Mum and children told to leave playgroup because they were not 'multicultural' .

First topic message reminder :

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/family-relationships/mum-told-to-leave-playgroup-for-not-being-multicultural/ar-BBzdVdQ?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=spartandhp#image=1

This happened in Australia. I put it in 'weird news' because its so..... weird.
Anyone being barred from taking their children to play in a playgroup because they are not multicultural enough is as discriminating as barring someone because they are foreign born surely.


"According to Ms Coverdale, after explaining to one of the centre’s staff that she was a fourth-generation Australian, the staff member replied: “I’m sorry, you can’t come here. It’s for multicultural families and people who speak languages other than English at home.”

It all sounds more like philosophy to me.

Re the UK at least, the State can provide the opportunities for equality by providing education for all, which they do. It's then up to the individual to use that opportunity or not.

They can provide medical care for all, regardless of whether they can pay for it or not, and they do that via the NHS.

They can rid the field of employment of prejudice, which they do try to do - it's not their fault if some people break the law.

There are other examples I'm sure.

What they can't do is ensure that everyone earns the same money - that depends on the financial value of someone to a company, and that's going to vary. Quill is not taking into account risk-taking, effort, and ambition.

Thorin wrote:More unfounded accusations and falsehoods by Quill to views made by others.

Anyway, as he seems to fail to understand, I thought I would post this [youtube of Sam Harris speech] for others to watch.

First, note that you have changed the subject, from equality to morality.  So, we need to return to our discussion about equality another time.

Sam Harris is a rather easy-language pseudo-philosopher who is something of a demagogue in his own right.  He is wont to take certain moral precepts away from others, so he begins by denying morality.  Yes, when he says moral questions are factual questions, he is really saying there are no moral questions.

He uses the consequentialist argument quite adeptly.  He says that because factual events and matters have consequences, that is proof that they are essentially factual in nature, not moral.  Even values are fact for him, but only arbitrarily.  He ‘factualizes’ the values, and then says behold, these are fact.  When indeed, values are not facts, but urgencies within us.  They are nevertheless, quite real.

His example about rocks is apt: he switches the concern about morals to concern about the rock.  Isolating the purely metaphysical aspect (ie, the 'urgency'), apart from the factual aspect, is something Harris doesn’t seem to manage well.  The subject becomes the rock, and he loses sight of the ‘urgency’ aspect of choice.

Harris example about religion is correct.  But that is because religion incorporates stories of fact, which it claims to be truth, but we know they cannot be true.  Religion we know to be metaphysical.

In the final analysis, Harris confuses the inevitability of values going with facts, with saying values are facts.  He puts that in motion by saying that facts have consequences, and that because there are consequences, values are facts.  What he is saying is that because they go together, they are together…or, that is, they are the same.

Harris can’t extrapolate the value from the factual setting.  He is an empiricist and in his empirical world, he misinterprets consequences for values.  But, while he denies, he can’t quite shake the notion that someone made the moral decision for those consequences, given the state of facts.

He doesn’t improve his lot by saying our knowledge is ever-expanding, and it will ‘ultimately prove out to be a factual determination anyway’.  He’s half right; our knowledge is expanding, but that doesn’t alter the fact that someone has to make the decision—satisfy the urgency within us.

Abortion is an example.  Much of the question of abortion depends upon our assumption as to what, and when, is life.  Conservatives allege that life begins at conception, while others say life is at birth, or the 2nd or 3rd trimester.  We may find that life occurs at one spot or another, but that still won’t alter the fact that someone must make a moral determination one way or the other…satisfy the urgency.  Morals are separate from the facts in which they occur.

So morality is not factual.  And if there is such a thing as morality, the world does not belong to Sam Harris to determine all moral questions for us.

I never changed the subject for you.

I posted this for others and not you as stated, as you would not understand.

So you just wasted a long post

Thorin wrote:I never changed the subject for you.

I posted this for others and not you as stated, as you would not understand.

So you just wasted a long post

It's not wasted. I joined right it, as you see.

You still owe me on the equality issue.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:I never changed the subject for you.

I posted this for others and not you as stated, as you would not understand.

So you just wasted a long post

It's not wasted.  I joined right it, as you see.  

You still owe me on the equality issue.

Really?

I made countless points, which you ignored.

You are another that thinks you can dictate the debate.

Interesting post you made, but it was formed from assumptions only on your part

As to equality under the law, the points have been made.

It is you that wanted to misdirect off the actual racial discrimination

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not wasted.  I joined right it, as you see.  

You still owe me on the equality issue.

Really?

I made countless points, which you ignored.

You are another that thinks you can dictate the debate.

Interesting post you made, but it was formed from assumptions only on your part

As to equality under the law, the points have been made.

It is you that wanted to misdirect off the actual racial discrimination

You never even addressed the central question.  You got off on some metaphysical place of "neutral learning" or something or other. It sounded like some Zen center.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Really?

I made countless points, which you ignored.

You are another that thinks you can dictate the debate.

Interesting post you made, but it was formed from assumptions only on your part

As to equality under the law, the points have been made.

It is you that wanted to misdirect off the actual racial discrimination

You never even addressed the central question.  You got off on some metaphysical place of "learning" or something or other.

The central question was racial discrimination, which you misdirected off.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You never even addressed the central question.  You got off on some metaphysical place of "learning" or something or other.

The central question was racial discrimination, which you misdirected off.

You don't think discrimination has anything to do with equality? Novel theory, is that from your Zen center?

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

The central question was racial discrimination, which you misdirected off.

You don't think discrimination has anything to do with equality?  Novel theory, is that from your Zen center?

Where did I not say it did not have something to do with equality, but we are talking about equality under the law.

Are you saying we should not have equality under the law and to privilege people as you suggested earlier?

WE have no need to debate equality, as we have in practice equality laws.

So like I said, you attempted to misdirect and try out views you burrowed off other people you have read.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

That may be so... in a different place and different time...

Here we have lefties who are supposedly pro 'equality/diversity/multiculturalism' etc and anti 'discrimination/racism' etc...

Who think it is right to go against all these core beliefs of theirs, when it is against whites who speak English...!

Tommy, that is the perspective you get when you don't understand proportional equality.  You keep holding to a theory of distributive equality, where the presumption is that all people start the race equally.  Where were you when that wasn't the case?  Why weren't you so outspoken in the cause of equality when the disenfranchised were getting screwed?

A bit hypocritical of you to suddenly take an interest now that it goes against your race or class, wouldn't you say?

Well said, Q. Your usual style of posting shows you have insight, hindsight, foresight, oversight ... the lot.
20/20, panoramic vision. The whole package!

The way to approach any argument is to consider ALL aspects of it, in its totality. Think of the case as a book ... always start from chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 1. So many people on forums  just start from the middle page and pretend that is where history started, deliberately ignoring whatever happened prior to that page. Risible!  



A case can be made that some kids  from extreme backgrounds ( material / moral / spiritual  deprivation) need to be  briefly rehabilitated in a specially designed environment   ... with a view to placing them in mainstream nursery groups asap. But political mischief makers would descend and make a meal of it.  In fact some  people who have no intention of enrolling their kids in these special types of playgroups (even if they were accepted - or maybe they don't even have kids at all) would ring up and say they want to enrol their 'kids' - just to see if they will be accepted.

So on the whole it's best that all children of all backgrounds are allowed into groups like this. If only to prevent  stirrers with agendas making a meal of things.

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy, that is the perspective you get when you don't understand proportional equality.  You keep holding to a theory of distributive equality, where the presumption is that all people start the race equally.  Where were you when that wasn't the case?  Why weren't you so outspoken in the cause of equality when the disenfranchised were getting screwed?

A bit hypocritical of you to suddenly take an interest now that it goes against your race or class, wouldn't you say?

Well said, Q. Your usual style of posting shows you have insight, hindsight, foresight, oversight ... the lot.
20/20, panoramic vision. The whole package!

Oh dear...!


Quill seems to be saying that there are different categories/levels of 'equal'... while at the same time saying that we are all 'equal'...


George Orwell — 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

Well said, Q. Your usual style of posting shows you have insight, hindsight, foresight, oversight ... the lot.
20/20, panoramic vision. The whole package!

Oh dear...!


Quill seems to be saying that there are different categories/levels of 'equal'... while at the same time saying that we are all 'equal'...


George Orwell — 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

You love to play chicanes with words. Your double-speak cuts no ice. Put it away.
What Quill accused you of here,  is what you always do. You try to win arguments by PRETENDING that history starts from the middle pages of a history book, instead of page 1 (using my previous analogy). You also like to turn definitions on their head and give them the opposite meaning to their real meaning, to create confusion and buy you time, while you think of something new to say.

Some groups are permanently playing catch-up, in order that they can be productive members of society, but some people like you use sly disingenious arguments to keep them down. Fortunately there are people like Quill who can see straight through your slippery style. Goodnight.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

Well said, Q. Your usual style of posting shows you have insight, hindsight, foresight, oversight ... the lot.
20/20, panoramic vision. The whole package!

Oh dear...!

Quill seems to be saying that there are different categories/levels of 'equal'... while at the same time saying that we are all 'equal'...

As a matter of fact, I am saying there are inequalities...isn't that what you mean by "different categories/levels of 'equal' tommy?"  There are inequalities everywhere, and it starts with the privileges we give to wealthy, whites in societies like the US and UK.

Surely, I needn't recite to you tommy, that the US was born in slavery.  It then moved to peonage, to Jim Crow laws, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the dog whistle racism we have today.  You didn't mean to say that amid that sort of unfair disenfranchisement, you are somehow not privileged, did you?

You've had every advantage give to white folks, and there are some who cannot put a roof over their heads or meals in the mouths of their children.  Because they can't get a job, because they are black or Muslim.  There are some who, in the US, argue that we shouldn't correct that status before starting the race.  Shame on them!  But I know you wouldn't take unfair advantage of others like that, would you tommy?

Seems Jules hits the nail on the head.  She not only gets the meaning of history in racial affairs, and progress, from abject slavery to just plain old being mean, but she gets the theory of proportional equality.  Tommy, don't talk to me about inequality until you have walked the walk.

Tommy Monk just has to prove what a clueless (and obviously childless --  despite his regular yet quite transparent lies to the contrary..) little fantasist retard he really is....

As demonstrated by his constant reference to "lefties" and "regressives" throughout his posts, without even knowing the people involved..    And his deliberate malopropisms !

And to think Tommy's shithead Englische 'patriot' support crew on here keep on calling me a "liar" and a "troll" --  while constantly defending their own trolling and lies !        

Jules wrote:The way to approach any argument is to consider ALL aspects of it, in its totality. Think of the case as a book ... always start from chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 1. So many people on forums  just start from the middle page and pretend that is where history started, deliberately ignoring whatever happened prior to that page. Risible!  



A case can be made that some kids  from extreme backgrounds ( material / moral / spiritual  deprivation) need to be  briefly rehabilitated in a specially designed environment   ... with a view to placing them in mainstream nursery groups asap. But political mischief makers would descend and make a meal of it.  In fact some  people who have no intention of enrolling their kids in these special types of playgroups (even if they were accepted - or maybe they don't even have kids at all) would ring up and say they want to enrol their 'kids' - just to see if they will be accepted.

So on the whole it's best that all children of all backgrounds are allowed into groups like this. If only to prevent  stirrers with agendas making a meal of things.

So the best way to approach this, is by you inventing nothing comparable to the case here?

But that is not the aspect of this nursery group.
Its neither for people from extreme backgrounds or for rehabilitation
What is even worse with your argument and is blatantly racial as well. Is that some white Aussie children do not come from extreme backgrounds that need rehabilitation.
You are making a poor excuse for racial discrimination towards white children./
Such places should be inclusive, no matter what racial group people come from.
Even worse you seem to be accusing the mother here, who has no issue at all with ethnic groups, as many Aussie's do not, being as its already a Multicultural society.

Sorry, Jules, but that was the worst defense for racism I have heard to date

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk just has to prove what a clueless (and obviously childless --  despite his regular yet quite transparent lies to the contrary..) little fantasist retard he really is....

As demonstrated by his constant reference to "lefties" and "regressives" throughout his posts, without even knowing the people involved..    And his deliberate malopropisms !

And to think Tommy's shithead Englische 'patriot' support crew on here keep on calling me a "liar" and a "troll" --  while constantly defending their own trolling and lies !        

Totally off topic. Any intelligent comments to make?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Oh dear...!

Quill seems to be saying that there are different categories/levels of 'equal'... while at the same time saying that we are all 'equal'...

As a matter of fact, I am saying there are inequalities...isn't that what you mean by "different categories/levels of 'equal' tommy?"  There are inequalities everywhere, and it starts with the privileges we give to wealthy, whites in societies like the US and UK.

Surely, I needn't recite to you tommy, that the US was born in slavery.  It then moved to peonage, to Jim Crow laws, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the dog whistle racism we have today.  You didn't mean to say that amid that sort of unfair disenfranchisement, you are somehow not privileged, did you?

You've had every advantage give to white folks, and there are some who cannot put a roof over their heads or meals in the mouths of their children.  Because they can't get a job, because they are black or Muslim.  There are some who, in the US, argue that we shouldn't correct that status before starting the race.  Shame on them!  But I know you wouldn't take unfair advantage of others like that, would you tommy?

Seems Jules hits the nail on the head.  She not only gets the meaning of history in racial affairs, and progress, from abject slavery to just plain old being mean, but she gets the theory of proportional equality.  Tommy, don't talk to me about inequality until you have walked the walk.

In the UK it's against the law to not give a job to someone because they're black or Muslim. What more do you want the Government to do? They can only make things equal by passing laws to prevent discrimination.

They can help to give underprivileged people a boost from the beginning. By the time you're seeking a job, so much is set in stone -- the government should be striving to ensure that everyone has the opportunities available to the middle class.

Ben Reilly wrote:They can help to give underprivileged people a boost from the beginning. By the time you're seeking a job, so much is set in stone -- the government should be striving to ensure that everyone has the opportunities available to the middle class.

All my brothers, sisters and myself came from poverty?
We were underprivileged and had no boost from the beginnings.
My parents worked hard to raise us and that we should study and work hard to succeed.

How did we all succeed without outside help?

Ben Reilly wrote:They can help to give underprivileged people a boost from the beginning. By the time you're seeking a job, so much is set in stone -- the government should be striving to ensure that everyone has the opportunities available to the middle class.

On march 27 Trump quietly signed away some women's rights in the workplace, setting them back decades. He has turned the clock back on the strenuous efforts women made to catch up with men, but no one commented cos everyone was distracted by the other awful things going on in his administration, ATT.

Ben Reilly wrote:They can help to give underprivileged people a boost from the beginning. By the time you're seeking a job, so much is set in stone -- the government should be striving to ensure that everyone has the opportunities available to the middle class.

They provide education for all. Of course some people can afford to send their children to a "better" school, but most can't - including most "middle class" white people.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:The way to approach any argument is to consider ALL aspects of it, in its totality. Think of the case as a book ... always start from chapter 1, page 1, paragraph 1. So many people on forums  just start from the middle page and pretend that is where history started, deliberately ignoring whatever happened prior to that page. Risible!  



A case can be made that some kids  from extreme backgrounds ( material / moral / spiritual  deprivation) need to be  briefly rehabilitated in a specially designed environment   ... with a view to placing them in mainstream nursery groups asap. But political mischief makers would descend and make a meal of it.  In fact some  people who have no intention of enrolling their kids in these special types of playgroups (even if they were accepted - or maybe they don't even have kids at all) would ring up and say they want to enrol their 'kids' - just to see if they will be accepted.

So on the whole it's best that all children of all backgrounds are allowed into groups like this. If only to prevent  stirrers with agendas making a meal of things.

So the best way to approach this, is by you inventing nothing comparable to the case here?

But that is not the aspect of this nursery group.
Its neither for people from extreme backgrounds or for rehabilitation
What is even worse with your argument and is blatantly racial as well. Is that some white Aussie children do not come from extreme backgrounds that need rehabilitation.
You are making a poor excuse for racial discrimination towards white children./
Such places should be inclusive, no matter what racial group people come from.
Even worse you seem to be accusing the mother here, who has no issue at all with ethnic groups, as many Aussie's do not, being as its already a Multicultural society.

Sorry, Jules, but that was the worst defense for racism I have heard to date

Hi.
Now, I have not read a single thing you have written in this thread, Thorin, so I was not negating anything you said to Quill, neither was I agreeing with anything Quill said to you.

I was specifically commenting on the exchange between Quill and Tommy. Tommy usually makes no allowances for inequalities and unlevel playing fields of yesteryear which still leaves some marginalised groups struggling to catchup and he resents the small gestures extended to them to help them catch up. I'll put the rest in spoilers cos it's somewhat offtopic

Spoiler:

Having worked in the NHS with multicultural adults and children, I know that some of them are VERY poor indeed, especially the bangladeshi and some pakistani families and some black families too (the Indians are usually OK). So it's not too unreasonable to assume it's similar in Oz, even if I was wrong.

Not accusing this mum of anything. Most of my post spoke in very general terms, not specific to this case And I did say that every kid should be allowed into this playgroup.
Have a good day.

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So the best way to approach this, is by you inventing nothing comparable to the case here?

But that is not the aspect of this nursery group.
Its neither for people from extreme backgrounds or for rehabilitation
What is even worse with your argument and is blatantly racial as well. Is that some white Aussie children do not come from extreme backgrounds that need rehabilitation.
You are making a poor excuse for racial discrimination towards white children./
Such places should be inclusive, no matter what racial group people come from.
Even worse you seem to be accusing the mother here, who has no issue at all with ethnic groups, as many Aussie's do not, being as its already a Multicultural society.

Sorry, Jules, but that was the worst defense for racism I have heard to date

Hi.
Now, I have not read a single thing you have written in this thread, Thorin, so I was not negating anything you said to Quill,  neither was I agreeing with anything Quill said to you.

I was specifically commenting  on the exchange between Quill and Tommy.  Tommy usually makes no allowances for inequalities and unlevel playing fields of yesteryear which still leaves some marginalised groups struggling to  catchup and he resents the small gestures extended to them to help them catch up.  I'll put the rest in spoilers cos it's somewhat offtopic

Spoiler:

Having worked in the NHS with multicultural adults and children, I know that some of them are VERY poor indeed, especially the bangladeshi and some pakistani families and some black families too  (the Indians are usually OK). So it's not too unreasonable to assume it's similar in Oz, even if I was wrong.

Not accusing this mum of anything. Most of my post spoke in very general terms, not specific to this case And  I did say that every kid should be allowed into this playgroup.  
Have a good day.

And?
I come from a very poor background.
This did not hinder any of my family from looking to better their lives.
Poverty is not a factor to stop people bettering their lives.
A lack of education is the key factor. Which starts at the earliest ages. Which is key to the development of a child. Now my father grew up during the siege of Malta and left home at 14 to go to Canada for work. He with my mother had 11 children and still took time to teach all of us an ethos to do better for ourselves. He never looked for self pity and knew he and my mother made the choices they did.

Of course schools should cater with different levels learning for all children. That means placing more money into schools, so they all have the same best chances to learn. Including those who have not had the best starts in life. So there is absolutely no reason to make some places of learning exclusive, when they should be inclusive to all. It helps people integrate from all walks of life, understanding cultures, religious etc.

If people have and decide to have children, its their responsibility to raise them and raise them properly. I mean in the past people worked far longer hours and still had time for their children. Now today, people come home and are not proud of what they do and have more interests in reality TV, than spending 5 minutes with their own children. Some think the world owes them a favour and that they should do as little as possible to strive forward in life. To seek to blame, when we can all help ourselves is the biggest failing here. Just because life has dealt some shitty cards to some of us, does not mean that we cannot change our stars. Like I said, some do not have the education from parents at the earliest ages and we should then help them with the best education within all schools, so they can catch up with the rest. I dread to think what would happen, if tomorrow, the internet went down globally, with money gone and the world in chaos. People would not have a clue what to do.

The problem is not poverty, but attitudes and a poor ethos people have. A lack of belief to succeed. Now all jobs should never privilege people because of what school or University they attended, wealth, class etc they have or people they know but on the caliber of the applicant. Sadly this discrimination happens in abundance. Now of course we should always help those in need, including those less well off, but to use poverty as an excuse for why people cannot help themselves is wrong. Where they have access to all education.

Very true Thorin, some want it handed to them on a "plate"

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:




Oh dear...!


Quill seems to be saying that there are different categories/levels of 'equal'... while at the same time saying that we are all 'equal'...


George Orwell — 'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'

You love to play chicanes with words. Your double-speak cuts no ice. Put it away.
What Quill accused you of here,  is what you always do. You try to win arguments by PRETENDING that history starts from the middle pages of a history book, instead of page 1 (using my previous analogy). You also like to turn definitions on their head and give them the opposite meaning to their real meaning, to create confusion and buy you time, while you think of something new to say.

Some groups are permanently playing catch-up, in order that they can be productive members of society, but some people like you use sly disingenious arguments to keep them down. Fortunately there are people like Quill who can see straight through your slippery style. Goodnight.

History does start at page 1... I agree... so what...!?


The rest of your post is just blah blah blah bullshit...!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

Oh dear...!

Quill seems to be saying that there are different categories/levels of 'equal'... while at the same time saying that we are all 'equal'...

As a matter of fact, I am saying there are inequalities...isn't that what you mean by "different categories/levels of 'equal' tommy?"  There are inequalities everywhere, and it starts with the privileges we give to wealthy, whites in societies like the US and UK.

Surely, I needn't recite to you tommy, that the US was born in slavery.  It then moved to peonage, to Jim Crow laws, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the dog whistle racism we have today.  You didn't mean to say that amid that sort of unfair disenfranchisement, you are somehow not privileged, did you?

You've had every advantage give to white folks, and there are some who cannot put a roof over their heads or meals in the mouths of their children.  Because they can't get a job, because they are black or Muslim.  There are some who, in the US, argue that we shouldn't correct that status before starting the race.  Shame on them!  But I know you wouldn't take unfair advantage of others like that, would you tommy?

Seems Jules hits the nail on the head.  She not only gets the meaning of history in racial affairs, and progress, from abject slavery to just plain old being mean, but she gets the theory of proportional equality.  Tommy, don't talk to me about inequality until you have walked the walk.

Wow... I didn't realise that all blacks and Muslims were unemployed in America...!?

And that there weren't any unemployed who weren't black or Muslim...!?



The family in the op are certainly not 'equal' enough...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk just has to prove what a clueless (and obviously childless --  despite his regular yet quite transparent lies to the contrary..) little fantasist retard he really is....

As demonstrated by his constant reference to "lefties" and "regressives" throughout his posts, without even knowing the people involved..    And his deliberate malopropisms !

And to think Tommy's shithead Englische 'patriot' support crew on here keep on calling me a "liar" and a "troll" --  while constantly defending their own trolling and lies !        

Says the troll...

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:

So the best way to approach this, is by you inventing nothing comparable to the case here?

But that is not the aspect of this nursery group.
Its neither for people from extreme backgrounds or for rehabilitation
What is even worse with your argument and is blatantly racial as well. Is that some white Aussie children do not come from extreme backgrounds that need rehabilitation.
You are making a poor excuse for racial discrimination towards white children./
Such places should be inclusive, no matter what racial group people come from.
Even worse you seem to be accusing the mother here, who has no issue at all with ethnic groups, as many Aussie's do not, being as its already a Multicultural society.

Sorry, Jules, but that was the worst defense for racism I have heard to date

Hi.
Now, I have not read a single thing you have written in this thread, Thorin, so I was not negating anything you said to Quill,  neither was I agreeing with anything Quill said to you.

I was specifically commenting  on the exchange between Quill and Tommy.  Tommy usually makes no allowances for inequalities and unlevel playing fields of yesteryear which still leaves some marginalised groups struggling to  catchup and he resents the small gestures extended to them to help them catch up.  I'll put the rest in spoilers cos it's somewhat offtopic

Spoiler:

Having worked in the NHS with multicultural adults and children, I know that some of them are VERY poor indeed, especially the bangladeshi and some pakistani families and some black families too  (the Indians are usually OK). So it's not too unreasonable to assume it's similar in Oz, even if I was wrong.

Not accusing this mum of anything. Most of my post spoke in very general terms, not specific to this case And  I did say that every kid should be allowed into this playgroup.  
Have a good day.

Makes me wonder how so many of these highly skilled, hard working and well needed immigrants can be so poor...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Tommy Monk just has to prove what a clueless (and obviously childless --  despite his regular yet quite transparent lies to the contrary..) little fantasist retard he really is....

As demonstrated by his constant reference to "lefties" and "regressives" throughout his posts, without even knowing the people involved..    And his deliberate malopropisms !

And to think Tommy's shithead Englische 'patriot' support crew on here keep on calling me a "liar" and a "troll" --  while constantly defending their own trolling and lies !        

Says the troll...

Short, snappy and accurate.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:

Hi.
Now, I have not read a single thing you have written in this thread, Thorin, so I was not negating anything you said to Quill,  neither was I agreeing with anything Quill said to you.

I was specifically commenting  on the exchange between Quill and Tommy.  Tommy usually makes no allowances for inequalities and unlevel playing fields of yesteryear which still leaves some marginalised groups struggling to  catchup and he resents the small gestures extended to them to help them catch up.  I'll put the rest in spoilers cos it's somewhat offtopic

Spoiler:

Having worked in the NHS with multicultural adults and children, I know that some of them are VERY poor indeed, especially the bangladeshi and some pakistani families and some black families too  (the Indians are usually OK). So it's not too unreasonable to assume it's similar in Oz, even if I was wrong.

Not accusing this mum of anything. Most of my post spoke in very general terms, not specific to this case And  I did say that every kid should be allowed into this playgroup.  
Have a good day.

And?
I come from a very poor background.
This did not hinder any of my family from looking to better their lives.
Poverty is not a factor to stop people bettering their lives.
A lack of education is the key factor. Which starts at the earliest ages. Which is key to the development of a child. Now my father grew up during the siege of Malta and left home at 14 to go to Canada for work. He with my mother had 11 children and still took time to teach all of us an ethos to do better for ourselves. He never looked for self pity and knew he and my mother made the choices they did.

Of course schools should cater with different levels learning for all children. That means placing more money into schools, so they all have the same best chances to learn. Including those who have not had the best starts in life. So there is absolutely no reason to make some places of learning exclusive, when they should be inclusive to all. It helps people integrate from all walks of life, understanding cultures, religious etc.

If people have and decide to have children, its their responsibility to raise them and raise them properly. I mean in the past people worked far longer hours and still had time for their children. Now today, people come home and are not proud of what they do and have more interests in reality TV, than spending 5 minutes with their own children. Some think the world owes them a favour and that they should do as little as possible to strive forward in life. To seek to blame, when we can all help ourselves is the biggest failing here. Just because life has dealt some shitty cards to some of us, does not mean that we cannot change our stars. Like I said, some do not have the education from parents at the earliest ages and we should then help them with the best education within all schools, so they can catch up with the rest. I dread to think what would happen, if tomorrow, the internet went down globally, with money gone and the world in chaos. People would not have a clue what to do.

The problem is not poverty, but attitudes and a poor ethos people have. A lack of belief to succeed. Now all jobs should never privilege people because of what school or University they attended, wealth, class etc they have or people they know but on the caliber of the applicant. Sadly this discrimination happens in abundance. Now of course we should always help those in need, including those less well off, but to use poverty as an excuse for why people cannot help themselves is wrong. Where they have access to all education.

Getting the debate back on track

@Thanks nicko

Now Morgan Freeman understands how to tackle racism in the US, exactly as I have been saying.

I'm sure that whatever Morgan Freeman says in the vid is true - he is a wise man. But no, it does not "get the debate back on track" at all,  cos the OP is neither about America,  nor about poverty.

Jules wrote:I'm sure that whatever Morgan Freeman says in the vid is true - he is a wise man. But no, it does not "get the debate back on track" at all,  cos the OP is neither about America,  nor about poverty.

Quill made it that way Jules, and then you went off this also.

So lets go back to the article then.

It was blatant racial discrimination and all racism should be condemned.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As a matter of fact, I am saying there are inequalities...isn't that what you mean by "different categories/levels of 'equal' tommy?"  There are inequalities everywhere, and it starts with the privileges we give to wealthy, whites in societies like the US and UK.

Surely, I needn't recite to you tommy, that the US was born in slavery.  It then moved to peonage, to Jim Crow laws, to separate but equal, to segregation, to the dog whistle racism we have today.  You didn't mean to say that amid that sort of unfair disenfranchisement, you are somehow not privileged, did you?

You've had every advantage give to white folks, and there are some who cannot put a roof over their heads or meals in the mouths of their children.  Because they can't get a job, because they are black or Muslim.  There are some who, in the US, argue that we shouldn't correct that status before starting the race.  Shame on them!  But I know you wouldn't take unfair advantage of others like that, would you tommy?

Seems Jules hits the nail on the head.  She not only gets the meaning of history in racial affairs, and progress, from abject slavery to just plain old being mean, but she gets the theory of proportional equality.  Tommy, don't talk to me about inequality until you have walked the walk.

In the UK it's against the law to not give a job to someone because they're black or Muslim. What more do you want the Government to do? They can only make things equal by passing laws to prevent discrimination.

We have Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, barring employment discrimination, too. What more do I want? Most of all, I'd like a world where there is no need for that law in the first place. Next, I'd like to see them enforce the law. Third, I'd like 'em to not appoint stooges to the Supreme Court who bend over backwards to find loopholes to dodge the law.

But the first one is my 'druthers'. America is a racist country, with the Republican Party carrying the banner.

Thorin wrote:

And?
I come from a very poor background.
This did not hinder any of my family from looking to better their lives.
Poverty is not a factor to stop people bettering their lives.

Yes it's possible to be poor / disadvantaged / marginalised and still lift yourself by the bootstraps and do quite well in life and I think everyone knows that already. There are many heartwarming stories around, of people like that who have achieved a lot in life. JK Rowlings was impoverished once. (By the same token there are many who were born & bred with huge privileges, who have achieved absolutely zilch and would be scruffy street beggars now if they were not cushioned by their parent's money - so it cuts both ways.)


Some of the people who I said were poor are also the types who are held back by misguided cultural practices too, so it's not just the poverty that's a factor, Thorin.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In the UK it's against the law to not give a job to someone because they're black or Muslim. What more do you want the Government to do? They can only make things equal by passing laws to prevent discrimination.

We have Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, barring employment discrimination, too.  What more do I want?  Most of all, I'd like a world where there is no need for that law in the first place.  Next, I'd like to see them enforce the law.  Third, I'd like 'em to not appoint stooges to the Supreme Court who bend over backwards to find loopholes to dodge the law.

But the first one is my 'druthers'.  America is a racist country, with the Republican Party carrying the banner.

If America is a racist country, how comes there is many Americans who are not racist?

Tad insulting to all those who strive for civil rights.

If the US was a racist country, it would be bound within its constitution to allow racism.

I think you make the problem of racism worse.

Start treating Americans as Americans and not as Black, White, Hispanic, Asian etc

Get rid of the social construct labels that do not exist biologically and start treating others as your fellow human beings. That have a variety of ethnic groups which incorporate cultures, language, religions etc.

Thorin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:They can help to give underprivileged people a boost from the beginning. By the time you're seeking a job, so much is set in stone -- the government should be striving to ensure that everyone has the opportunities available to the middle class.

All my brothers, sisters and myself came from poverty?
We were underprivileged and had no boost from the beginnings.
My parents worked hard to raise us and that we should study and work hard to succeed.

How did we all succeed without outside help?

Ben's point went right by you. The issue isn't poverty. Poverty is the consequence. The issue is racism and ethnocentrism. In case you didn't notice, it's happening to whole classes of people, not individuals. And those people have certain skin colors, or cultural differences.

Jules wrote:

Thorin wrote:

And?
I come from a very poor background.
This did not hinder any of my family from looking to better their lives.
Poverty is not a factor to stop people bettering their lives.

Yes it's possible to be poor / disadvantaged / marginalised and still lift yourself by the bootstraps and do quite well in life and I think everyone knows that already. There are many heartwarming stories around, of people like that who have  achieved a lot in life.  JK Rowlings was impoverished once. (By the same token there are many who were born & bred with huge privileges,  who have achieved absolutely zilch and would be scruffy street beggars now if they were not cushioned by their parent's money  - so it cuts both ways.)


Some of the people who I said were poor are also the types who are held back by misguided cultural practices too, so it's not just the poverty that's a factor, Thorin.

Yes, because those who succeed have courage and are not afraid to rise up from their beginnings.
There is no reason why any person can claim, they are held back in many western countries, when they have access to education, just as everyone else. If there are poor misguided cultural practices, then its down to the state to teach how poor they are, so the next generations understand what is wrong with them. Again, this does not deny people the chance to better their lives, unless people are forcibly restricting them from doing so. If they are, they are breaking the law.

I never even claimed poverty was the factor, what I said was the key was access to all, again inclusive to all to have a proper and decent education. There is no excuses for those not to learn, unless again they are hindered by say looking after a relative. Then the state should step into help. All children should have the access and help to education. Within this all given the needs of their levels of understanding.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

All my brothers, sisters and myself came from poverty?
We were underprivileged and had no boost from the beginnings.
My parents worked hard to raise us and that we should study and work hard to succeed.

How did we all succeed without outside help?

Ben's point went right by you.  The issue isn't poverty.  Poverty is the consequence.  The issue is racism and ethnocentrism.  In case you didn't notice, it's happening to whole classes of people, not individuals.  And those people have certain skin colors, or cultural differences.

I see you again whitewashed my entire points and stick to two sentences, attempting to poorly take out the entire context of what I said.

You enable racism, by wanting to continue something that is not biological in humans, races.
So why not have different races for eye colour?
Hair colour?

Its absurd, and yet we have for skin colour, the reason why we have racism today.

If we started to classify crimes on eye colours, those with the most prominent, brown would be castigated off this.

You see how such classifications enable racism?

Tommy Monk wrote:

History does start at page 1... I agree... so what...!?

So scrape yourself off the last page.  The strict laws that immigrants need to be highly skilled are on the last page. In earlier pages, the laws were lax and you had all this nonsense of impoverished, unskilled cousins from abroad arriving here to marry their own relatives. Plus there were waves of asylum seekers and refugees too. The unskilled brown, black and yellow faces you are complaining about, are the 2nd & 3rd generation descendants of all those unskilled people, not new arrivals. If you think unskilled people are still coming in, take it up with your MP.

Tommy Monk wrote:

The rest of your post is just blah blah blah bullshit...!

No, I'm spot on actually, when I say you turn things on their head, it's your typical style.  When people point out S.X.H.R.B. attitudes  you parachute in and tell them THEY are the ones who are S.X.H.R.B.

Your avvy makes my point so beautifully, for me.    It's a cat with the nazi salute and hitler moustache, to indicate that all the people who call you out on your consistent far right attitudes are the ones whom you consider the real nazis and fascists, not you. Your avvy is a permanent reminder that you turn things on their head, in your topsy turvey lil world.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:They can help to give underprivileged people a boost from the beginning. By the time you're seeking a job, so much is set in stone -- the government should be striving to ensure that everyone has the opportunities available to the middle class.

They provide education for all. Of course some people can afford to send their children to a "better" school, but most can't - including most "middle class" white people.

But white people don't have to deal with the same discriminatory attitudes. They are the privileged and powerful. Look at owhat Dylan Roof said after murdering all those black women in that South Carolina church:

Dylan Roof wrote: “Well I had to do it because somebody had to do something because, you know, black people are killing white people every day on the streets, and they rape white women, 100 white women a day,” he told the agents. “The fact of the matter is what I did is so minuscule to what they’re doing to white people every day, all the time.”

That's hatred and racism, from the core up. Then, we have on top, the poverty and the exclusion.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They provide education for all. Of course some people can afford to send their children to a "better" school, but most can't - including most "middle class" white people.

But white people don't have to deal with the same discriminatory attitudes.  They are the privileged and powerful.  Look at owhat Dylan Roof said after murdering all those black women in that South Carolina church:

Dylan Roof wrote: “Well I had to do it because somebody had to do something because, you know, black people are killing white people every day on the streets, and they rape white women, 100 white women a day,” he told the agents. “The fact of the matter is what I did is so minuscule to what they’re doing to white people every day, all the time.”

That's hatred and racism, from the core up.  Then, we have on top, the poverty and the exclusion.

Really white people don't face racism or discrimination?

So your thesis on racism, is only on where Americans classed as black suffer this.

All racism is wrong. In all places world over, you find minorities suffer racism.

This includes whites where they are minorities.

For example Zimbabwe.

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:I'm sure that whatever Morgan Freeman says in the vid is true - he is a wise man. But no, it does not "get the debate back on track" at all,  cos the OP is neither about America,  nor about poverty.

Quill made it that way Jules, and then you went off this also.

So lets go back to the article then.

It was blatant racial discrimination and all racism should be condemned.

Sorry, but tommy started the whole emphasis on equality, back on page one:

Tommy Monk wrote:All in the name of 'equality'...!


Another example of the insidious pc madness that has spread throughout the minds of leftie twats!!!

He then went on a rant:

Tommy Monk wrote:Where is the 'equality' when some children are barred entry to a little playground facility, in australia, because they are too white and speak English...!?

Where is the 'diversity' inside the playground when it excludes white children who speak English...!?

Surely the idiots at this facility are well of the word 'integration'...!?

Wouldn't that best be achieved by having white children who spoke English being accepted too???

As this would be best for the others to mix with those they are integrating in to... as well as for the white kids to mix with the others who are arriving...!?

That launched the whole discussion on equality. No doubt, my points have scored strongly...but that doesn't make me the initiator.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But white people don't have to deal with the same discriminatory attitudes.  They are the privileged and powerful.  Look at owhat Dylan Roof said after murdering all those black women in that South Carolina church:



That's hatred and racism, from the core up.  Then, we have on top, the poverty and the exclusion.

Really white people don't face racism or discrimination?

So your thesis on racism, is only on where Americans classed as black suffer this.

All racism is wrong. In all places world over, you find minorities suffer racism.

This includes whites where they are minorities.

For example Zimbabwe.

You are being ridiculous if you are trying to convince us that whites are not the privileged and powerful in this society (UK or US).  Historically, where were the whites who were kidnapped in Africa and shipped to America to die in tobacco and cotton fields?

Today, where is the poverty?  Where is the lack of education?  Where is the lack of power?  Where were Jim Crow laws applied?  Who had to sit in the back of the bus?  Who had to drink from separate fountains?  Today, whose people are crowed into the urban ghettos?  Whose voters are deliberately excluded from the voting polls?  And what do you think all that ugly disdain and beating down does to the psyche of small children...how many will grow up to be leaders, instead of crack addicts?

Today, look at any government photo...what color do you see?  What gender, indeed?  What you see are all old, white males.  The only way they are discriminated against, is they make too much money, and are vested with too much power.

POOR SOULS.  My heart weeps.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Really white people don't face racism or discrimination?

So your thesis on racism, is only on where Americans classed as black suffer this.

All racism is wrong. In all places world over, you find minorities suffer racism.

This includes whites where they are minorities.

For example Zimbabwe.

You are being ridiculous if you are trying to convince us that whites are not the privileged and powerful in this society (UK or US).  Historically, where were the whites who were kidnapped in Africa and shipped to America to die in tobacco and cotton fields?

Today, where is the poverty?  Where is the lack of education?  Where is the lack of power?  Where were Jim Crow laws applied?  Who had to sit in the back of the bus?  Who had to drink from separate fountains?  Today, whose people are crowed into the urban ghettos?  Whose voters are deliberately excluded from the voting polls?  And what do you think all that ugly disdain and beating down does to the psyche of small children...how many will grow up to be leaders, instead of crack addicts?

Today, look at any government photo...what color do you see?  What gender, indeed?  What you see are all old, white males.  The only way they are discriminated against, is they make too much money, and are vested with too much power.

POOR SOULS.  My heart weeps.

So tell me how where my Father went to Northern Ireland and could not get a job because he was catholic?

How two of my Irish uncle boxers living in the Uk suffered racism and hate and were both set upon and beaten up? How they could find no work in the UK.

How my mother was spat upon?

Tell me how with my best friend being Irish/Jamaican, how he was ostracized by both the Irish and Jamaicans?

Tell me how I received racism and prejudice because I was his friend?

Tell me how and why I suffered discrimination, because I was half Irish, due to the IRA attacks.

Tell me about how the Irish have been persecuted for centuries by the British?

Tell me how in countless nations that Jews have been ethnically cleansed and persecuted because they were Jews?

Idiots like you, who have never suffered racism, trying to preach on racism, is what is wrong.

You have no understanding and look at everything through a black lens on racism, again something you have no comprehension of even understanding what some blacks suffer

Regressive muppets like you are what enable racis,m because you continually want to segregate peopl,e through the colour of their skin.

You don;t want to embrace them as Americans but make them different, through the colour of their skin.

Its because of brainless idiots like you, that have no idea of all the forms of racism, hence the absurdity of the idiocy you posted above. That racism continues to exist.

When you suffer racism,m then you can have a voice, until then you throw back from the hippy age, I suggest you allow people you have suffered racism to explain it to you

I am not the enemy of the Irish. Regionalism and nationalism are. Being an island Scot, I identify with the Irish very much--they are just 12-miles off the Kintyre peninsula.

But that's why this thread has spread out into discussions of equality and it's challenges. It's no longer about play dates in Sydney.

What is significant about racism is it's lasting power. Notice, the Irish in the US eventually became one of the power groups, blending into the melting pot. But blacks carry a brand, just as Jews once were (artificially) branded with a tattoo. They can't escape like the Italians and Irish. The racism in America is permanent...and will probably never end.

Original Quill wrote:I am not the enemy of the Irish.  Regionalism and nationalism are.  Being an island Scot, I identify with the Irish very much--they are just 12-miles off the Kintyre peninsula.

But that's why this thread has spread out into discussions of equality and it's challenges.  It's no longer about play dates in Sydney.

What is significant about racism is it's lasting power.  Notice, the Irish in the US eventually became one of the power groups, blending into the melting pot.  But blacks carry a brand, just as Jews once were (artificially) branded with a tattoo.  They can't escape like the Italians and Irish.  The racism in America is permanent...and will probably never end.

Again, what a pathetic whitewash

Great you identify with the Irish and yet previously claimed that whites don't suffer discrimination.
Even though for example Irish, Italians and Jews have in the US.

You continue the racism, but not tackling racism, as you want to label people black and white and not as Americans. This is why it continues, as the foundation for racism exists, the social construct of races itself.

The fact, you can fucking sit there and whitewash history, makes you lose credibility, because you are only ever fixated on the US

You pissed me off that much, there is no point continuing even engaging you today, after that crap.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I am not the enemy of the Irish.  Regionalism and nationalism are.  Being an island Scot, I identify with the Irish very much--they are just 12-miles off the Kintyre peninsula.

But that's why this thread has spread out into discussions of equality and it's challenges.  It's no longer about play dates in Sydney.

What is significant about racism is it's lasting power.  Notice, the Irish in the US eventually became one of the power groups, blending into the melting pot.  But blacks carry a brand, just as Jews once were (artificially) branded with a tattoo.  They can't escape like the Italians and Irish.  The racism in America is permanent...and will probably never end.

Again, what a pathetic whitewash

Great you identify with the Irish and yet previously claimed that whites don't suffer discrimination.
Even though for example Irish, Italians and Jews have in the US.

You continue the racism, but not tackling racism, as you want to label people black and white and not as Americans. This is why it continues, as the foundation for racism exists, the social construct of races itself.

The fact, you can fucking sit there and whitewash history, makes you lose credibility, because you are only ever fixated on the US

You pissed me off that much, there is no point continuing even engaging you today, after that crap.

It's not really discrimination when it's temporary. We've had waves of immigrants come into this country over the decades. The Dutch and English started the place, but since then there have been Irish, Germans, Swedes, Italians, Nordics, French, etc., and they have all stopped for a generation in New York City, then moving on having melted in. That's what whites can do...they can move on.

But blacks bear the brand. So they can't move on.

The truth of this upsets you. You are like many of those Rednecks that cannot sit with the anti-discrimination laws we have today. So they go on to shoot up a black church, or become cops so they can shoot young, black men. Is that worth it? Better to work your way through it calmly. Skin color and facial features cannot change, so attitudes will have to.

Its temporary is it?

Like in South Africa and Zimbabwe?

You live in a fantasy land as stated only ever fixated on racism towards blacks.

All racism is wrong.

All discrimination is wrong

There is no truth you have said that has upset me, its your piss poor revisionist history.

I mean lets recap, you claimed racism was an ancient law?

That was revisionist history, when racism formed in the last few centuries.

You do not offer solutions to racism, but look to promote hate instead.

I mean how is that tackling hate, by promoting hate as you do against people's political beliefs in Republicanism?

You make yourself comparable to those who hate Muslims

Both are ideologies.

I look to be critical of poor beliefs and look for change, but you end up being the poster boy for the Republicans, with the irrational view points you make. They love people like you hating them.

You then end with a racial slur yourself, showing again you have no comprehension of what you are talking about.

You don;t fight hate with hate, you fight it with reason, love, compassion etc

Jules:

TM was quite rude to me when I just joined here, the way he pounced on me, as a newbie and followed me round for ages, literally harassing me over a throwaway comment I had made. Mrs Obama had accepted an invitation to give an inspirational speech to speak to some disadvantaged (inner city school) Muslim and black kids. So TM said she was guilty of race and sex discrimination, blah blah.
It was like he thought she should have gone to posh boarding schools also, to give the kids of multimillionaires motivational speeches too.
It made sense that a flotus on a tight schedule would give an inspiratory speech only to those at the bottom of the pile. He also harased me over some other comments I made in the same thread and he was wittering on about sex discrimination too

I'm not sure that anyone takes much notice of motivational speeches anyway, but why would someone at a posh boarding school not need one?

There's a tendency to think that if someone has rich parents, or if one attends a "good" school they will be motivated, confident, ambitious, and ecstatically happy. That is not necessarily the case. Even those at "good" schools which cost a lot of money will find others who have richer parents, or who are better at exams, or better at sport, or whatever.