I Discriminate

[soot]

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".

I Discriminate

I discriminate.

The entire human race are neither my brothers nor kin. There is nothing noble about non-discrimination - concepts such as love, trust and brotherhood lose all meaning when discrimination is removed.

Sorry, bleeding hearts - love does not exist without discrimination. The person who "loves everyone" actually loves no one. Imagine if I loved everyone as much as I loved my wife...this is a ridiculous notion - I love, honor and would lay down my life defending my wife before any other human on Earth precisely because I discriminate. Similarly, I strive to fill my inner circle with people who are strong, noble of character and wise because I discriminate.

If you choose the company of weaklings, cowards and fools in your court, don't be surprised when your castle is laid waste.

I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.

 

[Realitywins]

One must be discrimitive with one's discrimination.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

If you (the general "you") thinks that discrimination is okay, then you can no longer say that you believe that every human being has intrinsic worth. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[Fletch]

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.

The meaning behind men being created equal is that no man is created to be another mans master or another mans slave. Other than that, I agree with your post.

 

[Lutherf]

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.

In the context of the Declaration of Independence the likely intent of the phrase "all men are created equal" was to disavow the notion that some were born to nobility while other were condemned to the realm of "commoners". The Declaration was, of course, a notice of divorce. Americans were formally announcing their intent to stand separate from Great Britain and the rule of King George III. This intent is revisited in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

 

[soot]

If you (the general "you") thinks that discrimination is okay, then you can no longer say that you believe that every human being has intrinsic worth. The two are mutually exclusive.

Yet I'm fairly certain that you're (general "you're") discriminatory when it comes to say, your financial resources, your time, or your affection.

While you might believe that all men have a certain, minimal, intrinsic value, I have little doubt that there are certain specific people who hold a greater value to you.

If you would gladly lay out, just as an example, $2000 to take your family to Disney World for vacation, but would just as readily and just as gladly take that vacation package and hand it to some random stranger on the street, you've been discriminatory.

The more I think about this, the more I realize just how very, very discriminatory I am.

I don't discriminate along the lines of something as superficial as race, but on the basis of a man's individual character and consequent value to me I'm very discriminatory.

As a white man, there are African American men I would quite literally die for, and white men I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire, and the obverse of that, racially speaking, is also true.

And as this guy in the article discusses, my family comes before anyone.

I could afford to do a lot more charitable giving, or a lot more community service, or make a lot more sacrifices, but I won't do that because it's important to me that my wife and children have the absolute best I'm able to provide for them.

I've never been ashamed of that, but I've never really thought of it as discrimination either.

Now I guess I kind of see how it is discrimination, and I'm still perfectly okay with it.

 

[Realitywins]

In the context of the Declaration of Independence the likely intent of the phrase "all men are created equal" was to disavow the notion that some were born to nobility while other were condemned to the realm of "commoners". The Declaration was, of course, a notice of divorce. Americans were formally announcing their intent to stand separate from Great Britain and the rule of King George III. This intent is revisited in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

...and has been honoured more in the breach than the observance.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Yet I'm fairly certain that you're (general "you're") discriminatory when it comes to say, your financial resources, your time, or your affection.

While you might believe that all men have a certain, minimal, intrinsic value, I have little doubt that there are certain specific people who hold a greater value to you.

If you would gladly lay out, just as an example, $2000 to take your family to Disney World for vacation, but would just as readily and just as gladly take that vacation package and hand it to some random stranger on the street, you've been discriminatory.

The more I think about this, the more I realize just how very, very discriminatory I am.

I don't discriminate along the lines of something as superficial as race, but on the basis of a man's individual character and consequent value to me I'm very discriminatory.

As a white man, there are African American men I would quite literally die for, and white men I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire, and the obverse of that, racially speaking, is also true.

And as this guy in the article discusses, my family comes before anyone.

I could afford to do a lot more charitable giving, or a lot more community service, or make a lot more sacrifices, but I won't do that because it's important to me that my wife and children have the absolute best I'm able to provide for them.

I've never been ashamed of that, but I've never really thought of it as discrimination either.

Now I guess I kind of see how it is discrimination, and I'm still perfectly okay with it.

All of which mostly shows that the word "discriminate" is open to a variety of related definitions, which vary quite a bit in scope.

Perhaps a better question would be whether people in general stereotype others based on what group they're in, and to what extent.

 

[_Sal]

People are not created equal

in an advanced society that is recognized and where ever possible certain compensations are made in order to ensure all have an equal opportunity or chance to grow to their potential and contribute to society with assistance...it is in fact encouraged and admired

in less advanced societies less than perfection or that viewed as "normal" is labelled as weak or different from the norm, and targeted as okay to mock, or take advantage of such individuals

we decide what our society values...we as individuals...when we value only what we perceive as right and strong, our society is weakened and will eventually implode

 

[joG]

If you (the general "you") thinks that discrimination is okay, then you can no longer say that you believe that every human being has intrinsic worth. The two are mutually exclusive.

Really? I quite believe that all humans are essentially equal. But that does not make them the same.

 

[Lutherf]

...and has been honoured more in the breach than the observance.

I don't know about that. On the whole I think we've been pretty good along the lines of maintaining a society where progress flows from self determination rather than birthright. The one area that we have slacked in, however, is with government. There is little doubt that a political class is forming in this nation though this election showed a small step toward correcting that trend.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

Not at all. It's targeted at one big strawman, completely misrepresenting (or more likely misunderstanding) the kind of discrimination commonly being objected to.

I'd suggest he's on dangerous ground encouraging his family to reject the company of the weak and foolish. He could find himself with a confusing and lonely old age.

 

[soot]

People are not created equal

in an advanced society that is recognized and where ever possible certain compensations are made in order to ensure all have an equal opportunity or chance to grow to their potential and contribute to society with assistance...it is in fact encouraged and admired

in less advanced societies less than perfection or that viewed as "normal" is labelled as weak or different from the norm, and targeted as okay to mock, or take advantage of such individuals

we decide what our society values...we as individuals...when we value only what we perceive as right and strong, our society is weakened and will eventually implode

I don't know that there is some necessary imperative that we "attack" (mock, take advantage of, or exterminate if we have to take it as far as it will logically go) that which we do not value.

I can think that your lifestyle, or abilities, or whatever, have little or no value yet still continue to "live and let live".

I might not want anything to do with you...but in saying that actually mean it...I quite literally want nothing to do with you...neither to harm you nor to help you.

 

[soot]

Not at all. It's targeted at one big strawman, completely misrepresenting (or more likely misunderstanding) the kind of discrimination commonly being objected to.

Is it really, though?

I think that a lot of time what is perceived as "the kind of discrimination commonly being objected to" actually runs a good deal deeper.

I would probably behave in a discriminatory manner toward a lot of African Americans, but not at all because of the color of their skin (as I alluded to earlier, I have Black friends who I am literally closer to than my own brothers).

I discriminate against behavior, lifestyle choices, cultural mores.

Whether you're Black or White, if you conduct yourself in a particular way or demonstrate what I feel to be a lack of character, I'd discriminate against you.

If the target of my discrimination happened to be African American you'd label me a racist, if the target happened to be a Caucasian you'd probably say, "yeah, that guy is a real "A" hole".

Again, not necessarily "you" personally, but more of a societal "you".

 

[_Sal]

I don't know that there is some necessary imperative that we "attack" (mock, take advantage of, or exterminate if we have to take it as far as it will logically go) that which we do not value.

we as a society decide how our vulnerable are treated by what we fight for and support or allow...if we do not "support" equality then we are against it simply because if we do not support and encourage the good, the opposite takes hold and thrives...it is the nature of good vs bad

I can think that your lifestyle, or abilities, or whatever, have little or no value yet still continue to "live and let live".

live and let live is still a choice for the positive since it is choosing to do no harm to that which is different...thus it supports the good

I might not want anything to do with you...but in saying that actually mean it...I quite literally want nothing to do with you...neither to harm you nor to help you.

a choice to do no harm is a choice for the positive

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you (the general "you") thinks that discrimination is okay, then you can no longer say that you believe that every human being has intrinsic worth. The two are mutually exclusive.

Not so at all - when you seek a plumber then a brain surgeon may be passed over, when you seek a date then a married person may be passed over. Discriminate is simply a method of choosing one out of many or acknowledging differences. Discrimination based on bigotry is another matter but, even then, there are bad parts of town that are best avoided.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Not so at all - when you seek a plumber then a brain surgeon may be passed over, when you seek a date then a married person may be passed over. Discriminate is simply a method of choosing one out of many or acknowledging differences. Discrimination based on bigotry is another matter but, even then, there are bad parts of town that are best avoided.

Again, this is just hiding behind one of several definitions of discrimination. Assuming, of course, you believe that the plumber, the brain surgeon, the married person, and the unmarried person all have intrinsic worth as human beings.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Really? I quite believe that all humans are essentially equal. But that does not make them the same.

You don't need to believe that all humans are the same in order to believe that they all have intrinsic worth.

 

[Tigerace117]

I don't know how "philosophical" this is...

As much as anything I guess, or at least this is, in my opinion, the best sub-forum for it.

Anyhow, I just read it and I thought, "Yeah, that makes a heck of a lot of sense".



I certainly think that there are grounds upon which it is asinine to discriminate, I have my definition of what those criteria might be and you have yours.

But to argue that "all men are equal" is ridiculous.

I would even go so far as to say that the notion that "all men are created equal" is ridiculous if interpreted broadly enough.

A man who is born blind, for instance, isn't equal to a man with perfect vision, under all and any circumstances.

For certain purposes it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against that blind man.

Anyhow, the article certainly places a particular, I guess you'd call it "conservative" slant on the topic, but I would think that you could put a "liberal" slant on it as well.

It's not only perfectly normal to discriminate, but perfectly acceptable, and the idea that all of society should be perfectly nondiscriminatory is fallacious on its face.

I'm going to take a little more pride in my discriminatory nature.

Yeah....no, not really.

Discriminating against anybody based on their race, sex, etc is simply unacceptable.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Again, this is just hiding behind one of several definitions of discrimination. Assuming, of course, you believe that the plumber, the brain surgeon, the married person, and the unmarried person all have intrinsic worth as human beings.

Indeed, yet one individual was selected (or rejected) over another based on perceived differences. Even grading student tests is discriminatory - one can safely assume that all students did their best to pass the test yet assign them different grades regardless. They all have worth (merit) yet we know that differences exist - to deny that is both dishonest and foolish.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yeah....no, not really.

Discriminating against anybody based on their race, sex, etc is simply unacceptable.

Are you equally as likely to date males as females?

 

[Tigerace117]

Are you equally as likely to date males as females?

Not quite the same either.

Nice try though.

 

[Captain America]

I don't always show my cards but I freely admit I have some pretty strong opinions derived from a long life of learning and observation. And often, these opinions are not that flattering to particular groups of people.

I see no reason to broadcast, what I have come to learn, and set myself up for praise OR ridicule.

I know what I know and that is all that I know.

Some facts of life are just too sensitive to discuss without offending certain people.

Besides, it accomplishes nothing and just causes ill-feelings. So what's the point in telling certain people what dick's they really are?

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Indeed, yet one individual was selected (or rejected) over another based on perceived differences. Even grading student tests is discriminatory - one can safely assume that all students did their best to pass the test yet assign them different grades regardless. They all have worth (merit) yet we know that differences exist - to deny that is both dishonest and foolish.

To my knowledge, nobody here has tried to deny it. But it still avoids the question of whether an individual stereotypes groups of people. I think this is the type of discrimination under discussion here.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not quite the same either.

Nice try though.

Actually it is the same - you know who you prefer and who you don't based on (possibly immutable) personal characteristics. The same is likely true, yet perhaps to a lesser extent, based on education, weight, height, language, age, race and religion. This is not unnatural or even morally wrong - look at a park, beach or other large public space and you will likely find self-segregation as "clicks" tend to form of folks with similar interests and/or characteristics.