School patronage

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Wrong once again. Davian Proud People's use was;
Where discriminatory clearly means to treat unfairly, as it does in racial discrimination, religious discrimination etc... This is an entirely different meaning than being able distinguish one thing from another, as I'm sure you understand. All posters other than yourself, and also linked articles and legislation are using the term discrimination to mean;
to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups
You would appear to be using the alternate meaning as a way of purposefully obfuscating the discussion which is clearly disingenuous.

Davian Proud Peoples chosen example was entitled "Race discrimination: Random selection was non-discriminatory". So... Not wrong. Davian Proud Peoples offering was assuredly discrimination in the sense of racial discrimination. Nothing at all about religious discrimination, and most assuredly in response to my own posts about discrimination, the meaning of which hasn't changed. Obfuscation and disingenuity all down to you I'm afraid.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

Any selection is discrimination. Those who get a place are differentiated from those who do not; that's discrimination.

So if 50 candidates go for a job with 1 position available
25 are women
25 are men
the man gets it, why?
Because the interviewer says the company doesn't want Women...

You wouldn't call that Discrimination?
Oh wait it's a resourcing issue I suppose. :pac::pac::pac:

the problem above is that there's not enough job positions available,

Ah, but you know, the rest of the candidates can f*** off elsewhere, eventually everyone of them gets a job so that makes it all ok.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Davian Proud Peoples chosen example was entitled "Race discrimination: Random selection was non-discriminatory". So... Not wrong. Davian Proud Peoples offering was assuredly discrimination in the sense of racial discrimination. Nothing at all about religious discrimination, and most assuredly in response to my own posts about discrimination, the meaning of which hasn't changed. Obfuscation and disingenuity all down to you I'm afraid.

Rubbish. The both discrimination and discriminatory in the phrase "Race discrimination: Random selection was non-discriminatory" are clear references to unfair treatment or not based on race, where race discrimination means "To treat differently a person or group of people based on their racial origins.", which are the same use of the term as used in religious discrimination.

By discrimination in this context, we are talking about unfair treatment of a minority, not simply being able to distinguish one from another. You seem to be conflating discriminating between people and discriminating against them. Our current publicly funded education system discriminates against non-Catholics. It is guilty of religious discrimination, and has been criticised by the UN on that basis.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So if 50 candidates go for a job with 1 position available25 are women 25 are men the man gets it, why?
Because the interviewer says the company doesn't want Women... You wouldn't call that Discrimination? Oh wait it's a resourcing issue I suppose. :pac::pac::pac: the problem above is that there's not enough job positions available, Ah, but you know, the rest of the candidates can f*** off elsewhere, eventually everyone of them gets a job so that makes it all ok.

If all 50 get positions and the interviewer says he would have preferred men, has he illegally discriminated? Or even unfairly discriminated?

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. The both discrimination and discriminatory in the phrase "Race discrimination: Random selection was non-discriminatory" are clear references to unfair treatment or not based on race, where race discrimination means "To treat differently a person or group of people based on their racial origins.", which are the same use of the term as used in religious discrimination.

. Nope. Unfair discrimination based on race (whether or not illegal) is different from unfair discrimination based on religion (whether or not illegal) because they are based on different characteristics; race and religion. So unfair discrimination may be different from illegal discrimination, and both may be different from discrimination, because that's language; we use words so that we mean different things. And when you title an article "Race Discrimination" you can be sure discrimination discussed in the article is racial discrimination, not religious, or any other, discrimination (unless specified). Whether that discrimination was unfair, or illegal, or both (or neither) can fairly easily by established that it has been published in a Law Reports section of a HR website. I really can't tell why this is do difficult for you, it's very straightforward.

smacl wrote: »

By discrimination in this context, we are talking about unfair treatment of a minority, not simply being able to distinguish one from another. You seem to be conflating discriminating between people and discriminating against them. Our current publicly funded education system discriminates against non-Catholics. It is guilty of religious discrimination, and has been criticised by the UN on that basis.

Wow, we're introducing minorities now? Aren't you confusing yourself enough? Anyway, in this context, the context of my statement which you and Davian Proud People chose to take issue with, I wasn't discussing any such thing. Davian Proud People chose to argue the point in racial discrimination, you chose to offer a definition of religious discrimination, if you now want to talk about unfair discrimination against minorities work away, but please... Don't try to pretend it was what I was talking about.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

.. I'm not really that arsed getting into a linguistic wankbattle here, but simply asserting that selection = discrimination does not make it so..

Why does it never change Absolam?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Don't try to pretend it was what I was talking about.

Ok, so lets have a quick look at exactly what you were saying;

Absolam wrote: »

smacl wrote:

First time you've acknowledged it as discrimination and that you support it as such. For a while there, you seemed to be pretending it wasn't discrimination.

Thats not true at all . I've always said it's as valid as any other discrimination, whether that that be by location, sex, ability, whatever. As long as it's not illegal, discrimination is a neccasary function in just about everything.

You then offered the following;

Absolam wrote: »

Any selection is discrimination. Those who get a place are differentiated from those who do not; that's discrimination.

Where discrimination in your link defined as follows;

Merriam Webster wrote:

Simple Definition of discriminate
: to unfairly treat a person or group of people differently from other people or groups
: to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

Of those two meanings, religious and racial discrimination fall into the first category, whereas your totally misinformed notion of selection would fall into the second category. From the above we can surmise that you're in favour of unfair treatment of religious minorities, and are weakly attempting to obfuscate this fact by conflating the two possible meanings of the word discriminate. You're fooling no one, and again I'd call out your stance that supports religious discrimination, i.e. unfair treatment of people based on their religion, as entirely shameful.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Third time asserting this. (Suggesting that selection = discrimination)

Absolam wrote: »

. No.. Your third time saying I did it. I've stuck with what I said; discrimination is recognising the difference between two things. Not selecting them, simply acknowledging that they're not the same.
I never said anything about selection; that was all you. I said where the school doesn't admit all students applying it will have to practice some form of discrimination to decide which of the students won't be accepted.
Nope, I'm hoping you'll notice how it's used and understand it is quite correct. In vain apparently, but still, if you just don't like what the dictionary says I can't really help much.
As I said, you're the one caught up on selection. I only said that some form of discrimination is practiced in separating students into groups.

strange

Absolam wrote: »

Any selection is discrimination. Those who get a place are differentiated from those who do not; that's discrimination.

Did you not write this exact phrase?

Are we next to argue the toss over what "stuck with what I said" means? Only to discover that it has become a Jamie Redknappesque 'Literally', and means exactly the opposite of what it means as well as meaning what it does actually mean?

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Well, Recedites argument appears to be that it is illegal, but there's a loophole. My point was that it's not made illegal, it's not illegal. That certain kinds of religious discrimination are illegal because we feel they are wrong is clear, and as I said, the fact that we ensure some are not illegal is due to us (generally, if not us specifically) feeling they are not wrong, or are a wrong that is lesser than the greater wrong of making them illegal.

I'm glad that you admit religious discrimination in schools is "wrong" in some way... I don't think you have done that before.

Just to elaborate on this somewhat philosophical point, there is sometimes a situation when something is wrong, but also justifiable. The lesser of two wrongs as you rightly say. A genuine example of this would be a lawful killing. A Garda may not shoot a suspect, but if he shoots and kills someone in genuine self-defence that is a lawful killing.

The point I was making earlier is that the supposed justification for the equality legislation loophole is ridiculously small in comparison to the "wrong".
This is the idea that somebody has "a right" to receive a customised education in their own religious ethos at the public expense. That right doesn't even exist FFS!
Its a privilege, and one that should be paid for privately.

This new 2016 Education bill looks like a continuation of the 2015 education bill which was abandoned because it was so stupid.

Bristolscale7

recedite wrote: »

I'm glad that you admit religious discrimination in schools is "wrong" in some way... I don't think you have done that before.

Just to elaborate on this somewhat philosophical point, there is sometimes a situation when something is wrong, but also justifiable. The lesser of two wrongs as you rightly say. A genuine example of this would be a lawful killing. A Garda may not shoot a suspect, but if he shoots and kills someone in genuine self-defence that is a lawful killing.

The point I was making earlier is that the supposed justification for the equality legislation loophole is ridiculously small in comparison to the "wrong".
This is the idea that somebody has "a right" to receive a customised education in their own religious ethos at the public expense. That right doesn't even exist FFS!
Its a privilege, and one that should be paid for privately.

This new 2016 Education bill looks like a continuation of the 2015 education bill which was abandoned because it was so stupid.

