1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice

Discrimination Today

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Oment, May 27, 2018.

  1. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid Third Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Gender:
    Male
    So your solution is once a prohibited behavior reaches a low enough frequency, it's no a longer a societal problem and should be made legal and if it grows to be a problem again you just make it illegal again? That just seems dumb. Just keep the law.

    edit: Believing that society has evolved and the problem is now solved is hopelessly naive and simultaneously undercuts the mechanisms for resolving the issue should you be wrong and it begins occurring again the future. (Plus the instances currently happening which you view as "tolerable".
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  2. Sesc

    Sesc Slytherin at Heart Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2007
    Messages:
    5,524
    Location:
    Witch Mountain, Germany
    Exactly. What needs to be regulated gets regulated, and what doesn't, doesn't. That's not dumb, that's how society regulates itself in one grand feedback loop.

    Also, I prefer optimistic (re: edit) -- and thanks for the compliment.
     
  3. EsperJones

    EsperJones Headmaster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,073
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Man, that would suck for the victim in that scenario. "Oh, nobody wanted to do X in many years, so they're off the hook. Sorry!"
     
  4. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid Third Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Gender:
    Male
    Fair enough. I disagree completely and think that's a terrible approach but I get what you are saying.
     
  5. Hakairyu

    Hakairyu Second Year

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Istanbul
    Arthellion, whether you derive it from God or not doesn't matter, social contract theory isn't any more objectively a source of morality. As a more general point, I never did understand the idea that moral relativism is at odds with judging other people. You can assume that your morality is derived from numerous sources (society, genetics, philosophy, life experience...) and judge others for not conforming to your morals.

    More on topic, this "so you think we can legalise murder if it becomes ok?" thing has been going on for pages now. It doesn't really adress the original question Sesc/Arthellion/Agayek asked as I understood it. First, Arthellion said he thinks people should be able to discriminate on who they do business with, and people who oppose that should boycott such places (a la First Amendment, you can choose but you have to face the consequences). He was quickly shut down by the argument that in most cases, this results in segregation and denial of service/employment/etc everywhere, due to how widespread racism is. Hence the need for anti-discrimination legislature takes precedence over the right to free association. It was then brought up that it's the prevalence of racism that causes this effect, meaning the laws in question are only needed for so long as racism is at a certain prevalence. This in turn means the law can be revoked, and some people want that because they understand the need for such a law but only for so long as the -ism is widespread enough to cause systemic issues, and also enforceability issues. So it's not "if murders didn't happen, would we legalize murder?" and more "if cars could fly would we still fund roads?". One side thinks it's only a problem to be dealt with by law if it's systemic, the other thinks that discriminating who you serve food in your restaurant on a bigoted basis should itself be illegal even if it's literally the only restaurant in the country who does that.

    Hoping that helps?
     
  6. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid Third Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Gender:
    Male
    I personally place little value on someones right to be an asshole relative to someones right not to be excluded from establishments and services because they are <insert minority quality>. Even when it's only the one guy doing it.

    I find the very idea adding and removing laws in equilibrium to a desired level of "isms" to be entirely ludicrous.

    You don't get to fire someone for being Mexican just because less than 100 other people are doing the same thing and it shouldn't suddenly become prohibited only because at 200 people do it.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  7. Hakairyu

    Hakairyu Second Year

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Istanbul
    Great, glad we cleared that up. Now the thread can move from that previous question to actual points to debate on; to what extent is it up to the government to stop assholish behaviour and such. If I were to stretch your point to the absurd, should denying someone service at completely random be illegal? Just going up to a customer and telling them to fuck off? The distinction between legal and moral, whether and how we should make one, could be a good one too. I think I'll get back to lurking unless the moral relativism debate picks up though.
     
  8. Arthellion

    Arthellion Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    I'll give you the religious answer.
    Religious
    Says who: God.
    Why do they get to be the moral authority: He created everything. Including the intrinsic properties which make an action right or wrong.
    What about the times when it didn't: According to the definition of the Abraham relgiions, there never was a time where actions that are morally wrong were not.

    In order to understand this, you have to understand the definition of God. I'm assuming you're referring to the Euthyphro problem. The Euthyphro problem is very effective against the gods of ancient greece and more "human" gods who are constrained to time and place. The God of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity is not.

    Time, and all that occurs within it, exists inside of God. Therefore, at this very moment the creation of the earth is always happening and the end of the earth is always happening. The middle is also always happening.

    This removes the objection that divine command theory is abirtrary. God has always existed. Time has always existed. What is right and wrong at exact certain times has always existed. Therefore, objectivity.

    And the nonreligious
    Nonreligious
    For the nonreligious answer; the objectivist does not necessarily need to posit an actual objective standard, they just need to show the irrationality of ethical subjectivism. The irrationality of ethical subjectivism can be shown with the following deductive argument.

    Premise 1: If ethical subjectivism is true, then everyone is infallible about moral beliefs.
    Premise 2: Not everyone is infallible about moral beliefs.
    Conclusion: Moral Subjectivism is not true.

    Opponents of the argument may argue that premise 2 is incorrect. They may say that everyone is infallible about "his or her own moral beliefs," but this ignores reality. It is impossible for, in one culture, it to be ethically right to perform genital mutilation and in another culture it to be ethically wrong. Its either wrong or its not.

    I will also say that most Philosophers and ethicists fundamentally disagree with Ethical relatavism. Only around 30% of academic philosophers actually support ethical relatavism.
    Source
    And here is a better academic response to ethical subjectivism.

    Santa Clara University Piece
     
  9. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid Third Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Gender:
    Male
    To what extent can government stop assholes - I'd largely follow the Civil Rights Act. You can't freeze anyone out of community services (which includes bakeries, banks, thrift shop, hair salons etc.) based on a protected quality (age, race, religion). Even in cases where such freezing is largely unsuccessful because nobody else is a racist twat. You could attempt to freeze them out for non-protected qualities. (No shirt, no shoes, no service).

    I think legally you would be able to refuse service randomly or to every 6th customer as it's not a protected class.

    Telling them to fuck off would probably depend. This is the kind of thing judges decide when reviewing the case with both sides presenting evidence. This would likely depend on if it's effects lead to excluding them anyways. For example if you screamed at every black customer who entered your store, this could be interpreted as simply denying them service. Whereas denying them randomly would be okay.

    @Arthellion - Eww.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2018
  10. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    As for the religious explanation, God always existing doesn't mean much in a world where the accepted moral standard has continually changed. So either God hasn't been doing a good job of imposing his morality, or he doesn't exist. In either case, his existence or non-existence is irrelevant to the state of accepted moral norms, because apparently we've been roughing it the whole time anyway.

    As for the non-religious answer, how about this:

    1. All men are fallible.
    2. All men are sure of their morality.
    3. No man is identical.
    Ergo: Morality is entirely subjective and subject to being total bullshit.


    Face it, societally accepted moral norms are nothing more than a function of consensus.

    //I won't continue along this track and I suggest you don't, either. We've had this argument ad nauseam, our positions are clear.
     
  11. Arthellion

    Arthellion Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    Fair enough.

    On the positive side, at least one day (barring immortality), you'll know I was right :p

    Or vice versa. The good news is one day we will know the truth of the matter.
     
  12. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid Third Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Gender:
    Male
    The vice versa is that neither of you will know.
     
  13. Arthellion

    Arthellion Supreme Mugwump

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,754
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    High Score:
    0
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Hakairyu

    Hakairyu Second Year

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2015
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Istanbul
    The question was "should it", though. Not "can it". I mean this is Politics, not Legal. Sure, we all agree that someone denying service purely on racial grounds is being a cunt. But to what extent is someone being a jackass something the government shkuld handle, assuming it's inconsequential?

    Arthellion, I don't see the point in answering the religious supposition of objective morality, as for the latter the problem is that you're trying to analyse relativism through an objectivist lens. If morality is a set of beliefs each person has on how people should act, then infallibility is not a prerequisite, conviction is, and the idea that someone/some culture can think genital mutilation is wrong and another think it's right is not a contradiction, it's the point you were supposedly disproving in the first place. But to make it easier for you, genital mutilation is wrong to me and right to the bastard who is performing it. I support taking action against it, they don't. Also, arguments from authority are simply bad form.
     
  15. Kevizoid

    Kevizoid Third Year

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    86
    Gender:
    Male
    It "should" handle it to the current extent that it "does". You can refuse service to a black guy. You can't refuse service to a black guy for being black.
     
  16. Faun

    Faun Second Year

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2017
    Messages:
    59
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    India
    High Score:
    0
    I hold that laws are a formal recognition of 'wrongs' and provide remedy.

    With respect to morality, I had stated that it was determined by the people's representatives in the legislature and members of the judiciary in course of judicial review, because I wanted to avoid making a moral determination absolute. Many statutes have words like 'public interest', 'public morality' and 'public policy' which allow for judicial activism and fill the blind spots which might not have been foreseen by the legislature.

    Welfare and Civil Rights legislation- if the only consideration is social cohesion and functionality, and there is no moral basis, a case can be made for greater oppression and exclusion. One can simply do away with the nonconformists. If oppression has worked so far, then there is little incentive to not keep at it. Why would a privileged class want to give up it's privileges?

    The principle - maximising everyone's individual freedom - can itself be termed a moral judgement. A society can be functional even if it's unjust and restrictive. Therefore, it's not necessary to have individual freedom for a society to be functional.
    The idea of individual freedom is enshrined in almost all modern polities, and legislatures and should they fail the Courts of Justice are bound to uphold the same.
    --- Post automerged ---
    The answer to the question 'should it' depends on the way you view law, it's objects and purpose. The law can be a justifiable means of social engineering, but it's also an invasion of individual liberty. If you hold that a proposed law as a tool for social engineering has benefits that outweigh the negatives of infringement of individual liberty, the answer would be yes it should. If you feel the proposed law is an unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary infringement of individual liberty, then the answer is no.
    There cannot be a fixed position and every proposed law has to be judged on it's own merits and the underlying context.
     
  17. awinarock

    awinarock Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    Texas
    Tennessee store owner puts up 'No Gays Allowed' sign after Supreme Court ruling

    If this isn't proof that we need legal protections against discrimination, then I don't know what is. Mind you, the ruling doesn't even give business owners the right to discriminate or refuse people service on the basis of religious freedom and we've already got assholes coming out of the woodworks ready to use this as a means to discriminate. If that wasn't bad enough, we've even got a state rep who thinks businesses should have the right to turn away people of color.
     
  18. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,888
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    In an ideal world, I'd say racists are allowed to refuse service to who they wish and other people are allowed to refuse racists, but this is the real world, so...

    The sign is stupid. Better to go with "my religious beliefs don't allow me to serve sinners" and claim freedom of religious/whatever expression than frame it as plain discrimination like this.
     
  19. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England
    High Score:
    2810
    I cannot fathom how you think that's okay.
     
  20. awinarock

    awinarock Fourth Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    Texas
    Thank god we exist in the real world then.

    That's actually what he did when he was forced to remove it in 2015 due to public scrutiny.

     
Loading...