 |
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
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. |
No. You've completely misunderstood my position. We aren't talking about treehouses either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
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) |
Again, it depends what you mean by a "private gathering". If you mean something like a wedding or private party then yes, I agree. I think it's a stretch to say that a golf club is like that, most I know aren't. It's an even bigger stretch to say that a business is like that since a business doesn't usually operate as a society of friends.
The only issue here is, where does the anti-discrimination legislation stop. I'd say that is a practical matter, where it does more harm than good.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
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. |
you yourself here are being rather discriminatory here. by calling members of the augusta national "rednecks", you are implying that they backwards and stupid people simply because they are white and because they are from the south. even though i myself am not caucasian, i am southern, and i take that as an offense.
quote:
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. |
if the court sided with augusta national, would that end your complaint?
quote:
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. |
their position, as well as mine, is that you cannot restrict the rights of a small group simply because you don't like their policies, because to do so would create a slippery slope. why stop at the rights of racists to associate? do some not find the practices of, say, communists abhorrent and dangerous to the american way of life? why respect their freedom to associate (cf the McCarthyist Era)? when french people gather and speak only the french language, how do we know they're not plotting something against america? in our defense, we naturally have to make it difficult to bar french gatherings...
quote:
Again, it depends what you mean by a "private gathering". If you mean something like a wedding or private party then yes, I agree. I think it's a stretch to say that a golf club is like that, most I know aren't. It's an even bigger stretch to say that a business is like that since a business doesn't usually operate as a society of friends. |
how familiar are you with augusta national? it is NOT a public golf club. indeed, to be a member, you have to be quite wealthy and of a certain limited demographic. thus, it is by definition a private golf club which simply happens to hold an event that members from the public are invited to attend.
i also disagree in this particular case with your allegation that the rights of those being discriminatory being quash is less harmful than the rights of those who are being discriminated against.
augusta national was one of the largest private donors to many local charities before this entire flap. many of those charities have not received any funding from augusta national this year, simply because augusta national has no money to give.
it's disturbing that a one-woman crusade has caused this much damage. indeed, if you poll most of the women around the south, the majority of them do not care about it; one of the most absurd results is that burk asked the mayor of atlanta, shirley franklin, to "donate some protestors".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
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. |
Yes, but you are against the majority, you realize. Look at this thread, for instance. It is you and Slowhand vs. everyone. I believe this shows that our 'good reasons' are accepted (at least on Poly).
However, we aren't a democracy. We are a republic, we believe in protecting rights.
You are contradicting yourself. The South wanted to prevent blacks from doing anything near whites. The majority agreed with them. According to your reasoning, that was a sufficiently good reason to discriminate... the majority thought it was a swell idea.
quote:
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. |
You aren't serious, are you?  By restricting the right of racists to be racist (by, say, banning the KKK), you HAVE affected the freedom of association. Just because it hasn't affected me, doesn't mean there is no affect.
Why are their views less worthy than mine?
quote:
Again, you think this but you have no argument for it. |
You think that racists should be restricted from being racist, but you have no argument for it  .
Just because you ignore my arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. I've said that freedom of association is required for a functioning democratic republic.
Without diversity of ideas, which is gotten by freedom of speech and association, you have a broken democracy, because you are then asserting that some views are not tolerated.
As long as you don't hurt anyone physically, you should be able to protest your viewpoint because by allowing everyone to speak their politics do we allow everyone to have proper democratic rights in our republic.
quote:
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. |
 You are absurd! You say I don't have an argument, then say your argument is consequences of B are worse than the consequences of A, when my argument is exactly the reverse. Just because the argument is different than yours doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!
Society is hurt MORE by taking away the rights of A. It shows that if we don't like your POV, we'll simply stop you from saying it. In a society that SAYS it respects differing opinions and freedom of speech, that is utterly inconsistant and reprensible.
quote:
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. |
Why? After all your argument comes down to preventing the rights of racists to be racist trumps all others without any supporting reason.
quote:
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. |
Hmmm... Communists in the '50s, Islamic Arabs in the present day (who, say, support Saddam), etc., seem to me to be good reasons to stop trying to restrict peoples' rights because of their beliefs (we are saying that we don't like your beliefs, so you can't lobby for them). Because that is ultimately what you are doing. You are saying racists have no rights to be racist because you think they are bad for society. In the 1950s people said Communists have no right to lobby for Communism because they are bad for society.
Why should you allow discrimination based on political views but not on race and gender? Isn't it bad for society to discriminate against Communists? Don't you believe that the rights to the victims of discrimination are more important than the discriminators' right to discriminate?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
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. |
Yes, but you are against the majority, you realize. Look at this thread, for instance. It is you and Slowhand vs. everyone. I believe this shows that our 'good reasons' are accepted (at least on Poly). |
That's not what I meant. What I was saying was that the determination of what counts as good reasons would be ultimately decided by a court based on the antidiscrimination law which would provide a basis for the decision. This isn't meant to be a controversial point - the answer to "whose reasons" is "the law's reasons".
And as for being in the minority on Poly - that doesn't bother me at all. Since when did a vote decide the validity of an argument?
quote:
However, we aren't a democracy. We are a republic, we believe in protecting rights. |
I agree, the United States is far from a democracy. But in any case if you believe in protecting rights then there will still be conflicts of rights.
quote:
You are contradicting yourself. The South wanted to prevent blacks from doing anything near whites. The majority agreed with them. According to your reasoning, that was a sufficiently good reason to discriminate... the majority thought it was a swell idea. |
No I am not contradicting myself. This objection rests on your erroneous interpretation of my comments about the role of the law.
quote:
quote:
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. |
You aren't serious, are you? By restricting the right of racists to be racist (by, say, banning the KKK), you HAVE affected the freedom of association. Just because it hasn't affected me, doesn't mean there is no affect. |
That's why I said that the right is "largely untouched". In fact you are just being silly here, governments can and have restricted the rights of freedom of association for a very long time, and justifiably so. For example, a court can issue an order that certain persons are not allowed to associate with criminals. The right to freedom of association is, as you said, not absolute. That means there are exceptions. I'm arguing that this is an exception..
quote:
Why are their views less worthy than mine? |
Again it isn't their views or beliefs that are being legislated against. It is certain actions that are being legislated against. And these actions are less worthy of non-interference than yours because they are racist actions. They violate the rights of others.
quote:
quote:
Again, you think this but you have no argument for it. |
You think that racists should be restricted from being racist, but you have no argument for it. |
Of course I have an argument for it. My argument is that racist institutions are wrong and that they harm those who they discriminate against. Having malls that are whites only is wrong for the same reason the Jim Crow laws were wrong - they in effect relegate blacks to being second class citizens.
I trust that you accept that racial discrimination is wrong. If you don't then I'm really worried. But if you do then the argument is as I said it was a conflict of rights. And since the harm done by discrimination is far worse than the harm done by stopping a few racists from actively being racist I don't see the problem.
quote:
Just because you ignore my arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. I've said that freedom of association is required for a functioning democratic republic. |
And restrictions on it are also required for a functioning democratic republic - it is not an absolute right. Thus it has to be reconciled with other rights, particularly the right not to be the victim of racial discrimination.
quote:
Without diversity of ideas, which is gotten by freedom of speech and association, you have a broken democracy, because you are then asserting that some views are not tolerated. |
This is a thoroughly ridiculous and extremist view. No society can be based on absolute tolerance since laws enforcing tolerance and punishing intolerance need to be in place for it to function. Societies can only be more or less tolerant. In fact the problem of what to do with the intolerant is the central problem that faces societies like ours. Every society has to be organised by some rules. Those, like racists, who don't accept the rules are better off going somewhere else or going to jail.
quote:
As long as you don't hurt anyone physically, you should be able to protest your viewpoint because by allowing everyone to speak their politics do we allow everyone to have proper democratic rights in our republic. |
I don't see how I have prevented racists from expressing their views. I've just argued that they shouldn't be able to perform some actions.
quote:
Society is hurt MORE by taking away the rights of A. It shows that if we don't like your POV, we'll simply stop you from saying it. In a society that SAYS it respects differing opinions and freedom of speech, that is utterly inconsistant and reprensible. |
Again we aren't talking about speech here.
I can't understand how you think society is hurt more by taking away the rights of A. We are only taking away the rights of racists to be racist, that is not very much at all. Nothing else is being proposed. Now you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that a few people being prevented from creating racist institutions (and that is all I'm suggesting - nothing else) is more harmful overall than many people being discriminated against.
On this line of argument you would support a sort of informal Jim Crow situation.
As for a reason = the reason is the obvious one that racism is bad.
quote:
quote:
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. |
Hmmm... Communists in the '50s, Islamic Arabs in the present day (who, say, support Saddam), etc., seem to me to be good reasons to stop trying to restrict peoples' rights because of their beliefs (we are saying that we don't like your beliefs, so you can't lobby for them). Because that is ultimately what you are doing. You are saying racists have no rights to be racist because you think they are bad for society. In the 1950s people said Communists have no right to lobby for Communism because they are bad for society. |
People indeed did say that. Once again I think that you are taking me to be saying things I don't. I'm not saying that racists should be kept quiet. I've said no such thing in this thread.
quote:
Why should you allow discrimination based on political views but not on race and gender? Isn't it bad for society to discriminate against Communists? Don't you believe that the rights to the victims of discrimination are more important than the discriminators' right to discriminate? |
If it was bad for every institution to discriminate on political grounds, the Republican party could not exclude communists. That would be absurd.
In short where the organisation is centred around people being of a like minded view and that's in a large part the point of it (say like an organisation of Catholic youth) there is no problem with excluding others who don't hold similar values (because the values are the point of the organisation) - with the important exception of racist organisations like the KKK - because racism is wrong and racists need to be prevented from having any ability to turn their poisonous views into reality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
ACLU=amazingly necessary idea gone horribly wrong.
=]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
It's not a controversial position, just a stupid one -- if you were making a consistent argument then it would be one thing, but by claiming that one form of discrimination is acceptable across the board while another is unacceptable across the board without making any kind of objective justification whatsoever you've basically rendered your entire argument meaningless. |
Duh? My name is Loinburger and I am a moron who sounds off without reading other people's posts.
Read and learn. One can treat the sexes and races differently without doing anything wrong, but that doesn't mean that every form of different treatment is permissible. That some forms of different treatment are good doesn't entail that none are bad.
Now don't bother me with this stupidity again.
quote:
You also say that Augusta doesn't have a good reason for disallowing women, in your opinion. What you continually fail to realize is that your opinion doesn't matter, since Augusta is a private club -- you don't pay any dues or contribute to the club in any meaningful way, so why should you have a say in how the club is run? I'm not allowed to dictate how somebody runs a business or club within the confines of the law, and neither can you, regardless of how righteously indignant and argumentatively inconsistent you are. |
Blah blah blah.....
Again - this assumes without argument that somehow because an institution is private (whatever that means - a useful and consistent definition is hard to come by) its members can do what they like.
This is false. They can't manufacture crack, sell children, plan terrorist attacks and lots of other things. Assuming that they have the right to racially discriminate as you have done is called begging the question. That club, like other clubs has to obey the law. If there were a law against racial discrimination it would have to obey it too.
Perhaps you ought to fly off back to libertarian la-la land where everyone can own their own field howitzer and blacks are at the back of the bus where they belong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
What I was saying was that the determination of what counts as good reasons would be ultimately decided by a court based on the antidiscrimination law which would provide a basis for the decision. |
Um... may I point to you the Boy Scout opinion by the US Supreme Court (the ultimate arbiter of antidiscrimination law)? |
Gee whiz - conflating morality with legality. Another fine fallacy to add to your collection.
quote:
I believe Communist institutions are wrong and they harm society. Can I close all of them? If not, then why. What is different? |
Because your belief has no basis in fact. I've no idea what the American Communist Party gets up to, but I imagine that PETA are a greater threat to the republic. Unlike the unknown predations of the American Communist Party the effects of racism are plainly evident.
quote:
quote:
And since the harm done by discrimination is far worse than the harm done by stopping a few racists from actively being racist I don't see the problem. |
You act like your beliefs are the God's honest truth. |
So you're saying that the fact that a few people feel bad because can't indulge their racist proclivities is much worse than the effects that tolerating discrimination has upon minorities. Imagine the horrors forced on the white rednecks by making them play golf with the hated racial enemy.
I think I'll die laughing now.
quote:
quote:
Again we aren't talking about speech here. |
BULLSHIT! I can't think of a worse restriction on speech than abolishing groups that advocate a view that you don't like.
quote:
I'm not saying that racists should be kept quiet. |
Yes you are. |
No I'm not - you reconstruct my argument from what's been shown in this thread and you show me where I am committed to silencing racists. I can think of other reasons why they ought to be silenced, but I haven't brought them up in this thread.
And don't try bringing up the KKK. I said it ought to be prohibited as a criminal gang, but that is not the same as gagging its members.
quote:
Yes, thank you Herr Dictator. Unfortunetly for you, most of us Americans believe in the concept of free speech. We believe that everyone has the right to say their views and join with likeminded people to further their views no matter HOW repugnant! It is the only way to have a free society. |
Well yours isn't particularly free if you're black or poor. Again - I never said that I was gagging people. It's amazing how a claim that institutions shouldn't be able to practice discrimination has suddenly been transformed into an attack on free speech.
quote:
Every person you prevent from excersizing their rights, you weaken our democracy. |
You don't have a bloody democracy. It's poisoned by money and influence peddling to the degree that hardly anyone bothers to vote. Your country is conformist to the hilt. All that daft flag waving and fascist pledging and "supporting the president". Give me a break. Some idiot once tried to get schoolkids in my country to salute the flag - it died - everyone thought it was silly.
quote:
What is that saying? 'They came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. They came for the Homosexuals and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual.... When they came for me, there was no one to speak for me' (basically). |
What if in 1931 they'd come for the Nazis....?
quote:
'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it' - Voltaire (this includes being able to join an organization) |
How patronising. I may not agree with what you say, but if it's harmless I'll not bother you. But if you start f*cking things up for other people - look out.
quote:
When you try to ban 'racist' organizations it'll be over my (and the ACLU's) dead body. |
I certainly hope so if the ACLU sticks up for racist scum.
Hasta la victoria siempre.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
No I am not. If you can't see the difference between justifiable discrimination and wrongful discrimination then that's your problem.
|
It's not discrimination... and that's the point. People have the right to pick their own friends. That's the right of association, not discrimination. Your whole argument is that Augusta should be treated differently because it's male only and your ONLY reason is "because men are pigs." But then you say women should be able to have their own club, and that when women do, it's not discrimination. Well guess what... it isn't discrimination for either sex to want their own club.
PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY WOMEN SHOULD BE ALLOWED THEIR OWN CLUBS BUT NOT MEN. Your opinion that all men are pigs IS NOT a valid argument. It's discrimination.
quote:
But this doesn't stop me believing that keeping blacks at the back of the bus is not a despicable thing to do. |
Gee... Augusta's male only policy doesn't stop my from thinking that keeping blacks at the back of the bus is despicable... so what's your point?
quote:
There's a lot more than there is in yours. As if you know anything about logic anyway.
|
Your logic is that it's discrimination if men do it, but not if women do it... please explain the logic here. You also say that private clubs are ok, but not Augusta/Men's golf clubs... again, please explain the logic here.
You seem to be the one having problems with the concepts of reason and logic.
quote:
I don't believe that men should be prohibited from having their own clubs. My position is that when there's a good reason, it's fine. When the reason is just plainly sexist it isn't. I don't think golf clubs have a good reason. Sound the trumpets! What a controversial position
|
So you are the only one the universe that gets to decided if there is a valid reason or not.
And since you have no knowledge of Men's Golf Clubs, and therefore can't see a reason, it must be discrimination and not be allowed.
Yet Women can have their own clubs because men are pigs...
Well.. that's not a logic argument. That's just a statement showing that when you don't understand something... you don't like it and don't want to allow it. Hmmm, kind of sounds just like discrimination...
Come on back after you take a class or two on logic.
And if you already did... you might want to take it again. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-04-2003 22:34
|