15-04-2003 02:53									#121
	Increase Your PM Length

I have to agree with, well, everyone except Agathon. Freedom of association and all that...

	15-04-2003 04:22									#122
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Congratulations to Mike Weir... The first Canadian to EVER win one of the Majors. OH CANADA!

And this is the only news you will here about the Master's North of the Border.

Even in Toronto, Agathon.

	15-04-2003 05:58									#123
	Suffering from ads?

Well well.. again I don't agree with this gutter libertarianism.

My argument is quite simple and works for racism or discrimination against gays as well. All it requires as a moral premise is that, say, for example, racism is an injustice. If it's an injustice then why should racists be allowed to construct discriminatory institutions and why shouldn't the law be changed to make it harder to do so?

I don't buy the "it's a private club" argument for the simple reason that just because a club is private it doesn't mean that it can do whatever it likes. In this case I'm arguing that clubs that have racist admission policies should be punished by the law. I don't see how a private club with racist admission policies is any less odious than a privately owned mall that won't admit blacks.

It's just stupid to argue that blacks can go to other malls - the very existence of racially segregated malls is an injustice. Same goes for segregated drinking fountains or toilets or whatever.

If you want to argue the opposite then you are basically arguing that the rights of racists to be racist override the rights of minorities to live in a non-racist society. As far as I'm concerned, if you're a racist then the government has a perfect right to come in and mess you up badly. The reason is that if you're a racist promoting a racist institution, you're an evil scumbag. If you defend the right of racists to segregate then you are a party to an injustice.

The argument that private golf clubs are analogous to groups of friends is a bit much (this is Ming's: "the government will force you to invite people you don't like to your wedding"). Regarding the golf clubs I know this is a misleading analogy since these clubs have hundreds of members most of whom don't know each other too well. This comparison is stretching it.

But this argument is irrelevant, because my argument doesn't entail that you are generally forced to admit people you don't like to your private club: my position is that you can refuse who you like for whatever reason apart from race or sex. If you do that and are caught you should be hammered by the state. Once again I don't give a fig for the feelings of racists - a society with no racist institutions is more important than the feelings of a few bigots. If trampling on their feelings is the road to a less racist society then I'm all for it.

As for the "but women have their own gyms" argument. My own view is that they need them because men behave like pigs. Some posters disagree because they think these claims is exaggerated. Fair enough - it makes absolutely no difference to my argument. The point of the example is that the sexes can be treated differently and it doesn't necessarily have to be wrong if there is a good reason for it. This is just the commonplace that not all different treatment of groups is necessarily bad. If you can't understand this then there is something wrong with you.

And as for the argument that "the clubs discriminate by only letting in people who can pay the fees" - this is a completely stupid argument which you'd have to be a 24 carat idiot to buy. In essence it's saying "some discrimination is good, so no discrimination is bad." Of course this ignores the fact that people use the term to refer to unfair distributions rather than different distributions.

	15-04-2003 06:03									#124
	Tired of ads?

agathon ur words are dangerous. afterall free speech includes things u disagree w/. and in ur case I"d say one of those things is racism.

its really easy to allow the things u like afterall.

	15-04-2003 06:04									#125
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ramo I have to agree with, well, everyone except Agathon. Freedom of association and all that...

Amen to that.

	15-04-2003 07:02									#126
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Really? So if it was "no blacks; no Irish; and no Jews" you wouldn't object at all?

You mean like the Klan? They still exist, and get plently of bad press for their activities. We should treat this club at least as well.

	15-04-2003 07:36									#127
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I expected better arguments from Apolyton.

You can't even handle our poor shoddy plywood arguments, why would you want to be completley humiliated?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Similarly, with the "women are treated differently in X" argument. This is also not a sufficient response. One can justify treating the sexes differently when there is a good reason to do so, and not when there isn't. For example, women aren't entitled to publicy funded prostate exams because they don't have prostates; and we have separate toilets for men and women because anyone whose ever used a "gents" knows that men are pigs.

This is the fourth time you have insulted men in this thread. I'm beginning to see where the real sex discrimination problem lies.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I don't believe that anyone here thinks that either racism or sexism is not unjust. What this issue boils down to is the conflict between two freedoms. (1) The freedom of racists to construct racist institutions. and (2) The freedom of minorities not to be discriminated against. Violation of the second is clearly the more harmful so the first should be curbed. This needn't be by making it illegal, rather the tax system could be brought to bear.

This has nothing to do with racists. If you want to make it about race start another thread. Also, women as it turns out are not a minority. If they are sufficiently alarmed by what is going on they certainly have enough power in our system through the use of their votes to deal with this legally in any way short of a violation of the constitution.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Would anyone care to suggest that violating (1) is more harmful? I think not. All the arguments about liberty and so one have to face this uncomfortable fact.

Neither of your stipulated "facts" above are germain to the issue at hand.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon In other words racist institutions should not be tolerated. There are of course pragmatic limitations to what can be done (as there are with any policy), but giving racist clubs and corporations a hard time seems feasible. And yes - I think the KKK should be outlawed - it is basically a criminal gang set up with the express purpose of violating the civil rights of black people.

And we care very little for your opinion here in the U.S. It's nice for you that your country cracks down on people you don't like for you, but we prefer to brave the battlefield of ideas with the confidence that the superior ideas will win the day, while stuff like racism gets less and less popular over time. Remove the government of this country (as was done recently in Iraq) and you won't find a race war waiting to boil up, because it isn't the government that is holding this country together, it is people who trust our system of giving even bad ideas a chance to be heard that hold this country together.

	15-04-2003 08:07									#128
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Funny that everyone except Agathon (left, right, center) all believe there is a Freedom of Association, even if we disagree with it.

I think it is because people on the internet realize the benefits of Freedom of Speech and Association, especially considering that 'you' could be next. Agathon, it wasn't all that long ago when Communists were considered to be backing an injustice and thus didn't need rights to their views. You agree with that?

	15-04-2003 08:12									#129
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I think philosophers shouldn't be entitled to free speech, as theirs is undoubtedly causing environmental damage by heating up the atmosphere so much.

	15-04-2003 09:14									#130
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"and we have separate toilets for men and women because anyone whose ever used a "gents" knows that men are pigs."

Spoken like a man who has never had to regularly clean a womans bathroom. Nothing nicer than seeing a toilet full of vomit, with a used tampax on top to add color.

	15-04-2003 12:19									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Sava BTW, the KKK issued a statement saying it supported Augusta's decision.

So? I believe that Swedish girls are hot. So does (probably) most of the KKK. Does this mean that I'm wrong and Swedish girls aren't hot?

But on a lighter note... Do they think that anyone who was formerly undecided will suddenly have a change of heart and join Augusta's side because of their support???

	15-04-2003 19:03									#132
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Agathon But this argument is irrelevant, because my argument doesn't entail that you are generally forced to admit people you don't like to your private club: my position is that you can refuse who you like for whatever reason apart from race or sex.

Explain why it is acceptable for me to keep the Jews, Burmese, and Commies out of my treehouse but unacceptable to keep blacks and women out of my treehouse. Your problem is that you've continually failed to justify why discrimination based on race or gender is fundamentally different from discrimination based on, say, nationality or religion or politics; or, put another way, why associations based on race or gender are fundamentally unacceptable while associations based on, say, nationality or religion or politics are fine and dandy. You're being hideously arbitrary with your argument -- your argument essentially boils down to "Jews are allowed to associate with Jews, but men aren't allowed to associate with men, because men are pigs." Fine, two can play at this discrimination game: "Men are allowed to associate with men, but Commies aren't allowed to associate with Commies, because Commies are godless and unpatriotic." Obviously godlessness and lack of patriotism are bad, therefore I fully support the government's ability to stamp them out wherever they are found -- my right to live in a God-fearing nation of patriots trumps the Communists' right to freely associate, just as your right to live in a nation of Castrati trumps the right of men to freely associate.

	15-04-2003 19:12									#133
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

A woman needs to be kept bare-foot and pregnant, cooking for her man.

	15-04-2003 19:45									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Explain why it is acceptable for me to keep the Jews, Burmese, and Commies out of my treehouse but unacceptable to keep blacks and women out of my treehouse. Your problem is that you've continually failed to justify why discrimination based on race or gender is fundamentally different from discrimination based on, say, nationality or religion or politics; or, put another way, why associations based on race or gender are fundamentally unacceptable while associations based on, say, nationality or religion or politics are fine and dandy. You're being hideously arbitrary with your argument -- your argument essentially boils down to "Jews are allowed to associate with Jews, but men aren't allowed to associate with men, because men are pigs." Fine, two can play at this discrimination game: "Men are allowed to associate with men, but Commies aren't allowed to associate with Commies, because Commies are godless and unpatriotic." Obviously godlessness and lack of patriotism are bad, therefore I fully support the government's ability to stamp them out wherever they are found -- my right to live in a God-fearing nation of patriots trumps the Communists' right to freely associate, just as your right to live in a nation of Castrati trumps the right of men to freely associate.

Wutang

I have no problem with personal discrimination but I do have a problem with governmental discrimination.

I may dissapprove if you, as an individual or as a group, dont wish to associate with blacks, whites, jews, etc simply for that reason, but I dont agree that the government has any place in regulating such activity. So insofar as Agathon has set his skewed comparison (since its not clear how minorities are discriminated against when not allowed into a private gathering)

quote: What this issue boils down to is the conflict between two freedoms. (1) The freedom of racists to construct racist institutions. and (2) The freedom of minorities not to be discriminated against.

I would say that the freedom of racists to be privately racist takes precedence.

	15-04-2003 19:49									#135
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Congrats! One of the most hypocritical posts I've yet to see.

"I have no problem with personal discrimination but I do have a problem with governmental discrimination."

You're scary.

	15-04-2003 20:05									#136
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Perhaps that wasnt phrased 'quite' right but I dont see how it was hypocritical. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.

As an individual you (one) may choose to discriminate against another group. As far as I'm concerned, you have that right, and that right takes precedence over the rights of those discriminated against. As an individual, I also have the right to support your position or not. What I disagree with is the government mandating your personal values and choices since it leads down the road noted by loinburger.

	15-04-2003 20:15									#137
	Full PM-box? Change here!

When I saw Agathon's latest post, I thought that there might be a problem with the data base... because it looked a lot like his previous posts

Again... it seems like he is advocating that only mens clubs should be treated differently. And he provides no logical reasons why this should be the case.

He also continues to prove his knowledge of Private Golf Clubs is limited.

	15-04-2003 20:23									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I haven't seen this many people agree with each other since CivNation.

	15-04-2003 20:29									#139
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"As an individual you (one) may choose to discriminate against another group. As far as I'm concerned, you have that right, and that right takes precedence over the rights of those discriminated against. "



I can tell you're not a hiring manager.

	15-04-2003 20:40									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hiring somebody for a job is different than picking your friends

	15-04-2003 20:46									#141
	Inflate your Upload Space

As noted, KKK is swell then.

	15-04-2003 20:47									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand I can tell you're not a hiring manager.

Thats true. I'm a scientist, I hire my own staff.

Your point is, I take it, that if I was in such a position I would be forced by law to pretend that I dont have preferences as to who I prefer to associate with (or in this case hire). I disagree with such laws as infringements on our rights to make our own choices. I believe that you should have the right to decide what is best for your situation and hire whom you wish.


EDIT: If, for example you wish to hire someone less qualified but whom you feel would be less disruptive, you shouldnt be faced with legal action for exercising your right to choose.

	15-04-2003 21:11									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Hell, I don't care. I'm just running my mouth.
I've never even shot a round of golf.

Ming is into golf. I figure if women on the course aggravate him, I'm all for them being there.

	15-04-2003 21:57									#144
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I think philosophers shouldn't be entitled to free speech, as theirs is undoubtedly causing environmental damage by heating up the atmosphere so much.

Touche

	15-04-2003 22:09									#145
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Congrats! One of the most hypocritical posts I've yet to see. "I have no problem with personal discrimination but I do have a problem with governmental discrimination."

How is that hypocritical at all?! I believe the exact same thing. You can be as discriminating as you want in your personal life (pick your own friends based on race), but the government shouldn't do it.

	15-04-2003 22:10									#146
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ming Again... it seems like he is advocating that only mens clubs should be treated differently. And he provides no logical reasons why this should be the case.

I suggest you read more carefully, Ming. Nothing in my post entails that only mens' clubs are subject to this. All I claimed is that different treatment based on race or sex is justifiable when there is a good reason for it. If in fact it was shown to me that there is no good reason for having women only gymnasia, then I would argue that they should be prohibited. This in no way impugns the point I am making: that different treatment is justifiable when there is a good reason.

The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict. On the one hand there is the right of freedom of association, on the other the right of people not to be the subject of racist or sexist discrimination. If we give the first absolute priority over the second then you will be in the position of allowing anybody to be a racist, of allowing mall owners to ban blacks or jews if they want to. If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism.

All I have suggested is that it be made illegal for private clubs to discriminate on the basis of sex and race without good reason. They can pick and choose on any other grounds they like, but not race or sex.

The only thing this will inhibit is the desires of racists to be racist. Frankly I think that's a price worth paying for a less racist society. It's certainly a better price to pay than allowing discrimination.

Why won't somebody take this argument head on? Show me why it produces a better result to respect the rights of racists to be racist rather than the rights of people not to be the subject of racist discrimination. As I said before, unless you can answer this question, you aren't really addressing my argument.

	15-04-2003 22:18									#147
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: that different treatment is justifiable when there is a good reason.

Who decides the 'good reason'. We've given you good reasons, but you reject them out of hand. Since everyone else agrees it is a good reason, then perhaps we are all right, and you, as the lone dissenter are wrong.

quote: The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict.

Um... we have addressed this. We believe that the right to association is more important. I even said this a few pages ago.

quote: If we give the first absolute priority over the second then you will be in the position of allowing anybody to be a racist, of allowing mall owners to ban blacks or jews if they want to.

THIS is your problem. You want to assume "absolute" priority of one over the other. There is NO freedom which is absolute, none, zip, nada. So why assume we are saying there is an absolute right to freedom of association? We are merely saying IN THIS CONTEXT freedom of association is the more important right.

quote: If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism.

Compared to freedom of association, then you are right, I don't.

quote: Why won't somebody take this argument head on? Show me why it produces a better result to respect the rights of racists to be racist rather than the rights of people not to be the subject of racist discrimination.

WE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS ARGUMENT! Jeez, just because you are purposely blind, doesn't mean we are ignoring you.

We respect those rights because it is better for everyone to have a right to their beliefs, because there is the threat, that if we articulate positions outside the norm, WE might be silenced.

You haven't even looked at the point we raised about Communists in the 50s. If you say that we must prevent the right of rascists to be rascist because that is wrong, what else can the government prevent because it is 'wrong'?

It's called the 'slippery slope'.

	15-04-2003 22:19									#148
	Inflate your Upload Space

Well, I'll argue just a little bit with you, Imran.
The government is nothing but people.
People, try as they will, let personal viewpoints shadow their unpersonal decisions.

If you can follow that.

	15-04-2003 22:19									#149
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui How is that hypocritical at all?! I believe the exact same thing. You can be as discriminating as you want in your personal life (pick your own friends based on race), but the government shouldn't do it.

The problem with this is that "your personal life" has ill defined boundaries. Someone might say it just includes your relationship with your friends. Other people might want to claim that employer hiring practices are "private" or that who you let into your store is an entirely private matter. The problem is that this allows for a significant amount of racist behaviour to have a real effect on the lives of minorities.

I don't care whether Jonny X doesn't have any black friends and doesn't like them. There isn't much we can do about that because it isn't practically feasible, and would probably do more harm than good (even though it would be a good thing to stope everyone from being racist). What we can do is prevent Jonny X carrying out his racist agenda in business or other institutions which can have a real effect on the lives of minorities. Quite where we draw the line as to which institutions are subject to the law will be an entirely practical matter.

The goal of my agenda is to curb racism by making it hard for racists to construct racist institutions. I think that the goal is worth the price of treading on the toes of a few rednecks. Again - whose rights matter more: the racists or their victims?

	15-04-2003 22:33									#150
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: that different treatment is justifiable when there is a good reason. Who decides the 'good reason'. We've given you good reasons, but you reject them out of hand. Since everyone else agrees it is a good reason, then perhaps we are all right, and you, as the lone dissenter are wrong.

Who decides what counts as a good reason? Well I'd say that a democratic government makes law and judges interpret it. That's customary in our society.

quote: The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict.

quote: Um... we have addressed this. We believe that the right to association is more important. I even said this a few pages ago.

Yes, but you believing it isn't really arguing, is it? I'll respond by saying that the right to free association is left largely untouched by my scheme. Only the rights of racists to be racist are restricted. Now please attack my actual position rather than some fictional version of it that you have concocted.

quote: quote: If we give the first absolute priority over the second then you will be in the position of allowing anybody to be a racist, of allowing mall owners to ban blacks or jews if they want to. THIS is your problem. You want to assume "absolute" priority of one over the other. There is NO freedom which is absolute, none, zip, nada. So why assume we are saying there is an absolute right to freedom of association? We are merely saying IN THIS CONTEXT freedom of association is the more important right.

OK - that's better. This is the point of disagreement. Again, you think this but you have no argument for it.

quote: quote: If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism. Compared to freedom of association, then you are right, I don't.

But you have no argument so far. My argument is that the consequences of respecting the rights of racists to be racist are worse than the consequences of prohibiting their racist behaviour. Who is harmed more: the people who can't discriminate on the basis of race or those who would be discriminated against. Come on Imran, it's the latter who are harmed more.

quote: WE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS ARGUMENT! Jeez, just because you are purposely blind, doesn't mean we are ignoring you.

If you mean by "addressing" expressing your belief that the right to free association trumps others without any supporting reason, then you are right. Of course that's of limited worth.

quote: We respect those rights because it is better for everyone to have a right to their beliefs, because there is the threat, that if we articulate positions outside the norm, WE might be silenced. It's called the 'slippery slope'.

Finally, this is more like it.

I'd point out that no one is being prevented from having racist beliefs on my scheme, they are merely being prevented from carrying out certain actions on the basis of those beliefs.

And in general slippery slope arguments are fallacious without good reason to assume that the consequences are likely to pan out. I don't see any reason why an anti racist law would necessarily lead to 1984. You need to provide a better reason for thinking this is likely to happen.