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 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56

Thread: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

  1. #41
    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 rathi View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    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 by Black_Zawisza; 06-08-12 at 06:29 PM.
    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. #42
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 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


    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 by Omgitsme; 06-08-12 at 11:48 PM.

  3. #43
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    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.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  4. #44
    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 Omgitsme View Post
    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:

    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.
    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.

  5. #45
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 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
    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.

  6. #46
    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 Omgitsme View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #47
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 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
    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 by Omgitsme; 06-09-12 at 01:31 AM.

  8. #48
    Guru

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    11-24-13 @ 11:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,001

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    You are basing this on flawed logic.

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

    Sexual preference is a choice.

  9. #49
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Illinois
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,335
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny_rebson View Post
    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.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    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.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 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
  •