ChatterBank1 min ago
Everyday Racism Or Sensible Business Practices?
I’m going for the former.
This is clearly prejudiced behaviour (in that the waiter was prejudging the customers based on their race alone).
http://
This is clearly prejudiced behaviour (in that the waiter was prejudging the customers based on their race alone).
http://
Answers
jackdaw - // If I go to the local Chinese/
11:40 Tue 01st May 2018
“why not? why are we not allowed to react to increased risk?”
Why not indeed. Insurers do it all the time. They charge young drivers enormously inflated premiums because their stats demonstrate that young drivers have the most accidents. Not all of them do, but as a group they are an enhanced risk. It’s not (yet) illegal for insurers to do this, though they were recently prevented from charging higher premiums to male drivers even though, as a group, they represent a higher risk. That was deemed discrimination on the grounds of gender so it may not be too long before insurers are prohibited from charging the young higher premiums should the young become protected by equality laws.
If the restaurant involved here insisted on all young people paying up front (because they had been bilked quite a few times by young people) not much could be done about it. All they would be doing would be reacting to increased risk. It's not, as Andy suggests, assuming criminal behaviour in advance (any more than insurers assume reckless driving in advance by young drivers). It's assessing the likelihood of it by examining what happened in the past and using that knowledge to suggest what might happen in the future. It’s called forecasting. Unfortunately equality legislation has prevented many businesses (and the police) from acting on their forecasts. If they do, they end up in court.
Why not indeed. Insurers do it all the time. They charge young drivers enormously inflated premiums because their stats demonstrate that young drivers have the most accidents. Not all of them do, but as a group they are an enhanced risk. It’s not (yet) illegal for insurers to do this, though they were recently prevented from charging higher premiums to male drivers even though, as a group, they represent a higher risk. That was deemed discrimination on the grounds of gender so it may not be too long before insurers are prohibited from charging the young higher premiums should the young become protected by equality laws.
If the restaurant involved here insisted on all young people paying up front (because they had been bilked quite a few times by young people) not much could be done about it. All they would be doing would be reacting to increased risk. It's not, as Andy suggests, assuming criminal behaviour in advance (any more than insurers assume reckless driving in advance by young drivers). It's assessing the likelihood of it by examining what happened in the past and using that knowledge to suggest what might happen in the future. It’s called forecasting. Unfortunately equality legislation has prevented many businesses (and the police) from acting on their forecasts. If they do, they end up in court.
-- answer removed --
New Judge - // Insurers do it all the time. They charge young drivers enormously inflated premiums because their stats demonstrate that young drivers have the most accidents. Not all of them do, but as a group they are an enhanced risk. It’s not (yet) illegal for insurers to do this, though they were recently prevented from charging higher premiums to male drivers even though, as a group, they represent a higher risk. That was deemed discrimination on the grounds of gender so it may not be too long before insurers are prohibited from charging the young higher premiums should the young become protected by equality laws.
If the restaurant involved here insisted on all young people paying up front (because they had been bilked quite a few times by young people) not much could be done about it. All they would be doing would be reacting to increased risk. It's not, as Andy suggests, assuming criminal behaviour in advance (any more than insurers assume reckless driving in advance by young drivers). It's assessing the likelihood of it by examining what happened in the past and using that knowledge to suggest what might happen in the future. It’s called forecasting. Unfortunately equality legislation has prevented many businesses (and the police) from acting on their forecasts. If they do, they end up in court. //
I am surprised at then weakness of your argument.
You cannot seriously compare the driving habits of a section of society, which is based on data from hundreds of thousands of instances, and makes a valid demographic applicable, with the racist policy of one restaurant based on an unknown number of black customers skipping without paying.
It simply does not hold up, and I think you know that.
Are you having an off day?
If the restaurant involved here insisted on all young people paying up front (because they had been bilked quite a few times by young people) not much could be done about it. All they would be doing would be reacting to increased risk. It's not, as Andy suggests, assuming criminal behaviour in advance (any more than insurers assume reckless driving in advance by young drivers). It's assessing the likelihood of it by examining what happened in the past and using that knowledge to suggest what might happen in the future. It’s called forecasting. Unfortunately equality legislation has prevented many businesses (and the police) from acting on their forecasts. If they do, they end up in court. //
I am surprised at then weakness of your argument.
You cannot seriously compare the driving habits of a section of society, which is based on data from hundreds of thousands of instances, and makes a valid demographic applicable, with the racist policy of one restaurant based on an unknown number of black customers skipping without paying.
It simply does not hold up, and I think you know that.
Are you having an off day?
AH": If you want to assume that black customers are more likely to do a runner, then that's your choice" - not an assumption, a prediction based on observation."
"What you are not able to do is to make a blanket presumption that black customers are a risk simply because they have black skin." - again a prediction.
"If you have an issue with customers skipping, then charge everyone upfront, and that's fine." - why must all customers be penalized when the problem area is known?
"I really don't want to have to do this again, so if you don't grasp what I am saying, then we will simply have to agree to differ." - neither do I but you keep saying the same thing parrot fashion and do not even ackowlegde the counter arguments. Can you not see that this decision is purely based on statistical experience?
// Once I went to Gibraltar and the animals there very quickly become tiresome , they rip open your bags to steal food. They sell heavy canvas bags to stop that, are they/I being simianist? No, they are merely reacting to what they know will happen if you do not react. PS before you start frothing this is not a racist comparison merely an analogy that fits well. //
"It's not an analogy that fits at all, never mind well!" - it exactly fits, I take precautions based on experience.
"How can you compare the measures in place to prevent wild animals from acting on instinct which cannot be altered, and must be allowed for, with the notion of deciding that an entire ethnic group are potential criminals, and the best way to prevent them from being criminals is to make them pay up front, and allow the white criminals who skip out without paying to get away with it." - I am not assigning any behaviour beyond that predicted arithmetically.
"I believe I have explained my point well enough and often enough - if you don;t understand what Iam saying, then we must leave it there. " - you have ignored any counter argument.
"What you are not able to do is to make a blanket presumption that black customers are a risk simply because they have black skin." - again a prediction.
"If you have an issue with customers skipping, then charge everyone upfront, and that's fine." - why must all customers be penalized when the problem area is known?
"I really don't want to have to do this again, so if you don't grasp what I am saying, then we will simply have to agree to differ." - neither do I but you keep saying the same thing parrot fashion and do not even ackowlegde the counter arguments. Can you not see that this decision is purely based on statistical experience?
// Once I went to Gibraltar and the animals there very quickly become tiresome , they rip open your bags to steal food. They sell heavy canvas bags to stop that, are they/I being simianist? No, they are merely reacting to what they know will happen if you do not react. PS before you start frothing this is not a racist comparison merely an analogy that fits well. //
"It's not an analogy that fits at all, never mind well!" - it exactly fits, I take precautions based on experience.
"How can you compare the measures in place to prevent wild animals from acting on instinct which cannot be altered, and must be allowed for, with the notion of deciding that an entire ethnic group are potential criminals, and the best way to prevent them from being criminals is to make them pay up front, and allow the white criminals who skip out without paying to get away with it." - I am not assigning any behaviour beyond that predicted arithmetically.
"I believe I have explained my point well enough and often enough - if you don;t understand what Iam saying, then we must leave it there. " - you have ignored any counter argument.
-- answer removed --
Jackdaw - // Discrimination is perfectly legal providing you do not give a reason. If an employer does not want to hire Muslims all he needs to do is apologise and say that the position has already been filled or that the applicant didn't make it to the shortlist. //
But they did give a reason! That is what the fuss is about!!
But they did give a reason! That is what the fuss is about!!
-- answer removed --
NJ
But the issue here is that the restaurant said that the reason they asked for payment up front is because there was a transient community that had eaten there beforehand and had run away without paying.
That doesn’t make sense as an excuse.
Are we to believe that the entire homeless population are black in that area?
Are we to further believe that the waiter is unable to tell a homeless person from someone who is celebrating a birthday with his friends (as was the case here)?
But the issue here is that the restaurant said that the reason they asked for payment up front is because there was a transient community that had eaten there beforehand and had run away without paying.
That doesn’t make sense as an excuse.
Are we to believe that the entire homeless population are black in that area?
Are we to further believe that the waiter is unable to tell a homeless person from someone who is celebrating a birthday with his friends (as was the case here)?
-- answer removed --
"Yeah and all the restaurant owner would have to do is force everyone to pay upfront.. Simples!"
So insurers charge everybody the same premium then?
My point is that some forms of discrimination (not "segregation", as you suggested earlier) based on risk seem to be acceptable whilst others are not. It all depends on whether or not you are a "protected species".
So insurers charge everybody the same premium then?
My point is that some forms of discrimination (not "segregation", as you suggested earlier) based on risk seem to be acceptable whilst others are not. It all depends on whether or not you are a "protected species".
-- answer removed --
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.