Isn't special treatment discrimination in itself?

Question

When we give up our seats to the handicapped or to accommidate a wheel chair or let a minority person have a scholarship that is not offered to a white person with equal qualifications, etc. aren't we saying that this person is not capable of what others are? If everyone wants to be treated equally, shoudn't it be each for his own? First come first serve?

Why do people say they don't want to be discriminated against but still expect special treatment because of their condition or color of skin?

Answer 1

I have been saying that for years.

We need to abolish any organisation whose sole purpose is to promote one part of society over another.

Answer 2

In an ideal world there wouldn't need to be special treatment because everyone would be treated equally and respected for their own skills and talents. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Some employers continue to not employ or promote both sexes and minority ethnic groups equally.

So we have to find a way to rectify this.
There are lots of ways round this.
You can legislate against discrimination
You can improve education and advertising to encourage people to make different career development opportunities.

However whilst discrimination continues there will need to be some form of societal mechanism of compensation.

Answer 3

I do not mind helping a handicapped person with seating.... they cannot fit into certain seats comfortably...

minorities are supposed to be equally qualified as the ones who get turned down....but many times they aren't....this would be discrimination....I think all this should be eliminated. The generation since 1964 has had plenty of opportunity to receive all the benefits they need to compete equally with others....

Answer 4

I agree with you because we all say were equal but as soon as their an opportunity of who gets something and who don't we play the race card and that goes for all races not just one or another.I think if we truly want everyone to be equal we should do first come and first sever not a % of different race, religion or other. Very good question.

Answer 5

properly, this is various questions, i could say that as we try to get equality between the sexes they ought to be taken care of an identical, yet meaning that they ought to be paid an identical for an identical interest. they ought to be taken care of an identical in welfare schemes. they ought to be taken care of an identical in maximum circumstances. of direction, there are circumstances they won't be, adult men, no remember how equivalent they prefer to be, adult men can continuously carry extra desirable than female, it rather is a actuality of nature, adult men are more suitable, can no longer replace that. In a relationship the two ought to be equivalent, the two pay for all areas of residing fees, cooking, cleansing and procuring, or chop up it up so as that it rather is carried out the two. the two events ought to paintings, offering there are no babies, and, the two ought to make a contribution to residing jointly. distinctive tale if a newborn is in touch. Alimony relies upon on which one works, who makes extra money, if there are babies. it rather is not mandatory that he will pay the alimony. confident, a guy is to blame for holding a female, it has no longer something to do with equality. a guy is more suitable than a female, it rather is basically the character of the beast. yet this is a secure practices as in going out, so the female does not get mugged, i think of it rather is purely precise, a guy ought to nevertheless be a gentleman. thus far as your comments approximately rules: rules should not be made in prefer of girls and that they ought to be gender independent. and ask your self shouldn't sway a justice. and of direction a guy and a female who dedicate an identical crime ought to get an identical punishment.

Answer 6

It is a consideration until we reach the point where it is no longer needed