NationStates Jolt Archive

I am puzzled as to why when it is illegal to deny someone a job based on their Religious Beliefs, Race, Nationality or Gender, but the same cant be said for schools in the UK (where i live), the government infact finances and promotes Schools that practice discrimination in the selection of what sort of students can join, i.e. we have schools which either only allow or are biased toward taking students based upon their religion or their gender. Surely these schools should be Illegal. Discuss.

And? Schools discriminate upon many grounds; intelligence (hooray for selective education), religion, sporting ability, ability to pay fees, previous bahvioural record. It is of little concern to me upon which grounds they discriminate; I was sensible and actually passed my 11+.:)

I am puzzled as to why when it is illegal to deny someone a job based on their Religious Beliefs, Race, Nationality or Gender, but the same cant be said for schools in the UK (where i live), the government infact finances and promotes Schools that practice discrimination in the selection of what sort of students can join, i.e. we have schools which either only allow or are biased toward taking students based upon their religion or their gender. Surely these schools should be Illegal. Discuss.

Not just illegal, but Illegal. :D

And? Schools discriminate upon many grounds; intelligence (hooray for selective education), religion, sporting ability, ability to pay fees, previous bahvioural record. It is of little concern to me upon which grounds they discriminate; I was sensible and actually passed my 11+.:)

Went to one of those posh schools did you? I also passed my 11+, but only because nearly every primary school in NI does it...

Went to one of those posh schools did you? I also passed my 11+, but only because nearly every primary school in NI does it...

Every primary school in Esseex does it to be fair. I've never been to a private school in my life:(

Shame really, what with the people I meet who have been tending to be easier to get along with, but still, Grammer school isn't that bad.

I am puzzled as to why when it is illegal to deny someone a job based on their Religious Beliefs, Race, Nationality or Gender, but the same cant be said for schools in the UK (where i live), the government infact finances and promotes Schools that practice discrimination in the selection of what sort of students can join, i.e. we have schools which either only allow or are biased toward taking students based upon their religion or their gender. Surely these schools should be Illegal. Discuss.

It's a non issue. Why would a Christian want to go to a Muslim school, for example? Not all discrimination is the bad type.

The world would be a more rational and certainly critical-thinking place if everyone were atheists/agnostics.

The world would be a more rational and certainly critical-thinking place if everyone were atheists/agnostics.

I'm not convinced. Atheists and agnostics are just as capable of believing bullshit as fundementalists are

I'm not convinced. Atheists and agnostics are just as capable of believing bullshit as fundementalists are

What BS do you speak of? As far as I know no atheists believe that if they telepathically commune with a 2000 yr old Jewish zombie and 'accept him' they will gain immortality.

I'm not convinced. Atheists and agnostics are just as capable of believing bullshit as fundementalists are

I am almost tempted to sig that.

However:

When it come to believing in bullshit, no one human sub-group has a monopoly. We are all guilty at one time or another.

The world would be a more rational and certainly critical-thinking place if everyone were atheists/agnostics.

Bwahaha I do not belive that would be the case.

I think discriminating based on intelligence is fair enough (question is how you measure it), but I find single-religion schools rather pointless in their discrimination.

I am puzzled as to why when it is illegal to deny someone a job based on their Religious Beliefs, Race, Nationality or Gender, but the same cant be said for schools in the UK (where i live), the government infact finances and promotes Schools that practice discrimination in the selection of what sort of students can join, i.e. we have schools which either only allow or are biased toward taking students based upon their religion or their gender. Surely these schools should be Illegal. Discuss.

The best part of it though?

Church in wales schools have to accept "minority" people (just by labelling that its racism in my eyes). But Islamic schools have no requirement to let non-muslims in.

There is a lot of discrimination in schools, and I would say most of it is based on social class.

I've been to schools where the popular kids were a mix of white and non-white, male and female, religious and non-religious, but the common denominator was that they all had money.

Working class kids can be popular to a point (I wasn't totally unpopular), but I (and other working class kids) lacked the parental income to waste money on huge 18th parties, join every sporting team going, wearing the latest clothes and going on holiday somewhere sunny. And underclass kids have no chance at being popular, sometimes even getting food on the table is a struggle for the families of these kids.

Teachers who join sporting clubs may compete with kids from school, making friendships, and middle class kids can also afford tutors, attend seminars, super-fast internet etc while I used a dial-up connection to do research and, as for outside help from other people, I might ask Dad later if he knows anything about cellular respiration.

Politicians use working class and underclass serfs as punching bags for everything: crime, welfare, the healthcare system, discrimination against non-whites and females... the list is endless.

:headbang: :sniper: :upyours:

The best part of it though?

Church in wales schools have to accept "minority" people (just by labelling that its racism in my eyes). But Islamic schools have no requirement to let non-muslims in.

That is because a fair few of these church schools are, while not totaly funded by goverment, enjoy a private/publicly funded status, whilst all of the Islamic schools I know of are totaly private.

There is a lot of discrimination in schools, and I would say most of it is based on social class.

I've been to schools where the popular kids were a mix of white and non-white, male and female, religious and non-religious, but the common denominator was that they all had money.

Working class kids can be popular to a point (I wasn't totally unpopular), but I (and other working class kids) lacked the parental income to waste money on huge 18th parties, join every sporting team going, wearing the latest clothes and going on holiday somewhere sunny. And underclass kids have no chance at being popular, sometimes even getting food on the table is a struggle for the families of these kids.

Teachers who join sporting clubs may compete with kids from school, making friendships, and middle class kids can also afford tutors, attend seminars, super-fast internet etc while I used a dial-up connection to do research and, as for outside help from other people, I might ask Dad later if he knows anything about cellular respiration.

Politicians use working class and underclass serfs as punching bags for everything: crime, welfare, the healthcare system, discrimination against non-whites and females... the list is endless.

:headbang: :sniper: :upyours:

Really? Boo fucking hoo:rolleyes:

I assume you didn't view this as an inspiration to work nad allow your children to avoid this terrible fate?

Really? Boo fucking hoo:rolleyes:

I assume you didn't view this as an inspiration to work nad allow your children to avoid this terrible fate?

Actually, I've only just turned 18 and I'm at university on a loan. You may want to get your facts straight first before writing "Boo fucking hoo".

:cool:

Actually, I've only just turned 18 and I'm at university on a loan. You may want to get your facts straight first before writing "Boo fucking hoo".

:cool:

Nonetheless, the fact stands you should have taken it as an inspiration. If you have, well done.

However, do you not think you could be a little more considered? Just because you cannot afford to throw a raucous party or have a nice holiday does require those who can to feign sombre asceticism so as to make you feel better. I'm more than a little miffed my father never bothered to take another promotion and start earning £80,000 per annum, which would have allowed us to move to a les "chav" village, but do I object to those who do have such money? No. In short, grow up.

What BS do you speak of? As far as I know no atheists believe that if they telepathically commune with a 2000 yr old Jewish zombie and 'accept him' they will gain immortality.

The myriad types of pseudosciences that seem to be endemic.


They may not believe they can commune with with a 2000 yr old Jewish zombie and 'accept him' they will gain immortality. But I have met ones who believe that the more you dilute a "medicine" the more potent it becomes (Homeopathy).

You are making a huge assumption if you think atheist = rational

Nonetheless, the fact stands you should have taken it as an inspiration. If you have, well done.

However, do you not think you could be a little more considered? Just because you cannot afford to throw a raucous party or have a nice holiday does require those who can to feign sombre asceticism so as to make you feel better. I'm more than a little miffed my father never bothered to take another promotion and start earning £80,000 per annum, which would have allowed us to move to a les "chav" village, but do I object to those who do have such money? No. In short, grow up.

I'm not saying I "object" to those who have plenty of money, and I was friends with a few of those guys. The point is that some have pretty much every opportunity to succeed, some might get a good break every now and then, and some won't even get off the ground, and yet they all get judged by the same formula: more money = more successful.

At Adelaide University students paying $100 000 a year for law, dentistry etc can have lower marks than others and still get in to the course simply because they're handing over a fat cheque. That's an extreme example, but still relevant for this discussion.

Really? Boo fucking hoo:rolleyes:

I assume you didn't view this as an inspiration to work nad allow your children to avoid this terrible fate?
Irony must be really easy when preached through a silver spoon stuffed mouth.

I'm not convinced. Atheists and agnostics are just as capable of believing bullshit as fundementalists are

Look at all the atheists who bought Stalin's bullshit, Mao's bullshit, and Pol Pot's bullshit. Or Mugabe's bullshit.

Look at all the atheists who bought Stalin's bullshit, Mao's bullshit, and Pol Pot's bullshit. Or Mugabe's bullshit.
Stupid people are all religions but it is far easier to convince people of bullshit when you have a nice shiny "faith" wrapper to put it in.

Stupid people are all religions but it is far easier to convince people of bullshit when you have a nice shiny "faith" wrapper to put it in.


Not really. I'd say it is far easier to bullshit people when they haven't been introduced to critical thinking and rationalism and are pretty much scientifically illiterate (as in illiterate about science).

Religion (imo) plays less an important then most people think when it comes to credulity

Stupid people are all religions but it is far easier to convince people of bullshit when you have a nice shiny "faith" wrapper to put it in.

It's easier to convince people of bullshit when you have a nice "Communism is scientific and logical" wrapper to put it in.

It's easier to convince people of bullshit when you have a nice "Communism is scientific and logical" wrapper to put it in.

I have to agree. Though not particuarly with the anti-red slant

there are plenty of bullshit claims around that are made to seem reasonable due to being layered with fake science ("quantum" and "quantum theory" etc seem to be favourites)

I have to agree. Though not particuarly with the anti-red slant

there are plenty of bullshit claims around that are made to seem reasonable due to being layered with fake science ("quantum" and "quantum theory" etc seem to be favourites)

How many people bought the Piltdown Man concept?

How many people bought the Piltdown Man concept?

In that case I think you could argue that it was a success for science and a blow to magical thinking.

I was thinking more along the lines of http://www.thetadnahealing.co.uk/theta/whatisit.php

and thing like scientology

or even things like this (http://www.russandrews.com/category.asp?lookup=0&region=UK&currency=GBP&customer_id=PAA0912082607559FMRGLVOTJSEMBMQV&cat_id=PMAINCABL)



Meh, blabbering, slow work day

The myriad types of pseudosciences that seem to be endemic.


They may not believe they can commune with with a 2000 yr old Jewish zombie and 'accept him' they will gain immortality. But I have met ones who believe that the more you dilute a "medicine" the more potent it becomes (Homeopathy).

You are making a huge assumption if you think atheist = rational

Case in point; I'd like to point out that the atheist whose post you quoted believes in the World Jewish Media Conspiracy, just in case you didn't know.

It's easier to convince people of bullshit when you have a nice "Communism is scientific and logical" wrapper to put it in.
Thanks for your ill informed and IQ draining opinion.

In that case I think you could argue that it was a success for science and a blow to magical thinking.

I was thinking more along the lines of http://www.thetadnahealing.co.uk/theta/whatisit.php

and thing like scientology

or even things like this (http://www.russandrews.com/category.asp?lookup=0&region=UK&currency=GBP&customer_id=PAA0912082607559FMRGLVOTJSEMBMQV&cat_id=PMAINCABL)

Meh, blabbering, slow work day

How is Piltdown a success for science?

Almost everyone bought the idea initially, because it "was scientific".

Case in point; I'd like to point out that the atheist whose post you quoted believes in the World Jewish Media Conspiracy, just in case you didn't know.

Really? I though he was Jewish :confused:


(Though I realise the two things aren't mutually exclusive, just unusual)

How is Piltdown a success for science?

Almost everyone bought the idea initially, because it "was scientific".


And then rejected it when the science swung the other way after put under proper scrutiny.

And then rejected it when the science swung the other way after put under proper scrutiny.

Rather then come up with some ad hoc hypothesis

That took 40 years. During which time it appeared in all its bullshit in textbooks.

Really? I though he was Jewish :confused:


(Though I realise the two things aren't mutually exclusive, just unusual)

What made you think he was Jewish when he was talking about how irrational religious people are? :confused:

We're talking about AP, right?

That took 40 years. During which time it appeared in all its bullshit in textbooks.


Was it printed in textbooks?

splendid

The world would be a more rational and certainly critical-thinking place if everyone were atheists/agnostics.

I don't know. Seems like the world would be a more rational and critically-thinking place if everyone made comments that were on topic.

I am almost tempted to sig that.

However:

When it come to believing in bullshit, no one human sub-group has a monopoly. We are all guilty at one time or another.

Amen. :D

What made you think he was Jewish when he was talking about how irrational religious people are? :confused:

We're talking about AP, right?

Yeah I meant AP.

I dunno, I thought he was culturally if not religiously

That took 40 years. During which time it appeared in all its bullshit in textbooks.
There's the problem with the ill-informed, anti-science, religious nutsos who have for centuries believed in an invisible omnipotent being - they don't understand the nature of science. Science is always analyzing it's conclusions and change them when they are wrong. That's the entire fucking point, come to the best conclusion possible with the evidence at hand and then kick it out if new evidence shows it is a bad hypothesis.

There's the problem with the ill-informed, anti-science, religious nutsos who have for centuries believed in an invisible omnipotent being - they don't understand the nature of science. Science is always analyzing it's conclusions and change them when they are wrong. That's the entire fucking point, come to the best conclusion possible with the evidence at hand and then kick it out if new evidence shows it is a bad hypothesis.

Evidently, that process failed for 40 years. I'm not anti-science - I'm just pointing out that scientists can be just as stupid.

Shall we look into The Rule of 48, or "All Scientists Are Blind"?

That took 40 years. During which time it appeared in all its bullshit in textbooks.

Because the scientists weren't allowed to study anything but casts. And it was suspected to not be what it was claimed to be almost from the beginning.

there are plenty of bullshit claims around that are made to seem reasonable due to being layered with fake science ("quantum" and "quantum theory" etc seem to be favourites)
Quantum theory isn't layered with fake science. It's just damn near impossible to understand if you haven't had enough background.

There's the problem with the ill-informed, anti-science, religious nutsos who have for centuries believed in an invisible omnipotent being - they don't understand the nature of science. Science is always analyzing it's conclusions and change them when they are wrong. That's the entire fucking point, come to the best conclusion possible with the evidence at hand and then kick it out if new evidence shows it is a bad hypothesis.

http://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/PlaguesandPeople/lecture19.html

Scientists and professors were evidently completely blind (or unable to count) for years:

It took a student to point out the error. Until then, the incorrect count was held up as the complete truth.

Originally, textbooks, complete with pictures, said:

"Usually the number of chromosomes is constant in a given species, although it may vary between different species even of the same genus. In man the chromosome number is forty-eight...." [Human Genetics and its Social Import, by S. J. Holmes (1936), pp. 8. The illustration above appears on p. 9.]

"... the number of chromosomes is in general constant for any given species. Thus in each cell of a human being there are 48 chromosomes (24 pairs)...." [Principles of Heredity, 3rd. ed., by Laurence R. Snyder (1946), p. 26.]

Over 20 years later:

Exploring Biology: The Science of Living Things, 5th ed., by Ella Thea Smith (1959), p. 503. An additional note on this page reads: "Improved methods of counting chromosomes seem to indicate that the diploid number in man may be 46 rather than 48."

Gee, what improvements would that be? Actually looking?

Here's a first hand account from biologist, Maj Hultén, who was then an undergraduate student in Stockholm:

I was walking in the culvert linking the Institute to the Animal House, carrying my mouse cages. It was late at night the day before Christmas Eve, on December 23, 1955, when I suddenly heard the clapping (and echoing) sound of clogs behind me, and a heavy hand landed on my left shoulder. I got mighty afraid, but recognizing it to be the diminutive Chinese visiting scientist, Joe-Hin Tjio, I wondered what on earth this was all about. "I can see that you are equally kind to everybody around here. Would you like to come to my room? I have got something interesting to show you", he stuttered. "Yes, please", I found myself answering.

Peering down the microscope, situated on the bench to the right in Tjio's office cum lab, I was amazed to see the human chromosomes well spread out and separated from each other, and when Tjio demanded: "Count", I did so. My first comment was "You have lost two", but then in metaphase after metaphase there could be no doubt, the chromosome number was 46. It was a cliché to say that I can remember it as if it was yesterday, the stinging smell of the acetic orcein (making Tjio's broad thumbs bright red also when squashing the cells) blending together with that of Turkish coffee made by Tjio.

from "Numbers, bands and recombination of human chromosomes: Historical anecdotes from a Swedish student," by M. A. Hultén, in Cytogenetic and Genome Research 96: 14-19 (2002), pp. 15-16.

Oddly enough, I can't find any reference to any "Rule of 48" prior to Crichton.

Edit: Yep, he invented the "Rule of 48". Now to check up on those books offered to see if they actually exist.

Oddly enough, I can't find any reference to any "Rule of 48" prior to Crichton.

Edit: Yep, he invented the "Rule of 48". Now to check up on those books offered to see if they actually exist.

Oddly, the event took place. Crichton just gave it a name.

Follow the link I gave you, oh blind one.

Book one checks out. The quote is real.

Oddly, the event took place. Crichton just gave it a name.

Follow the link I gave you, oh blind one.

I did. I've seen too many errors in college lessons to blindly trust that they are telling the whole story.

I'm not saying I "object" to those who have plenty of money, and I was friends with a few of those guys. The point is that some have pretty much every opportunity to succeed, some might get a good break every now and then, and some won't even get off the ground, and yet they all get judged by the same formula: more money = more successful.
At Adelaide University students paying $100 000 a year for law, dentistry etc can have lower marks than others and still get in to the course simply because they're handing over a fat cheque. That's an extreme example, but still relevant for this discussion.

Provided one subscribes to, and is concerned by, such materialistic qualifications of success. You clearly, lacking any emotional or intellectual depth, do so wholeheartedly.

Book one checks out. The quote is real.

Shock! An RO link is valid!:)

Provided one subscribes to, and is concerned by, such materialistic qualifications of success. You clearly, lacking any emotional or intellectual depth, do so wholeheartedly.

So your saying that society at large doesn't pass any judgement whatsoever based on what people earn? Tabloid magazines swoon over the rich and famous while the poor are mentioned when someone needs to be blamed for something. I can't help that you decide to deliberatly come to the wrong conclusion when I post something.

And besides, are you saying that hard work automatically equals success? You obviously believe that the kid from the council estate has the same chance of getting a well paid job as the kid from the country estate, when a good look out the window would clearly show that that isn't the case. If you do, I guess we're coming from very different backgrounds.

BTW I'm doing a Bachelor of Arts, and I'm familar with all of the pretentious language, so just drop it for both our sakes ok?

So your saying that society at large doesn't pass any judgement whatsoever based on what people earn? Tabloid magazines swoon over the rich and famous while the poor are mentioned when someone needs to be blamed for something. I can't help that you decide to deliberatly come to the wrong conclusion when I post something.

And besides, are you saying that hard work automatically equals success? You obviously believe that the kid from the council estate has the same chance of getting a well paid job as the kid from the country estate, when a good look out the window would clearly show that that isn't the case. If you do, I guess we're coming from very different backgrounds.

BTW I'm doing a Bachelor of Arts, and I'm familar with all of the pretentious language, so just drop it for both our sakes ok?

Wow, a real BA? Well, that's me told isn't it.:rolleyes:

Once more, however, you place celebrity, affluence and fame upon a pedastal because the Tabloid press does so. How very intelligent. I am not suggesting that society does not pass judgement upon how much one earns; I suggest that such a judgement is only of supreme importance if one only seeks money and the respect of a society in which Jade Goody is an icon.

Moreover, the poor old working classes are not blamed anywhere as much as would suit you. The chav underclass is rightly held to account for their utter obnoxiousness and depravity, just as public school cocaine takers are criticised for their abuse of their privelige.

Ohh I'm gonna go a little with you and a little with Pez on this one.

To say that the poor are not at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to better their circumstances is plainly not true. But to say that the rich battle to keep the poor down is also a false hood.

Life is not fair, nobody can help the circumstances of their birth, but we can all choose to fight for what we want and need or just give up.

Me I'll always be on the side of the fighter.

Evidently, that process failed for 40 years.
No, wrong. The process is a fact. Did it change? Yes. The process succeeded. Unlike religion you can't take a theory and declare it right immediately and forever. What do you expect? It to be immediately changed a second after the first hypothesis was conceived? Why have a scientific method if "changing after too long" is a "failure" for the system? Let's just call it the Church of Science and declare every first hypothesis as fact and never change it because if we do change it, the process "failed."

Shall we look into The Rule of 48, or "All Scientists Are Blind"?
How about Rule #1 - "Ignorant people don't get to make rules."

Quantum theory isn't layered with fake science. It's just damn near impossible to understand if you haven't had enough background.

I think you misunderstand me (or I wasn't being clear).

I wasn't saying quatum theory is layered by fake science. But that it is used and twisted out of shape by people presenting fake science.

Wow, a real BA? Well, that's me told isn't it.:rolleyes:

Once more, however, you place celebrity, affluence and fame upon a pedastal because the Tabloid press does so. How very intelligent. I am not suggesting that society does not pass judgement upon how much one earns; I suggest that such a judgement is only of supreme importance if one only seeks money and the respect of a society in which Jade Goody is an icon.

Moreover, the poor old working classes are not blamed anywhere as much as would suit you. The chav underclass is rightly held to account for their utter obnoxiousness and depravity, just as public school cocaine takers are criticised for their abuse of their privelige.

I'm from Australia, and from what I've heard, Jane Goody is some contestant on Big Brother, a show that I hate, who made racist remarks, something that I hate, and who you have decided I idolise, which I hate the most. I also hate tabloids, for the record. But chololate is good. Sweet, sweet chocolate. :)

George Orwell, with his observations of the totalitarian state in 1984 is the closest thing I come to Big Brother (BTW its a very good book, I think you'll agree).

Not everyone in the underclass is a chav. I live across the street from council estate housing and while some of them are rough, and I avoid them, there are also plently who simply work hard at some menial job and get nowhere, and the local school has to provide free breakfast because some of their kids are so poor. You should one day ask your maid about her upbringing and see how it compares. ;)

I also recall your original reply, "Boo Fucking hoo", which pretty much summed up your attitude to social barriers.

I await your reply... someday.