• 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!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

  • Total voters
    96
Boo Radley said:
It's not one person, it's us as a people.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand who you mean by "us". Obviously it's not everybody, so you must be referring to a particular group of individuals. Then I wonder what gives these individuals authority over all the other people in society.

It's no a threat, it's the way cooperative living is achieved.
Click to expand...

So it's a suggestion? If so, that's fine. And then people can serve whomever they want, taking (or not taking) the suggestion.
 
Federalist said:
I'm not sure I understand who you mean by "us". Obviously it's not everybody, so you must be referring to a particular group of individuals. Then I wonder what gives these individuals authority over all the other people in society.



So it's a suggestion? If so, that's fine. And then people can serve whomever they want, taking (or not taking) the suggestion.
Click to expand...

A majority, the people as a whole, the citizenry who voted. Us.

Frankly, people do defy it everyday. But proven discrimination, like with in law, can see a fine levied. And rightly so. The same is so many get away with the segregation.
 
Boo Radley said:
And they abused that badly. Like most laws, they come about in reaction to something. In this case, it was fought for due to very hateful behavior.
Click to expand...

They can not abuse it badly. Property owners have the right to refuse whoever they please, and so by definition it doesn't matter how people feel about it.
 
Henrin said:
So how is showing me an example of trespassing working towards your goals here? How is it abuse on the businesses part when four men refuse to leave the property when asked to do so? Of course, I remember this logic well from my fifth grade school teacher and I have to say even then it didn't make sense.
Click to expand...

You may have missed the message. Equality.
 
Boo Radley said:
You may have missed the message. Equality.
Click to expand...

If everyones right to control access to their property is protected that is equality in the fullest sense of the word. In the end, all you need to protect to have equality is the rights of the people be that their life, their liberty, or their property. If you do that you have equality.
 
Henrin said:
If everyones right to control access to their property is protected that is equality in the fullest sense of the word. In the end, all you need to protect to have equality is the rights of the people be that their life, their liberty, or their property. If you do that you have equality.
Click to expand...
Again, it led to inequality, separate but unequal. The world today is better because they largely ended that segregation. It is wrong headed to see it as you present above.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, it led to inequality, separate but unequal. The world today is better because they largely ended that segregation. It is wrong headed to see it as you present above.
Click to expand...

Allowing people to exercise their rights can never be unequal unless you fail to allow all to exercise such rights. Saying to me that this individual will not allow all entry to his property is not inequality as no one except the owner had access to that property by default as I have already pointed out. You just wish to exercise an exception to the rule of property and by doing so you are guilty of creating inequality.
 
Boo Radley said:
A majority
Click to expand...

So a particular group of individuals. And why do these particular people have any authority over everyone else? What gives them the the right to initiate aggression against their fellow man?

Frankly, people do defy it everyday. But proven discrimination, like with in law, can see a fine levied. And rightly so. The same is so many get away with the segregation.
Click to expand...

So it's not a suggestion? It is, contrary to what you said before, a threat?
 
Henrin said:
Allowing people to exercise their rights can never be unequal unless you fail to allow all to exercise such rights. Saying to me that this individual will not allow all entry to his property is not inequality as no one except the owner had access to that property by default as I have already pointed out. You just wish to exercise an exception to the rule of property and by doing so you are guilty of creating inequality.
Click to expand...

Again, history begs to differ with you. I fully understand what you are saying, but know how it played out in history, the reality of that train if thought. There's was inequity, inequality in the results, the reality.
 
Federalist said:
So a particular group of individuals. And why do these particular people have any authority over everyone else? What gives them the the right to initiate aggression against their fellow man?



So it's not a suggestion? It is, contrary to what you said before, a threat?
Click to expand...

Surely you know how laws come about, representative government and the will of the people? I'm not sure what you think playing dumb accomplishes.

A penalty is a penalty. Nothing more. Same with every other kind of law. Don't exaggerate.
 
Boo Radley said:
Surely you know how laws come about, representative government and the will of the people? I'm not sure what you think playing dumb accomplishes.
Click to expand...

"The" people? Clearly, you can't mean every person. You must be referring to a particular group of individuals. How do these particular people acquire authority over everyone else?


A penalty is a penalty. Nothing more. Same with every other kind of law. Don't exaggerate.
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge that these individuals are indeed initiating violence (a penalty) against others.
 
Federalist said:
"The" people? Clearly, you can't mean every person. You must be referring to a particular group of individuals. How do these particular people acquire authority over everyone else?




So you acknowledge that these individuals are indeed initiating violence (a penalty) against others.
Click to expand...

Like I said, playing dumb doesn't help you. The people, those who voted and supported these changes to the law. It included many not involved in civil rights, but who eventually saw the injustice.

A penalty, not aggression. I told early on to tone it down to what it was.
 
Boo Radley said:
Like I said, playing dumb doesn't help you. The people, those who voted and supported these changes to the law. It included many not involved in civil rights, but who eventually saw the injustice.
Click to expand...

But you are surely talking about not all the people in a society but SOME of the people. How is it that the particular individuals acquire authority over other individuals?

A penalty, not aggression. I told early on to tone it down to what it was.
Click to expand...

If a person says, "You must do X, or else I will seize you", this can't be anything but aggression. I can't "tone it down", because it is what it is, the initiation of aggression. Why do you think such aggression is ethically justified?
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, history begs to differ with you. I fully understand what you are saying, but know how it played out in history, the reality of that train if thought. There's was inequity, inequality in the results, the reality.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the problem is that we are just using the word "inequality" differently. I don't see anything wrong with a situation where the parties all have the same rights. Yes, some business excluded certain people, but all property works this way and all property owners have the power to exclude who they desire from the use of their property. :shrug:
 
Absolutely not.
 
Henrin said:
So you're fine with stepping on peoples rights? Why?
Click to expand...

Because those folks were fine with completely obliterating my rights much more than whatever rights you sacrificed by serving us.
 
Fiddytree said:
Because those folks were fine with completely obliterating my rights much more than whatever rights you sacrificed by serving us.
Click to expand...

What rights were they obliterating of yours?
 
Henrin said:
What rights were they obliterating of yours?
Click to expand...

No employment, no education, no social interaction with the public, in favor of locking us up in institutions without choice, removal of our sexual reproductive capabilities.
 
Fiddytree said:
No employment, no education, no social interaction with the public, in favor of locking us up in institutions without choice, removal of our sexual reproductive capabilities.
Click to expand...

The first two are not rights and the rest I have no idea what that they have to do with anything.
 
Fiddytree said:
Because those folks were fine with completely obliterating my rights much more than whatever rights you sacrificed by serving us.
Click to expand...

Wow...

You would never be in my circle of friends with such a selfish attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom