Jump to content

Barriers to equal opportunity in education


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So which is more beneficial to society, anti discrimination laws or Affirmative Action ?

That depends mostly on how the current system is set up as well as whether there are historic carryovers. There are many studies around the world on many, many aspects of anti discrimination efforts and the overall theme seems to be that it is very difficult.

In many areas anti discrimination laws barely move the needle and some even had negative effects. I would need to dig out things, as there is a huge heap of literature out there, but from memory (so apologies if I get something wrong), anti-discriminations laws in some countries (including Germany, USA and UK) seemed to protect retention of certain groups, but increased hiring discrimination in many areas. So, again, to evaluate benefit, you need to look at outcome, rather on the mechanism alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What are some of the barriers to providing equal opportunity to every one, within academia? Seeing a lot of ignorant and entitled posting lately, which doesn't even make a point to address this.

Oh absolutely I'd agree with that. I experienced it myself, except it was my mother that left. I was 5 and she walked out on us and was gone for awhile. That being said; she was still a lot more prese

! Moderator Note Vague generalizations disguised as slurs towards a group of people are against our rules. This sort of thinking has been debunked MANY times over, much like crea

Posted Images

On 12/2/2020 at 5:45 PM, MigL said:

I don't know, CharonY.
I thought that is what we were discussing.
I have stated that, in my opinion, the mechanism is flawed.
 and I gave historical evidence of where the mechanism was used for " bad' purposes with resulting disastrous effects ( American slavery ), and even where the mechanism was used for " good' intentions, with negative effects also ( Canadian Residential Schools ).

If you can give me an example of 'racial' discrimination where 'good' intentions resulted in 'good' outcomes, I can be convinced otherwise.

Sorry I missed this post earlier. So again, my criticism on your example is that the process was not flawed because it focused on First Nation people (i.e. using race as an indicator) but because of the assumption underlying (i.e. colonial attitude and white supremacist viewpoints). In addition the measure is punitive in nature, so as a better example I would like to see how a supportive race-based measure results in negative outcomes. 

With regard to positive outcomes, one aspect of affirmative action in college admission is that it is actually the only measure that has consistently increased diversity in the students body, which I consider a positive outcome. On the societal level, states with affirmative action have seen an increase in salary among underrepresented minorities due to access to higher education.

Conversely, states that have banned such action have seen a decline in minorities attending said universities which has been associated with a decline in salaries (there is a recent article from Berkeley looking at the impact of proposition 209, for example). It has been suggested that in some cases affirmative action could place students in programs for which they are not well equipped, but there are studies in a number of countries who actually were unable to find such effects. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2020 at 3:55 PM, studiot said:

 

Thank you.

Thank you also for providing an accurate statement of the setup in Scotland we can all agree.

:)

So can I ask you to consider the value of accuracy in discussion ?

 

Rather than going over old ground any more can we also discuss your title question ?

Only the first line provides a discussion topic,

I would rather not comment on the rest except to ask you  to you consider if this is a good way to address people and open a conversation you hope to have an adult discussion with.

 

So did you wish to discuss barriers to equal opportunity in  'education'.    -  as you state in the title

or

barriers to equal opportunity in 'academia'     -  as you state in your opening post ?

I hope you are not conflating the two.

They are not the same.

 

In any event we need an agreed working definition of 'education' and 'academia' before progress can be made.

I do value accuracy in discussion, when and where possible. That being said, achieving that can be difficult when you don't know who you're speaking to that well or when you're strapped for time. Sometimes you have to sacrifice accuracy, in favour of accessibility.

I do appreciate the questions the the criticisms though.

I suppose I do mean a broad definition of education but it is good to highlight the dichotomy between the two formats, institutionalised formal academia and access to materials for informal learning. 

So on the one side of that are things like school policies, formats, teaching methods and philosophies.

On the other side, library, internet, work and life experience etc. 

So you are right. We should diversify and expand our current discussion by delineating not precisely what we mean by education, but delineating what education can mean in different contexts and asking the questions of each of those contexts. 

This way, we are looking at and evaluating the different barriers towards different styles and formats of education and figuring out what factors are at play and if any can be found in all contexts of what we can mean by 'Education', and which ones belong only within certain contexts.

As for your query about whether or not the attitude I had when I wrote the OP was a good way to address people. By that I'm assuming you mean the emotionality and accusatory nature of it. Probably not the best way to start a discussion but then I've always worn my emotions on my sleeves and I am also of the opinion that sometimes you have to consciously show how you are feeling rather than bottle it and pretend you don't have any. We can agree to disagree on that front. Asking me to change the past or not feel nor express my emotions is probably a waste of time. Changing the past is beyond my control, whether I express any emotions is beyond others control. I might be doing it consciously to make a point or I might genuinely be having trouble regulating. Either way, whether or not it is conducive toward creating open and constructive dialogues, depends on context. Personally I don't mind if people are angry or emotional when they are speaking to me, so long as they aren't calling me or others names, shutting down conversations, using thick concepts or are being judgemental for the sake of dehumanising someone. However, if someone is going to tell me, I am behaving like an asshole, they better have a logical argument as to why, else I'll not bother with them as me and my self esteem have better things to do than listen to someone who is not only feeling emotional, but making it personal, inciting and spiteful. You know the types I mean, the one's who say something really insulting or accuse you of something with no evidence and then shut down the conversation and give the silent treatment for not agreeing with their summary that you are some unchangeable evil asshole. Shock horror, wonder why.

Anyway, I only came back here to reply to you, I have one more comment to make on another thread, then I'm out of here until the New Year.

Enjoy the Holidays :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MSC said:

Anyway, I only came back here to reply to you, I have one more comment to make on another thread, then I'm out of here until the New Year.

Enjoy the Holidays :)

Well thank you, I'm flattered as I don't deserve such special reatment.

Anyway, You too have a good holiday but above all,

Stay Safe.

Too many in the UK are currently putting their 'right to a good hioliday' above the safety of themselves.
This is their choice and perhaps their right but the trouble is that all rights come with responsibilities and they are also affecting the safety of other people by doing this.

:)

Edited by studiot
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well thank you, I'm flattered as I don't deserve such special reatment.

Anyway, You too have a good holiday but above all,

Stay Safe.

Too many in the UK are currently putting their 'right to a good hioliday' above the safety of themselves.
This is their choice and perhaps their right but the trouble is that all rights come with responsibilities and they are also affecting the safety of other people by doing this.

:)

No but I snapped at you before and misinterpreted what you were saying so I wanted to make it up to you and treat you more respectfully. 

Oh I know what you mean, in America it is just crazy, the airports were jam packed of people travelling to be with their families for thanksgiving and it was quite a shock to me, I haven't seen my family in two years and some people here can't manage a single month without spreading the virus everywhere. 😕

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MSC said:

No but I snapped at you before and misinterpreted what you were saying so I wanted to make it up to you and treat you more respectfully. 

Oh I know what you mean, in America it is just crazy, the airports were jam packed of people travelling to be with their families for thanksgiving and it was quite a shock to me, I haven't seen my family in two years and some people here can't manage a single month without spreading the virus everywhere. 😕

Just think of those folks who 'sailed for South Australia' in the late 18th and 19th centuries.

Having spent some Christmasses offshore in the oilfieds and had later Christmasses dictated by the the needs of our local district hospital here, I don't have huge sympathies for those
'who must have their Christmas' just so!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I came across an article which ties in with our discussion about methods to end unequal access to Education, and the role Affirmative Action could play in that process.
Given the fact that Black American slaves were once considered less than a person ( 3/5 th ), would it be ethical, or just, to now consider them more than 1 person, in an effort to right past wrongs, as the article proposes with voting rights ? 

"But there’s another way to undo the damage of the Electoral College and other structurally racist political institutions: We can implement vote reparations by double-counting ballots cast by all Black residents. The poisonous legacy of slavery applies to Black people regardless of when we or our ancestors arrived in this country. Vote reparations should also extend to Native Americans."

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/black-votes-reparations-gerrymandering/

What are your thoughts ?

Edited by MigL
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

But there’s another way to undo the damage of the Electoral College and other structurally racist political institutions: We can implement vote reparations by double-counting ballots cast by all Black residents.

I’m not a huge fan of this idea and would prefer we focus on more obvious things like making voting a national holiday, implementing ranked choice, adding polling places to more densely populated regions, making early voting the rule everywhere, and other similar ideas discussed here many times in the past. 

I also see a risk of resentment and making problems worse if some people’s vote counts more than others. Money already does this and we need to fix that too, but fixing the problem of voter suppression to me is more important than double counting those not prevented from voting due to that suppression. 

+1 for introducing me to a new idea I’d not preciously encountered tho!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Currently there are limited places available in education. If  criteria or qualification is put in place to fill those spaces, there will be discrimination.

Increase the available space to students. This can be done online and and I believe on-line learning will be used increasingly. Maybe opening a can of worms re-qualification for the established educational institutions, but I think it will be inevitable .

Poverty can be reduced, with programs and policies. Lack of familiarity with educational opportunity and achievement can be addressed. They should be.

There are human conditions that will affect a persons likelihood of experiencing poverty or their chances of gaining places in educational institutions among other things.

Colour, sex, disability are some of them. They are not identities .They are conditions of humanities sum. Equal parts of that sum.

The act of dividing that sum according to perceived differences in value is, to me, racism or bigotry. The poor are not lumped into a group identity. Poverty is seen as  human condition. Not an identity that can be defined in any way other than the broad and diverse definition of the word itself.

Conditions of humanity are fluid and diverse. They thrive or not based on environmental demands and expectation. Their definition and manifestations are clearly understood. there are no qualifications other than a loose but clearly understood word. We all know what poverty is . What white or black is. what sex is. or what illness and disability are. We know they manifest in diverse ways. Human conditions are evolving and not yet fixed, one would hope.

Identities though are characterised. They have fixed margins. Those must be maintained to uphold the integrity of the identity. If you are going to assign characterisations to human identities they have to be maintained internally for the  integrity of the identity.... No true Scott. But the line between what is environment and what is identity is blurred because there is no separation! Its a Human environment. Science is defined by its practice, what ever form that presently expects. A woman is defined by her chromosomes, however they manifest.

You can address the conditions as they present, in poverty or lack of opportunity. I see no need to address a persons colour sex or disability as a problem in itself, or as in any way defining of a persons value or potential to their goals or the whole of humanity. Not even in an historic context, because that implies inherent inequality which is some thing I don't think we want to promote.

I recall a post on this forum where a black woman was discredited as unrepresentative of her black identity, because she did not fit the characterisation we are being taught to accept as 'truth'. It went unchallenged. Yet clearly she is black. Clearly she is representative of a black woman.

Identity politics can only divide and marginalise Humanity because thats what identity infers, margins of acceptance or qualification.

I doubt any one can claim Humanity has become less divided with the promotion of identification with distinct human conditions, over humanity itself.

Yet we are told to double down on our intolerance to Human conditions in opposition. And an identity separated or marginalised from the whole by our characterisations can only be maintained  in opposition. As opposed to...

Thats a rejection of our human environment.

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, naitche said:

Currently there are limited places available in education. If  criteria or qualification is put in place to fill those spaces, there will be discrimination.

I don't think that is universally true. Especially in the Americas specific programs might be limited, but as a whole the limiting factor seems to be money, rather than space.

 

1 hour ago, naitche said:

The act of dividing that sum according to perceived differences in value is, to me, racism or bigotry. The poor are not lumped into a group identity. Poverty is seen as  human condition. Not an identity that can be defined in any way other than the broad and diverse definition of the word itself.

Not sure what you try to say here, but income is one factor that determines certain eligibility paths in admission. E.g. scholarships. But they can also be part of the evaluation. E.g. a student from a poor neighborhood but with high scores might be perceived as a better candidate than someone from another school in which the average score is much higher than the other school (which, again is often determined by socioeconomic factors). If you are talking about college admissions, they are not based on identities (at least not the way you describe it) but rather but those various factors, i.e. scores, background, compelling CV/life story/essay equivalent and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, naitche said:

Currently there are limited places available in education. If  criteria or qualification is put in place to fill those spaces, there will be discrimination.

 

You seem to have a non-standard definition of the word "discrimination". Discrimination involves unfair or unjust behavior.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, zapatos said:

You seem to have a non-standard definition of the word "discrimination". Discrimination involves unfair or unjust behavior.

 

I see it more akin to a parring down. shaving something off. A reduction.

Which will be seen as unjust to the reduced. But I will check the accepted definitions to see if they contradict that in any way. Thanks.☺️

 

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

I don't think that is universally true. Especially in the Americas specific programs might be limited, but as a whole the limiting factor seems to be money, rather than space.

Then money is a qualification or criteria for Education in those situations. The political discussion here invariably points to the obvious lack of critical thinking skills or any meaningful education in people entrusted with making their own political choices. So if education is in the interest of humanity and 'free will'  it should be accessible to all, with out  money being a discriminating factor. With out the money, the space is unavailable.

It would be nice to work out better ways to finance that availability.

 

Quote

 

Not sure what you try to say here, but income is one factor that determines certain eligibility paths in admission. E.g. scholarships. But they can also be part of the evaluation. E.g. a student from a poor neighborhood but with high scores might be perceived as a better candidate than someone from another school in which the average score is much higher than the other school (which, again is often determined by socioeconomic factors). If you are talking about college admissions, they are not based on identities (at least not the way you describe it) but rather but those various factors, i.e. scores, background, compelling CV/life story/essay equivalent and so on.

While that holds true, I have no problem with that. While there are limitations on availability or acceptance,  there will be some discrimination.

Its the language that demands  one valid perspective take universal precedence that I object to. That marginalise human conditions by assuming that a common perspective denied the rest of us must characterise that condition, and 'our' response, as opposed to, should be characterised to compensate..

 Privilege and race are human conditions. We are not in opposition to Human conditions, or shouldn't be. They are what we have, in the space we have been given. Human conditions do have unique and diverse perspectives that we need to understand. To accept as human to respond to effectively. I agree!  Familiarity, recognition acceptance and response to a human environment.  

I hope to answer this better,  after working out  a more effective way to demonstrate what I'm seeing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, naitche said:

Which will be seen as unjust to the reduced.

Do you have evidence to support this claim? 

I didn't get into a college I applied to and did not feel I had been discriminated against. I didn't find anything unjust about them using academic qualifications at certain schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Do you have evidence to support this claim? 

I didn't get into a college I applied to and did not feel I had been discriminated against. I didn't find anything unjust about them using academic qualifications at certain schools.

 

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

You seem to have a non-standard definition of the word "discrimination". Discrimination involves unfair or unjust behavior.

I should have said it may be seen as unjust, by the parred off.

But there does not appear to be a conflict in my use of the word.

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Imagine that...

There seems little point to this response, other than an attempt to discredit what I say on un-related grounds.

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2021 at 1:21 PM, naitche said:

 

The act of dividing that sum according to perceived differences in value is, to me, racism or bigotry. The poor are not lumped into a group identity. Poverty is seen as  human condition. Not an identity that can be defined in any way other than the broad and diverse definition of the word itself.

 

 

 

23 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

 

Not sure what you try to say here, but income is one factor that determines certain eligibility paths in admission. E.g. scholarships. But they can also be part of the evaluation. E.g. a student from a poor neighborhood but with high scores might be perceived as a better candidate than someone from another school in which the average score is much higher than the other school (which, again is often determined by socioeconomic factors). If you are talking about college admissions, they are not based on identities (at least not the way you describe it) but rather but those various factors, i.e. scores, background, compelling CV/life story/essay equivalent and so on.

Another attempt.

Acceptance of a human Identity, in equality, is all or nothing. A human organism.

That identity is marginalised by its nature. Its not inclusive of the environment its subject to.The margins are not yet 'fixed' while evolution is ongoing,  To identify as human, fish are excluded. They contribute no value to legitimacy of that identification. The margins of accepted identity must be maintained as part of that 'being'.

When 'no true Scotsman'  holds true and  been decided, so is its manifestation and evolution. We don't get to collectively choose who represents that condition of being until then.The margin is there, but not fixed while diversity is accepted. 

The function of a Scotsman is to live in Scotland or claim that heritage.. Nothing else. The commonality of  perspective can't  exceed that with out blurring the line between the identity claimed, and the environment. They are inseparable in Humanity. There can be no other characterisation, with out elimination of environment to maintain that 'truth of being' a Scot.

So when I choose to 'identify' with one condition of humanity, and promote a common or characteristic perspective from that point, I must maintain its margins . It doesn't happen  consistently or uniformly but does inevitably for integrity of that identification or 'being'. Its being is centred around the truths  accepted for instruction of being.  . But  line of margin being maintained between  the identity and its environment is blurred. Its no longer clear what is identity and what is environment. The line can't be maintained against the commonality of Humanity and its over all condition or manifestation. 

All these diverse cultural 'beings' are inevitably going to be bumping up against each other in the struggle to maintain a 'valid' localised perspective that takes no responsibility for the summation or whole Human environment.

Identity is not inclusive of environment. Its purpose is to maintain self, Subject to environment.

The manifestation of the human organism is not decided. Critical identity theory is seriously flawed in relation to the Human environment and the condition it finds itself.

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites

A correction to my last sentence... Should read Critical Race theory. The flaw I see is in the promotion of Characterisation of human conditions.

The language promotes  reduction or restriction of environment, rather than addressing the actual problems it poses. Form before function.

if you wish to address poverty, or lack of education opportunity,  Race, gender, disability  are relative.The form you recognise . But not defining of poverty or lack of education opportunity. Until you address those, other forms of discrimination will just take their place.

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, naitche said:

There seems little point to this response, other than an attempt to discredit what I say on un-related grounds.

I was suggesting that you think about the consequences of what you're saying.

11 hours ago, naitche said:

 

Another attempt.

Acceptance of a human Identity, in equality, is all or nothing. A human organism.

That identity is marginalised by its nature. Its not inclusive of the environment its subject to.The margins are not yet 'fixed' while evolution is ongoing,  To identify as human, fish are excluded. They contribute no value to legitimacy of that identification. The margins of accepted identity must be maintained as part of that 'being'.

When 'no true Scotsman'  holds true and  been decided, so is its manifestation and evolution. We don't get to collectively choose who represents that condition of being until then.The margin is there, but not fixed while diversity is accepted. 

The function of a Scotsman is to live in Scotland or claim that heritage.. Nothing else. The commonality of  perspective can't  exceed that with out blurring the line between the identity claimed, and the environment. They are inseparable in Humanity. There can be no other characterisation, with out elimination of environment to maintain that 'truth of being' a Scot.

So when I choose to 'identify' with one condition of humanity, and promote a common or characteristic perspective from that point, I must maintain its margins . It doesn't happen  consistently or uniformly but does inevitably for integrity of that identification or 'being'. Its being is centred around the truths  accepted for instruction of being.  . But  line of margin being maintained between  the identity and its environment is blurred. Its no longer clear what is identity and what is environment. The line can't be maintained against the commonality of Humanity and its over all condition or manifestation. 

All these diverse cultural 'beings' are inevitably going to be bumping up against each other in the struggle to maintain a 'valid' localised perspective that takes no responsibility for the summation or whole Human environment.

Identity is not inclusive of environment. Its purpose is to maintain self, Subject to environment.

The manifestation of the human organism is not decided. Critical identity theory is seriously flawed in relation to the Human environment and the condition it finds itself.

Now I'm asking, what does that even mean?

9 hours ago, naitche said:

if you wish to address poverty, or lack of education opportunity,  Race, gender, disability  are relative.The form you recognise . But not defining of poverty or lack of education opportunity. Until you address those, other forms of discrimination will just take their place.

"if you wish to address poverty", teach people..

I encourage you to watch the it all, but the relevant part starts at 25:30'ish...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I was suggesting that you think about the consequences of what you're saying.

Thanks for the clarification. As I read the definition though, I don't see a conflict, or anything to say that an act of discrimination must always involve injustice. 

 

Quote

Now I'm asking, what does that even mean?

It means, You can't measure the equality of a sum with out 1st dividing its parts. Equality need some thing the be measured against. it requires an opposition, and that has to be found before the measurement can take place.

I don't understand why thats confusing.

Its the mathematical   explanation as I understand,  it can't be done. If thats wrong, I'm happy to hear why.

From a biophysical  perspective,  an identified organism I will call an Identity, is maintained from within its margins. 

Its function is preservation of its integrity. Its form or manifestation, Recognising  only what is already contained within. The content of the form recognise  a commonality of instruction, or DNA.But its maintains its margins or integrity  from within. A closed and marginalised ecosystem. To be maintained as is, the equality of its parts must be assumed.

The conditions and forms of an environment exist by what is brought to them, found or taken from the environment. The environmental conditions that have come together to support its being. 

Conflate one with the other and you are left with 2 opposing forces, each reducing the the other.

Thats as simple as I can make it atm, No doubt semantics can be argued.

From that, an Identity is both a form of its environment, and an environment or ecosystem in its own right depending on the perspective its being viewed from.

So if we are talking about the equality of Human beings, as a human entity, surely that must be assumed objectively, not subjectively.

Or our diverse cultures are behaving as genes fighting for dominance of selection, to decide a final manifestation and acceptable form of humanity. Deciding limitations rather than potential. Form before function.

The line between the identity and its environment is being blurred, if we can't view them objectively rather than subjectively.The Human environment is not subject to our will, we and our cultures are subject of it. Equality can only be  the  reductive  measure of a sum. It is discrimination, and the promotion of discrimination.

 

 

 

 

.

Quote

"if you wish to address poverty", teach people..

I encourage you to watch the it all, but the relevant part starts at 25:30'ish...

 

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, naitche said:

It means, You can't measure the equality of a sum with out 1st dividing its parts. Equality need some thing the be measured against. it requires an opposition, and that has to be found before the measurement can take place.

I don't understand why thats confusing.

Because nobody is arguing that people aren't equally able; the aim is equality of opertunity.

We're talking about people not spreadsheets, but while spreadsheets are used to prevent equality of opportunity, they're using different heading's. 

12 hours ago, naitche said:

I don't understand why thats confusing.

You should assume that my level of comprehension, is roughly equivalent to my level of eloquence; for further clarification just ask MigL.  😉

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW did you whatch Frankie at 25:30ish?

Because you're talking a lot of shyte about fish.

Frankie explained it better at 44:30ish though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Because nobody is arguing that people aren't equally able; the aim is equality of opertunity.

You are still measuring equality, whether of races or opportunity. And making characterisations of broad and diverse conditions to do so.

And because of that, the language used by many often signals the reverse of your intent. 

Quote

We're talking about people not spreadsheets, but while spreadsheets are used to prevent equality of opportunity, they're using different heading's. 

You should assume that my level of comprehension, is roughly equivalent to my level of eloquence; for further clarification just ask MigL.  😉

Racial or cultural headings are their own spread sheet.Their use is fine in anti discrimination documents,  To discount their characterisation as anything other than equal in Humanity.

But when we use language in a way that characterises race,  gender or colour as 'oppressed', and characterises the 'privileged' as oppressors, You are discrediting one set of conditions, to give credit to another. There is no assumption of equality in that. Neither is there real recognition of diversity. Only spread sheets. You can't qualify equality.

 

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

BTW did you whatch Frankie at 25:30ish?

Because you're talking a lot of shyte about fish.

Frankie explained it better at 44:30ish though. 

I did, but couldn't figure out the relevance at the time.  O.K. Fish...... 

I will watch again, and 44:30 too. I might enjoy more, but time...

 I suspect the fish reference I made was miss-interpreted. I mean't to draw the margin of humanity. That being fish is not Human being. That was un-needed so, my own fault.

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, naitche said:

I did, but couldn't figure out the relevance at the time.  O.K. Fish...... 

I will watch again, and 44:30 too. I might enjoy more, but time...

 I suspect the fish reference I made was miss-interpreted. I mean't to draw the margin of humanity. That being fish is not Human being. That was un-needed so, my own fault.

I wasn't referencing your mention of fish, I just think it neatly sums up the problem at hand.

I'll paraphrase "Don't come to our country poisoning our fishing water's, then turn up 400years later, on your gap year, talking a lot of shit about fish."

4 hours ago, naitche said:

Racial or cultural headings are their own spread sheet.Their use is fine in anti discrimination documents,  To discount their characterisation as anything other than equal in Humanity.

But when we use language in a way that characterises race,  gender or colour as 'oppressed', and characterises the 'privileged' as oppressors, You are discrediting one set of conditions, to give credit to another. There is no assumption of equality in that. Neither is there real recognition of diversity. Only spread sheets. You can't qualify equality.

You can with an oportunity to learn.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

By reducing obstacles to qualification in Education.

Not by singling out who should benefit more based on characterisations of their diverse conditions.

That redistributes the obstacles, with out understanding the effects that might have, but doesn't create any greater potential for humanity as a whole.

You are not qualifying Equality. You are qualifying more Humans, for education.Their equality doesn't come into it. Thats assumed.

Better than assuming racism or bigotry for the discrepancies, as characterisations of human conditions demands..

Diversity is the antithesis of equality.

Edited by naitche
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.