Ah yes. Discrimination. One of the buzzwords of modern day society. And yet, it has become one of those meaningless words, banded about by the statists, with little more weight than that of a label or a tag for something that they have been coerced into believing is wrong.

The thing is, one of the actual acts that the word 'discrimination' is used to describe is, in reality, morally right. If we take a look at the two definitions of the word that invariably crop up, we'll see there are two sides of the coin. See the two definitions that follow, taken from Dictionary.com.

1) The power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgement: "She chose the colours with great discrimination";

2) Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favour of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Let's take a look at each of these meanings in turn.

1) The power of making fine distinctions is, I'm sure you'll agree, a good skill to have. It is a learned skill, honed by the exercising of the five senses - sight, smell, hearing, touch and taste - in every life's decision. It is the practising of these senses - and the experience gained therein - that determines your ability to make fine distinctions.

If a candidate stands before two potential employers, it is surely the employer that judges him the quickest that is the more competent at making fine distinctions and, thus, the better man. His practise and experience in using his senses to make decisions has seen him gain a power of discernment that the other man is not equal to. It is because of this that he was able to judge whether or not the candidate before him was ideal, before the other employer had.

The power of discernment - discrimination - is not something a man is born with. Again, like anything, it is a learned skill. The better this skill, the quicker he can make decisions and the more he can accomplish in the time that he has. Surely this is a good thing?

But for a judgement to be sound, the only facets of a person that can come into consideration must be those of ability, since it is ability that determines the level of work, to use the previous example of the candidate standing before two potential employers.

But if the employer has made up his mind on whether or not to employ the candidate before the man has even proved his potential worth in the work-place, then "Surely this is prejudging?" - you say?

The answer is no. The following definition of 'prejudice' from Dictionary.com pays testament to this:

An unfavourable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Henceforth, the potential employer has not prejudged, as he has not based his decision on a 'feeling'. No, he has judged the candidate to be worthy enough or not of a position in his company based on his power of discrimination, which is measured by his practise and experience with - and skill thereof - his senses.

And how is his skill exercised with his senses, here? The employer feels the strength of the candidate’s handshake: touch. The employer sees the consistency of eye contact and body language: sight. The employer hears the level of voice projection: hearing.

When an employer has ten people to interview for a position - as well as a company to run, he has neither the time nor the money to give a trial to every person. So it is here that his powers of discrimination are crucial. But there is a second definition of our buzzword. Let me break it down.

2) The translation of definition number two of 'discrimination' is basically - to make a distinction for or against someone based on their race (not my word), skin colour, gender, religion, etc, rather than on individual merit, which would be to use definition number one.

Earlier, when explaining point number one, I said that the only facets of a person that can come into consideration must be those of ability, since it is ability that determines the level of work. To judge a man's ability and suitability for a job, by the colour of his skin, is insane. There is surely no scientific proof that the colour of a person's skin determines his effectiveness in the workplace.

Thus, to judge a man's ability based on the colour of his skin, is to have poor powers of discernment, and with it, ineffective discrimination, since the criteria used for judging upon - skin colour - is irrelevant in the measure of a man's ability. So is racial (again, not my word) discrimination actually discrimination? No. In fact, it is indiscrimination, as Dictionary.com once again helps us illustrate:

1) Not discriminating; lacking in care, judgement, selectivity, etc.: indiscriminate in one's friendships;
2) Not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter;
3) Not kept apart or divided; thrown together; jumbled: an indiscriminate combination of colours and styles.

Lacking in care, judgement, selectivity. Thoughtless. Thrown together. This is surely what people mean when they use the term 'discrimination'. To call it 'discrimination' when a man attacks another because of skin colour, is to grant the attacker the compliment of having a mind capable of effective judgement.

To attack another person just because of skin colour is NOT being judgmental. It's just plain brain-dead. It is indiscriminate, NOT discriminate. A person's skin colour is not grounds for discrimination. Simple as that. The only things that are grounds for discrimination belong in the realm of ability.

Now when it comes to religion, gender, disability, nationality, etc, that is another matter which I will write about, tomorrow, as they are all different issues. For now we will leave it there. But I hope you are beginning to see what a fallacy it is to continue to use this word in the way that the power-hungry statists would want us to.

Use your mind. Discriminate. It's good for you.

To freedom,

Scotty Stevens