• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

  • Yes, I explained below why

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • No, I explained below why

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • Yes; I did not explain below why

    Votes: 10 47.6%
  • No; I did not explain below why

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Yeah cause the qualification "but equal" is always added by a group that actually wants an unequal distribution of whatever. If they didn't think of the other group as "less than", they wouldn't want separate access to the same thing, so they (being in charge) go ahead and build drinking fountains that are inferior, or civil unions that aren't recognized by the fed or other states. If they actually wanted equality, they wouldn't be striving for separation in the first place. It's just a way to get the oppressed group to shut up and accept its status as inferior, and aside from that, I always want to tell someone with that mindset "YOU go call what you're doing a civil union."
It seems to me like a lot of people are missing the point here. In practice, yes, it clearly winds up being oppressive in nature.

But that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking if, theoretically, an equal system of segregation is possible. If it is, then segregation cannot be inherently unequal.
 
Last edited:
"Separate but equal" is inherently unequal because it divides people into groups with lines which some, if not all, cannot cross. This is a limitation on "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" not to mention a couple the Amendments to the Constitution.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
It's a restriction of freedom, obviously, but could you explain how it can possibly be unequal if no one is given preferential treatment (which was the premise in my OP, remember). That is, black folks drinking from white drinking fountains are arrested, and white folks drinking black fountains are arrested.
 
It seems to me like a lot of people are missing the point here. In practice, yes, it clearly winds up being oppressive in nature.

But that's not at all what I'm asking. I'm asking if, theoretically, an equal system of segregation is possible. If it is, then segregation cannot be inherently unequal.

No, an equal system of segregation is not possible. Not if you value true equality.

You can definitely make a system of segregation and call it equal. But it will never BE equal.
 
No, an equal system of segregation is not possible. Not if you value true equality.

You can definitely make a system of segregation and call it equal. But it will never BE equal.
Could you elaborate on what is unequal about a system where there are white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains, each of equal quality and quantity, and white people can't drink from black fountains and vice versa? I really don't understand. Not necessarily saying you're doing this, but it seems to me that a lot of people include some definition of freedom, prosperity, or what have you in their definition of equality, and that's where the argument pops up. In other words, suppose someone were to set up an automated turret and then brainwash everyone into getting in line to stand in front of it, after which the human race would be extinct. Sure, it's a horrific massacre, but I would argue that it was completely equal.
 
Could you elaborate on what is unequal about a system where there are white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains, each of equal quality and quantity, and white people can't drink from black fountains and vice versa? I really don't understand. Not necessarily saying you're doing this, but it seems to me that a lot of people include some definition of freedom, prosperity, or what have you in their definition of equality, and that's where the argument pops up. In other words, suppose someone were to set up an automated turret and then brainwash everyone into getting in line to stand in front of it, after which the human race would be extinct. Sure, it's a horrific massacre, but I would argue that it was completely equal.

Why shouldn't a black man drink from the white fountain? Is there something wrong with that black man that would make you want to not let him drink from it? The only way for such a system to work is if EVERY SINGLE PERSON agreed to it ALL THE TIME. And that is just not possible. You are limiting a persons freedom and choice by not allowing them to choose to drink for either or.

As for your turret...wouldn't work. 1: Everyone was brainwashed. IE they had NO choice in the matter. 2: The person that did all this would not be brainwashed and as such would be able to make the choice on their own. Where as everyone else had no choice.
 
Why shouldn't a black man drink from the white fountain? Is there something wrong with that black man that would make you want to not let him drink from it? The only way for such a system to work is if EVERY SINGLE PERSON agreed to it ALL THE TIME. And that is just not possible. You are limiting a persons freedom and choice by not allowing them to choose to drink for either or.
Of course freedom is being limited, but if it applies to everyone, how could it possibly be unequal?

As for your turret...wouldn't work. 1: Everyone was brainwashed. IE they had NO choice in the matter.
How does that make it unequal?
2: The person that did all this would not be brainwashed and as such would be able to make the choice on their own. Where as everyone else had no choice.
That's actually a good point. I'm struggling to come up with another thought experiment that expresses what I'm trying to say, but...
 
Last edited:
I think I see what you're trying to get at, and my response this: If the law applied to everyone, and if the facilities were exactly equal, and if the enforcement was exactly equal, then I could agree that the different groups are being treated equally. (Equally poorly, to be exact.)

But in the real world, I don't think any of those ifs would really be true. So while we can imagine a thought experiment in which everyone is oppressed equally, I think that in reality one group would end up being oppressed more.

I'm curious to know more about why you're asking the question in the first place.
 
This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

Thoughts?

You're seriously going to sit there and compare this to segregation?
 
I think I see what you're trying to get at, and my response this: If the law applied to everyone, and if the facilities were exactly equal, and if the enforcement was exactly equal, then I could agree that the different groups are being treated equally. (Equally poorly, to be exact.)

But in the real world, I don't think any of those ifs would really be true. So while we can imagine a thought experiment in which everyone is oppressed equally, I think that in reality one group would end up being oppressed more.

I'm curious to know more about why you're asking the question in the first place.

A strange way to "justify" SSM is the point, I think. Since heterosexual couples can marry, then homosexual couples should be able to marry is the new argument. But marriage is not about couples and sex as both can, and do, exist with or without marriage. It must be stretched even further to say that, since the marriage contract offers some benefits, all citizens must be allowed to marry, which is still true for BOTH heterosexual and homosexual citizens, they simply must marry someone of the other gender under state law. Any justification for "alternate" definitions of marriage would apply as much to polygamy as SSM, but the bottom line is that marriage always was, and still is, a state gov't function, without a constitutional amendment to make SSM/homsexual rights into a federal issue. Comparing SSM to slavery, racial segregation or the right of women to vote IGNORES the fact, that for each of those "wrongs", a constitutional amendment was required to "fix" those situations.
 
Last edited:
Since when? When I was single and working at age 21 I was getting the same amount of FIT taxes pulled out of my check as someone that was 51 and single.

See the "age 65 or blind" check box on your 1040 form. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Could you elaborate on what is unequal about a system where there are white drinking fountains and black drinking fountains, each of equal quality and quantity, and white people can't drink from black fountains and vice versa? I really don't understand. Not necessarily saying you're doing this, but it seems to me that a lot of people include some definition of freedom, prosperity, or what have you in their definition of equality, and that's where the argument pops up. In other words, suppose someone were to set up an automated turret and then brainwash everyone into getting in line to stand in front of it, after which the human race would be extinct. Sure, it's a horrific massacre, but I would argue that it was completely equal.

Because the only reason you would create separate drinking fountains for black and white is because you thought they couldnt or shouldnt share the same drinking fountain. So the drinking fountains may be of equal quality but the idea behind separating the drinking fountains is that the races are unequal.
 
I think I see what you're trying to get at, and my response this: If the law applied to everyone, and if the facilities were exactly equal, and if the enforcement was exactly equal, then I could agree that the different groups are being treated equally. (Equally poorly, to be exact.)

But in the real world, I don't think any of those ifs would really be true. So while we can imagine a thought experiment in which everyone is oppressed equally, I think that in reality one group would end up being oppressed more.

I'm curious to know more about why you're asking the question in the first place.
I asked someone in another thread how important they thought the institution of SSM was assuming civil unions were already universally in play, and they thought that the principle that segregation is inherently unequal applied here. I looked up Brown v. Board of Education again, and it seemed to me like their reasoning behind that principle was mind-boggingly flawed. I was just curious how others thought about it.

Because the only reason you would create separate drinking fountains for black and white is because you thought they couldnt or shouldnt share the same drinking fountain. So the drinking fountains may be of equal quality but the idea behind separating the drinking fountains is that the races are unequal.
There's no reason why a belief that races are unequal logically follows from a belief that different races shouldn't share the same drinking fountain. One might believe, as many did in the past, that all races are equal, but that they would simply never get along and life would operate more smoothly if everyone just kept to their own kind.
 
I asked someone in another thread how important they thought the institution of SSM was assuming civil unions were already universally in play, and they thought that the principle that segregation is inherently unequal applied here. I looked up Brown v. Board of Education again, and it seemed to me like their reasoning behind that principle was mind-boggingly flawed. I was just curious how others thought about it.


There's no reason why a belief that races are unequal logically follows from a belief that different races shouldn't share the same drinking fountain. One might believe, as many did in the past, that all races are equal, but that they would simply never get along and life would operate more smoothly if everyone just kept to their own kind.

I agree completely that SSM is not a bad thing, but that is not the point. I think eventually, on a state by state basis, that SSM will be allowed. SSM is a variation on "traditional" marriage, not unlike polygamy, but still a state matter, not granted as a federal power by our constitution. I very much oppose using the federal courts, eventually the SCOTUS, to "make it a right", but can certainly see SSM being done by constitutional amendment, just as was done to end slavery, racial discrimination and to give women the right to vote. My concern is that far too many "good" things, like preventing abortion bans, are simply now the "responsibility" of our nine robed umpires that are free to "invent" rights, rather than simply apply the constitution AS WRITTEN. The constitution is mainly a plain english, easy to understand document, yet lately all sorts of "rule bending", "kind of like" arguments and just plain "wishing it were so" excuses are being made not to go through the straight forward process of amending it.
 
This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

Thoughts?
No matter how I read this it still turns out to be just an excuse for segregation.
 
I asked someone in another thread how important they thought the institution of SSM was assuming civil unions were already universally in play, and they thought that the principle that segregation is inherently unequal applied here. I looked up Brown v. Board of Education again, and it seemed to me like their reasoning behind that principle was mind-boggingly flawed. I was just curious how others thought about it.


There's no reason why a belief that races are unequal logically follows from a belief that different races shouldn't share the same drinking fountain. One might believe, as many did in the past, that all races are equal, but that they would simply never get along and life would operate more smoothly if everyone just kept to their own kind.

During that time period, the overwhelming majority of segregated policies were nothing but utterly unequal oppresion of blacks. It would have been insane to allowed the persecution of millions because of some mythical case where racial seperation was actually equal. Justice is about the impact of law upon people, not theoretical nonsense with no concern for the real life consequences.
 
During that time period, the overwhelming majority of segregated policies were nothing but utterly unequal oppresion of blacks. It would have been insane to allowed the persecution of millions because of some mythical case where racial seperation was actually equal. Justice is about the impact of law upon people, not theoretical nonsense with no concern for the real life consequences.
When did I say they should have allowed it again?

...

...that's right. You pulled that completely out of your ass. The only gripe I have with Brown v. Board of Education is the claim that segregation is inherently unequal, because it pretty clearly isn't.

No matter how I read this it still turns out to be just an excuse for segregation.
Cool story bro. Read it however you like, I guess.
 
Last edited:
There's no reason why a belief that races are unequal logically follows from a belief that different races shouldn't share the same drinking fountain. One might believe, as many did in the past, that all races are equal, but that they would simply never get along and life would operate more smoothly if everyone just kept to their own kind.

The people who have those beliefs tend to believe that certain races are better then others.
 
Last edited:
There is no true equality- between men and women, gays and straights, blacks, browns, yellows, reds, and whites, or any other sets of people who have distinguishing characteristics of one sort or another. There are equal rights, and equal protection under the law, but no true equality, as that leaves out the fact that there are differences, and those differences will always distinguish individuals to one degree or another.
 
The people who have those beliefs tend to believe that certain races are better then others.
Yes. But as I said, it doesn't unavoidably logically follow. Therefore, it's not the only reason racial segregation could happen, which you claimed here:

Because the only reason you would create separate drinking fountains for black and white is because you thought they couldnt or shouldnt share the same drinking fountain. So the drinking fountains may be of equal quality but the idea behind separating the drinking fountains is that the races are unequal.
 
Yes. But as I said, it doesn't unavoidably logically follow. Therefore, it's not the only reason racial segregation could happen, which you claimed here:

It does logically follow. If you think the different races cannot get along then you think there is some major fundamental difference between them. And that means that you believe the races are unequal.
 
It does logically follow. If you think the different races cannot get along then you think there is some major fundamental difference between them. And that means that you believe the races are unequal.
Different =/= Unequal.

Case in point: you undoubtedly believe that men and women are different. You also presumably believe that they are equals.
 
Different =/= Unequal.

Case in point: you undoubtedly believe that men and women are different. You also presumably believe that they are equals.

Point taken.

However I would like to point out that I still believe separate is not equal.
 
Last edited:
You are basing this on flawed logic.

One is a member of their race for their entire life.

Sexual preference is a choice.
 
You are basing this on flawed logic.

One is a member of their race for their entire life.

Sexual preference is a choice.

No it isnt. At least not for the vast majority of people. You can make an argument that it is determined by environment but there is no argument for sexual orientation being a choice for the vast majority.
 
There wouldn't be a need to separate them in the first place if they were equal. That's my 2 cents.

That was also the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In retrospect it seems like a no-brainer.
 
Back
Top Bottom