|
On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge.
Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already.
|
On January 19 2013 06:29 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:44 naastyOne wrote:On January 19 2013 05:28 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 05:23 naastyOne wrote:
You can not just hair-split what kind of discimination is ok, and what is not. It is either not ok to have any, or it is ok to have all. Stay out of politics please; we don't need any more of this kind of thinking... I like it where you`re going. Only people that share my oppinion should be engaged in politics. Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. So, you want to hairsplit discrimination and want to silence people that do not agree with you. Ok. But since it wourks both ways, why wouldn`t you shut yourself for your unproductive vieves?
I see both of your points.
I don't believe he is hair-splitting, but he is indeed wrong if he thinks that no one fully believes that discrimination is either right or wrong, utterly. I enjoyed FiWiFaKi's post at the beginning of the thread where he left his line of thought unedited. I think that would be most people's reasoning if they just thought about it for a while before slapping down a post. This is not an easy topic, and it's further confused by society's modern use of the words "discrimination" and "intolerance," in my opinion.
|
On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already.
Don't you understand that accepting students to a university based on academic results is discrimination? Yes, it's silly, but that is where the rabbit hole goes.
|
On January 19 2013 07:00 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already. Don't you understand that accepting students to a university based on academic results is discrimination? Yes, it's silly, but that is where the rabbit hole goes.
That's how meritocracy should work.
Problem is that "discrimination" is simply a mistaken interpretation of meritocracy based on lies and bias.
|
Discrimination is by definition based on prejudice and not informed decision making, I don't see how most of the examples being used to support "discriminatory practices" are even remotely the same thing. It's a completely different prospect to say "it's with in the rights of an individual to chose who he or she services and how" as a supporting argument for discrimination because that involves actual decision making based on factual evidence.
If a bank refuses to service an individual because of bad credit rating and firm knowledge that he or she is unable to pay back the specific amount of money with in the time period of a loan and thus makes the informed decision to refuse service and gives the reasoning why or why not, or offers another alternative service, that's fine.
If a bank refuses to service an individual based on the basis of personal or organizational prejudice against a specific group of people with out rationality then it is discrimination, and that's bloody bigoted and also contrary to the actual interest of the bank to maximize profit.
Note that in the above example, there's a distinct difference between investigating an individual's past financial history, checking his occupation and financial status, etc, to discriminating against somebody simply because you "think" or "perceive" based on his appearance or race or what ever arbitrary reason.
|
On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:
Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive.
I'd like to ask if you think it's fine to discriminate against people who discriminate? If it OK to you if a municipality/city/state chose to deny permits for KKK rallies/parades for the simple fact that they are KKK and don't want their area to be associated with such a group? A little fighting fire with fire.. some reverse psychology.. IF we hate the haters, maybe just maybe, it will hurt them into seeing the error of their ways and get them to open their arms. Would you be upset if this owner refused to make a cake for a(n) grand dragon/imperial wizards wedding and they made a big stink about it?
Store/business owners have a responsibility to protect their brand. A wedding cake from that exact store is not a necessity for the wedding. Did they call off the wedding and refuse to proceed any further until that store makes them the cake? I'd say there's probably plenty of cake makers who would jump for the chance to make the cake. Hell, if they paid me I'd make them a cake.
|
On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already.
What world are you living in? Most colleges are prejudiced, even in other parts of the world, usually against Asians. I know in my country, Auckland University increase the marks of Maori students (a minority) by 15% for med school (they even ANNOUNCED THIS in the medsci paper first year) and have a much higher standard applied to asians and indians particularly. Maoris on average need a B to B+ to get into Med, whereas asians usually need at least A to A+ to even be considered for interviews.
|
On January 19 2013 07:10 fuzzy_panda wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:58 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 19 2013 06:52 bonifaceviii wrote:On January 19 2013 06:46 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I have seen on liberal college campuses at bake sale people selling cakes at different prices for different races
Blacks were given the cheapest deal, followed by hispanics, whites and then Asians.
Completely racist of course as there is poor people in every race.These guys didn't get the memo that the richest guy in the world is Hispanic? Affirmative action bake sales are not exclusive to liberal colleges; they're a common means of protesting discriminatory admissions policies no matter who's in charge. Fighting discrimination with more discrimination? I really don't see how affirmative action is not racist.Besides, colleges should accept students purely on academic results which is what i thought they did already. What world are you living in? Most colleges are prejudiced, even in other parts of the world, usually against Asians. I know in my country, Auckland University increase the marks of Maori students (a minority) by 15% for med school (they even ANNOUNCED THIS in the medsci paper first year) and have a much higher standard applied to asians and indians particularly. Maoris on average need a B to B+ to get into Med, whereas asians usually need at least A to A+ to even be considered for interviews.
I have no knowledge of what happens at Auckland University but it sounds like the policy you are talking about is similar to affirmative action which i talked about earlier.Open up the thread and you will see that i said affirmative action was racist and schools should accept students based on academic outcomes only with race being a non issue.
|
On January 19 2013 07:05 Caihead wrote:
Discrimination is by definition based on prejudice and not informed decision making, I don't see how most of the examples being used to support "discriminatory practices" are even remotely the same thing. It's a completely different prospect to say "it's with in the rights of an individual to chose who he or she services and how" as a supporting argument for discrimination because that involves actual decision making based on factual evidence.
If a bank refuses to service an individual because of bad credit rating and firm knowledge that he or she is unable to pay back the specific amount of money with in the time period of a loan and thus makes the informed decision to refuse service and gives the reasoning why or why not, or offers another alternative service, that's fine.
If a bank refuses to service an individual based on the basis of personal or organizational prejudice against a specific group of people with out rationality then it is discrimination, and that's bloody bigoted and also contrary to the actual interest of the bank to maximize profit.
Note that in the above example, there's a distinct difference between investigating an individual's past financial history, checking his occupation and financial status, etc, to discriminating against somebody simply because you "think" or "perceive" based on his appearance or race or what ever arbitrary reason.
I'm not singling out that one half-sentence and ignoring the rest, but I think it summarizes what you were trying to convey.
You bring in rationale again. However, if someone is irrational, what makes them know that they are irrational? Let me ask a different way. Have you ever known someone that was racist? They are constantly spewing hateful speech to the point where you're just sick of hearing it and you have to speak up. You tell them, maybe, something like, "Dude, stop beginning everything you say with 'I'm not racist, but...' because you are. You're racist, so man up and admit it." If you've had this conversation before, I have with a few people, you may notice that their most typical response is, "No, seriously, I'm not racist, my best friend is black, etc."
Point is, they are rational. To themselves, they are rational. What they are saying is completely sound thinking, thought-out and intellectually purposed. To us, it's just plain old racism, no two ways about it. To us, likewise, we are being rational.
So, what makes something of an entirely moral substance rational or not? This isn't math, as much as we'd like it to be. This is a moral issue at its core.
|
On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced.
Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can.
The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service.
|
On January 19 2013 07:06 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:23 bonifaceviii wrote:
Or maybe I want a pragmatic discussion on what discrimination is worth regulating and think all-or-none thinking is ridiculous and counterproductive. I'd like to ask if you think it's fine to discriminate against people who discriminate? If it OK to you if a municipality/city/state chose to deny permits for KKK rallies/parades for the simple fact that they are KKK and don't want their area to be associated with such a group? A little fighting fire with fire.. some reverse psychology.. IF we hate the haters, maybe just maybe, it will hurt them into seeing the error of their ways and get them to open their arms. Would you be upset if this owner refused to make a cake for a(n) grand dragon/imperial wizards wedding and they made a big stink about it? Store/business owners have a responsibility to protect their brand. A wedding cake from that exact store is not a necessity for the wedding. Did they call off the wedding and refuse to proceed any further until that store makes them the cake? I'd say there's probably plenty of cake makers who would jump for the chance to make the cake. Hell, if they paid me I'd make them a cake.
I find it interesting that you think I'm on the side of the gay couple in this. I'm very much on the side of the store owner, much like I think it's perfectly reasonable for churches to refuse to perform same-sex marriages or Muslim barber shop owners to refuse to cut womens' hair.
For curiosity's sake, what made you think I was on the gay couple's side?
|
I think the shop owners may have stupid/ignorant/whatever views that I don't agree with but it is their store I guess? Just don't go there as in todays world there likely will be alternate options. The whole higher prices for liberals is a stupid and petty thing to make a point and is presumptuous that his PoV is the right one but in the end who cares.
|
On January 19 2013 06:52 danl9rm wrote:
Talk about irrational. The guy (baker) said he would sell them a cake for a birthday or whatever, he just wouldn't make them a cake for a homosexual wedding, since it goes against his beliefs to support such a thing. That makes him a "militant homophobe?"
To add, you claim the reason "we don't like racists" is that they are "racist and irrational." The fact that they are irrational is irrelevant. We don't agree with racists because, and you got it right here, they are racist. And, racism is wrong.
I did not formulate myself properly. I did not intend for it to sound as if the actual baker was militant, I meant "a" baker. The point I made still stands though.
Irrationality is when you belive in something without objective reasoning. If there is no science telling you that black people are somehow not as good as white people, being a racist is irrational. If there was solid evidence of white supremacy in every way imaginable, being racist would be rational. We don't have to like it, but it would be true.
By saying something is cathegorically wrong with no attempts to falsify it even a little (I used the irrationality argument for that) you are not scoring any points with me, even if I agree with what you say.
Maybe we are at a stage now where this kind of discrimination being wrong is considered trivial by many. Amongst such peers it makes no sense to prove every statement. However, we are obviously not living in a world where everyone considers "our" morals to be trivial or even correct. I feel that if someone applies the scientific model to something, this kind of problem would not occur, but judging by intelligent design advocates, it would appear as if I was wrong in that regard.
|
On January 19 2013 07:16 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced. Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can. The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service.
Answer my second example. By your logic, they should have left en masse. Is it more noble to pick up and leave everyone I know so I can be happy, or to stay and make my voice heard so that others like me right here can be happy too? I don't see how letting a bigot dictate how/where someone lives his/her life could possibly be construed as "democratic." I'm commenting only on the "people should move" tangent you went on. Going to another bakery and packing up for another state are hardly comparable.
|
The free market will ensure that discriminatory practices that society disagrees with will meet with hard financial times or closure. No need to protest, no need to ban. Yes, businesses can discriminate as much as they like. Society's response will be reflected in their bottom line. Any company that wants the most amount of profit will discriminate the least. The end.
|
On January 19 2013 07:41 StarStrider wrote:
The free market will ensure that discriminatory practices that society disagrees with will meet with hard financial times or closure. No need to protest, no need to ban. Yes, businesses can discriminate as much as they like. Society's response will be reflected in their bottom line. Any company that wants the most amount of profit will discriminate the least. The end.
Or such places become bigot havens, and profit off a niche.
|
On January 19 2013 07:36 Slaughter wrote:
I think the shop owners may have stupid/ignorant/whatever views that I don't agree with but it is their store I guess? Just don't go there as in todays world there likely will be alternate options. The whole higher prices for liberals is a stupid and petty thing to make a point and is presumptuous that his PoV is the right one but in the end who cares.
Burnett, from the smoothie joint, says, "Really what I’m focused on is the fiscal differences between big government/small government and liberal ways, as far as entitlements and spending." The point he's trying to make is that if liberals want a larger government that is able to dish out more entitlements, liberals would be more willing to part with a greater portion of their own money to see that end met. Basically a "put your money where your mouth is" sort of thing, not even really an "I'm right and you're wrong" statement.
But at the end of the day, and as it pertains to this topic, you're right; they discriminate, but it's their own business, and they may run it using as much (or as little) wisdom as they so choose.
|
On January 19 2013 07:16 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced. Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can. The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service.
I kinda hope we end up with a town where everyone refuses to pay black people for work and charges them 2x for food and gas because it's their personal opinion that they are useless monkey niggers. If anything just to see where it goes.
I would bet that in a town with majority whites, not enough people would ignore this town to stop business.
|
All businesses reserve the right to refuse service for whatever reason. Most wouldn't, for the simple reason that turning away customers leads to bad PR and loss of money.
Can they charge whatever they want, to whoever they want? Sure. But if someone tried charging me more for the same product they just sold to someone else, it would, without doubt, be the last time I ever set foot in that store.
kind of off topic, but somewhat related:
As a retail supervisor, I can tell you that I'm much more willing to work with and help a customer who is polite and easy-going compared to a customer that is mean and rude. The irony is that usually the asshole customers are the ones that managers take care of (price adjustments, returns, etc), simply to avoid having to deal with the customer complaining to corporate.
|
On January 19 2013 07:39 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 07:16 r.Evo wrote:On January 19 2013 06:57 Reedjr wrote:On January 19 2013 06:18 r.Evo wrote:
However, in theory, acting like this should make a business lose money unless the majority in the area shares this view. In case this actually happens it's probably best for whatever minority we're talking about to move along. I certainly wouldn't like to live there. Saying "it's probably best [...] to move along" is horrible victim blaming bullshit. Should women not fight for equal pay from businesses? Should minorities have left the south prior to the Civil Rights Acts? Should homosexuals just leave the states that have voted against gay marriage, or leave any town where there's an anti-gay crime? Bigotry should be challenged, not acquiesced. Precisely because I value personal freedom and democracy highly I do believe that personal freedom should end where someone else's begins, even in a case like this. The baker doesn't want to sell you cake because of anything? Well, go to someone who does. Your state doesn't want to let you marry? Go somewhere where you can. The sad thing is that the issue at hand is NOT that someone refused to make a gay couple a wedding cake, it was that he was honest about his personal reasoning. He could have opted to simply say "Please leave my backery", he has no reason to justify himself for this decision. I would rather have things like this in the open where people can deal with it as they please than opt for the "politically correct" excuse to refuse someone service. Answer my second example. By your logic, they should have left en masse. Is it more noble to pick up and leave everyone I know so I can be happy, or to stay and make my voice heard so that others like me right here can be happy too? I don't see how letting a bigot dictate how/where someone lives his/her life could possibly be construed as "democratic." I'm commenting only on the "people should move" tangent you went on. Going to another bakery and packing up for another state are hardly comparable.
I think it's just the logical extension. I think not selling a couple a cake because of that reason is retarded. What can I do against it? Not buy there. Same with a nightclub who doesn't let in people I would like them to let in.
If I would live in a city where the majority of people doesn't like me (for whatever reason), I would leave, plain and simple. You can't force people to stop hating on you you for stupid reasons, you can only force them to use incorrect reasons for not serving you if you bring laws into this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
