Poll: Should this photographer face legal action?
Yes
No
I'm undecided
I have no idea, I'm only voting so I don't feel left out
[Show Results]
 
Is this fair?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-10-2013, 03:25 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 03:06 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 02:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Society was like that in my lifetime. Then Congress passed anti-discrimination legislation and the Supreme Court struck down discriminatory laws.

These actions have helped the zeitgeist to advance, but there is still widespread bigotry and discrimination.
Don't presume, out of your ignorance of recent history, to tell me that my fears are unfounded. They are founded in reality.

I realize that you're an old fucker and you can remember all this terrible shit that happened. Don't presume I am ignorant. Your experiences are different than mine, and what you remember happening in the past undoubtedly affects your opinions on the subject. Do you genuinely think you going to see widespread 'negro water-fountains' again regardless of the law? No. Generation X and younger have a different experience. It's even hard for many of the youngest generation to even conceive of a reality in which minorities are second-class citizens. They don't think in the same terms. A business treating minorities with contemptuous 'no WASP, no service' policies in today's world is financial suicide.

And just where do you think your enlightened attitudes came from?

They came from people pushing society forward, and some of that pushing was in the form of legislation. That legislation raised people's consciousness and suppressed discriminatory behavior.

If you believe that society has moved forward to a point where those laws are no longer necessary, what are you arguing? That we get rid of these allegedly unnecessary laws?

No, I don't think that's what you are arguing. You are arguing that people should be free to revert to behavior that was previously deemed unacceptable.

Why are you arguing for that?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:33 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 03:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  And just where do you think your enlightened attitudes came from?

They came from people pushing society forward, and some of that pushing was in the form of legislation. That legislation raised people's consciousness and suppressed discriminatory behavior.

If you believe that society has moved forward to a point where those laws are no longer necessary, what are you arguing? That we get rid of these allegedly unnecessary laws?

No, I don't think that's what you are arguing. You are arguing that people should be free to revert to behavior that was previously deemed unacceptable.

Why are you arguing for that?

Let me get this straight. You are saying my attitudes came from legislation despite my view being against that legislation? You are saying that people are only nondiscriminatory because legislation told them 'no-no'? Absolute grade A bullshit.

My argument for repealing these laws are two-fold. One, I think it's immoral to force someone to do business with someone they don't wish to, regardless of the reasons behind it and Two, it would allow us, as a society to better judge businesses and allow us to decide who we want to deal with with more information.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 03:17 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 03:10 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  I agree that certain segments of the population were evolving, thus the creation of the laws.
Then you wrote.
(25-10-2013 03:10 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  I disagree. Being raised in a segregated society, you adapt to your culture. How can you promote equality, or even consider it, when you're taught to judge by race?

These two ideas are conflicting. Independent thought. I did not get all my ideas from my parents, or my community. I got it through independent thought and learning. Most atheists should be able to identify with this as few of our parents were atheists. We thought for ourselves.

I think you dismiss your culture and environment too casually. To the second point...

They're not conflicting at all. To simplify, I was speaking of the north and the south. There were two separate populations, one evolving and one not. The southern white culture as a whole was raised into, and accepted, segregation, either through indifference or preference.

(25-10-2013 03:17 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Resentment breeds hate. Irrational, illogical, hate.

Two points here. First, what do you think segregation breeds for the minority group? Do you recall from history any uprisings among the minority group? Second, segregation is based in fear and hate. I see no rational reason to deny a group rights. So if I have to chose between fear and hate from segregation, or offending the already hateful and fearful majority, it's an easy choice.

(25-10-2013 03:17 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I've already covered this point.

You make an assumption that conflicts with known history. I'm not saying I'm right, but I've got enough historical information to sway me towards my conclusion.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 03:52 PM
RE: Is this fair?
I'm not saying that my environment didn't help shape who I am, it played a large role in it as a matter of fact, but there is much more to my culture than my immediate family and community. I am part of America, I am part of planet earth. I choose which parts of my culture to embrace, and which parts I reject though. I grew up in an area in which casual racism was pretty common as a kid. In 2013 the majority of my hometown community would reject racism, though it hasn't disappeared entirely, and it never will, anywhere. Also you North/South comparison is based on incorrect information as well. The south was evolving along with the north, it was just doing so more slowly, for obvious reasons. I believe that legislation may have slowed it down even more, at least initially.

When did I say I was in favor of segregation? I stated the opposite of that as a matter of fact. You are confusing ideas here.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:09 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 03:33 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 03:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  And just where do you think your enlightened attitudes came from?

They came from people pushing society forward, and some of that pushing was in the form of legislation. That legislation raised people's consciousness and suppressed discriminatory behavior.

If you believe that society has moved forward to a point where those laws are no longer necessary, what are you arguing? That we get rid of these allegedly unnecessary laws?

No, I don't think that's what you are arguing. You are arguing that people should be free to revert to behavior that was previously deemed unacceptable.

Why are you arguing for that?

Let me get this straight. You are saying my attitudes came from legislation despite my view being against that legislation? You are saying that people are only nondiscriminatory because legislation told them 'no-no'? Absolute grade A bullshit.

My argument for repealing these laws are two-fold. One, I think it's immoral to force someone to do business with someone they don't wish to, regardless of the reasons behind it and Two, it would allow us, as a society to better judge businesses and allow us to decide who we want to deal with with more information.

You brought up your generation's attitudes; I am informing you that the society you grew up in is a result of the prior generation's changes. The legislation was part of that.

You are arguing for allowing institutionalized discrimination. You are arguing from a libertarian viewpoint that people should be allowed to do whatever they want and that it will all somehow work out. History gives lie to that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:19 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 03:33 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Let me get this straight. You are saying my attitudes came from legislation despite my view being against that legislation? You are saying that people are only nondiscriminatory because legislation told them 'no-no'? Absolute grade A bullshit.

My argument for repealing these laws are two-fold. One, I think it's immoral to force someone to do business with someone they don't wish to, regardless of the reasons behind it and Two, it would allow us, as a society to better judge businesses and allow us to decide who we want to deal with with more information.

You brought up your generation's attitudes; I am informing you that the society you grew up in is a result of the prior generation's changes. The legislation was part of that.

You are arguing for allowing institutionalized discrimination. You are arguing from a libertarian viewpoint that people should be allowed to do whatever they want and that it will all somehow work out. History gives lie to that.

To inform me of something you would have to know something. You do not know, you suspect. Correlation does not prove causation. I say that social evolution would have taken place whether the law was passed or not.

You seem to equate allowing discrimination with supporting discrimination. This is not the case. Allowing people to do business with who they want to doesn't seem like such a radical notion to me. It should be a person's right to trade with whoever they want.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:26 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 03:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Also you North/South comparison is based on incorrect information as well.

It's based on a study of history, southern voting trends, etc. If I'm wrong, share some links that shows the southern majority was moving towards desegregation on their own, I'd be genuinely interested to read them.

(25-10-2013 03:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  The south was evolving along with the north, it was just doing so more slowly, for obvious reasons.

Everything I've read, from segregation in schools to voting rights to southern society's view of blacks tells me differently. If you're referring to small groups of rights advocates, they are not the majority opinion of society any more than our own fringe groups in the USA.

(25-10-2013 03:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  When did I say I was in favor of segregation? I stated the opposite of that as a matter of fact. You are confusing ideas here.

You say you are in favor of individual businesses deciding who they do and don't serve based on any factor the individual sees fit. This includes race, sex, gender, and age. If I go to a neighborhood where one set of business refuses to serve me based on my skin color, and another set of business serves me because I'm the accepted skin color, that's called... libertarianism? (joking)

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:28 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 03:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  When did I say I was in favor of segregation? I stated the opposite of that as a matter of fact. You are confusing ideas here.

Allowing legal discrimination would allow segregation. The 'separate but equal' Jim Crow laws of the american south that were the basis of segregation, they were legal discrimination. You open that door, that is one of the potential (and I think very likely) consequences. I do not think, given our country's current religiosity, that we could safely assume that 'Christian Only' signs would be out of the question for large swaths of the Bible Belt. That could severely hamper the progress that has been made with Gen X and Gen Y by encouraging the segregation and isolation of those with opposing or conflicting ideologies. How long would it take for cultural isolation and religious indoctrination to undo all of that progress? History would lead us to believe, not very long at all.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:31 PM
RE: Is this fair?
Legally correct, but you can't /force/ someone to work for you. If you're a cunt then be sure to lose resources then.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:35 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:19 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 04:09 PM)Chas Wrote:  You brought up your generation's attitudes; I am informing you that the society you grew up in is a result of the prior generation's changes. The legislation was part of that.

You are arguing for allowing institutionalized discrimination. You are arguing from a libertarian viewpoint that people should be allowed to do whatever they want and that it will all somehow work out. History gives lie to that.

To inform me of something you would have to know something. You do not know, you suspect. Correlation does not prove causation. I say that social evolution would have taken place whether the law was passed or not.

Society did not change much until the legislation was passed and institutionalized discrimination was outlawed.

Quote:You seem to equate allowing discrimination with supporting discrimination. This is not the case. Allowing people to do business with who they want to doesn't seem like such a radical notion to me. It should be a person's right to trade with whoever they want.

No, I am saying that allowing the discrimination will risk re-institutionalizing it. You are willing to risk that?

People can trade with whoever they want, but if they open a business to the public then it has to be to all of the public. That doesn't seem like such a radical notion to me.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: