The Tea Party might already be showing its true 'colors'

[shagdrum]

I'm sorry, but I must say, I am quite aware of what the concept of rule by law is.

So you were intentionally misrepresenting it as something having to do with opportunity?

I would hope not.

but why should these rights also include the right to discriminate against another?

You are making up a right here and in doing so, effectively injecting a false premise (unintentionally, I am sure).

There is no "right" to discriminate and there is no "right" to not be discriminated against. To claim either right is to abstract yourself from reality in pursuit of an unrealistic Utopian ideal.

How can you objectively and accurately determine if someone is being discriminated against? The ways typically used are based on circumstantial evidence. They are subjective, ultimately arbitrary and infringe of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Circumstantial evidence cannot, in any way, prove anything.

However, you do have a real right to property (including a right to do with it as you please, within certain limits) and a right to assembly.

I never said you could not think that way. Acting upon those thoughts would be detrimental to the common good though, don't you think?

So the "common good" outweighs individual liberty? Most every tyranny established was founded on that notion.

I disagree here. Hate crime legislation is an attempt to protect those who are particularly vulnerable.

Bad and even tyrannical laws are almost always made with the best of intentions, usually toward the "common good".

The problem is in realizing the limits of humans to enforce those laws and to honestly take into consideration the trade-offs involved.

More often then not, moral crusades (weather in the name of religion or social justice) end up in tyrannical laws and, in the extreme, a tyrannical state.

The only problem is, it is exceedingly difficult to prove mindset or motivation, therefore hate crime laws often backfire.

BINGO!

That is why any and all attempts to outlaw discrimination backfire.

You can try and outlaw the effects of discrimination, but even then how do you enforce such a law? What trade-offs are involved?

This is an irrelevant conclusion.

I am not drawing any conclusion. I am simply asking a question.

Choosing a mate is different from having a business.

Why? Specifically, in what relevant sense is this different?

You aren't having intercourse with your customers (well hopefully not), and you require no intricate social interactions with customers.

irrelevant to the question.

A lifelong mate must have interests, personalities, and thoughts that are stimulating to you in a way that keeps your interest.

Again, irrelevant to the question.

Therefore you HAVE to discriminate to chose a person you are married to or have children with.

Is that a yes?

I would never go so far as to say outlawing discrimination should create a dystopia like that of the old short story Harrison Bergeron. You must leave room for personal enjoyment.

What about personal enjoyment concerning my property (like a business)? I have a right to property and that includes a right to do with it as I please.

In granting others the freedom to pursue happiness, you cannot take away another persons ability to pursue happiness

Freedoms are not "granted". Rights are not "given" they are self evident truths in nature that transcend any government or society.

What if my happiness is in having a private organization with only WASP's in it? Or in having a private organization that furthers the education of only black students?

I can see absolutely no justification for a person to state they would be happier if for instance, no mexicans shopped at their store.

But who would be in the best position to make that determination? No one (including you) can foresee all possible circumstances.

American society's values are such that discrimination in certain areas is abhorrent to us. There are plenty of social mechanisms to deal with a business that conducts itself in such a way, especially with the age of instant information. Laws are only necessary to a point and Federal law in this area is foolish and unconstitutional.

That being said, I would like to say a physical handicap would not be an impediment for me to get to know someone on a personal level, however I will admit a mental handicap would be a significant barrier for me.

So yes. Maybe not in all things (race, hopefully physical handicaps), but in some things, it would be a factor.

However, quid pro quo, would you say that you would never ever date or marry a person of another race just on the basis of their race?

Not much of an issue in my case, but I wouldn't think so. Can't know for sure unless and until I am confronted by it. I don't think any race is less or more capable concerning mental abilities, is somehow "genetically inferior" or what not. It would have to do with a person's personality, their individual intellectual level, etc.

 

[FIND]

So you were intentionally misrepresenting it as something having to do with opportunity?

I would hope not.

No, I am not. You are interpreting it differently to suit your own purposes. Rule by law infers that no one is above the law, and this should infer legal egalitarianism. Equality under the law. Explain to me how rule of law should not include equal treatment?

Rule of law means the basic principles and constitution of this country are the absolute that all people must adhere to. This country was founded on the principle that all men were created equal.

You are making up a right here and in doing so, effectively injecting a false premise (unintentionally, I am sure).

There is no "right" to discriminate and there is no "right" to not be discriminated against. To claim either right is to abstract yourself from reality in pursuit of an unrealistic Utopian ideal.

Then in that case, you must admit that a person cannot exclude another from something on the basis of race or other such attributes.

How can you objectively and accurately determine if someone is being discriminated against? The ways typically used are based on circumstantial evidence. They are subjective, ultimately arbitrary and infringe of the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Circumstantial evidence cannot, in any way, prove anything.

true, therein the difficulty lies. However, I cannot accept the alternative, and that is to allow chaotic behavior that is damaging to others. Some, if not many, would take their personal liberty and encroach upon the liberty of others. Some are beyond the powers or means of others to stop from doing so. This is why we need a society of law that prevents oppression. Unfortunately, with this we are faced with a tightrope act attempting to balance civil liberties and personal liberties with those of others. Still, I cannot accept the alternative, give up and allow people to oppress others as they please.

However, you do have a real right to property (including a right to do with it as you please, within certain limits) and a right to assembly.

And I would not say otherwise. Those right should not be used to infringe upon the rights of another human being however.

So the "common good" outweighs individual liberty? Most every tyranny established was founded on that notion.

non sequitur. A tyranny may say it is for the common good, but it is not necessarily for the common good, and even if it was founded on that notion, that does not infer that any civilization founded on the common good is automatically a tyranny. Most productive civilization is founded on the notion of the common good.

Bad and even tyrannical laws are almost always made with the best of intentions, usually toward the "common good".

once again, a non sequitur. Good laws are also made with the best of intentions and are usually toward the common good.

The problem is in realizing the limits of humans to enforce those laws and to honestly take into consideration the trade-offs involved.

this is true.

More often then not, moral crusades (weather in the name of religion or social justice) end up in tyrannical laws and, in the extreme, a tyrannical state.

This is only true in extreme cases, and more often in the case of crusades in the name of religion than social justice. Those cases of course stand out more, but history is full of crusades in the name of social justice that did not end in tyrannical laws. Would you say that the emancipation of slaves in the US ended in tyrannical laws? We told people that people weren't property. Sure, some people felt it was tyranny and interfering with their rights.

That is why any and all attempts to outlaw discrimination backfire.

False. But many attempts to outlaw discrimination do come with negative effects. However, without such attempts, gays and people of the other than Caucasian persuasion would not be able to enlist in the military. There would be segregation in schools and public places. Blacks and women would not be allowed to vote. The list goes on and on.

You can try and outlaw the effects of discrimination, but even then how do you enforce such a law? What trade-offs are involved?

It is a touchy situation. The best solution would be for everyone in the country to stop being douche bags.... but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I am not drawing any conclusion. I am simply asking a question.

You are linking discrimination against someone with whom you have a business relationship and a personal relationship.

Why? Specifically, in what relevant sense is this different?

in exactly the senses I pointed out.

irrelevant to the question.

Again, irrelevant to the question.

Care to explain how these are NOT relevant to illustrating the differences between a personal relationship and a business relationship?

Is that a yes?

I am not going to justify a loaded question like this with an answer.

What about personal enjoyment concerning my property (like a business)? I have a right to property and that includes a right to do with it as I please.

Then please enlighten me, how does the race of your clientele effect your personal enjoyment of your business property.

Freedoms are not "granted". Rights are not "given" they are self evident truths in nature that transcend any government or society.

correct, that was a poor choice of words on my part.

What if my happiness is in having a private organization with only WASP's in it? Or in having a private organization that furthers the education of only black students?

How? Tell me how the race of those in your organization makes you happier? As to the later part of that, that is another example of the slippery slope that often leads to reverse discrimination, however, statistically speaking, black students are more in need than white students. Obviously that is not true on a case by case basis, but as a whole, a larger percentage of them live in disadvantaged situations, and require additional help. I wish this wasn't true, because organizations like that further separation and stereotypes, but hey, can't have everything right?

But who would be in the best position to make that determination? No one (including you) can foresee all possible circumstances.

If you can tell me even ONE relevant way not allowing hispanics to shop at a business will make a person happier, that has nothing to do with racist motivation, I will retract this statement. Obviously a majority of hispanics speak english, so that is not a barrier to most people. I would never say that a business owner would have to employ translators to serve members of the community who do not speak english, so obviously you could deny service to someone on the basis of a language barrier that makes it impossible to conduct business. Until you can give one valid reason that a person would enjoy their business further by being able to limit the differences in skin color, without resorting to simple racial preference, I stand firmly by this statement.

American society's values are such that discrimination in certain areas is abhorrent to us. There are plenty of social mechanisms to deal with a business that conducts itself in such a way, especially with the age of instant information. Laws are only necessary to a point and Federal law in this area is foolish and unconstitutional.

I disagree, and we could certainly find many places in this country where discrimination is not frowned upon. In fact, we could probably find many places where it is widely encouraged. I have been many of those places myself, and even as a white guy, I have experienced such. On several occasions I have found myself hanging out with gay or lesbian friends among groups of people where there was a great deal of hateful propoganda spewed forth against homosexuals. Honestly, I felt bad for them. They shouldn't have to put up with that crap, but we don't stop anyone from voicing their opinion. In the town I currently live in, my old criminal justice professor frequently recants the story of one of his students, a gay man, who was beaten severely and then killed by two other men, because he was gay. When asked why, they gave responses like, "he came onto me." Please note, there was no physical interaction, they killed him on the basis that they felt like he was flirting with them. Acting on their hate of gay people cost someone their life. This was not in the interest of the common good now was it?

Also care to tell me how this is unconstitutional? Allow me to requote the preamble to the constitution

We the people of the Unite States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America

I eagerly await your rebuttal to this. I hear people say all the time that this is unconstitutional, or that is unconstitutional, but more often than not, it is just pointless rhetoric and wishful thinking brought about by a basic misunderstanding of what the constitution of the United States is.

So yes. Maybe not in all things (race, hopefully physical handicaps), but in some things, it would be a factor.

Of course it would be. In a physical and emotional relationship, there has to be attraction between partners for the development of said relationship. However, once again, this is distracting from the issue of commerce and discrimination in commerce. Discrimination in partners in an emotional and physical relationship is inherently different from discrimination in commerce.

Not much of an issue in my case, but I wouldn't think so. Can't know for sure unless and until I am confronted by it. I don't think any race is less or more capable concerning mental abilities, is somehow "genetically inferior" or what not. It would have to do with a person's personality, their individual intellectual level, etc.

Then why would you believe that there would be a reason for anyone to discriminate against another based upon race? How is a persons rights being infringed upon if they are told not to discriminate against a person they have no reason to discriminate against? They are not telling you that you cannot dislike a person based upon a particular trait such as race.

 

[foxpaws]

So, why is the private business section (Title II) in the Civil Rights Act? Why did the federal government feel it had to dictate to private business? Why wasn't 'separate but equal' working in private business?

There were many reasons. In the south, as businesses denied services and goods to blacks, they could - there were black businesses that dealt with black customers, or created a separate entrance, or a contained area, it was reinforcing a class system, along with a degradation of a segment of the population. White businesses, because of a strong, richer white majority within the population were destined to do better, to demand better prices from suppliers, deal with strong, white banks, be able to withstand fluctuations in the market and economy. Black businesses were at a disadvantage - catering to a poorer segment of the population, which weren't able to advance because of discriminatory policies in hiring, unable to get the same type of loan advantages from black banks, because the deposits in black banks were much smaller, because the earning base of blacks were less, unable to get as good of deals from suppliers, more susceptible to economic ups and down, all created for a more fragile business climate in the black community. Which reinforced the class system in the south. Black businesses were more likely to fail - meaning even less income opportunity in the black community.

As black businesses failed - white business could force black clients to pay more for the exact same goods. If the black farm supply company eventually went out of business, because the farmers it supplied couldn't sell their produce to white restaurants, and the black restaurants were so few and far between that they just couldn't sustain all the black farms, then the few that were left would be forced to buy from the white farm supply company - at inflated prices, therefore causing more black business to fail. Eventually black communities would be entirely dependent on the white majority, a type of slavery.

Separate but equal is anything but equal. With an unequal number of players - such as the white majority/black minority situation in the south - equality quickly becomes inequality.

It makes no difference on the makeup of minority and majority - race, gender, sexual preference, creed, if discrimination is allowed in private business the majority will become stronger and the minority will become weaker, it is exactly what a free market dictates. Capitalism reinforces a class system if you have a majority that is able to dictate 'terms' to the minority. As long as whites are in a majority, they will 'win' the war of attrition in a free market which allows discrimination.

This isn't a question of racism - is it a question of creating class systems within the United States based on things that individuals have no choice in - the color of their skin, their sex... What happens when a majority turns into a monopoly, it has happened in history over and over and over again, even in America. Does the constitution protect the minority, the weak, or does it allow the majority, the strong to dictate? Because that is the inevitable outcome. The majority will dictate.

So, Cal and Shag and KS - why don't you just state what Rand Paul stated (and then retracted) that private business should be allowed to discriminate? You are dancing all around it with 'rights are self evident' and 'right to property' comparing CRA to tyrannical law or that our 'American society values' will prevail. There has to be a reason you are balking and skirting the issue - what is that reason?

However shag - you have said over and over again that we basically do not evolve in any quick measurable time frame - so why do you think we have evolved from some pretty basic human tendencies - the human tendency is to discriminate - why would some fuzzy 'American Value' trump our natural, human tendency. We won't evolve beyond this for a long time to come... what happens in the meantime? Will we magically rise above our natural tendencies?

Are we noble?

 

[foxpaws]

However the Nazi references.... Either way, I could care less about a person's past comments. Foxpaws said his piece, just disprove it if you feel otherwise.

Shag won't disprove it, because he can't - so he hides behind slander, and walls of text that mean nothing.

However FIND - you might want to edit... from "his peace" to "her peace" I am of the female persuasion...

 

[shagdrum]

No, I am not. You are interpreting it differently to suit your own purposes. Rule by law infers that no one is above the law, and this should infer legal egalitarianism. Equality under the law. Explain to me how rule of law should not include equal treatment?

Egalitarianism is concerned with equality of results; something that is incompatible with the rule of law because the rule of law is focused on an equality of process. Specifically equality under the legal process; equality under the law.

The two types of equality are in NO way compatible.

This country was founded on the principle that all men were created equal.

Yes, created equal. Not that they have equal opportunities or equal living standards, etc. Again, equality of process vs. equality of results.

This all stems from the difference in views concerning justice.

Then in that case, you must admit that a person cannot exclude another from something on the basis of race or other such attributes.

??

Where are you getting that?

However, I cannot accept the alternative, and that is to allow chaotic behavior that is damaging to others.

That is is a bit of a false dichotomy. My rights end where yours begin. I can discriminate all I want but once I start infringing on your rights, my right to discriminate stops.

However, it is very important to know what truly is and is not a right. Most anything can be (and often is) claimed as a right, but that doesn't make it so.

Simply saying you "cannot accept it" is not much of an argument. If your view doesn't line up with reality, your view is wrong.

And I would not say otherwise. Those right should not be used to infringe upon the rights of another human being however.

And those are the limitations I have talked about. Again it comes down to Rights; where they come from and what they are (and are not).

If that standard of judging a perceived "right" is not adhered to, then rights become meaningless because anything and everything can be a right.

non sequitur

not so much.

A tyranny may say it is for the common good, but it is not necessarily for the common good

Any and every tyranny was created in the name of the "common good". It may not have been what many people living under that tyranny thought of as the "common good" but that doesn't mean that is wasn't created for the "common good" in the minds of those who put that government in place.

...and even if it was founded on that notion, that does not infer that any civilization founded on the common good is automatically a tyranny. Most productive civilization is founded on the notion of the common good.

Very true. That is why simply claiming something serves the "common good" is not a valid justification. In fact, to use that as a justification would be a "non sequitur".

once again, a non sequitur. Good laws are also made with the best of intentions and are usually toward the common good.

Again, not a "non sequitur". You simply missed the point I was raising that claiming something is for the "common good" is not a valid justification and is in fact a rhetorical dodge.

You have to show why it is for the common good and show that the trade-offs are justified. Simply asserting the "common good" is a cheap way to avoid that burden of proof.

This is only true in extreme cases

It is more common then you think.

...and more often in the case of crusades in the name of religion than social justice.

Not in the past century. Nazi Germany, Facist Italy, Communist Russia, Red China, Pol Pot, Castro...need I go on?

The false ideal of social justice is one of the greatest dangers to the rule of law, to individual liberty...to any free society.

Would you say that the emancipation of slaves in the US ended in tyrannical laws?

Apparently you don't know what social justice is either.

We told people that people weren't property. Sure, some people felt it was tyranny and interfering with their rights.

More fully realizing individual liberty by more fully embracing Natural Rights is not, in any way, the furthering of social justice.

False.

Examples?

However, without such attempts, gays and people of the other than Caucasian persuasion would not be able to enlist in the military. There would be segregation in schools and public places. Blacks and women would not be allowed to vote. The list goes on and on.

None of those actions outlaw discrimination. They simply change policy and/or remove laws that encourage discrimination. There is a big difference that is very relevant to the issue in this thread.

You are linking discrimination against someone with whom you have a business relationship and a personal relationship.

It's called an analogy.

in exactly the senses I pointed out.

None of the things you pointed out is relevant to the analogy I was drawing. That is the only way you can show that it is a false analogy.

I am focusing on the thought process involved here. The nature of the relationship in each case is incidental to that.

Care to explain how these are NOT relevant to illustrating the differences between a personal relationship and a business relationship?

See above.

And please stop asking me to prove a negative.

I am not going to justify a loaded question like this with an answer.

A "loaded question" is a very specific charge. Care to show how my question is "loaded"? Can you show what is presupposed by my question that is not accepted by both parties involved? If not, then my question is not, in any way, "loaded".

My question presupposes a similarity of there being discrimination in business discrimination and discrimination in personal life. Is there not a similarity in that?

Going with the "difference in relationship" angle won't do it because that is not consequential to the analogy being drawn.

How? Tell me how the race of those in your organization makes you happier?

If I were a member of the KKK, I highly doubt I would want any african-americans in that organization.

However, it is not my place to explain, the burden of proof is not on me. Simply because you cannot fathom it doesn't mean others can't and it certainly doesn't justify imposing your own perception of happiness on the rest of society. I can't imagine enjoying many things that many others clearly enjoy.

If you can't tolerate intolerance, then you are intolerant.

As to the later part of that, that is another example of the slippery slope that often leads to reverse discrimination, however, statistically speaking, black students are more in need than white students.

Statistics (especially in how they are often analyzed in this area) are nothing more then circumstantial evidence. Any explanation of discrimination as the reason for any statistical disparity is ultimately arbitrary and subjective.

If you can tell me even ONE relevant way not allowing hispanics to shop at a business will make a person happier, that has nothing to do with racist motivation, I will retract this statement.

Again, the burden of proof here is not on me (as much as you want to put it there). I am not going to meet your demands when they are simply some way to shift the burden of proof to me instead of meeting it yourself. It is on you to justify imposing your own particular version of a happy life (at least in this area) on the whole of society.

I disagree

I am sure you do.

and we could certainly find many places in this country where discrimination is not frowned upon.

your point? Everyone should be tolerant, except of intolerance? Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical to you? If there is discrimination in one business (and discrimination is a part of life) move on. Institutional discrimination is not so pervasive in the country anymore as to keep people oppressed; at least in the areas or race and gender.

Simply saying that we can tolerate anything but intolerance in these specific areas is absurd.

Also care to tell me how this is unconstitutional?

Again, stop asking me to prove a negative. The burden of proof is on your side of this debate; especially when it comes to Constitutionality. Simply quoting passages from the Constitution that only support your view if misinterpreted doesn't meet that burden of proof.

Name the enumerated power from which the ability of the Federal government to prevent private businesses from discriminated is drawn. If you can't, or if you have to base it on a perversion of one of those powers, the law is not Constitutional in this area.

Then why would you believe that there would be a reason for anyone to discriminate against another based upon race?

Again, that is not my determination to make. Each individual should be allowed to determine what best makes them happy.

How is a persons rights being infringed upon if they are told not to discriminate against a person they have no reason to discriminate against?

Afirmative action? Quotas? EOE? CRA? Those don't infringe on others property rights (both directly and indirectly) in a myriad or ways? Or maybe their freedom of assembly?

And again, where in the Constitution is the authority to tell me to do anything? If it is not a power specifically granted in the Constitution, it is not there. Let me quote 10th amendment to you.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

In fact, the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights was created to set up the framework of the Federal government and then LIMIT IT'S POWER. Simply because many feel a "common good" would be served doesn't justify circumventing the Constitution, infringing on the rights of others and s**ting on the rule of law.

 

[FIND]

So... As usual, you will ignore facts, attack statements out of context, and say I am wrong without reason?

How is it you came to the conclusion that the burden of proof was only on me? It would seem that you are the one asking for society to change, therefore one can infer that the burden of proof is on your to demonstrate why society should change.

Asking you to prove a negative? You made affirmative statements. If you believe something is unconstitutional, YOU have the burden of proof. I have not misquoted the constitution, nor have I misinterpreted it. Just because you have a different view of right and wrong does not make mine any less valid, especially as it seems mine is the more commonly accepted view by the courts and government of the US.

It seems all your response is, is telling me that I am wrong, without any justification or proof. You have a horrid misunderstanding of law and the constitution, and I would suggest you reexamine your source where you get these ideas from.

Anyways, since you like analogies, how about I give you some that are more directly related to the point you are trying to make, instead of doing as you are, and asking off the wall questions in an attempt to make some kind of indirect justification by linking different ideas.

1: Should it be legal for a man to serve alcohol to a minor inside a bar he owns?

2: Should it be legal for a man to murder another in cold blood inside his home? Let's assume for our purposes this is not in self defense or in the defense of property, he is just killing the guy to watch him die.

3: Should a man be able to operate a meth lab inside his home?

4: Should a man be able to produce child pornography inside his home, assuming he does not ever take it outside his home or show it to others, he has the consent of the child, the child has a reasonable understanding of the consequences of their decision AND the child is not harmed physically, is not impregnated, and does not suffer emotional trauma.

5: Should it be legal for a man to walk around a toy store he owns completely naked during business hours?

All of these people are doing things inside their own property, a place where you insist the government should not be allowed to intrude. However, allowing them to enforce laws inside private property is in the interest of the common good is it not?

Property ownership does not make you a sovereign nation. Even inside of your property, you have to follow the laws of this nation.

Anyways, I am done with you now. You have done nothing but insist I am wrong without ever meeting your burden of proof. You have many ideas, but no facts to back it up, and you want to draw similarities between dissimilar ideas. I would suggest you go take a freshman level civics or government course. It seems you would learn a great deal.

 

[04SCTLS]

Shag will not express his personal opinion because that would mean having a concience and feelings and emotions which are weaknesses that will get in the way of his technical arguments.
He uses this as a wall to hide behind so he doesn't have to show much if any original thinking.

 

[Calabrio]

Shag will not express his personal opinion because that would mean having a concience and feelings and emotions which are weaknesses that will get in the way of his technical arguments.
He uses this as a wall to hide behind so he doesn't have to show much if any original thinking.

That's really an ignorant comment.
But we have laws. There is a logic behind the laws.
Emotion based pleas do not necessarily have a foundation in logic or principle.

It's not a weakness to use logic, and not emotion, when presenting an argument. Cheap, emotional appeals are easy to make. But they are worthless. And they also create an environment where everything is acceptable because our actions and policies are judged by their intentions and not the consequences, intended or unintended, of them.

 

[04SCTLS]

That's really an ignorant comment.
But we have laws. There is a logic behind the laws.
Emotion based pleas do not necessarily have a foundation in logic or principle.

It's not a weakness to use logic, and not emotion, when presenting an argument. Cheap, emotional appeals are easy to make. But they are worthless. And they also create an environment where everything is acceptable because our actions and policies are judged by their intentions and not the consequences, intended or unintended, of them.

I still don't see much original thinking.
And shag almost never uses examples to illustrate his points.
An argument about people relations with no emotions is dry and empty.
Without some emotion and opinion a purely logical argument falls short.

 

[foxpaws]

OK Boys - how about a straight answer to this...

Why don't you just state what you agree with what Rand Paul stated (and then retracted) - that private business should be allowed to discriminate? You are dancing all around it with 'rights are self evident' and 'right to property', constitutionality issues and 'natural rights', comparing CRA to tyrannical law or that our 'American society values' will prevail. There has to be a reason you are balking and skirting the issue - what is that reason?

Either you think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate or not... You can base it in constitutional gibbility goop, whatever, but how about a straight answer...

 

[Calabrio]

I don't think businesses should discriminate.
I would not frequent a business that discriminates.
The government should not contract or engage in ANY behavior that discriminates, including quotas and affirmative action policies.
But the federal government should not be able to tell any private business who they must associate with or serve.

And if I don't want to rent office or commercial space to a bigot, I should have that option as well.

I think this has been made abundantly clear. Freedom includes freedom to do things that are ugly or unpopular. Your liberty is not limited when someone refuses to offer you their service, that's an imposition of convenience, however forcing someone to serve someone else IS a imposition of liberty.

And, isn't it interesting how foxpaws considers the constitution to be "gibility goop." It's not a surprise, she doesn't respect it as a governing document.

Discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is more complicated because it did enforce some laws and regulations that were entirely appropriate as well. It was neither all good or all bad, regardless of how good the ends were intended to be.

 

[Calabrio]

I still don't see much original thinking.

Why would you look for "original thinking" when interpreting and applying the law?

And shag almost never uses examples to illustrate his points.

An argument about people relations with no emotions is dry and empty.
Without some emotion and opinion a purely logical argument falls short.

So you want something more user friendly that is designed to manipulate your emotion, rather than something based on logic and fact? Something that utilizes propagandistic concepts effectively and appeals to the more base responses of a person?

Like foxpaws, utter bullcrap and manipulation, but framed in emotional language?

But, without being overly cynical, you do make a good point. It's much easier to persuade using dangerous emotion appeals than it is based on cold logic and principles.

 

[foxpaws]

Cal - you believe that private business should be allowed to discriminate. You believe that Title II of the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, correct? That there would be no relevant consequences to minorities, whether race, creed, or gender, because of this freedom of business to discriminate. That the days of White Only, Women need not Apply, and Black Entrance Here were OK and just. You think that the businesses in America should to be able to have the freedom to do that again. That the majority would not crush the minority.

You believe in 'noble'?

Thank you -

Oh, when you wrap yourself in the flag, or wrap yourself in 'your version' of the constitution I will gladly label it constitutional gibbility goop. Because that is what shag does constantly - he uses some odd, self serving reading of the constitution to try to prove his point. Heck in the case of the CRA it has withstood almost every constitutional test thrown at it... Look at all the cases brought to the SCOTUS - it doesn't lose.

 

[shagdrum]

So... As usual, you will ignore facts, attack statements out of context, and say I am wrong without reason?

Nope. I simply expect you to use reason and actually understand what you are talking about.

What specific facts have I ignored?

What statements have I attacked out of context?

How is it you came to the conclusion that the burden of proof was only on me?

Because that is where it would logically fall and instead of meeting that burden in those instances you used cheap rhetorical tricks to try and shift the burden back to me.

It would seem that you are the one asking for society to change, therefore one can infer that the burden of proof is on your to demonstrate why society should change.

That is not what I am doing and you know it.

Asking you to prove a negative? You made affirmative statements. If you believe something is unconstitutional, YOU have the burden of proof.

When it comes to the Constitutionality of a law or action the burden of proof is on those supporting and/or crafting the law. In fact, any and every action of Congress has to be tied to a specific enumerated power for that very reason.

Besides, I have already alluded to why the law is unconstitutional earlier in this thread.

Maybe you should brush up on your Constitutional Law.

I have not misquoted the constitution, nor have I misinterpreted it.

Actually, yes, you have unquestionably misinterpreted it.

The context of what Framers were talking about, especially in the passage you cite, if VERY specific and your usage of it implies it means something different they what the Framers intended.

It is not a difference of interpretation. The difference is between an accurate understanding of the truth and presumptuous ignorance. You simply don't fully understand what you are talking about. You need to brush up on your political theory; especially concerning what the Framer's views were.

Instead, you are reduced to making cheap excuses to justify your position. Maybe if you concern yourself more with the truth instead of obtusely focusing on justifying your ignorance you would learn something.

It seems all your response is, is telling me that I am wrong, without any justification or proof.

Proof and justification for each of my points has been offered countless times on this forum. I am not going to take the time to track down all the sources again just for you. Do your own research. To not do so on a forum, especially when you are new to a forum, is exceedingly presumptuous.

You have a horrid misunderstanding of law and the constitution, and I would suggest you reexamine your source where you get these ideas from.

No, that would be you.

You have demonstrated in this thread that you don't understand the rule of law, don't understand the concept of social justice, don't understand what the Framers did (and did not) mean with regards to equality and what they viewed as the scope of government and you don't understand how Congress' enumerated powers work (and don't work).

The intricacies of Constitutional Law and of political philosophy elude you.

All of these people are doing things inside their own property, a place where you insist the government should not be allowed to intrude.

Now you are reduced to setting up a straw man?

I was not, in any way, arguing that the government cannot intrude at all into the actions people take on their private property.

You are intentionally misrepresenting what I am saying. Apparently you have stopped approaching this discussion with any degree of intellectual honesty.

Anyways, I am done with you now. You have done nothing but insist I am wrong without ever meeting your burden of proof.

Just because you are too obtuse to realize that I have met the burden of proof (when reasonable) doesn't mean I didn't meet that burden.

I would suggest you go take a freshman level civics or government course. It seems you would learn a great deal.

:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:

I have a Bachelor of Arts in political science.

I would suggest that you actually read some political theory.

The Federalist Papers and Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions are great books to start with. If you are interested, Lee Epstein and Thomas G. Walker's Constitutional Law For A Changing America; Institutional Powers And Constraints was the textbook from one of my law classes and you might find it helpful in understanding the basics of Con Law.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag will not express his personal opinion because that would mean having a concience and feelings and emotions which are weaknesses that will get in the way of his technical arguments.
He uses this as a wall to hide behind so he doesn't have to show much if any original thinking.

So is that the new tool you are trying to use to dismiss me; lack of original thought?

First, you are too ignorant about most anything discussed here to even realize when I am and am not applying original thought, so your perceptions on that are utterly worthless.

Second, "original thought" is an absurd criterion. It is completely arbitrary and utterly inappropriate to political discussions. "Creativity" in policy is not necessarily a good thing, especially in large doses. Wisdom and an accurate understanding of history and how societies function and interact is much more important.

You need to justify your standard of "original thought", otherwise it is simply a cheap rhetorical tool to dismiss me and nothing more. A further example of your intellectual immaturity and lack of integrity. If I offered something that you take to be original thought, you can simply say I didn't back up my claim, it is unsupported and what not. The fact is that your absurd standard is nothing more then a cheap excuse to ignore me. The kind of rationalization a child would make.

If you are only concerned with finding an excuse to dismiss those who disagree with you and what they have to say, you will always find what you are looking for.

Emotions are completely subjective and unreliable and only a fool (and children) uses them to make judgments (especially on political issues). Critical thought and objectivity are impossible when emotions dominate the thought process.

 

[shagdrum]

Heck in the case of the CRA it has withstood almost every constitutional test thrown at it... Look at all the cases brought to the SCOTUS - it doesn't lose.

The SCOTUS also ruled that slavery was not a violation of the Constitution when it clearly was.

Just because the SCOTUS rules something is or is not constitutional doesn't mean that it truly is or is not constitutional. Most any law class would point that out in the first week of classes.

And FWI, the only one ever applying any "self-serving" interpretation of the Constitution here is you and you know it. Don't projection your lack of honesty on to me.

I am simply trying to interpret it consistent with what the Framer's understood it as. I am applying ORIGINALISM. You simply distort it to mean whatever you want it to mean. This thread as well as many others bear that truth out.

 

[04SCTLS]

So is that the new tool you are trying to use to dismiss me; lack of original thought?

First, you are too ignorant about most anything discussed here to even realize when I am and am not applying original thought, so your perceptions on that are utterly worthless.

Second, "original thought" is an absurd criterion. It is completely arbitrary and utterly inappropriate to political discussions. "Creativity" in policy is not necessarily a good thing, especially in large doses. Wisdom and an accurate understanding of history and how societies function and interact is much more important.

You need to justify your standard of "original thought", otherwise it is simply a cheap rhetorical tool to dism
iss me and nothing more. A further example of your intellectual immaturity and lack of integrity.

Emotions are completely subjective and unreliable and only a fool (and children) uses them to make judgments (especially on political issues). Critical thought and objectivity are impossible when emotions dominate the thought process.

When I got an assignment in school the teacher would want me to write it in my own words and not just take someone else's text.
When pressed you yourself have admitted that political science is a subjective field and not like the hard sciences.
You could at least paraphrase what you're posting in some comments at the bottom as to what it means at least to you.
You've started highlighting in some of your walls of texts but you need to do more of that.

I'm not saying have emotions dominate your thinking or use them as the only criteria to make judgements.

But the right amount of emotion and some examples will make your positions easier to understand.

Your so black and white but the world has shades of grey.

The reason for taking in knowledge is to form your own opinions and conclusions but you rarely do that.
Like FIND said
Just because you post something fancy it is not the end word on that particular topic.

 

[shagdrum]

When I got an assignment in school the teacher would want me to write it in my own words and not just take someone else's text.

Are you implying that I only use other people's text? The vast majority of what I post is in my own words.

Lately though, I simply tire of going 'round and 'round with tenacious liars like foxpaws in what simply becomes a war of attrition. I shouldn't have to restate my point of view and it's justification in every post in a thread simply because certain people intentionally ignore and/or misrepresent it.

I am always glad to expand on something if someone is willing to approach it honestly. But when people are only concerned with making excuses for their point of view there is no reason to waste my time.

When pressed you yourself have admitted that political science is a subjective field and not like the hard sciences.

No. I have said that it is more subjective then the hard sciences. That does not mean that it is a completely subjective; simply that it is relatively more subjective compared to hard sciences.

You could at least paraphrase what you're posting in some comments at the bottom as to what it means at least to you.

And people can always ask about something if it is unclear to them. However, I am not going to take the time to do that unless someone shows an honest interest in understanding what I have to say and considering the ideas on their merits. If someone is simply going to make excuses and cast aspersions, no honest conversation can be had and it is a waste of my time.

But the right amount of emotion and some examples will make your positions easier to understand.

emotional appeals are inherently deceptive and fallacious.

The reason for taking in knowledge is to form your own opinions and conclusions but you rarely do that.

...and you know this...how?

 

[foxpaws]

The SCOTUS also ruled that slavery was not a violation of the Constitution when it clearly was.

So the founding fathers were OK with violating the constitution - got it...

Perhaps that is why they allowed for amendments - like the 14th - apparently the constitution wasn't enough, we needed an amendment. If the constitution was enough, there wouldn't have been the need for any of the amendments.

Just like CRA - CRA has withstood the test...

Just because the SCOTUS rules something is or is not constitutional doesn't mean that it truly is or is not constitutional. Most any law class would point that out in the first week of classes.

But, it is the 'law' of the land - for reference - I would refer to your babbling to FIND about 'law'... Until SCOTUS strikes it down, it is 'constitutional' for practical purposes as well as enforceable law.

And FWI, the only one ever applying any "self-serving" interpretation of the Constitution here is you and you know it. Don't projection your lack of honesty on to me.

Oh, come on shag, I can point to item after item - heck, you missed the whole 'you must be born to have rights' tidbit in one of our discussions... you manipulate to reinforce your view. FIND just got you on this discussion...

I am simply trying to interpret it consistent with what the Framer's understood it as. I am applying ORIGINALISM. You simply distort it to mean whatever you want it to mean. This thread as well as many others bear that truth out.

And will you answer me this...
Either you think private businesses should be allowed to discriminate or not, which one?
Shag - do you think that Title II should be struck down?

Oh-congrats on graduating!!!!:wave

 

[FIND]

So.... you have a BS in political science, therefore you are automatically right? Do you have any idea what my educational or professional background is? Sounds like the presumptuous statement of a child to me. Must be fresh out of college, certain you have all the answers in the world. I wonder how your professors would laugh if they read the drivel you have printed....

No, I will not bicker with you just because you choose to ignore my statements or tell me they have nothing to do with what I am saying. You are setting up numerous fallacies in your responses, then denying you have done so.

I stated exactly the definition of rule by law. Whatever you are trying to twist it into to suit your purposes, I don't know, nor do I care.

When you can respond intelligently and justify your position, I will continue this debate with you.

In the mean time, if you have an opinion on how the founding fathers intended the constitution to be interpreted, that is fine. But. You are wrong.... so, yeah.

I am not attempting to craft or change any laws. My burden of proof has been met by those who have enacted laws prior to me. However, I was still kind enough to give examples and justification. The fact that you, as a minority of people in this country, do not accept that, makes them in no way invalid, since we are in the real world, and in the real world, the majority rule. If you wish to say something is unconstitutional, then do so with specific proof. Your argument that there is nothing in the constitution to prove that what you are saying is unconstitutional is indeed unconstitutional, therefore it must be unconstitutional lacks merit. If you believe something must be changed, then you must prove it. Your gut feelings and libertarian or conservative interpretation of the constitution and law simply will not suffice. Either way, I almost hate to cut you off, because I would LOVE to hear the justification to your statement that I am misinterpreting the constitution, or the preamble to the constitution, but, I have better things to do than continue to bicker.

Good day.

:edit: This is the one statement you made which I will address, since it appears that you honestly did misunderstand what I had said:

Now you are reduced to setting up a straw man?

I was not, in any way, arguing that the government cannot intrude at all into the actions people take on their private property.

The purpose of that illustration was to demonstrate that there is and always will be government intrusion into private property. It is necessary to maintain the public order, and to protect the citizenry. Your appear to continually insist that the government has no right, and that it is unconstitutional for them to demand you behave in a specific fashion inside your "private" property. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You either allow government enforcement to enter a privately owned property, or you are declaring that private property a sovereign power.

Now, I will concede that I personally, do think that private business owners should have more control. I smoked for 11 years, then quit. The smell of cigarettes makes me sick, yet I still believe anti-smoking legislation goes to far in many cases, especially when it covers places where the business owner are trying to provide a service to a customer which may be enhanced by the customer being able to sit back and have a cigarette, instead of heading out to an alley, such as bars or motel rooms for instance. I see things like providing a place for a customer to smoke as a service that a business can provide. Restricting a businesses ability to provide services to its customers is wrong in my humble opinion. As Calabrio suggested, a limited amount of discrimination amongst clientele should also be permitted, however, only as long as a person is discriminating on the basis of legitimate criteria that could possibly become an impediment to the operation of business, such as renting to a bigot who may hang a swastica from his window, or sit in the parking lot screaming racial slurs, and scare off potential renters. The ability to discriminate against one person on the basis of race or other illegitimate criteria, is the right or privilege of no person. Being intolerant of illegitimate intolerance is OK in my book, because it is harmful to society, and individuals within that society. It serves no purpose but to separate, divide, and oppress.

 

[04SCTLS]

The reason for taking in knowledge is to form your own opinions and conclusions but you rarely do that

....and you know this...how?

you say that you will not express a personal opinion because it will be mischaracterized.
I didn't mean you don't form an opinion at all but that you rarely share it here in your posts.

 

[PetesSweets86]

more tea party love

 

[shagdrum]

So.... you have a BS in political science, therefore you are automatically right?

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

I never said nor implied that. I was simply pointing out that I an not as ignorant as you want to believe.

No, I will not bicker with you just because you choose to ignore my statements or tell me they have nothing to do with what I am saying.

Where have I ignored relevant statements?

You are setting up numerous fallacies in your responses, then denying you have done so.

Yet you cannot show that. You can make an accusation but cannot back it up.

I stated exactly the definition of rule by law.

And yet you do not understand it. You falsely asserted it had something to do with opportunity yet cannot show that at all.

In the mean time, if you have an opinion on how the founding fathers intended the constitution to be interpreted, that is fine. But. You are wrong.... so, yeah.

Why? Because you say so? Because you want me to be?

I can (and have NUMEROUS times on this thread) backed up my "interpretations" concerning the Constitution on this forum. To expect me to have to repeat all those simply because you are too lazy to use the search function is the height of presumption.

My burden of proof has been met by those who have enacted laws prior to me.

Again, you are misrepresenting the nature of the debate; setting up another straw man.

However, if that were true then why can't you show that?

However, I was still kind enough to give examples and justification.

Where? Specifically, where did you give relevant examples and logical justification?

The fact that you, as a minority of people in this country, do not accept that, makes them in no way invalid,

See the previous straw man explanation.

...since we are in the real world, and in the real world, the majority rule.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, "If many believe so, it is so."

The truth is not determined by the majority; it is not a popular vote.

If you wish to say something is unconstitutional, then do so with specific proof.

Again, that burden is on you. The fact that you can't even mount a specious argument to defend it suggests that you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and desperate to dodge the burden of proof. I could give you a hint, if you like.

Your argument that there is nothing in the constitution to prove that what you are saying is unconstitutional is indeed unconstitutional, therefore it must be unconstitutional lacks merit.

And all you have to do is show there is something in the enumerated powers of Congress that allows them to outlaw discrimination in certain instances by a private business.

If you believe something must be changed, then you must prove it.

once again, see the straw man explanation above.

Your gut feelings and libertarian or conservative interpretation of the constitution and law simply will not suffice.

Fortunately that is not what I have been using (though you would clearly be to ignorant to know that). I have been using an method of Constitutional interpretation aimed at discerning the intent of the people who crafted the Constitution and the understanding of the Constitution by those who ratified it; Orginalism.

Either way, I almost hate to cut you off, because I would LOVE to hear the justification to your statement that I am misinterpreting the constitution, or the preamble to the constitution, but, I have better things to do than continue to bicker.

And if you were approaching things honestly and civilly I would be happy to offer those explanation.

But you are acting like a petulant child who can't admit that he is ignorant and wrong. There is no reason to treat you as anything other then that.

Frankly, we have enough man-children frequenting this part of the forum already.

The purpose of that illustration was to demonstrate that there is and always will be government intrusion into private property.

Ignoratio elenchi (also known as irrelevant conclusion or irrelevant thesis) is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question

I was never arguing that there will not or should not be government intrusion when it comes to private property. If I was arguing those things, your point would make sense, but seeing as I am not, nor ever was arguing that, your point is completely irrelevant.

My concern is when it is appropriate for the Federal government to intrude and when it is not appropriate.

Maybe if you had approached this debate honestly and actually attempted to understand what I was saying instead of making excuses to justify your own views you would have noticed that.

Your appear to continually insist that the government has no right, and that it is unconstitutional for them to demand you behave in a specific fashion inside your "private" property.

Again, maybe if you could look past yourself, you could understand what I am saying. As it is you are either to blind to understand what I am saying or intentionally misrepresenting it.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You either allow government enforcement to enter a privately owned property, or you are declaring that private property a sovereign power.

Can you say "False dichotomy"?

Those quote seems to apply so often to people on this forum.

it is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance that it is directed by insolent passion
-Edmund Burke​

 

[shagdrum]

Ok. Petey needs to go.

 

[FIND]

As I thought. Utter childishness.

I almost don't want to reply just so that you can have the last word you are clinging to.... Ah well, whatever you want. Let me know when you actually know what you are talking about instead of just quoting wikipedia and hoping that it means what you think.