View Poll Results: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I explained below why

    6 21.43%
  • No, I explained below why

    2 7.14%
  • Yes; I did not explain below why

    15 53.57%
  • No; I did not explain below why

    5 17.86%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

  1. #31
    Educator Black_Zawisza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    12-20-13 @ 04:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    604

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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 by Black_Zawisza; 06-08-12 at 02:59 AM.
    Statist silliness of the day:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All this talk about "dominion over a third person" is libertarianistic goobledy-gook. "dominion over a third person" means that the 3rd person is "controlled", and our govt does not control people.

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently 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.

  3. #33
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    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 love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  4. #34
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    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 by ttwtt78640; 06-08-12 at 10:40 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #35
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    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 by ttwtt78640; 06-08-12 at 10:52 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #36
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Educator Black_Zawisza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    12-20-13 @ 04:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    604

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omgitsme View Post
    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.
    Statist silliness of the day:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All this talk about "dominion over a third person" is libertarianistic goobledy-gook. "dominion over a third person" means that the 3rd person is "controlled", and our govt does not control people.

  8. #38
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,566

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    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.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #39
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,040

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    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.

  10. #40
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    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.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •