• 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!

Restaurant owner refuses to serve blacks any longer

VanceMack said:
No...I dont think I can explain anything to someone that doesnt appear to understand the basic function of government.
Click to expand...

The basic function of government is to help organize and manage society in a way deemed optimally by the population is governs (or by the ruling class, depending on which type of government we are discussing) and consistent with deeper policies (such as human, religious, and natural rights (again depending on the priorities of the specific population)).

Ok, back to my questions, what specific policies are linked to urban blight? Also how are these specific policies linked to your (very odd) definition of bigotry?
 
VanceMack said:
Wait...you are saying...its wrong to blame an entire race because of the actions of some within their ranks?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is very wrong to blame an entire race for the actions of a few. Should we blame all whites for the actions of the Klan or Nazis?
 
TomFitz said:
Nor are they anything other than obscure video of unidentified people posted by people unidentified or using screen names.

Hardly reliable,verifiable, and just as likely NOT factual.

The race angle obviously got the Trumpsters going, which was the intent of the blogger. And the race angle is in the title of this thread.

Never heard of WorldStar until just now.

Typically I prefer news from someone more authentic and trustworthy than some guy on the internet.
Click to expand...
No...what you prefer to do is the same thing any leftist does when presented with actual audio or video of circumstances they dont like...you ram your head up....errrrr...in the sand and screech "FOX NEWS!!! FOX NEWS!!!! LA LA LA LA LA LA....I'm not listening!!! I'm not listening!!!" and pretend like the actual video doesnt say what it says.
 
Lisa said:
Yes, it is very wrong to blame an entire race for the actions of a few. Should we blame all whites for the actions of the Klan or Nazis?
Click to expand...
Well....no. That would be as stupid as starting a movement and blaming 'the cops' or 'law enforcement' for the actions of individuals.

But then, what mental midgets and idiots would do such a thing.
 
beefheart said:
Its federal law. Not some "do-gooder organization".

Pretty amazing that you wouldn't know something so simple about the law. Its just the Civil Rights Act of 1964, maybe you skipped over that in school?

Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Government Enforcement - FindLaw
Click to expand...

Pretty amazing that you don't know that the law is what ENABLES a civil suit (read your own quote). All a do-gooder gaggle of need do is send in one of their black guys, let him get turned away, and then support a suit against the business owner.

Your "amazement" wouldn't be so amazing if your thinking weren't so short-sighted.
 
marke said:
He cannot take a stand against rioting and looting baboons while the police have been disbanded? I disagree.
Click to expand...

You've not heard of Public Accomodation laws?
 
lurchadams said:
The owner will find his racist ass in Federal court very soon.
Click to expand...

Racist? He's black. Is that like the black white supremacist who hit the protesters on the freeway?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Of course, it was only a matter of time before the racists became more forward and the OP started to champion the effort.
Click to expand...

The restaurant owner is black. Soo, what, he's racist against himself?
 
maxparrish said:
Pretty amazing that you don't know that the law is what ENABLES a civil suit (read your own quote). All a do-gooder gaggle of need do is send in one of their black guys, let him get turned away, and then support a suit against the business owner.

Your "amazement" wouldn't be so amazing if your thinking weren't so short-sighted.
Click to expand...

Nice attempt to cover for your ignorant post.:lamo
 
Lisa said:
Yes, it is very wrong to blame an entire race for the actions of a few. Should we blame all whites for the actions of the Klan or Nazis?
Click to expand...

My Polish grandmother blamed Russians, all of them. Considering what happened to my family when the USSR invaded Poland in '39 (grandfather murdered, mother and grandmother exiled to Siberia as slave labour), you could hardly blame her. I digress, but your point is well taken.
 
tacomancer said:
If one is refusing to serve all blacks due to fear of violent gangs, then one is assuming all black people are violent gang members.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Isn't it great that it's 2020 and we're still having this kind of conversation?
 
snakestretcher said:
Doesn't matter what colour he is, it's the intent which matters and he has broken the law. It isn't that hard to understand.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about any of that. I was merely mocking the idiotic cries of racism.
 
beefheart said:
Nice attempt to cover for your ignorant post.:lamo
Click to expand...

Sorry your post backfired because you made bad assumptions and didn't bother to actually read the quote you posted - which, by the way, is not only the definition of ignorance but also of someone out of their depth.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
If one is refusing to serve all blacks due to fear of violent gangs, then one is assuming all black people are violent gang members.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

One is not assuming all black people are gang members, one is assuming that the a sufficient number are gang members or supportive of gang members to make serving blacks as likely complicit in their evil and/or creating a danger to the business owner. That is not racism, that is rational discrimination.
 
maxparrish said:
Incorrect.

One is not assuming all black people are gang members, one is assuming that the a sufficient number are gang members or supportive of gang members to make serving blacks is likely complicit in their evil and/or creating a danger to the business owner. That is not racism, that is rational discrimination.
Click to expand...

That is still racism as one is still stereotyping and acting negatively on that stereotype due to the color of skin.
 
tacomancer said:
That is still racism as one is still stereotyping and acting negatively on that stereotype due to the color of skin.
Click to expand...

A) its not stereotyping, the assumption that ALL people are of a single nature. As I stated, rational discrimination does not assume that ALL those affected are of one kind.
B) a person, in particular a black man, not wishing to associate with his racial group because it is known for criminal behavior is not prejudice, nor racism...i.e. it is not a belief that one's race is superior to another.
 
maxparrish said:
A) its not stereotyping, the assumption that ALL people are of a single nature. As I stated, rational discrimination does not assume that ALL those affected are of one kind.
B) a person, in particular a black man, not wishing to associate with a racial group known for criminal behavior is not prejudice, nor racism...i.e. it is not a belief that one's race is superior to another.
Click to expand...

It's still racism
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom