Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39
  1. #21
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Or how about we learn from history?
    If people had spoken up sooner, the jim crow laws could have been abolished sooner. It was a mistake to keep them so long, I believe the same applies here.
    We have gone about 60 yrs since jim crow laws. During those 60 yrs even teenagers (of any sex or color) now can and do become millionaires by the power of the internet. It has probably been the best yrs for a human to be alive in history.

    Maybe to be "fair", we should just consider all men/women (adult, able bodied, etc) are created equal and give all equal protection. I'm sure there are valid exceptions, but in general, all should be treated equal under the law.
    But Jim Crow laws were wrong in origin. They were not meant to address an injustice, but to create one.

    When someone is stolen from, what is the most just compensation? To pay them back of course. There may also be cause for some punishment from the state.

    So when the US government stole liberty and opportunity from Black Americans, the just compensation is only to stop doing that? No. The most just compensation is to pay back the liberty and opportunity that was stolen by gicing them greater opportunity. (greater liberty is a near impossible thing to grant, though I can think of some possibilities).

    What you propose is actually an injustice by any normal standards. Its saying that the crimes that were done should simply be forgiven and forgotten and that the victims should simply lump it and accept the damage done.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    But Jim Crow laws were wrong in origin. They were not meant to address an injustice, but to create one.
    Agreed

    ---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    When someone is stolen from, what is the most just compensation? To pay them back of course. There may also be cause for some punishment from the state.
    Agreed, however, the people that are now being "helped" have not suffered the injustice you are speaking of, and the people that are now discriminated against by law (anyone that does not fit the preferential treatment mold) did nothing wrong and so should not be punished.

    IOW, how many generations must pass before it makes sense to treat everyone the same?
    I see no reason that it should be the exact same number of yrs the Crow laws were around having any bearing on how long.

    ---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    What you propose is actually an injustice by any normal standards. Its saying that the crimes that were done should simply be forgiven and forgotten and that the victims should simply lump it and accept the damage done.
    I said no such thing. We have had generations of anti discrimination laws. With all the opportunity in the US, especially in the last 50 yrs, I just wonder that maybe it's time to stop categorizing everyone and aim for equal treatment. There was real reasons to enact these laws originally, I am just questioning their usefulness going forward.

    Kinda like in the Constitution, all men are created equal, all of the time, not just when the Gov't says so.

    When any group is given preferential treatment, all others are being discriminated against. I think we need to be quite careful having the federal gov't in the business of discrimination.
    Last edited by Squatch347; June 4th, 2018 at 05:15 AM. Reason: Tag fix

  3. #23
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Agreed, however, the people that are now being "helped" have not suffered the injustice you are speaking of, and the people that are now discriminated against by law (anyone that does not fit the preferential treatment mold) did nothing wrong and so should not be punished.

    IOW, how many generations must pass before it makes sense to treat everyone the same?
    I see no reason that it should be the exact same number of yrs the Crow laws were around having any bearing on how long.
    Well, I told you, the most just standard would be for the corrective laws to be in place for the same scope of time as the laws that originally discriminated against African Americans, 90 years, which would take us to 2050. That would be approximately 3-4 generations. If you think you have a more just formula, let me know what it is, but so far all you have is a "well its been long enough I think." I have a clear standard of fairness which is, equal time.

    As to the personal nature of it: The crime was one of the states doing, so it is the state that must enact the corrective measure. And it was a generational damage, so those who's ancestors were discriminated against, should be compensated while those whos ancestors did the discrimination make the sacrifice. It was not a personal crime but a society wide crime. Thus the correction is also a social one rather than a personal one.

    I said no such thing. We have had generations of anti-discrimination laws. With all the opportunity in the US, especially in the last 50 yrs, I just wonder that maybe it's time to stop categorizing everyone and aim for equal treatment. There was real reasons to enact these laws originally, I am just questioning their usefulness going forward.
    You did. You said you were against affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws and think they should end. You did say that. And in saying so, you propose cutting off the just compensation due. You may "wonder if it's time" but I am telling you that it is not. It would be like saying I stole $90 from you and you wonder if perhaps paying back $50 is enough. I'm telling you it is not and asking you for an actual reason why it should be enough instead of just wondering about it.

    Kinda like in the Constitution, all men are created equal, all of the time, not just when the Gov't says so.
    Does this mean that if I stole money from you, I don't need to pay it back, because the moment after I steal it we are now equal?

    When any group is given preferential treatment, all others are being discriminated against. I think we need to be quite careful having the federal gov't in the business of discrimination.
    And I think we need to be careful about allowing those perpetrating a crime to decide when they feel they have sufficiently paid the price for it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,935
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Is the claim being made that discrimination is not happening anymore?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #25
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Well, I told you, the most just standard would be for the corrective laws to be in place for the same scope of time as the laws that originally discriminated against African Americans, 90 years, which would take us to 2050. That would be approximately 3-4 generations. If you think you have a more just formula, let me know what it is, but so far all you have is a "well its been long enough I think." I have a clear standard of fairness which is, equal time.
    Yes you did say it was your opinion that would be fair. Yes, "equal time" perpetuating discrimination.

    Taking bad law from one group to another.

    ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You did. You said you were against affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws and think they should end.
    Again, no. Read that quote again.
    I said
    "there were real reasons to enact these laws originally"
    but
    "after generations of them, question their usefulness going forward"

    That I "question the usefulness of a law" hardly means anything other than I want to see this newer discrimination is having the desired effect, and/or is it causing harm?

    You didn't answer my last point:
    "When any group is given preferential treatment, all others are being discriminated against. I think we need to be quite careful having the federal gov't in the business of discrimination."

    ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And I think we need to be careful about allowing those perpetrating a crime to decide when they feel they have sufficiently paid the price for it.
    Who is the "perpetrator" here you are referring to??

    ---------- Post added at 05:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    If you think you have a more just formula, let me know what it is, but so far all you have is a "well its been long enough I think." I have a clear standard of fairness which is, equal time.
    Actually I said:

    " Kinda like in the Constitution, all men are created equal, all of the time, not just when the Gov't says so."

    So your point is it's "fair" based on your opinion.
    Mine is based in law. The US Constitution says equal.

    I do not remember saying:
    "well its been long enough I think."

    Could you give me the post# where I said this???
    Last edited by Belthazor; June 4th, 2018 at 05:17 PM.

  6. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    South Windsor, CT
    Posts
    8
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Alcoholism and political ideology are mutable.

    Genetic disposition for alcoholism is (with current science) immutable, but drinking is voluntary.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  7. #27
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    To the extent that laws should exist specifically to protect specific minority groups, I think it is hard to say. I'd want to know what it is the specific goal the law is attempting to achieve. I'd want to know if there is a criterion such that the law is deemed no longer needed and whether there is a mechanism to sunset the law when that criterion is met. I certainly think it is worth having a conversation about whether a specific law is needed to protect some minority group. I'd also want to know how intrusive the proposed law may be. Every law has a trade-off where we agree to trade away some liberty or other value in exchange for something we feel is more important. Laws opposing murder clearly impeded on my right to take someone's life, but we probably all agree that the liberty gained from those who may not be murdered is a worthwhile trade. So, I'd want to know what is the cost of another law to protect the targeted minority group. As it is, at least within the confines of this discussion, I have not heard much discussion regarding any of these things.

    We all can agree that discrimination probably exists. That's an easy bar to reach. We have not really grappled with the question of how much a specifically proposed law will actually solve the problem. Nor have we really grappled with the problem of cost. And if we are not able to be specific about the law being proposed, meaning it is largely hypothetical, then how can we really have a conversation about it at all? A hypothetical law can only have hypothetical costs and benefits and we can set them subjectively and make them whatever fits our argument best. How helpful is that?

    Let me go a little deeper. In the post-antebellum south, where men were rather suddenly freed from bondage and where the structures of control, particularly in the south, continued to exist, it seems rather obvious we needed laws to explicitly undo those structures and to provide some amount of guidance to the general public on how to recognize people as complete citizens with equal rights. The cost was high, but the benefits were clearly worth the cost. If one criticism could be made, there was never a criterion established which we could use to determine that these laws were no longer needed. So, rather than the laws being allowed to end and giving everyone equal standing, promoting a sort of equilibrium, we expanded on these laws, adding more groups. Even if you don't think we'd have ever met the criterion should it have been established, it would at least offer a tangible goal. Imagine running a race, marathon, and having no idea how far you'd run nor how far you have left to go. Eventually, you'd stop. You'd quit. Maybe even just a few minutes from the end line.

    So, I think simple arguments like, such laws take away freedoms or conversely, what if society is discriminatory; are ideological arguments, but aren't, in any way, reasonable for a meaningful and thoughtful discussion.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,467
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Sorry to all for delayed response. been working like crazy.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican
    That's not really a relevant distinction in regards to my argument. I didn't say "government". I said "society". And the way society promotes certain moral positions is by having laws which the government enforces. The fact that these protections are put in the form of "rights" doesn't really make a difference in regards to my argument. So you aren't really countering it. It's quite obvious that the reason that we have a legal "right to life" in our legal system is because that strongly reflects the moral position of the people.
    Basically I don't accept any of your premises, and don't see any evidence of that in the founding of our country.
    your talking your own personal theory, where as I am pointing to the stated role of gov.

    Does the gov reflect the morals of the society? Not necessarily, because not all laws are "moral" in nature. It isn't a statement of society that property taxes are "moral" in one state and "immoral" in another. Simply because one has property taxes and another one doesn't.
    Your "theory" makes the state into a defacto church, and that is specifically against the nature of it's founding.

    So, no the right to life doesn't come up from a society that just so happens to hold it as immoral to murder.
    It is specifically the gov exercising it's roll of protecting rights, that the society just so happens to say are self evident.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    For example, regardless of where we get the moral edict "don't murder", it is society that has a responsibility to inhibit murder and punish those who murder innocent people.
    Society's roll is not relevant in a discussion of the role of Gov, especially a gov that is limited in it's role to be one of lesser extent than society.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And assuming that one agrees that amongst our economic laws, we SHOULD have laws against denying access to the market based on race or gender (and so on), then society should have laws against certain kinds of discrimination.
    There is no such thing as "the market" that is not just a collection of individuals. No one has the right to access another individual, and so there is no right to access "the market".
    Likewise, a single person denying access to goods and services does not equate a denial of the market as a whole.

    So the premise that any individual can deny access to the market is unsupported by you, and central to your argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    How about we keep them for as long as the jim crow laws lasted? The started in the 1870s and lasted until the late 1960s. So 90 years of blacks being second class citizens. So this kind of protection, to be fair, should last until about 2050 for it to be balanced.
    The south was just freed from the constraints of post civil war laws put in place to "correct" institutionalized racism.
    so why not this portion as well?

    I think it had something to do with the stats ability to self govern, that was basically suspended for a time.

    so in relation to supporting your point, what your saying has actually been done in the past. In support for my side saying it's time, is that those are over.

    I would say a more thoughtful standard would be that we should keep them till they start causing more harm, such as re-insituting a different kind of racism.
    Personally I think we are there, because I was not raised to be racist, and my generation is far less racist then their parents. (anicdotale)
    Also, I can see withen myself a resentment for the laws that basically insist on assuming I'm racist.
    The idea that I can't reject a minority tenant on economic grounds without fear of the unjustified accusations of racism, is offensively racist to me.

    My point, we are at the time in history where it is a tipping point. We are as a nation over racism, and the only people keeping racism alive are those that profit from the conflict.
    Those people are sowing the seeds of racism anew and the best way to really finish the war is to declare it over, and abolish all the laws that act like it is still raging.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Is the claim being made that discrimination is not happening anymore?
    Yes, as a matter of institution.
    As individuals, no one is claiming that every single person in America is not racist.
    To serve man.

  9. #29
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Basically I don't accept any of your premises, and don't see any evidence of that in the founding of our country.
    your talking your own personal theory, where as I am pointing to the stated role of gov.
    Then you are not addressing my argument and therefore are not really rebutting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Does the gov reflect the morals of the society? Not necessarily, because not all laws are "moral" in nature.
    I didn't argue otherwise. What I said was:

    "And the way society promotes certain moral positions is by having laws which the government enforces." I did not say that every law is moral in nature.

    And let me support my position with an example. Slavery was legal in much of the country. Then there was a greater MORAL consensus that slavery is immoral and because of that, the constitution was amended to outlaw slavery. That is an example of a societal moral position made law. So I have supported that CERTAIN societal moral positions do end up being governmental policy.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It isn't a statement of society that property taxes are "moral" in one state and "immoral" in another. Simply because one has property taxes and another one doesn't.
    Your "theory" makes the state into a defacto church, and that is specifically against the nature of it's founding.
    You will need to support that assertion regarding my "theory" before I will respond to it. As far as I can tell, my argument says pretty much the opposite - the government FOLLOWS the morality of the people, unlike a church which dictates its own moral position to the people.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, no the right to life doesn't come up from a society that just so happens to hold it as immoral to murder.
    It is specifically the gov exercising it's roll of protecting rights, that the society just so happens to say are self evident.
    I didn't say the right to life comes from a society. I'm saying the government protects human right to life because that's what society wants it to do.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Society's roll is not relevant in a discussion of the role of Gov, especially a gov that is limited in it's role to be one of lesser extent than society.
    My argument is about society, not government. So if you don't want to discuss society's role, then you are refraining from addressing my argument. You can ignore my argument for whatever reason you want, but you can't rebut it unless you address it.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    There is no such thing as "the market" that is not just a collection of individuals.
    There most certainly is. Beyond people and goods, the market has RULES. There all kinds of penalties that a company might receive if they break the rules of marketplace.
    There are also anti-monopoly rules so one company can't be the sole provider of a certain product.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No one has the right to access another individual, and so there is no right to access "the market".
    Since no one who sells on the public market cannot refuse to sell to another based on race, no one can be denied to the public market based on race. And of course a person who does not want to sell something to black people doesn't have to since they have the option of not selling on the public market.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Likewise, a single person denying access to goods and services does not equate a denial of the market as a whole.

    So the premise that any individual can deny access to the market is unsupported by you, and central to your argument.
    The public market itself has rules and it does say that participants can't deny their services based on race and so on.

    I would think that some individual sales (such as someone selling their own car) or perhaps some other exceptions that probably doesn't apply but if one is opening a business that sell to the public is subject to the rules of the public market and can't deny access to others based on race (and other things).

    Maybe you don't agree with the rules but they are indeed the rules.

  10. #30
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,935
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Yes, as a matter of institution.
    As individuals, no one is claiming that every single person in America is not racist.
    and you can safely predict that it wouldn't return? In any form, say as a matter of convention? I take it by your use of "institution" you mean anything with an actual legal basis.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #31
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,467
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Then you are not addressing my argument and therefore are not really rebutting it.
    you have to offer reasons to accept your premises. I was just trying to explain how far apart we are on the topic.

    You say "if.. then such and such".
    But I'm rejecting your "if's", because I don't accept them.

    That isn't an argument against, but it at least should communicate to you where you are at and what you need to do to move your argument along.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't argue otherwise. What I said was:

    "And the way society promotes certain moral positions is by having laws which the government enforces." I did not say that every law is moral in nature.

    And let me support my position with an example. Slavery was legal in much of the country. Then there was a greater MORAL consensus that slavery is immoral and because of that, the constitution was amended to outlaw slavery. That is an example of a societal moral position made law. So I have supported that CERTAIN societal moral positions do end up being governmental policy.
    I don't think your example accuratly encompases what went on in our country to bring that change about. There was a giant war that was involved, and the central question was state ability to leave the union.
    The north didn't take up arms to free slaves. I certainly hope you are not advocating that is the process we should adhear to for moral's effecting the gov.

    In effect your chosen example
    Step 1, kill 80%(hyperbole) of the people who disagree with you.
    Step 2, remove the power of self governance from the remander.
    Step 3, Install const laws that adhere to your sides moral standard.

    I suggest you use Prohibition as a more accurate reflection of moral change in the country that lead to new laws. That was a much more grass roots ground swell.

    ---
    If you accept that example, then we can move forward.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You will need to support that assertion regarding my "theory" before I will respond to it. As far as I can tell, my argument says pretty much the opposite - the government FOLLOWS the morality of the people, unlike a church which dictates its own moral position to the people.
    The support is, that if the state is an expression of the peoples morals, such that laws are about governing morals, then the state is a defacto church as there is no distinction.

    Only if the state has some wall in against ruling on the morality of a thing, is the state not a church.

    As our laws are not written with referance to morality, your theory is incorrect. While personal morals may drive the individual, it is principles that drive the gov.
    Such as a right to life, or being created equal. Neither are a moral pronouncement.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I didn't say the right to life comes from a society. I'm saying the government protects human right to life because that's what society wants it to do.
    o.k. so the gov does what the people want.
    you then extend that to moral expression.

    The problem is, just because people want X, doesn't mean the gov roll (as defined by the people) allows it to do X.

    My argument is that the gov is limited to not doing X, even though people may want it.
    It's the difference of a democracy and a republic really.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My argument is about society, not government. So if you don't want to discuss society's role, then you are refraining from addressing my argument. You can ignore my argument for whatever reason you want, but you can't rebut it unless you address it.
    your argument is that it is societies roll to do X.
    Thus the gov is the proper tool to do X.

    I have rebutted, with the fact that, that is not the roll or powers of the gov.
    You are describing a democracy, and we live in a republic.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    There most certainly is. Beyond people and goods, the market has RULES. There all kinds of penalties that a company might receive if they break the rules of marketplace.
    There are also anti-monopoly rules so one company can't be the sole provider of a certain product.
    The market is governed by rules over individuals, not rules over itself.
    Such that it is illegal for me to defraud you, thus in the market you can't lie about your product.

    Any rules that are about a specific "market" is "A" market, not "THE" market.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Since no one who sells on the public market cannot refuse to sell to another based on race, no one can be denied to the public market based on race. And of course a person who does not want to sell something to black people doesn't have to since they have the option of not selling on the public market.
    People CAN refuse to sell based on race in THE market.
    Maybe not on the stock market, or at a bank. But you most certainly can refuse to sell your personal goods to a guy dressed in a KKK mask.
    you can do it if they are ugly, if they are a woman, a child. .. because you are free.

    Just try it. Next time you sell something on face book, take the first white person that offers to buy it and say to yourself..
    Self, I aint selling this to no cracker. Then sell it to the first black person that comes along.
    Watch then, as you are magically able to do both.

    This is because "THE" market, is individual exchanges, and the gov is not equipped or able to controll those exchanges. That is why there is such a thing as a "black" market.
    It is just another market.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The public market itself has rules and it does say that participants can't deny their services based on race and so on.

    I would think that some individual sales (such as someone selling their own car) or perhaps some other exceptions that probably doesn't apply but if one is opening a business that sell to the public is subject to the rules of the public market and can't deny access to others based on race (and other things).

    Maybe you don't agree with the rules but they are indeed the rules.
    Your just question begging here. In that because the public market has those rules, should it have those rules.

    The argument I forwarded is that the rules are ineffective, because it is ultimatly based on "the" market, (see previous example, and the one you say does't apply)
    and second, it unecissarily infringes on individual rights in order to protect a specific class of people who would not be denied access to the "public" market in anyway.


    Your argument has been.. well if that is what people want.
    To serve man.

  12. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    you have to offer reasons to accept your premises. I was just trying to explain how far apart we are on the topic.
    I think you have to disagree with my premises before I have any need to support them.

    To be clear, I'm not saying that you need to offer support for your disagreement (to say would be shifting the burden and I'm not doing that) but you do have to express that I am incorrect. Making a completely different argument from a different set of premises does not communicate that my argument is wrong.

    So going back to my original argument, I start off with:

    But I assume you agree that society does have a responsibility to ensure that societal rules do correspond to obviously correct morals.

    Or to put in a direct statement:

    Society does have a responsibility to ensure that societal rules do correspond to obviously correct morals.

    And if you disagree, then you need to state that you disagree with this and therefore take the position that Society does NOT have a responsibility to ensure that societal rules do correspond to obviously correct morals. And I fully acknowledge that if you do take that position, then I have the burden to support that society does have such a responsibility before you have a burden to support that society does not have a burden.

    But I don't think you've actually taken the contrary position but just made a different argument from a different set of premises and therefore have not countered my argument. I could be wrong about this so let's be clear.

    Do you hold the contrary position to my statement and therefore hold that Society does NOT have a responsibility to ensure that societal rules correspond to obviously correct morals?


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think your example accuratly encompases what went on in our country to bring that change about. There was a giant war that was involved, and the central question was state ability to leave the union.
    The north didn't take up arms to free slaves. I certainly hope you are not advocating that is the process we should adhear to for moral's effecting the gov.
    I'm not talking about the war. I'm talking about the 13th amendment. It obviously exists because the moral compass of the country changed from tolerating slavery to some extent to holding that it is wrong. And even if you want to question how exactly it came about, it's CURRENTLY a very non-controversial amendment and therefore most certainly does reflect our current moral position regarding slavery.

    And prohibition works as an example as well so I will use that as further support. So the point is supported that societal morals have led to alterations of our constitution and therefore the laws are, to some extent, a reflection of the morals of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The support is, that if the state is an expression of the peoples morals, such that laws are about governing morals, then the state is a defacto church as there is no distinction.
    Since church is not an expression of people's morals (it's an expression of God's morals), the government would not qualify as a church even if it was an expression of people's morals (and I question that it could reasonably be considered an expression of people's morals).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    o.k. so the gov does what the people want.
    you then extend that to moral expression.
    But I don't extend that to a moral expression.

    Doing something morally correct is not necessarily a moral expression.

    Saying "You should be charitable" is a moral expression. Giving to charity, though, is not necessarily a moral expression.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The problem is, just because people want X, doesn't mean the gov roll (as defined by the people) allows it to do X.
    Straw man. I didn't argue otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    your argument is that it is societies roll to do X.
    Thus the gov is the proper tool to do X.

    I have rebutted, with the fact that, that is not the roll or powers of the gov.
    And I didn't argue that it was the government's role to do X. My argument is referring to SOCIETY, not government.

    By my argument, it's not a given that government is the proper tool to do what society has a responsibility to do (my original argument does not address that at all).

    This is kind of what I mean when I say you have not addressed my argument. I'm referring to society and you've made arguments about government and the constitution without saying that I'm wrong about society's responsibility.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The market is governed by rules over individuals, not rules over itself.
    Such that it is illegal for me to defraud you, thus in the market you can't lie about your product.

    Any rules that are about a specific "market" is "A" market, not "THE" market.
    I see no relevant distinction in regards to my argument. The point remains that there are rules regarding the marketplace and therefore there are many things a person/company cannot do in regards to the market.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    People CAN refuse to sell based on race in THE market.
    Maybe not on the stock market, or at a bank. But you most certainly can refuse to sell your personal goods to a guy dressed in a KKK mask.
    you can do it if they are ugly, if they are a woman, a child. .. because you are free.
    I am referring to the public market and no, you can't discriminate based on race. If a Denny's refused to seat black customers because they are black, it would definitely be breaking the law of the public market and the restaurant would suffer legal consequences.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Just try it. Next time you sell something on face book, take the first white person that offers to buy it and say to yourself..
    Self, I aint selling this to no cracker. Then sell it to the first black person that comes along.
    Watch then, as you are magically able to do both.

    This is because "THE" market, is individual exchanges, and the gov is not equipped or able to controll those exchanges. That is why there is such a thing as a "black" market.
    It is just another market.
    That's why I am specifying the PUBLIC market - the one that people typically join when they start a business. So I acknowledge that there are certain sales that are free from such restriction but that's not what I'm talking about so again, you aren't really addressing my argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your just question begging here. In that because the public market has those rules, should it have those rules.
    I'm not begging the question, because I did not posit that we should have the rules we have just because we have them.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The argument I forwarded is that the rules are ineffective, because it is ultimatly based on "the" market, (see previous example, and the one you say does't apply)
    and second, it unecissarily infringes on individual rights in order to protect a specific class of people who would not be denied access to the "public" market in anyway.
    You will need to support all of this before I will respond.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your argument has been.. well if that is what people want.
    No, that's not my argument. You are reading a lot more into my argument than what is there.
    Last edited by mican333; June 16th, 2018 at 06:37 AM.

  13. #33
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The root of all this is the American egalitarian principle of equality under the law and by extension of that, equality within society.

    The legal principle behind these laws is that the government has an obligation to serve the public in protecting them from significant harm. Civil rights legislation was done in the face of wanton discrimination following a long period of legal discrimination. Both race and gender have been codified by US law as unequal for a good long time, despite the rhetoric of the founding fathers and our foundational documents.

    We have gone somewhat beyond that however so I don't know hos justified such federal regulations really are if there isn't a history of legal discrimination in law. If it is merely widespread social bias, then I think that gives less standing, and if it is relatively narrow social bias, even less so.

    The social agenda is to have people treated without significant prejidice in the wider marketplace. And in a country so defined by the ethos of capitalism and the market, and steeped int he idea of egalitarianism, I think it makes sense we would seek to reduce or eliminate bigotry in marketplace transactions, especially those as essential as work contracts.

    I think it is a well intentioned goal, but I'm not convinced federal regulation is the appropriate vehicle for it. State legislation is better, but ultimately, social and market enforcement is probably the most effective and appropriate remedy for more edge case discrimination.

    I fully support race and sex as they were so badly enforced by law for so long. I support the others in the sense that I think they deserve equal treatment, but I tend not to actually favor such laws at the federal level on principle, even if I do support them from an ethical standpoint. I'm just a bit reluctant to turn all my ethical principles into law.
    Should we have laws which are rooted to a social agenda? It sounds like you are not entirely sure and I don't blame you. Here is where I think your argument needs more thought. You and I agree that the U.S. was founded on the concept of egalitarianism. All men are created equal. Justice. These are all concepts that the American legal system are based upon. However, how much intent was there in the government actively enforcing these? Consider that the U.S. federal government was created to prevent some malevolent, horrible, evil person from mucking things up. The system, the bicameral legislature, the separation of powers, check and balances were all designed to limit the ability of a small group of people from ruining the whole experiment. So, when you comment on actions which are based on a social agenda, if you've been paying attention to world history, your ears should perking up and hair should standing on end.

    Having good intentions is nice, but we've already established that our government wasn't designed to assume good intentions. You can be damn well sure that, at some point in the future, someone with very bad intentions will come along and use all the tools used to promote the well-intentioned social agenda. Marx may have had good intentions, but Stalin and Lenin certainly didn't. Both used the idea of egalitarianism as justification to kill millions. And if you think we are so much better and nothing like that could happen in the U.S., just keep creating the kinds of openings tyrants have always used to form revolutions and impose changes. And to me, these laws, as well-meaning as they may seem to be, by there open-ended nature and lack of defining problem, are just massive black holes waiting to be exploited.

    You support sex and race anti-discrimination laws, but consider the following: According to the progressive left, sex is completely subjective. What do you think bad actors can do with that? Well, we've seen what they are doing. They are using it to dictate (legislate) which ideas are publicly acceptable. It isn't merely to ensure everyone has some sort of access to the marketplace of things. It is being used to suppress the conscientiousness of others. If a baker cannot choose to refuse to be part of a ceremony he feels is immoral or a group which opposes abortion is compelled by law to advertise for abortion, we can certainly see where these sorts of laws are headed and really, the true intention of the people behind these laws.

    I say all this and understand you and I probably are similarly positioned to mistrust laws like these. I think, though, you may be a bit more accepting of them than I am and I think you should trust your instincts here and not be swayed by your impulse towards moderation.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  14. Likes evensaul liked this post
  15. #34
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,170
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense.
    Lookism is discriminatory treatment toward people considered physically unattractive; mainly in the workplace but also in social settings.[1] While not classified in the same way as racial, cultural, sexual discrimination, "lookism" is widespread and affects how people are perceived as well as affecting their opportunities in terms of romantic relationships, job opportunities, etc... According to Nancy Etcoff, a psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, "we face a world where lookism is one of the most pervasive but denied prejudices".[12] Referring to several studies, Angela Stalcup writes that "The evidence clearly indicates that not only is there a premium for prettiness in Western culture, there is also penalty for plainness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism

    Should ugly be a protected class?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Lookism is discriminatory treatment toward people considered physically unattractive; mainly in the workplace but also in social settings.[1] While not classified in the same way as racial, cultural, sexual discrimination, "lookism" is widespread and affects how people are perceived as well as affecting their opportunities in terms of romantic relationships, job opportunities, etc... According to Nancy Etcoff, a psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, "we face a world where lookism is one of the most pervasive but denied prejudices".[12] Referring to several studies, Angela Stalcup writes that "The evidence clearly indicates that not only is there a premium for prettiness in Western culture, there is also penalty for plainness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookism

    Should ugly be a protected class?
    First off, there are no protected classes.

    Regarding race, the rule is not that one cannot discriminate against blacks. The rule is that one cannot discriminate against people based on race. So while that rule does mean that one cannot refuse to serve someone because he's black, it also means that one cannot refuse to serve someone because he's white, asian, latino, native American and so on. So basically the law protects everyone equally and therefore there are no protected classes that one person belongs to but another person does not. As an analogy, the fact that it's illegal to kill a black person does not make blacks a protected class because the law that protects blacks from murder protects non-blacks as well.

    So the question should be whether comeliness should join race and gender and sexual orientation as something that one cannot refuse service based on. Since that is not part of my argument, I currently have no position on that. If you want to make an argument regarding whether comeliness should be included, go ahead.
    Last edited by mican333; Yesterday at 09:03 AM.

  17. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And to me, these laws, as well-meaning as they may seem to be, by there open-ended nature and lack of defining problem, are just massive black holes waiting to be exploited.
    And I disagree on that. From my perspective, they are not open-ended and the restrictions are quite specific and I've seen no supported position that it will lead to anything else in particular. Just positing a slippery slope does not support that one exists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    You support sex and race anti-discrimination laws, but consider the following: According to the progressive left, sex is completely subjective. What do you think bad actors can do with that? Well, we've seen what they are doing. They are using it to dictate (legislate) which ideas are publicly acceptable.
    I've seen no such thing. Please support this assertion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It isn't merely to ensure everyone has some sort of access to the marketplace of things. It is being used to suppress the conscientiousness of others.
    Again, I disagree so please support this.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If a baker cannot choose to refuse to be part of a ceremony he feels is immoral or a group which opposes abortion is compelled by law to advertise for abortion, we can certainly see where these sorts of laws are headed and really, the true intention of the people behind these laws.
    No baker is forced to be part of a ceremony unless one takes a really, really, really broad interpretation of what level of involvement qualifies as being "part of a ceremony". There has been no valid legal case that argues that the baker who is baking a cake is a participant in the ceremony.

    And to say the intention is something other than the stated intention of the laws likewise requires support. What you are forwarding sounds like a conspiracy theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I think, though, you may be a bit more accepting of them than I am and I think you should trust your instincts here and not be swayed by your impulse towards moderation.
    I think such laws are in place to ensure that people have equal access to the marketplace and making sure that people are treated equally regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation and I've seen no real evidence that the agenda is something other than that. If you are going to argue that there is a different agenda, please support that.

  18. #37
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,170
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    First off, there are no protected classes.

    Regarding race, the rule is not that one cannot discriminate against blacks. The rule is that one cannot discriminate against people based on race. So while that rule does mean that one cannot refuse to serve someone because he's black, it also means that one cannot refuse to serve someone because he's white, asian, latino, native American and so on. So basically the law protects everyone equally and therefore there are no protected classes that one person belongs to but another person does not. As an analogy, the fact that it's illegal to kill a black person does not make blacks a protected class because the law that protects blacks from murder protects non-blacks as well.
    This is an argument of semantics and pedantry. "Class" is both the legal and common usage term.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So the question should be whether comeliness should join race and gender and sexual orientation as something that one cannot refuse service based on.
    Comeliness is a positive descriptor, not a class. You'll need to find a neutral label to go with race, gender and sexual orientation. I mean, hey, if you're going to be pedantic, then your corrections need to be correct. And this thread isn't just about discrimination in business services, but also about discrimination in employment and housing. Protection by class can apply to each of those areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Since that is not part of my argument, I currently have no position on that. If you want to make an argument regarding whether comeliness should be included, go ahead.
    My opinion is that immutable characteristics of a person that result in discrimination should be treated equally, including ugliness and offensive natural body odor. I believe I made that clear in the op. I'd like to know if your position "Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense" applies to those as well. And if not, why not?
    Last edited by evensaul; Yesterday at 10:41 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  19. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,936
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    This is an argument of semantics and pedantry. "Class" is both the legal and common usage term.
    Upon looking it up, you are correct on that point and I was incorrect so I retract my statement regarding class.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Comeliness is a positive descriptor, not a class.
    If we are going to discuss barring people based on their looks then "looks" is a class and I disagree that comeliness is a positive descriptor. If you say a person is not comely, then you are using "comely" to describe someone who is ugly.

    But either way, there is no need to nitpick this. If we are going to discuss physical appearance (such as "ugly"), we need to invent a class to describe such appearance and the word has to be neutral as it can apply to both those who look nice and those who don't look nice. If you don't like "comely", you can pick whatever word you'd rather use. It doesn't matter to me. But if we aren't going to nitpick this and we know what is meant by "comely", why not just stick with that?

    But either way, you can stick with "comely" or pick something you think is better.



    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    My opinion is that immutable characteristics of a person that result in discrimination should be treated equally, including ugliness and offensive natural body odor. I believe I made that clear in the op
    I'll make an argument against your position then. I'll use a logic chain

    1. PREMISE - Businesses should be allowed to determine their own policy regarding who they serve with as little interference from outside rules as possible
    2. THEREFORE - There should be no restrictions on who a business can serve unless there is a good enough reason for the restriction to override the business' freedom to set its own policy.
    3. Since you have not provided an adequately good reason to expand the classes to include ugliness and smelliness, you have failed to show that we should further interfere with how businesses set their policies regarding who they serve and therefore we should not use those classes as a basis for interference.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I'd like to know if your position "Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense" applies to those as well. And if not, why not?
    Because no one has made a good argument for those being applied as well.

    My default is "No restrictions" so until someone makes a good case that we should have a restriction regarding X, I don't agree that we should have a restriction regarding X.
    Last edited by mican333; Yesterday at 12:39 PM.

  20. #39
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,197
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Protected Classes: Expand, Reduce or Maintain?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And I disagree on that. From my perspective, they are not open-ended and the restrictions are quite specific and I've seen no supported position that it will lead to anything else in particular. Just positing a slippery slope does not support that one exists.
    Just recently, the a U.S. court has decided to include gender identity within the scope of the equal rights amendment even though the law makes no mention of identity. In fact, when the law was created, it'd be hard to imagine that Congress intended it to be included.

    http://www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/...tection-clause
    "Evancho and Johston begin to illustrate how the Third Circuit may decide a Fourteenth Amendment claim brought by a transgender student. In Evancho the students in question succeeded by presenting sufficient evidence of an Equal Protection violation and the Western District of Pennsylvania found that “discrimination based on transgender status in these circumstances is essentially the epitome of discrimination based on gender nonconformity, making differentiation based on transgender status akin to discrimination based on sex for these purposes”[26], whereas two years earlier this decision may have fallen more in line with Johnston. [27] In Johnston the Western District of Pennsylvania found that both the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States have yet to recognize transgender as a “suspect classification” under the Equal Protection Clause and therefore applied the rational basis standard. The future of transgender students’ bathroom rights is still murky and unclear throughout the nation, however New Jersey and the Western District of Pennsylvania are trending towards granting transgender students’ the right to choose the bathroom which conforms with their identity, be it through state legislation, such as New Jersey, or case law, such as in the Western District of Pennsylvania."

    So, no, the rules are not specific, are open to interpretation, and easily expanded based on the ideological view of the court.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    I've seen no such thing. Please support this assertion.
    Of course, the progressive left views gender to be subjective. This is why New York now has 31 different categories to describe gender and the list is growing.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/ne...er-identities/


    Facebook has over 50.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-e...-options-means


    Obviously, these are not based on some sort of objective science. The labels, themselves are based on an individual's self-identification. That is the very definition of subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Again, I disagree so please support this.
    I'd have to know why you disagree here. It isn't clear.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No baker is forced to be part of a ceremony unless one takes a really, really, really broad interpretation of what level of involvement qualifies as being "part of a ceremony". There has been no valid legal case that argues that the baker who is baking a cake is a participant in the ceremony.
    Fair enough. Let's allow that the baker isn't expressly being forced to be part of a ceremony. However, the baker in the example is being compelled to use his art/skills to create a message which is antagonistic to his conscientious beliefs. It should be noted that the case recently decided by the Supreme Court noted that the city allowed bakers to refuse service for messages that were anti-gay. The point is not whether he is being made to participate in a ceremony. The point is whether the laws we are discussing may be used to compel individuals to certain forms of speech. Clearly, that is one way these laws are being used. That isn't even up for debate as I believe your claim is that forcing the baker to write a message which is against his beliefs is necessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And to say the intention is something other than the stated intention of the laws likewise requires support. What you are forwarding sounds like a conspiracy theory.
    Not a conspiracy theory at all. We have seen the 14th amendment, originally intended solely to ensure blacks post-civil war were considered citizens, was expanded by the courts, not Congress, to include gender, and now sexual identity. And seeing as how those pushing for gender identity to be included don't even believe that gender identity is an objective truth, but based on subjective feelings, then there is no other explanation than to acknowledge these laws are being hijacked by the progressive left which is an ideology based on post-modernism and neo-Marxism.


    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think such laws are in place to ensure that people have equal access to the marketplace and making sure that people are treated equally regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation and I've seen no real evidence that the agenda is something other than that. If you are going to argue that there is a different agenda, please support that.
    Sure. I supported my argument above. If you disagree, then please help us understand gender. There isn't a legal definition for transgender, so explain how this identity can be protected by the law. As a society, and this is supported by the New York and Facebook examples above, we don't even agree on the basis for explaining non-binary gender types. It is a figment of the progressive-lefts imagination and supports their deconstructionist views. This is an ideological argument which they are trying to code into law. In other words, they are trying to make their ideological view into law. In the example of the baker, he was not denying service to gay people, or women, or anyone else. He simply refused to use his trade to convey a message which went against his conscience. Anti-abortion centers in CA are being required to post info to people on how to obtain an abortion. Again, the laws are being written to enforce an ideological view such that people aren't merely prevented from using certain words or performing some action, but are being compelled to say things. This isn't merely a slippery slope I am presenting because the examples already exist.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 21
    Last Post: October 30th, 2016, 02:49 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 13th, 2012, 02:28 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: December 19th, 2009, 10:51 PM
  4. Expand the forum?
    By starcreator in forum Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2007, 11:32 AM
  5. an abortion of the lesser classes
    By Bf55 in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 31st, 2005, 10:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •