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 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    The following op is effectively a continuation of this thread, inexplicably closed by a certain moderator: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...e-or-Maintain?


    White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders was recently refused service at a restaurant named Red Hen because the employees and management don't like her political affiliation.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ea910586004b

    Another example of a business refusing service based on the customer's political affiliation: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...p-republican-/

    And there are likely many instances that don't readily appear in an internet search.

    Should this be considered acceptable behavior for business owners and managers? Should public pressure be the only mechanism to discourage the practice? Or should discrimination on the basis of political ideology be legally prohibited?

    "Tribalism" is frequently used today as a description of how people of the world are becoming more divided, rather than united. Progressive economist Robert Reich described American tribalism this way:

    ...America’s new tribalism can be seen most distinctly in its politics. Nowadays the members of one tribe (calling themselves liberals, progressives, and Democrats) hold sharply different views and values than the members of the other (conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans).

    Each tribe has contrasting ideas about rights and freedoms (for liberals, reproductive rights and equal marriage rights; for conservatives, the right to own a gun and do what you want with your property).

    Each has its own totems (social insurance versus smaller government) and taboos (cutting entitlements or raising taxes). Each, its own demons (the Tea Party and Ted Cruz; the Affordable Care Act and Barack Obama); its own version of truth (one believes in climate change and evolution; the other doesn’t); and its own media that confirm its beliefs.

    The tribes even look different. One is becoming blacker, browner, and more feminine. The other, whiter and more male. (Only 2 percent of Mitt Romney’s voters were African-American, for example.)

    Each tribe is headed by rival warlords whose fighting has almost brought the national government in Washington to a halt. Increasingly, the two tribes live separately in their own regions – blue or red state, coastal or mid-section, urban or rural – with state or local governments reflecting their contrasting values.

    I’m not making a claim of moral equivalence. Personally, I think the Republican right has gone off the deep end, and if polls are to be believed a majority of Americans agree with me.

    But the fact is, the two tribes are pulling America apart, often putting tribal goals over the national interest – which is not that different from what’s happening in the rest of the world. http://robertreich.org/post/80522686347

    Courts often rule that anti-discrimination law should protect “immutable” characteristics, such as national origin and sex. Recently, advocates for homosexuals and "transgendered" have succeeded in persuading some courts and elected officials to expand the concept to include traits that are considered too important for an employer or business owner to expect any change. These include sexual orientation, using religion as an associated example as precedent.

    Discrimination on the basis of political ideology, whether in public service establishments, employment or housing, has a negative effect on the public welfare. It divides people and creates more animosity between those of different beliefs. Political beliefs are too important to an individual for a business, employer or landlord to demand change. Discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or ideology should be illegal in the United States.

    Recent scientific studies find that political ideology is, in large part, predetermined by an individual's DNA.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...eft-and-right/
    https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/0...dna/73157.html
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1027161452.htm

    If political ideology is predetermined by DNA, then it is an immutable characteristic, and should be given protected class status similar to race, religion and sex.
    Last edited by evensaul; June 24th, 2018 at 08:16 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    I'll break this down a bit into sections

    Opinion/Judgement of the act itself
    I don't like or support the practice generally. I could only see myself doing it in what I would say are extreme situations. Say if I thought someone was a murderer or monster of a person. No one in US politics fits that description for me, but let's say someone shows up at my eatery in a Nazi uniform, I may well ask them to get the **** out and never come back.

    I have an ethics of hospitality that says if you serve the public, you should serve them kindly even if you don't personally like them. Be kind and respectful unless the customer gives you immediate cause not to be. If I host someone who I really have a bone to pick with, I'll serve them graciously, and then afterwards speak my mind if I feel compelled to.

    Imutability as a standard
    I think it is something of a poor standard. And its not one I think best describes the basis for these decisions (though it may well get mentioned as justification). Somewhere at the heart of it we feel that if a person has some failing, that is not the result of a willful decision, then we should not hold it agaisnt them. Afterall, if the point of social pressure is to create conformity, a trait that is beyond willful change cannot be altered by social pressure (but for expulsion or death I suppose.) AKA I can tell you all day to stop being a white male, but you can't simply change that. Same goes for your national origin and a number of other traits.

    But that is not the only reason we have such laws. Religion is certainly a willful choice. yet we protect that too, and we do it for the same of civil harmony. We have learned that if you press religious too hard, you get great violence and bloodshed. It is a type of believ that seems to trump practical social concenrs for many people. So we found a way to allow for broad religious belief without social violence (or at least with a lot less). Good for us!

    I think sexual diversity is a bit more like the religious case. It is something you can have some willful control over, if not for your desires but for your actions. So its hard to call it immutable or something we bare no responsibility for. But like religion, it is something core to identity, and like religiou, if you simply tolerate it, very little harm can actually come to you. So there is a strong movement to simply make it a social standard that we accept sexual diversity. Not so much because violence is the alternative, but because we realize it brings us greater social harmony and peace if adopted.

    What about Politics?
    I think politics is closest to religion. It is pretty core to peoples identities (if they are politically active) and it can lead to bloody conflict when followed to extremes. There is a great deal of social peace to be gained by allowing for much tolerance and acceptance of differning views.

    But it has a special place in America, and any democracy or republic. Such systems are inherently designed to reflect changes in political viewpoints, yet lead to specific political decisions. In short, where with religion, there is no need to make a final decision reguarding who is correct, with politics we often must come to agreement on action. And this need nessesitates some level of conflict. We structure our government to allow for such conflict within a scope that does not result in violence in the body politic. When the system is followed, it is very effective.

    But does this mean we should or should not regulate political discrimination?

    It seems to me that to disallow discrimination based on political affiliation would help encourage greater social harmony. I certainly advocate for it at a personal and social level. I'm all about engaging with other points of view and respecting people with differing political views.

    Would such a law actually weaken the scope of political expression? I actually don't think it would, in fact, I think, especially in employment, it would broaden the scope of political expression to some small degree. Some measure of social fear would be lifted from those with strong political views. After all, kicking someone out of your resturaunt is hardly a real action of political change. Its not going to persuade anyone of anything, quite the opposite actually.

    So honestly, if we are going by the values that drive other rules of protection from discrimination, I'd say it makes a lot of sense to include political affiliation as a protected quality.

    The only exception would be that political parties themselves must be free to restrict employment in sensitive positions to members of their own party.

    What I left out

    A bit part of discrimination law is some president that those being protected need protection. AKA they are either minority populations or have a history of second-class status. In the realm of politics, that's not so clear unless were are tallking about fascists, socialists, anarchists or other extreme minority political views. The Right Left of American politics is somewhat evenly split. I think that is why it is such a hard sell for most. Protecting people from opression comes somewhat naturally to us, but just protecting equals from one another seems like a think we don't need to do. Still, the religion analogy is closer, and since that is what I was mostly comparing on, I thought this point doesn't figure into my own reasoning even if others may point to it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Sig, you wrote a good, thoughtful post. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I don't like or support the practice generally. I could only see myself doing it in what I would say are extreme situations. Say if I thought someone was a murderer or monster of a person. No one in US politics fits that description for me, but let's say someone shows up at my eatery in a Nazi uniform, I may well ask them to get the **** out and never come back.
    I think many people might agree with the above. But the social/political schism has grown to the point where the more fervent supporters on each side view the other side as equivalent to monsters or Nazis. Many on the Left certainly feel that way about Trump and anyone in his administration.

    But their animosity doesn't stop there. It is also directed at the average American who shows support for Trump. When people feel that strongly, the normal rules of courtesy and civil behavior are discarded. And this is much more likely to come from the Left, I think, because they have a built-in propensity to break social norms and reject traditional rules of behavior. Anyone wearing a MAGA hat in public risks being denied service, trash talked or worse. Here are a few examples, though there are probably many more incidents that are not available on the web:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0e512264e863
    http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/2...t-inauguration
    https://wtvr.com/2016/06/13/trump-supporters-cook-out/
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...annot-eat-her/
    http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...at-report.html
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.2964313
    https://nypost.com/2017/07/22/i-was-...f-my-maga-hat/
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...ke-no-n2365672
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-s...again-lawsuit/

    I haven't looked for examples of people attacked or denied service for wearing Obama or Clinton hats. Maybe somebody can find some.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,234
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I think many people might agree with the above. But the social/political schism has grown to the point where the more fervent supporters on each side view the other side as equivalent to monsters or Nazis. Many on the Left certainly feel that way about Trump and anyone in his administration.
    Sure. To a degree, they lack perspective. Though also, there is something to be said for being on guard to the slow cooker as it were. The right is always on the lookout for "communists." It's one part paranoia but also part pragmatic fear of the slow approach to authoritarianism. I'm glad folks are on the look out, but ultimately I'm a positive pragmatist. Trump is not like hitler and Bernie is not like Stallin in any significant respect.

    But their animosity doesn't stop there. It is also directed at the average American who shows support for Trump. When people feel that strongly, the normal rules of courtesy and civil behavior are discarded. And this is much more likely to come from the Left, I think, because they have a built-in propensity to break social norms and reject traditional rules of behavior. Anyone wearing a MAGA hat in public risks being denied service, trash talked or worse. Here are a few examples, though there are probably many more incidents that are not available on the web:
    I really wish you wouldn't try to turn every debate into a "isn't the left more evil?" kind of topic. It undermines the impartiality of any observation you hope to make.

    Both sides seek to enact social preessure for their social agenda. Right wing social agenda tends to be directed at social deviancy (atheists, gays, ethnicities, etc...). Left wing social agenda tends to be directed at political enemies.

    I haven't looked for examples of people attacked or denied service for wearing Obama or Clinton hats. Maybe somebody can find some.
    https://abcnews.go.com/Business/flor...ry?id=10271112 (obama voters)
    https://thinkprogress.org/gun-store-...-5ace10f1ba81/ (clinton supporters and muslims)
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.6bd4eaaf2a45 (Bernie Sanders supporter)

    You will find less political and more sex/religion/language discrimination among conservitie business owners, but you do find some political discrimination.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    The following op is effectively a continuation of this thread, inexplicably closed by a certain moderator: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...e-or-Maintain?


    White House spokesperson Sarah Sanders was recently refused service at a restaurant named Red Hen because the employees and management don't like her political affiliation.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ea910586004b

    Another example of a business refusing service based on the customer's political affiliation: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...p-republican-/

    And there are likely many instances that don't readily appear in an internet search.

    Should this be considered acceptable behavior for business owners and managers? Should public pressure be the only mechanism to discourage the practice? Or should discrimination on the basis of political ideology be legally prohibited?

    "Tribalism" is frequently used today as a description of how people of the world are becoming more divided, rather than united. Progressive economist Robert Reich described American tribalism this way:
    ...America’s new tribalism can be seen most distinctly in its politics. Nowadays the members of one tribe (calling themselves liberals, progressives, and Democrats) hold sharply different views and values than the members of the other (conservatives, Tea Partiers, and Republicans).

    Each tribe has contrasting ideas about rights and freedoms (for liberals, reproductive rights and equal marriage rights; for conservatives, the right to own a gun and do what you want with your property).

    Each has its own totems (social insurance versus smaller government) and taboos (cutting entitlements or raising taxes). Each, its own demons (the Tea Party and Ted Cruz; the Affordable Care Act and Barack Obama); its own version of truth (one believes in climate change and evolution; the other doesn’t); and its own media that confirm its beliefs.

    The tribes even look different. One is becoming blacker, browner, and more feminine. The other, whiter and more male. (Only 2 percent of Mitt Romney’s voters were African-American, for example.)

    Each tribe is headed by rival warlords whose fighting has almost brought the national government in Washington to a halt. Increasingly, the two tribes live separately in their own regions – blue or red state, coastal or mid-section, urban or rural – with state or local governments reflecting their contrasting values.

    I’m not making a claim of moral equivalence. Personally, I think the Republican right has gone off the deep end, and if polls are to be believed a majority of Americans agree with me.

    But the fact is, the two tribes are pulling America apart, often putting tribal goals over the national interest – which is not that different from what’s happening in the rest of the world. http://robertreich.org/post/80522686347

    Courts often rule that anti-discrimination law should protect “immutable” characteristics, such as national origin and sex. Recently, advocates for homosexuals and "transgendered" have succeeded in persuading some courts and elected officials to expand the concept to include traits that are considered too important for an employer or business owner to expect any change. These include sexual orientation, using religion as an associated example as precedent.

    Discrimination on the basis of political ideology, whether in public service establishments, employment or housing, has a negative effect on the public welfare. It divides people and creates more animosity between those of different beliefs. Political beliefs are too important to an individual for a business, employer or landlord to demand change. Discrimination on the basis of political affiliation or ideology should be illegal in the United States.

    Recent scientific studies find that political ideology is, in large part, predetermined by an individual's DNA.
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...eft-and-right/
    https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/0...dna/73157.html
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...1027161452.htm

    If political ideology is predetermined by DNA, then it is an immutable characteristic, and should be given protected class status similar to race, religion and sex.
    If we believe that all immutable characteristics should be protected, then your conclusion makes sense.
    1) I am not sure the courts have specifically ruled in such a manner. You'd have to support this claim.

    However, I suspect you are really attempting to show the folly of discrimination laws, in general, rather than actually attempting to claim political beliefs should be added to the ever-growing bucket of protected classes. In this case, I agree with you and I think your OP nicely illustrates the insanity of such laws in the first place.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If we believe that all immutable characteristics should be protected, then your conclusion makes sense.
    1) I am not sure the courts have specifically ruled in such a manner. You'd have to support this claim.

    However, I suspect you are really attempting to show the folly of discrimination laws, in general, rather than actually attempting to claim political beliefs should be added to the ever-growing bucket of protected classes. In this case, I agree with you and I think your OP nicely illustrates the insanity of such laws in the first place.
    I think it does a very weak job of leveling criticism against current discrimination laws.

    I think we can all agree that expanding protections for every single immutable characteristics would indeed be ridiculous. But then we don't do that. The current laws certainly don't require us to do that or else we would have done that by now.

    So the laws don't say that all immutable characteristics should be protected like race is protected, people don't want the laws to be that far reaching, and no case has been made that we at all likely to get to a point where all immutable characteristics will be protected.

    I can't see how one could logically get from agreeing that Even's proposal is (intentionally) ridiculous to thinking that our current laws are ridiculous on some level.
    Last edited by mican333; June 25th, 2018 at 08:44 PM.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I think it does a very weak job of leveling criticism against current discrimination laws.

    I think we can all agree that expanding protections for every single immutable characteristics would indeed be ridiculous. But then we don't do that. The current laws certainly don't require us to do that or else we would have done that by now.

    So the laws don't say that all immutable characteristics should be protected like race is protected, people don't want the laws to be that far reaching, and no case has been made that we at all likely to get to a point where all immutable characteristics will be protected.

    I can't see how one could logically get from agreeing that Even's proposal is (intentionally) ridiculous to thinking that our current laws are ridiculous on some level.
    Yes, we can agree that expanding protections for every single immutable characteristic is ridiculous. However, stating that we haven't done it means we are never going to do it or that we aren't headed towards something approaching that extreme is not logical. All it means is that we have not gotten there yet. It is unclear what people want as it relates to protected classes and groups. Race? Gender? Religion? Sexual Orientation? Sex ID? Medical? National Origin? And how many of these protected classes which either already exist or are emerging are even definable? We cannot state that they are not far reaching. Laws intended to protect against racial discrimination were expanded to include gender and these have been expanded to include sexual orientation and then have been further expanded to include sexual identification. And the last one isn't even scientifically or objectively definable. So, we are slowly getting to a point where almost everyone can get to a protected class status and claim victim hood and oppression for one reason or another. That person is obese and should be protected. That person is black and is a victim and needs special protection. That person want to call himself a xhe or xir which aren't even real words, but we may be compelled to oblige them under some sort of victim's claim for equality as a protected class. Now, you may or may not see how this arises from Even's proposal, but the logic supports it as a possibility. I am certainly not claiming to be a fortune teller or claiming I can see in the future, but, historically, when groups break into small tribes and believe that they are victims and oppressed, they tend to act violently. So, in our current culture as we slowly expand the list of oppressed groups and as we continually convince people that they belong to one or more oppressed groups and we start sorting them based on who is more oppressed (the primary theme of intersectionality), we are really creating a lot of potential problems for ourselves.

    So, I will leave this as a final word. I think laws which create a protected class can be necessary and useful. There is little doubt that blacks needed such laws to overcome the transition from slavery and to get past the Jim Crow laws of the South. Whether these laws need to be permanent is questionable. Whether any other class of people have risen to such a level of oppression where these laws needed to be expanded to include them is also questionable. If our guiding principle is all men our created equal as it is in the U.S. then it seems a bit cynical to need specific laws to restate this for specific groups of people even when there is no evidence that the state is motivated to keep them separate or unequal. This isn't to say inequality does not exist or that individuals treat each other kindly all the time. It would be foolish to claim racism or sexism or other kinds of -isms don't exist. The question is, and I have not heard the explanation yet, which ism rises to the level where a specific law is needed. As Even mentioned, why not a law protecting short people or ugly people or political people? What is the standard for these sorts of laws. With racism is seemed pretty clear. Slavery, Jim Crow, state sponsored inequality and dehumanization... yeah, we probably need a law at the federal level which makes it clear this isn't ok. Do other -isms rise to this level where we need to expand the so-called protected classes list? It was debatable when gender was added and has gotten more debatable as even more classes have been added and now, it is truly unclear what the standards are and where the list may end.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yes, we can agree that expanding protections for every single immutable characteristic is ridiculous. However, stating that we haven't done it means we are never going to do it or that we aren't headed towards something approaching that extreme is not logical.
    True, but one has to make a reasonable case that we will get there before one can be expected to take the issue seriously or think that it could reasonably be considered a problem with our current laws.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    All it means is that we have not gotten there yet. It is unclear what people want as it relates to protected classes and groups. Race? Gender? Religion? Sexual Orientation? Sex ID? Medical? National Origin? And how many of these protected classes which either already exist or are emerging are even definable? We cannot state that they are not far reaching.
    No, but in lack of any solid argument that things will go to such extremes, we can justifiably dismiss any claims that it will go there.

    Let's make it clear where the burden lies here. It is the unstated position of this thread that the current anti-discrimination laws are flawed and if one wants to argue that one of the primary flaws is that there's a good chance that it will go places that we don't want it to go, then the burden lies with the person who argues that position.

    So just saying that maybe it will go there (which seems to be all there is right now) does not suffice as support.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Laws intended to protect against racial discrimination were expanded to include gender and these have been expanded to include sexual orientation and then have been further expanded to include sexual identification. And the last one isn't even scientifically or objectively definable.
    NOTHING is objectively definable (since all definitions are solely based on how people choose to define a word) so that's not an issue. And there is a solid legal definition for transgendered which I supplied in our last debate so it's established that the law has clearly defined what is and is not transgendered.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    So, we are slowly getting to a point where almost everyone can get to a protected class status and claim victim hood and oppression for one reason or another.
    There is just as much support that it will stop at transgendered as there is that it will expand to something else. And by that, I mean there's no support for either position.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    That person is obese and should be protected. That person is black and is a victim and needs special protection. That person want to call himself a xhe or xir which aren't even real words, but we may be compelled to oblige them under some sort of victim's claim for equality as a protected class. Now, you may or may not see how this arises from Even's proposal, but the logic supports it as a possibility.
    Only because logic supports that ANYTHING is possible. But logic does not support that it's more likely to happen than not happen.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I am certainly not claiming to be a fortune teller or claiming I can see in the future, but, historically, when groups break into small tribes and believe that they are victims and oppressed, they tend to act violently. So, in our current culture as we slowly expand the list of oppressed groups and as we continually convince people that they belong to one or more oppressed groups and we start sorting them based on who is more oppressed (the primary theme of intersectionality), we are really creating a lot of potential problems for ourselves.
    But then you have not supported that there will be any further expansion.

    I don't see anything other than forwarding the slippery slope fallacy.

    I think laws which create a protected class can be necessary and useful. There is little doubt that blacks needed such laws to overcome the transition from slavery and to get past the Jim Crow laws of the South. Whether these laws need to be permanent is questionable.[/quote]

    The only hypothetical time that such a law would not be needed is if no one would discriminate against blacks in the market. But then if no one is doing that anymore then the laws would not be a burden because no one would care if they weren't allowed to do something that they would never do anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Whether any other class of people have risen to such a level of oppression where these laws needed to be expanded to include them is also questionable. If our guiding principle is all men our created equal as it is in the U.S. then it seems a bit cynical to need specific laws to restate this for specific groups of people even when there is no evidence that the state is motivated to keep them separate or unequal. This isn't to say inequality does not exist or that individuals treat each other kindly all the time. It would be foolish to claim racism or sexism or other kinds of -isms don't exist. The question is, and I have not heard the explanation yet, which ism rises to the level where a specific law is needed.
    But it's certainly not to anyone to explain it to you. If you don't know why one is protected and the other isn't, then you don't know. That does not amount to an argument that the reasoning for the differentiation is wrong on some level.