Allow me to channel our jesuit friend and predict some counter-arguments.
1. The lesser wrong of religious discrimination by schools is so lesser --no child is left without a chair in some school someplace--"show me a child that didn't eventually get a spot."
2. Tens of thousands of god-fearing catholics want their children indoctrinated by the church and see the public school system as an essential, constitutionally guaranteed right in this respect. To deny these citizens their constitutional right because some atheist has to send his kid to school a few miles further from the local is a greater wrong than the hardship for the little heathen.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Just to elaborate on this somewhat philosophical point, there is sometimes a situation when something is wrong, but also justifiable. The lesser of two wrongs as you rightly say. A genuine example of this would be a lawful killing. A Garda may not shoot a suspect, but if he shoots and kills someone in genuine self-defence that is a lawful killing.

And to stretch the analogy a bit; the RC Church is also being killed off slowly, indoctrinating the very young is their last mechanism of hoping to survive going forward, so religious discrimination and coercing heathens into baptising their progeny is reasonable on the grounds of self defence :pac:

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Why does it never change Absolam?

Why do you say you're not prepared to do something then do it anyway? No idea, you just do....

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Ok, so lets have a quick look at exactly what you were saying;

Rather than starting halfway through (disingenuous etc etc) would you mind if we started at the beginning, where I actually specified discrimination? It was here, you may recall:

Absolam wrote: »

But it won't prevent schools preferring students when they are oversubscribed.... Which is precisely the discrimination that exercises the secularists on the thread.

This confused Davian Proud People so much I followed up with:

Absolam wrote: »

Right at the top;
"Among other things the new law will:
· Ensure that where a school is not oversubscribed (80% of schools) it must admit all students applying "

Where the school doesn't admit all students applying it will have to practice some form of discrimination to decide which of the students won't be accepted.

Now, you may be invested in the notion that 'some form of discrimination' might be 'a very specific form of discrimination' but me... Not so much, sorry.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

strange Did you not write this exact phrase?
Are we next to argue the toss over what "stuck with what I said" means? Only to discover that it has become a Jamie Redknappesque 'Literally', and means exactly the opposite of what it means as well as meaning what it does actually mean?

So... You've noticed I didn't day selection = discrimination, I said any selection is discrimination? Well done

RobbieTheRobber

Absolam wrote: »

Rather than starting halfway through (disingenuous etc etc) would you mind if we started at the beginning, where I actually specified discrimination? It was here, you may recall:

This confused Davian Proud People so much I followed up with:

Now, you may be invested in the notion that 'some form of discrimination' might be 'a very specific form of discrimination' but me... Not so much, sorry.

What about using the existing definitions for discrimination as defined in the preliminary of the equal status act?

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Why do you say you're not prepared to do something then do it anyway? No idea, you just do....

Where did I say that?

I said I wasn't arsed, not that I wasn't prepared. An arse is also called a butt. A water butt is a great way of collecting rainwater. Water is a precious resource. Resourcefulness is important in this day and age. Age is only a figure. I keep my figure by eating well and training well. Trains are a great way to get around.

Is there any chance you could around to validating that ridiculous assertion (or simply withdrawing it) that you made or are we just going to play word games all day?

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I'm glad that you admit religious discrimination in schools is "wrong" in some way... I don't think you have done that before.

Ah now.. As Smacl would say that's disingenuous and such... You know well I said no such thing. I was quite obviously referring to not forcing Catholics to allow Protestants take communion at Mass.

recedite wrote: »

Just to elaborate on this somewhat philosophical point, there is sometimes a situation when something is wrong, but also justifiable. The lesser of two wrongs as you rightly say. A genuine example of this would be a lawful killing. A Garda may not shoot a suspect, but if he shoots and kills someone in genuine self-defence that is a lawful killing.

.
And whilst you're conflating justifiable with lawful there, there's no doubt that even with subjects like illegal and unfair racial and religious discrimination, there are the same nuances to be considered, without resorting to absolutist positions.

recedite wrote: »

The point I was making earlier is that the supposed justification for the equality legislation loophole is ridiculously small in comparison to the "wrong". This is the idea that somebody has "a right" to receive a customised education in their own religious ethos at the public expense. That right doesn't even exist FFS! Its a privilege, and one that should be paid for privately.

Well.. Whether the justification is small compared to your perceived wrong is obviously a matter of opinion, and whilst nobody has suggested the right you're deriding does exist, there are a number of others that do which more than justify the public support of denominational schools.

recedite wrote: »

This new 2016 Education bill looks like a continuation of the 2015 education bill which was abandoned because it was so stupid.

. I'm not certain the reasoning you're offering is precisely accurate, but I appreciate from what you say you're not a fan

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

Allow me to channel our jesuit friend and predict some counter-arguments.
1. The lesser wrong of religious discrimination by schools is so lesser --no child is left without a chair in some school someplace--"show me a child that didn't eventually get a spot."
2. Tens of thousands of god-fearing catholics want their children indoctrinated by the church and see the public school system as an essential, constitutionally guaranteed right in this respect. To deny these citizens their constitutional right because some atheist has to send his kid to school a few miles further from the local is a greater wrong than the hardship for the little heathen.

It's good to know that if I'm ever occupied there'll be someone who knows me so well they can offer an argument on my behalf. Unfortunately, judging by your posts, it's not you. It'd probably save us all a bit of effort if you tried offering your own opinions instead of other people's... with a bit of effort there's a chance you might get one right!

Absolam

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

What about using the existing definitions for discrimination as defined in the preliminary of the equal status act?

Personally? I'd say they're exactly appropriate to the Act, but not to such discriminations as are not covered in it. So fine by me, so far as they go.

evolving_doors

Absolam wrote: »

If all 50 get positions and the interviewer says he would have preferred men, has he illegally discriminated? Or even unfairly discriminated?

How do you mean like, if all 50 got positions in that company and then the interviewer says he would have preferred men, despite giving 25 men and 25 women a position?

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Where did I say that?

I said I wasn't arsed, not that I wasn't prepared. An arse is also called a butt. A water butt is a great way of collecting rainwater. Water is a precious resource. Resourcefulness is important in this day and age. Age is only a figure. I keep my figure by eating well and training well. Trains are a great way to get around.

Is there any chance you could around to validating that ridiculous assertion (or simply withdrawing it) that you made or are we just going to play word games all day?

That it won't prevent schools preferring students when they are oversubscribed? I think someone already provided a link to validate that assertion.

Or that where the school doesn't admit all students applying it will have to practice some form of discrimination to decide which of the students won't be accepted? I think you'll have to wait for a school to decide the pupils it will enrol under the system and observe how they discriminated between them to validate that one.

Or that any selection is discrimination? If you can find a selection that doesn't differentiate between at least two things, I'll hold my assertion to be invalid.

I think that covers most of my recent assertions... whether or not you consider them be ridiculous, and regardless of the association you make with your arse and trains which is altogether your own business and nothing we need to know about.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

The point I was making earlier is that the supposed justification for the equality legislation loophole is ridiculously small in comparison to the "wrong".
This is the idea that somebody has "a right" to receive a customised education in their own religious ethos at the public expense. That right doesn't even exist FFS!
Its a privilege, and one that should be paid for privately.

This new 2016 Education bill looks like a continuation of the 2015 education bill which was abandoned because it was so stupid.

the only thing there is that someone shouldn't have to pay twice for something. If someone views themselves as not living off the state then they have paid for their kids places.
It seems like the "private" argument is just a way of snookering people because the government will have taken any spare cash off a lot of taxpayers so they wont be able to pay fees on top of general taxes.
Either the idea of a catholic school is so against the society interest that they need to be closed down and banned or that's not the case. I wouldn't have a problem with the state not funding the teaching and other time for religion and let parents pay a top up for that. Seperately get rid of the dumb rule that religion must be thought in schools.

Absolam

Gebgbegb wrote: »

How do you mean like, if all 50 got positions in that company and then the interviewer says he would have preferred men, despite giving 25 men and 25 women a position?

Sure, why not.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

If all 50 get positions and the interviewer says he would have preferred men, has he illegally discriminated? Or even unfairly discriminated?

According to the Irish Human Rights and Equality commision, expressing a preference based on gender when hiring and acting on it is illegal discrimination in this country. Likewise for religion.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

That it won't prevent schools preferring students when they are oversubscribed? I think someone already provided a link to validate that assertion.

Or that where the school doesn't admit all students applying it will have to practice some form of discrimination to decide which of the students won't be accepted? I think you'll have to wait for a school to decide the pupils it will enrol under the system and observe how they discriminated between them to validate that one.

Or that any selection is discrimination? If you can find a selection that doesn't differentiate between at least two things, I'll hold my assertion to be invalid.

I think that covers most of my recent assertions... whether or not you consider them be ridiculous, and regardless of the association you make with your arse and trains which is altogether your own business and nothing we need to know about.

Yup this one.

Which is here

Deleted User wrote: »

And now you're just using the wrong word and hoping nobody notices.

If you actively choose to misuse the term discriminate then of course you can choose it to mean anything.

By all normal understanding, general usage, scientific usage, legal usage, mathematical usage, selection where there exists no preconditions for the selection beyond enumerability is not discrimination. Discrimination occurs only when there are preconditions in selection.

Your 'test' is inherently not a 'test' for your assertion at all btw. How about a test where the selection shows no discrimination?

Surely that would be a fairer test for the assertion instead of now trying to complete a triplet of discrimination => differentiation => selection.

If we use that test. (a test of the actual assertion) I would suggest that random selection seems like it would do a great job here! And that case that I referenced previously agreed wholeheartedly

But, as always, I imagine that the linguistic games will continue. The reality of course is underlined in that quote from the earlier post.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

According to the Irish Human Rights and Equality commision, expressing a preference based on gender when hiring and acting on it is illegal discrimination in this country. Likewise for religion.

So, in the example (and per your link) which person was treated less favourably? It seems a rather tricky proposition to say the interviewer expressed a preference based on gender when hiring and acted on it, since he gave all candidates of both genders the job.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup this one. Which is here. Your 'test' is inherently not a 'test' for your assertion at all btw. How about a test where the selection shows no discrimination? Surely that would be a fairer test for the assertion instead of now trying to complete a triplet of discrimination => differentiation => selection.

. Seems like the same test... If you show me a selection where no differentiation has been made between two or more things then there has been no discrimination.

Deleted User wrote: »

If we use that test. (a test of the actual assertion) I would suggest that random selection seems like it would do a great job here! And that case that I referenced previously agreed wholeheartedly

It doesn't seem to be the case? Your random selection resulted in people who got jobs and people who didn't, as I recall. It recognised a difference between those with jobs and those without; it discriminated.

Deleted User wrote: »

But, as always, I imagine that the linguistic games will continue. The reality of course is underlined in that quote from the earlier post.

Well, you do seem intent on playing them alright. I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that there are lots of ways to discriminate, most of them devoid of any negative connotation. To be honest I'm not sure why it's such an issue for you, it's not like I've argued that there aren't some forms of discrimination that are illegal, or some that some poeple think are unfair. There are plenty of both.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

. Seems like the same test... If you show me a selection where no differentiation has been made between two or more things then there has been no discrimination.
It doesn't seem to be the case? Your random selection resulted in people who got jobs and people who didn't, as I recall. It recognised a difference between those with jobs and those without; it discriminated.
Well, you do seem intent on playing them alright. I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that there are lots of ways to discriminate, most of them devoid of any negative connotation. To be honest I'm not sure why it's such an issue for you, it's not like I've argued that there aren't some forms of discrimination that are illegal, or some that some poeple think are unfair. There are plenty of both.

This is incredibly reaching and weak stuff.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

This is incredibly reaching and weak stuff.

Well... You say that but it is the dictionary definition I linked quite some time ago;

smacl wrote: »

to notice and understand that one thing is different from another thing : to recognize a difference between things

so it can hardly be a surprise that it's what I'm working from, can it? I know you offered your own understanding later on, but I was hardly going to ignore Marriam Websters expertise in favour of yours, all things considered.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Well... You say that but it is the dictionary definition I linked quite some time ago;

Is it the normally understood definition? Is that definition the norm or an exception across the wide variety of online dictionaries?

More importantly though. Is that the definition that was accepted under the drafting of the rules that we were discussing? And in the case that it is the definition of the word that we should observe, then what can this mean let alone what does it mean?

Among other things the new law will:
· Ensure that where a school is not oversubscribed (80% of schools) it must admit all students applying
· Ban waiting lists, thus ending the discrimination against parents who move in to a new area
· Ban fees relating to admissions
· Require all schools to publish their admissions policies, which will include details of the provisions for pupils who decline to participate in religious instruction
· Require all schools to consult with and inform parents where changes are being made to admissions policies
· Explicitly ban discrimination in school admissions
· Provide for a situation where a child (with special needs or otherwise) cannot find a school place, and allow the National Council for Special Education or Tusla to designate a school place for the child
- See more at: http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Eve....yqgmOGPd.dpuf

Logically using your contrived version of discrimination, that means that schools are not allowed to not admit any applicants. As no selection can be made without any discrimination being made. So therefore each and every applicant must be accepted into the school, regardless of whether or not the school has space for them.

This does not seem likely.