In other words, Loki has no issue with regulating how businesses can discriminate based on their proximity to each other, how they each treat their potential customers, the services and/or goods they offer, and hopefully the quality of said service.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But he does have an issue with the government telling everyone no discrimination :bulb:
So far, he hasn't taken issue with the below example I asked about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What harm? Are you really that daft?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Let me put this another way: Do you have an issue with physicians being required to treat patients regardless of their background? What would you say if a physician turned away a patient in pain because he was black?
And PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION. I answered yours, now you answer mine: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE BEHIND YOUR DISCRIMINATION!
By the way, I also said not to use the moronic "freedom" argument and yet you did. If you want "freedom" you've got to move out of society. Period. Otherwise you'll always be subject to limits and constraints which make the whole thing a society in the first place.
That would limit a person's ability to lease an apartment, buy a home, get a job. (Hair color? :rolleyes: )Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's why Civil Rights are defined by government, and not something voters decide. Like Prop 8 in CA. There are still places in the US south that might vote for Whites Only business.....Quote:
As for your last point, it's not the government's job to outlaw ineffective business practices.
might? :haha:
You don't have to limit it to the south either, check Dread's thread about the insular NY neighborhood. Every single person in those videos is white as snow.
How does this statement make you any less complicit in the exact thing you are harping on? Because it's a primarily white community they must be for white's only businesses? Are predominately black, Hispanic, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc... communities equally in favor of discriminatory policies?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It's patently absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Whoa all that ranting, and all cause you jumped the gun towards the first negative thought you could muster.
Human beings, by nature, fall into groups around those that they are comfortable with. People that look, act, behave like themselves. This is something biological, even babies have been shown to do it. I am not, and have not at any point, said that white communities must suddenly become racist. However, in allowing discrimination, you're allowing communities to flow towards just that, because thats what humans do. Its why profiling is a problem, its why racism is a problem, its why discrimination of any kind is a problem. All you need is one incident (black kid throwing rocks), and suddenly its a black problem. It matters not how many white kids were throwing rocks, its that the community is able to pin the blame on a minority group. Which is exactly what happened in the videos above. Bunch of spoiled white kids get busted, and the parents all blame the blogger. Hell, the same thing is happening with the airport bombing, with the russian media blaming MW2's No Russian (so called that!). Its always someone else's fault.
It doesn't matter how far removed from the truth the events have to be, or how full of shit the allegations have to be, fear is strong, and people hate being uncomfortable.
Not saying Dread's neighborhood example is racist. Only that they are already setup, and already display an ability, to attack a minority group. Which would be a huge problem, nationwide, if discrimination was allowed.
That's not a lot of ranting, Ominous, it's the obvious conclusion from what you said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
There are any number of instincts that humans should repress, but often can't and don't. The idea that you can outlaw racism and people will no longer be racist is not realistic. Murder has been outlawed since time immemorial, and yet somehow we still get around to knocking each other over the head with giant clubs.Quote:
Human beings, by nature, fall into groups around those that they are comfortable with. People that look, act, behave like themselves. This is something biological, even babies have been shown to do it. I am not, and have not at any point, said that white communities must suddenly become racist. However, in allowing discrimination, you're allowing communities to flow towards just that, because thats what humans do.
What has been shown to be effective is to make it socially unacceptable to be racist. That has been more successful in addressing racial issues than legislation.
Somehow parents not wanting to believe the worst of their children does not equate in my mind with blaming all the darkies for neighborhood violence, and that you think they are directly comparable speaks more to your own biases than theirs. You want to believe that a community is incapable of rational thought because of the color of their skin, which is, by definition, racist. It's the same rationale that was used to bar minorities and women from voting, and it is a pernicious lie indeed.Quote:
Its why profiling is a problem, its why racism is a problem, its why discrimination of any kind is a problem. All you need is one incident (black kid throwing rocks), and suddenly its a black problem. It matters not how many white kids were throwing rocks, its that the community is able to pin the blame on a minority group. Which is exactly what happened in the videos above. Bunch of spoiled white kids get busted, and the parents all blame the blogger. Hell, the same thing is happening with the airport bombing, which russian media blaming MW2's No Russian (I so called that!).
It doesn't matter how far removed from the truth the events have to be, or how full of shit the allegations have to be, fear is strong, and people hate being uncomfortable.
You missed the editQuote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Maybe its my fault, since using only one example made some rather nonexistant points overly obvious for you :bulb:. but this really has nothing to do with a certain skin tone in the larger picture. I simply pointed out a feature that all the adults shared and connected it with GGT. The parents in the video have already shown a lack of rational thought, skintone withstanding. I see nothing stopping this mob from shifting their illgotten rage from bloggers towards muslims, blacks, gays, the homeless, bankers, jews, or gingers. The group has already banned the media, video, and cameras from future meetings; because of one person that they don't agree with. This is well past the children.Quote:
Not saying Dread's neighborhood example is racist. Only that they are already setup, and already display an ability, to attack a minority group. Which would be a huge problem, nationwide, if discrimination was allowed.
We haven't even touched political affiliation, when rational thought really goes out the window.
Who claimed as much? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
There are a lot of laws that, for the good of society, limit how humans act, because addressing them socially had failed. A lot of the anti-discrination laws and court rulings we have on the books now are because of that social plateau/failure.
Anti-discrimination laws were never meant to change how people think. They are meant to protect innocent people from idiots. Something that no level of social interaction is going to solve.
You're going to have to explain when bloggers became a minority group to me, because I'm not seeing the tenuous connection you seem intent on making. Furthermore, as a parent, I'd be very surprised if you were capable of completely rational thought about your children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You seem intent on conflating people's irrationality towards their children, with an inability to get passed the fact that people are different. People don't like even the perception that their children are being 'stalked,' followed, or tracked, online or otherwise. These same people would, generally speaking, probably not care if people are black, gay, Muslim, etc...
Addressing them socially certainly has not failed. It is perfectly legal for someone to say racial epithets, but is it common for most people to do so?Quote:
Who claimed as much? :bulb:
There are a lot of laws that, for the good of society, limit how humans act, because addressing them socially had failed. A lot of the anti-discrination laws and court rulings we have on the books now are because of that social plateau/failure.
Anti-discrimination laws were never meant to change how people think. They are meant to protect innocent people from idiots. Something that no level of social interaction is going to solve.
We use laws all the time to encourage / discourage certain behaviors, though. Not by outlawing racism, bigotry, homophobia, xenophobia....but by limiting how far that can go before it hurts someone else's liberties. I'm all for using social pressures to moderate some 'negative' things, but the fact is laws are often necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
(It's not enough to follow a suspected drunk driver down the highway, research the plate number, and post a picture of them on the town blog or Facebook. We need to be able to call police.)
I'm not convinced that social pressure alone would have led to integrated schools or businesses during the Civil Rights era. Are you?
I think gays in the military is a pretty good example of how handling anti-discrimination, socially, was a complete failure. You could get into the specifics of race wars, but I figured recent history was best.
but I want to focus on the idea that enoch thinks anti-discrimination laws are meant to change the way people think
What if it's like a hosteling organization, where you can register on site? But if you're gay, you simply tell people registration is closed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Sounds like the BSA
I hope you mean public as in owned by the government. In the hotel owners case, it was their own business, their property (and even part of it was their home), hence they shouldn't be penalised, and hence such laws shouldn't even exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
If the physician is operating from their own business, as in it's their property, then they should have every right to discriminate. It wouldn't work in their favour, since they'd be losing customers that way, but if they're working under the government then they don't have the right to discriminate (if such laws exist, which do these days, just that they encompass peoples private property).Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Yeah, don't you love how the leash the government has on all of us just keeps on getting shorter and shorter?Quote:
By the way, I also said not to use the moronic "freedom" argument and yet you did. If you want "freedom" you've got to move out of society. Period. Otherwise you'll always be subject to limits and constraints which make the whole thing a society in the first place.
Draco, public means "open for the public". Not that it's owned by the US government.
Private physicians can choose patients by gender (gynecologists / obstetricians) or age (gerontologists / pediatricians) but not by race, ethnicity or religion. Catholic hospitals don't have to provide abortion services or birth control, but NO hospital has to provide every service, either.
Physicians may be operating their own business, but if they've taken any government loan for their education or business start-up (which most have) then they can't just say No Blacks, No Latinos, No Jews (or whatever).
Not sure if it translates well from a B & B to medicine, though. Probably depends on the way they advertised to the general public on the internet. Kind of like saying Pets Welcomed!, but turning away people with a....hmmm....some exotic animal or reptile.
It's not hurting anyone's liberties. People shouldn't have the right to be served whenever or wherever they want. It definitely shouldn't be a codified liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
It's good business to provide it, but it shouldn't be unlawful not to.
The analogy is woefully inaccurate though. A business owner should have the right to dictate who his or her restaurant, hotel, etc... does business with. They also aren't acting as a danger to the general welfare, as the drunk in your example is.Quote:
(It's not enough to follow a suspected drunk driver down the highway, research the plate number, and post a picture of them on the town blog or Facebook. We need to be able to call police.)
Perhaps not, but I'm also not convinced that forced integration improved the quality of life for many minority students either.Quote:
I'm not convinced that social pressure alone would have led to integrated schools or businesses during the Civil Rights era. Are you?
It wasn't until racism violated social norms that there was a perceivable quality of life improvement for those effected.
Perhaps this is a chicken/egg conversation.
This (for once) ain't about Amerika baby! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Internet reservations have changed everything, though. If you find a place, read their rules, give them your credit card number, and get a confirmation number.....can they refuse you in person because you smell bad, have purple hair color, or can't speak the local language? The gay couple may have thought ok, we can share a double bed because we're spouses/married!Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Yeah, right after typing that comparison and hitting reply I thought the same thing. However, a hotel is similar to safe harbor. If I arrived late at night in a foreign place, expecting my reserved room to be available.....but instead was refused the room, turned away for having purple hair and alligator boots....with no taxis, trains or rental cars or room available for 100 miles....that would put me at risk.Quote:
The analogy is woefully inaccurate though. A business owner should have the right to dictate who his or her restaurant, hotel, etc... does business with. They also aren't acting as a danger to the general welfare, as the drunk in your example is.
At the time, equality of education was the goal. Segregated schools didn't necessarily have the best teachers (because university was geared toward white people) or the best facilities (because minorities lived in segregated housing areas).Quote:
Perhaps not, but I'm also not convinced that forced integration improved the quality of life for many minority students either.
I tend to disagree. Our constitution used to define blacks as 3/5 of a person. The Civil Rights era brought lots of riots and white flight, long after lynchings and Whites Only drinking fountains were the norm.Quote:
It wasn't until racism violated social norms that there was a perceivable quality of life improvement for those effected.
Maybe, but those are the best kind of conversations. :)Quote:
Perhaps this is a chicken/egg conversation.
If you're turning away a patient in pain you're in deep shit. The medical board does not look kindly upon discrimination. Also:Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/202.html
Quote:
In no case should the reason given to the patient for the denial of care be a pretext for discrimination. To avoid such an inference, the policy and procedures for termination of the physician-patient relationship must be uniformly applied and implemented by the physician in a non-discriminatory fashion.
So if a female patient comes in with uncontrollable bleeding, and the physician personally thinks that it is a result of a previous abortion. Draco thinks its aok for the physican to turn this woman out onto the street? Health condition be damned?
So is this another law? That if you operate a business that is intended for accomodating strangers, then your business is open for the public?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Taking a government loan to start their own business, then I'd say that they would be obliged to attend to anyone who asked for their services.Quote:
Physicians may be operating their own business, but if they've taken any government loan for their education or business start-up (which most have) then they can't just say No Blacks, No Latinos, No Jews (or whatever).
Not sure if it translates well from a B & B to medicine, though. Probably depends on the way they advertised to the general public on the internet. Kind of like saying Pets Welcomed!, but turning away people with a....hmmm....some exotic animal or reptile.
That's what I was getting at, it wouldn't work in their favour. I think that there should be such 'medical boards', but not run by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I don't now which physician in their right mind would turn away a patient with uncontrollable bleeding (then again why didn't she call the ambulance?), because if that patient dies because of their neglect then they'd very likely be out of business. Such scenarios would not work in their favour. But I guess that's where the 'line' can be drawn, that if a patient is in a dire situation, it is the physicians duty to attend to them, but I'll say it again: it won't work in their favour to deny them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
someone dying because of abortion...and you think there aren't areas that this would be praised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
A pharmacist at a Nampa, Idaho, Walgreens refused to dispense medication that stops uterine bleeding because she couldn't verify that it wasn't a result of an abortion.
You're acting entirely idiotic Draco, what you are saying is that government should not be involved in its core business.
I didn't know about that. I'm not familiar with the whole health care industry, or what physicians are 'expected' to do, I'm merely coming from the property rights point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
What I'm saying is that the government should have no business in the doings of peoples private lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
I would propose that legislation plays a part in the process. Of course you can't out-law hating blacks and expect good results, that's the Reagan answer. But, if we forbid the authorities from saying that's what the nigger/faggot/woman deserves, then we have a chance at actually changing societal pressures. If we remove the authority endorsing discrimination, people have more lee-way in making their own choice. I know this is a hard pill to swallow for a libertarian, but we are very much swayed by the moods of what we perceive as our neighbours and peers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Okay, so let me get this straight: You have a business open to the public and somehow expect it to be private as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
For instance, you're running a restaurant and when the government comes in to inspect your kitchen, you turn around and say: Sorry, that's private?
Was clarifying that public doesn't necessarily mean government owned. Ex: A municipal gym may be using public funds (open to the general public) or it could be a private-public gym (open for public membership, like YMCA). Even private membership places (like Country Clubs or Golf Clubs) can't have Whites Only or No Jews exclusions. It gets complicated, since we do have Women Only gyms or fitness centers.....:hmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
:up: Even private places have to meet public safety standards and health codes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
and I hope you're starting to understand that private property rights don't, and shouldn't, trump public safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco
But if it's your property, then how is it not private? And when you say 'open to the public' I get the impression that you're talking about something owned by the government (as in a public library), since I don't agree with that reasoning, that if you're operating a hotel, then it's automatically 'open to the public.' It's open to anyone whom the owners wish to permit entrance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I don't think that's a relevant example. The government shouldn't have to inspect kitchens, they don't need to put everyone on a damn leash. Instead of the government, why can't there by an independent/privately owned regulatory type body who would inspect restaurants (unless something like this already exists, at least not in my state)? There shouldn't be a law that forces restaurant owners to have their kitchen inspected, but if the owners don't have it inspected, then it won't work in their favour since who would want to order any food there? As far as I know, in my state, you must meet a health and safety criteria before you can properly operate your own restaurant/food business, and then you're given a type of certificate for verification. A family friend of ours had one of these and she had it up in the restaurant. But the fact that the government regulates such businesses, and hence taxes these businesses is another reason why the government shouldn't involve itself in such matters, when an independent body could just as easily do this and supply the necessary 'health and safety certificate' or whatever.Quote:
For instance, you're running a restaurant and when the government comes in to inspect your kitchen, you turn around and say: Sorry, that's private?
I know what you're getting at, but the example you included is something beyond me to make a definite statement on since it involves other factors that I'm not familiar with. I'm only focusing on simple matters, as hotel owners, private property etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
We don't have hotels or restaurants "owned by the government" (like a Public Library or Municipal gym/pool).
The reasons for state health and safety inspections are important are because of food-borne illnesses (hepatitis, e-coli, salmonella), and fire risks.
You can't just open a shop selling home-cooked foods, using household toasters or crock pots, or multiple extension cords. We have public Fire departments that respond to private property.