- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,971
- Reaction score
- 12,365
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
And there's the other side of it.So if I don't want a person to be on my home lawn simply because that person is Jewish, the police shouldn't be enforcing my discrimination?
The right to discriminate? Eh?
The right to be prejudiced is something I would acknowledge but the right to actually discriminate is something I would never acknowledge till the end of my existence.
You discriminate every day. From where you park your car, to who you hire as a babysitter, to what you watch on TV.
You put up an ad for a babysitter, and this guy shows up. Are you going to hire him?
Interesting. So you think it might be just for someone to use force to take what belongs to you. Under what circumstances would you think this would be just?
If you are friends with a person who, unbeknownst to you, commits murder, are you an accessory to murder or otherwise a supporter of murder?
Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.
Would you agree that is just?
Discrimination as per the Oxford English Dictionary = The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex
I would not hire this guy because in mutilating his face in such a way he has proven to me that he is not going to help raise my children in the way i wish them to be raised. Is that unjust or prejudicial? I think not. I am putting expectations for people (the only expectation in this case being that my child is raised in a way that I am comfortable with) that determine whether or not they receive a job, he failed to meet expectations therefor he did not get the job. That is not unjust.
Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.
Would you agree that is just?
Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.
Would you agree that is just?
You have pre-judged him, based on appearance, and then discriminated against him because of that. That was my point.
Engaging in business in the public domain isn't free time.
And there's the other side of it.
I'd say since it's your private dwelling you should expect the police to assist, even though you're a bigoted asshole (in that situation).
But on the other hand, if you have a public business they should not.
Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.
Would you agree that is just?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
I agree that it is just to disarm an attacker. I consider it just to defend one's self from attack.
Do you consider it just to take what belongs to another?
I judged him based on the criteria for getting the job, I don't think everyone would hop on your bandwagon that that is unjust. My point was that isn't discrimination more so the failure of someone to qualify for a job (for a JUST reason, that is what you can debate).
Indeed.But you didn't make that stipulation before and now you're backtracking on it, which is what typically happens. Police have no business enforcing discrimination...except when they do. Face it in the end we have government enforced discrimination all the time.
Sorry it is discrimination. Just because the liberals are trying to confine the concept of discrimination to just their special groups, it does not mean that any discrimination outside those groups is not still discrimination. If you base it upon the color of the person's hair....discrimination. Left or right handed....discrimination. Cat owner or dog owner....discrimination.
In the example you were indeed prejudiced. You made an assumption based upon the visual without really giving the person a chance that show whether or not they fall within your stereotype. By acting upon that prejudice, i.e. not hiring them to babysit, you discriminated.
I agree that it is just to disarm an attacker. I consider it just to defend one's self from attack.
Do you consider it just to take what belongs to another?
I think you have missed the point.
Originally Posted by haymarket
Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.
Would you agree that is just?
Easy enough since both you and I would agree that the gun wielder in this case is violating another person's right (most likely. Can't say for sure unless you specify the crime). But it is obvious that there is disagreement on whether or not there is a right to not be discriminated against. We both agree that the government cannot do so. And actually we both agree that the private individual can do so in most situations. You simply don't want to believe that part of a person's private property and the inherent rights of that and himself are applicable at times and places that you don't like him exercising them. Use an actual comparable example where the action of the person is more subjective as to whether or not they are violating a right.
Originally Posted by haymarket
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Not surprising. One does not have to know about something in order to interact with it, even if he objects to it. You object to murder and yet your friend, unbeknownst to you, is a murderer. Federalist objects to the use of eminent domain and yet might be using a facility, unknowingly, that was taken by eminent domain. It does not make him any more hypocritical to use such a facility than it would you being friends with the murderer. Similarly, if the only facility available to do a required task was obtained by eminent domain and he had no alternatives (phone, internet, etc), he would still not be hypocritical. That would be like protesting the work conditions in the shop but continuing to work there since you need the money. Finally we can play 6 degrees of separation with just about anything and probably find a connection to eminent domain. It is rather unreasonable to hold to account anyone for secondary relations to that which he opposes.
Finally you still have not proven anything as far as his association to eminent domain facilities. At best you can cite odds, but for all you know Federalist may live in a small town where they have never used eminent domain and no higher level has ever needed to make use of it. You cannot in any honesty show that he indeed benefits from eminent domain. Unless you're stalking him and then we have other issues to address.
We aren't talking about engaging in business in the public domain. We are talking about engaging in one's own private business that one funded with his/her own money and took all the risks associated with that business's success. So long as they do not violate anybody's rights or any formal legal agreements, a person should not give up their unalienable rights to be who and what they are purely because somebody thinks they should be able to tell that person what they can and cannot do with their own property.
Credit where credit is due....dude that was pitiful even for deflection. Your answer had absolutely nothing to do with the question posed. You entirely changed the premise. If you want to discredit the premise that is one thing, or show where it is incompatible to the topic at hand. But you don't get to change it and not get called out on it.
Somebody owns a gun... they attempt to use it to commit a crime and it is taken away.
Would you agree that is just?
I think I'd need more detail in order to give a proper answer.
What is the crime that is committed?
Who takes away the gun?
What do you mean by the qualifying term "JUST"?
I used it to refer to doing what is legal according to the law. Is that how you are using it?
If you google the search phrase "define just", this is the first result: "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." That is how I am using the term.
No that's not how I'm using it at all. The treatment of the native Americas, while legal, was not just. Prohibition was not just.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?