Quote from 6ame

I know you can't judge someone as trustworthy just because of how they were born, I'll leave that idiocy to the women, but the point I'm trying to make is, because of the PC brigade with their quotas, female-only shortlists, affirmative action, or the amusingly titled "equal rights act", does this mean that since the white heterosexual man is the only person who will not gain employment through political correctness, that he is the most trustworthy when it comes to performing the job?

I've never took anything seriously my whole life, but with a child on the way, I'm starting to think of a lot of different things, and this is one of them, if I had the choice of a doctor/dentist for my child, and I had to choose between a woman, a homosexual, an Indian, a black man and a white straight man, I would go for the white straight man every single time, because I know he's the only one who must have earned his position on merit, all the others could be filling quotas. Does this make me some sort of bigot, or maybe someone who is clued up?

I think the whole idea of quotas and such are more damaging to the people they are trying to help, do you think I'm right?

If I had a daughter, I would like her to have a female doctor to give her someone to look up to other than her mother, to show that women can get good jobs, but I wouldn't want to put her health at risk by putting her in the hands of a doctor who hasn't earned their position on merit.

Thoughts please.

You're right, the only group that seems to be left out of quotas these days are white males. However, there is something you should know about quotas: people who are accepted due to quotas have to fulfill standard requirements as applicants for the job. In other words, if they cannot pass the tests, they don't get hired. Granted, with a quota system, as you have observed, sometimes a white male might not get the job who is, in fact, more highly qualified. It does happen. But that doesn't mean that every white male is more qualified for a position than a person who gets their job due to a quota.

The bottom line is, if you really want to know just how qualified your doctor is, take a good long look at their credentials. What degrees do they have? Where did they work to fulfill their internships? Did they graduate with honors? What schools did they attend? And you can probably also do a little bit deeper checking if you really want to...have they had any mal-practice suits? How many? What kinds? It's always a good idea to know the history of the person who is caring for you medically (or psychologically).

And you really can't assume that every female or minority was hired due to a quota. It happens less often than you might imagine. But you can be sure that when it comes to doctors, everyone has to pass the same exams.

Quote from 6ame

I know you can't judge someone as trustworthy just because of how they were born, I'll leave that idiocy to the women, but the point I'm trying to make is, because of the PC brigade with their quotas, female-only shortlists, affirmative action, or the amusingly titled "equal rights act", does this mean that since the white heterosexual man is the only person who will not gain employment through political correctness, that he is the most trustworthy when it comes to performing the job?

Yes.

Quote from 6ame

I've never took anything seriously my whole life, but with a child on the way, I'm starting to think of a lot of different things, and this is one of them, if I had the choice of a doctor/dentist for my child, and I had to choose between a woman, a homosexual, an Indian, a black man and a white straight man, I would go for the white straight man every single time, because I know he's the only one who must have earned his position on merit, all the others could be filling quotas. Does this make me some sort of bigot, or maybe someone who is clued up?

Someone who is clued up.

Quote from 6ame

I think the whole idea of quotas and such are more damaging to the people they are trying to help, do you think I'm right?

No, because most people in society are NOT clued up, and hence don't realise this.

Quote from TERA

You're right, the only group that seems to be left out of quotas these days are white males. However, there is something you should know about quotas: people who are accepted due to quotas have to fulfill standard requirements as applicants for the job.

It's worth noting, however, that in the Police Force and Forces, for example, although there aren't quotas, entry standards are lowered for women, in terms of the physical. Norway recently passed a law that stated that at least 40% of big company Directors must be female; apparently, many companies had to seriously rush, to fulfil these requirements before the deadline. Does make me wonder as to whether or not all women DID fulfil standard requirements; perhaps "standard requirements" may have to be met, but sometimes conveniently get lowered.

Quote from 6ame

I know you can't judge someone as trustworthy just because of how they were born, I'll leave that idiocy to the women, but the point I'm trying to make is, because of the PC brigade with their quotas, female-only shortlists, affirmative action, or the amusingly titled "equal rights act", does this mean that since the white heterosexual man is the only person who will not gain employment through political correctness, that he is the most trustworthy when it comes to performing the job?

I've never took anything seriously my whole life, but with a child on the way, I'm starting to think of a lot of different things, and this is one of them, if I had the choice of a doctor/dentist for my child, and I had to choose between a woman, a homosexual, an Indian, a black man and a white straight man, I would go for the white straight man every single time, because I know he's the only one who must have earned his position on merit, all the others could be filling quotas. Does this make me some sort of bigot, or maybe someone who is clued up?

I think the whole idea of quotas and such are more damaging to the people they are trying to help, do you think I'm right?

If I had a daughter, I would like her to have a female doctor to give her someone to look up to other than her mother, to show that women can get good jobs, but I wouldn't want to put her health at risk by putting her in the hands of a doctor who hasn't earned their position on merit.

Thoughts please.

Interesting question, I tend to agree. Of course this discussion never happens in the MSM, too close to politically incorrect "racism"

TERA says:

However, there is something you should know about quotas: people who are accepted due to quotas have to fulfill standard requirements as applicants for the job. In other words, if they cannot pass the tests, they don't get hired. Granted, with a quota system, as you have observed, sometimes a white male might not get the job who is, in fact, more highly qualified. It does happen. But that doesn't mean that every white male is more qualified for a position than a person who gets their job due to a quota.

Sorry TERA. Two things:

An observation was made that a doubt must exist. It is a reasonable doubt. You give an assertion based on supposition without any evidence. It does nothing to molify the doubt.

Secondly, in the last but one line you talk of 'every white male'. It only has to be one per job, not every white male applicant. That point therefore is not relevant.

Quote from Percy

TERA says:


Sorry TERA. Two things:

An observation was made that a doubt must exist. It is a reasonable doubt. You give an assertion based on supposition without any evidence. It does nothing to molify the doubt.

Secondly, in the last but one line you talk of 'every white male'. It only has to be one per job, not every white male applicant. That point therefore is not relevant.

Note: I acknowledged that there is reason to doubt. I also said there is reason to research (know the history) of the person you entrust your care to.

Quote from 6ame

I know you can't judge someone as trustworthy just because of how they were born, I'll leave that idiocy to the women, but the point I'm trying to make is, because of the PC brigade with their quotas, female-only shortlists, affirmative action, or the amusingly titled "equal rights act", does this mean that since the white heterosexual man is the only person who will not gain employment through political correctness, that he is the most trustworthy when it comes to performing the job?

I've never took anything seriously my whole life, but with a child on the way, I'm starting to think of a lot of different things, and this is one of them, if I had the choice of a doctor/dentist for my child, and I had to choose between a woman, a homosexual, an Indian, a black man and a white straight man, I would go for the white straight man every single time, because I know he's the only one who must have earned his position on merit, all the others could be filling quotas. Does this make me some sort of bigot, or maybe someone who is clued up?

I think the whole idea of quotas and such are more damaging to the people they are trying to help, do you think I'm right?

If I had a daughter, I would like her to have a female doctor to give her someone to look up to other than her mother, to show that women can get good jobs, but I wouldn't want to put her health at risk by putting her in the hands of a doctor who hasn't earned their position on merit.

Thoughts please.

i think your right and yes,,you do make sense

Quote from 6ame

I know you can't judge someone as trustworthy just because of how they were born, I'll leave that idiocy to the women, but the point I'm trying to make is, because of the PC brigade with their quotas, female-only shortlists, affirmative action, or the amusingly titled "equal rights act", does this mean that since the white heterosexual man is the only person who will not gain employment through political correctness, that he is the most trustworthy when it comes to performing the job?

I've never took anything seriously my whole life, but with a child on the way, I'm starting to think of a lot of different things, and this is one of them, if I had the choice of a doctor/dentist for my child, and I had to choose between a woman, a homosexual, an Indian, a black man and a white straight man, I would go for the white straight man every single time, because I know he's the only one who must have earned his position on merit, all the others could be filling quotas. Does this make me some sort of bigot, or maybe someone who is clued up?

