? Why not?
   
   For example - most of us view discrimination based on race, gender, age as wrong. We can look back on history and think our previous generations were wrong for their views. But there are still groups who are discriminated against, and groups who think that this is ok. So to you - are any forms ok? Why? Why not?

   replyreport
2. 60

   Link10103posted 10 years ago

   Discrimination against spiders is perfectly legit, especially against the jumping variety.
   
   Discrimination against roaches is green lit as well, most definitely against the flying kind...
   
   Other than that, no not really. Having a difference doesnt make you any less of a human being than the person who is discriminating against you. There might be gray areas/double standards involved with that that I cant think of, but thats the gist of the ideal argument.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      jlparkposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree re: spiders and roaches, and your final paragraph. Thanks for answering.

      replyreport
3. 69

   Tusitala Tomposted 10 years ago

   I discriminate all the time.  I discriminate between what clothes will be suitable for wearing to different events.  I discriminate whether I will take the car or the bus into town.  I discriminate whether I like the taste of a particular sauce in a meal.   
   
   What's this discriminate business!   Discriminate means 'observe a difference between.'   It does not mean to disparage.   A better word in that question would have been, 'prejudice'...that is, Are any forms of prejudice ok?
   
   It's a common failing today, this inaccurate use of a word which has spread without people really understanding what discriminate means.  Some synonyms might put you right:  Distinction, differentiation, discernment.

   replyreport
   1. 76

      jlparkposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Tom  for yr answer - I understand what you mean - however I was using the commonly used term so that most people understood (as it[s commonly used in this way, to mean what I intended to ask the question about).

      replyreport
4. 87

   Austinstarposted 10 years ago

   Yes, "prejudicial" discrimination exists and it is a result of evolution. Early man had to decide who and what to 'pre-judge' as being good or bad in order to survive.
   That hang-up still exists today. For instance, in order to keep and grow Christianity, all christians had to learn to 'pre-judge' any non-christians in order to keep them from joining their special club.
   The other religions followed suit and pre-judged certain traits and behaviors in order to keep "those" people out of their club. The judgements became law or canon or hadith or whatever and these were passed down through the generations just like any fallacy was.
   Babies are indoctrinated from birth on the prejudices of their parents and families. For most, it becomes so ingrained that they can never escape it. 
   Fortunately, the trend toward hating those that are 'different' is changing and will eventually disappear.
   And you may even begin to love spiders and roaches! After all, they perform some beneficial functions :-)

   replyreport
   1. 76

      jlparkposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Beneficial functions are why I put up with them! They is just...crawly. I see what you mean though about pre-judging.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Say Yes To Lifeposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Christians are taught from Day One to not question their religion, and to suspect anyone who has a different take on how the world works. They are threatened with eternal hell if they even consider another point of view. They are ruled through FEAR.

      replyreport
5. 72

   d.williamposted 10 years ago

   First of all, the word discrimination as it is used today means just that - any discriminatory words or actions that adversely affect another person, or group of people.  To nit pick even further - the word "gay" has nothing to do with being "happy" or "gleeful".
   Arguing semantics is just another form of putting someone down without cause.
   Discrimination by any person towards others (passing judgements, and making laws that allow it to happen, and continue to happen) can do nothing to better any society as a whole.  Arguing religious objections toward another person, or group, is about the worst kind of hate mongering that one can imagine.  Hating and destroying the lives of others in the name of anyone's God is blasphemous as best. 
   If anyone worships any superstitious supernatural entity and that entity advocates hatred, and killing, and destroying the lives of others - perhaps it might be time to find another deity to shower one's worship on.
   For the religious fanatics who hate in the name of their gods - the new testament (of the christian bible) does not address your hatefulness towards anyone.  There is no rational justification other than viewing one's self as having greater value than another person(s).

   replyreport
6. 96

   peeplesposted 10 years ago

   I guess the answer to this falls about what counts as discrimination. Is it ok to discriminate against people with facial tattoos when hiring for a job position? I would hope so. Is it ok to discriminate against people who choose to sag their pants? At what point does it go from basic common sense to discrimination? In my area it is usually black people who sag their pants. So if an employer refuses to hire a sagger then is that discrimination in the applicants opinion? I'm ok with discrimination against sex offenders, violate criminals, and others like that. I think discrimination becomes a real problem when it comes to discriminating against people for things they can't control, race, sexual orientation, gender, that type of thing.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Peep: well said, you hit on some good points. Adhering to job requirements should not be considered discrimination if the person is denied the job, and you certainly would not hire a sex offender to work in a school.

      replyreport
   2. 87

      Austinstarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, is that what the drug screen is for? To discriminate against pedophiles? Oh wait, there's no test available for pedophilia or kleptomania or psychopathy. Just a drug screen. How convenient for discrimination.

      replyreport
   3. 96

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well atleast they can use the nsopw website. Drug testing is another thing. At what point does that become discrimination? Some consider it smart business while others feel it is an attack on their personal beliefs.

      replyreport
   4. 87

      Austinstarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I did drug testing for years. It's all a ruse and a way for insurance companies to get out of paying for accidents. And it's used for discrimination. It's an invasion of privacy! They literally stick their noses into your pee! And ruin lives.

      replyreport
   5. 96

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      At the same time what business wants meth heads working for them. I personally buy drug store drug tests for any subcontractor I hire. If it is legal in any state I let them pass, but meth heads and serious drug addicts are a liability.

      replyreport
   6. 87

      Austinstarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Do you seriously think that meth heads and "addicts' can hold down a steady job in the first place. It's better if you check their job history and look at their previous projects. Judge by job performance not their private life.

      replyreport
   7. 96

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, actually that is why I started testing. Many do hold jobs for long periods of time before they get really addicted then lie about the gap between good job and coming to me. People lie, A DT usually doesn't.

      replyreport
   8. 87

      Austinstarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If I weren't so honest, or maybe if someone paid me money, I could pass any drug test that came along. Also, the tests aren't fool proof, mistakes are made. Again, judge the person, not their private life. Some drugs are even real Rx drugs!

      replyreport
   9. 96

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I agree in a sense but when MY livelihood is at stake, it is best for me to air on the safe side and test. By the time I can judge the person they may have already cost me my business. Not a chance I am willing to take.

      replyreport
   10. 76

       jlparkposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       If it's a requirement prior to employment, and it's not met, then it's listed in their job description - the applying party should be aware y they've failed. . The facial tatt's - we have cultural facial tatts in NZ 4 some, it depends on the job.

       replyreport
7. 59

   The0NatureBoyposted 10 years ago

   So long as anyone eats from the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil" they will discriminate.  Calling anything any of the "Descriptive Judgments" like good/evil, pretty/ugly, right/wrong and the like is discriminating, calling everything by its scientific name like rape, killing, marriage, divorce, and the like is not discriminating. 
   
   Since there are nothing concrete to cause everyone to call everything they judge evil nor good judging is taught or based on individual likes and dislikes  and is a discrimination.  Why do you believe Adam was told not to eat from the tree of "the knowledge of good and evil" and to eat from it would cause one to die? 
   
   The term "man" means "mind able to comprehend" but when a man is judgmental they do not have the objectivity to comprehend the causes behind the effects, thus, that death was the inability to comprehend all thing.  From that perspective it is "ok" to discriminate so long as we want to continue in submitting to other man but it is not "ok" when one wants to understand what life is about.  In other words, it is "ok" for sheeple -- people as submissive to other man as sheep are -- but it is not "ok" for man.

   replyreport
8. 0

   RTalloniposted 10 years ago

   In discussions used to evaluate our own positions it is important to remember that definitions are huge and one person's may or may not be another person's.  A big question on that note often has me wondering about why those who accuse discrimination do not see their mirror image in the assertion. 
   
   Also, if we want to be balanced and fair-minded, true definitions are crucial in keeping us from stereotyping others.  Add to that the need to be sure that our understanding is as open-minded and informed as possible rather than saturated with opinion based on our own limited knowledge/experiences/feelings, we again see the need for clear definitions.
   
   That said, I discriminate all day every day.  I make choices based on what is healthiest, for instance, in my food and activities and I discriminate that way for many reasons.  For instance, being a good steward of the gift of life in the body I was given includes making discriminating choices that will help me mentally, physically, and emotionally make best choices, help other people, and generally succeed in what I
   
   In a society that embraces ideas like "I want it so I should have it" or "I emote over it so my decision is about it is valid" the ideas behind behaviors being good or bad is cast aside to make room for self satisfaction in all circumstances and values lose their importance. 
   
   A case more directly in point to your question is in today's news.  Two criminals defined as the worst of the worst for their known crimes have somehow escaped a NY prison.  Time will only tell what these dangerous people will go on to do in society, but their legacy does not bode well for those who will be crossing their path until they are stopped. 
   
   The point here is that the reason they were in prison but not put to death for their past crimes is because some people some where decided that they should live. The decision to let them live was not based on the realities of what justice is, but on emotion and ignorance. 
   
   Using all sorts of potential scenarios (that indeed do need to be factored in), the thinking that the death penalty should be discarded won the day for these offenders who are serious about continuing their criminal activity. 
   
   Thinking not rooted in the reality that we live in a fallen world and mankind is not evolving to perfection, thinking that has learned nothing from history, thinking bound up by changeful emotions all speak the need to carefully consider true definitions as we think through issues.

   replyreport