 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
2. Agathon believes it is wrong for gymnasia to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons. |
Actually, Agathon doesn't. He feels it is ok for women gyms to exclude men because of sexist 'men are pigs' reasons.
quote:
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! |
And chocolate and Free Speech are the same? Unlike chocolate, you can't 'increase' freedom of speech. It's an ideal. You either have it, or you don't. If you deny freedom of speech to one person, you destroy the entire concept!
Idiot!
quote:
How would you feel if you went out of your house every day, and saw posters everywhere saying that you were an animal and deserved to be lynched? |
If it is on their property, I got no problem with it.
quote:
I'd say that the KKK should be left alone as long as it's harmless. But if it becomes a threat to the well being of others - smash it. |
Thank you for contradicting yourself. You said you'd smash the KKK simply for being a racist organization, which means even if they sat around saying how blacks suck, you'd still smash them even if they weren't a threat.
quote:
Since Asher's style of argument is to endlessy repeat his opinion with "can't you see?" or some similar phrase added to it |
Hmmm, seems to be exactly on par with you. No wonder you two hate each other.
quote:
All I've been talking about is a law that would prevent institutions from wrongful discrimination on the basis of race or sex. |
What's 'wrongful'. It seems to me that 'wrongful' to you is simply what Agathon thinks is wrong. In essense you would silence racists by destroying their institutions by making them admit people that are against their views.
Are you saying the KKK has to admit blacks and Jews? Then you've just silenced them because their position is exactly opposite.
Game. Set. Match.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
2. Agathon believes it is wrong for gymnasia to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons. |
Actually, Agathon doesn't. He feels it is ok for women gyms to exclude men because of sexist 'men are pigs' reasons. |
So if women are sexually harassed and complain about it, they are being "sexist"?
quote:
quote:
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! |
And chocolate and Free Speech are the same? Unlike chocolate, you can't 'increase' freedom of speech. It's an ideal. You either have it, or you don't. If you deny freedom of speech to one person, you destroy the entire concept! |
No you don't. What you do is exactly deny freedom of speech to one person. Everyone else is left unmolested. And we prevent people from saying all sorts of things (incitement to riot, defamation, etc.). If one person being gagged means there is "no" free speech, then all you are doing is trading on an equivocation rather than making a point of substance.
quote:
quote:
How would you feel if you went out of your house every day, and saw posters everywhere saying that you were an animal and deserved to be lynched? |
If it is on their property, I got no problem with it. |
This tells me a lot about you.
quote:
quote:
I'd say that the KKK should be left alone as long as it's harmless. But if it becomes a threat to the well being of others - smash it. |
Thank you for contradicting yourself. You said you'd smash the KKK simply for being a racist organization, which means even if they sat around saying how blacks suck, you'd still smash them even if they weren't a threat. |
That's not what I said. I said that they were a criminal gang.
quote:
quote:
All I've been talking about is a law that would prevent institutions from wrongful discrimination on the basis of race or sex. |
What's 'wrongful'. It seems to me that 'wrongful' to you is simply what Agathon thinks is wrong. In essense you would silence racists by destroying their institutions by making them admit people that are against their views. |
If you can't accept that racism is wrong then I think you are a racist.
quote:
Are you saying the KKK has to admit blacks and Jews? Then you've just silenced them because their position is exactly opposite. |
Never said it.
Hardly - as I said, you'll make a lousy lawyer. I'd love to go up in court against you - I'd have a field day.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
Again Agathon... Valid reasons have been given and you just choose to ingore them. It really comes down to one thing... It is your personal opinion that there is no valid reason for it, therefore it is discrimination and action should be taken. There is no logic at all in any of your arguments, just your unsuported opinions against Golf Clubs vs other private clubs. |
Utter rubbish! I've pointed out to you why, for example, saying that women play slow is not a sufficient justification.
quote:
And because of your proven lack of knowledge of Private Golf Clubs, you are in no position to judge. |
And because of your proven lack of knowledge of logic and argument you are in no position to judge.
quote:
As far as saying that your gym example is irrelevent...
It only is irrelevent to you now because everybody distroyed your poor example. |
Oh god.. The status of women only gyms is irrelevant to the status of golf clubs because the fact of whether women are sexually harassed at gymnasia has nothing to do with golf club admission policy. For the umpteenth +1 time - it wasn't originally my example and it was only used to point out a case where differential treatment of the sexes could be justified. I know a case where there had to be a "women only day" at a gym because of the bad behaviour of the male members.
quote:
Every reason you gave why it is ok for them also apply to Private Golf Clubs, so it is still relevent to this conversation for showing that you really have no leg to stand on here. |
You have still yet to show that there is some real harm to men done by admitting women to a golf club - commensurate with the harms inflicted upon women in a sexist society. Ditto for racists.
quote:
The law is the law... so the burden of proof is on you to show how it's discrimination. All you have offered up so far is your opinon... So all you have said is that you are the only one that can determine if it is discrimination or not. Again... no logic on your part. |
I have not said that I'm the only person to determine whether it is discrimination or not. I think the history of Augusta with regard to blacks shows what they're about.
Let me summarize what I'm proposing:
A law such that it is illegal for private clubs (a concept which will have to be defined to legal standards to exlcude things like poker nights) to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons. This law recognizes that there can be circumstances for clubs to discriminate for other (good) reasons, so it is not a law that mandates no differential treatment of the sexes at all. Nor is it a law that prevents any other sort of differential treatment that has nothing to do with race or sex.
The application of this law would be that if there was good reason to believe that a club was discriminating for racist or sexist reasons, a court case would follow in which it would be determined, using the standard of reasonable doubt, whether or not the club was racist or sexist. If the club was found guilty, punishment would follow.
The fact of whether an organisation discriminates for racist or sexist reasons (or for good reasons) isn't up to me or dependent on my opinion - it is a fact about their behaviour.
Look - I can't say for sure whether or not Augusta really is a sexist club. None of us can because we aren't members or we don't have any inside knowledge. But, if such a law as this existed and that Burk woman brought a case against Augusta and lost, I would be perfectly happy with the decision. My position throughout has been that it is not enough to say "it's a private club" and leave it at that. This seems to me a fig leaf for racist practices which should not be tolerated in a civilised society. A law such as the one I have proposed would be a way to remove that fig leaf.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
(cross posting with ming, must learn to type faster  )
Upon rereading this thread one must think.
The people that are defending their rights are AVID golfers that have had previous experiences with private golf clubs.
The person that is on the other side, I'll guess, has never golfed or has so infrequently that he sucks. I would be also willing to bet that his experiences with private golf clubs is equally close to zero.
The experienced people have stated numerous reasons why they would prefer not to have women join the club.
The inexperienced person dismisses those reasons as not sufficient.
This is simply another case of a person that doesn't know what he's talking about trying to impose his morality on people that are experienced with it.
And yes, I'd love to meet you in a court of law. I would love to see the judge laugh you right out of there.
Even though my only experience is that pre-law was my major in school, I'm sure it would be enough.
(you'll notice that even Burk hasn't suggested taking this to court because she realizes that she doesn't have a leg to stand on) So the only option she has is public opinion and trying to damage using economic means. I support her right to do this, even though I laugh at her futile attempt)
RAH |
Yes I have played golf quite a bit, although I haven't played for some years. I never did join my local club, although I was invited to join, because I only played when I was home from school and it wasn't worth paying the whole year's fees for 1/3 of a year's golf - especially when my friends and I only played for fun.
I wouldn't pull the "experience" trick if I were you. I could easily just pull rank on my experience teaching logic and critical reasoning (which would make whatever you have look pathetic). But both of these are mere appeals to authority rather than good argument.
I agree that Burk has no legal leg to stand on. I don't much care for her either, but I think there is a point here. That's why I've been suggesting for the whole thread that a new law is needed. I've described this law and it's only aimed at racism and sexism, as I've argued nothing else is implied. I can't see your problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Yes I have played golf quite a bit, although I haven't played for some years. I never did join my local club, although I was invited to join, because I only played when I was home from school and it wasn't worth paying the whole year's fees for 1/3 of a year's golf - especially when my friends and I only played for fun.
|
Ok, I'll concede you have some experience but still classify you as a novice. In a court of law, we look for expert witnesses, not novice witnesses.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I wouldn't pull the "experience" trick if I were you. I could easily just pull rank on my experience teaching logic and critical reasoning (which would make whatever you have look pathetic). But both of these are mere appeals to authority rather than good argument.
|
If your arguements in this thread are indication of your expertise in logic and cirtical reasoning, calling you a novice might be an overstatement.
My schooling and 25 years of dealing with contract law, labor laws, and vendor contracts is nothing to sneaze at. Those that can do, those that can't teach.
And finally, thank god we live in the good ole USA were we can count on that fact that any law similar to the one you suggest has absolutely zero chance of being passed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-04-2003 03:15
Of course, the added contradictions are conveniently hidden under the words "good reason" since you will decide for everyone when their reasons are good or not...
ACK!
|