Civil Rights Movement encroaches on rights?

[Gonales]

Before turning the argument on others, it's probably best to read your own posts:



That, surely, is the consequence of "discriminating however, whenever and wherever they please". They'd go out of business. Several of us pointed this out before you jumped into the thread and started accusing people of being racist.

You still haven't answered the request as to how people somehow managed to avoid being racist before legislation against it was introduced, and how some people have managed to continue being racist despite legislation being introduced.

The answer you're looking for is that everyone is different and people are entirely capable of acting on their own moral standards. Some people know that racism is stupid, unnecessary, harmful and abhorrent. Others don't, or don't care, and do it anyway.

And the latter group is going to struggle a whole lot more on a macro level because of it. In modern society, most people try and distance themselves from those with extremist views. People won't eat at a racist restaurant. A business won't hire an openly racist person. People who come out with bigoted views on TV are quickly vilified.

And amazingly, no legislation need be introduced to control any of this. The racist seals his or her own fate.

This is what you believe but there will always be people that think that way.
I agree with prisonermonkeys, there should be some kind of blockade to the absolute freedom of discrimination.

 

[arora]

Everyone discriminates Gonales, even you.

 

[Famine]

This is what you believe but there will always be people that think that way.

Since he already said that in the text you quoted, the "but" is unnecessary.

You still haven't answered the request as to how people somehow managed to avoid being racist before legislation against it was introduced, and how some people have managed to continue being racist despite legislation being introduced.

The answer you're looking for is that everyone is different and people are entirely capable of acting on their own moral standards. Some people know that racism is stupid, unnecessary, harmful and abhorrent. Others don't, or don't care, and do it anyway.

All that legislation does is discriminate because it is intrinsically discriminatory. It doesn't stop discrimination. It makes those who discriminate feel more marginalised, more embittered, more resentful and more hateful, it generates discrimination where none existed (affirmative action is great for this - requiring jobs are given to people because of their grouping, not for their ability at the job) and it directly leads to the rise of fascist political parties that tap into this ill feeling.

 

[Zenith]

Everyone discriminates Gonales, even you.

 

[Keef]

Since he already said that in the text you quoted, the "but" is unnecessary.All that legislation does is discriminate because it is intrinsically discriminatory. It doesn't stop discrimination. It makes those who discriminate feel more marginalised, more embittered, more resentful and more hateful, it generates discrimination where none existed (affirmative action is great for this - requiring jobs are given to people because of their grouping, not for their ability at the job) and it directly leads to the rise of fascist political parties that tap into this ill feeling.

It's an everyday thing over here. There's not a single white person I know who doesn't feel this way, but of course I live in the Midwest where we're all a bunch of neanderthals.

 

[Famine]

They terk err jerrrrbs!

 

[Joel]

Actually, the general public widely supported Chick Fil A & the company's right to donate to who they want & hold the beliefs they choose to. The company broke sales records that day & polls later showed over half of the people asked would continue to eat there.

But, I understand your point. And you're right that the real injustice was the politicians wanting to ban the company from their city just because they held a different point of view without actually discriminating anyone. The fact this whole controversy supposedly caused Chick Fil A to stop donating to organizations that do not support same-sex marriages is ridiculous. You have the right to donate to whomever you want.

Might have more to do with how god damn delicious their sanwiches are .

 

[Johnnypenso]

Because there is an understanding of what is considered to be acceptable and appropriate. If you arrive dressed in an unacceptable or inappropriate fashion, you could reasonably be turned away because there is nothing to stop you from going home, getting changed and returning to the establishment dressed in something that is acceptable and appropriate, and be allowed in without hesitation.

However, you cannot discriminate against someone based on the colour of their skin, because they do no have the luxury of going home and changing it. They cannot be turned away because they are African-American, go home and come back half an hour later as a white person and gain entry.

How do you not recognise that these are two entriely different situations?

All situations are entirely different. They don't need to be identical to be comparable so let's get that off the table.

What if I'm of a poor socio-economic group and got a gift certificate for that restaurant? I can't afford a suit jacket. Who is most likely to be in that group? Usually non-whites. So not allowing someone in is both a form of ecomomic discrimination and pseudo-racial discrimination.

I belong to Goodlife Fitness. They have women's only gyms. My dues helped pay for that gym. Should they have a right as a business to not allow 50% of the population attend their business? Isn't that discrmination?

The local pizza shop has a sign on their door that says, "Only 5 teenagers in the store at one time". Is that discrimination? He does it because the kids get in there at lunch time and get unruly.

 

[Gonales]

No arora, I don't. I might dislike people, and be in favor of legislation that takes away some rights from certain people in the society, (not discrimination btw), because people don't know that whenever they have rights, they also have duties. A lot of people seem to forget that. And as long as people don't have the decency to live up to those duties they don't get no rights imo.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I might ... be in favor of legislation that takes away some rights from certain people in the society, (not discrimination btw)

No matter how many times you say this, it isn't going to be any less wrong. Discrimination, by any other name you want to give it, is still discrimination.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No arora, I don't. I might dislike people, and be in favor of legislation that takes away some rights from certain people in the society, (not discrimination btw), because people don't know that whenever they have rights, they also have duties. A lot of people seem to forget that. And as long as people don't have the decency to live up to those duties they don't get no rights imo.

No matter how many times you say this, it isn't going to be any less wrong. Discrimination, by any other name you want to give it, is still discrimination.

Agreed. Rights are not exclusive to one group or another. Either we all have them, or they aren't truly rights, just special privileges granted to one group or the other.

Also, I'm not aware of these "duties". As far as I know, "rights" grant us the equal opportunity to engage in certain activities or events, but I don't know of any rights that compel us into action to fulfill certain duties. I am aware we may have moral or social obligations to certain things surrounding these rights, but they aren't binding or legal obligations.

For example, although I'm legally obliged to not discriminate against a gay person, there's nothing anywhere that says I have to like gay people. One can still dislike people and treat them fairly or equally.

 

[NLxAROSA]

I might dislike people, and be in favor of legislation that takes away some rights from certain people in the society, (not discrimination btw)

That's EXACTLY what discrimination is. 👎

 

[Sanji Himura]

What health concern is there if my shirt isn't on while I walk into McDonalds one summer afternoon to buy an ice cream cone?

It is in my state. Let me put it to you as my father puts it, and he is a preacher:

"There is no dress code [in McDonalds], but if you come dressed for bed, I will send you home because I will assume that you are tired."

Basically, he means use common sense in how you dress.

 

[Tornado]

No arora, I don't. I might dislike people, and be in favor of legislation that takes away some rights from certain people in the society, (not discrimination btw)

I'm actually curious now. If selectively (and hypocritically) stripping rights from people is not discrimination, then what is it?

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm actually curious now. If selectively (and hypocritically) stripping rights from people is not discrimination, then what is it?

They call it security.

 

[NLxAROSA]

I'm actually curious now. If selectively (and hypocritically) stripping rights from people is not discrimination, then what is it?

Apparently, it's only discrimination if it violates your specific rights, if other peoples rights are violated it's not discrimination...

 

[Gonales]

Quoting Wikipedia: "Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or religion."

You will not be discriminated, considering you will not be treated on membership of a race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicy, etc etc. You will be treated on the fact that people can not handle their rights, which has nothing to do with the groups or categories listed above.

 

[arora]

Quoting Wikipedia: "Discrimination is the prejudicial or distinguishing treatment of an individual based on their actual or perceived membership in a certain group or category, such as their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or religion."

You will not be discriminated, considering you will not be treated on membership of a race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicy, etc etc. You will be treated on the fact that people can not handle their rights, which has nothing to do with the groups or categories listed above.

And you compare hearing the word gay on the psn to the plight of the black man in the united states? really? I think you are way out of line, I don't know what is going on where you live but here there is at least a legit fight going on with marriage and taxes.

The civil rights movement was about equality of man under law, every man having the same rights under law, not HURT FEELINGS on a computer game.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the responsibilities that go hand in hand with freedom, you won't like the quote though lol.

we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

I wonder how many times you have heard someone say god damn it or jesus christ on psn, probably as many or more then gay or faggot. Oh dear lord I am so offended, off with all their heads.

 

[Tornado]

You will not be discriminated, considering you will not be treated on membership of a race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicy, etc etc. You will be treated on the fact that people can not handle their rights, which has nothing to do with the groups or categories listed above.

You are, in fact, correct. A law against racist thoughts and behavior is not the same as a law against any of those things you just listed. Instead, a law against racists means you will be treated differently on the fact that you hold a certain opinion about something. Which means you are treated on the fact that you fit into a GROUP of people that share that opinion on something. Meaning a law made against racists is still discrimination exactly like a law against certain religions would be discrimination, because it is a law against certain belief systems.



Discrimination is the selective treatment of a specific group based on any groupable characteristics that they share. That is even what the definition you quoted said before you latched onto the examples as if they were the only examples. Which is the issue, because it does not say is that it's only discrimination if it is done based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.

 

[Zenith]

they call it security.

+1

 

[Gonales]

And you compare hearing the word gay on the psn to the plight of the black man in the united states? really? I think you are way out of line, I don't know what is going on where you live but here there is at least a legit fight going on with marriage and taxes.

The civil rights movement was about equality of man under law, every man having the same rights under law, not HURT FEELINGS on a computer game.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the responsibilities that go hand in hand with freedom, you won't like the quote though lol.



I wonder how many times you have heard someone say god damn it or jesus christ on psn, probably as many or more then gay or faggot. Oh dear lord I am so offended, off with all their heads.

1: wrong thread,
2: what the .... are you even talking about?

 

[arora]

1: wrong thread,
2: what the .... are you even talking about?

You are the one that brought it up, in your very first post of this thread.

I'm talking about civil liberties.

 

[Gonales]

You are the one that brought it up, in your very first post of this thread.

I'm talking about civil liberties.

Yeah, but I mean... Why the hell would coloured people be 'more' oppressed than homosexual ones, coloured or not? Just because there are more? That statement really makes no sense. :s

 

[Azuremen]

Yeah, but I mean... Why the hell would coloured people be 'more' oppressed than homosexual ones, coloured or not? Just because there are more? That statement really makes no sense. :s

Have you ever opened a history book? Like, at all?

 

[Gonales]

Have you ever opened a history book? Like, at all?

Don't give me that ********. Yes, coloured people had to work as slaves I know. Does that mean the rest doesn't matter? Forgetting Adolf, and his campaign, maybe? Or the fact that most homosexual couples nowadays (yeah, like in, today... Not a hundred years ago -.-), don't have the same rights as other married couples, coloured or not?

 

[Tornado]

Forgetting Adolf, and his campaign, maybe?

You're seriously using the biggest example of the dangers of outlawing certain practices and ideas in recent history as justification to outlaw certain practices and ideas?

Oh god, my sides.

 

[Azuremen]

Don't give me that ********. Yes, coloured people had to work as slaves I know. Does that mean the rest doesn't matter? Forgetting Adolf, and his campaign, maybe? Or the fact that most homosexual couples nowadays (yeah, like in, today... Not a hundred years ago -.-), don't have the same rights as other married couples, coloured or not?

Come to the US, we have states with equal marriage rights, just FYI.

As for history, you could look into how homosexuality was fine in several cultures through out the course of history. Hell, it was even idolized in feudal Japan, prior to the introduction of Christianity from the US and Europe. Then you can look at how much easier it is to conceal being a homosexual, where as colored people have had to be pretty open about it, thus resulting in far more oppression, such as slavery. Which still persists today in some parts of the world.

As for the holocaust, it was a lot easier rounding up Jews and more overt minorities, such as blacks. I also strongly advise against somehow trying to elevate your social plight above minorities that have histories with several hundred years of forced labor. Not to mention it is just poor form to invoke Godwin's law in a debate.

You're seriously using the biggest example of the dangers of outlawing certain practices and ideas in recent history as justification to outlaw certain practices and ideas?

But it's for our protection!

 

[Gonales]

You're seriously using the biggest example of the dangers of outlawing certain practices and ideas in recent history as justification to outlaw certain practices and ideas?

Oh god, my sides.

Ehhh, yeah I actually am. Hitlers problem wasn't the banning of certain views, certain types of music etc... The problem was that he was kind of racist. Everywhere in the world there are people forbidding certain things, but... When you're not killing anyone, or hurting people on purpose, there is a very big difference.

For example. In America, you are allowed to carry a gun, whereas in Europe, we aren't. In England, they drive on the left side of the road, we may not.

Come to the US, we have states with equal marriage rights, just FYI.

I don't live in the U.S.A., but I do have a general idea of what is it like to live there. Wouldn't want to tbh. And the fact that some states, (like 5, maybe), grant homosexuals the same rights as straight people... still makes it 1/10. I wouldn't be proud of that tbh.

As for history, you could look into how homosexuality was fine in several cultures through out the course of history. Hell, it was even idolized in feudal Japan, prior to the introduction of Christianity from the US and Europe. Then you can look at how much easier it is to conceal being a homosexual, where as colored people have had to be pretty open about it, thus resulting in far more oppression, such as slavery. Which still persists today in some parts of the world.

As i said before, wrong thread dude! But anyway,
You could look to the huge population that still lives in Africa, and getting so much development support etc. etc. ... But that is frankly unimportant. Your point, stating the fact that homosexual rights are negligible because the coloured people have been suppressed as well, is just insanity. I wasn't comparing homosexuals to coloured people, you came up with that out of the blue. :/

As for the holocaust, it was a lot easier rounding up Jews and more overt minorities, such as blacks. I also strongly advise against somehow trying to elevate your social plight above minorities that have histories with several hundred years of forced labor. Not to mention it is just poor form to invoke Godwin's law in a debate.

So, it's poor form of me, to 'invoke Godwin's Law', in a discussion, when other people calling me fascists are considered mature, and probably even wise? Really?

P.S.: I would read about Godwin's law before making a statement like yours. I never invoked any law, you did.

Anyway, the fact that it was harder doesn't make it less important. Like I said before, because other minorities were suppressed, doesn't mean suppression of any minority nowadays is okay. :/

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Like I said before, because other minorities were suppressed, doesn't mean suppression of any minority nowadays is okay. :/

...except that part where you want to suppress a minority.

 

[Azuremen]

I don't live in the U.S.A., but I do have a general idea of what is it like to live there. Wouldn't want to tbh. And the fact that some states, (like 5, maybe), grant homosexuals the same rights as straight people... still makes it 1/10. I wouldn't be proud of that tbh.

Curious to what your general idea is, tbh.

Oh, and I'm assuming you are referring to Germany on your equal marriage comment. Which I'd like to point out 10% is better than 0%

As i said before, wrong thread dude! But anyway,
You could look to the huge population that still lives in Africa, and getting so much development support etc. etc. ... But that is frankly unimportant. Your point, stating the fact that homosexual rights are negligible because the coloured people have been suppressed as well, is just insanity. I wasn't comparing homosexuals to coloured people, you came up with that out of the blue. :/

I never said they were negligible. I also assumed you were talking about homosexuality when mentioning the holocaust because, last I checked, you had been talking about their civil rights as well. And that example was the most extreme of extremes, not to mention segregation in the US is more recent as well.

So, it's poor form of me, to 'invoke Godwin's Law', in a discussion, when other people calling me fascists are considered mature, and probably even wise? Really?

Have you considered the fact people are suggesting you are a fascist because you keep suggesting fascist ideas?

Anyway, the fact that it was harder doesn't make it less important. Like I said before, because other minorities were suppressed, doesn't mean suppression of any minority nowadays is okay. :/

What about suppression of anyone? That seems far more equal in my mind.