    But I think by looking at how the protections for race arose from the Jim Crow era should give you a good idea about how race became a protected class and we can see that other isms don't seem to cause the level of problems for certain people that blacks had due to racism.



    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    As Even mentioned, why not a law protecting short people or ugly people or political people?
    My answer is because no one has made a good case for making a law to add those to the list of protected classes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What is the standard for these sorts of laws. With racism is seemed pretty clear. Slavery, Jim Crow, state sponsored inequality and dehumanization... yeah, we probably need a law at the federal level which makes it clear this isn't ok. Do other -isms rise to this level where we need to expand the so-called protected classes list?
    Do you have an answer to the questions you ask?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    It was debatable when gender was added and has gotten more debatable as even more classes have been added and now, it is truly unclear what the standards are and where the list may end.
    But it looks like you find the standards to be unclear because you don't know the basis for the current level of protections. If it's unclear to you because you are ignorant of the reasoning for them, that's not really a good basis for thinking there's a problem.

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,265
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    True, but one has to make a reasonable case that we will get there before one can be expected to take the issue seriously or think that it could reasonably be considered a problem with our current laws.
    Let's use the standard of reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, but in lack of any solid argument that things will go to such extremes, we can justifiably dismiss any claims that it will go there.

    Let's make it clear where the burden lies here. It is the unstated position of this thread that the current anti-discrimination laws are flawed and if one wants to argue that one of the primary flaws is that there's a good chance that it will go places that we don't want it to go, then the burden lies with the person who argues that position.

    So just saying that maybe it will go there (which seems to be all there is right now) does not suffice as support.
    These laws have already gone to places many of us don't want them to go. This is why there are cases being heard by SCOTUS by bakers and florists. This is why anti-abortion centers, after the state tried to compel their speech, had to go to the SCOTUS to seek relief. Arguing that these laws to impose some sort of equality have already gone too far is a burden I've clearly met. Obviously, not everyone agrees. However, I've shown that these laws certainly have come into conflict with the Constitution as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    NOTHING is objectively definable (since all definitions are solely based on how people choose to define a word) so that's not an issue. And there is a solid legal definition for transgendered which I supplied in our last debate so it's established that the law has clearly defined what is and is not transgendered.
    If I use the word carrot in a courtroom, and refer to the vegetable, there is no confusion. The definition of carrot is objectively true. Something is or is not a carrot. If I hold up my coffee mug and say, this carrot Your Honor... I will be held in contempt or laughed out of the courtroom. Carrot has an objective and immutable definition.

    Transsexual, from the definition you provided, merely offers an explanation for describing people who claim to be transsexual. It does not provide a legal standard for determining which people are transsexual. Can any man put on a dress, walk into court and legitimately claim to be transsexual? Per the definition you offered, the answer is yes. Again, there is no real legal definition which determines who is or is not transsexual.

    In the following link it describes how different women's colleges use different definitions of transgender to limit admittance. Clearly, if there was a singular accepted definition, such differences would not exist. I mean, if the school only admitted carrots, they wouldn't need complex lists describing apples that would like to be considered carrots. Indeed, when the schools didn't attempt to include transsexual people, they didn't need complex tables to describe what a female was. The definition is objective and obvious.
    http://thefederalist.com/2016/04/14/...will-get-hurt/

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    There is just as much support that it will stop at transgendered as there is that it will expand to something else. And by that, I mean there's no support for either position.
    I don't see your logic here. We've been adding protected classes for the past 150+ years. So, why would this stop now? Why is transsexual the final class that needs protecting? If you believe the laws will stop expanding, please support this position. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe they will stop behaving as they have done since they first came into existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Only because logic supports that ANYTHING is possible. But logic does not support that it's more likely to happen than not happen.
    Except when it does. The truth is that these laws exist, they have expanded for the past 150 years and there is really no reason to believe they will suddenly stop expanding. Now, for perhaps the first time, we have added a class which isn't objectively definable. It is based almost entirely on self-identification. So, now we not only have a law which seemingly never stops expanding, but we now have a protected class which seems to have the ability to expand endlessly.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But then you have not supported that there will be any further expansion.

    I don't see anything other than forwarding the slippery slope fallacy.
    If the slope is slippery and runs downhill, then expect things to fall down the slope. I think I have provided logic that supports my position. I think, at this point, the burden is on you to demonstrate why you believe these laws will suddenly stop expanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The only hypothetical time that such a law would not be needed is if no one would discriminate against blacks in the market. But then if no one is doing that anymore then the laws would not be a burden because no one would care if they weren't allowed to do something that they would never do anyway.
    Is that the criteria for ending these laws? When all discrimination has ended? So, if any black person anywhere in the U.S. is being discriminated against by another individual then we have a need for anti-discrimination laws? So, even if discrimination against short people is more prevalent than discrimination against black people, we would still need racial anti-discrimination laws but would continue to not need height anti-discrimination laws? And as I've noted above, discrimination can run into other basic rights we value, such as free speech and the freedom of association. So, presupposing that having these laws wouldn't impact a non-discriminatory public is nonsensical since there are always competing values which complicate such black and white proclamations.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it's certainly not to anyone to explain it to you. If you don't know why one is protected and the other isn't, then you don't know. That does not amount to an argument that the reasoning for the differentiation is wrong on some level.

    But I think by looking at how the protections for race arose from the Jim Crow era should give you a good idea about how race became a protected class and we can see that other isms don't seem to cause the level of problems for certain people that blacks had due to racism.





    My answer is because no one has made a good case for making a law to add those to the list of protected classes.



    Do you have an answer to the questions you ask?




    But it looks like you find the standards to be unclear because you don't know the basis for the current level of protections. If it's unclear to you because you are ignorant of the reasoning for them, that's not really a good basis for thinking there's a problem.
    I am unclear because, for the most part, the explanation to justify their existence aren't clear. As you noted above, we need anti-discrimination laws as long as there is a single instance of racial discrimination. Maybe you believe the same goes for gender, sexuality, sex, handicapped, nationality, et al. which essentially means you believe these laws are needed forever and the only confusion I have is why just those. Your appeal that no good case has been made for other classes isn't relevant. Either we oppose discrimination on some sort of objective grounds or we are just protecting special classes of people with the lobbying power to force legislation whether we need the law or not. You are really offering a tautology. We have these laws because people have deemed that we need them. People deem we need these laws because they exist. If you cannot offer a clear justification for the existence of these laws, then we should probably both agree that one does not exist or it is simply unknown and there is no reason to believe it exists.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    If political ideology is predetermined by DNA, then it is an immutable characteristic, and should be given protected class status similar to race, religion and sex.
    One would only agree to that if they think that all immutable characteristics should be given protected class status similar to race.

    But I don't think that all immutable characteristics should be given protected class status similar to race.

    I'm sure that you don't actually think that all immutable characteristics should be given protected class status similar to race.

    I don't know of anyone who thinks that all immutable characteristics should be given protected class status similar to race.

    And the laws, as they currently stand, don't forward that all immutable characteristics should be given protected class status similar to race (if they did, then we would have such laws).

    While it is true that immutable characteristics are a significant factor in determining protected classes, it's not the one and only characteristic so the case that the laws would/should grant protections for any and all immutable characteristics has not been supported.

    So I don't see a case for giving political viewpoints protected status because of their relationship to immutable characteristics.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    While Even has supported that there is discrimination based on looks, height, etc, he has not supported why that discrimination should be relevant to a change in federal law. Even if we set aside misinterpretting Mican's statements, they are not sufficient to support that point. Thus there is no support offered for why other critieria should be included into federal anti-discrimination rules.
    As support for my argument that "immutable characteristics of a person that result in discrimination should be treated equally, including ugliness and offensive natural body odor" I asked Mican in post #37 "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? This clearly implied that the reasoning he used previously in support of some protected classes should logically apply across the board. And in post #45, I wrote again "I'm using the same good reason you used. In your own words "Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense." And I continued arguing for consistency, which is a logical support "You want every single American to be protected from discrimination, and at the same time you think there needs to be a good case made against discrimination for each individual category?" This was in the form of another question but, nonetheless, is a logical form of support. And then I stated that the wrongness of discrimination on the basis of lookism or height is "self evident", alluding to the Declaration of Independence (which Isbeld has since done also). A document that founded a nation used the phrase "self evident" to state that human rights are endowed by our Creator, and may not be taken away. It didn't say some people have those rights, but that all men are created equal. Alluding to that document and unalienable rights was another form of support, which Mican again dismissed. Collectively, those constitute support.

    ---------- Post added at 01:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

    Now to offer additional support, let me return to the Declaration of Independence, and to the very purpose of government. That Declaration, affirming a universal reason to create governments among men, said that governments are "instituted among men" to protect unalienable rights, including that of the "pursuit of happiness". So, we as a nation, believe it is self evident that government should protect every person's right to the pursuit of happiness. Every person shall be protected from abuse that would infringe on their right to pursue happiness. Every person, including the Jew, the ugly, and the short. That is our foundation for The Bill of Rights, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all subsequent Acts of Congress prohibiting discrimination.

    As President Johnson stated at his signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
    "We believe that all men are created equal. Yet many are denied equal treatment.
    We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights. Yet many Americans do not enjoy those rights.
    We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty. Yet millions are being deprived of those blessings—not because of their own failures, but because of the color of their skin.
    The reasons are deeply imbedded in history and tradition and the nature of man. We can understand—without rancor or hatred—how this all happened.
    But it cannot continue. Our Constitution, the foundation of our Republic, forbids it. The principles of our freedom forbid it. Morality forbids it. And the law I will sign tonight forbids it...It does say that there are those who are equal before God shall now also be equal in the polling booths, in the classrooms, in the factories, and in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and other places that provide service to the public...Let us lay aside irrelevant differences and make our Nation whole."

    What difference is there between discrimination against a black man, a Jew, a disabled person, an ugly man, or a short person? None. They are irrelevant differences. None is less of a person. None has any less right to work in a meaningful and rewarding job, live in a desirable neighborhood, or receive service in a public accomodation. They are all equal in the eyes of our Creator, and should be in our laws.

    It is self evident, that if an Asian-American man is protected against discrimination in public accomodation, then so too should be the man of short stature. If a homosexual receives protection in the area of employment, logic and all that is moral shouts that an ugly person must have the same.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  12. #12
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    As support for my argument that "immutable characteristics of a person that result in discrimination should be treated equally, including ugliness and offensive natural body odor" I asked Mican in post #37 "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? This clearly implied that the reasoning he used previously in support of some protected classes should logically apply across the board.
    It does apply. IF one agrees that people should receive legal protection based on height, then a federal law should be made that applies to everyone.

    But that certainly does not justify such a law existing in the first place so you cannot use this as support that we should have ANY law making height (or whatever example you want to use) a protected class.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And in post #45, I wrote again "I'm using the same good reason you used. In your own words "Assuming one agrees that every single American should have such protections, then a federal law definitely makes sense." And I continued arguing for consistency, which is a logical support "You want every single American to be protected from discrimination, and at the same time you think there needs to be a good case made against discrimination for each individual category?" This was in the form of another question but, nonetheless, is a logical form of support.
    Asking me a question about my position in no way supports any particular argument of yours.



    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    And then I stated that the wrongness of discrimination on the basis of lookism or height is "self evident", alluding to the Declaration of Independence (which Isbeld has since done also). A document that founded a nation used the phrase "self evident" to state that human rights are endowed by our Creator, and may not be taken away. It didn't say some people have those rights, but that all men are created equal. Alluding to that document and unalienable rights was another form of support, which Mican again dismissed. Collectively, those constitute support.
    I don't dismiss that people have inalienable rights. I am dismissing your unsupported argument that we should expand categories of protection.

    And it's clearly NOT self-evident that we should have laws adding "looks" to a protected class. If it were self-evident that we should, there would be general agreement that we should be doing that. But the only person I have heard support that idea is you and it seems you aren't seriously forwarding it as a sincere desire but to make some kind of argument against other classes of protection that we currently have.

    It can't be self-evident if everyone, or almost everyone, does not recognize it as valid.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    What difference is there between discrimination against a black man, a Jew, a disabled person, an ugly man, or a short person? None. They are irrelevant differences.
    Please support that the differences are irrelevant.

    I mean I can point to all kinds of differences between those groups and likewise hold that the differences are relevant in many ways, including ways that are quite pertinent to this discussion. But the burden lies with the original claimant - which is you. So again, please support that the differences are irrelevant. Until you do support that, the claim that the differences are irrelevant fails for lack of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    None is less of a person. None has any less right to work in a meaningful and rewarding job, live in a desirable neighborhood, or receive service in a public accomodation. They are all equal in the eyes of our Creator, and should be in our laws.

    It is self evident, that if an Asian-American man is protected against discrimination in public accomodation, then so too should be the man of short stature. If a homosexual receives protection in the area of employment, logic and all that is moral shouts that an ugly person must have the same.
    This seems to be based on the unsupported position that there is no relevant difference between the differing kinds of discrimination which at this point is an unsupported claim. And since this argument is based on an unsupported claim, it fails for that reason.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Please support that the differences are irrelevant.
    I will rephrase just for you, Mican. The default position on the issue of discrimination in our country is that all people shall be equal under the law, with the same benefits and protections, because we hold it to be a self evident truth that all men are created equal, with the same right to pursue happiness. Because there is no evidence available suggesting relevant differences between races, religions, etc and looks or height, etc that would justify discrimination on any of those baseis, then all should be protected equally by federal law.

    The rest of your post just seems personal opinion, compelling no response from me.

    ---------- Post added at 08:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I really wish you wouldn't try to turn every debate into a "isn't the left more evil?" kind of topic. It undermines the impartiality of any observation you hope to make.
    What makes you think I'm trying to be impartial? Or that impartiality is a virtue? (Maybe that should be a thread topic.) I'm after the real truth of these matters, and because this is a debate site, I tell it the way I see it. If all sides did the same, without resorting to puerile gotchas and obstructionism, we might get somewhere useful.

    ---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    However, I suspect you are really attempting to show the folly of discrimination laws, in general, rather than actually attempting to claim political beliefs should be added to the ever-growing bucket of protected classes.
    Well, you're a little off. I believe that discrimination laws are generally good for our country. And I do believe some more classes should be added. Which ones? That's what this debate is about.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    I will rephrase just for you, Mican. The default position on the issue of discrimination in our country is that all people shall be equal under the law, with the same benefits and protections, because we hold it to be a self evident truth that all men are created equal, with the same right to pursue happiness. Because there is no evidence available suggesting relevant differences between races, religions, etc and looks or height, etc that would justify discrimination on any of those baseis, then all should be protected equally by federal law.
    So you are saying that because no evidence has been presented that there are relevant differences between the group, we can conclude that there are no relevant differences.

    That is engaging in the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance and therefore is not valid support. You can't conclude X does not exist because you've seen no evidence that X does exist.

    So you have not supported that there are no relevant differences between the groups.


    And to help move this along, the issue is whether the discrimination in question is the kind of discrimination that warrants a law preventing it and therefore is there a difference in the kinds of classes that warrant law addressing one but not the other. As an example, what is unique about the category of racial discrimination is that there used to be actual laws barring blacks from using facilities which were reserved for white people. This is one of the things that prompted a law against discrimination based on race. And of course there is no similar scenario regarding looks. So that IS a difference between race and looks. But I know you aren't saying there are no differences at all but instead that the differences aren't relevant. And again, I'm asking you to support or retract that claim.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Do you understand what a default setting is, Mican? In the absence of any need for Y, proceed with X. That is not argument from ignorance.

    ---------- Post added at 05:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So that IS a difference between race and looks. But I know you aren't saying there are no differences at all but instead that the differences aren't relevant. And again, I'm asking you to support or retract that claim.
    No, that is a difference in laws, not in the character of the people.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Do you understand what a default setting is, Mican? In the absence of any need for Y, proceed with X.
    I thought you were trying to support what I asked you to support - that the differences are irrelevant.

    So either way, youe claim that the differences are irrelevant is not supported.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    No, that is a difference in laws, not in the character of the people.
    No, it's a difference in circumstances. One group faced policies saying they couldn't enter certain facilities and the other group did not face those policies. However you want to categorize those differences, the are differences. So there undeniably differences.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I thought you were trying to support what I asked you to support - that the differences are irrelevant.
    You thought wrong. I withdraw the claim. I now have no burden to prove there are no differences.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it's a difference in circumstances. One group faced policies saying they couldn't enter certain facilities and the other group did not face those policies. However you want to categorize those differences, the are differences. So there undeniably differences.
    It is a red herring.

    Since you like logic chains, here it is:

    1) The government has a duty to protect all people from any discrimination that would infringe on the right to pursue happiness. (supported premise)
    2) Ugly and short people are discriminated against in ways that infringe on their rights to pursue happiness. (supported claim)
    3) Therefore, the government must protect ugly and short people from discrimination that infringes on their right to pursue happiness. (logical conclusion)

    Any fact or argument you present must be applicable to that logic chain, or it is irrelevant and a red herring.
    Last edited by evensaul; June 27th, 2018 at 07:06 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #18
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    You thought wrong. I withdraw the claim.
    Fair enough.


    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    1) The government has a duty to protect all people from any discrimination that would infringe on the right to pursue happiness. (supported premise)
    2) Ugly and short people are discriminated against in ways that infringe on their rights to pursue happiness. (supported claim)
    3) Therefore, the government must protect ugly and short people from discrimination that infringes on their right to pursue happiness. (logical conclusion)
    First off, sincere kudos (although I'm guessing you don't care if I give you kudos or not but I'm still voicing my approval) for using a logic chain and I think it's a valid logic chain.

    But the problem is you haven't reached your conclusion yet which would be something like:

    "Therefore there should be a law against discrimination against ugly people in business".

    So my current rebuttal to your logic chain is that it doesn't support the conclusion that looks etc. should be added to the list of protected classes because it doesn't end with the conclusion that such discrimination should be outlawed

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So my current rebuttal to your logic chain is that it doesn't support the conclusion that looks etc. should be added to the list of protected classes because it doesn't end with the conclusion that such discrimination should be outlawed
    It shouldn't be necessary.

    Mican you knew your argument about circumstances in posts 13/15 was a red herring fallacy while you were typing it.
    Last edited by mican333; June 27th, 2018 at 08:11 AM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #20
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    It shouldn't be necessary.
    Yes. It is absolutely necessary that a logic chain ends with the conclusion that one is attempting to support with the logic chain. You can't create a logic chain that supports X without the chain actually ending with X.

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    IMican you knew your argument about circumstances in posts 13/15 was a red herring fallacy while you were typing it.-
    No it wasn't. The discussion was, at that time, the differences between the discrimination that different groups face and one of the differences is the actual circumstances of the experienced discrimination. I was offering something to compare which is entirely relevant to the discussion in whether the differences in discrimination is relevant.

    If you mean that the argument was no longer in play because you retracted your claim that the differences were not significant, you had not made me aware that the claim was retracted so I was sincerely addressing that argument at the time and therefore was not intentionally addressing an argument that wasn't forwarded.

    As far as all of the personal attacks you made after your red herring complaint, it does not forward the debate, is toxic to the debate, may constitute flame/trolling (although I won't report it) and therefore does not belong on the thread and therefore I will delete it. If you have a problem with that, you may take it up with the moderating staff. I will alert the staff myself to my edi and if they disagree with my actions, I will undo my deletion

    But you said "help me understand". Here's my best shot at doing that. You and I are not perfect beings and therefore sometimes our communications aren't always perfect either and therefore, regardless of whose fault it is, things are misunderstood and you think I said something that I did not or was trying to do something that I wasn't. Again, I was not trying to create a red herring but just attempting to rebut your argument as best as I understood it. So quite simply, we had a misunderstanding. So I would suggest that you not be so confident that you know my motivations that you consider yourself justified in making personal attacks. I sincerely question your motives at times and suspect you aren't debating honestly at times but it occurs to me that my suspicions may be incorrect so I never resort to personal attacks for that reason. And if you do really think something needs to be discussed between us, then PM me. But frankly, there is no good reason to give someone else crap in a debate thread.

    I sent you a PM to discuss any issues you may have with me but what's on this thread should be limited to debating the issue and anything else is spam. Therefore I am also deleting your following post for that reason. If you want to discuss your issues with me, we do it via PM (or you can start an "ask the staff" thread to bring the other moderators into the discussion).
    Last edited by mican333; June 27th, 2018 at 08:22 AM.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Theological Affiliation clarification
    By Xanadu Moo in forum Site Feedback
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 16th, 2007, 02:09 PM
  2. Replies: 73
    Last Post: March 8th, 2007, 10:53 PM
  3. Public display of religious affiliation
    By Firebird in forum General Debate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: February 13th, 2007, 06:47 PM

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
  •