Racial Preferences for Britain?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let me repeat the question.

Who thinks governments should be banned from taking ethical criteria into consideration when deciding how to spend state revenues?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by VJ
red herring, only a tiny minority of British companies suffer from nepotism

I find that extremely difficult to believe.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Let me repeat the question.

Who thinks governments should be banned from taking ethical criteria into consideration when deciding how to spend state revenues?

Well, for a start, governments should base their policies and laws on the manifesto they were elected on, and secondly, why do you assume that your position is the 'ethical' one? It isn't, in my view, it is an affront to the ethical principle of equality and universalism.

[Cort Haus]

A better question would be 'Who thinks they should lose their job to someone less qualified and able than they?'.

[RGBVideo]

I didn't read all your posts Laz, so I'm sorry if I misread your point

Who thinks governments should be banned from taking ethical criteria into consideration when deciding how to spend state revenues?

slippery slope, from opposing policy which supports open racism to banning all policy proposals which have not-racist attributes (for example here in your post, "ethical") in them.

My obvious answer to your question is no, but it has nothing to do with my opinion that racism is wrong. Thank you, come again

I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Well it's a subjective claim, depends from your definition of "tiny".

[Kontiki]

I should think it has more to do with your definition of "minority" (no pun intended).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Well, for a start, governments should base their policies and laws on the manifesto they were elected on,

And how does this proposition differ from the policies Labour have pursued over the last couple of decades?

and secondly, why do you assume that your position is the 'ethical' one?

Well calling it "my" position is a bit dubious, because it's the government choosing to spend taxpayers' money according to their own values.

Those values coincide with my own on this point, but that's merely coincidental. I'm still not voting for them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
A better question would be 'Who thinks they should lose their job to someone less qualified and able than they?'.

Such an action would be illegal under employment law, and also create a liability under civil law as well. This is why you'll notice that no attempt is being made to enforce such moves, even if the government wished to (which I strongly doubt, as it would be electoral suicide).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: I didn't read all your posts Laz, so I'm sorry if I misread your point

Originally posted by VJ

slippery slope, from opposing policy which supports open racism to banning all policy proposals which have not-racist attributes (for example here in your post, "ethical") in them.

I think you'll find it's a gaping chasm rather than a slippery slope.

Anyone can refuse their trade. It's a totally different ball game to impose racially-based laws to enforce compliance.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Let me repeat the question.

Who thinks governments should be banned from taking ethical criteria into consideration when deciding how to spend state revenues?

Let me repeat the question.

Who thinks the government should be criticized for taking ethical criteria into consideration when those criteria are counterproductive?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
You state that is if it's a fact. What makes you think you are speaking for employers in general, particularly those with a self-confessed problem with institutional racism?

Our employers have a self-confessed problem of institutional racism? Are you confusing institutional racial imbalance with institutional racism?

Or, and this is the more realistic approach, they take a good long look at their recruitment strategy to see whether they are (inadvertantly, negligently or deliberately) excluding genuine talent from ethnic minorities.

And when they look at their policies and conclude, rightly, that there is no bias in their hiring process, but they still have to meet the government quotas, they resort to the solution I described. That's what has happened on this side of the pond when the government institutes such requirements.

It's entirely possible for there to be a racial imbalance without there being any racial bias in the hiring process. It's easily possible that there is an imbalance in the pool of applicants, for instance because fewer minorities go through university or even graduate high school.

Incidentally, the way that section was worded seems to imply that ethnic minorities would not perform as well, but I'm sure that was down to merely a moment of weak communication.

No, the way it was worded implied that even poorly performing minorities would be selected.

en was the last time you emerged from your bubble?

**** you. All I knew was Nestle made ****ty candy bars.

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: I didn't read all your posts Laz, so I'm sorry if I misread your point

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I think you'll find it's a gaping chasm rather than a slippery slope.

Anyone can refuse their trade. It's a totally different ball game to impose racially-based laws to enforce compliance.

However coy you try to be about it, you can't avoid the fact that the government is creating a de facto law for many sectors of the economy.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm sorry, Laz, that Britain seems to be a few decades behind us in working with their racism problem.

[Ramo]

Let me repeat the question.

Who thinks the government should be criticized for taking ethical criteria into consideration when those criteria are counterproductive?

That's an absurd position to take. The corollary would be that gov't should use slaves in any function needed because you can't get much more productive than free labor. It's far more reasonable to question the ethics involved than to assert that ethics are irrelevent.

[Kuciwalker]

I meant counterproductive to the goal of racial equality, Ramo.

Reverse discrimination creates racism against minorities through resentment of real or perceived special treatment.