I think the whole idea of quotas and such are more damaging to the people they are trying to help, do you think I'm right?

If I had a daughter, I would like her to have a female doctor to give her someone to look up to other than her mother, to show that women can get good jobs, but I wouldn't want to put her health at risk by putting her in the hands of a doctor who hasn't earned their position on merit.

Thoughts please.

I'm not sure about white men as opposed to other men, but "trustworthy" is one of those qualities that only applies to men. Honor, trust, honesty, truth, and related qualities never have been applicable to females. The very concepts just don't apply, and the females have never tried to understand them.

As for various races, there have been trustworthy men, honorable men of all races.

Blessings

Bob

As for various races, there have been trustworthy men, honorable men of all races.

Bob

Spot on Bob mate...

On this forum we have many different races,religions and none. And we have more in common than divides.
Unity is strength. And how much stronger when we pronounce the truth...

Quote from bobx23456

I'm not sure about white men as opposed to other men, but "trustworthy" is one of those qualities that only applies to men. Honor, trust, honesty, truth, and related qualities never have been applicable to females. The very concepts just don't apply, and the females have never tried to understand them.

Strong comment there Bob. America sounds like a pretty out there country. I wouldn't dare make a statement like that in NZ.

Quote from julie

Strong comment there Bob. America sounds like a pretty out there country. I wouldn't dare make a statement like that in NZ.

Sorry Julie, but what Bob is saying was common belief for most of human history. It's only in the last couple of centuries (in the affluent West) that men could afford to elevate the status of women to something like 'equality'

- A child also cannot be made a witness in a court of law, nor a woman . . . nor a cheat. . . . These persons might give false evidence. A child would speak falsely from ignorance, a woman from want of veracity, an imposter from habitual depravity. - Hindu Scripture

Quote from bachelor tom

Originally Posted by julie
Strong comment there Bob. America sounds like a pretty out there country. I wouldn't dare make a statement like that in NZ.

Sorry Julie, but what Bob is saying was common belief for most of human history. It's only in the last couple of centuries (in the affluent West) that men could afford to elevate the status of women to something like 'equality'

- A child also cannot be made a witness in a court of law, nor a woman . . . nor a cheat. . . . These persons might give false evidence. A child would speak falsely from ignorance, a woman from want of veracity, an imposter from habitual depravity. - Hindu Scripture

Interesting Hindu scripture. The concepts of honor and trustworthiness have been men's concepts throughout history and across all cultures. They have never been applied to females, and as far as I know still aren't. The concepts just don't apply.


Blessings

Bob

Quote from bobx23456

Interesting Hindu scripture. The concepts of honor and trustworthiness have been men's concepts throughout history and across all cultures. They have never been applied to females, and as far as I know still aren't. The concepts just don't apply.


Blessings

Bob

I can understand that in past history only men were considered trustworthy. But then that was there for a reason by the looks of it.

It is funny in a way. What if a female complained about a violent situation? Was she sent home as a liar, no questions asked?

I don't like to think history. I have enough older feminists throwing the history in my face. I am not interested in history. I don't live in the past; I live in the present.

I am not going to go for history for either side. It is irrelevant to today.

Quote from julie

I can understand that in past history only men were considered trustworthy. But then that was there for a reason by the looks of it.

It is funny in a way. What if a female complained about a violent situation? Was she sent home as a liar, no questions asked?

I don't like to think history. I have enough older feminists throwing the history in my face. I am not interested in history. I don't live in the past; I live in the present.

I am not going to go for history for either side. It is irrelevant to today.

The present is always about history in some way.

Quote from FFFF

The present is always about history in some way.

I know this.

But you also know that history is a tool feminism uses to justify itself.

I do not have enough knowledge of history to fight over it.

But that does not mean I don't have a right to speak up about the injustices today.