• 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!

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

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

  • Total voters
    93
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
You're ignorant of the sociological definition of racism used by sociology departments across the country. While you take your definition from Websters, I take mine from grad school.

One would think you'd be capable of understanding that extremely simple dictionary definitions are often lacking.
Click to expand...

Great. So proper English doesn't matter anymore. Only what you and your sociology professors say matters.

No matter how many degrees you get, nouns will still be nouns and verbs will still be verbs.

I hope you find a well paying job and no one discriminates against you for not having a practical education with practical applications.

You really like to argue over meaningless ****. A verb is a verb and a noun is a noun. Regardless of what sociologists want to redefine them to be.

Maybe you should talk to your English professors.

And why be so rude to me? I could have jumped on you numerous times for your blatant racism you showed toward me, but I chose not to because I thought we were trying to get to an agreement.

I was wrong. I should have just been an ass and been done with it, not wasting this much time tonight.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Great. So proper English doesn't matter anymore.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on ignorance. There is more to racism than merely looking down on a race. A black racial bigot does not carry the same societal impacts as a white racial bigot. Can you not understand this?

You're just getting pissy because Websters is not the end all be all of understanding terms.

Racism is a social construct and, as such, is best examined by sociology - not Websters.

I was wrong. I should have just been an ass and been done with it, not wasting this much time tonight.
Click to expand...

Good riddance. I've spent too much time trying to educate someone who's wedded to their dictionary. Perhaps after you acquire at least a basic education on the subject the discussion can be worthwhile.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
Why do you insist on ignorance. There is more to racism than merely looking down on a race. A black racial bigot does not carry the same societal impacts as a white racial bigot. Can you not understand this?

You're just getting pissy because Websters is not the end all be all of understanding terms.

Racism is a social construct and, as such, is best examined by sociology - not Websters.



Good riddance. I've spent too much time trying to educate someone wedded to their dictionary.
Click to expand...

Saying that a single white racist is more powerful than a single black racist, is... racist. Why? Because it presupposes that the white is more evil by the singular fact of being white, and by presupposing that whites are inherently racist and being so would be able to perpetuate their racism across society as a whole where blacks supposedly cannot.

This is a racist construct. Perpetuated by those that harbor racist thoughts against whites.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Saying that a single white racist is more powerful than a single black racist, is... racist. Why? Because it presupposes that the white is more evil by the singular fact of being white, and by presupposing that whites are inherently racist and being so would be able to perpetuate their racism across society as a whole where blacks supposedly cannot.
Click to expand...

More ignorance. I did not say whites are inherently racist. I said only the majority power can commit or be a part of actual, meaningful, racism. Only those in majority power can be racists, whatever race they may be.

This is a racist construct. Perpetuated by those that harbor racist thoughts against whites.
Click to expand...

No, you failed to understand. Racism a social construct (not an individual construct), and as such it can only be perpetuated at a societal level by the majority power.

Only whites can be racist. Not because whites are inherently so, but because they wield majority power.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
Which is more important: the "right" to discriminate, or freedom from discrimination?

Remember, you can't have both. If a business refuses to serve someone because he's black, and he refuses to leave and the business calls the cops to enforce their "right"...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced racism.

Is that really what we want?
Click to expand...

your example lacks reason.

what was the reason the person was asked to leave? the police officer is not condoning racism if he asks the person to leave. All the police officer knows is that the person is tresspassing. The officer is not there to judge the validity of a civil rights claim.

the courts decide if the action of the owner was a violation of the person's constitutional right.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
More ignorance. I did not say whites are inherently racist. I said only the majority power can commit actual, meaningful, racism.[?quote] Differences in opinion are not ignorance. You saying that a noun is a verb could definitely be called ignorant, since that is a provable fact, not an opinion.



ecofarm said:
No, you failed to understand. It's a social construct, and as such it can only be perpetuated at a societal level by the majority power.
Click to expand...

Just because I don't buy into your ideological construct, doesn't mean I don't understand it.

Your only harming yourself by believing and buying into nonsensical dogma perpetrated by people that are obviously racists them self.

To say that racism only exist on a societal level with white people (the majority as you keep saying) is racism against whites at its core.

I'm done with this circular argument of yours. If you have something new to say, do so. I will read all your posts to me, but I will only respond if you come up with something new, or less "ignorant."

Oh, and to use the same terminology you used toward me about five hours ago, and to summarize what I said above... bullcrap.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
To say that racism only exist on a societal level with white people (the majority as you keep saying) is racism against whites at its core.
Click to expand...

I tried my best, I cannot help you understand racism from a sociological viewpoint any more.

Whites are not inherently racist or evil. Whites can be racists and blacks cannot (in the US) because whites have the majority of power in society. A minority regarding power in society is not capable of perpetuating a system of privilege that permeates society.


One last time: it has nothing to do with whites being whites, it has only to do with whites wielding the majority of power. If blacks wielded the majority of power in the US, then only blacks could be racists in the US.

In countries wherein blacks wield the majority of power, they are capable of being racists and the whites are not. However, this is mitigated by the global scale.
 
Last edited:
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, what you are saying is you have a right to control another person's liberty to receive something. I do believe the natural rights of people refer to liberty more than things that you are selling. A tangible object is not an extension of one's self.
Click to expand...

It isn't? In that case, I'll have the keys to your car, please...and your house, for that matter.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
You can't control another person from receiving something. You don't exercise control over other's liberty.
Click to expand...

Here again, I'll have the keys to your car now, please. You can't control me from receiving them.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
Even if it might be taught these days in school that blacks dealt with discrimination everywhere they went and were literally unable to live because of it, there is no truth to it. If that was the case, then the black unemployment rate before minimum wage wouldn't have been 8%. They would have literally all been jobless and homeless if your statement had any validity to it. If blacks were discriminated against everywhere they went then they couldn't have opened their own businesses and been competitive against businesses owned by whites either.
Click to expand...

...or been able to take up residence in the most prestigious house, with the most prestigious job in the country.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
No, you withholding something because you feel you hold more power over someone, because you don't view them as an equal.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ——
Click to expand...

No. He can withhold his property because he has power over himself and his property. Whether he views someone else as equal isn't relevant to you having power over someone else's property. Most people have an innate desire for self-preservation, which means that most people will invariably value the rest of the world's population at something less than themselves and their family. This doesn't mean you have a right to be given their property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
No. He can withhold his property because he has power over himself and his property. Whether he views someone else as equal isn't relevant to you having power over someone else's property. Most people have an innate desire for self-preservation, which means that most people will invariably value the rest of the world's population at something less than themselves and their family. This doesn't mean you have a right to be given their property.
Click to expand...

I have no right to your property. If you offer your property at a price in the marketplace, then whom you choose to allow access to that property is not under your control.

Once you enter the marketplace to offer your property, you are accepting all manor of rules, regulations an laws that protect you...as well as protect others. You accept this contract.

To accept the rules, regulations, and laws that benefit you while denying those that protect the general public is not how our society works.

You may choose not to participate in our society and remove your property from the marketplace with no restriction or penalty.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Summerwind said:
Then the discrimination is an individual discrimination, which is allowed, unless and until a pattern evolves and a new class in need of protection is identified.
Click to expand...

If it's bad, why is it allowed? If we can disallow it for protected classes, why can't we just disallow it altogether? Why are some groups more deserving of protection that others? Isn't that explicit discrimination?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
Of course I do. As I stated before, I seen it from multiple sides.

What I don't know, is what you meant by that damning and broad statement you made in post 3 as well as if you actually understand what you said.

So far, I've gotten deflection from discrimination to racism and now I'm getting circular arguments from you.

I really would like to hear your reasoning behind your statement. I don't want to argue and have done everything I can to prevent this from getting to that.

Can you please explain to me your thoughts and your reasoning behind your statement that discrimination is done on a societal level and if you can, I'll ask you about the white people comment, although I've intentionally steered away from that.
Click to expand...

I believe he's practicing the 5 D's. Dodge, duck, dip, dive & dodge.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
The collective acts of actual (majority power) racists permeates society.

Individual whites can be racist, because they have the power to institute the systematic oppression of another race, which is what racism really is.
Click to expand...

The fact that this makes sense to you is scary.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
The fact that this makes sense to you is scary.
Click to expand...

That racists attempt to remove all context and social meaning from the word racism is scary. That idiots go for it is even scarier.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
Racism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A system is not merely thought.

In defining racism as merely individual thought, racists strip the word of meaning and falsely equivocate their actions with meaningless bigotry by a minority. The intents of this moronically simple definition are several:

1. To ignore the history of actual racism and its impacts today.
2. To ignore the power dynamics of actual racism.
3. To draw a false equivalence between their actual racism and socially meaningless bigotry.
4. To deny the systematic oppression of blacks.




My entire sociology department agrees with me. Ignorance of sociological factors and impacts, and the intent of racists to ignore these factors, is doing you a disservice.

I'm sorry you disagree with every sociology department in the country and every educated person regarding this. You need to educate yourself and stop discussing racism in terms drawn by racists.
Click to expand...

Wow. There are entire sociology departments of people who want to redefine language such that it has no meaning? This is some real Orwellian ****.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
I'm not ignorant of anything. And if you'd take off your blinder for a minute you find out I'm on your side and trying to teach you something.

A thought is not just some thing that someone has pop in their head. A thought can be a belief, an ideology, a cultural norm or many other things. I hope you understand that.

Racial discrimination is discrimination, and its done because of racist thought. Again, thought is not just something that pops into someones head - see above.

Actions are just that, actions.

I enjoyed reading your link, but what some sociologists want redefine the term to be doesn't make it so.

To help define a word and whether it is a verb or noun, try and use it in a sentence.

I will racism against you; I will commit racist against you; I will commit racial against you.

See? All nouns or pronouns. They don't fit. However, if we add a verb then the sentences work.

I will discriminate and oppress you because of my racism; I will commit racist discrimination against you; I will commit racial oppression against you.
Click to expand...

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

FederalRepublic said:
Wow. There are entire sociology departments of people who want to redefine language such that it has no meaning? This is some real Orwellian ****.
Click to expand...

Another person educated by Websters? Do they give certificates for that? What's it called, a 'Dumbass Degree'?

The people redefining language so as to remove meaning are the racists, and the idiots that fall for their crap, who would have you believe that a bigot with institutional power is the same as a bigot with no power.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

1750Texan said:
I have no right to your property. If you offer your property at a price in the marketplace, then whom you choose to allow access to that property is not under your control.

Once you enter the marketplace to offer your property, you are accepting all manor of rules, regulations an laws that protect you...as well as protect others. You accept this contract.

To accept the rules, regulations, and laws that benefit you while denying those that protect the general public is not how our society works.

You may choose not to participate in our society and remove your property from the marketplace with no restriction or penalty.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that if I have a piece of property that I want to sell to a particular person, you have the right to demand that I sell it to you instead? You believe that?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
That racists attempt to remove all context and social meaning from the word racism is scary. That idiots go for it is even scarier.
Click to expand...

You are the one who is attempting to remove all context and social meaning from the word racism. Words mean things. Dictionaries exists so that society can refer to them for the meaning of words. The root of racism is in people's minds. If anyone here is denying the problems associated with racism, it's you, since you believe that anyone who isn't in the majority is immune to the poison of racist thoughts. How a bunch of sociologists think they can rid the world of racism by denying what racism really is...that's leap of logic I just can't comprehend. How are we ever supposed to understand each other in society when people perpetuate such dumbassery?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
Another person educated by Websters? Do they give certificates for that? What's it called, a 'Dumbass Degree'?
Click to expand...

Actually, it's called "language". Picture me saying that real slowly with the air quotes for effect....you see, it's this thing that was invented awhile ago so that people could more easily and more precisely communicate with each other. It has pretty much facilitated every single worthwhile advance in society. So yeah. The guys who invented it and practice it are total dumbasses. I can see why you'd think that.

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

cpwill said:
"The Right To Discriminate" is really "Freedom of Association".

Government needs powerful justification for discrimination (as an example, we do not allow blind people to fly fighter jets, that's a worthy justification); but private individuals should be left free to do as they wish.

Creating a "Freedom from Discrimination" is a two parter: firstly, one creates a branch of Thought Crime (your motivation or internal reasoning for acts become the focus of the prohibition rather than the acts themselves, and then one creates a Positive Right to never encounter it.

Ours is a system of Negative, rather than Positive Rights, hence "Freedom from Discrimination" belongs with "Freedom from upsetting speech" or "Freedom from religion", or any of the other Orwellian-speak that is used to justify the stripping of actual rights from others in the name of competing preferences of a politically more powerful class.
Click to expand...

That bolded part really jumped out at me. I never thought of it that way but you are so right. We do now have a system of negatives and it's pretty concerning when you frame it as such.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Beaudreaux said:
That's too simplistic a scenario, and asking me to prove a negative. It also places the burden on both sides of the proposed business transaction.
Click to expand...

Prove a negative? I'm not asking you to prove anything at all. I'm asking about your opinion regarding what rights you consider yourself having when dealing with your fellow man.

Can you narrow to better define the circumstances in your proposed scenario? However, the actor in your proposed scenario being me as an individual is inaccurate to the topic of this thread. I would propose that you not involve the individual as the antagonist or protagonist in your question. For example, businesses are not individuals nor do they have the certain rights that individuals have. That may change depending on how the Hobby Lobby case at the SCOTUS turns out. And given that the Citizens United case came down as it did, then that distinction may not be as clear cut as it once was, although that case dealt only with the First Amendment as it pertains to monetary donations to political campaigns.
Click to expand...

It's a general question, but I'll paint a hypothetical scenario for you. A sole proprietor (one individual) contract software developer places a notice on his website that he will not do business with any redheaded customers.

Do you feel as if you have the right to violate the person or property of this individual in order to coerce him into doing business with redheads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom