BuddieinEK Posted November 18, 2017 Report Share Posted November 18, 2017 I bet you're fun at parties...[emoji38] Only two questions that need to be answered in regards to a technicality when we're speaking about discrimination 1. Is it illegal? 2. Is it unethical? Answer to both is no. There is no ethical aspects of encouraging youth players and having rules that help their development and it's completely within the rules of the game (zero legal impact) I see the point your maybe trying to make but bringing up discrimination for me is just a barrier. Errrr.... I didn't bring anything up and am not trying to make any point.I was simply trying to help clarify something that someone else had brought up.Being a discussion forum, I didn't think that was inappropriate.Thanks for your concern re parties... really depends on the company! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 18, 2017 Report Share Posted November 18, 2017 Football ain't a special case, try the Equality Act. Again it's nothing to do with any sort of discrimination. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this [emoji23][emoji23] there's already rules in the game about minimum numbers of club trained players. No one questions them on equality. I'm simply saying we'd benefit from putting them up considerably. And also again THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT CLUBS PERMISSIONS ON SIGNING PLAYERS [emoji849] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 18, 2017 Report Share Posted November 18, 2017 Errrr.... I didn't bring anything up and am not trying to make any point.I was simply trying to help clarify something that someone else had brought up.Being a discussion forum, I didn't think that was inappropriate.Thanks for your concern re parties... really depends on the company! Well if you were looking to clarify the point on discrimination. I imagine it wouldn't pretty easy... it's completely irrelevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 Baz, I'll finish off by saying, you don't really get it do you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted November 19, 2017 Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 I think my point is... What's your point? Does it in anyway put up a barrier to the suggestion we could implement rules to encourage better youth development? Get my torch out for the next Scotland Under 21 game at St Mirren Park [emoji38] Age discrimination [emoji14] Having games defined by age at youth level isn't discriminatory, it's equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 17 hours ago, melmac said: Baz, I'll finish off by saying, you don't really get it do you. I'd probably respond with... Yes I completely get it. all I'm suggesting doing is increasing a rule that already exists. In Scottish football every professional team needs to have a certain number of homegrown players in their squad. In what way does increasing that number impact employment law or discriminate against certain groups? It doesn't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 12 hours ago, TPAFKATS said: Having games defined by age at youth level isn't discriminatory, it's equality. Having a rule in place about the length of times players have had to be at a club is also not discrimination. By your logic any Institute that offers a fellow status based on length of service is discriminating against newer members. It's frankly absolute nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Just about any rule/regulation/law can be viewed as discriminatory - it all depends on how you approach it. Whether the "discrimination" is justified/reasonable/ethical/whatever is what's really up for debate. Thank heavens somebody gets it!Saying that something is "positive discrimination" is not necessarily a negative!Sometimes it is actually required to attain equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 9 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said: Just about any rule/regulation/law can be viewed as discriminatory - it all depends on how you approach it. Whether the "discrimination" is justified/reasonable/ethical/whatever is what's really up for debate. Yep very true, you dive deep enough into anything you can find someone that'll get upset at it. Nature of the beat. I think common sense would tell most people it's perfectly justified though. All it would do is encourage more support of younger players at all clubs the country over. As discussed previously in the thread there is presidence for this happening before in other countries and as far as I can tell there hasn't been any backlash that it's discriminatory. I think some people potentially just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Thank heavens somebody gets it! Saying that something is "positive discrimination" is not necessarily a negative! Sometimes it is actually required to attain equality. No one doesn't 'get' what you're saying. My point is why mention it and talk about discriminating against older players (even dressing it up as positive discrimination) like this is a barrer to the idea? It's simply not. I said it earlier, there are two points that should always be discussed when changing a rule to a game of football or anything else. 1. Is it legal? 2. Is it ethical? Answer to both is yes so I personally don't think there is a need to talk about any kind of discrimination. Nit picking is maybe the expression I'd use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 No one doesn't 'get' what you're saying. My point is why mention it and talk about discriminating against older players (even dressing it up as positive discrimination) like this is a barrer to the idea? It's simply not. I said it earlier, there are two points that should always be discussed when changing a rule to a game of football or anything else. 1. Is it legal? 2. Is it ethical? Answer to both is yes so I personally don't think there is a need to talk about any kind of discrimination. Nit picking is maybe the expression I'd use. You are the one that keeps banging on about it despite the fact that in essence, nobody seems to be actually disagreeing with you.Several people have tried different ways to clarify a definition which was used by someone else in this thread, and you seem intent on turning it into an ongoind debate before accusing everyone else of semantics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 52 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: You are the one that keeps banging on about it despite the fact that in essence, nobody seems to be actually disagreeing with you. Several people have tried different ways to clarify a definition which was used by someone else in this thread, and you seem intent on turning it into an ongoind debate before accusing everyone else of semantics. hence my response to that poster saying I bet he's fun at parties. That post was complete nit picking. If you want to go down to that level and call it 'discrimination' then you can go down to that level and say the U21s discriminate because older players can't play for them. It's completely irrelevant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 hence my response to that poster saying I bet he's fun at parties. That post was complete nit picking. If you want to go down to that level and call it 'discrimination' then you can go down to that level and say the U21s discriminate because older players can't play for them. It's completely irrelevant Yet again, YOU bring up another needless reference to make a point not needing to be made.I give up.It is like having a second wife!Yes dear! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 23 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said: Yet again, YOU bring up another needless reference to make a point not needing to be made. I give up. It is like having a second wife! Yes dear! I simply made a point and felt it was a bit harsh people going on about inequality and discrimination. If that makes me like your wife then lucky you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Having a rule in place about the length of times players have had to be at a club is also not discrimination. By your logic any Institute that offers a fellow status based on length of service is discriminating against newer members. It's frankly absolute nonsense. No, that really hasn't been my logic at all but knock yersel out bazil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 No, that really hasn't been my logic at all but knock yersel out bazil. If only! [emoji12] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 4 hours ago, BuddieinEK said: Thank heavens somebody gets it! Saying that something is "positive discrimination" is not necessarily a negative!Sometimes it is actually required to attain equality. In what circumstances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 In what circumstances? Female only lists for parliamentary candidates would be an example Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said: Female only lists for parliamentary candidates would be an example Is that a good thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 In what circumstances? Scottish Fire and Rescue did it to narrow the gender gap in employment.More recently it happened on Parliament.Not giving a view on the right's and wrong's, just saying it happens and can be deemed a positive measure or at least intended to bring about a positive outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougJamie Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Simple and possibly highly sexiest response Get about 11 ladies like this down to St Georges , make a few genetically advanced friends . Sorted ................................. World Cup 2034 here we come !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 A positive outcome is the best person for the position getting the position. I concur! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said: Personally, I think that is a ridiculous concept. The best person for the job should be put forward by each party irrespective of who they are. Correct. Female (or male for that matter) only jobs such as that is anything but a step for equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted November 20, 2017 Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 Is that a good thing? Apparently so, I'm not convinced. I pretty much agree with BuddieinEK's post although I suppose that might be because we are both men and have never suffered the institutional misogyny that's inherent in our society.Anyway, that's all a bit off topic - I was only giving an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted November 21, 2017 Report Share Posted November 21, 2017 19 hours ago, TPAFKATS said: Apparently so, I'm not convinced. I pretty much agree with BuddieinEK's post although I suppose that might be because we are both men and have never suffered the institutional misogyny that's inherent in our society. Anyway, that's all a bit off topic - I was only giving an example. I have spoken to a few women about it as well. I have yet to find a woman who will publicly agree with it. The argument from them is that it is deeply patronising and it completely undermines their personal achievements because every single person will assume that she is only in that role because she ticks a politically correct box. Most damagingly, many men who would normally be very pro equality can have their opinions changed abruptly if they start seeing themselves disadvantaged. In terms of achieving equality, it is a disastrous thing to do. The idea behind it is well meaning but as with many things it has rather obvious and deeply nasty side effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.