 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
Agathon - quote:
All I claimed is that different treatment based on race or sex is justifiable when there is a good reason for it. |
No, you've argued that this different treatment should be allowed when YOU decide the reason is good, not the people making the decision. I see why you're a communist, you have this overwhelming desire to make everyone else's decisions based on what you value in life. But to masquerade this penchant for totalitarianism as freedom is the height of deceit...
quote:
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. |
Your reason for allowing this discrimination is that "men are pigs", i.e., the presence of men diminishes the experience for women. Why can't men at a country club decide that the presence of women diminishes their experience and why does their rationale need your approval?
quote:
The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict. |
I've addressed that, rights (freedom) do not conflict. You've created a special "right" for one group you favor to not be discriminated against while hypocritically preserving the right to discriminate for groups you do favor. If rights belong to us all and are equal, and we have this "right" to never face discrimination, then NO group and NO person should ever be allowed to discriminate, but you discriminate every time you buy something.
quote:
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. |
There is no right to be free from discrimination, you've invented this "right" to attack freedom. But this is the same tactic the left constantly uses to attack freedom, just invent special rights for favored constituents to other people's property and freedom and then claim rights conflict.
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. If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism. |
One can oppose racism without attacking freedom. If a mall did that, they'd lose the business of those who oppose racism. That's how one uses their freedom of association to counter racism... Since you aren't off in Africa combatting slavery, does that mean you really don't care? Yeah, spare us your hypocritical demagoguery...
quote:
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. |
But you have put yourself in the position of deciding which reasons are good and which are bad.
quote:
The only thing this will inhibit is the desires of racists to be racist. |
How do we inhibit the desires of communists to be communists? I see no moral high ground for you to decry racists, you commies have a much worse record.
quote:
Frankly I think that's a price worth paying for a less racist society. |
You aren't paying any price, so naturally it's easy for you to demand others pay the price.
quote:
It's certainly a better price to pay than allowing discrimination. |
Like virtually everything you've posted, this is inaccurate too. You aren't opposed to discrimination, you just want to decide when discrimination should be allowed.
quote:
Why won't somebody take this argument head on? |
 Ignore what others post and act like no one is responding.
quote:
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. |
Why does our position require a better result as defined by you?
Your position doesn't end with a better result as defined by us...
quote:
As I said before, unless you can answer this question, you aren't really addressing my argument. |
If you have a question, try using punctuation.
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.  |
What a pathetic argument. So if this majority decided to enslave a minority, you'd accept that as legitimate even if you voted against the proposal?
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. |
That's BS too, there are employers who've been punished for "racist" hiring practices even when ethnic minorities made up most of their workforce. There was a lampmaker in the Chicago area who employed ~20 hispanics, a couple blacks, and one white. He was put through the ringer when he didn't hire another black, so take your BS to a fact checker before spewing it here.
Rah - I don't know about you, but I make the effort to avoid playing golf on ladies day. If you think there's no difference in how fast men and women play golf, maybe you were on courses catering to transvestites.  There's nothing worse than watching 4 old biddies hit 10-20 golpher balls up each fairway before you can tee off.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Duh? My name is Loinburger and I am a moron who sounds off without reading other people's posts. |
Classic. Absolutely classic. Perhaps you should go back to elementary school to brush up on your skills by matching wits with the other kids on the playground.
quote:
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. |
So, in other words, one can treat the races and sexes differently unless one wants to bar somebody of a given race or gender from a golf course because you don't want them to. Nice ad hoc argument there.
quote:
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. |
I'll post what I said again, with the relevant parts bolded for the benefit of those who should probably take a remedial reading course...
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
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. |
We're not talking about manufacturing crack or selling children. We're talking about freedom of association, which is protected under the law. Augusta is doing nothing worse than the Boy Scouts or the local Jewish synagogue, since Augusta is no less of a private club than the Boy Scouts or the local Jewish synagogue.
"But they make money from golf tournaments!" Sure, and the Boy Scouts and the local Jewish synagogue make money from other forms of fundraising.
"But they make a lot of money from golf tournaments!" I'd be willing to place a small bet that the Boy Scouts make more money annually than Augusta. I'd be willing to put good money on the bet that the Catholic Church makes more money annually than Augusta.
"But I don't like Augusta, and I like the Boy Scouts, so as a representative of God I'm allowed to apply an arbitrary double standard!" Believe what you will.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
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. |
This is one of the stupidest strawmen I've ever seen, because a. this thread is not about gun control, and b. as has been explained multiple times to you, public transit systems are public, and Augusta is private. If your tax dollars went to supporting Augusta then it would be one thing, but since you do not support Augusta in any way shape or form the burden of proof lies on your shoulders as to why you have the right to tell Augusta what to do (and, needless to day, you have failed to satisfy this burden, but have instead relied on filling your posts with a righteously indignant tone in the hopes that somebody somewhere will actually care that you are offended). You don't have the right to dictate who I am allowed to let into my treehouse, even if I charge admission into my treehouse, and even if my treehouse club makes money by selling lemonade. By the same token, you are not allowed to dictate who the Boy Scouts let into the Boy Scouts, who the local Jewish synagogue appoints as its Rabbi, or who Augusta National allows to join. If you need to ask "why," then you need to reread the Constitution.
Perhaps you should try constructing arguments that make some kind of a token attempt to adhere to the Constitution, rather than relying on the assumption that the world would be a better place if you were allowed to tell everybody else what to do. The burden of proof lies firmly on your shoulders here -- you must justify why we ought to ignore the Constitution, and you must justify why we ought to take your word as law. You have done neither, but have merely reiterated your pack of idiotic strawmen.
Last edited by loinburger on 16-04-2003 at 18:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
Ming & Rah - We also have a woman who plays with us and she even plays skins (that's how good she is). But I'm not talking about the exceptions to the rule, on average, women are slower and Rah's acknowledgement about avoiding ladies day reflects that reality. 
Agathon - quote:
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. |
Now that's funny, blacks were told to sit in the back of the bus by government, not the bus company. I guess since you've established a pattern of being wrong, you'd naturally screw that up too. It was government that told private bus lines (along with other businesses) where blacks could sit. That era is known as JIM CROW where government and the KKK forced businesses to discriminate, they too, like you, were ignoring the property rights of business owners.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
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. |
First - If men were all pigs then that would be a fact and not a case of discrimination. Discriminating is an action, the piggish status of men is a claim about the way the world is.
I think you are making too much of the gym example. The stated reason for women only gyms is that men behave badly at mixed gyms and disrupt the right of women to exercise without being leered at, harassed, etc. This is the case in my experience, but if you want to disagree it doesn't affect my argument at all since all you must accept to accept my argument is "if men did behave this badly, there would be a case for women only gyms." You seem to think that my argument requires the truth of a categorical to go through when only this hypothetical needs to be true.
If you hold the latter then you are commited to the idea that it's OK to treat the sexes differently when there is a justifiable reason to do so. This sort of argument is aimed at the idiots who immediately jump on every case of differential treatment as wrongful discrimination (this misunderstanding also frequently occurs in arguments about affirmative action.
You say " it isn't discrimination for either sex to want their own club." I would replace this with " it isn't necessarily discrimination for either sex to want their own club. If there is a good reason for having a men's only club then of course there's nothing wrong with it. That golf clubs must fall into this category is something I dispute.
quote:
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? |
Only because you buy into the idea that the fact it's a private club allows you to be racist. I dispute this claim, so there is no point endlessly repeating it as though it were a proof.
quote:
Your logic is that it's discrimination if men do it, but not if women do it... please explain the logic here. |
That's not my logic at all. This just shows me that you haven't read very carefully. My position is that it is wrongful discrimination if it is done for racist or sexist reasons. A golf club that excludes blacks because they are black is doing so for racist reasons. A medical program that only tests East European Jews and their descendants for Tay-Sachs is not wrong because only these people carry Tay-Sachs. If you could only understand this simple point the argument could proceed.
quote:
You also say that private clubs are ok, but not Augusta/Men's golf clubs... again, please explain the logic here. |
My claim is that clubs that discriminate on the basis of race or sex without good reason are doing something wrong. There's nothing wrong with a private club having various selection procedures as long as they aren't racist or sexist. In fact there's nothing wrong with a men's only golf club if a good reason for keeping it men only can be found (I can't think of one offhand).
It's a moot point whether Augusta's policy regarding women is sexist or has some other rationale. But given the sexist and racist history of the game of golf and the club the simplest explanation is that they discriminate.
quote:
You seem to be the one having problems with the concepts of reason and logic. |
From what you've written I don't think so....
quote:
So you are the only one the universe that gets to decided if there is a valid reason or not. |
So it's only because I think it's wrong that racism is wrong. Interesting...
quote:
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. |
Not what I said.
quote:
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... |
Again - you are the one with problems with logic here. I get paid to teach it - I've contributed material to a recently published book on Critical Reasoning - I've also studied moral notions of equality for some years - I know what I'm talking about. Evidently you do not. You don't seem to be bright enough to pick up the subtleties of my argument (which aren't particularly profound - basic stuff actually). That's not my fault. Frankly, the material you've contributed to this debate would at most get you a C- if I was grading it in a first year course.
The funny thing is - even I can think of better arguments for your position than the ones you've offered.
quote:
Come on back after you take a class or two on logic.
And if you already did... you might want to take it again. |
You are the one that needs the logic class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
Women need to stay where they belong... out of the man's way. Just kidding.
