Discrimination Based On Political Affiliation

[evensaul]

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.

I mean that you've admitted my reasoning is valid. You shouldn't demand that I a post a revision of the chain with another line just to make you comfortable with process. Overly obsessive criticism of process and details is pedantry and a debating fallacy. It is also just poor form.


Moving on to the issue of discrimination based on political ideology or affiliation:

Would it be immoral if, at a business I own, I turn away anyone who walks in wearing anything suggestive of affiliation with or support for the Democrat party or any Democrat candidate, or arrives in a car with a bumper sticker suggesting the same? (Stating that would be a poor business practice is a red herring.)

Would that type of business practice, at face value, be moral, immoral or neutral?

Any one?

I'd say yes, the practice would be immoral discrimination that infringes on the right of people to pursue happiness. Political/social beliefs are too important for a business owner to expect a change in the customer or applicant to receive service or employment. Therefore, the government should make political ideology or affiliation a protected class.

[mican333]

I mean that you've admitted my reasoning is valid. You shouldn't demand that I a post a revision of the chain with another line just to make you comfortable with process.

My comfort is not the issue. I'm pointing that while the chain's reasoning is valid, it does not support that conclusion that we should add "looks" to protected class.

For a logic chain to support that, it actually needs to end with something like "therefore we should have a law...etc."

It's no skin off my nose if your logic chain does not support your conclusion. I was just pointing out where it falls short and what needs to happen before it works.

IWould it be immoral if, at a business I own, I turn away anyone who walks in wearing anything suggestive of affiliation with or support for the Democrat party or any Democrat candidate, or arrives in a car with a bumper sticker suggesting the same? (Stating that would be a poor business practice is a red herring.)

Would that type of business practice, at face value, be moral, immoral or neutral?

Any one?

I'd say yes, the practice would be immoral discrimination that infringes on the right of people to pursue happiness. Political/social beliefs are too important for a business owner to expect a change in the customer or applicant to receive service or employment. Therefore, the government should make political ideology or affiliation a protected class.

Well, I note your opinion on the matter.

But if your argument is to be considered supported, you need to offer more than opinion. And I'll even say where I generally disagree with your reasoning. I don't think that every little thing that people should or should not do be forced upon us by laws. So while one can agree that X should not happen, it does not necessarily lead to the position that we need to make a law to prevent X. My default is freedom which means all else being equal, one should be free to do what they want and therefore if one is going to restrict another's freedom by law, the reason needs to be important enough to do it. I don't think the concerns you raise rise to that level and therefore don't agree with your argument and therefore ask that you support it.

[evensaul]

I’ve supported that government must protect the right of people to pursue happiness. I’ve supported that there is discrimination occurring on the basis of political beliefs. The conclusion is that those people should be protected by the government. So what specifically is it that you think is lacking support?

---------- Post added at 09:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------

My default is freedom which means all else being equal, one should be free to do what they want and therefore if one is going to restrict another's freedom by law, the reason needs to be important enough to do it. I don't think the concerns you raise rise to that level and therefore don't agree with your argument and therefore ask that you support it.

Explain how the discrimination I've claimed and proven to be happening doesn't rise to an important enough level to require government action. What is the level, and where are you finding that level as a requirement.

[mican333]

I’ve supported that government must protect the right of people to pursue happiness. I’ve supported that there is discrimination occurring on the basis of political beliefs. The conclusion is that those people should be protected by the government. So what specifically is it that you think is lacking support?

That the government should create a law protecting people based on their political beliefs.

Explain how the discrimination I've claimed and proven to be happening doesn't rise to an important enough level to require government action. What is the level, and where are you finding that level as a requirement.

Shifting the burden. You are arguing that the level of discrimination faced by the ugly warrants governmental interference via a law. So you tell me - what is the level of discrimination that is unacceptable and therefore requires legal intervention?

[evensaul]

That the government should create a law protecting people based on their political beliefs.

Been there, done that.

Shifting the burden. You are arguing that the level of discrimination faced by the ugly warrants governmental interference via a law. So you tell me - what is the level of discrimination that is unacceptable and therefore requires legal intervention?

No, I didn't mention anything about levels. The fact that it is happening at all is enough. You are the one who appears to think some level of severity or frequency is required for protection to be provided. So either support or retract.

[mican333]

Been there, done that.

Claims of prior support is not support. I never saw an argument that specifically said "and therefore we need a law".

Either provide support or re-post prior support.

No, I didn't mention anything about levels. The fact that it is happening at all is enough.

Support or retract that just happening is enough to warrant governmental intervention.

[evensaul]

Support or retract that just happening is enough to warrant governmental intervention.

A required level of support isn't in the logic chain you confirmed was valid, Mican.

---------- Post added at 10:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

I never saw an argument that specifically said "and therefore we need a law".

It was implied in "3) Therefore, the government must protect ugly and short people from discrimination that infringes on their right to pursue happiness. (logical conclusion)". I don't have to modify and repost the logic chain just to make you happy.

[mican333]

A required level of support isn't in the logic chain you confirmed was valid, Mican.

And the logic chain does not support that looks should be added to the list of protections.

It was implied in "3) Therefore, the government must protect ugly and short people from discrimination that infringes on their right to pursue happiness. (logical conclusion)". I don't have to modify and repost the logic chain just to make you happy

But a logic chain does have to actually lead to the conclusion that it's suppose to support. If it's your argument that "there should be a law" then the logic chain, in order to support that, must lead to the conclusion "there should be a law".

You don't have to do anything with the logic chain. I have no problem with you keeping the logic chain in a state where it doesn't support your argument that we need to add looks to protected class.

[evensaul]

You seem to be implying that I haven't met an obligation to support my claim or the conclusion that lookism and height should be added to federally protected classes, without actually saying it, which tells me you know that isn't the case. It's not going to work, Mican. I've met all my burdens.

And for the same reasons and logic supporting that lookism and height should be added, so too should political ideology or affiliation.

[mican333]

You seem to be implying that I haven't met an obligation to support my claim or the conclusion that lookism and height should be added to federally protected classes, without actually saying it, which tells me you know that isn't the case.

I am directly saying that you have not supported your claim that looks (and the rest) should be added to protected classes.

[evensaul]

And I say that I have.

Again, can you tell me why your argumentation shouldn't be considered obstructionist or pedantic? It does seem you are overly obsessive with the process of debate, rather than reaching the truth.

[mican333]

And I say that I have.

Claims of support is not support. And as Squatch pointed out in his red letter post, you and I saying "I did", "no you didn't", "yes I did", etc. does not forward the debate.

If you have support, you must provide it or cease claiming that you have it.

In other words SUPPORT OR RETRACT that your position is supported.

[evensaul]

Nope. I think you're wrong about this one. Why should I offer any additional support if I think you're wrong this time? Your opinion doesn't carry more weight than mine, because you are not acting as a mod right now. Call Squatch in, if you like.

Okay, Squatch. My position is that my logic chain, which Mican said is valid, implies a final conclusion "4. Therefore, lookism and height should be added to federally protected classes." Mican refuses to accept that, and insists that I must rewrite the logic chain to include that final conclusion. I think that is bu11shit. And even if was technically right, I have here in this post made it clear that is my final conclusion to the logic chain. What do you think?

(Mican, please clarify if I've misunderstood or you think I'm misrepresenting something.)

[mican333]

My position is that my logic chain, which Mican said is valid, implies a final conclusion "4. Therefore, lookism and height should be added to federally protected classes."

I don't disagree that it implies the final conclusion. It does imply it. But it does not SUPPORT it so the logic chain does not support the conclusion.

Mican refuses to accept that, and insists that I must rewrite the logic chain to include that final conclusion.

Wrong. I made no such insistence. I'm just telling you what it takes for a logic chain to support a conclusion. A logic chain must end with a statement that directly states that the conclusion is true.

Isn't that common sense? If I were making a logic chain that supports, say, the Earth is round, it must contain the very thing that I'm trying to support and end with something like "Therefore we can conclude the Earth is round". Otherwise it's just not a logic chain that supports that the Earth is round. Same principle here. If you want a logic chain that supports "looks should be a protected class", it needs to end with "looks should be a protected class" or else it doesn't support it. And again, I don't care if your logic chain supports your argument or not so I don't care if you rewrite so it does or not.

[evensaul]

Well, then I honestly don't understand your point or what it is you want me to do. And unless you can find a way to make it plain to me, I reject that my argument is deficient.

And again, it is clear to me that you know your position will ultimately be lost, and yet you persist in delaying that through these tactics. I don't understand the motivation. Can you explain?

[mican333]

Well, then I honestly don't understand your point or what it is you want me to do. And unless you can find a way to make it plain to me, I reject that my argument is deficient.

As far as I can tell, you have made no argument that logically leads one to conclude that we must add looks to a protected class.

Your logic chain does not end with "therefore, looks...etc" and I'm not insisting that you add it but just pointing out that the logic chain does not support the conclusion because it does not contain the conclusion. So your logic chain does not support that conclusion nor do any of your other arguments.

So you want me to directly ask you what you need to provide, I'm saying you need to present an argument that logically leads to the conclusion "therefore, looks must be added to the protected class" which would ideally directly state "therefore...".

It's not impossible that you made such an argument and I failed to recognize it for what it is but regardless, when I ask that you support your conclusion, you are obliged to either present such an argument in response. If it's a new argument, fine. If it's a copy of an old argument that you think does that, fine as well.

But saying something along the lines of "I have supported my argument" or "I reject the notion that I've not supported my argument" does not provide the support that is required.

So what I want is for you to, in your next post, to present an argument that supports your conclusion. Anything other than that fails as support.

And again, it is clear to me that you know your position will ultimately be lost, and yet you persist in delaying that through these tactics. I don't understand the motivation. Can you explain?

Sure I can explain. You aren't psychic and therefore can't read my mind and therefore you have no basis to claim what I believe or know and therefore you are incorrect that I know that my position will ultimately be lost and therefore are completely incorrect about my motivation. But you are kind of right when you say you don't understand my motivation. You've made it clear that you don't and I suggest you not waste our time with such incorrect personal comments.

[evensaul]

The logic chain leads to and implies the line 4 your want. That should be, and I think is, enough. If you don't, then you are merely offering your personal opinion. My claims are supported and I'm moving on:



Chronic bad body odor, through no fault of the individual, is a form of disability.

The government has a responsibility to protect people against immoral discrimination.

Therefore, people with naturally bad body odor should be included in protections provided by the Americans With Disability Act, to prevent discrimination against them by employers and public accommodations.

[mican333]

The logic chain leads to and implies the line 4 your want.

It implies it, yes. But it does not support it.

imply =/= support.