• 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!

Would you patronize a business that discriminated against a race?

Would you patronize a business that discriminated based on race?

  • Nope

    Votes: 70 90.9%
  • Yep

    Votes: 7 9.1%

  • Total voters
    77
I think it's idiotic to frame the issue in anything other than a sociological perspective. The damage done to society is the issue at hand, not whether an individual likes it.

I think it's idiotic to suggest that people should be the servants of society.
 
Shoot I accidentally said yes I meant no! Still 100percent
 
So much for that vast sociological knowledge you claim. You don't seem to understand grouping. If a white person lives and works in a group where they are one of a handful of whites, they ARE the minority sociologically speaking. So much for that "majority privilege" you seem to misunderstand.

Idiocy. Majority privilege is systemic and cannot be escaped, localized discrimination can be escaped. See the difference?

Thus, the context MUST be national or global, not local.
 
Idiocy. Systemic majority privilege cannot be escaped, localized discrimination can. See the difference?

Thus, the context MUST be national or global, not local.

Except we are not purely national, we are a union of STATES. We are structured to be a union of localities, with the ultimate powers to come from the local up. Can you see the difference? Or have you forgotten this as per usual.
 
I think it's idiotic to suggest that people should be the servants of society.

Obeying laws against damaging society, when one is using public funds and infrastructure for profit, is not "being a servant".

Henrin busts out the victim card - big surprise.
 
Idiocy. Majority privilege is systemic and cannot be escaped, localized discrimination can. See the difference?

Thus, the context MUST be national or global, not local.

So besides small local businesses who do you think would discriminate?
 
Except we are not purely national, we are a union of STATES. We are structured to be a union of localities, with the ultimate powers to come from the local up.

Irrelevant

We are a nation.
 
Obeying laws against damaging society, when one is using public funds and infrastructure for profit, is not "being a servant".

Henrin busts out the victim card - big surprise.

What public funds is most companies using? Yes, they are using roads and power, but then they are paying for those things, so that is a moot point.
 
Obeying laws against damaging society, when one is using public funds and infrastructure for profit, is not "being a servant".

Henrin busts out the victim card - big surprise.

And you bust out the busted "public funds and infrastructure" argument. Which is another way of saying, if you breathe air I want you to do it my way.
 
So besides small local businesses who do you think would discriminate?

You're joking, right? You give me pangs of pity.
 
And you bust out the busted "public funds and infrastructure" argument. Which is another way of saying, if you breathe air I want you to do it my way.

Pathetic strawman
 
What public funds is most companies using? Yes, they are using roads and power, but then they are paying for those things, so that is a moot point.

They are contributing to those things, not paying for them. Those things are paid for publicly.
 
You're joking, right? You give me pangs of pity.

Couldn't think of an answer could you. Yeah, your arguments do tend to evaporate when called to reality. You should do something about that.
 
Only irrelevant to YOU when you wish to have your arguments make sense.

No, your "we were designed as..." crap is -in fact- crap. There can be no doubt whom is the majority power nationally.
 
Couldn't think of an answer could you. Yeah, your arguments do tend to evaporate when called to reality. You should do something about that.

You think a local business cannot be considered in a national context? Ahhh... more pangs of pity.
 
No, your "we were designed as..." crap is -in fact- crap. There can be no doubt whom is the majority power nationally.

I thought you made the great boast about understanding what the Founders wrote, where is that understanding, because it doesn't show from your comments here. And again, we vote and participate very little nationally. It's in the name United STATES of America.
 
You think a local business cannot be considered in a national context? Ahhh... more pangs of pity.

So, you still can't think of an answer and so double down on the false expression of emotional angst.
 
I voted yes because I have patronized businesses over the years that discriminated. I believed most of us have whether we wish to acknowledge it. In my travels which have take me through all 48 lower states with the goal to see as much of this country as possible I have stopped for gas and/or meal in hundreds of clearly racial establishments. Of course in our politically correct society today it may not be as in your face obvious but they are still everywhere.

While most of us picture the store in Mississippi with the sign no N-----s allowed I have stopped in many black neighborhoods and was clearly informed that my life was in jeopardy and I did not belong in this part of town.

A neighborhood store (owned by an Asian) I would stop at most mornings for a coffee and donut one morning had a sign in the window "No blacks allowed". I entered the store and explained to him he could not post such a sign in this country. He argued with me that he did not want them in his store because of the number of times he had them on tape shoplifting. He explained how he tried to show the tapes to police who could care less about his problem.

He eventually put an electronic lock on the door to keep them from leaving with the merchandise until he could make them put it back or pay for it. A very dangerous game unfortunately necessary in his neighborhood. He eventually moved to a better neighborhood.
 
I don't think you'd find many people these days who would.

Fundamentalist Christians would seem to be the exception, there are lots of them that don't want to "catch the gay".
 
Fundamentalist Christians would seem to be the exception, there are lots of them that don't want to "catch the gay".
What about Muslims
 
What about Muslims

While that might be true in other parts of the world, I'm not seeing Muslim-owned businesses in the U.S. that are doing that. It's all Christian. In other parts of the world, they'd probably just kill you if they didn't like you.
 
Fundamentalist Christians would seem to be the exception, there are lots of them that don't want to "catch the gay".

This is about race, not sexual orientation.
 
Back
Top Bottom