If men really are pigs then they probably be kept separate from the rest of the crowd (women). Can the men help it if their golf clubs (styes) are nicer than the womens?
quote:
My position is that it is wrongful discrimination if it is done for racist or sexist reasons. A golf club that excludes blacks because they are black is doing so for racist reasons. A medical program that only tests East European Jews and their descendants for Tay-Sachs is not wrong because only these people carry Tay-Sachs. If you could only understand this simple point the argument could proceed.
|
True. Thus, a MEN'S ONLY CLUB will not let women in. What's wrong with that? The same way the OB/GYN won't give me a papsmere despite all my pleeding. Also, why can't I shower in the womens locker rooms at the gym? And why do I get weird looks when I call a woman a chick? Men need a place to "hang out", as do women... places apart from those of the other sex. Places where I can whine about the wife, sex, or my cute secretary without getting judged... just vent.
That is why these clubs exist, not for the point of exclusion, but for the point of segregation... And we all know that these things are needed every now and then. Granted that segregation based on race is now becoming unaccepted, perhaps one day it will be to with sexes... Yet, as long as I have to lower the seat after I pee, or else!!!!... Women will stay out places made for men, and men will stay out of places made for women...
Don't try and confuse sexism with racism...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
aggie, i still fail to see the crux of your argument.
your point is that it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race or sex.
are you saying that that wrong trumps whether some group has the right to associate with each other or not? |
Finally, someone who gets it.
I'm saying that it does sometimes.
Now I take it that everyone will agree that it would be hopeless to try and force everyone not to be racist in their choice of close friends. The point of the right of freedom of association is that voluntary friendships are necessary for human welfare.
On the other hand, racism is a terrible evil (as is sexism). Black people also have a right not to be discriminated against because they are black. Segregated shopping malls and toilets harm black people by effectively turning them into second class citizens. Discrimination against them by employers directly affects their life prospects.
Now if we understood the right to free association as absolute we would end up allowing racist shopping malls and employment practices, etc. On the other hand, if we understood the right not to be discriminated against as absolute, we would make life unliveable.
The way to resolve this conflict of rights is to determine who's going to come out worst overall if one right takes precedence over the other.
For example, if the state insisted that everyone had to have black friends, clearly everyone would be worse off.
On the other hand, if the state allowed racists to create discriminatory employment practices or racist store owners to exclude blacks from stores black people would be worse off and only the racists would be better off. In other words some limit to freedom of association is required.
Now given that racism is wrong, it's simply not fair to allow blacks to suffer by indulging wrongful prejudices. That's why discriminatory employment practices should be illegal - even if it is a private company.
Things like golf clubs and other clubs fall somewhere between associations of friends and things like companies and stores. Generally you don't have to be close personal friends with the hundreds of people that belong to your golf club - so there is more room for the law here.
So the question is: does the harm inflicted by making it illegal to prevent someone joining a golf club on the basis of race outweight the harm done to black people by the state allowing racist institutions to flourish? I think it's clear it doesn't. Having to let Alan Keyes into your golf club (who's the sort of black guy they'd let in) doesn't harm you as much as living in a racist society does.
Preventing this sort of segregation also may have the future effect of lowering the level of racial prejudice. That is a worthwhile goal for a civilised society.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
1. Why does this necessitate having men only golf clubs rather than some other men's club?
2. Men who can't act like themselves around women have a problem with women. That's not the fault of women. |
the two problems with this point i can see are:
1. how does this preclude having a men's only golf club?
2. occasionally, women engage in something commonly known as "girl talk". this almost never occurs in the presence of males, as it, more often than not, discusses men in general. men too occasionally need this sort of discussive environment--and the pub is not always the best place to have it.
quote:
Yet I guess you don't have a problem with wheelchair ramps. |
generally, i've found golf (in observation and the one time i've played it) to be a walking sport. i have yet to see a handicapped person without the use of their legs play it.
finally, i find it hard to agree with your claim that any female other than burk is actually being harmed by this policy.
the only harm i can see being done is the fact that augusta national no longer is capable of donating direly needed funds to many a charity in georgia.
Last edited by Q Cubed on 17-04-2003 at 02:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ming
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
For the umpteenth time - the gym example is only meant to point out that different treatment is sometimes justifiable and sometimes is not.
|
For the umpteenth time, it's not a valid example. It does nothing to support that different treatment is sometimes justifiable and sometimes is not.
quote:
The fact that women at a gym don't have to be best friends has nothing to do with the reason why men would be banned from such gyms.
|
But the only reason you have given in the past is that men are pigs. That's NOT a valid reason for differentation. I could say that women are ****** with the same authority you use to say that men are pigs, rendering your only reason to date, invalid.
quote:
I know this might startle you but there can be more than one reason for having a women only gym. One reason could be that it's in someone's house and only her friends use it.
|
I know this might startle you, but there are reasons why men should have a men's only club... but you just ignore them...
quote:
Another reason could be that mixed gyms have proved to be hotbeds of sexual harassment. prohibited.
|
Ahhh... so you are really saying that sexual harassment is only important if it happens to a women, and not if it happens to a man. No way, it's a two way street, and Men might want a men's only club to avoid the same thing.
quote:
I don't use this as the only reason why mens clubs should be treated differently. Where did I say it was the only reason? I didn't - this is a flagrant misrepresentation on your part (and a logical confusion).
|
Then why haven't you provided any other examples. Your whole argument basically, "since I can't see a reason for it, it's wrong" Oh, and you have said just that in the past.
Again... your ignorance of Men's Golf Clubs doesn't provide a logical argument that they shouldn't be allowed.
And again, there are legitimate reasons why an all mens golf club is valid. You just choose to ignore them, or see them as not as valid as your men are pigs argument.
Because again... sexual harrasement is a two way street, so if it's a valid reason to allow an all womens club, the same holds true for men...
Because again... the fact that everybody isn't best friends is also not a reason since that isn't the case in all womens club...
So all that leaves you with is your argument that men are pigs.
Try again... You claim it "depends"... yet it seems to only depend if it's in favor of women and not men.
Your whole argument is sexist and pure discrimination.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
Yes, it would be nice if every relationship, gathering, association or private club, was totally non descriminatory, But that can't be legally mandated since if violates are freedom to associate. No one here is saying anything about an ideal world. They're talking about rights. You seem to be argueing about the ideal world and the rest of us are argueing about rights. When people argue past each other, no resolution will ever be reached.
I'm starting a BRIDGE club and since I plan on drinking lots of beer, eating nuts and smoking stoogies, I expect to FART a lot. Since women are usually disgusted by most of these practices and I hate to be reminded how disgusting it is, I'm not planning on inviting any women to join. I HAVE THAT RIGHT. And so do men's golf clubs where the men like to drink, smoke, swear, and fart, without having to worry about what the women will say. IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
Agathon - quote:
The stated reason for women only gyms is that men behave badly at mixed gyms and disrupt the right of women to exercise without being leered at, harassed, etc. This is the case in my experience |
You're a woman or a pig? I've belonged to coed gyms and saw nothing like this happen, sure, there were men and women who took a look at attractive members. Big deal...would you argue in favor of all women clubs banning lesbians?
quote:
but if you want to disagree it doesn't affect my argument at all since all you must accept to accept my argument is "if men did behave this badly, there would be a case for women only gyms." |
Then you must accept that if some women behave badly, Augusta would have a good reason (by your own standard) to ban women. Slow play is a good reason...
quote:
You seem to think that my argument requires the truth of a categorical to go through when only this hypothetical needs to be true. |
Then hypotheticals involving women disrupting Augusta qualify as a good reason to ban them too.
quote:
Again - you are the one with problems with logic here. I get paid to teach it |
Oh here we go with Agathon's so-called qualifications, he's paid to teach, therefore we are required to overlook his inability to offer a logical and consistent argument in this thread because he's really smart inspite of our inability to detect his intelligence.
quote:
I've contributed material to a recently published book on Critical Reasoning |
Did you provide the examples of uncritical thinking to highlight the differences between the two?
quote:
I've also studied moral notions of equality for some years - I know what I'm talking about. |
You forgot to mention your position as Apolyton's resident philosopher on that resume (self-appointed of course).
quote:
Evidently you do not. You don't seem to be bright enough to pick up the subtleties of my argument (which aren't particularly profound - basic stuff actually). |
Yes, those subtleties are your euphemism for the absence of logic.
quote:
That's not my fault. |
It never is...
quote:
Frankly, the material you've contributed to this debate would at most get you a C- if I was grading it in a first year course. |
And your contribution? "I don't like discrimination, it's bad." And when other forms of discrimination you support are mentioned to expose your hypocrisy, you then claim discrimination is okay when there's a good reason. i.e., a reason you like. Real critical thinking there... 
quote:
The funny thing is - even I can think of better arguments for your position than the ones you've offered. |
Then offer those better arguments and tell us why they still don't qualify as good reasons.
quote:
A stunningly fallacious inference.
Compare: if racists don't have chocolate, then it follows by the laws of logic (according to the wise Imran) that nobody has any chocolate!
Idiot. |
If racist speech is banned, how do we have the freedom of speech when you've just limited what we can say? In your example with the chocolate, you didn't ban racists from having chocolate, you banned everyone from having chocolate because the chocolate = racist speech. The critical thinker can't even figure out his own analogy.
Last edited by Berzerker on 17-04-2003 at 03:20
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-04-2003 06:06
|