• 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

So if I don't want a person to be on my home lawn simply because that person is Jewish, the police shouldn't be enforcing my discrimination?
And there's the other side of it.

I'd say since it's your private dwelling you should expect the police to assist, even though you're a bigoted asshole (in that situation).

But on the other hand, if you have a public business they should not.

Unless other factors are involved beyond the bigotry, of course.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The right to discriminate? Eh?

The right to be prejudiced is something I would acknowledge but the right to actually discriminate is something I would never acknowledge till the end of my existence.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

The right to discriminate? Eh?

The right to be prejudiced is something I would acknowledge but the right to actually discriminate is something I would never acknowledge till the end of my existence.

You discriminate every day. From where you park your car, to who you hire as a babysitter, to what you watch on TV.

You put up an ad for a babysitter, and this guy shows up. Are you going to hire him?
66eb7bad7a9eceb2af570aed626ce0bc.jpg
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You discriminate every day. From where you park your car, to who you hire as a babysitter, to what you watch on TV.

You put up an ad for a babysitter, and this guy shows up. Are you going to hire him?
66eb7bad7a9eceb2af570aed626ce0bc.jpg

Discrimination as per the Oxford English Dictionary = The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex

I would not hire this guy because in mutilating his face in such a way he has proven to me that he is not going to help raise my children in the way i wish them to be raised. Is that unjust or prejudicial? I think not. I am putting expectations for people (the only expectation in this case being that my child is raised in a way that I am comfortable with) that determine whether or not they receive a job, he failed to meet expectations therefor he did not get the job. That is not unjust.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Interesting. So you think it might be just for someone to use force to take what belongs to you. Under what circumstances would you think this would be just?

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

Would you agree that is just?
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

If you are friends with a person who, unbeknownst to you, commits murder, are you an accessory to murder or otherwise a supporter of murder?

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

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

are we merely carrying a Lord's name in vain, in our pledge of allegiance?

is there no moral we can appeal to in this case.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Discrimination as per the Oxford English Dictionary = The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex

I would not hire this guy because in mutilating his face in such a way he has proven to me that he is not going to help raise my children in the way i wish them to be raised. Is that unjust or prejudicial? I think not. I am putting expectations for people (the only expectation in this case being that my child is raised in a way that I am comfortable with) that determine whether or not they receive a job, he failed to meet expectations therefor he did not get the job. That is not unjust.

You have pre-judged him, based on appearance, and then discriminated against him because of that. That was my point.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

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

Would you agree that is just?

nothing militia service, well regulated, couldn't take care of.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

You have pre-judged him, based on appearance, and then discriminated against him because of that. That was my point.

I judged him based on the criteria for getting the job, I don't think everyone would hop on your bandwagon that that is unjust. My point was that isn't discrimination more so the failure of someone to qualify for a job (for a JUST reason, that is what you can debate).
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

Engaging in business in the public domain isn't free time.

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

And there's the other side of it.

I'd say since it's your private dwelling you should expect the police to assist, even though you're a bigoted asshole (in that situation).

But you didn't make that stipulation before and now you're backtracking on it, which is what typically happens. Police have no business enforcing discrimination...except when they do. Face it in the end we have government enforced discrimination all the time.

But on the other hand, if you have a public business they should not.

But the public doesn't own the business. Therefore it is a private business. This whole nonsense of being open to the public is a legal fiction. Either the business belongs to the owner(s) and is a private one and subject to all the same rights and freedoms as the owner(s) or it is owned by the public and thus subject to the non-discrimination requirements of the government.


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

Would you agree that is just?

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 honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I judged him based on the criteria for getting the job, I don't think everyone would hop on your bandwagon that that is unjust. My point was that isn't discrimination more so the failure of someone to qualify for a job (for a JUST reason, that is what you can debate).

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

But you didn't make that stipulation before and now you're backtracking on it, which is what typically happens. Police have no business enforcing discrimination...except when they do. Face it in the end we have government enforced discrimination all the time.
Indeed.

I'm not sure I'd call it backtracking so much as realizing my definition was incomplete. But either way.
 
Re: Which Is More Important? The Right to Discriminate, or Freedom from Discriminati

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom