• 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

joG said:
And isn't it discriminatory to give someone a place in a university in preference to another, who is much better at such work simply because the person comes from a minority?
Click to expand...

That discrimination is just because it provides real value to the university and society. Do you believe "black free shopping" provides real value to society? Let's start differentiating between just and unjust discrimination.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

No individual has the right to violate (or threaten to violate) the body or property of his fellow man in order to coerce him into engaging in trade with someone against his will. That's a complete and blatant unjustified initiation of aggression.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
That is faulty logic because what you are saying is people are oppressed if they can't act the way they please. Sorry, but we do have restrictions on how we conduct ourselves whether you find that oppressive or not.
Click to expand...

We do have restrictions on how we conduct ourselves. They are properly based around whether our actions cause (or have the potential to cause) injury to others. Real, verifiable injury.

rabbitcaebannog said:
People most often have legal recourse when someone does wrong. It's a fact of life. We have laws for reasons. There is no law that would hang him by his toenails, but she could have still went after him legally. Many divorce cases end that way. Very rarely do people walk Scott free.
Click to expand...

No. People do not most often have legal recourse when someone does them wrong. That is a fact of life. There was no legal recourse for Elizabeth Edwards because her husband was a complete dick. There's no law against being a dick, and there shouldn't be. Everyone has a different standard for what would constitute "being a dick". I don't have a right to enforce my standard of dickish behavior on John Edwards (even if I think society would be infinitely better off with people like him hanging by their toenails instead of running for president). Maybe you want the type of society where law and punishment is based on people's thoughts and intentions. Personally I don't believe it would be anything other than utterly oppressive.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

faithful_servant said:
I take it you didn't read my post or you read it, failed to understand and just posted a non-sequitur in response. Go back read my post again and take a little time to actually think about what I said, then try again....
Click to expand...

No, guy, I read your post quite well. It's chock-full of broad-brush assumptions. Google "broad-brush logical fallacy" sometime.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
Was it the way I wrote it or the concept?
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you were trying to say, so if there's a concept, I don't know what it is.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

tacomancer said:
Well, luckily for us, most of the US society has much more reasonable and balanced beliefs.
Click to expand...

It is my view that the sovereignty of every individual must at all times be held inviolable. Every one should be free to dispose of his person, his time, and his property as he pleases at alway their own cost.

That is very reasonable, imho. Please though, explain to me how it is unreasonable.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
Actually you're referring to a law that demanded discrimination. That is easily differentiated (you might say discriminated) from laws that allow or disallow discrimination.
Click to expand...

The laws may be different, but the end effect is the same. A racist business refuses to serve blacks, and blacks will come in and sit at the counter and demand to be served - just like they did in the Civil Right struggle. The business will call the cops...and the cops - being forced to enforce the law - will physically remove the blacks...

...which means we now have government-enforced racism. Back to Jim Crow.

Is that really the America you want to see?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

rabbitcaebannog said:
The times societies have been most oppressive has been when people have been perceived by a society as less than and they've been refused to participate in basic everyday activities including business transactions like their counterparts which were perceived more Nobel or just plain superior.
Click to expand...

The backhanded point I was trying to make is that there have always been, and will always be those who are perceived by society as less than themselves. It's true of every society. It's not something you can fix, and it's not necessarily even a bad thing. If a society shuns an asshole, well there's a lesson to be had in that.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
Actually, you can't have freedom from discrimination in any real sense of the words. If a business refuses to serve someone who is a complete dick, well that's discrimination. I discriminated against all the women out there who aren't married to me, for all sorts of reasons. For that matter, I discriminated against all the guys out there too. If a guy came into my house and demanded that I perform a service for him, and then refused to leave when I said no and I called the cops to enforce my right...it is at that moment that we have government-enforced discrimination.

Frankly, I can see a very good argument in favor of anti-discrimination laws, but generally if a law forcing a racist to associate with someone he didn't want to associate with is "necessary", wouldn't it be just as likely to increase racial tensions?
Click to expand...

Your HOUSE is not a BUSINESS that is open to the PUBLIC.

You can do or say whatever the heck you want inside your HOUSE. But in a business open to the public? No.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
The laws may be different, but the end effect is the same. A racist business refuses to serve blacks, and blacks will come in and sit at the counter and demand to be served - just like they did in the Civil Right struggle. The business will call the cops...and the cops - being forced to enforce the law - will physically remove the blacks...

...which means we now have government-enforced racism. Back to Jim Crow.

Is that really the America you want to see?
Click to expand...

No, it means they are defending the owners right to control who can enter his property and sits at his counters.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Glen Contrarian said:
OPINION is not the same thing as "We won't serve you here because you're black". You can have any OPINION you want...but you cannot take any physical action that you want.
Click to expand...

True. We are speaking freedom of expression of an opinion. I dislike the opinion and the means of expression. I also think that in a half way healthy community or country it will do more harm to bar this freedom than the hurt it causes. Again, it is discrimination by the individual not the state I am talking about. If it were the state we are speaking about something else.
The only argument I could see would be a requirement that businesses must supply the public without exception. But that can run into problems as well.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
That discrimination is just because it provides real value to the university and society. Do you believe "black free shopping" provides real value to society? Let's start differentiating between just and unjust discrimination.
Click to expand...

If I can decide what is allowed and not, you might be able to sway me.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
Then demanding the right be recognized by the USSC, as if it doesn't exist otherwise, is BS.
Click to expand...

Seriously...how often do your friends look at you and say "WTF are you talking about?" :blink:
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

SAID IT BEFORE:

nothing can be a right, if it lays a cost or burden, on a fellow citizen.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
No, it means they are defending the owners right to control who can enter his property and sits at his counters.
Click to expand...

I doubt you have heard about the Greensboro sit-ins?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

joG said:
If I can decide what is allowed and not, you might be able to sway me.
Click to expand...

So you are incapable of discerning just from unjust discrimination? It's amazing you can function.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
Seriously...how often do your friends look at you and say "WTF are you talking about?" :blink:
Click to expand...

Apparently, you jumped into the middle of a conversation with no clue what was being discussed. Better luck next time.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
We do have restrictions on how we conduct ourselves. They are properly based around whether our actions cause (or have the potential to cause) injury to others. Real, verifiable injury.



No. People do not most often have legal recourse when someone does them wrong. That is a fact of life. There was no legal recourse for Elizabeth Edwards because her husband was a complete dick. There's no law against being a dick, and there shouldn't be. Everyone has a different standard for what would constitute "being a dick". I don't have a right to enforce my standard of dickish behavior on John Edwards (even if I think society would be infinitely better off with people like him hanging by their toenails instead of running for president). Maybe you want the type of society where law and punishment is based on people's thoughts and intentions. Personally I don't believe it would be anything other than utterly oppressive.
Click to expand...

I never said there should be a law for being a dick. What I said is she could hire an attorney for recourse. Many people do in cases of divorce and cheating. I also never said anything about having a law for thoughts and intentions. What I've made clear is having civil right laws on the books, where businesses conduct transactions without discrimination is anything but oppressive. It's perfectly logical.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

ecofarm said:
That discrimination is just because it provides real value to the university and society. Do you believe "black free shopping" provides real value to society? Let's start differentiating between just and unjust discrimination.
Click to expand...

How is it better for society to lower standards based on race? How is it even better for that race?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Unitedwestand13 said:
I doubt you have heard about the Greensboro sit-ins?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure anyone that goes to public school knows about them. I fail to see how those individuals weren't trespassing on private property.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Federalist said:
I can't justify initiating aggression against a person to coerce him to do business with someone against his choice. I don't think I have a right to do that.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem: If business A can tell blacks "I refuse to serve you because you're black", what will happen? Just like in the Civil Rights struggle, the blacks WILL sit at the counter (with reporters recording the whole thing) demanding to be served. The cops will be called by the business, and the cops will be forced to enforce the law and physically remove the blacks...

...at which time we have government-enforced racism.

Not only that, but some whites-only businesses will succeed, particularly Down South. Once those succeed, some blacks will get ticked off (and rightly so), and so they will retaliate by opening blacks-only businesses...at which point the racist whites will feel justified by saying, "See - it was those racist blacks all along!" And more whites-only businesses will open and succeed, and so will more blacks-only businesses...

...and the whole vicious circle spirals downhill to a market-enforced Jim Crow era.

You might think it's not right to force someone to do business with someone else based on race...but first think carefully as the effect that libertarian view would have on our society as a whole. Is that really the kind of America you want to see?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Henrin said:
It is my view that the sovereignty of every individual must at all times be held inviolable. Every one should be free to dispose of his person, his time, and his property as he pleases at alway their own cost.

That is very reasonable, imho. Please though, explain to me how it is unreasonable.
Click to expand...

It puts people out of their natural settings. Humans are social creatures and the urge to build societies in a manner we have seen historically is a part of us. If you take that away, people are less and will seek to fulfill their urges in more volatile ways.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

FederalRepublic said:
How is it better for society to lower standards based on race? How is it even better for that race?
Click to expand...

First, there are not lower standards; everyone must meet the minimal standards for acceptance. Second, diversity improves the university's product. Third, giving the oppressed bootstraps with which to pull themselves out of poverty is the American way; this serves society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom