+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44
General Chat Thread, Gay couple win Berkshire B&B refusal case in General; Originally Posted by localzuk Most people also gather context surrounding those words. Griffin says discrimination is a right. You've taken ...
  1. #31

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    4,841
    Thank Post
    843
    Thanked 1,400 Times in 963 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    603
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Most people also gather context surrounding those words. Griffin says discrimination is a right. You've taken that to mean coffee for some bizarre reason, but I took it to be within the context of the current events he was also discussing, namely, discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation...
    Not forgetting the context of Griffin being a racist, bigoted *%!hole. He's not interested in this couple's right to turn gay couples away; he's just interested in trying to make discrimination seem normal so he can continue sneaking out and out racism into politics.

  2. Thanks to sonofsanta from:

    Andrew_C (19th October 2012)

  3. #32


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Most people also gather context surrounding those words. Griffin says discrimination is a right. You've taken that to mean coffee for some bizarre reason, but I took it to be within the context of the current events he was also discussing, namely, discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation...
    I think it's important to recognise what exactly is meant by "discrimination" because with that should come a realisation that it's not discrimination itself that is an issue, but rather injustice that can arise from discrimination. Words are often used as a shorthand and then the meaning becomes subverted and language eventually loses touch with the reality. Often I see people arguing a point and it's no surprise that they won't ever agree because while they might seem to be using the same words, they are using them to mean different things. Being clear (or at least making an attempt to be clear) is not bizarre, it's an aid to clear thinking.

  4. #33


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    Not forgetting the context of Griffin being a racist, bigoted *%!hole.
    If you allowed such a context, then nothing ever said by Griffin could ever be anything but vile, odious, rubbish. That's a rather dangerous thing to allow since people will see him very occasional say something that is vaguely sensible and then they will see you react from your context and they will assume you are the one full of prejudice and incapable of reason.

  5. #34

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,547
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,412 Times in 1,866 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    I think it's important to recognise what exactly is meant by "discrimination" because with that should come a realisation that it's not discrimination itself that is an issue, but rather injustice that can arise from discrimination. Words are often used as a shorthand and then the meaning becomes subverted and language eventually loses touch with the reality. Often I see people arguing a point and it's no surprise that they won't ever agree because while they might seem to be using the same words, they are using them to mean different things. Being clear (or at least making an attempt to be clear) is not bizarre, it's an aid to clear thinking.
    You're splitting hairs. Discrimination against people for sexual preference, colour, culture, gender etc... is itself an injustice, and that is confirmed in our laws. The language we speak is an ever evolving one, so getting picky over current usage of words is silly.

  6. #35
    basicchannel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    279
    Thank Post
    36
    Thanked 22 Times in 14 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    If you allowed such a context, then nothing ever said by Griffin could ever be anything but vile, odious, rubbish. That's a rather dangerous thing to allow since people will see him very occasional say something that is vaguely sensible and then they will see you react from your context and they will assume you are the one full of prejudice and incapable of reason.
    True, I think Hitler had some really good economic policies which are now just ignored because of the whole exterminating millions of Jewish people thing.

  7. #36


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    You're splitting hairs. Discrimination against people for sexual preference, colour, culture, gender etc... is itself an injustice, and that is confirmed in our laws.
    Is it? Then presumably you had better go arrest the England Women's football team and start telling Indian restaurants that they can't select Indian Waiters. After that you can have a go at all male priesthoods, gay pride, certain black media organisations, etc. I think you will have your work cut out for you if you really believe discrimination on any arbitrary basis is automatically an injustice.

    Of course, perhaps you didn't really mean what you said and I've just missed some huge dollop of context.
    The language we speak is an ever evolving one, so getting picky over current usage of words is silly.
    Language is a means of communication. If people are using words in different ways,or using them ambiguously or misusing them, it's not 'picky' to point that out - it is a way of arriving at mutual understanding.

  8. #37

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,547
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,412 Times in 1,866 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Is it? Then presumably you had better go arrest the England Women's football team and start telling Indian restaurants that they can't select Indian Waiters. After that you can have a go at all male priesthoods, gay pride, certain black media organisations, etc. I think you will have your work cut out for you if you really believe discrimination on any arbitrary basis is automatically an injustice.

    Of course, perhaps you didn't really mean what you said and I've just missed some huge dollop of context.

    Language is a means of communication. If people are using words in different ways,or using them ambiguously or misusing them, it's not 'picky' to point that out - it is a way of arriving at mutual understanding.
    You're focussing on a meaning that has no relevance here - words can have more than one meaning... (A simple Google search for a definition of 'discrimination' will show what I mean.) If we were to choose another odd definition, I could start talking about equally useless topics as discriminators in electronics. Discrimination within that context is just as proper a use of the word but bears no meaning here. How about the OED - they have all 3 definitions in one nice place - http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...discrimination

    The context of this is our laws, and how they define discrimination and relating prejudice behaviour.

    However, I'd advise you to have a read of the Wikipedia article on discrimination - its pretty good, and covers the context we're discussing here well.

  9. #38


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    However, I'd advise you to have a read of the Wikipedia article on discrimination - its pretty good, and covers the context we're discussing here well.
    Ok.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Noun

    discrimination (plural discriminations)

    1. a distinction; discernment, the act of discriminating, discerning, distinguishing, noting or perceiving differences between things.
    2. The state of being discriminated, distinguished from, or set apart.
    3. (sometimes discrimination against) distinct treatment of an individual or group to their disadvantage; treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality; prejudice; bigotry sexual or racial discrimination
    So, the definition which matches yours is at No 3, "sometimes". Note that 3 is a special case of the general case. That would hardly support your assertion that I am focusing on a definition that has no relevance. In fact before YOUR definition can have any relevance, you need to, refer to the common meaning.

    I note you blithely ignore your incorrect assertion which I was directly addressing. That "discrimination" against race, sexuality or gender is illegal. So much for the importance of context, 'eh?

  10. #39

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,547
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,412 Times in 1,866 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Ok.

    So, the definition which matches yours is at No 3, "sometimes". Note that 3 is a special case of the general case. That would hardly support your assertion that I am focusing on a definition that has no relevance. In fact before YOUR definition can have any relevance, you need to, refer to the common meaning.

    I note you blithely ignore your incorrect assertion which I was directly addressing. That "discrimination" against race, sexuality or gender is illegal. So much for the importance of context, 'eh?
    First, you just quoted Wiktionary, which is not Wikipedia - and is not sourced. The OED kinda trumps community built dictionaries.

    Discrimination against race, sexuality and gender is illegal, hence the Equality Act 2010... Sure, its got exclusions due to the usual machinations of government and lobby groups (for example, private members clubs can still define which religions can join them - eg a Muslim club can exclude Christians. Just like with many laws, there are exclusions - eg. its illegal to use violence against someone, yet you won't be convicted if you end up using violence to prevent someone being killed...), but the overall point is that those things are illegal on the whole.

  11. #40


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    First, you just quoted Wiktionary, which is not Wikipedia - and is not sourced. The OED kinda trumps community built dictionaries.
    The OED still lists discrimination as having both meanings.
    Discrimination against race, sexuality and gender is illegal, hence the Equality Act 2010... Sure, its got exclusions due to the usual machinations of government and lobby groups (for example, private members clubs can still define which religions can join them - eg a Muslim club can exclude Christians. Just like with many laws, there are exclusions - eg. its illegal to use violence against someone, yet you won't be convicted if you end up using violence to prevent someone being killed...), but the overall point is that those things are illegal on the whole.
    You said : "Discrimination against people for sexual preference, colour, culture, gender etc... is itself an injustice, and that is confirmed in our laws". Now you seem to be qualifying that to "discrimination against people for sexual preference, colour, culture, gender etc, which is against the law, is is itself an injustice, and that is confirmed in our laws". That's tautology. So, despite "discrimination" supposedly having this common meaning, you are having some trouble with it. In your context the Equality Act is effectively 16 chapters of teasing out and qualifying exactly the terms of this supposed "common use". Which makes it unsurprising if people think you mean something else when you reduce those 16 chapters down to one word.

  12. #41


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Wow, I love this rep system. Someone leaves neg rep with this : "Selective, argumentative, flawed from the off, seem stuck with a narrow definition of a word".

    Even if I am wrong, I'm kind of glad I don't live in your word (whoever you are) where you feel someone should be spanked for being perceived to be wrong and spanked from behind an anonymous veil. I say come on out and play! If that's what you really think, come argue your case and tell us what the world really looks like.
    Last edited by pcstru; 20th October 2012 at 08:43 AM.

  13. #42

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,922
    Thank Post
    1,332
    Thanked 1,774 Times in 1,101 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    593
    The problem with trying to marry up etymology, usage of words within common language (across a range of countries and cultures) and the Law is that to be specific and precise the Law is written to ensure that ambiguity is removed, that specific variations of usage of language is covered and whilst this can create a new set of interesting discussions it is not really going to get anywhere by picking apart why dictionary definitions (which will include definitions not in common usage but are still accurate) are shorter than the terms applied in Law.

    We might as well ask why Boxing is legal and ABH isn't even though both parties involved in a fight outside a pub might be willing to hit each other.

  14. #43


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,878
    Thank Post
    258
    Thanked 767 Times in 582 Posts
    Rep Power
    269
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumbleDook View Post
    We might as well ask why Boxing is legal and ABH isn't even though both parties involved in a fight outside a pub might be willing to hit each other.
    I don't see exactly what your point relates to. In those terms a problem might arise if someone claims "it is illegal to fight". The language gives rise to a problem because of ambiguity. This can be exacerbated by then claiming that anyone in their right mind should know that you really mean illegal fights are illegal. You don't actually need to run to 16 chapters of law to establish clearly what might be meant by "illegal to fight" but you do need to move somewhat beyond the simple statement "illegal to fight".

  15. #44

    GrumbleDook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Gosport, Hampshire
    Posts
    9,922
    Thank Post
    1,332
    Thanked 1,774 Times in 1,101 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    593
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    I don't see exactly what your point relates to. In those terms a problem might arise if someone claims "it is illegal to fight". The language gives rise to a problem because of ambiguity. This can be exacerbated by then claiming that anyone in their right mind should know that you really mean illegal fights are illegal. You don't actually need to run to 16 chapters of law to establish clearly what might be meant by "illegal to fight" but you do need to move somewhat beyond the simple statement "illegal to fight".
    "Illegal to fight" goes way beyond 16 chapters and has needed to be over the years ... "wrong to fight" will keep libraries in stock for years ...

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Couple of Win 7 GPO Settings Help
    By karldenton in forum Windows 7
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14th July 2012, 11:59 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th April 2011, 11:14 AM
  3. Refusing Non domain Computers
    By BKGarry in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 30th March 2006, 05:47 PM
  4. Rebooting looping Win Xp Machines
    By nuttygeek in forum Windows
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 8th February 2006, 07:30 PM
  5. One PC refuses to run script! Help!!!
    By woody in forum Scripts
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 5th October 2005, 11:37 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •