View Poll Results: What's More Important - the "Right" to Discriminate, or Freedom From Discrimination?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Right to Discriminate

    38 33.04%
  • Freedom From Discrimination

    77 66.96%
Page 200 of 230 FirstFirst ... 100150190198199200201202210 ... LastLast
Results 1,991 to 2,000 of 2291

Thread: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discrimination?

  1. #1991
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Sorry it is discrimination. Just because the liberals are trying to confine the concept of discrimination to just their special groups, it does not mean that any discrimination outside those groups is not still discrimination. If you base it upon the color of the person's hair....discrimination. Left or right handed....discrimination. Cat owner or dog owner....discrimination.

    In the example you were indeed prejudiced. You made an assumption based upon the visual without really giving the person a chance that show whether or not they fall within your stereotype. By acting upon that prejudice, i.e. not hiring them to babysit, you discriminated.
    Absolutely-and what is also telling is that everytime I point this out, the response is some arrogant version of "thats not really discriminating" as if its magically ok if they do it. It goes to show how little some people stop to really think about these issues, rather than repeat dogma.

    What this boils down to is that there are some (typically leftists) who are fine with discrimination and prejudice-but only if they agree with the intent of such actions.

  2. #1992
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,748

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I agree that it is just to disarm an attacker. I consider it just to defend one's self from attack.

    Do you consider it just to take what belongs to another?
    What do you mean by the qualifying term "JUST"? I used it to refer to doing what is legal according to the law. Is that how you are using it?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #1993
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,748

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    I think you have missed the point.
    Then please do explain it for me.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  4. #1994
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,748

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Originally Posted by haymarket
    Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.

    Would you agree that is just?
    the reply from Maquiscat
    Easy enough since both you and I would agree that the gun wielder in this case is violating another person's right (most likely. Can't say for sure unless you specify the crime). But it is obvious that there is disagreement on whether or not there is a right to not be discriminated against. We both agree that the government cannot do so. And actually we both agree that the private individual can do so in most situations. You simply don't want to believe that part of a person's private property and the inherent rights of that and himself are applicable at times and places that you don't like him exercising them. Use an actual comparable example where the action of the person is more subjective as to whether or not they are violating a right.
    I have no idea what that means. If you are asking for a broader example where a persons property can be taken - the obvious example is taxation where the government takes away money from a citizen. Money is property and under our laws - they are authorized to do so and do so every day.

    Originally Posted by haymarket
    I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
    the reply from Maquiscat
    Not surprising. One does not have to know about something in order to interact with it, even if he objects to it. You object to murder and yet your friend, unbeknownst to you, is a murderer. Federalist objects to the use of eminent domain and yet might be using a facility, unknowingly, that was taken by eminent domain. It does not make him any more hypocritical to use such a facility than it would you being friends with the murderer. Similarly, if the only facility available to do a required task was obtained by eminent domain and he had no alternatives (phone, internet, etc), he would still not be hypocritical. That would be like protesting the work conditions in the shop but continuing to work there since you need the money. Finally we can play 6 degrees of separation with just about anything and probably find a connection to eminent domain. It is rather unreasonable to hold to account anyone for secondary relations to that which he opposes.
    Your weak excusing of hypocritical behavior under the guise of 'he just didn't know' is beyond lame. Anyone who has such strong opinions about this area cannot maintain any sort of intellectual or personal integrity by playing ostrich and hiding their head in the sand while plugging their ears and pretending not to want to know. It simply stretches believability to the breaking point. And it is beyond being credible.

    But then you go on to say that even if he knew, he has no alternative. He has to use those streets... he has to use those highways .... he has to use those airports .... he has to use those ports .... he has to use those hospitals .... he has to use those government buildings ...... he has to use those schools .... he has to use any and all those things acquired with eminent domain because "HE HAD NO ALTERNATIVES".

    Of course he has alternatives. He has the greatest and most powerful and most sweeping and most definitive alternative available to anyone: he can simply find a place to reside which
    1 - is not objectionable to him
    2- does not force or compel him to violate his sacred principles as ours does

    That is the ultimate alternative and he refuses to exercise it instead preferring a life where he can preach to others about his high principles and how the government violates them but at the same time enjoy the very benefits of those same violations and continue to do so year after year after year.

    That is how this country was begun when people who also proclaimed certain principles could not live in a land where those principles were not honored and they could not live being forced to violate them.




    Finally you still have not proven anything as far as his association to eminent domain facilities. At best you can cite odds, but for all you know Federalist may live in a small town where they have never used eminent domain and no higher level has ever needed to make use of it. You cannot in any honesty show that he indeed benefits from eminent domain. Unless you're stalking him and then we have other issues to address.
    The issue of credibility is an important one to any post. When one lives one way but preaches another way - that shines a spotlight upon the credibility of the individuals opinion.

    In all honesty, I do not even believe for a second that you actually believe any grown person could exist in America without using or benefitting from eminent domain. You would have to be some sort of hermit living far away in isolation and eschewing al the normal trappings of life such as goods and products shipped via plane in airports , or ports and terminals, and transported over highway systems.... and since we know he uses a computer to place these responses - WE KNOW that is simply not how he lives. Other posters here have recognized that and commented on it as proof of his behavior. And when given the opportunity to explain - he refuses.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  5. #1995
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    We aren't talking about engaging in business in the public domain. We are talking about engaging in one's own private business that one funded with his/her own money and took all the risks associated with that business's success. So long as they do not violate anybody's rights or any formal legal agreements, a person should not give up their unalienable rights to be who and what they are purely because somebody thinks they should be able to tell that person what they can and cannot do with their own property.
    How can you conduct business on your free time?

  6. #1996
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Credit where credit is due....dude that was pitiful even for deflection. Your answer had absolutely nothing to do with the question posed. You entirely changed the premise. If you want to discredit the premise that is one thing, or show where it is incompatible to the topic at hand. But you don't get to change it and not get called out on it.
    Hm. Maybe I missed the point of the question. I'll try again. Thanks.

  7. #1997
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.

    Would you agree that is just?
    I think I'd need more detail in order to give a proper answer.

    What is the crime that is committed?

    Who takes away the gun?

  8. #1998
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,748

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I think I'd need more detail in order to give a proper answer.

    What is the crime that is committed?

    Who takes away the gun?
    You already gave your answer yesterday and agreed with me.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #1999
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    What do you mean by the qualifying term "JUST"?
    If you google the search phrase "define just", this is the first result: "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." That is how I am using the term.

    I used it to refer to doing what is legal according to the law. Is that how you are using it?
    No that's not how I'm using it at all. The treatment of the native Americas, while legal, was not just. Prohibition was not just.

  10. #2000
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,748

    Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    If you google the search phrase "define just", this is the first result: "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." That is how I am using the term.



    No that's not how I'm using it at all. The treatment of the native Americas, while legal, was not just. Prohibition was not just.
    So what is "morally right and fair" if you see some distinction between that personal standard and the legal laws of the land?

    That seems a very broad and not very exact term to apply that could mean many different things to different people and even vary with different situations at different times.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

Posting Permissions

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