EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1822
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:18 Millitron wrote: How is forcing entire religions to violate their belief systems not discrimination, but refusing to bake a cake is? "Business owners must serve everyone." "Business owners can refuse people of beliefs/gender/ethnicity that they don't like." Wow, I wonder which is discrimination. On April 08 2015 12:21 Yoav wrote: Okay, but what about the distinction between acts and persons? My examples with Catholics/Quakers/Jews? It's not that they're saying "deny all the service to gay people." That's materially different from what's actually happening. Your example is fucking stupid. We're not talking about being forced to do completely inane actions with no relevance to your business. We're talking about providing your advertised services to everyone. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: "Business owners must serve everyone." "Business owners can refuse people of beliefs/gender/ethnicity that they don't like." Wow, I wonder which is discrimination. Your example is fucking stupid. We're not talking about being forced to do completely inane actions with no relevance to your business. We're talking about providing your advertised services to everyone. "Anyone can open a business." "Only people who either have no religion or are ok with violating certain tenants of it can open a business." Wow, I wonder which is discrimination. On April 08 2015 12:23 WolfintheSheep wrote: "Business owners must serve everyone." "Business owners can refuse people of beliefs/gender/ethnicity that they don't like." Wow, I wonder which is discrimination. Your example is fucking stupid. We're not talking about being forced to do completely inane actions with no relevance to your business. We're talking about providing your advertised services to everyone. "Anyone can open a business." "Only people who either have no religion or are ok with violating certain tenants of it can open a business." Wow, I wonder which is discrimination. + Show Spoiler + I fucked up the quotes somehow :/ Okay, but what about the distinction between acts and persons? My examples with Catholics/Quakers/Jews? It's not that they're saying "deny all the service to gay people." That's materially different from what's actually happening.[/QUOTE] Your example is fucking stupid. We're not talking about being forced to do completely inane actions with no relevance to your business. We're talking about providing your advertised services to everyone.[/QUOTE] Quakers and other pacifists can avoid the draft. There is already a precedent for not forcing people to disregard their beliefs. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
You don't let totalitarian parties run for elections, you lock dangerous people up in prison, and you should set rules for economical activities that guarantee that everybody in his everyday life is actually treated like a human being. Even if it is about something as trivial as buying cake. If you don't even have that amount of decency you shouldn't get away with it. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:34 Nyxisto wrote: I think at the core of this issue is this completely insane libertarian position that you actually need to tolerate people who, if they were in the majority, would completely wreck the country that gives them these rights in the first place. You don't let totalitarian parties run for elections, you lock dangerous people up in prison, and you should set rules for economical activities that guarantee that everybody in his everyday life is actually treated like a human being. Even if it is about something as trivial as buying cake. If you don't even have that amount of decency you shouldn't get away with it. It doesn't seem very decent to me to force people to support an event they do not agree with. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
is another form of, "is banning fascism, fascism" for this basic 'problem' a simple tiered system is enough. instead of (1)'ban discrimination,' we would say, (2)'no discrimination in the course of daily conduct.' the first, naive statement would be susceptible to the self reference troll, the second one isn't. it simply involves an extra system, the government, with its own set of normative principles, and this can include (3)"discriminating against discrimination by businesses is ok". the government itself is not within the domain of (2), but it is potentially in (1). so really the answer to the topical question would be, yea you can call it discrimination if you want, but it's discriminating against discrimination and that's ok. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:32 Millitron wrote: "Anyone can open a business." "Only people who either have no religion or are ok with violating certain tenants of it can open a business." Wow, I wonder which is discrimination. Uh, the one that doesn't let you impose your religious beliefs on other people? I love how this always loops back around to some argument about discriminating against your right to discriminate. There is no such right. There aren't even religious tenants telling you to discriminate. On April 08 2015 12:18 Millitron wrote: Quakers and other pacifists can avoid the draft. There is already a precedent for not forcing people to disregard their beliefs. I'm sorry, apparently being drafted is an advertised service? "Buy a large pizza and get a free coke! Also, employees are available for military draft!" | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:38 oneofthem wrote: "How is forcing entire religions to violate their belief systems not discrimination" is another form of, "is banning fascism, fascism" for this basic 'problem' a simple tiered system is enough. instead of 'ban discrimination,' we would say, 'no discrimination in the course of daily conduct.' the first, naive statement would be susceptible to the self reference troll, the second one isn't. it simply involves an extra system, the government, with its own set of normative principles, and this can include "discriminating against discrimination by businesses is ok". the government itself is exempt and acts as a higher order language to the laws describing social affairs. so really the answer to the topical question would be, yea you can call it discrimination if you want, but it's discriminating against discrimination and that's ok. Uh, how is the government being exempt ok? You know they're not all angels right? They're just as prone to being bigoted, self-serving, and corrupt as anyone else. Remember Watergate? Remember the IRS being tougher on Republican PAC's? Remember all those emails that were conveniently "lost"? I really don't get where this idea that the government can solve all problems comes from. On April 08 2015 12:43 WolfintheSheep wrote: Uh, the one that doesn't let you impose your religious beliefs on other people? I love how this always loops back around to some argument about discriminating against your right to discriminate. There is no such right. There aren't even religious tenants telling you to discriminate. I'm sorry, apparently being drafted is an advertised service? "Buy a large pizza and get a free coke! Also, employees are available for military draft!" It's a precedent that you cannot force people to do things against their will if it is against deeply held beliefs. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
looky here, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/#BuiExpHie i've edited that post. i really meant absolutely no political judgment with exempted, merely about the interpretation of the sentence. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:47 oneofthem wrote: being exempt means it belongs in a higher order language and thus is not described by a lower level sentence that says 'no discrimination.' so there is no potential to express self reference. They still are not angels. If they were, we wouldn't need checks and balances. I can't believe you see no problem with having the government enforce such strict anti-discrimination policies. How much longer till incumbent officials start having their rising opposition arrested for discrimination? Pretty easy to win an election if you're the incumbent, and thus have all the political capital you need to launch investigations that conveniently find that your opponent is a bigot. Not a page ago, you were calling out McCarthyism, and yet here you are, empowering tomorrow's McCarthy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
let's try something a bit less charged. suppose i say "everyone be quiet!" in the role of a teacher. some smart ass kid would be like, "but your order isn't quiet!" i'd say "every student be quiet!" and that little punk would get shut down. much the same for your argument. we would say "no business can discriminate" instead of "no discrimination!" (but really my own preferred strategy would be to distinguish the act of semantic interpretation and the act of description, but that is a whole another story) | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:52 Millitron wrote: They still are not angels. If they were, we wouldn't need checks and balances. I can't believe you see no problem with having the government enforce such strict anti-discrimination policies. How much longer till incumbent officials start having their rising opposition arrested for discrimination? Pretty easy to win an election if you're the incumbent, and thus have all the political capital you need to launch investigations that conveniently find that your opponent is a bigot. Not a page ago, you were calling out McCarthyism, and yet here you are, empowering tomorrow's McCarthy. Yeah, just look at all those politicians that were imprisoned for being Racist. You let those Blacks have rights, and the next day it was total dictatorship! | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:54 Nyxisto wrote: You think you're going to get a dictator based on anti-discrimination legislation? No. I think we're going to get assholes who use it to further their own political career. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On April 08 2015 12:52 Millitron wrote: They still are not angels. If they were, we wouldn't need checks and balances. I can't believe you see no problem with having the government enforce such strict anti-discrimination policies. How much longer till incumbent officials start having their rising opposition arrested for discrimination? Pretty easy to win an election if you're the incumbent, and thus have all the political capital you need to launch investigations that conveniently find that your opponent is a bigot. Not a page ago, you were calling out McCarthyism, and yet here you are, empowering tomorrow's McCarthy. I don't understand how allowing the government to say that pizza places need to serve pizza to gay people (or black people, or asian people, or Republicans) lets them jail the rising opposition. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
Now, is there any reasonable situations where a business might want to not partake in a transaction with a customer that isn't discrimination? Probably not a lot of situations, but so long as the consumer has the freedom to choose whom they want to do business with, businesses should have the same freedom as well. What if someone wants a restaurant to cater at a haunted house for a halloween party? The restaurant owner and workers are extremely superstitious, they refuse based on their own religious/spiritual/cultural belief? Are they now discriminating against haunted houses? What if that same cultural/spiritual/religious belief extends to ritual and ceremonies of other religions? Would you realistically expect a very christian pizza parlor to extend their catering service to a Satanic ritual? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
LOUISVILLE - Rand Paul took aim at Washington and his fellow Republicans as he formally launched his presidential bid on Tuesday, railing against his party for catering to special interests and framing himself as an anti-establishment figure with broad voter appeal. The first-term Kentucky senator and ophthalmologist sought to set himself apart from both his father Ron Paul — an uncompromising libertarian figure who made three unsuccessful runs for the White House — and the rest of the Republican field. “Too often, when Republicans have won, we’ve squandered our victory by becoming part of the Washington machine,” Paul said during a rousing rally with chants of “President Paul” from the packed crowd at the Galt House Hotel. “If we nominate a candidate who is simply Democrat-light, why bother? What’s the point?” Paul laid out a staunchly conservative vision that he said was also inclusive, aimed at empowering poorer Americans through greater education and economic opportunities. Source | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
is your haunted house resident a race, gender, religion etc? these particular kinds of prejudices are politically deemed to be unjustified. if your particular scenario becomes widespread enough and the haunted way of life is in need of protection for equal rights, then maybe we can get that term added onto our laws. | ||
| ||
