What is worse?

[old.Tohtori]

I dont think so, since its not illegal.
Some employers only hire graduates, you will say that discriminates against people without a degree.

I can tell you 100% that that is not illegal.

Ah but that's a case of "reasonable denial".

You can say, within reason, that not enough study is a reason to not hire you, but you can't say "you are doing facebook quizzes" is a reason.

It may not be mentioned in the law with those terms, but find me a judge who will rule against it.

 

[tris-]

Im glad you know the english legal system better than someone who lives in England and studied law them selves.
We know who to turn to for advice now.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Never claimed i did, just common logic.

If you can prove it wrong, do go ahead.

 

[tris-]

Never claimed i did, just common logic.

Maybe for people who dont know what theyre are talking about, then yes it is common logic.

Here is some very simple logic

If something doesnt break the law its not illegal.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Maybe for people who dont know what theyre are talking about, then yes it is common logic.

Here is some very simple logic

If something doesnt break the law its not illegal.

Fair enough.

Say you're denied of a job because you're...oh...short, by one inch, where the job has no restrictions towards height.

Now there's no law against it, but do you think it'll pass?

 

[nath]

Ofcourse, that's a solid reason not to let someone in.

So it's OK to discriminate against people based on traits that you find less desirable? So clearly not all discrimination is the same - it's simply a case of where you draw the line.

 

[tris-]

Fair enough.

Say you're denied of a job because you're...oh...short, by one inch, where the job has no restrictions towards height.

Now there's no law against it, but do you think it'll pass?

Yes.
Ever heard of modelling? Acting?
etc

 

[old.Tohtori]

So it's OK to discriminate against people based on traits that you find less desirable? So clearly not all discrimination is the same - it's simply a case of where you draw the line.

No, it's ok to "discriminate" against people who are going to break the law.

Again, don't put words in my mouth.

Yes.
Ever heard of modelling? Acting?
etc

That's a reason because models, actors, DO have restrictions regarding the job they apply for.

 

[nath]

No, it's ok to "discriminate" against people who are going to break the law.

Again, don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't the first time you told me not to, I'm not doing it now.

I don't know that it's actually illegal to be verbally abusive to someone. If it is, I could come up with a more subtle example.

"I won't let you in the club because you're going to chuck your drinks on people". Pretty sure that's not illegal.

The fact of the matter is it's clearly OK to discriminate against people exhibiting less than desirable traits - it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I didn't the first time you told me not to, I'm not doing it now.

I don't know that it's actually illegal to be verbally abusive to someone. If it is, I could come up with a more subtle example.

"I won't let you in the club because you're going to chuck your drinks on people". Pretty sure that's not illegal.

The fact of the matter is it's clearly OK to discriminate against people exhibiting less than desirable traits - it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

Ah but that's not the same thing now is it?

A pub can say "no we don't like people chucking drinks on people" and it would NOT be discrimination.

It would be a pre-emptive strike towards traits that WOULD break the rules.

 

[Calaen]

Tris you should just be quiet, you cannot argue with someone who knows what you think before you think it, he knows what you want and what you will do before you even consider it an option.

That said I know you like parmo's and I fucking hate parmo eaters so fuck off!!!!! or something

 

[tris-]

ill suffocate you with a full parmo and shove a chip down your japs eye.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Tris you should just be quiet, you cannot argue with someone who knows what you think before you think it, he knows what you want and what you will do before you even consider it an option.

Thank you, i do appreciate someone exaggerating my abilities.

Yet again, you've replied only to bash me and as such, distracted the conversation.

Maybe you should take a look at the "wrong" in that.

 

[nath]

Ah but that's not the same thing now is it?

A pub can say "no we don't like people chucking drinks on people" and it would NOT be discrimination.

It would be a pre-emptive strike towards traits that WOULD break the rules.

Rules that discriminate based on traits that they find not desirable. It's absolutely no different to discriminating against someone who uses facebook because they feel it's an undesirable trait.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Rules that discriminate based on traits that they find not desirable. It's absolutely no different to discriminating against someone who uses facebook because they feel it's an undesirable trait.

Now come on, you've taken this into a place you'd not like yourself.

 

[Calaen]

Thank you, i do appreciate someone exaggerating my abilities.

Yet again, you've replied only to bash me and as such, distracted the conversation.

Maybe you should take a look at the "wrong" in that.

That's all I am here for hoolio. I want you to swear and tell me to fuckity off or something

 

[tris-]

I don't know that it's actually illegal to be verbally abusive to someone. If it is, I could come up with a more subtle example.

.

It can amount to assault in some cases, like physical assault.

Now come on, you've taken this into a place you'd not like yourself.

He is right though.

 

[Calaen]

ill suffocate you with a full parmo and shove a chip down your japs eye.

OMG are you calling me a jew because I have no foreskin!!!! RACIST!

Scrath that I mean religist! or something like that!!!

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's all I am here for hoolio. I want you to swear and tell me to fuckity off or something

Well good for you, actually admitting to harassment.

You're actually admitting to breaking the coc.

He is right though.

He's not though.

I never stated that law breakers should be treated equally.

 

[nath]

Now come on, you've taken this into a place you'd not like yourself.

Not at all, you've put down a blanket statement "all discrimination amounts to the same, regardless of what's being discriminated" . I disagree with this suggestion, and as such I'm attacking the statement from all angles to break it down.

 

[tris-]

Well good for you, actually admitting to harassment.

You're actually admitting to breaking the coc.



He's not though.

Sure he is.
You said all discrimination is the same, and now youre saying its not.
And you said lets not discuss illegal things, when racism is illegal.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not at all, you've put down a blanket statement "all discrimination amounts to the same, regardless of what's being discriminated" . I disagree with this suggestion, and as such I'm attacking the statement from all angles to break it down.

And i've stated that breaking the rules set forth, denies you the possibility for equal treatment. As it always has.

Sure he is.
You said all discrimination is the same, and now youre saying its not.
And you said lets not discuss illegal things, when racism is illegal.

Another lie of what i'm "saying". This from someone who said i'm telling you what you think.

Irony i believe.

 

[tris-]

And i've stated that breaking the rules set forth, denies you the possibility for equal treatment. As it always has.



Another lie of what i'm "saying". This from someone who said i'm telling you what you think.

Irony i believe.

Srsly?

" "all discrimination amounts to the same, regardless of what's being discriminated""

or does what you said there mean something else, as is usually the case?

 

[nath]

And i've stated that breaking the rules set forth, denies you the possibility for equal treatment. As it always has.

The rules discriminate though, and they're decided by human beings. Human beings that have decided to make rules based around what they consider acceptable discriminations. It's a completely arbitrary thing to say that it's the rules that make the difference. The rules are set out by people.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Srsly?

" "all discrimination amounts to the same, regardless of what's being discriminated""

or does what you said there mean something else, as is usually the case?

Not at all, but you are grasping to straws. Quite entertaining.

The rules discriminate though, and they're decided by human beings. Human beings that have decided to make rules based around what they consider acceptable discriminations. It's a completely arbitrary thing to say that it's the rules that make the difference. The rules are set out by people.

And is it in the rules that people who do facebook quizzes should not have rights as normal people? Is it in the rules that criminals lose some rights? Is it in the rules that people who do facebook quizzes should be jailed?

You're saying that people made the rules, but people made racism an issue as well. Moot point.

I see what you're trying to twist my words to mean, ut it's really quite pathetic.

 

[tris-]

Not at all, but you are grasping to straws. Quite entertaining.



.

How,
you just said you didnt say that and then said you did.
so in other words, all discrimination is not the same, some is at a higher level than others.
i.e. racism is worse than not letting someone in a club for wearing trainers.

Weve cracked it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

How,
you just said you didnt say that and then said you did.

Never said "all things done should be treated equal".

Like said, grasping to straws and you'll find you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[tris-]

Never said "all things done should be treated equal".

Like said, grasping to straws and you'll find you're making a fool of yourself.

Will I?

Because im not.

I never actually said that you said what you quoted there either...

 

[nath]

Not at all, but you are grasping to straws. Quite entertaining.



And is it in the rules that people who do facebook quizzes should not have rights as normal people? Is it in the rules that criminals lose some rights?

I see what you're trying to twist my words to mean, ut it's really quite pathetic.

Fuck you. I'm not trying to twist your words - I'm pointing out the flaws in your argument.



There are no rules about people who use facebook quizzes, but we were talking about what's "acceptable" not about what's legal. You were saying discrimination amounts to the same and it's all equally bad regardless of what is being discriminated against. I was pointing out that that's not the case, by citing some examples where it's clearly OK to discriminate. They happened to be illegal, but either way right and wrong came before the law and as such the law is irrelevant to what's right and wrong. It's societies attempt to mirror it.

The fact is, you've said it's ok to discriminate against people who break the rules because they're breaking the rules. If a club had a rule that said no black people, it wouldn't make it OK to discriminate against black people. The fact of the matter is we as a people decide what traits are OK to discriminate against and on some points people will disagree. For the most part we agree. Violence bad, enjoying spinach OK (for the most part), etc.

 

[tris-]

I thought popeye was a twat for eating spinnach and taking roids.