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, 04:52 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:26 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(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)

You haven't said anything which contradicted what I said. I think you may be getting confused on some terminology or something. I said outright that the south (in general) was moving slower than the rest of the country. The majority of southerners still had racist attitudes. I'm not debating that because you are correct. Likewise, after the law was passed the south still lagged behind the rest of the country. What is your point?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 04:56 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:28 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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.

Not interested in debating with you. Your are presumptuous and misrepresent my ideas intentionally.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 05:01 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You haven't said anything which contradicted what I said. I think you may be getting confused on some terminology or something. I said outright that the south (in general) was moving slower than the rest of the country. The majority of southerners still had racist attitudes. I'm not debating that because you are correct. Likewise, after the law was passed the south still lagged behind the rest of the country. What is your point?

You said:
The south was evolving along with the north, it was just doing so more slowly, for obvious reasons.

If the majority south was racist, what information leads you to believe they were slowly moving towards desegregation? All the history I've read shows the majority south fighting against desegregation. I wouldn't call that slow movement, I'd call it "not moving." I believe that, if left to their own means and not legislation, they'd still be segregated.

I don't understand why you feel otherwise, thus I asked for the info that leads you to believe they were indeed slowly beginning to desegregate or move towards desegregation. Sorry for any confusion I caused.

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, 05:06 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Society did not change much until the legislation was passed and institutionalized discrimination was outlawed.

Yes it did. The civil rights movement didn't appear out of nowhere. Attitudes slowly changed until they reached a tipping point. Go watch Dr. King speak. You will see plenty of white folks there. The change started even before the civil war. By the sixties it had reached a boiling point. Much of your part of the country was civil rights activists before legislation was passed. In fact, the legislation would not have passed without a shit ton of support.

(25-10-2013 04:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am saying that allowing the discrimination will risk re-institutionalizing it. You are willing to risk that?

Well, some would argue that there is still institutionalized discrimination, and I think that has some validity to it. Whatever your view on that issue, I don't think it's a risky proposition. I think it would help fight discrimination by exposing it.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 05:11 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 05:06 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 04:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Society did not change much until the legislation was passed and institutionalized discrimination was outlawed.

Yes it did. The civil rights movement didn't appear out of nowhere. Attitudes slowly changed until they reached a tipping point. Go watch Dr. King speak. You will see plenty of white folks there. The change started even before the civil war. By the sixties it had reached a boiling point. Much of your part of the country was civil rights activists before legislation was passed. In fact, the legislation would not have passed without a shit ton of support.

Yes, of course you are right in that. It was the legalized institutional discrimination that required the legislation.

Quote:
(25-10-2013 04:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I am saying that allowing the discrimination will risk re-institutionalizing it. You are willing to risk that?

Well, some would argue that there is still institutionalized discrimination, and I think that has some validity to it. Whatever your view on that issue, I don't think it's a risky proposition. I think it would help fight discrimination by exposing it.

Discrimination is better exposed when the victim has legal recourse.

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, 05:15 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 05:01 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(25-10-2013 04:52 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  You haven't said anything which contradicted what I said. I think you may be getting confused on some terminology or something. I said outright that the south (in general) was moving slower than the rest of the country. The majority of southerners still had racist attitudes. I'm not debating that because you are correct. Likewise, after the law was passed the south still lagged behind the rest of the country. What is your point?

You said:
The south was evolving along with the north, it was just doing so more slowly, for obvious reasons.

If the majority south was racist, what information leads you to believe they were slowly moving towards desegregation? All the history I've read shows the majority south fighting against desegregation. I wouldn't call that slow movement, I'd call it "not moving." I believe that, if left to their own means and not legislation, they'd still be segregated.

I don't understand why you feel otherwise, thus I asked for the info that leads you to believe they were indeed slowly beginning to desegregate or move towards desegregation. Sorry for any confusion I caused.

It hadn't taken root in the deepest part of the south, but it was spreading from it's northern and western neighbors. That is what I meant.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 05:22 PM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 05:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Discrimination is better exposed when the victim has legal recourse.

That is how you see it. This laws serve to hide blatant discrimination. Businesses are compelled to be more subtle, give themselves enough wiggle room for plausible deniability. If businesses are given the opportunity to say "No Blacks Allowed" we can make the decision to not patronize them and run them into the ground. If a business must cover up their motives and intentions they will just discriminate more in a more subtle way.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 03:04 AM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:56 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Not interested in debating with you. Your are presumptuous and misrepresent my ideas intentionally.


Fine, if you're not as ignorant of history as I think you are, then please cite historical examples of civilization and societies that were better off for everyone when they were allowed to discriminate against and segregate themselves.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 04:13 AM
RE: Is this fair?
(25-10-2013 04:19 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  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.



And you can, as a consumer, but not as a provider. I don't eat at Chick-Fil-A because of the owners anti-gay views and the money they throw behind their hate. But if Chick-Fil-A is the only thing available, they are not allowed to deny me a sandwich because I support gay rights. When you put yourself out there with a product, they have to offer it fairly to anyone. Equality here is the keyword. It is illegal for them to deny you the same service (and price, time, etc.) because of your race, gender, political views, etc. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then don't operate a business. Why do we operate like this? Because we don't live in a perfect capitalist society that exists only inside Ayan Rand's wet dreams. There are plenty of monopolies, and corporations are ever gaining even more power. Not every commodity or necessity actually competes on a level playing field, to deny this is to deny reality as it is. To make sure that everyone has access to everything, these laws are required.

What is the magical added element here that will stop us from reverting and history from repeating itself? Is it the internet? Even now we can see plenty examples of people only seeing and exposing themselves to ideas that already agree with them. Even now, cultural isolation and information censorship are possible, and would be even easier with your proposals. The good will of the next generation? Social evolution? Right, happy thoughts and unicorn farts. The reason the culture has evolved and maintained itself is because progressives have pushed for these laws, laws that forced the rest of society to pull themselves up to a higher place.

Abolishing slavery required a Civil War and near dissolution of the United States, equal rights took another almost another century and a Civil Rights movement. Think about that for a bit, people were so attached to the inhumane and barbaric institution of owning people as property, that they opted to start killing their fellow citizens rather than progress forward into a better society for all. Where was the capitalist incentive to end slavery? Slavery wasn't ended with laissez faire economics anymore than it would stop backwards people in our society now from discriminating openly if they could legally. Slavery ended at the point of a bayonet, and I wouldn't be so quick to forget that.

We have historical example after historical example of what happens when society is allowed to discriminate against their own (ghettos, slavery, etc). In the face of this massive historical precedence, you posit faith in social evolution? What is social evolution without the scaffolding of progressive legislation? You want to remove the skeleton from the body and hope the corpse will not only stay standing, but get taller.


Once again, what is so special about the United States right now that would seemingly magically prevent us from repeating history? What historical examples can you cite to support your assertions that allowing legal discrimination would be better for society as a whole?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 06:00 AM
RE: Is this fair?
More of the same.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: