 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
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. |
Whether or not one plays golf, or how much, or for how long has nothing to do with arguing this case.
quote:
If your arguements in this thread are indication of your expertise in logic and cirtical reasoning, calling you a novice might be an overstatement. |
Since both you and Ming have spent half the thread misrepresenting my view, posting irrelevancies and failing to counter the actual argument, I think I win on this one.
quote:
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. |
Oh yeah, that's a great argument. They obviously didn't teach you to spell correctly. I thought lawyers were supposed to be good at isolating the issue from irrelevancies - I guess I was wrong.
quote:
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. |
And here's another logical howler. The prospects of a law being passed are irrelevant to the question of whether there should be such a law (the law I described, not your strange take on it). After all civil rights legislation had no prospect of being passed for years, but that doesn't entail that it should have been passed.
I've argued that there should be such a law. Nothing you or Ming have said has even come close to providing a refutation of this claim (the best either of you has done is say "it's a private club they can do what they like"); probably because you spent half the thread accusing me of taking positions that I don't take. If you would attempt to attack my actual position instead of some fictional construct you've made out of it, we might actually get somewhere.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
True... However, in MOST cases, women are slower than men. Yes, there are exceptions. |
Then there shouldn't be a general rule against women, unless it becomes a severe problem. Look, Ming, I've already said that I agree that it is possible that there could be good reasons for keeping women out. I've maintained this position since the beginning (that it is possible that there could be reasons, but I couldn't think of any good ones).
But this criticism bypasses my argument entirely. My argument is that it is wrong to keep women out for sexist reasons, even if it is a private club.
As I've been pointing out over the last few pages, the issue of whether there are good reasons to have men only clubs, or women only gyms is a red herring. My arguments are only directed at racists and sexists.
quote:
Yes... so it's another legitimate reason. |
What does this "sexual harassment" consist of?
quote:
Augusta allows all races... so again, not relevent to their no women policy. |
It is relevant in the sense that a general argument against wrongful discrimination is an argument against all types of wrongful discrimination.
Anyway, Rah seems to think they are still bigots.
quote:
A smoke screen... and also not true.
Find me an example where I say racisim is ok 
You will of course try to find some quote and take it out of context, or imply what my intent was. Don't waste your time. Just find an example where I say racism is ok. Stating the fact that clubs have the right to determine their own membership is not saying that racism is Ok... just stating a fact |
I'm not saying that you say racism is OK (I'm not going to quote stuff out of context - what's the point?). I'm saying that you defended the right of clubs to have racist and sexist admission policies. That is what I disagree with. I don't think they should have that right, because the right of freedom of association conflicts with other rights.
If you are going to say "the law doesn't allow for that" then I'm not going to disagree. The argument is about whether the law should be changed.
quote:
And you haven't come with any logical arguments on why Augusta's no women policy is discrimination. Your own logic states that if there is good reason, it's not sexist. And many legitimate reasons have been mentioned. |
If Augusta's no women policy is based on purely sexist reasons, then that is a fact about the club; it isn't something that is amenable to logical demonstration any more than the fact that the club members wear green jackets.
My position is: if it is in fact a policy based on purely sexist reasons, then it is wrong. I've consistently been arguing the general point that it is wrong for private clubs to practice wrongful discrimination. Either you think it is or you think it isn't. That is what the argument has been about - Augusta is a candidate case. Even if Augusta turned out to be non-sexist that would not settle the dispute over whether it is alright for any similar club to practice discrimination for racist or sexist reasons.
quote:
You are the one that keeps changing the issue every time you get beaten down because of your total lack of logic... as any reasonable person can see as they look through this thread. |
Bullsh*t. I haven't changed the issue at all. I've never said that there could never be a good reason for having a men only club - that's something you harped on about because you didn't understand what I was getting at. The issue is still whether or not it is justifiable for clubs to practice wrongful discrimination. It has taken you an eternity to realise that I didn't mean that they couldn't discriminate for good reasons, despite my saying so every other post.
You have yet to demonstrate any lack of logic in my position. So far you have attempted to demonstrate a lack of logic in a position which you took to be mine, while I was trying to point out to you that it wasn't mine at all. You still haven't provided a decent refutation of my actual position, which is, again, that it is wrong for clubs to discriminate for racist or sexist reasons (f*ck the other reasons - I'm interested in these ones - I couldn't really care less about the other stuff - it is irrelevant to my argument).
Any reasonable person could see that objecting to discrimination on racist or sexist grounds and not objecting to it on other grounds is not contradictory. Yet you kept accusing me of contradicting myself, when I had done no such thing.
So if you still believe that it is right for clubs to discriminate for sexist or racist reasons (putting aside all the other stuff) then say why. I've already pointed out that your "private club" argument is wanting. So you have to do better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
rah
|
|
Apolyton Prince of Moderators, Master of Reason
|
 |
Lord of the Ferrets
Jan 1970
time: 23:27
|
|
Enough of this circular cluster F***
Let's try something slightly different. But along the same line.
Moral question based on the following TRUE case study.
My father was one of the founders of a PRIVATE golf club in Florida. He served as the first president and had great influence on the charter. Having been a member of an all gentile club, he made sure the CHARTER included the phrase that the club would strive towards having a DIVERSE membership. They have been very successful and every time I visit, it is obvious that it is a diverse membership. Gentiles, Jews, Blacks, Women, etc.
Now turnover is pretty good at clubs in Florida due to death by old age, so the membership changes quickly.
Now there was a very similar club close by with the same type of wording about diversity in it's charter. What happened there, was that a few Jews were real aggressive getting all their friends to join, As the Jewish % climbed it started to snowball. It is now an almost all Jewish club and non-Jews don't even bother applying because everyone considers it a Jewish club.
This has happened at a few other clubs in the area.
Now at my father's club, the Jewish % is also starting to climb, and the members fear the same thing might happen. They are considering limiting the number of Jewish members. These men made sure that their charter had a diversity clause. They are not bigots. They are good men. But now they feel dirty because they fell they must quasi discriminate to ensure a diverse membership.
Are they bigots or are they legitimately discriminating to guarantee diversity?
What do you think?
RAH
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by rah
Enough of this circular cluster F***
Let's try something slightly different. But along the same line.
Moral question based on the following TRUE case study.
My father was one of the founders of a PRIVATE golf club in Florida. He served as the first president and had great influence on the charter. Having been a member of an all gentile club, he made sure the CHARTER included the phrase that the club would strive towards having a DIVERSE membership. They have been very successful and every time I visit, it is obvious that it is a diverse membership. Gentiles, Jews, Blacks, Women, etc.
Now turnover is pretty good at clubs in Florida due to death by old age, so the membership changes quickly.
Now there was a very similar club close by with the same type of wording about diversity in it's charter. What happened there, was that a few Jews were real aggressive getting all their friends to join, As the Jewish % climbed it started to snowball. It is now an almost all Jewish club and non-Jews don't even bother applying because everyone considers it a Jewish club.
This has happened at a few other clubs in the area.
Now at my father's club, the Jewish % is also starting to climb, and the members fear the same thing might happen. They are considering limiting the number of Jewish members. These men made sure that their charter had a diversity clause. They are not bigots. They are good men. But now they feel dirty because they fell they must quasi discriminate to ensure a diverse membership.
Are they bigots or are they legitimately discriminating to guarantee diversity?
What do you think?
RAH |
Overdoing the capitals aren't you? 
Do only Jewish folks play golf in your city?
I don't think they should feel dirty. I'm going to hedge my bets here.
If there is good reason to think that enforcing the diversity clause will lower the overall amount of bigotry in your area then they shouldn't feel bad.
If they don't think it will make a difference they shouldn't do it - personally I think that they should be very explicit about advertising that it isn't a Jewish Golf Club.
Generally, the less racism the better. If sometimes we have to discriminate on the basis of race to lower the overall amount of racism in society then it is worth doing (less is always better). In this case I think your father is discriminating for a good reason rather than a racist reason (It seems obvious that he isn't an anti-semite so he isn't subject to my old argument). It's the same situation as occurs in universities with affirmative action - the goal is to lower the overall amount of racism in society by avoiding ghettoisation (an unfortunate choice of words, but I can't think of a synonym).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002
time: 07:27
|
|
This is so dreadful, so I'm gonna just ask and not waste my poor eyes reading the whole thread.
Has there allready been good reasons why private club isn't effectively same thing as the poker night I noticed mentioned, or me going fishing with the people I want to, or whatever, excluding the fact that, of course the club is bigger. Is this it, it's bigger?
And the about the racism??? What the hell? Racist people are permitted to exist just like the rest of us. It's called freedom of speech and _opinion_. I don't understand why we should obstruck them from functioning unless it's harmfull to us or someone. And the "It makes me pissed they exist" just isn't enough sorry. Such places shouldn't be engouraged of course, quite the opposite, but if there is a need for such place, the racist people own the land, why the hell not? Like I said, if I wanted to build a place for fat men with 2 inch penises, I should be able to.
The club is the fishing cabin the manly female fearing gents can go and be with whoever they want to be hanging out. Hell, a cabin with no blacks or jews or whatever is fine by me, I don't wanna go there but whoever likes sure. Banning the cabin isn't fighting racism at all, it's just destroying a place for racist people to be in. They are grown men, could be argued that even they could be taught not be racist (  ) but taking away their place is not going to help anything or anyone, well it will make the racist hating people happy, that's all.
The day there aren't racist people, or not enough of them to even meet eachother, such places won't exist. We don't need new racists, but we shouldn't tease the ones we have just because they are stupid and have issues. Stupid people with issues becames terrorists if you tease them. I'll stop before I drift too far from the subject.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:27
|
|
honestly.
i just love how extreme liberals, in the name of equality, liberty, and justice, championing the cause of the poor downtrodden oppressed untermenschen, often become so closed-minded and behave in exactly the same sort of way towards those they seek to "educate".
===
agathon, i want you to state whether you agree to the following statements or not:
1. women need time with other women to talk about female things, particularly with no males present.
2. men need time with other men to talk about male things, particularly with no females present.
3. men can be sexist, but not all men are sexist.
4. women can be sexist, but not all women are sexist.
5. a private organization, defined as not receiving any public funds for its support whatsoever, which has not caused any violent, aggressive, nor engaged in any virulent, hateful, or destructive behavior or speech has a right to continue following its own policies, even if said policies seem outdated or backwards.
=
for the following, i want you to give a short answer to the best of your ability.
6. a private organization, or business, if you will, which has numerous competitors, does not wish to allow members of a certain gender group join its ranks as a full member of the club. its facilities have been matched by several other competitors which allow said gender group full membership. is anybody, other than the organization, being hurt by this policy?
7. in the case of said organization which restricts membership, if it donated a large quantity of its proceeds to numerous charities when it had sponsorship, and is now unable to donate anything at all because of the lack of sponsorship arising due to bad publicity, who, other than the organization, is being hurt by this policy?
8. if a golf club allows its full members access to its facilities at any time, but allows members of all disctinct groups full access to its facilities during widely-known times, is it wrong if its full members all originate from one select group?
|
|
| |
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 20:06
You have to be quite careful with that.
You pulled this rank earlier and now tell others they shouldn't do what you've already done? What a hypocrite. Btw, we've yet to experience your logic and critical reasoning...
|
|