(Close Window)
Topic: Free Speech
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2017 01:54PM)
The topic came up as a side line in the conspiracy thread, but certainly it deserves its own thread. Nazis, de-platforming, gay cakes, lots to talk about.

I'll start here:

PHOENIX — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit today arguing that an Arizona law requiring state contractors to certify that they won’t boycott Israel violates the First Amendment. The ACLU filed the case on behalf of an attorney and his one-person law office, which contracts with the government to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals.

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech-lawsuit-challenges-arizona-law-aimed-anti-israel-boycotts

Would you support the ACLU in this instance or not?

But don't feel limited to just this example.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 7, 2017 01:58PM)
I not going through that entire case. My position is that free speech is not limited to things I agree with.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 7, 2017 03:27PM)
From your descriptions it sounds like like something is wrong somewhere. I didn't follow the link, but basically my principles would be:

A) The state/taxpayer primary goal in hiring companies to do X, y or z is quality of product balanced against value for money. That's it. They should have no other concerns, except that the company is operating lawfully with regard all necessary laws etc.

B) As such, the state cannot pick one company over another for any reason of ethical or political values, only value for money for the taxpayer. This means they cannot stipulate any company does or does not follow such and such a political viewpoint - they cannot mandate that the company boycott so and so, or only trade with so and so, or have any sort of particular ethos etc.

C) Each company owner can decide upon the operating ethos of that company, who they want to deal with and who they want as clients etc. The free market will take care of this - if they make unpopular choices their business will suffer and its up to them to decide whether or not they're willing to take a financial hit for ethical reasons.

I think that covers my view here.

So, the government can't say it will only deal with companies who don't boycott Israel. If a boycotting company offers great service at a great cost for the taxpayer then they should go with that company. If a non-boycotting company is better, then they go with them. Politics doesn't factor at all. The company can be flat-earther satanists, it's utterly irrelevant - do they provide the best service for the best price? Private customers can, of course, choose to emply companies or not for any reason they want - political or whatever.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 7, 2017 08:06PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2017, landmark wrote:
... state contractors to certify that they won’t ... [/quote]

invest their money where it won't yield bad publicity, public protests and shaming... at the risk of losing their ability to do business with others...
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2017 08:26PM)
Similar law passed in New York state, and a different spin on it in Kansas.

It seems unconstitutional on the face of it to me, but I guess we'll see what the courts rule.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 7, 2017 08:35PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
I not going through that entire case. My position is that free speech is not limited to things I agree with. [/quote]

Agreed, otherwise it isn't free speech.

Where it gets complicated for me is the access issue: realistically, the more money one pays, the more access your speech gets on major media. Is that okay? For a long time in this country up until fairly recently, we had a Fairness Doctrine for major broadcast media. From Wikipedia:

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States."

I think it should be reinstated. What do you think?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 12:23AM)
In the UK we have mixed media - the BBC is state funded via license fee. I'm ok with that in principle, but only if very strict guidelines are adhered to - which they are not. I'm also pretty ok with it ceasing to exist though I think I'd prefer a mixed media system.

The government should not interefere with the BBC in any way, except to ensure its lawfulness and effective use of taxpayer money. The BBC should be politically neutral (lol) with only factual reporting of news, no opinion or commentary. Where it does want to run opinion and commentary shows, all biases of all involved must be stated and multiple sides should always be equally represented - not just for politics, but any controversial issue. The BBC must specialise in education and the kind of programmes commercial broadcasters wouldn't touch - so lots of documentaires, academic discussion programmes, lectures, the arts, minority programming, religious programming, etc. Basically,y a return to its original ethos rather than the gloop it's now become.

Commercial stations shouldn't be interfered with. If they want to push propaganda all day, and they somehow get enough revenues to pay for that, then bully for them. If you're rich and want tot flood the airwaves with your propaganda, and the stations want to take your money, then go right ahead. So long as everything is lawful and transparent, then that's fine. Of course, there should be no monopoly situation, plenty of genuine competition, and a genuinely free market. I wouldn't want the state fussing around private businesses.

In short, then, if I was US and you asked if I wanted that law re-instated, I'd say no. I'd be open to the establishing of an American BBC,though (if it adhered to its founding principles).
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 12:29AM)
Which way do you think the gay cake case is going to go, and which way should it go?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 8, 2017 01:19AM)
The bakery should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they don't want to do business with, and any restrictions or consequences that follow should come from the working of the free market.

It won't go that way.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 05:19AM)
Agreed.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 05:22AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
The bakery should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they don't want to do business with, and any restrictions or consequences that follow should come from the working of the free market.
[/quote]

Do you think that restaurants should be allowed to refuse service to people whose color they don't like? Should bus companies be allowed to have a section in the back for undesirables? Should movie theaters be allowed to have separate entrances based on immigration status? Should UPS be allowed to pay its women drivers less than its male drivers? Because that is what such a blanket "free market" principle implies.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 8, 2017 06:06AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
The bakery should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they don't want to do business with, and any restrictions or consequences that follow should come from the working of the free market.
[/quote]

[quote]Do you think that restaurants should be allowed to refuse service to people whose color they don't like?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Should bus companies be allowed to have a section in the back for undesirables?[/quote]

If they're private companies, yes.

[quote]Should movie theaters be allowed to have separate entrances based on immigration status? Should UPS be allowed to pay its women drivers less than its male drivers?[/quote]

Yes and yes.

[quote] Because that is what such a blanket "free market" principle implies. [/quote]

Yes, I know. A truly free market would destroy those businesses.
Hell, even the handi-capable, corrupted, version of a "free" market that we DO have would sort it out in short order.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 06:22AM)
Agree with NYCTwister. I sense I'm not the only classic liberal/ libertarian/ free speech fundamentalist here ...
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 06:46AM)
Landmark:

Do you think Jews should be forced to make Nazi cakes? Or Muslim sign-writers forced to make anti-Mohammed signs?
Should hotels be forced to hire out their services for religious/political/personal events they disagree with?

And what's your answer to the gay cake case - you didn't give your own view?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2017 07:24AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
The bakery should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they don't want to do business with, and any restrictions or consequences that follow should come from the working of the free market.
[/quote]

[quote]Do you think that restaurants should be allowed to refuse service to people whose color they don't like?[/quote]

Yes.

[quote]Should bus companies be allowed to have a section in the back for undesirables?[/quote]

If they're private companies, yes.

[quote]Should movie theaters be allowed to have separate entrances based on immigration status? Should UPS be allowed to pay its women drivers less than its male drivers?[/quote]

Yes and yes.

[quote] Because that is what such a blanket "free market" principle implies. [/quote]

Yes, I know. A truly free market would destroy those businesses.
Hell, even the handi-capable, corrupted, version of a "free" market that we DO have would sort it out in short order. [/quote]

What he said.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2017 07:29AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 7, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
I not going through that entire case. My position is that free speech is not limited to things I agree with. [/quote]

Agreed, otherwise it isn't free speech.

Where it gets complicated for me is the access issue: realistically, the more money one pays, the more access your speech gets on major media. Is that okay? For a long time in this country up until fairly recently, we had a Fairness Doctrine for major broadcast media. From Wikipedia:

"The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States."

I think it should be reinstated. What do you think? [/quote]
Since it was basically government interference that ruined the Bozo Circus show I am against interference of any sort. (That is true by the way look it up.)

Fairness is not possible. It is people getting angry because they LOST the monopoly they had on opinion and wanting to get back to how it was at one point. For a LONG TIME it was ONE point of view. ONE. That was OK before 1987 wasn't it? Was it "fair" back before then? Hardly. Should a news organization like MSNBC or CNN be REQUIRED to air a certain amount of POSITIVE coverage of President Trump, or FOX a certain amount of positive coverage of President Obama?

I mean if the government is going to regulate things like that how large a step is it to where they just write the news themselves? Why give them ANY control over any of it? Don't you see the flaw in that idea? Give up control of it and then what will happen? I know you want to regulate your opinion having equal coverage, but what if people don't want to hear it? The market will sort it out.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 08:48AM)
Have to say that I'm surprised by the unanimity by the three of you for all three cases. I expected more nuance.



[quote]Yes, I know. A truly free market would destroy those businesses. [/quote]

It didn't at all. Not at all. And again, as I said in another thread, that's within my lifetime. We don't have to speculate--we know what happened in history. It took government legislation.

I don't know what happened with Bozo, I'll look it up when I get a chance, but nobody better touch a strand of his red hair. I'd be in favor of a Bozo Exception to any rule.

The gay cake I'm still thinking about.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2017 09:15AM)
Government regulations required an educational element that was pushed into a show that had been 100% entertainment in the past. It didn't help ratings at all.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 09:35AM)
Landmark:
Did you mean 'more variation' rather than 'more nuance'? One is a fair expectation, the other sounds like a value judgement, lol :)

I should also add, that my view only applies to certain societies - such as contemporary America or UK etc. I don't think it would have been appropriate back in the 60s, nor would it work in, say, Saudi Arabia. Societies have to reach a certain point before they can be free.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 10:20AM)
Also, what still puzzles you about the gay cake row? Isn't it exactly the same in principle as your own examples? How would you answer my other questions?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 12:05PM)
That wasn't meant to be a value judgement, though I disagree; I was genuinely surprised that each scenario was so wholeheartedly approved.

The reason the Gay cake thing is different is because it's pretty clear they would not make the cake for anyone; hence it's a service they don't provide in their business, and not discrimination against any one group. The restaurant example however is the denial of service that is provided to others, and therefore to me actual discrimination. So I would agree that the baker has a right of refusal, but not the restauranteur.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 12:11PM)
By the way, I have a funny and relevant bakery story to tell, but I will have to wait until tonight when I am at my computer.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 8, 2017 12:20PM)
"I was genuinely surprised that each scenario was so wholeheartedly approved."
Makes we wish I was American. I still think the US is the freest nation on earth, and while it remains I have some hope.

So if a baker can refuse to make a gay wedding cake, can a hotel refuse to host a gay wedding reception?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 8, 2017 05:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
That wasn't meant to be a value judgement, though I disagree; I was genuinely surprised that each scenario was so wholeheartedly approved.[/quote]

I can't speak for the others, but for me it's very simple.

In public areas and government establishments and dealings, it's right to establish laws to prevent and punish discrimination, harassment, etc. since this is supposed to be a secular society; which comes with both freedoms "of", and freedoms "from".

In all private areas where the cost and risk are assumed by an individual, or a group, then there should be no government involvement.

As far as the free market not destroying the businesses in question, I would add...yet.
There may even be short term gains as like minded bigots flock to support them; but in the long run they'll lose the battle of attrition - even in isolated areas.

Your point about the last hundred years is met by my asserting, [b]AGAIN[/b], that crony capitalism and true capitalism are not the same thing. And a market as heavily regulated as ours can hardly be called free; especially since the regulations can be bought.
I'm not saying no regulations, I'm saying the bear minimum.

[quote]The reason the Gay cake thing is different is because it's pretty clear they would not make the cake for anyone; hence it's a service they don't provide in their business, and not discrimination against any one group. The restaurant example however is the denial of service that is provided to others, and therefore to me actual discrimination. So I would agree that the baker has a right of refusal, but not the restaurateur.[/quote]

If they didn't make wedding cakes, then it's a non-issue - or a prefabricated one. If they did, then it's discrimination, but that's beside the point.
Since they bear cost and risk, then they have every right to decide what business they want to conduct, and the individuals which comprise the "market" will decide whether or not to do business with them.

I believe that a society of "good" people will choose not to do business with bigots. Maybe not immediately but eventually, and inexorably.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2017 05:18PM)
I can only say... yep.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 8, 2017 06:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
... I believe that a society of "good" people will choose not to do business with bigots. Maybe not immediately but eventually, and inexorably. [/quote]

That puts a precondition on an entire society of entirely/always "good" people and "eventually". But if you imagine the outcomes of a large number of transactions with "almost good" people you might get pretty much what we have today.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 8, 2017 07:18PM)
Agreed, but "almost good (enough)" has never been good enough for us.

Whatever the level of ability at the time, we keep trying.

Microscope? Telescope? :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 07:19PM)
[quote]Your point about the last hundred years is met by my asserting, AGAIN, that crony capitalism and true capitalism are not the same thing. [/quote]

1) I find this incomprehensible. The Jim Crow period after the Civil War was the time in American history when both segregation and laissez-faire capitalism were at their peak. To think that laissez-faire capitalism would be the mechanism to end Jim Crow just flies in the face of history.

2) Many of the responses here ignore the fact that "private" businesses that do business with the public get public subsidies and use public resources and utilities; they get protections and tax rates that the ordinary public does not get. Commercial trucks can park on a busy Manhattan street where others may not park. We are not talking about private social clubs here, but businesses which operate to do commerce with the public.

3) How long is "eventually"? Framing this as an issue of freedom seems fishy to me. Where is the freedom for a person to be treated like anyone else? Is it really all right for a group of people to be denied services because of their race? Then what was the whole brouhaha about affirmative action here all about? Yale, a private college should be able to do whatever the heck they want according to that logic.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 07:26PM)
The bakery story. When may wife and I got married we went to a local bakery to order the wedding cake. We knew they had good cakes, and a good price, so we picked out a cake. The owner was pleased and wished us congratulations. My last name is quite obviously Jewish, and the owner who was a Hasidic Jew (which I'm not) said, "By the way, you're not going to have any mixed dancing at the wedding will you?" I was kind of taken aback. "Because if you do, I can't sell the cake to you." My wife and I looked at each other, and I lied, "Of course not."

Does the owner have the right to scrutinize my religious practice as a condition of sale? Believe me, that didn't feel like freedom to me.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2017 07:58PM)
Yes.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 8, 2017 08:00PM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]Your point about the last hundred years is met by my asserting, AGAIN, that crony capitalism and true capitalism are not the same thing. [/quote]

1) I find this incomprehensible. The Jim Crow period after the Civil War was the time in American history when both segregation and laissez-faire capitalism were at their peak. To think that laissez-faire capitalism would be the mechanism to end Jim Crow just flies in the face of history.[/quote]

Except that laissez-faire capitalism didn't exist then.

We may have conflicting definitions here. Define "free market", so I know we're talking about the same thing.

[quote]2) Many of the responses here ignore the fact that "private" businesses that do business with the public get public subsidies and use public resources and utilities; they get protections and tax rates that the ordinary public does not get. Commercial trucks can park on a busy Manhattan street where others may not park. We are not talking about private social clubs here, but businesses which operate to do commerce with the public.[/quote]

Sure. Once the free market gets corrupted you get things like that.

[quote]3) How long is "eventually"? Framing this as an issue of freedom seems fishy to me. Where is the freedom for a person to be treated like anyone else?[/quote]

There is no inherent right to insist that anyone else treat you the way you want to be treated.

[quote]Is it really all right for a group of people to be denied services because of their race?[/quote]

Morally? No, but in order for the correctness of that moral position to become evident, the denial of service needs to be played out.
Then society judges itself.

[quote]Then what was the whole brouhaha about affirmative action here all about?[/quote]

A stupid over-reaction which naturally made the problem worse?

[quote]Yale, a private college should be able to do whatever the heck they want according to that logic. [/quote]

Yes, as long as they follow objective laws.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 09:28PM)
Well, if your ideal capitalism never existed and doesn't exist now, then how can you possibly want to act as if it does? If it's only pure virgin capitalism that will save the country from racism, how can you possibly allow racism to grow when that brand of capitalism is nowhere to be found? That "eventually" is then a "never" if we are talking about some kind of ideal that is supposed to set things right.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 8, 2017 09:35PM)
[quote]
Yes, as long as they follow objective laws.[/quote]
I don't think you were a part of the affirmative action thread, but it was clear that some of the same people posting here now, thought that it was awful that colleges were allowed to count race as one factor in admissions. There's no way I see that the two positions can be reconciled.

As for defining "free market," I don't. That's why I always use the quotes. I don't believe such a thing exists. It's a unicorn created to justify a system which results in the members of the society acting in a sociopathic manner.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 8, 2017 10:03PM)
Hogwash. While a true free market may not exist to say it is to justify sociopathic behavior is ridiculous rehoric.

There are plenty of better examples of sociopaths who are socialists.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2017 02:52AM)
I don't believe positions on affirmative action and allowable free market discrimination are unreconcilable. Here's one harmonisation option:

A) Laws, government bodies, state run and publicly funded institutions cannot enact any discriminatory policies - as I've mentioned before, the sole focus of such bodies is quality for value for money. This necessitates wholesale meritocracy, so that you always get the best person for the position of the best student for the course or whatever. There is a mixed economy of state and private institutions, with it being legitimate for the state to wholly run certain monopolies or bodies (such as military, police etc) if necessary and democratically mandated.

B) Entirely private companies, whether it's a private school or hardware store or hotel or whatever, can have whatever discriminatory polices they wish so long as they are transparent and upfront - and suffer socially and financially accordingly. Should they have such policies? No, they are racist, and this should be pointed out to them loudly. But they can be racist if they wish. If they represent quality plus value for money, of course, then they can be used or obtain contracts from the state, but they couldn't be owned, run or funded by the state. There can be no legitimate private monopolies and there must be a genuine free market.

C) No body, state or private, can fire/discipline employees for any wrong-think, wrong-speech or wrong-affiliation. All individuals have robust free speech/ expression/affiliation/ thought protections. Other health and safety type laws, and employer ethics laws, could still apply if useful in promoting flourishing/ reducing harm and democratically mandated.

D) The state should not have anti-discrimination or hate speech laws and the such like. Circumscribed speech etc should be very narrowly defined in terms of clear and obvious public harm - like libel, credible threats of violence, etc. The state should have no part in defining, running or legislating contentious personal issues - like marriage, abortion or people's sex lives.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 9, 2017 04:54AM)
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
Well, if your ideal capitalism never existed and doesn't exist now, then how can you possibly want to act as if it does? If it's only pure virgin capitalism that will save the country from racism, how can you possibly allow racism to grow when that brand of capitalism is nowhere to be found? That "eventually" is then a "never" if we are talking about some kind of ideal that is supposed to set things right. [/quote]

You're mixing two things. I don't think about capitalism "saving" the country from racism, or anything else; and you should know that I'm not defending racists.

To me, in these contexts, "free" is an absolute. When you start from there, any regulation you impose must be based only on objective factors. All these knee-jerk reactions we're seeing these days are the result of trying to legislate by feelings.

Forcing a racist restaurant owner to be silent, and serve those they'd rather not serve, does nothing to stop racism. In fact it only makes it worse by forcing it underground, so to speak.
Look at the white supremacists. For decades we barely heard a word from them, but they obviously didn't disappear. Instead they closed ranks and went to ground. Now that the landscape is fertile they've emerged stronger, and better organized. And they have the internet now, which is a pretty good, cost effective way to spread information.

All the laws enacted didn't change a single mind; except maybe to harden the hate filled ones.

Free systems are obviously subject to abuse, but so are regulated systems.

The first, left alone, will self correct, so that eventually the desires of the majority of the users of those systems is the deciding factor in choosing what to do. There will be a lot of pain during the self correction, but it's better than the codified pain we've got with the current dog's breakfast. If society is, as I believe, comprised of "good" people, then we'll [i]eventually[/i] reach what is objectively right.

Regulated systems, which often react to the outrage of the moment, can never self correct.

I want the racist restaurant owners to speak their minds so I can spend my money elsewhere. In your other examples I'd want to know so I could take a different bus, visit a different theater, or ship by FedEx.

Now that we have these anti-discrimination laws I'm spending money and supporting businesses owned by people with a mindset that I abhor...and so are you brother.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2017 08:29AM)
The solution is not less freedom, it is more. The solution to hate speech is to allow it and let it be seen for what it actually is.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2017 09:15AM)
All speech should be allowed. One person's hate speech is another person's objective facts and truth told in love. Individuals can make their own mind's up.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2017 10:06AM)
There are exceptions. Fire in the theater sort of thing.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 11:43AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
The solution is not less freedom, it is more. The solution to hate speech is to allow it and let it be seen for what it actually is. [/quote]

I agree with you on this. And in order for that to happen, people must have equal access to speaking. Money should not be the deciding factor. If some people have access to a nationwide network of television and radio stations as well as a newspaper empire, then it's silly to say that their views are just one more voice in the "free market" of ideas. Some people have way more access to that market than others.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2017 12:06PM)
Do you think equal access to speaking should mean equal access to all media, from pamphlets to TV ads to tee-shirts designs to sports sponsorship to cinema product placement to time in government debates to books printed to .... Etc.?

You seem to think of equality primarily in terms of 'equity of outcome' rather than 'equal opportunity'. That can only be effected through very radical communistic means, and even then doesn't remove all inequalities.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2017 12:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
The solution is not less freedom, it is more. The solution to hate speech is to allow it and let it be seen for what it actually is. [/quote]

I agree with you on this. And in order for that to happen, people must have equal access to speaking. Money should not be the deciding factor. If some people have access to a nationwide network of television and radio stations as well as a newspaper empire, then it's silly to say that their views are just one more voice in the "free market" of ideas. Some people have way more access to that market than others. [/quote]

Sorry but too bad. You can not guarantee outcomes. As much as you pine away for it that is simply not what America is about and never has been.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 12:25PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I don't believe positions on affirmative action and allowable free market discrimination are unreconcilable. Here's one harmonisation option:

A) Laws, government bodies, state run and publicly funded institutions cannot enact any discriminatory policies ...

B) Entirely private companies, whether it's a private school or hardware store or hotel or whatever, can have whatever discriminatory polices they wish so long as they are transparent and upfront - ... but they couldn't be owned, run or funded by the state. There can be no legitimate private monopolies and there must be a genuine free market.

C) No body, state or private, can fire/discipline employees for any wrong-think, wrong-speech or wrong-affiliation...

D) The state should not have anti-discrimination or hate speech laws and the such like... [/quote]

Thanks for such a clear outlining of your views. I think we have a lot of overlap, but some definite disagreements:

I think we would have no problem agreeing with each other on the principles of C and D, though I think there are many actual cases I could point out for C which most conservatives and some libertarians ignore (for example, the example in the OP). But on the whole, we agree on C and D.

On A, we agree in principle as well--but I think we would have definite disagreements on what the principle covers. For example, since I am against discriminating on race, I would ban using the SATs as a public college entry requirement, as there is a significant body of research which shows that the exam is discriminatory in both make-up and outcome. The last time I looked at this, the thing the SATs were best in predicting was the economic status of one's grandparents. So I think if you really want to ban discrimination and be meritocratic, admission requirements have to actually be valid (not just reliable) and address, predict, how well the student is going to do in college. You have to really look at what potentially will that student's contribution be to the college and the wider society. What is the measurement for meritocracy supposed to measure?

On B, we clearly don't agree, even on principle. I don't think there is such a thing as a free market, nor do I think it is possible under capitalism to stop monopolies or effectively equivalent structures from forming. And the less regulation, the quicker it happens as can be seen by the whole of capitalism's history since the 1500s. The cute tiger cub grows into the tiger whether we like it or not. I think one would have to be willfully blind to history to deny this.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 12:32PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:

You seem to think of equality primarily in terms of 'equity of outcome' rather than 'equal opportunity'. That can only be effected through very radical communistic means, and even then doesn't remove all inequalities. [/quote]

Unless you agree that "one dollar, one vote" is the standard of democracy, and not "one person, one vote," then free speech is meaningless if it depends on the number of dollars you have. If you think that's radically communistic, well... I agree that democracy is incompatible with capitalism.

It reminds me of the story of the mother who bought her son a football uniform but warned him not to get it dirty...
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 12:35PM)
[quote]that is simply not what America is about and never has been.[/quote]
I will refrain from asking you what you think America is about, and what it has been. I don't think the answer is particularly pretty.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Dec 9, 2017 12:40PM)
I'm going to stick my nose in here for one post and then stick it out again.

IMHO, this whole argument is a crock of the smelly stuff, and, also IMHO, it's all fueled by people who have no common sense and want everything to be an absolute because it's easier than thinking. Years ago I had a conversation with a box-office person at a local theatre; every time a customer asked something unusual (which happens in any business), she wanted to write up a policy for it. I heard this several times and finally told her that if there were a written policy for every eventuality, the policy manual would be about the size of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Not to mention that nobody would have any time to sell tickets because they would have to spend all their time keeping up with the darn thing.

The bakery case? As far as I'm concerned, the owner was a jerk for turning down the business. Also, as far as I'm concerned, he could turn down the business if he wanted to. Maybe it wasn't what he said but how he said it (or maybe he could have used a little common sense), but that's another conversation. The guys who sued? They were jerks too. Grow up, go to another bakery, and then tell people about the guy who wouldn't make you a cake. It's that simple. Worked for many years and still works all the time. But instead here we are spending ink (okay, pixels) and taxpayer money on taking this to court.

Free speech? How many other countries would let late-night comedians hammer away mercilessly and continually at the head of state? That's free speech.

I'm going to take you to court because I don't like what you said? Grow up. That's like saying I think my speech is freer than yours.

And on that note, I'm outta here.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 9, 2017 01:01PM)
Well said George.

I can't see how it can get much better than it is now.

I can say anything I want, and my common sense tells me
I sometimes need to say it out of sight of a few.:)
Besides we all know trying to please everybody is impossible.

Tom
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2017 01:20PM)
George:
It seems a bit weird to want to say your piece, especially if it contains implicit insults, and then duck back out of sight without allowing others to either defend themselves, or have their own position critiqued. But largely I agree with you. Oh well :)

Tom:
You can't see how it can get better? And I thought I was a pessimist, lol :). The very fact that you can't please everyone pretty much supports my political positions on Liberty, free speech and democracy. Cool, huh? :)

Landmark:
Glad we agree on so much! :)

I agree with your SAT point, the best possible/practical metrics shoukd ideally be used for meritocracy to become more effective. That's not a point of principled disagreement, only a point of praxis. I'm happy to go where the evidence leads on which metrics are best reflective of who is best for the position.

So the only two actual points of disagreement between us seem to be:
A) I think private companies can totally choose their own customers and operating ethos, you prefer there to be some restrictions which I find oppressive of personal liberties and freedom.

B) I think that democracy is largely compatible with capitalism, whereas you don't and want some sort of radical redistributive communistic economic system.

Ok, cool. I guess we'll each push for our ideas in the market place of ideas and let the chips fall where they may :).

Are you really sure you agree with no one being fired for wrong speech?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 9, 2017 01:34PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]that is simply not what America is about and never has been.[/quote]
I will refrain from asking you what you think America is about, and what it has been. I don't think the answer is particularly pretty. [/quote]

It is and has been orders of magnitude better than your idolized socialist utopias.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Dec 9, 2017 02:46PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
George:
It seems a bit weird to want to say your piece, especially if it contains implicit insults, and then duck back out of sight without allowing others to either defend themselves, or have their own position critiqued. But largely I agree with you. Oh well :)
[/quote]
Okay, I'll come back in for one more post. :)

One, I was very clear that what I said was my personal opinion. That's free speech.

Two, If someone wants to take what I said as an insult, that's their prerogative. If they want to respond, that's their prerogative. That's free speech too.

Three, I didn't "duck back out of sight without allowing others to either defend themselves, or have their own position critiqued." I have no control over whether someone else responds to what I said. You did. :) That's free speech too. However, I do not feel required to be drawn into a debate with people who don't agree with my personal opinion. They are free to express theirs.

And that's free speech too.

Now I'm outta here. :)
Message: Posted by: Dick Oslund (Dec 9, 2017 03:05PM)
Very well said, George! (Besides you said everything that I would have said!) I am not planning to stick around here either.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 03:16PM)
[quote]
Are you really sure you agree with no one being fired for wrong speech? [/quote]

I would be hard-pressed to think of an example. I suppose if you work for Coca Cola and you say Coke sucks, drink Pepsi, it's a firing offense. But I think we're talking about the expression of political beliefs, in which case, I can't think of an example.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2017 03:16PM)
George:
Glad I could goad you back for one more reply.
Lol, yes, free speech is a right afforded even to cowards and those who like to hold opinions without discussion. :)
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2017 03:38PM)
Landmark:

Just to be clear, you're permissive of Nazi teachers, yes?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Dec 9, 2017 05:49PM)
The internet has destroyed freedom of speech.
You will say what social media wants you to say or you will lose your job, your friends, your family.
Resistance is futile.
Period.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 9, 2017 06:15PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, landmark wrote:
... [1 -jt]Y ou have to really look at what potentially will that student's contribution be to the college and the wider society. What is the measurement for meritocracy supposed to measure?
[2 -jt] I don't think there is such a thing as a free market, nor do I think it is possible under capitalism to stop monopolies or effectively equivalent structures from forming....[/quote]

"contribution" - as predicted in what context or dialog (snark: consider this hypothetical comment from a college entrance review "we don't have anyone here from that village in China so close to Tibet - they ought to be fun")

Has there been any real analysis of this wealth accretion and steady state distributions as an iterated "game" over time? That's effectively "barrier to entry/ownership" for us everyday folks who might think about Tucker or Tesla or basic patent protections when it comes to the real economy.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 9, 2017 07:01PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, magicfish wrote:
The internet has destroyed freedom of speech.
You will say what social media wants you to say or you will lose your job, your friends, your family.
Resistance is futile.
Period. [/quote]


Yes the internet has changed things. I am amazed to see some professional magicians on facebook get so caught up in the political debates. It’s like they don’t have a clue that customers and potential clients may be listening in and have a completely different opinion of what is being forced on others. Having a ‘right’ to say something doesn’t mean it is always right to say it. Politics, Religion, and Business don’t always mix so well. The internet is the perfect place to try and force your own opinion on others, and I often wonder if it is the same with some in real life.

Tom
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 9, 2017 09:20PM)
Magic fish and Tom - I think there is truth in what you both say.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 9, 2017 10:58PM)
Https://nypost.com/2017/12/09/students-wearing-maga-hats-booted-from-safe-space-coffee-shop/

I am soooooo tired of everyone's hurt feelings.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 11:00PM)
[quote]The internet is the perfect place to try and force your own opinion on others,[/quote]

Force opinions, really? Maybe I'm just lucky, but no one has ever reached through my computer screen and grabbed me by the throat yet. Neither has anyone forced me to read any thread either, ever. Surely I can't be the only one.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 11:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, landmark wrote:
... [1 -jt]Y ou have to really look at what potentially will that student's contribution be to the college and the wider society. What is the measurement for meritocracy supposed to measure?
[2 -jt] I don't think there is such a thing as a free market, nor do I think it is possible under capitalism to stop monopolies or effectively equivalent structures from forming....[/quote]

"contribution" - as predicted in what context or dialog [/quote]

Ah, I was hoping someone would pick up on that. Yes, exactly. "Meritocracy" presumes that the "contribution" question has already been settled. It hasn't. College candidate A has a 95 high school average; Candidate B has an 85 average, but she is a hobbyist who has built a working wind generator which provides the electricity for her neighborhood. Candidate C has an 80 average, but works 80 hours a week as a waiter. His employers all say he is very responsible. Candidate D has a 75 average but has self-published three science fiction novels which have sold in the thousands.

Who has more merit? Who would make the best college candidate?


[quote]Has there been any real analysis of this wealth accretion and steady state distributions as an iterated "game" over time? That's effectively "barrier to entry/ownership" for us everyday folks who might think about Tucker or Tesla or basic patent protections when it comes to the real economy. [/quote]

Well, I don't know how much specificity you're looking for, but the general concept has been around for a very long time. I remember when I was a kid one of the books that influenced me greatly was Ferdinand Lundberg's The Rich and The Super-Rich which talked about the dynasties of wealth in the US and globally.

Those who talk about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome, gloss over the financial "barrier to entry/ownership" for so much in this society. Those barriers are barriers of opportunity, not just outcome, and they are very, very real.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 9, 2017 11:26PM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Landmark:

Just to be clear, you're permissive of Nazi teachers, yes? [/quote]

I suspect that the Nazi's beliefs will soon become apparent in his or her actions in the classroom, when he treats white Jimmy different from Black Khadija. Otherwise, not much of a Nazi.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2017 12:06AM)
What of those of us who started with nothing and worked up?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 01:23AM)
Congratulations. You beat the odds. That's a real accomplishment. You beat a crooked game. Now let's make it less crooked.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 10, 2017 02:48AM)
Landmark:
Cool, then we're in agreement - the Nazi teacher should not be fired for her beliefs or affiliations or speech etc.

Regarding meritocracy, sure, I concede that it's a highly complex issue and deciding upon the best candidate for a position through resumes and interviews is an art, not a science.

But surely we agree (regarding the main point of our disagreement) that meritocratic systems cannot use wholly irrelevant criteria, such as race and sexuality etc, as a criterion for assessing suitability?

Let's make it practical: if I have two students applying for an English degree programme at a university run wholly on meritocratic principles, why on earth should I use the colour of their skin to help me choose who would be most likely to get the best degree classification at the end of the course? To do so would be to ignore meritocracy and enact racism.

I also note you've left these questions unanswered (you seem to avoid answering certain questions):
Do you think Jews should be forced to make Nazi cakes? Or Muslim sign-writers forced to make anti-Mohammed signs?
Should hotels be forced to hire out their services for religious/political/personal events they disagree with?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2017 08:35AM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
Congratulations. You beat the odds. That's a real accomplishment. You beat a crooked game. Now let's make it less crooked. [/quote]

Just because outcome is not equal does not automatically mean corruption.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 10, 2017 10:08AM)
"Those who talk about equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome, gloss over the financial "barrier to entry/ownership" for so much in this society. Those barriers are barriers of opportunity, not just outcome, and they are very, very real"

I don't gloss over them. I totally agree that we should work towards ensuring as much as possible a truly meritocratic, equal opportunity, level playing field for all. However, this can never, ever be achieved via either equity of outcome thinking (which retards meritocracy, removes freedom, and enshrines victim mentalities), or radical redistributive economics (which are unfair, unworkable and counter productive).

Examples of non-counter productive ways to remove barriers to opportunity would include things like state subsidised selective education institutions (like grammar schools, technical colleges, scholarships and truly meritocratic universities) which entirely selected on individual merit (thus giving poor talented kids a chance), or ensuring a decent economy that generated lots of employment and business opportunities for all (again, maybe with loans and grants based on merit), or by tackling crime or fatherlessness or drug use. Lots of ways to improve everyone's lot without rascism or sexism or other kinds of counter-productive discrimination.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2017 10:44AM)
Your do not raise up one by bringing another down. Every proposal I see from landmark is about taking from one to give to another. It has never worked.

I guess equal misery is equality.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 10, 2017 10:53AM)
Agreed.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 12:18PM)
On the contrary; Danny explained how he came from little and accomplished much. I think we should bring up others with little so they too can accomplish much.

TW wrote:

[quote]But surely we agree (regarding the main point of our disagreement) that meritocratic systems cannot use wholly irrelevant criteria, such as race and sexuality etc, as a criterion for assessing suitability?[/quote]

Race and sex are not necessarily irrelevant criteria in a society that gives relevance to such. For example, if a candidate were the first woman in the history of her high school to become president of their school, that is not irrelevant. It could well point to character qualities of guts, determination, and persistence that might not be true of a male in the same situation.



[quote]I also note you've left these questions unanswered (you seem to avoid answering certain questions):
Do you think Jews should be forced to make Nazi cakes? Or Muslim sign-writers forced to make anti-Mohammed signs?
Should hotels be forced to hire out their services for religious/political/personal events they disagree with? [/quote]

These are equivalent to the gay cake scenario. If the business makes Nazi cakes for anyone, then yes they must make Nazi cakes for Nazis. But if they don't make Nazi cakes for everyone, then the business may refuse. Could you tag a bakery for not making ball bearings? No, that's not part of their business model. Could you ask them to put an obscene message on the cake? Yes if they do it for others; no, if they don't do it for anyone.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 10, 2017 12:38PM)
So, to be clear, you think that generally (ignoring extra special and unique circumstances), that skin colour and sex should be taken into account when deciding which student is most likely to succeed at a degree course? I'd like to hear your reasoning behind why having certain pigmentation makes you better at a subject.

What if they don't make Nazi cakes, but makes cakes with politcal messages for other political ideaologies? Can a baker who makes communist cakes really refuse to make a facist cake?

And you agree that a hotel can rent rooms for Hetero-married couples but not Homo-married couples, yes? After all, they aren't renting rooms for some gay couples but not others.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2017 03:52PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
TW wrote:
[quote]But surely we agree (regarding the main point of our disagreement) that meritocratic systems cannot use wholly irrelevant criteria, such as race and [b]sexuality[/b] etc, as a criterion for assessing suitability?[/quote]
Race and [b][i]sex[/i][/b] are not necessarily irrelevant criteria.[/quote]
Perhaps a minor point, but TW mentioned [i]sexuality[/i], not [i]sex[/i].
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2017 03:54PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
If the business makes Nazi cakes for anyone, then yes they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis.[/quote]
That's absurd.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 05:07PM)
[quote]So, to be clear, you think that generally (ignoring extra special and unique circumstances), that skin colour and sex should be taken into account when deciding which student is most likely to succeed at a degree course? [b]I'd like to hear your reasoning behind why having certain pigmentation makes you better at a subject.[/b] [/quote]

Not what I said [i]at all[/i].

We agreed that the factors that lead to deciding who would make the most suitable candidate are an art, not a science. I gave a scenario where I thought gender would be relevant:

[quote] if a candidate were the first woman in the history of her high school to become president of their school, that is not irrelevant. It could well point to character qualities of guts, determination, and persistence that might not be true of a male in the same situation.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 05:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
If the business makes Nazi cakes for anyone, then yes they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis.[/quote]
That's absurd. [/quote]

For sticklers like Bill, I should have added... they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis, [b]if the Nazis had ordered the cake from the store.[/b]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 05:17PM)
[quote]What if they don't make Nazi cakes, but makes cakes with politcal messages for other political ideaologies? Can a baker who makes communist cakes really refuse to make a facist cake?[/quote]

Yes, if they make political messages, then it must be all political messages. Just like the subways.

A[quote]And you agree that a hotel can rent rooms for Hetero-married couples but not Homo-married couples, yes? After all, they aren't renting rooms for some gay couples but not others. [/quote]

It's the same product in either case, so no, the hotel may not make a distinction.


Now it's your turn to say how your favored policies would not turn into a nightmare of dominant ideology privilege over minorities. What protections would there be?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2017 05:17PM)
So businesses do NOT have the right to refuse you for any reason?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 05:18PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
So businesses do NOT have the right to refuse you for any reason? [/quote]

Danny, I just took the time to explain about five variations on that question. You can read my answers by looking back.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2017 05:49PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
If the business makes Nazi cakes for anyone, then yes they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis.[/quote]
That's absurd.[/quote]
For sticklers like Bill, I should have added... they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis, [b]if the Nazis had ordered the cake from the store.[/b][/quote]
That's absurd.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2017 06:00PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
So businesses do NOT have the right to refuse you for any reason? [/quote]

Danny, I just took the time to explain about five variations on that question. You can read my answers by looking back. [/quote]

You love to live in the gray area because you can nit pick and complain and find endless victims.

But you never want to consider the rights of both parties involved. Your right to be free implies my right to be free from you. Why does this very simple thing evade so much of your thinking?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 06:05PM)
I've deeply considered the rights of both parties. I just don't agree with your conclusions.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 06:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
If the business makes Nazi cakes for anyone, then yes they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis.[/quote]
That's absurd.[/quote]
For sticklers like Bill, I should have added... they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis, [b]if the Nazis had ordered the cake from the store.[/b][/quote]
That's absurd. [/quote]
I'll bite. What do you find absurd about that? (Other than the absurd premise which I am not responsible for.)
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 10, 2017 06:10PM)
Could a man dressed in a white sheet and hood buy a cake? :)

Could a magician refuse to do a show for a KKK meeting?

Magicians turn down shows all the time for all sorts of reasons,
why are they different from the cake artist?

Tom
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2017 06:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
If the business makes Nazi cakes for anyone, then yes they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis.[/quote]
That's absurd.[/quote]
For sticklers like Bill, I should have added... they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis, [b]if the Nazis had ordered the cake from the store.[/b][/quote]
That's absurd.[/quote]
I'll bite. What do you find absurd about that? (Other than the absurd premise which I am not responsible for.)[/quote]
I didn't scour the thread, so perhaps I don't understand the premises fully.

If you're saying that the baker must accept an order from someone they know to be a Nazi, then your statement is absurd.

If, however, you're saying that if the baker had accepted the order, then you're correct that the baker must make the cake [i]or else be in breach of contract[/i], then you're correct. However, that's not a free speech issue; it's a breach of contract issue.

George is correct about the original court case: it's ridiculous. Grow up and go to another baker.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 08:35PM)
I think it would help to read the thread to see why this premise was proposed. I agree that it's not very realistic, but I responded to it in the spirit of a thought experiment.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 10, 2017 09:09PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
Now it's your turn to say how your favored policies would not turn into a nightmare of dominant ideology privilege over minorities. What protections would there be? [/quote]

You mean like the nightmare of a dominant ideology we have now? :)

Since there is no fair way to prevent it by force, I guess the ultimate protection in the very long run, is faith in humanity.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 09:32PM)
Really, that's the best we can do? Accept that there's nothing to be done? A little too convenient.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 10, 2017 09:34PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
If the business makes Nazi cakes for anyone, then yes they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis.[/quote]
That's absurd.[/quote]
For sticklers like Bill, I should have added... they [b]must[/b] make Nazi cakes for Nazis, [b]if the Nazis had ordered the cake from the store.[/b][/quote]
That's absurd.[/quote]
I'll bite. What do you find absurd about that? (Other than the absurd premise which I am not responsible for.)[/quote]
I didn't scour the thread, so perhaps I don't understand the premises fully.

If you're saying that the baker must accept an order from someone they know to be a Nazi, then your statement is absurd.

If, however, you're saying that if the baker had accepted the order, then you're correct that the baker must make the cake [i]or else be in breach of contract[/i], then you're correct. However, that's not a free speech issue; it's a breach of contract issue.[/quote]

Basically it's gone, free speech > gay bakery > freedom to discriminate > various cake scenarios > socialism vs. capitalism.

Pretty much the usual.

The underlying issue is whether freedom of expression allows for discrimination in a private setting.

[quote]George is correct about the original court case: it's ridiculous. Grow up and go to another baker. [/quote]

Or write a bad Yelp review and a nasty FB post - and let the people decide.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 10, 2017 09:46PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
Really, that's the best we can do? Accept that there's nothing to be done? A little too convenient. [/quote]

As is the constant complaining and endless victim searching.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 09:53PM)
LOL. Come on, a little substance.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 09:54PM)
[quote]The underlying issue is whether freedom of expression allows for discrimination in a private setting.
[/quote]
Not quite. A public business is not the same as a private club or one's living room.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 09:58PM)
[quote]
Or write a bad Yelp review and a nasty FB post - and let the people decide.[/quote]

What happened pre-1964 in large parts of this country is a testament to the utter failure of that policy--even without FB.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 10, 2017 10:11PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
Really, that's the best we can do? Accept that there's nothing to be done? A little too convenient. [/quote]

Who said there's nothing to be done?
I happen to have great faith in humanity, and it isn't blind faith.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesies with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

We're still evolving Jack, and if we don't kill ourselves, we'll figure this **** out.
Humanity has problems - luckily we're good at solving problems.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 10, 2017 10:34PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
I think it would help to read the thread to see why this premise was proposed. I agree that it's not very realistic, but I responded to it in the spirit of a thought experiment.[/quote]
I did, and the only relevant post I saw was the one I quoted.

It appears that you're saying that if I choose to provide a good or service to someone - anyone - then I'm obligated to provide that same good or service to everyone.

That's absurd.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 10:38PM)
NYCT, I think it's pretty safe to say that it wasn't Yelp reviews that made the times a-change back then. ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 10:42PM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
I think it would help to read the thread to see why this premise was proposed. I agree that it's not very realistic, but I responded to it in the spirit of a thought experiment.[/quote]
I did, and the only relevant post I saw was the one I quoted.

It appears that you're saying that if I choose to provide a good or service to someone - anyone - then I'm obligated to provide that same good or service to everyone.

That's absurd. [/quote]
There is already a set of protected classes, so if it's absurd, then that must be absurd as well. My notion--since we're talking about free speech--is to add one's political views as a protected factor.

http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/news/when-is-refusing-service-legal-and-when-is-it-discrimination/article_305de452-a55b-11e3-8245-001a4bcf887a.html
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 10, 2017 10:55PM)
I guess I'm finding it fairly mindboggling that the majority on this thread are quite all right with turning back the anti-discrimination laws back to more than half a century ago, when Black people had to fight and die to get the right to sit at a lunch counter. Well, I don't think I really have much more to say here.
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 11, 2017 02:43AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
Well, if your ideal capitalism never existed and doesn't exist now, then how can you possibly want to act as if it does? If it's only pure virgin capitalism that will save the country from racism, how can you possibly allow racism to grow when that brand of capitalism is nowhere to be found? That "eventually" is then a "never" if we are talking about some kind of ideal that is supposed to set things right. [/quote]

Forcing a racist restaurant owner to be silent, and serve those they'd rather not serve, does nothing to stop racism. In fact it only makes it worse by forcing it underground, so to speak.
Look at the white supremacists. For decades we barely heard a word from them, but they obviously didn't disappear. Instead they closed ranks and went to ground. Now that the landscape is fertile they've emerged stronger, and better organized. And they have the internet now, which is a pretty good, cost effective way to spread information.

All the laws enacted didn't change a single mind; except maybe to harden the hate filled ones.

[/quote]

The idea that enforced racial integration did nothing to increase tolerance and shift generational attitudes is quite simply a falsehood.

The positive cultural impact of Civil Rights legislation is well documented and largely undisputed.

While I won't twist your argument, as others might, and claim you are ideologically opposed to the values of the Civil Rights movement, I do believe that you have constructed an unfalsifiable belief system that clings on to a very narrow view of 20th-century American history.

It's an interesting discussion, and while I disagree with your position, it's evident you've put quite a lot of thought into it.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 04:00AM)
Landmark:

Don't abandon the thread now, landmark! If I'm wrong in my position, then I would want you to convince me to change my mind. If, as I believe, your view is dangerous, then I would want further opportunity to convince you to change your mind (as I'm sure you'd want for yourself). :)

Let me pick up a couple of points:
"I guess I'm finding it fairly mindboggling that the majority on this thread are quite all right with turning back the anti-discrimination laws back to more than half a century ago, when Black people had to fight and die to get the right to sit at a lunch counter."

The fact that you are surprised (minboggled!) by the majority viewpoint here suggests you may have been inhabiting an echo-chamber or ideological bubble, which cannot be intellectually healthy. This is another good reason to stick around. Do you realise how prevalent the viewpoint the majority here represents actually is? Why do you think that may be so?

Also, speaking only for myself, I'm not in favour of turning the clock back to a time of racial discrimination - rather I want to move forward away from the current discrimination! That which was a force for freedom and liberty in times past has now become the side of discrimination and anti-liberty. The anti-discrimination laws and worldview which helped dismantle a truly racist and oppressive system have become the tools of oppression and bigotry.

Remember, we now live in a society and time where people can be banned from entering my country because they said something against Islam; people can have their livelihoods ruined and face credible death threats for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding; teachers can be sacked for accidentally using the wrong pronouns for trans students; where people go to jail for online trolling; where speakers are routinely de-platformed, shouted down and abused because they believe something slightly out of step with PC thought policing; people can be forced into re-education programmes for wrong-think; people can be fired for saying that men and women are different ... and so on and so on. I post anonymously out of genuine fear for my child's wellbeing, out of fear that I could lose my job simply for the thoughts I expressed in this very post right now. This is not a healthy state of society - it is riddled with an ideological cancer. And the answer is freedom, not repression.

Obviously, I'm not comparing these problems with the suffering endured by people of colour or the LGBT community or many other marginalised groups in the past, but it is real, it is dangerous, and it needs to be tackled. Classical liberal values of personal freedom and responsibility, robust free speech and thought, meritocracy and true tolerance are, in my opinion, the best means of resolving this situation. It is an important debate, an important cause.

Regarding your view on baker's and hoteliers, I admit I'm confused by what appears to me to be a somewhat immoral and incoherent position. You would force a Jewish sign writer who, say, made a sign publicising an Anti-Semitic rally to also make a pro-Nazi poster? Yet wouldn't force a Christian baker to make a cake for a gay wedding when they make cakes for heterosexual weddings because somehow these are different, and yet also force a hotel owner to rent rooms to gay weddings if they have previously catered for heterosexual weddings because somehow these are the same thing? Help me understand your view, and how this will solve our current societal problems.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 11, 2017 05:07AM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]The underlying issue is whether freedom of expression allows for discrimination in a private setting.
[/quote]
Not quite. A public business is not the same as a private club or one's living room. [/quote]

A business that deals with the public, but is privately owned, is not a public business.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 11, 2017 05:19AM)
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
NYCT, I think it's pretty safe to say that it wasn't Yelp reviews that made the times a-change back then. ;) [/quote]

Neither did a FaceBook post. That's the point.

NO laws will ever force a mind to change what it thinks.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 11, 2017 05:36AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
Well, if your ideal capitalism never existed and doesn't exist now, then how can you possibly want to act as if it does? If it's only pure virgin capitalism that will save the country from racism, how can you possibly allow racism to grow when that brand of capitalism is nowhere to be found? That "eventually" is then a "never" if we are talking about some kind of ideal that is supposed to set things right. [/quote]

Forcing a racist restaurant owner to be silent, and serve those they'd rather not serve, does nothing to stop racism. In fact it only makes it worse by forcing it underground, so to speak.
Look at the white supremacists. For decades we barely heard a word from them, but they obviously didn't disappear. Instead they closed ranks and went to ground. Now that the landscape is fertile they've emerged stronger, and better organized. And they have the internet now, which is a pretty good, cost effective way to spread information.

All the laws enacted didn't change a single mind; except maybe to harden the hate filled ones.

[/quote]

The idea that enforced racial integration did nothing to increase tolerance and shift generational attitudes is quite simply a falsehood.

The positive cultural impact of Civil Rights legislation is well documented and largely undisputed.

While I won't twist your argument, as others might, and claim you are ideologically opposed to the values of the Civil Rights movement, I do believe that you have constructed an unfalsifiable belief system that clings on to a very narrow view of 20th-century American history.

It's an interesting discussion, and while I disagree with your position, it's evident you've put quite a lot of thought into it. [/quote]

Anand!! What's up?

I see you've lost your mind and returned.

Of course there were many positive things to come out of what was done, and I'm in line with the values.

I don't have time to get into it now but I will later.

For now, what it comes down to for me is that free must actually be free.
That's my narrow view of American ideology, which I try to apply from the longest possible distance - as much as possible.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 06:29AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]The underlying issue is whether freedom of expression allows for discrimination in a private setting.
[/quote]
Not quite. A public business is not the same as a private club or one's living room. [/quote]

A business that deals with the public, but is privately owned, is not a public business. [/quote]

A business that does business with the general public such as a restaurant. That distinction is already a well recognized distinction under the law.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 11, 2017 06:30AM)
I half way agree with Landmark that anyone that hangs up a sign asking for business from the public SHOULD be obligation to do business with anybody that walks in. You would think that they would want to on their own oh. But I’m not sure there is a clear law saying they absolutely must. While we have consumer protection laws for safety and such most all the discrimination laws were written for hiring and protecting employees. I know there are some price discrimination laws to stop a business from charging different prices to different people. Customers have a right to choose who they do business with, but the business also has a right to choose within reason. One example, a daycare for children shouldn’t be forced to accept a 50 year old man, and it shouldn’t have to worry about being sued for age discrimination. I’m sure there other examples that show the business has a right to choose. It's that word 'within reason' that becomes questionable.

Tom
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 06:34AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 10, 2017, landmark wrote:
NYCT, I think it's pretty safe to say that it wasn't Yelp reviews that made the times a-change back then. ;) [/quote]

Neither did a FaceBook post. That's the point.

NO laws will ever force a mind to change what it thinks. [/quote]

Laws aren't meant to change minds, although they may eventually have that effect over generations as Anand points out; but laws don't have to change minds, they merely have to change an unjust situation. That's what happened with the civil rights laws of the sixties.

Anybody who thinks that overturning those laws is going to promote racial justice is badly deluded. And the situation will not be rectified by FB or Yelp reviews, but blood and struggle once again, as they were in the sixties.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 06:36AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, TomBoleware wrote:
I half way agree with Landmark that anyone that hangs up a sign asking for business from the public SHOULD be obligation to do business with anybody that walks in. You would think that they would want to on their own oh. But I’m not sure there is a clear law saying they absolutely must.

Tom [/quote]

Tom:

http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/news......87a.html
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 06:36AM)
Should force/threat of violence (ie the law) be used to make a business owner do work or serve clients against their consciences?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 06:52AM)
[quote]The fact that you are surprised (minboggled!) by the majority viewpoint here suggests you may have been inhabiting an echo-chamber or ideological bubble, which cannot be intellectually healthy. This is another good reason to stick around. Do you realise how prevalent the viewpoint the majority here represents actually is? Why do you think that may be so?
[/quote]

Because, among other reasons, capitalism is in severe crisis, both parties in the US have no answer for the economic backsliding that is occurring for the majority of workers, and people turn to scapegoating and blaming others to explain their situation when they can't understand what has actually happened--this is a classic historical pattern.

[quote]Regarding your view on baker's and hoteliers, I admit I'm confused by what appears to me to be a somewhat immoral and incoherent position. You would force a Jewish sign writer who, say, made a sign publicising an Anti-Semitic rally to also make a pro-Nazi poster? Yet wouldn't force a Christian baker to make a cake for a gay wedding when they make cakes for heterosexual weddings because somehow these are different, and yet also force a hotel owner to rent rooms to gay weddings if they have previously catered for heterosexual weddings because somehow these are the same thing? Help me understand your view, and how this will solve our current societal problems. [/quote]

These are, as others have pointed out, angels on the head of a pin question. I can easily shift my position on this to be more specific. that is, that a business would very narrowly only have to do for one group what it precisely did for others--that is, it would only have to make an anti-Semitic poster if it did the anti-Semiic posters for others. But, again, these hypotheticals distract from the real discrimination that goes on.

[quote] This is not a healthy state of society - it is riddled with an ideological cancer. And the answer is freedom, not repression.
[/quote]

Agreed ideological cancer, but not in the direction you are implying. You take a few over reactions and turn them into a reason to dismantle all the protections won with blood and tears over decades. Why would you want to pull people down again, to get some perceived advantage?

Here's a hypothetical for you: You get a chance to sign up again with regard to color (as an old Louis CK routine posits). Do you think you will do better in life as white or non-white?
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 11, 2017 06:55AM)
Landmark, that link doesn’t show anything. Page moved.

Tom
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 06:57AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Should force/threat of violence (ie the law) be used to make a business owner do work or serve clients against their consciences? [/quote]
That is the nature of law. No matter what my conscience says I will be fined or put in jail if I break it. More specifically, yes, in the US if you say Blacks cannot be served in your restaurant, you can and should be subject to the full measure of the law. No idea what the law is in the UK.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 06:58AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, TomBoleware wrote:
Landmark, that link doesn’t show anything. Page moved.

Tom [/quote]

Sorry Tom. Try this:

http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/news/when-is-refusing-service-legal-and-when-is-it-discrimination/article_305de452-a55b-11e3-8245-001a4bcf887a.html
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 07:13AM)
Landmark:

"people turn to scapegoating and blaming others to explain their situation"
Who is scapegoating whom? You mean that people complaining about free speech erosions are scape-goating black/LGBT/female/etc people? That sounds highly unlikely to me. How would you support that claim?

"These are, as others have pointed out, angels on the head of a pin question"
Obviously not for libertarians who decide all on the same principled basis :) Only discriminators have to deal with the thorny issues - which, it seems to me, are irresolvable in any fair or consistent fashion outside of classical liberal doctrines.

"I can easily shift my position on this to be more specific. that is, that a business would very narrowly only have to do for one group what it precisely did for others--that is, it would only have to make an anti-Semitic poster if it did the anti-Semiic posters for others."
So, having now shifted, you must change your view on the hoteliers who refuse to host a gay wedding upon pain of inconsistency. Which bullet are you prepared to bite: forcing Jews to make Nazi propaganda, or allowing hotels to refuse to host gay weddings?

"these hypotheticals distract from the real discrimination that goes on."
Totally disagree. And I've supplemented my hypotheticals with real cases - it's just easier to come up with hypotheticals that cut to the nub of the ideological divide between us rather than spending ages Googling the exact details of RL cases. Thought experiments are often used in ethical philosophy to elucidate positions or check for consistency. They are legitimate in this debate, and generally more useful in discussing paradigms and principles than RL cases with all their 'fluff'.

"You take a few over reactions"
I'm taking my constant daily experiences in UK academia mixed with the daily news cycle. Again, if you think this is just a few isolated over-reactions I have to question whether or not you inhabit a bubble of like-minds and echoed opinions? Do you only read a certain small section of news sources or talk to only a small subgroup of insiders? Sorry if that comes off as patronising, but it is something I see often - and some of your remarks sound like it might be the case.

"Why would you want to pull people down again, to get some perceived advantage?"
Who is being pulled down if I afford exactly the same rights to everyone? It seems odd that you should accuse me of pulling some people down when it is exactly the crux of your position that some people be disadvantaged or disallowed to follow their consciences but not others.

"Here's a hypothetical for you: You get a chance to sign up again with regard to color (as an old Louis CK routine posits). Do you think you will do better in life as white or non-white?"
In modern day UK with all other things being equal, I'd get some advantage out of being non-white.

"in the US if you say Blacks cannot be served in your restaurant, you can and should be subject to the full measure of the law."
Why should that law exist? And should it only exist for blacks, or for all people groups?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 07:43AM)
1.Whites scapegoating non-whites, immigrants. See most recent US election.

2. Libertarianism is filled with inconsistencies, as are other political positions. What matters is whether they are relevant int he real world.

3. No, they are renting the same room.

4. Don't know what RL cases are, but see #2.

5. Vast disproportion in cause and effect. See my OP in this thread which most are not even aware of.

6. Can I follow my conscience to steal from you, if I really really believe it? Can I keep what I stole if I really really believe it?

7. I think you're fooling yourself. Talk about living in a bubble.

8. You can read the Civil Rights laws. They don't mention specific races. A Black-owned restaurant cannot deny service to whites. They exist because people fought and died to overcome racist oppression.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 11, 2017 08:03AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, TomBoleware wrote:
Landmark, that link doesn’t show anything. Page moved.

Tom [/quote]

Sorry Tom. Try this:

http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/news/when-is-refusing-service-legal-and-when-is-it-discrimination/article_305de452-a55b-11e3-8245-001a4bcf887a.html [/quote]


Thanks. I have always said those type signs didn’t mean much if questioned legally. But I guess it would be something for the business owner to point to if they had to throw someone out for disturbance. And that they could do. But now the no shirt, no shoes, no service signs is different. It reads like we treat everyone alike. Whereas the other one reads we can pick and choose at will.

It all comes down to the purpose of the business. And I agree, a business set up to serve the public has to do that, serve the public.
Something like a wholesaler doesn't have to sell to people on the street because that is not its purpose. Or if I only sold pants to one legged people I couldn't be forced to add the extra leg. :)

Tom
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2017 08:39AM)
I guess government should just run all businesses.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 09:32AM)
Landmark:

"1.Whites scapegoating non-whites, immigrants. See most recent US election."
That's quite a statement. You think that Trump becoming president was because white people were scape-goating non-whites. How would you support such a claim?

"2. Libertarianism is filled with inconsistencies, as are other political positions. What matters is whether they are relevant int he real world."
So I can improve my political worldview, please point out my inconsistencies.

"3. No, they are renting the same room."
Aren't they making the same type of cake? This seems an obvious inconsistency in your POV.

"4. Don't know what RL cases are, but see #2."
So you think that philosophy shouldn't utilise thought experiments?

"5. Vast disproportion in cause and effect."
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you be clearer?

"6.Can I follow my conscience to steal from you"
No. I don't think laws against theft are the same as laws forcing you to do business with those who you don't want to do business with. You didn't actually answer the direct question.

"7. I think you're fooling yourself. Talk about living in a bubble."
Which news sources do you use?

"8. You can read the Civil Rights laws. They don't mention specific races."
But they mention race. What things do you think people should be allowed to discriminate on, and which not? Why?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 09:34AM)
Moving back onto the key topic/thread title - what sorts of speech do people think should not be free?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2017 09:52AM)
Fire in a crowded theater leaps to mind.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 09:57AM)
Sure. What would that be classified as?

Also: conspiracy to commit crime; credible, direct threats and incitements to physical violence; slander and libel; copyright infringements.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 09:58AM)
1. Not allowed here. Look at the voting demographics and campaign statements if you need a clue.
2. Ignore inevitability of monopolies and oligarchies forming and their self-reinforcing nature; ignore that power differences already exist and "free market" can only amplify those differences.
3. If same cake, then no right to refuse. My impression was different cakes, so yes.
4. I already addressed that. Philosophy is fine as a mental game; if you want to actually apply it to the real world, then focus on real questions.
5. Far more damage done by overturning civil rights laws than leaving them; and much selective attention on what you think is unfair to the exclusion of much greater harms.
6. That was my answer. Just because something is against your conscience doesn't mean it's sacred and must be catered to.
7. Take a look at any reliable source on income, job discrimination, healthcare availability, housing discrimination, inequality before the law.
8. Yes, laws about discrimination mention the word race. How could they not? Your post mentions the word race. Does that make it racist?


Really, I've said what I have to say many times now, you're just repeating the same questions. I think our differences are far too wide for me to convince or persuade you; that's not my intention anyway. It's to provide people who are on the fence about these questions to think more about them. You might want to have a read of the article I posted for Tom so that you'd get a better view of what the situation is in the US.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 10:00AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Sure. What would that be classified as?

Also: conspiracy to commit crime; credible, direct threats and incitements to physical violence; slander and libel; copyright infringements. [/quote]

So people cannot speak their conscience?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2017 10:13AM)
Nowhere near as many people are on the fence about these issues as you convince yourself are. While it is easy to point out problems the solutions you seem to advocate invariably would lead to way more problems.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2017 10:14AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Sure. What would that be classified as?

Also: conspiracy to commit crime; credible, direct threats and incitements to physical violence; slander and libel; copyright infringements. [/quote]

So people cannot speak their conscience? [/quote]


I'm sorry did he actually say or imply that?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 10:17AM)
Landmark:

1) Ironic, lol :) Well, from the analyses of the election I've read/listened to, along with the enormity of your comment taken with common sense, I'm not at all convinced. Indeed, I think your statement wrong and racist.

2) How does your response there connect to my POV? You need to be more specific.

3) So you bite the bullet of Jewish bakers/sign writers having to make Nazi cakes/propaganda if they make Anti-Semitism cakes/signs (or any other ideology or POV). Fair enough. I think such a thing is higly restrictive on personal liberty and pretty much unconscionable.

4) Disagree. This is the real world and these discussions are very practical (in terms of assessing worldviews which inform voting and the such like).

5) Disagree - more damage is being done by having anti-liberty and racist laws in place.

6) Sure. But one should maximise personal liberty and freedom of conscience as much as possible as a more developed civilisation, and one should also bear in mind the huge differences between commission/omission (robbing vs refusing to serve) and act/speech (robbing vs saying stuff). I think your idea is backwards compared to mine, and dangerous.

7) I said 'all other things being equal'. The other stuff is irrelevant as involving massive complex variables - on the sole issue of race, all other things being equal, I'd be better off non-white (white working class very low on the education achievement in the UK, much better off being Indian, for example).

8) Affirmative action is racist. Disallowing racist businesses is anti-liberty. I think your position increases racism and reduces liberty.

9) "So people cannot speak their conscience?"
Not if it runs counter to the things listed, no. I'd seek to maximise personal liberty not maximise anarchy. I wouldn't allow sincere expressions of murder, no.

OK, you're probably right at this stage that we are not going to convince each other. Which is a shame :(
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 11:34AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Anand Khalsa wrote:
...
The idea that enforced racial integration did nothing to increase tolerance and shift generational attitudes ...[/quote]

Tolerance versus acceptance... :( it's still there - like Zeno's Paradox.

More a schism than shift - appropriation versus adaptation , but still rocks thrown through [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window]Overton Window[/url]s.

"enforced integration" of the entitled with the disenfranchised?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 11:41AM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Sure. What would that be classified as?

Also: conspiracy to commit crime; credible, direct threats and incitements to physical violence; slander and libel; copyright infringements. [/quote]

So people cannot speak their conscience? [/quote]

terms of employment - morals clause - turpitude etc.

We could spell it out in bacon :idea: and embellish the text with Indian good luck signs and quotes from a good book in Arabic if you like but ... hey, that would be art if someone's up for filling out the paperwork for an NEA grant... :eek:
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 01:17PM)
1-8) [quote] Disallowing racist businesses is anti-liberty. I think your position increases racism and reduces liberty.
[/quote]

In the US we've had from 1776-1964 to try out your philosophy about racism. That's a pretty good test. Major fail.

9) Of course I was being sarcastic, pointing out the lameness of the conscience argument. The conscience argument only holds if your conscience is right.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 01:21PM)
Judging by your last post you haven't actually read my posts nor understood my position. This is a shame,I had hoped I was actually engaging in dialogue :(. Do you honestly not understand why your comment above is not reflective of my position, or is it mere rhetoric for onlookers?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 01:25PM)
[quote]if someone's up for filling out the paperwork for an NEA grant[/quote]
Sorry, Jon no guarantee that there will be an NEA in the near future. That budget buster has an annual budget that is about 1/1500 of the bank giveaway--uh, bailout. No need for arts in Sparta.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 01:30PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Judging by your last post you haven't actually read my posts nor understood my position. This is a shame,I had hoped I was actually engaging in dialogue :(. Do you honestly not understand why your comment above is not reflective of my position, or is it mere rhetoric for onlookers? [/quote]

I've read all, believe me. And you've done nothing to counter what I said in that summary post, other than to say that guaranteeing the right of Blacks to sit at lunch counters is racist. You have yet to provide any evidence that your philosophy would not once more lead to exactly the same situation that real history--not philosophical musings--has resulted in.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 11, 2017 01:36PM)
And you have yet to provide one minute piece of evidence that your alternative would be in the slightest bit better. History has shown your philosophy does not work.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 01:46PM)
Landmark:
But my position clearly involves two things your post ignores: a) that societies have to reach a certain level of civilisation before they are ready for increased freedom, and b) that I am against discriminatory laws - which would start us at about 2006 rather than 1776. Are you sure you had read all my posts, or did you deliberately misrepresent me? :(
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 02:07PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
...that societies have to reach a certain level of civilisation before they are ready for increased freedom... [/quote]

what do you mean by "level of civilization" and "ready"?
Who gets to mete out that "increased freedom"?

comic signoff line: Cicero argued that exclusionary rules prevail ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 02:09PM)
TW, What is your evidence that giving businesses the right to be racist results in a more fair society? You have not provided any, and I have provided 200 years of counter evidence. No misrepresentation on this crucial point; if you feel so, explain.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 02:14PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:
... results in a more fair society...[/quote]

Please, fair to whom? and How could anyone else verify this?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 02:16PM)
Perhaps it would be salutory to read up on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 02:20PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:
... results in a more fair society...[/quote]

Please, fair to whom? and How could anyone else verify this? [/quote]
Correct, "for whom" is always a crucial question.
For those who were treated unfairly.
See the link to Civil Rights Act of 1964 above for further information.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 02:20PM)
Landmark:
Huh? Have I been arguing for a more fair society? I've argued for more individual liberty and freedom. Fair is the language of social justice, freedom is the language of classical liberalism.

That said, though, allowing businesses to operate according to conscience obviously is more fair in and of itself than forcing religious or other non-PC people out of the public sphere. So even though I'm not that focussed on fairness, I still think my kind of society would end up being more fair.

Also, what is this 200 years of counter evidence? I've repeatedly explained that my POV involves a society at a certain standard and without bigoted laws along with liberalistic allowances - that has never existed in the US, you literally have 0 years evidence of my POV. This is where you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting me.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 02:26PM)
From there: [quote]When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.[16] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[17]"[/quote]

Folks might want to quickly look at Title II which is linked into ASCII format here: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

notice the code 'states rights'

comic signoff: consider Title III in light of "transgender" issues. ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 02:30PM)
[quote] I've repeatedly explained that my POV involves a society at a certain standard and without bigoted laws along with liberalistic allowances - that has never existed in the US, you literally have 0 years evidence of my POV. This is where you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting me. [/quote]

So you're saying your wish to do away with laws that ban racist businesses is hypothetical? Somehow I don't believe that, but if it is, then fine.

Frankly, even if the world started again from zero, I'd disagree, but I wouldn't care since that can never be. Same with libertarianism in general; if you want to claim that that is how it should be in an ideal world starting from zero, I'd disagree, but not care. But it seems to me that most who call themselves libertarians--maybe not you--wish to support laws that move in that direction as if we [i]did[/i] live in that ideal world. But on the contrary, such moves now, in a world where real power differences exist, would only amplify existing power inequalities.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 02:33PM)
[quote]
comic signoff: consider Title III in light of "transgender" issues. Smile
[/quote]
Oh boy, that's a whole different issue, and one with which I probably disagree equally with the majority of the left and right. But that subject deserves its own thread, and I have far too little time to get embroiled in [i]that[/i] can of worms. :)
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 02:41PM)
Landmark:
I admit I'm getting frustrated with your repeated misrepresentations of my position. Please tell me it isn't deliberate. :(. Have you just got tired of this discussion?

I don't want there to be laws that stop businesses from discriminating. This has been clear since the beginning. I think where you're going wrong is that you define this lack of law as a bigoted law, whereas I define a bigoted law as an actual law (like the racist laws that existed pre civil rights era) rather than an absence of a law. Does that make sense?

The rest of your post has nothing to do with my POV.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 02:41PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:
...For those who were treated unfairly... [/quote]

Unless you've got a working time machine... that's not helping us improve our operating test for 'fair'.

Recalling the notion that exceptions prove the rule and looking at Exodus 21 I'm not sure when you'd want to start that clock.

#NeanterthalLivesMatterToo?

Today, please, for us
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 11, 2017 02:49PM)
#neanderthallivesmattertoo - lol :)

It's ok to be Homo Erectus. :)
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 11, 2017 03:25PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Anand Khalsa wrote:
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
Well, if your ideal capitalism never existed and doesn't exist now, then how can you possibly want to act as if it does? If it's only pure virgin capitalism that will save the country from racism, how can you possibly allow racism to grow when that brand of capitalism is nowhere to be found? That "eventually" is then a "never" if we are talking about some kind of ideal that is supposed to set things right. [/quote]

Forcing a racist restaurant owner to be silent, and serve those they'd rather not serve, does nothing to stop racism. In fact it only makes it worse by forcing it underground, so to speak.
Look at the white supremacists. For decades we barely heard a word from them, but they obviously didn't disappear. Instead they closed ranks and went to ground. Now that the landscape is fertile they've emerged stronger, and better organized. And they have the internet now, which is a pretty good, cost effective way to spread information.

All the laws enacted didn't change a single mind; except maybe to harden the hate filled ones.

[/quote]

The idea that enforced racial integration did nothing to increase tolerance and shift generational attitudes is quite simply a falsehood.

The positive cultural impact of Civil Rights legislation is well documented and largely undisputed.

While I won't twist your argument, as others might, and claim you are ideologically opposed to the values of the Civil Rights movement, I do believe that you have constructed an unfalsifiable belief system that clings on to a very narrow view of 20th-century American history.

It's an interesting discussion, and while I disagree with your position, it's evident you've put quite a lot of thought into it. [/quote]

Anand!! What's up?

I see you've lost your mind and returned.

Of course there were many positive things to come out of what was done, and I'm in line with the values.

I don't have time to get into it now but I will later.

For now, what it comes down to for me is that free must actually be free.
That's my narrow view of American ideology, which I try to apply from the longest possible distance - as much as possible. [/quote]

Doing pretty well, yourself? :)

I likely won't be here for long, I don't know what got into me lol.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 04:55PM)
[quote]Landmark:
I admit I'm getting frustrated with your repeated misrepresentations of my position. Please tell me it isn't deliberate. Smile. Have you just got tired of this discussion?
[/quote]
TW, let's be very clear: did you advocate that businesses should be allowed to be racist and be able to deny service to whomever they like?

If no, then I am sorry, I have misunderstood you. If yes, I have not.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 04:57PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:
...For those who were treated unfairly... [/quote]

Unless you've got a working time machine... that's not helping us improve our operating test for 'fair'.

Recalling the notion that exceptions prove the rule and looking at Exodus 21 I'm not sure when you'd want to start that clock.

#NeanterthalLivesMatterToo?

Today, please, for us [/quote]
See the referenced wiki article, Jon. It explains it quite unambiguously. Really, do we have to play these games?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 11, 2017 04:59PM)
[quote]
I likely won't be here for long, I don't know what got into me lol. [/quote]

[youtube]S-IkWpm7TS0[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 11, 2017 05:41PM)
[quote]On Dec 11, 2017, landmark wrote:

[youtube]S-IkWpm7TS0[/youtube] [/quote]

;)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 08:38PM)
Per your quoted wiki article: "On April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago, sitting en banc, ruled that Title VII of the Act forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by a vote of 8-3.[66][67] Over the prior month, panels of both the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City had reached the opposite conclusion, finding that Title VII sex discrimination does not include claims based on sexual orientation.[68]"

We have a long, long way to go. We still have institutional bigots fear-mongering with tales of fantasy misdeeds - as they engage in ... it's gotta look like a sitcom from outside our society. Cue laugh-track.

Comic signoff: And you probably still feel it's okay to turn off your PC and iPhone ;) Siri doesn't forget. HAL forgives.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 11, 2017 09:12PM)
To the matter of cakes: Do I really need to read a contract when asking a bakery to bake a cake for a party? That puts a much greater cost into the process. Hold on, you better not be wearing a grey tee shirt. We don't serve those people. Cost/benefit analysis :)

Old arguments...
This discussion almost reads like the "I'm free to swing my arm" argument. Do your rights end at the end of your arm and the start of my economic benefits? Of course you can imagine rights or even unicorns. You can imagine you have rights and a unicorn. To others it could just as well be the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it]"I know it when I see it"[/url] definition. But can you afford to bring it to court and make the case? History? Maybe if you can play just the right note of "victim" you can get your special pleading heard on pity rather than merit. And a law that benefits a very few while costing many more. Take a number, still serving pity to ...where were we?

Position statement: Back in highschool, in an English class, the teacher remarked that we face the real risk of losing our rights - especially if we can't defend or argue for our rights. So over the years it seemed a reasonable question to investigate: our moral history and our society's position on the matter in law and everyday matters. All roads seem paved with philosophy. Even turning on the TV to find a fictional detective Colombo reviewed as Socratic. From Plato to Rand and Rawls - the arguments continue.

If you want fair - or just - or whatever you want someone else to believe as even rational [i]you[/i] may need to cite something to back up the claims. Hence the references to our older books, Roman Law (the argument of Cicero) ... else it's all "...but I know it when I see it" and hoping someone wants a pet Dodo.

False flag or maybe game theory? Ignorance is unproductively willful or a social right? Is it bigotry or legitimate personal taste? Where's the social boundary between what reflects upon the speaker and what harms us? Cue laugh track or cut to commercial?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 12:15AM)
Landmark:
You seem to now be misunderstanding your own misunderstanding!!! :) lol.

Yes, I advocate that businesses should be allowed to discriminate/ serve who they want. Given your last few posts it's still obvious you've misrepresented me, deliberately or not, though.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 12:18AM)
Jonathan:
I wish you'd write in an easy to follow, standard prose aimed at an audience that isn't familiar with your in jokes and oblique references. Easier for imbeciles like me to follow :). At the moment it's simply too much hard work to read your posts so I simply skip them. That isn't good for anyone. For example, I have no idea where you stand on this issue.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 06:02AM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Landmark:

Yes, I advocate that businesses should be allowed to discriminate/ serve who they want. [/quote]

Then there's been no misunderstanding.

Just to be clear, I am not questioning your motives, TW or saying that you are racist. I don't believe at all that you are. But what I believe very strongly, for all the reasons I've given many times above, is that such a policy would be disastrous and continue to intensify the racism that occurred between 1776 and 1964. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

I understand that you feel another higher principle is at work. But it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what really happens and happened in the real world.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 06:28AM)
Landmark:

I think there has been quite a few misunderstandings, but rather than just argue back and forth about it, others can re-read our exchanges if they're the remotest bit interested (lol) and make up their own minds. For me, the key areas of misunderstanding involved: has 'my' system been enacted in the past and what counts as a racist law. But it doesn't matter.

"TW or saying that you are racist. I don't believe at all that you are. But what I believe very strongly, for all the reasons I've given many times above, is that such a policy would be disastrous and continue to intensify the racism that occurred between 1776 and 1964."

Obviously we disagree on this prediction, but there's clearly no way of knowing. What I do know, however, is that we currently live in a time of discrimination, liberty erosion and the destruction of liberal values, and that 'my' system would end that. If it would also have future unintended consequences I cannot predict (nor do I think you can).

Let's say I agree with you (I don't, but for argument's sake) that my libertarian principles would result in very negative unintended consequences, what alternative would you forward to remove the problems currently faced regarding religious people being forced out of the public sphere, hate speech crime enforcement, academic de-platforming, affirmative action racism, and the such like? Or are you content with the status quo?

"I understand that you feel another higher principle is at work. But it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what really happens and happened in the real world."

My beliefs affect my real world interactions - so this is very much a real world issue :) And one only has to watch a few anti-SJW youtubes to become fairly well acquainted with RL freedom erosions (esp in Europe and academia). So I reject the implicit notion that somehow you are the only one here dealing with reality. I actually think I've got a better grasp on reality then you do - as your echo-chamber surprise at the majority viewpoint here indicated. :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 12, 2017 08:19AM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Landmark:

Yes, I advocate that businesses should be allowed to discriminate/ serve who they want. [/quote]

Then there's been no misunderstanding. ...[/quote]

Then how do I get my cake? Do I call each bakery and ask?

Then after I show up am I gonna be told 'sorry we decided not to make the cake' and have to:
1) Deal with not having the cake
2) Deal with efforts lost for planning the party
3) Deal with attempting to recover costs incurred in items 1 and 2 above?

Now if I own a cake shop - can I put the notes from requests I refused up on my Facebook page in posts about awkward customer requests? No, I'm not gonna figure out how to spell out "Our dog is the greatest" in bacon strips for a cake covered in Indian good luck signs... even if the dog face design for their puppy mu-mu is cute.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 09:00AM)
"Then how do I get my cake? Do I call each bakery and ask?"

Those without telepathy usually have to do it that way.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 12, 2017 09:28AM)
How many bakeries do you expect to have making cakes so you can feel confident in getting one for your party?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 09:32AM)
Dunno. I've never had a cake made. Just buy 'em ready made from supermarket, like most other people. Or make them myself. In the UK, I guess there's at least one baker in every town. With the internet I imagine I'd find a baker willing to bake almost any type of cake within a couple of hours searching.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 09:38AM)
The supermarket refuses to sell you the cake...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 12, 2017 09:49AM)
Why do you have a right to force a business to do things?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 12, 2017 09:51AM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, landmark wrote:
The supermarket refuses to sell you the cake... [/quote]


How many roads must a shopper travel
Before he can buy his party cake?

And how many times must a shopper find out
They don't want to serve his kind?

The answer my friend...

"look, I'll sell you the milk and maybe one dozen eggs but we don't like your kind so we're not gonna sell you any sugar"
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 10:25AM)
All the supermarkets in the country refuse to sell me a cake? And all the bakers too? Guess that's the problem with wanting something 99.99999% of all people hate so much that they will lose money so as to spite me. Oh well. Bake it myself :)

What exactly are you imagining that's so detestable literally no one will make it for me?
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Dec 12, 2017 03:06PM)
Not many physical roads to drive to find out if one can buy a cake, the internet and cell phone can take care of most of that.

i just wonder if the same outrage will be there if a muslim business declines to do business with someone due to their beliefs. Probably not
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 03:19PM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
All the supermarkets in the country refuse to sell me a cake? And all the bakers too? Guess that's the problem with wanting something 99.99999% of all people hate so much that they will lose money so as to spite me. Oh well. Bake it myself :)

What exactly are you imagining that's so detestable literally no one will make it for me? [/quote]

My religion or lack of it; my color or sexual orientation. Did I really have to spell it out?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 03:27PM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, lunatik wrote:
Not many physical roads to drive to find out if one can buy a cake, the internet and cell phone can take care of most of that.

i just wonder if the same outrage will be there if a muslim business declines to do business with someone due to their beliefs. Probably not [/quote]

Oh good, I'll just hop on my private jet to hire a hall for my wedding.

And instead of making stupid assumptions, try asking.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 03:43PM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Why do you have a right to force a business to do things? [/quote]
I suppose I could just cut and paste from the previous two times you asked the same question, but let me try this : are you really willing to go back to a time when stores posted signs like "No Irish or dogs allowed"?

How can anything good possibly come from that?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 03:50PM)
Hang on, you think that I won't be able to find a baker who is willing to bake me a wedding cake in the UK if I'm black, or gay, or Muslim? It'd take me less than an hour to get a wedding cake for any of those.

Is that really what you were thinking was so despicable that no baker could be found for me? Huh?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 04:14PM)
You're awfully cavalier when the offense is not towards you. What makes you think I have the gasoline to make it to the next three gas stations or the one after that?

Or the hospital which refuses to do business with white people.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 12, 2017 04:20PM)
What do you mean, 'when the offence isn't toward me'? I bet I've recieved more discrimination than some, lol. Do you know anything about me?

Regardless, what's that got to do with anything? As I said, there isn't a single social group (other than maybe pedophiles) who I can think of who wouldn't be able to find someone to make them a cake in an hour or two in the UK. So who exactly were you thinking of?

Do you think the NHS doesn't serve white people in the UK? Are you crazy?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 04:56PM)
[quote]What do you mean, 'when the offence isn't toward me'? [/quote]

You seem fine in your hypotheticals to let other people have to go to other towns because of refused service, and yet you feel so aggrieved that you actually think you would do better in life had you been Indian.

[quote]
Do you think the NHS doesn't serve white people in the UK? [/quote]

Of course not! The point is would it be all right with you if such were the case? We already have in the US a long history of hospitals underserving, delivering substandard care and outright denial of service to people of color. This is not ancient history. This is true in just about any inner city in America.

[quote]Regardless, what's that got to do with anything? As I said, there isn't a single social group (other than maybe pedophiles) who I can think of who wouldn't be able to find someone to make them a cake in an hour or two in the UK. So who exactly were you thinking of?
[/quote]

The irony of this whole cake thing is that as of seven years ago we wouldn't have even been having this discussion in New York State. Why? [i]Because the very idea of a gay wedding cake would have been non-existent.[/i] Gay marriage wasn't even made legal until 2011 in NY, and over considerable (still) objection. So anyone who professes surprise that anyone would be discriminated against in this modern day and age is just not paying attention. Anyone who knows history has hundreds of examples. I work in a school with a largely immigrant population and the students there are discriminated against almost everyday. Do I think there are towns in the US where a substantial number of businesses would be barred against gay people or immigrants? You bet I do.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 12, 2017 05:35PM)
Government services vs private companies.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 12, 2017 06:00PM)
[quote]Government services vs private companies.[/quote]

Public accomodations:

"In US law, public accommodations are generally defined as facilities, both public and private, used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities, and service centers.

Under United States federal law, public accommodations must be accessible to the handicapped and may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin."[1][2] Private clubs were specifically exempted under federal law[3] as well as religious organizations.[4] Title II's definition of public accommodation is limited to "any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests," and therefore is inapplicable to churches. Section 12187 of the ADA also exempts religious organizations from public accommodation laws,[5] but religious organizations are encouraged to comply.

Various states in the United States, in a number of nonuniform laws, provide for nondiscrimination in public accommodation."



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 12, 2017 06:03PM)
[quote]On Dec 12, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Government services vs private companies. [/quote]

Internet service provider, forum owner, phone company, facebook, landlord...not within 300 feet of a school... and privatization.

How many times must bile blow in the wind?

:(

#Civilitymatters
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 13, 2017 12:54AM)
Landmark:

Why do you insist on misrepresenting me? Please read my posts carefully.

"You seem fine in your hypotheticals to let other people have to go to other towns because of refused service, and yet you feel so aggrieved that you actually think you would do better in life had you been Indian"

Other people? Aside from making all kinds of assumptions about me, which people group would have to go to another town inthe UK to get a cake? Please name the group who you think this would happen to? Be specific. As I said (please read my posts), I can't think of one. And I'm not aggrieved that I'm not Indian? Where did that projection come from. You simply asked if I thought I'd have had advantages if I was non-white, and I said all other things being equal, yes (please read my posts). Where's the aggrievance? Very odd.

"The point is would it be all right with you if such were the case?"

No. As I've said before (please read my posts) state bodies cannot discriminate, only private companies.

"This is not ancient history"

But as I've noted a number of times (please read my posts), I'm talking about now. I've agreed that there's been terrible issues in the past (please read my posts), but I explained that I thought a) societies had to reach a certain standard before being ready for freedom, b) that there has never been 'my' system of non-bigoted laws yet allowance of discriminatory private practices and freespeech, c) that the current people being discriminated against require the removal of oppressive anti-discrimination laws to be free. You harp on history, I want to stop the suffering of people alive right now.

"Gay marriage wasn't even made legal until 2011 in NY,"

Exactly my point about there never have been non-bigoted laws plus allowance of private discrimination (please read my posts). You haven't had 'my' system, which is why I kept telling you that your talk about the systems of the past was off topic.

"So anyone who professes surprise that anyone would be discriminated against in this modern day and age is just not paying attention"

Rubbish. Are you telling me that a gay couple would have trouble getting a wedding cake in NY city? Really? Do you think any gay couple would ever have a problem getting a cake in anywhere in the UK? Really? I think you kinda want such discrimination to exist simply so you can make a point - I hope I'm wrong on that. But people who are having a problem right now are the religious folk who are being hounded out the public sphere and having their lives ruined because they're not allowed to refuse to make a cake, or refuse to use certain pronouns (please read my posts). What about them? I can get a gay cake as easy as I can pick up a phone, but where can they live according to their consciences?

"I work in a school with a largely immigrant population and the students there are discriminated against almost everyday."

What legal discrimination do they face? I wouldn't allow discriminatory laws, so I support their removal (please read my posts). Nor would I allow discrimination in state institutions. So please tell me what laws and state institutional discrimination they face so I can stand with you against it.

"Do I think there are towns in the US where a substantial number of businesses would be barred against gay people or immigrants? You bet I do."

Let's try an experiment then. I'm ready to believe you on this, I don't know the US situation as well as you do. However, I can assure you that in the UK it wouldn't be an issue, so maybe only UK and Europe is ready for the freedoms I advocate for.

But here ps the experiment: name a specific bigoted town. I'll see what Google throws up about the businesses and services it has etc. Then we'll check and see how hard it is to get a gay cake there. Deal?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 07:29AM)
? the "free market" argument presumes perfect mobility of people and capital. Let's discuss that - but with real opportunity costs. In the cake model; how long does it take to contact each baker, review their contract and the risk weigh doing business ...

so, your dog's name is The Profit Mo? (short for motive?)
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 13, 2017 08:35AM)
'Perfect' mobility? Does it? I think JS Mill would have made many of the same points as I make about free speech and allowing free enterprise, yet mobility was much reduced in his time compared to now.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 09:22AM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
... I think JS Mill would have made many of the same points as I make about free speech and allowing free enterprise,... [/quote]
Let's look at Mill's frame of reference then. [quote]I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.[/quote]

Again, third base ... Exodus 21, with lots of magical externalities ignored. Or was he really arguing supply/demand at its most base?

Imagine that under the big tent in a circus, a group of blind men groping an elephant - insisting it's an inert or (begrudgingly) low-order-sapient object. Imagine that scene as observed by the rest of those present.

So, what's the name of that elephant?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 09:27AM)
TW

You doth protest too much. I haven't misrepresented you at all. I just disagree with you. And you don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of the policies you favor. You [i][b]still[/b][/i] have not provided a [i]shred[/i] of evidence of the overall benefit that will happen under your system. Show me anywhere in the world at any time in history past or present where the allowance of businesses to discriminate has led to an overall lessening of discrimination in the society as a whole. Point to anything that might even provide a hint of a change in that direction. And yet I can show hundreds of examples of the opposite.

And are you so limited in your thinking that you think this is only about cakes? I gave you many other possibilities. And in the US many hospitals [i]are[/i] private. Within a decade or two we'll probably see the postal service privatized as well.



But you think that the world has so changed since 2011, that the possibility of discrimination has been eliminated. First of all there are still many states where gay marriage is obstructed. Nationwide legality only came about two years ago. In many parts of the US you can be fired or denied housing because of your sexual orientation. And second, even if we granted that the discrimination phase of society is over--and it's not--this is like thinking that since whooping cough has largely been eliminated, we should stop being vaccinated.

And how the heck do you think this miraculous change, such as it is, occurred? In large part because people fought and died to have these anti-discriminatory laws put in place. You have no understanding of the dynamic of change in people's consciousness about these things. The change in consciousness would not have occurred without the enforced government laws. Change doesn't just drop out of the air. And rights have to be [i]continually[/i] defended, or they are lost.

As to whether you are aggrieved or not. Well, your whole framing of the topic is the extraordinary statement: "that the current people being discriminated against require the removal of oppressive anti-discrimination laws to be free." Uh, no. Your assumption that laws that bar discrimination in private business are oppressive has no backing. The only possibly aggrieved person is the business person who wishes to be racist. In the US we decided way back in 1964 that Georgia's Lester Maddox could not chase black people out of his restaurant with an ax, and that's the way most people here (but certainly not all) still feel. And if prejudice has so magically disappeared from society against people of color and gays as you say, then the anti-discriminatory laws should pose no problem at all, since all bushiness people would have followed them anyway. Perhaps if you watched something other than anti-SJW videos (it's amazing to me to think that such a category exists. Does that make the viewers Social Injustice Warriors?) you would learn that your comparisons are from a topsy-turvy world.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 09:38AM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
From your descriptions it sounds like like something is wrong somewhere. I didn't follow the link, but basically my principles would be:

A) The state/taxpayer primary goal in hiring companies to do X, y or z is quality of product balanced against value for money. That's it. They should have no other concerns, except that the company is operating lawfully with regard all necessary laws etc... [/quote]

I don't know what you have there - but here we have the story of "Tammany Hall". A thing is what it does. I like comedy - as hypothetical/allegorical. It's not so funny when buying and paying for an apple but getting an orange along with a scolding lecture about discrimination.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 09:41AM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, landmark wrote:
TW

You doth protest too much. I haven't misrepresented you at all. I just disagree with you. And you don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of the policies you favor. You [i][b]still[/b][/i] have not provided a [i]shred[/i] of evidence of the overall benefit that will happen under your system. Show me anywhere in the world at any time in history past or present where the allowance of businesses to discriminate has led to an overall lessening of discrimination in the society as a whole. Point to anything that might even provide a hint of a change in that direction. And yet I can show hundreds of examples of the opposite.

[/quote]

If you remove the businesses discriminating part and add your political philosophy you have the exact problem with every one of your posts.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 09:55AM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
... state bodies cannot discriminate, only private companies... [/quote]
Which are licensed by the state and granted some legal resources which make it interesting to address harms due to enacted prejudices.

What about company towns? It used to be interesting getting a Coke in this neighborhood where Pepsi has its headquarters.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 10:03AM)
More context about the actual Colorado cake case:

[quote]Mr Phillips’s [the baker] lawyers say the justices must resolve “[w]hether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Mr Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free-speech or free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment”. Notice this query says nothing about cake. It concerns “expression” and whether Colorado may “compel” Mr Phillips to “create” it against his conscience. The gay couple’s brief, by contrast, asks whether the free-speech clause is implicated by a “neutral state law that does not target speech” and whether the free-exercise clause could possibly be violated by a “state law that is neutral and generally applicable”. [b]The commission’s take adds another facet that is sure to dominate the argument. The issue is not really about compelling expression, the commission argues, because Mr Phillips “refuses to sell a wedding cake of any kind to any same-sex couple”, even, presumably, a plain-vanilla variety bearing an innocuous sentiment like “Congratulations”[/b].[/quote]

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/07/just-desserts

Notice, the case revolves precisely around the issue I mentioned before. The baker claims that he should not have to create something against his conscience, and that it is a violation of his free speech to do so. The state, on the other hand, points out that the baker is not just refusing to create a special cake, but refusing to sell the same generic cake that he would have sold to anyone else. This was exactly the distinction I made in previous posts.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 10:15AM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, landmark wrote:
TW

You doth protest too much. I haven't misrepresented you at all. I just disagree with you. And you don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of the policies you favor. You [i][b]still[/b][/i] have not provided a [i]shred[/i] of evidence of the overall benefit that will happen under your system. Show me anywhere in the world at any time in history past or present where the allowance of businesses to discriminate has led to an overall lessening of discrimination in the society as a whole. Point to anything that might even provide a hint of a change in that direction. And yet I can show hundreds of examples of the opposite.

[/quote]


If you remove the businesses discriminating part and add your political philosophy you have the exact problem with every one of your posts. [/quote]

Socialized medicine, strong unions, support for public education, anti-monopoly laws and many other policies I've advocated for, all have strong examples in the past and present as to their effectiveness and benefit to society. But that's another thread. Let's not get sidetracked here.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 10:35AM)
[quote]On Dec 9, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
All speech should be allowed. One person's hate speech is another person's objective facts and truth told in love. Individuals can make their own mind's up. [/quote]

That gets difficult when "think of the children" and "you can't call your dog TPM" are real things in society.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 10:49AM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, landmark wrote:
TW

You doth protest too much. I haven't misrepresented you at all. I just disagree with you. And you don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of the policies you favor. You [i][b]still[/b][/i] have not provided a [i]shred[/i] of evidence of the overall benefit that will happen under your system. Show me anywhere in the world at any time in history past or present where the allowance of businesses to discriminate has led to an overall lessening of discrimination in the society as a whole. Point to anything that might even provide a hint of a change in that direction. And yet I can show hundreds of examples of the opposite.

[/quote]


If you remove the businesses discriminating part and add your political philosophy you have the exact problem with every one of your posts. [/quote]

Socialized medicine, strong unions, support for public education, anti-monopoly laws and many other policies I've advocated for, all have strong examples in the past and present as to their effectiveness and benefit to society. But that's another thread. Let's not get sidetracked here. [/quote]

But is NOT sidetracked. When taken it totality your philosophy is and always has been a disaster. You can not point to a single instance in history where when used in totality your philosophy has even remotely not been oppressive. You want to gloss all that over and you want to point to the problems with other systems, yet the one you advocate for is a disaster and always has been. Then you back up to "let's not get sidetracked". Nonsense.

Strong unions have been disasters as much as helpful of late. Socialized medicine we are seeing the very problems with the idea. Sorry Jack but your policy preferences are horrendous to our style of democracy. (Or republic or what not.) No matter how much you want to point out the problems, and they exist, your solutions are not going to work. Which is probably why so few are implemented.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 13, 2017 10:59AM)
Johnathan:

If you want to engage in dialogue with me, I'll have to request that you alter the manner of your posts to accommodate my inability to easily follow your style. Please collect your thoughts into straightforward and plain writing with minimal oblique references, asides and assumptions about my cultural capital - it's too difficult for me to follow what you say. Also, please state your own opinion clearly.

Landmark:
Obviously we disagree on whether or not you've misunderstood and misrepresented me. I think you have, do and are. But there's little to be gained from focussing in that, I'll just continue to point out when and how I think you've got me wrong for the benefit of any readers. I don't expect you to agree that you've got me wrong, you're too invested now.

Let me try to address some of your points, I'll try and ignore the ones which seem to just stem from a failure to read my posts or are some sort of personal attack:

My system has never been enacted, so I can't point to any historical precedent. I can however make the obvious and clear arguments that a) if people were allowed to discriminate according to their consciences then we wouldn't have religious people being forced out of business for not making gay cakes, and the such like, and b) that the UK at least is so tolerant in culture that no gay couple would have any difficulty in obtaining a gay cake even if discrimination were to be allowed. This is all I need to present for it to be clear that your view results in felt suffering right now which my view would end.

The rest of your post seems to be a weird mix of cod-psychologising, irrelevancies and emotional ranting, so I'll ignore it.

I see you have not taken me up on my experiment. Is that an admission that there is no town in the US where a gay coup,e would be unable to obtain a wedding cake? If so, I think my case has been made.

I also note that you haven't specified the discrimination your students suffered under. Does this mean it doesn't actually exist? Please specify so I can believe you.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 12:39PM)
Context: [quote]On Dec 7, 2017, landmark wrote:
...The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit today arguing that an Arizona law requiring state contractors to certify that they won’t boycott Israel violates the First Amendment. ...[/quote]
and our current law: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

[quote] What do the Laws Prohibit?

Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:

Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.[/quote]

@TW's items from ( Post Icon Posted: Dec 7, 2017 03:27 pm )
I feel that outline treats "government" as somehow unto itself rather than a leviathan driven by vested interests - including those of businesses acting as legal people.
I also feel that outline presumes people act rationally, can agree about what constitutes value, merit etc. - notions which folks have been arguing about since before Plato's Republic.
No matter the rules - we get to the question of 'who watches the watchmen' - and mechanisms of compliance. Again our notions of self/privacy/property seem at odds with the transparency mentioned in that list.

Anyone have ideas for a path on how to get from here-today to the economics described?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 02:31PM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:





Strong unions have been disasters as much as helpful of late. Socialized medicine we are seeing the very problems with the idea. Sorry Jack but your policy preferences are horrendous to our style of democracy. (Or republic or what not.) No matter how much you want to point out the problems, and they exist, your solutions are not going to work. Which is probably why so few are implemented. [/quote]

They have been implemented all over the world. The capitalist world, I may add. The countries with the strongest unions have the highest standard of living. As for socialized medicine, in every country where it exists the people have ample opportunity to dispense with it. None have. Obamacare was never socialized medicine, single payer. The closest we have to that is Medicare which is a wildly popular program. Watch what happens to any politician who openly tries to dismantle it.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 02:40PM)
[quote] see you have not taken me up on my experiment. Is that an admission that there is no town in the US where a gay coup,e would be unable to obtain a wedding cake? If so, I think my case has been made. [/quote]

You fail to see 1) the difference between one example that you prefer, and the establishment of a general principle which would have far-reaching consequences 2) and that the reason these cases are not more widespread right now is because we have the anti-discrimination laws on the books.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 13, 2017 02:43PM)
So, can we at least agree, then, that there is no need to force religious bakers to make gay cakes?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 02:43PM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:





Strong unions have been disasters as much as helpful of late. Socialized medicine we are seeing the very problems with the idea. Sorry Jack but your policy preferences are horrendous to our style of democracy. (Or republic or what not.) No matter how much you want to point out the problems, and they exist, your solutions are not going to work. Which is probably why so few are implemented. [/quote]

They have been implemented all over the world. The capitalist world, I may add. The countries with the strongest unions have the highest standard of living. As for socialized medicine, in every country where it exists the people have ample opportunity to dispense with it. None have. Obamacare was never socialized medicine, single payer. The closest we have to that is Medicare which is a wildly popular program. Watch what happens to any politician who openly tries to dismantle it. [/quote]

So your standard is if you give it away and people like that it is good. Got it.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 13, 2017 02:45PM)
Can I just say, as someone who lives with the most socialised medicine imagine able (UK NHS) that it's utterly useless and believe me you don't want to go to a hospital unless you have to. Just saying.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 02:46PM)
Also medicare is bankrupt. Just sayin.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 03:11PM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
So, can we at least agree, then, that there is no need to force religious bakers to make gay cakes? [/quote]

It seems you don't understand what it means [i]to us in the USA[/i] to have ethics-in-a-nation-of-laws or the ACLU case events - as I don't understand living with royalty, NHS and Doctor Who.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 13, 2017 03:25PM)
I don't understand your point. Where do you stand on these issues, Jonathan?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 13, 2017 05:19PM)
I'm in favor of free speech and open dialogue. I believe what one says and how one says it are about the speaker more than the listener.

I'm against racist law. I'm unhappy with "states rights" as code for racist/prejudice law.

I'm not in favor of state law or federal law on boycott. I'd prefer that boycott be an acceptable way of voting with ones wallet. First amendment rights applied to corporate finance of political campaigns so let's be consistent.

I'm [i]not okay[/i] with the justice of the peace refusing a marriage license (where it's not expressly forbidden in law) on the grounds of personal conscience. Justice is supposed to be blind.

But I am okay with the local bakery posting and advertising as "We don't do x, y, z decorating and reserve the right to turn down messages - ask us beforehand please", "Halal Only", "Kosher Only", "National Socialist Only" product and so turning away a request to make a gay cake.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 06:13PM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
Also medicare is bankrupt. Just sayin. [/quote]

US #37 in World Health Organization health system ranking. That's behind such powerhouses as Morocco, Cyprus, and Costa Rica. UK #18, France #1.

Just sayin.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 06:16PM)
So everyone bankrupt is your ideal? Go live in France if it is so amazing. Why is that never the answer?

Why do we have ti be France? Even if we were you would complain. It is never aboutsolutions, it is always complaining. Old game sorry.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 06:17PM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
So, can we at least agree, then, that there is no need to force religious bakers to make gay cakes? [/quote]

No. Because in the Colorado case, it wasn't a gay cake. It was a cake. The baker made it clear that he wouldn't even sell them a cake that said Congratulations.

That's going to be a very busy baker. Is he now going to require a genetic test and a complete psychosocial history from each potential customer in order to determine their sexual orientation. Scour their Tinder records perhaps?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 06:18PM)
What do you care what he has to do?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 06:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
So everyone bankrupt is your ideal? Go live in France if it is so amazing. Why is that never the answer?

Why do we have to be France? Even if we were you would complain. It is never about solutions, it is always complaining. Old game sorry. [/quote]

Please. We're talking about lousy healthcare. If you're happy being #37, perhaps you would enjoy Mozambique at #184. And of course I am talking about solutions. Very disingenuous of you to say otherwise.

Medicare is not going bankrupt, though conservatives like to act as if that's a real talking point, nor is it even an entitlement program. It's funded through taxpayer deductions and premiums.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 06:26PM)
[quote]On Dec 13, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
What do you care what he has to do? [/quote]

Well, I'd like to know beforehand what tests I'll be subjected to before I buy a newspaper or donut in your brave new world.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 06:26PM)
It is solvant? Interesting position.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 06:35PM)
Oh you're talking about the solvency of Medicare. Didn't understand for a moment.

Yeah. Paul Ryan is lying.

From the FOX owned NY Post: https://nypost.com/2017/01/03/why-medicare-isnt-actually-going-bankrupt/

From the CBPP: https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/medicare-is-not-bankrupt

Politifact Wisconsin: Mostly False: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/jun/05/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-says-medicare-going-bankrupt/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 07:34PM)
So medicare is perfectly fine? Got it.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 13, 2017 09:11PM)
LOL.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 13, 2017 10:24PM)
It also seems that your position is quite often "sure it is bad, but if we just spent MORE money in it everything will work out perfectly".
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 14, 2017 12:16AM)
Jonathan:
Thank you for laying out your position clearly and plainly for me :)

Landmark:
I wasn't being specific about the Colorado case (there's many more), just asking a general question to see if there's at least one are of agreement between us.
Let me ask again:
Do you at least agree, then, that a religious baker shouldn't be forced to make a gay wedding cake if they don't want to?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 14, 2017 12:36AM)
Maybe some clear yes/no questions can cut through some of the posting 'fog' and reboot the discussion.

1) Should the law force private hotels to rent rooms to black people, yes or no?
2) Should the law force a bakery to make a gay wedding cake, yes or no?
3) Should the law force a Jewish sign writer to make posters for a Nazi rally, yes or no?
4) Should public institutions be allowed to use affirmative action hiring systems to increase their racial diversity, yes or no?
5) Should private businesses be allowed to have racial quotas even for white people, yes or no?

6) Should publicly funded colleges cave readily to the hecklers veto to deplatform controversial speakers, yes or no?
7) Should the law force public officials to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no?
8) Should the law force everyone to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no?
9) Should there be hate speech laws which criminalise homophobic, Islamophobic or racist language, yes or no?
10) Should the law force private businesses to allow self-identifying women to use the women's restroom, yes or no?

11) If businesses were allowed to discriminate, would things quickly revert to a pre-civil rights era level of bigotry, yes or no?
12) Do non-whites face serious systemic racist discrimination in the USA and the U.K., yes or no?
13) Should non-whites recieve financial reparations for historic abuses, yes or no?
14) Are most white people unconsciously racist, yes or no?
15) Can non-whites be racist in the US or UK, yes or no?

16) Should public institutions have gender quotas as part of their hiring policies, yes or no?
17) Are women paid less than men in the US and UK, yes or no?
18) Are all men unconsciously sexist, yes or no?
19) Should companies be allowed to fire staff for sexist speech, yes or no?
20) Is saying that men and women in general have different strengths and weaknesses, abilities and preferences, sexist, yes or no?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 14, 2017 04:15AM)
What is this 20 questions?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 14, 2017 04:25AM)
Oooooo, a pop quiz.

1) Should the law force private hotels to rent rooms to black people, yes or no? no
2) Should the law force a bakery to make a gay wedding cake, yes or no? no
3) Should the law force a Jewish sign writer to make posters for a Nazi rally, yes or no? no
4) Should public institutions be allowed to use affirmative action hiring systems to increase their racial diversity, yes or no? no
5) Should private businesses be allowed to have racial quotas even for white people, yes or no? yes

6) Should publicly funded colleges cave readily to the hecklers veto to deplatform controversial speakers, yes or no? no
7) Should the law force public officials to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no? no
8) Should the law force everyone to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no? no
9) Should there be hate speech laws which criminalise homophobic, Islamophobic or racist language, yes or no? no
10) Should the law force private businesses to allow self-identifying women to use the women's restroom, yes or no? no

11) If businesses were allowed to discriminate, would things quickly revert to a pre-civil rights era level of bigotry, yes or no?
hell no
12) Do non-whites face serious systemic racist discrimination in the USA and the U.K., yes or no? yes
13) Should non-whites recieve financial reparations for historic abuses, yes or no? no
14) Are most white people unconsciously racist, yes or no? no
15) Can non-whites be racist in the US or UK, yes or no? yes

16) Should public institutions have gender quotas as part of their hiring policies, yes or no? no
17) Are women paid less than men in the US and UK, yes or no? yes
18) Are all men unconsciously sexist, yes or no? no
19) Should companies be allowed to fire staff for sexist speech, yes or no? yes
20) Is saying that men and women in general have different strengths and weaknesses, abilities and preferences, sexist, yes or no? no
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 14, 2017 07:08AM)
I'd answer 5 and 15, 'yes.' The rest 'no'.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 14, 2017 07:33AM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:

Landmark:
I wasn't being specific about the Colorado case (there's many more), just asking a general question to see if there's at least one are of agreement between us.
Let me ask again:
Do you at least agree, then, that a religious baker shouldn't be forced to make a gay wedding cake if they don't want to? [/quote]

Well Landmark? Can't wait to hear your answer??????????

I will provide my answer: NO- the religious baker should NOT be forced to make the cake for the gay couple.
Message: Posted by: TomBoleware (Dec 14, 2017 08:04AM)
The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion.

Tom
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Dec 14, 2017 08:10AM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
What is this 20 questions? [/quote]

I can say that I saw #3 happen. I used to work for a typesetting firm run by two Jewish guys both named Barry. One day, young Barry gives me a job designing a flyer for an American Nazi rally. Old Barry comes in and I say, offhand Lt; “Odd thing for us to be doing.” (We usually did magazine articles and cover titles.) He went into the inner office and there was a major blowup between the two Barrys!

Incidentally, I don’t think the two cases are comparable because, to the best of my recollection, gays have never argued, or initiated, a campaign of violence against bakers.

Whether you accept or deny the “6 million Jews killed” argument, there is no doubt that Nazis began a campaign of harassment, violence, and finally, incarceration against Jews and that modern Nazis support and would like to follow their example. So a Jewish person could deny a Nazi contract.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 14, 2017 08:16AM)
How must damage must a group be guilty of before one should be able to legally refuse to make something for them?

Could I refuse a Soviet flag? A British flag? A Christian cross? A Muslim crescent? A picture of Barbie?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 14, 2017 08:19AM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Maybe some clear yes/no questions can cut through some of the posting 'fog' and reboot the discussion.

1) Should the law force private hotels to rent rooms to black people, yes or no?... [/quote]

...even if you have to bring some in at additional cost. But not a thought for Chinese folks who, as a group, make up about a fifth of the world's population ... under-represented in the hotel... where are the signs in Chinese?... what's with that blatant display of ignorance?

Abusing words in political catchphrases imposes Orwellian NuSpeak while distracting from hard won civil progress. Consider the [url=https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/]EEOC[/url] as guide rather than 'affirmative action'. Another example - the characters in the movie "The Boys in the Band" don't seem too happy... so why call them "gay"? How many times do you need to hear the word shibboleth? What's the objection to letting those who want a more diverse environment seek out such rather than attempting to import or impose diversity?

We are so far from being ready to explore racism and self-justification as mental illness. :( :hrmph:
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 14, 2017 08:22AM)
I'd be interested to see your 20 yes.no responses Jonathan :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 14, 2017 08:30AM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
20) Is saying that men and women in general have different strengths and weaknesses, abilities and preferences, sexist, yes or no? [/quote]

No. To the listener it's a sweeping generalization - marking the speaker - but for workplace issues probably depends on context. We have an EEOC for job qualifications. Qualifications for Doctor, lawyer, mathematician, architect or workplace supervisor etc. have nothing to do with which bathroom someone uses. Construction workers, firemen, policemen have some work related physical fitness qualifications that seem sensible.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 14, 2017 09:19AM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:

Landmark:
I wasn't being specific about the Colorado case (there's many more), just asking a general question to see if there's at least one are of agreement between us.
Let me ask again:
Do you at least agree, then, that a religious baker shouldn't be forced to make a gay wedding cake if they don't want to? [/quote]

Well Landmark? Can't wait to hear your answer??????????

I will provide my answer: NO- the religious baker should NOT be forced to make the cake for the gay couple. [/quote]

When you get up to speed with reading the thread, you'll find I gave my opinion on this at least 3 times. But once more: he can refuse to make a cake that he never made for anyone; but he cannot refuse to sell the same cake that he would have sold to someone else.

So if he never makes for example cakes with the word God on it, that's fine. But he can't refuse someone a cake that says congratulations, if he routinely sells that to others.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 14, 2017 09:32AM)
Cool landmark, yes that is very clear.

How would you answer the 20 questions?
Message: Posted by: RNK (Dec 14, 2017 09:56AM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, RNK wrote:
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:

Landmark:
I wasn't being specific about the Colorado case (there's many more), just asking a general question to see if there's at least one are of agreement between us.
Let me ask again:
Do you at least agree, then, that a religious baker shouldn't be forced to make a gay wedding cake if they don't want to? [/quote]

Well Landmark? Can't wait to hear your answer??????????

I will provide my answer: NO- the religious baker should NOT be forced to make the cake for the gay couple. [/quote]

When you get up to speed with reading the thread, you'll find I gave my opinion on this at least 3 times. But once more: he can refuse to make a cake that he never made for anyone; but he cannot refuse to sell the same cake that he would have sold to someone else.

So if he never makes for example cakes with the word God on it, that's fine. But he can't refuse someone a cake that says congratulations, if he routinely sells that to others. [/quote]

Great. Thanks for the clarity.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 14, 2017 10:09AM)
How would you answer the 20 questions RNK?
Message: Posted by: Anand Khalsa (Dec 14, 2017 04:04PM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I'd answer 5 and 15, 'yes.' The rest 'no'. [/quote]

19) Should companies be allowed to fire staff for sexist speech, yes or no?

To be clear, are you saying that the government should determine what companies can and can't fire their employees for?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 14, 2017 04:42PM)
Some of these 20 questions are good examples for folks to show how survey questions can be consciously or unconsciously biased.

For example,

#5 one might answer no for two diametrically opposite reasons--a) because you don't believe in quotas for anyone or b) you don't think white people should be the beneficiary of quotas. The missing choice is quotas only for historically oppressed peoples.

#6 "cave readily to the heckler's veto" is biased language and indicates the survey maker's preferred answer.

Questions #12, 14, and 17 are not opinion questions, but questions of fact. Better would be an appeal to the research or data than pulling an answer out of the air.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 14, 2017 04:44PM)
NYC Twister wrote for question #11 "hell no." Since that's the only question that you answered so emphatically, I'd like to know what extra information you have that leads you to be so sure? Certainly the historical record would not lead anyone to that conclusion. What is it then that makes it a given for you?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 14, 2017 06:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 14, 2017, landmark wrote:
NYC Twister wrote for question #11 "hell no." Since that's the only question that you answered so emphatically, I'd like to know what extra information you have that leads you to be so sure? Certainly the historical record would not lead anyone to that conclusion. What is it then that makes it a given for you? [/quote]

The historical record. Which, for me at least, doesn't just include the last 500 years.

I'm starting to think that you have no faith in humanity.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 14, 2017 09:40PM)
Hmm... so things were good before 500 years ago, then we had a bad patch of five centuries, and now we're back on track.

You are, indeed, a man of faith.

Me? I trust my mother, but I cut the cards.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 14, 2017 11:05PM)
No.

My point is that, despite our problems, we are better off now than we have ever been; and, even though we often take two steps back, we are moving [i]inexorably[/i] towards what's right.

Don't be so myopic.

"Regulated freedom" is an oxymoron.

The main difference between your position and that of some of the rest of us, is that we seem to think that left alone people will do what's right, eventually, with limited government involvement.

You seem to think that the government must be involved; thinking that the enactment of laws can somehow make people do what's inherently right.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 12:09AM)
[quote]The main difference between your position and that of some of the rest of us, is that we seem to think that left alone people will do what's right, eventually, with limited government involvement.

You seem to think that the government must be involved; thinking that the enactment of laws can somehow make people do what's inherently right.[/quote]

Then why have a government? We are already in the Kingdom of God.

Five hundred years is a lot of eventually. I believe in a nation of laws. Should a government try to stop or punish murder? Why, if people will inherently gravitate to the right thing eventually? Throughout history there have been saints and extraordinary people, and ordinary people who have done extraordinary things; this is all very true. But it doesn't mean you don't enact laws so that the weak may be preyed upon. Where or when has the abolition of government protection for those discriminated against ever resulted in a more free society? Surely you can't mean that.

People do gravitate to the right thing eventually, but it is through the democratic rule of law that those "right things" are codified and preserved. That's what the Ten Commandments were all about. You are now proposing to undo lessons and "right things" that were learned through much pain and suffering. In the meantime...
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 15, 2017 12:20AM)
Anand:

To be clear I'm asking whether there should be a legal restriction on employers being able to fire employees for what they say, specifically in this case for sexist speech. In the same way it is illegal (in the UK at least) to fire someone simply because they are black, I'm asking whether it should be likewise illegal to fire someone simply for being sexist. Does that help? :)

Landmark:

I disagree with your assessment of my questions. How would you answer them? You often avoid answering simple questions, but I think these are very clear and simple.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 15, 2017 12:51AM)
Of course he avoids it. The game is to constantly complain, not provide solutions. Especially when historically they have never worked.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 02:07AM)
@ Danny Nonsense. I've answered far more questions about my opinions, in more detail, than you or anyone else on this thread, and often several times.

@TW You can disagree all you want but you are incorrect. The questions you asked are faulty for the reasons given. Do some research on 12, 14, and 17 and you will find your answers. Your opinion or my opinion are irrelevant on those questions. And [i]still[/i] no shred of evidence even suggesting that allowing businesses to discriminate against customers and employees has ever improved societal relations anywhere, any time.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 02:12AM)
[quote]You often avoid answering simple questions, but I think these are very clear and simple. [/quote]
Completely false. I neither avoid answering questions, nor are your questions clear and simple. They have an obvious bias and agenda behind them. I've answered all the points [i]many[/i] times now. Read through the thread. The only thing I have not addressed here is transgenderism which deserves its own thread.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 15, 2017 04:08AM)
You've avoided loads of questions! 20 for a start, lol :)

And where's this named bigoted town where I cant get a gay cake?

Do you want me to actually go through the whole of the past two threads and re-post all the questions you haven't given a direct answer to?

Rather than arguing about side points, why cant you just write 20 simple yes/no answers? It'll take you about five minutes. The avoidance looks suspicious at this point.

So you don't have to scroll back:
1) Should the law force private hotels to rent rooms to black people, yes or no?
2) Should the law force a bakery to make a gay wedding cake, yes or no?
3) Should the law force a Jewish sign writer to make posters for a Nazi rally, yes or no?
4) Should public institutions be allowed to use affirmative action hiring systems to increase their racial diversity, yes or no?
5) Should private businesses be allowed to have racial quotas even for white people, yes or no?

6) Should publicly funded colleges cave readily to the hecklers veto to deplatform controversial speakers, yes or no?
7) Should the law force public officials to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no?
8) Should the law force everyone to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no?
9) Should there be hate speech laws which criminalise homophobic, Islamophobic or racist language, yes or no?
10) Should the law force private businesses to allow self-identifying women to use the women's restroom, yes or no?

11) If businesses were allowed to discriminate, would things quickly revert to a pre-civil rights era level of bigotry, yes or no?
12) Do non-whites face serious systemic racist discrimination in the USA and the U.K., yes or no?
13) Should non-whites recieve financial reparations for historic abuses, yes or no?
14) Are most white people unconsciously racist, yes or no?
15) Can non-whites be racist in the US or UK, yes or no?

16) Should public institutions have gender quotas as part of their hiring policies, yes or no?
17) Are women paid less than men in the US and UK, yes or no?
18) Are all men unconsciously sexist, yes or no?
19) Should companies be allowed to fire staff for sexist speech, yes or no?
20) Is saying that men and women in general have different strengths and weaknesses, abilities and preferences, sexist, yes or no?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 15, 2017 05:36AM)
The other questions landmark hasn't directly answered in this thread, along with the 20 above:

Do you think equal access to speaking should mean equal access to all media, from pamphlets to TV ads to tee-shirts designs to sports sponsorship to cinema product placement to time in government debates to books printed to .... Etc.?

Do you realise how prevalent the viewpoint the majority here represents actually is?

Do you only read a certain small section of news sources or talk to only a small subgroup of insiders?

Who is being pulled down if I afford exactly the same rights to everyone?

Why should that law exist?

Which news sources do you use?

Have I been arguing for a more fair society?

What alternative would you forward to remove the problems currently faced regarding religious people being forced out of the public sphere, hate speech crime enforcement, academic de-platforming, affirmative action racism, and the such like? Or are you content with the status quo?

All the supermarkets in the country refuse to sell me a cake? And all the bakers too?

You think that I won't be able to find a baker who is willing to bake me a wedding cake in the UK if I'm black, or gay, or Muslim?

Please name the group who you think this would happen to? Be specific.

You simply asked if I thought I'd have had advantages if I was non-white, and I said all other things being equal, yes (please read my posts). Where's the grievance?

Are you telling me that a gay couple would have trouble getting a wedding cake in NY city? Do you think any gay couple would ever have a problem getting a cake in anywhere in the UK?

What about them? I can get a gay cake as easy as I can pick up a phone, but where can they live according to their consciences?

What legal discrimination do they face? Please tell me what laws and state institutional discrimination they face so I can stand with you against it.

Name a specific bigoted town. I'll see what Google throws up about the businesses and services it has etc. Then we'll check and see how hard it is to get a gay cake there. Deal?

I see you have not taken me up on my experiment. Is that an admission that there is no town in the US where a gay couple would be unable to obtain a wedding cake?

I also note that you haven't specified the discrimination your students suffered under. Does this mean it doesn't actually exist? Please specify so I can believe you.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 08:30AM)
LOL. I have explained in detail my principles and given examples. Far more than your repetitive set of 20 questions. You want to play 20 biased questions and yet not answer the crucial question I have asked of you: what shred of evidence do you have that even suggests that allowing businesses to discriminate against customers and employees has ever improved societal relations anywhere, any time?
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 15, 2017 08:35AM)
Are you refusing to answer any of these questions?

I honestly didn't include any of the many questions which you took the time and trouble to answer - and I'm thankful that you did answer many of my questions. But the questions in the posts above are ones you either missed or have avoided. I can see no good reason for you to avoid them, especially since most are just like the ones you've already answered?

Even if it was only a case of repeating yourself, why wouldn't you be wiling to spend five minutes providing answers so as to clarify things and prevent a tangential side-track and the appearance of avoidance? I just don't get why you're being stubborn about this.

"what shred of evidence do you have that even suggests that allowing businesses to discriminate against customers and employees has ever improved societal relations anywhere, any time?"
None.
I don't believe I've claimed to have any.

However, I have claimed that it is obvious that if person X is forced out of business for refusing to do Y, then by removing the compulsion to do Y would prevent more people X's from being forced out of business.

See, it's easy to answer questions :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 09:03AM)
I have some time to kill today, so here is the answer for your repetitive list of 20 biased and ill-formed questions: yes; what is gay cake?; what sign?; yes; ill-formed: whites are not a people historically oppressed because of race in US and UK; biased framing; no; no; no; undecided; yes; read the data; depends; read the research; read the data; depends; read the data; read the research; depends; depends.

And here are answers for your next set of even more biased and ill-formed questions: yes; assumes facts not in evidence; no; those with less power presently; what law?; come over to my house and you can track my media consumption; no, assumes facts not in evidence and lumps together disparate issues; irrelevant; irrelevant and never said such; irrelevant and never said such; deeply wrong precisely because all things are not equal; same question you already asked and I never said such; who is they?; who is they--if gays, in housing and employment; never said such; never said such; slurs, police harassment, physical intimidation;
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 09:08AM)
[quote]most are just like the ones you've already answered
[/quote]
Exactly.
If a person says to you that they like all kinds of magic, it is time-wasting to ask coin magic? card magic? illusions? What about close-up? and so on.

Now perhaps you'll answer the one question I have asked many times and received no inkling of a reason from you as to why you have faith that discrimination and inequality would not increase if private businesses were allowed to discriminate.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 09:15AM)
[quote]"what shred of evidence do you have that even suggests that allowing businesses to discriminate against customers and employees has ever improved societal relations anywhere, any time?"
None.
I don't believe I've claimed to have any.[/quote]

I see, so fifty years of progress should be overturned based on a prediction of puppies and rainbows that you have no reason to believe would actually happen.

[quote]However, I have claimed that it is obvious that if person X is forced out of business for refusing to do Y, then by removing the compulsion to do Y would prevent more people X's from being forced out of business.
[/quote] Please name all these people forced out of business, who could in no way continue if they so chose, because of compulsion. Please show that these people are more numerous and have suffered deeper harm than historically oppressed peoples in the last fifty years. Please show that removing restrictions benefits more than keeping in place.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 15, 2017 11:30AM)
Thanks for taking a few minutes to respond - I'm sorry I had to badger you repeatedly this to happen, but I'm glad you did.

Let me parse out your responses in an easier to read format, with my comments in brackets:

1) Should the law force private hotels to rent rooms to black people, yes or no? Yes
2) Should the law force a bakery to make a gay wedding cake, yes or no? What is gay cake (I notice you didn't read the question)
3) Should the law force a Jewish sign writer to make posters for a Nazi rally, yes or no? What sign (did you read the question?)
4) Should public institutions be allowed to use affirmative action hiring systems to increase their racial diversity, yes or no? Yes
5) Should private businesses be allowed to have racial quotas even for white people, yes or no? ill-formed: whites are not a people historically oppressed because of race in US and UK (This is not an answer)

6) Should publicly funded colleges cave readily to the hecklers veto to deplatform controversial speakers, yes or no? biased framing (this is not an answer)
7) Should the law force public officials to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no? No
8) Should the law force everyone to use people's preferred pronouns, yes or no? No
9) Should there be hate speech laws which criminalise homophobic, Islamophobic or racist language, yes or no? No
10) Should the law force private businesses to allow self-identifying women to use the women's restroom, yes or no? undecided (which way do you lean?)

11) If businesses were allowed to discriminate, would things quickly revert to a pre-civil rights era level of bigotry, yes or no? Yes
12) Do non-whites face serious systemic racist discrimination in the USA and the U.K., yes or no? Read the data (that's not an answer, but I'll assume it means yes)
13) Should non-whites recieve financial reparations for historic abuses, yes or no? Depends (intriguing, could you add more?)
14) Are most white people unconsciously racist, yes or no? Read the research (this is not an answer, I'll have to assume you mean yes)
15) Can non-whites be racist in the US or UK, yes or no? Read the data (this is not an answer, I'll have to assume you mean no)

16) Should public institutions have gender quotas as part of their hiring policies, yes or no? Depends (on what?)
17) Are women paid less than men in the US and UK, yes or no? Read the data (not an answer, I'll assume you mean yes)
18) Are all men unconsciously sexist, yes or no? Read the research (not an answer, I'll assume you mean yes)
19) Should companies be allowed to fire staff for sexist speech, yes or no? Depends (on what?)
20) Is saying that men and women in general have different strengths and weaknesses, abilities and preferences, sexist, yes or no? Depends (on what?)

21) Do you think equal access to speaking should mean equal access to all media, from pamphlets to TV ads to tee-shirts designs to sports sponsorship to cinema product placement to time in government debates to books printed to .... Etc.? Yes (so you believe everyone should be paid exactly the same?)

22) Do you realise how prevalent the viewpoint the majority here represents actually is? Assumes facts not evidence (what?)

23) Do you only read a certain small section of news sources or talk to only a small subgroup of insiders? No

24) Who is being pulled down if I afford exactly the same rights to everyone? Those with less power presently (can you be more specific?)

25) Why should that law exist? What law? (in the US if you say Blacks cannot be served in your restaurant, you can and should be subject to the full measure of the law)

26) Which news sources do you use? come over to my house and you can track my media consumption (or you could just tell me?)

27) Have I been arguing for a more fair society? no, assumes facts not in evidence and lumps together disparate issues (then why did you imply I had been?)

28) What alternative would you forward to remove the problems currently faced regarding religious people being forced out of the public sphere, hate speech crime enforcement, academic de-platforming, affirmative action racism, and the such like? Or are you content with the status quo? Irrelevent (so you have no answers and think other people's suffering is irrelevant. Ok.)

29) All the supermarkets in the country refuse to sell me a cake? And all the bakers too? irrelevant and never said such (You asked 'what if the supermarket refused'. Seems my follow up question here was directly relevant. I'll have to assume your answer as 'yes')

30) You think that I won't be able to find a baker who is willing to bake me a wedding cake in the UK if I'm black, or gay, or Muslim? irrelevant and never said such (of course it's relevant, and how can your response to a question be 'never said such' - I'm asking you for an answer! I'll have to assume the answer is 'yes')

31) Please name the group who you think this would happen to? Be specific. - deeply wrong precisely because all things are not equal (what?)

32) You simply asked if I thought I'd have had advantages if I was non-white, and I said all other things being equal, yes (please read my posts). Where's the grievance? same question you already asked and I never said such (I think your response here was actually to the question below. You missed this one, then)

33) Are you telling me that a gay couple would have trouble getting a wedding cake in NY city? Do you think any gay couple would ever have a problem getting a cake in anywhere in the UK? same question you already asked and I never said such (given your responses so far it is fair I assume you mean, 'yes' and 'yes')

34) What about them? I can get a gay cake as easy as I can pick up a phone, but where can they live according to their consciences? who is they (those who want to refuse people service according to their conscience)

35) What legal discrimination do they face? Please tell me what laws and state institutional discrimination they face so I can stand with you against it. who is they?; who is they--if gays, in housing and employment (no, not gays, the students who you said faced discrimination almost every day)

36) Name a specific bigoted town. I'll see what Google throws up about the businesses and services it has etc. Then we'll check and see how hard it is to get a gay cake there. Deal? never said such (that response makes no sense in response to my question? Huh?)

37) I see you have not taken me up on my experiment. Is that an admission that there is no town in the US where a gay couple would be unable to obtain a wedding cake? never said such (that is not a meaningful response to my question - it literally makes no sense???)

38) I also note that you haven't specified the discrimination your students suffered under. Does this mean it doesn't actually exist? Please specify so I can believe you slurs, police harassment, physical intimidation (this was a follow up to the above question 35, thus 'discrimination' referenced legal, state institutional laws and the such lie, not just people being mean to them or criminal acts performed on their persons. So I ask again, what legal institutional discrimination do they face? I may have to assume 'none')

I'll collate/summarise your responses in another post.

Your other posts:
"Now perhaps you'll answer the one question". When you typed this I had already answered. I've asked you before to be more careful reading my posts.

"fifty years of progress should be overturned based on a prediction of puppies and rainbows"
It's hardly a prediction ... It's a logic argument. Where is the fallacy: if person X is forced out of business for refusing to do Y, then by removing the compulsion to do Y would prevent more people X's from being forced out of business.

"Please name all these people forced out of business"
I'll dig out some examples for you when I get chance.

"Please show that these people are more numerous and have suffered deeper harm than historically oppressed peoples in the last fifty years"
They haven't. But that doesn't matter, I'm not arguing that because someone suffered last year some other innocent party now has to suffer - is that your argument? It sounds illogical and vindictive, but it would explain some of the bullying tactics I've seen being used by feminists, BLM and the LGBT activists against others. They were discriminated against in the past, so now they want to make others suffer as well. Interesting psychological premise, but I'm not sure I buy it. Is this your view, landmark?

"Please show that removing restrictions benefits more than keeping in place."
I only need to argue that by removing restrictions those who want to discriminate will no longer be forced out to cease trading according to their consciences.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 15, 2017 12:00PM)
Collation:

6 out of 20 yes/no questions actually answered with either a yes or no.
2 questions not read
1 question missed

Summary of landmark's beliefs based on question responses:

Current anti-discrimination laws need to be maintained else we'll return to a pre-civil rights era level of bigotry; no need to introduce proscribed speech or hate speech laws; affirmative action and quotas are generally a good thing for historically oppressed people; non-whites face serious systemic, legal and institutional discrimination; non-whites could deserve reparations; most white people are racist, non-whites cannot be racist; most men are sexist; women are generally paid less than men; it could potentially be sexist to say men and women are different; the problems of religious people being unable to operate businesses according to their conscience is a minor irrelevance; whites have clear advantages in society over all non-whites; gay people still find it difficult to get access to goods and services.

Is that a reasonable summary, landmark? I've tried to be as fair as I can based upon your answers.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 15, 2017 03:14PM)
[quote]On Dec 7, 2017, landmark wrote:
...filed a federal lawsuit today arguing that an Arizona law requiring ... [/quote]

Senator Kennedy mentioned something in our law that could pertain to this topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention_doctrine

what do you think?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 15, 2017 11:26PM)
2,3)

I read the questions and repeat: what is a gay cake and what sign? Poorly defined question. As I've said at least[i] four[/i] times now, it depends what is on the cake and on the sign. If it's the same cake or sign made for others (not gay, not Nazi), then yes they must sell it. Otherwise no. Do you think four re-statements of my position are enough?

5) Of course it's an answer. What it was not, was a well-formed question. A question that only allows answers A or B, when C is an obvious alternative is a poor question. Who do you think was the best US President ever--Millard Fillmore or Grover Cleveland?

6) When did you stop beating your wife?

10) I would have to discuss it more with people who consider themselves trans, and people who have been active fighting for women's rights. There's an interesting and not small split among people I respect who consider the concept of transgenderism in very different ways. So not leaning, but wanting more information.

12, 14, 15, 17) Don't assume, instead read my answer. It means exactly what it says.

13) Not all non-white groups have faced the same levels of oppression, and it's also not clear that specifically financial reparations are the best way to make reparations.

19) level of offense, frequency of offense.

20) depends on what specifically is said. It could be accurate or it could be stupid BS.

21)? Where did I say that?

22) The premise of the question is unproven.

24) read my posts

26) far too numerous

29-37) read my posts. I said I had no doubt that there would be towns where these things would be very difficult to get if you repealed the Civil Rights Amendments as you wished to do.

38) You obviously have a comprehension or empathy problem. Slurs, police harassment and physical intimidation are not "none." It's pretty clear to me that you have no intention of a real dialogue but just want to hear what you want to hear.

[quote]"fifty years of progress should be overturned based on a prediction of puppies and rainbows"
It's hardly a prediction ... It's a logic argument. Where is the fallacy: if person X is forced out of business for refusing to do Y, then by removing the compulsion to do Y would prevent more people X's from being forced out of business.
[/quote]

The logic is faulty on about every level. 1) The premise is faulty--nobody is forcing anyone out of business. The businessperson is making a clear and free choice to do so. 2) It ignores the consequences of the policy. It's true that by putting a serial killer in prison I deprive him of his freedom. But a much larger segment of the society is benefited. "It's hardly a prediction..." is quite right. The normal way to make predictions of policies is to look at how such policy fared in the past, not to completely ignore history.

[quote]"Please show that these people are more numerous and have suffered deeper harm than historically oppressed peoples in the last fifty years"
They haven't. But that doesn't matter,[/quote] Of course it does, if your solution would continue to bring more harm to others. Just what kind of blinders do you wear?

[quote]"Please show that removing restrictions benefits more than keeping in place."
I only need to argue that by removing restrictions those who want to discriminate will no longer be forced out to cease trading according to their consciences. [/quote]
I'm sorry to say this, I rarely do, but this is a deeply stupid statement. Surely you know better than this. Every policy must be weighed as to its benefit and consequences. If the negative consequences outweigh the benefits, no matter what the policy, then it is a bad policy.

I'm done here. This is not a useful dialogue but an inquisition. I've humored you with answers to questions that get repeated over and over until you are either happy with the answers or can distort them to your liking.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 16, 2017 01:54AM)
Well, OK then.

I'm sorry that these issues and my point of view have triggered you so much that you've responded in such an insulting fashion. I wish this wasn't par for the course when talking to SJWs and cultural Marxists, but I'm afraid it is :(

Hopefully you will at least reconsider some of your principles and positions, and maybe this dialogue has helped you formulate your own thoughts so as to be better able to express them. I have enjoyed our chat and found it profitable, and it's helped me think through some things - so cheers for that :). Ultimately, though, I think you're right that liberals/ conservatives/ libertarians will never be able to have productive dialogue with leftists/ progressives/ social justice collectivists - their worldviews are too divergent; mockery might be the only really useful speech to direct at each other, and it will finally come down to power and who has it.

Does anyone else want to discuss landmarks viewpoint?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 16, 2017 01:10PM)
[quote]On Dec 15, 2017, landmark wrote:
Who do you think was the best US President ever--Millard Fillmore or Grover Cleveland?[/quote]
Silly example: everybody knows that Grover Cleveland was the best US President ever. Which other US President has a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland_Alexander]Hall of Fame pitcher named for him[/url]?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Dec 16, 2017 01:31PM)
Willie Clinton Mays?

I like that the Wikipedia entry for GC Alexander says "Not to be confused with Grover Cleveland." I can just imagine the enormous GC running the bases.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Dec 16, 2017 02:40PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2017, landmark wrote:
Willie Clinton Mays?[/quote]
Willie [b][i]Howard[/i][/b] Mays was born 15 years before Bill Clinton; I'm pretty sure that you cannot be named after someone before whom you were born.

Also: if memory serve, Willie Mays wasn't a pitcher. I could be mistaken.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 16, 2017 06:01PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
... to discuss landmarks viewpoint? [/quote]

I'm not clear on his - and it's tough enough to examine my own.

PC speech and "fairness"/quota managing are expensive economic inefficiencies. Such additional costs risk making history a burden more heavy than the market will bear.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 16, 2017 06:27PM)
On a different note -

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-banned-words/index.html

TW?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2017 07:13PM)
So what is the real story and what is over reaction?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 16, 2017 08:04PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
So what is the real story and what is over reaction? [/quote]

I guess the real story is the curtailment of expression, in such a way that you have to wonder......why?

On the surface it's so monumentally stupid, and obviously biased that, by now, you might just shrug it off as today's dose of nonsense.

But when you think about how effective this joke of an administration has been, you have to think of fourth dimensional chess.
This moron has the whole world punch drunk. He understands something about the "common" man that thinking people refuse to accept.

I guess an over-reaction would be - "THEY'RE ATTACKING SCIENCE!! TAKE TO THE STREETS!!" - or some dumb **** like that.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2017 08:14PM)
I still think that there is more to this.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 16, 2017 08:19PM)
I'd like to know what it is; because on the surface...it's disturbing.

Why those words?

And...banned on government documents?

Orwell is doing a spit take right about now.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 16, 2017 08:59PM)
It is CNN. It is possible it might not be all to the story.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 16, 2017 09:05PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
It is CNN. It is possible it might not be all to the story. [/quote]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.634cf6ceacb4

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cdc-reportedly-given-list-seven-banned-words-phrases-n830416

https://www.google.com/search?q=cdc+banned+words&oq=cdc&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j69i60l2j0l2.2894j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 16, 2017 09:55PM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
I still think that there is more to this. [/quote]

If you put topical sentences using those terms together - what drops out of the grammar? Try this:
* based -> considered opinion + as born + traditional values ...
And a new theme song "in consideration with community standards and wishes" appears for 2018 campaigns.

Gotta love unapproved anonymous sources - just doing their jobs.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 17, 2017 01:45AM)
Governments banning words? Sounds sinister. You're beginning to look a bit more like Europe ... :(
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 17, 2017 01:47AM)
One thing about the responses I did get to my questions (why so many skipped them I don't know), is that some think women are paid less than men. I admit I find that hard to believe, at least for the UK where it's been illegal for 40+ years (and with massive popular support). Is it different in the US?
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Dec 17, 2017 10:56AM)
[quote]On Dec 16, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
I'd like to know what it is; because on the surface...it's disturbing.

Why those words?

And...banned on government documents?

Orwell is doing a spit take right about now. [/quote]
I posted this elsewhere, so I'm just going to quote it:

The seven words are blocked specifically in budget documents and requests. Now, we know who is going to review those documents, right? Members of Congress. We also know that members of Congress just love to sidetrack conversations by grabbing on to a term or word and going off on long debates about its meaning; it's an old trick to disorient people. Heck, trial lawyers do the same thing.

For instance, the term "fetus." A lawmaker can hijack the discussion by going off on requesting a definition of the word, and then debating it, instead of talking about the subject matter. And they love to do this.

So, my suggestion to CDC was (I wrote them a note this morning) to look at the bright side: find someone (or several someones) who can translate budget documents into fourth-grade English and submit them that way. Take away the opportunity to hijack the discussion by going off on tangents.

Now, do I believe for one second that CDC will discuss this idea internally even for a moment? Heck no.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 17, 2017 08:08PM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2017, George Ledo wrote:
[quote]On Dec 16, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
I'd like to know what it is; because on the surface...it's disturbing.

Why those words?

And...banned on government documents?

Orwell is doing a spit take right about now. [/quote]
I posted this elsewhere, so I'm just going to quote it:

The seven words are blocked specifically in budget documents and requests. Now, we know who is going to review those documents, right? Members of Congress. We also know that members of Congress just love to sidetrack conversations by grabbing on to a term or word and going off on long debates about its meaning; it's an old trick to disorient people. Heck, trial lawyers do the same thing.

For instance, the term "fetus." A lawmaker can hijack the discussion by going off on requesting a definition of the word, and then debating it, instead of talking about the subject matter. And they love to do this.

So, my suggestion to CDC was (I wrote them a note this morning) to look at the bright side: find someone (or several someones) who can translate budget documents into fourth-grade English and submit them that way. Take away the opportunity to hijack the discussion by going off on tangents.

Now, do I believe for one second that CDC will discuss this idea internally even for a moment? Heck no. [/quote]

Plain English?

How quaint.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 17, 2017 09:19PM)
? [quote]... my suggestion to CDC was (I wrote them a note this morning) to look at the bright side: find someone (or several someones) who can translate budget documents into fourth-grade English and submit them that way. Take away the opportunity to hijack the discussion by going off on tangents. [/quote]
"my"?

Was that a tweet from POTUS - link?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 19, 2017 02:46PM)
Regarding the OP and "in the US"... see 15 CFR 760.2 item (a)(1) to start for context.

Tangentially, off course
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Dec 20, 2017 12:57AM)
[quote]On Dec 17, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
One thing about the responses I did get to my questions (why so many skipped them I don't know), is that some think women are paid less than men. I admit I find that hard to believe, at least for the UK where it's been illegal for 40+ years (and with massive popular support). Is it different in the US? [/quote]

Please do not think that all of us are ignoring you. I just spent a week away to attend my father's funeral in Hong Kong, and returned with a nasty head cold and a desk (and multiple classrooms) full of work. NYtwister is still waiting for me to post something about Ayn Rand, and that's been at least a year! I'm a slow poster.

Regarding the question of whether men and women are equally paid: a perfect example of what I call "intellectual urban legend." My wife and I got into a rather nasty argument about it, because questioning the validity of the claim that the gender pay gap is at least 20% is like being a flat-earther. Yet the 20% figure--sacrosanct--is complete BS.

It's interesting how many "statistics" have become dogma. This is one of them. Everyone "knows" that women earn 80% of what men earn in the USA. And yes, it's illegal (true) and the result of discrimination (questionable).

What's peculiar about American democracy is the consistent appeal to fairness. It's not so much that we expect the same wealth or fame or platform to speak freely as much as we expect to be given an equal chance to obtain wealth or fame or a platform to speak freely. What distinguishes left and right these days is a disagreement regarding what constitutes an "equal chance."

The dogma about the gender pay gap is this: women are being denied the chance to be paid the same money for the same work as what a man is paid. That is unfair and needs to be changed. That this is dogma rather than truth is part and parcel of American democracy.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 20, 2017 03:30AM)
Cool stoneunhinged, so the US is the same as the UK, then, and has equal pay laws? That is how I thought it was, which is why it surprised me that I got replies from people who thought otherwise.

I really can't think of any organisation in the UK that has made the news recently for paying women and men different wages. And those that do are surely breaking the law and will sooner or later get caught.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Dec 20, 2017 04:42AM)
Yes, equal pay is at least as old as I am: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_of_1963


The claim is that the law doesn't work, because...well...80% and all that. Again, this is something [i]everybody knows[/i], even if it is not true.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 20, 2017 08:11AM)
I have seen the equal pay thing for a long time and it is odd to me.

Women and babies and all that. If a woman is going to leave for a family, are they as valuable to a company overall as a man who will not leave? I don't know but I do see the discussion point. I mean men leave for family reasons as well don't they? It is not as simple as it seems on the surface.

The odd part is that Hillary Clinton is a champion of this cause, and VERY guilty of paying women less. Go figure.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 20, 2017 08:24AM)
I agree it's nowhere near as simple as surface investigations make it appear to be.

Biology obviously plays a huge factor, even apart from babies, breast feeding and motherly instincts (IQ distribution; language/mathematical skill distribution; upper body strength; capacity for violence; competitive drive; physical risk aversion; cold and dirt climate endurance; aesthetic interest; autism distribution; life expectancy, etc etc).

Add onto that lot a boat load of cultural factors and all the complexities of individual variation, and what do you get? Nothing as straighforward as, 'women are paid less than men' or 'quotas will dismantle sexism', that's for sure! :)
Message: Posted by: lunatik (Dec 20, 2017 08:46AM)
I don't know why some companies don't pay according to ones skill set, regardless of their sex. If you can do the job well, why would there be a discrepancy in pay? Can I name any specific company that does this? No, I haven't looked into it far enough.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 20, 2017 09:44AM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2017, stoneunhinged wrote:
...
It's interesting how many "statistics" have become dogma. ...[/quote]

And if you're following the news today, add "rounded to the nearest 500".
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 20, 2017 11:59AM)
If companies could pay women less, why would they even hire men at all?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 20, 2017 01:00PM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
If companies could pay women less, why would they even hire men at all? [/quote]

Here's one perspective: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/opinion/why-arent-indias-women-working.html
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 20, 2017 01:49PM)
How does that article explain why companies wouldn't choose to hire women on a lower wage than men for the same job???

It seems to offer various cultural or economic explanations for why women wouldn't choose to enter the workforce, or would seek lower paid or less prestigious employment, but I'm not sure where it talks about why businesses would seek to pay their staff more than they have to?

Confused?

For a more UK specific study:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/877679/Gender-pay-gap-report-institute-economic-affairs-study-bbc-women-men
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Dec 20, 2017 02:44PM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
If companies could pay women less, why would they even hire men at all? [/quote]

Maybe it is because men are making the hiring decisions.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 20, 2017 02:50PM)
Huh? So a business which could reduce wages and increase profits would rather hire more expensive staff because men prefer other men to money? If we're just playing the 'most men are sexist' card wouldn't that favour the idea that men would hire young females on low wages? Makes no sense at all.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 20, 2017 07:53PM)
[quote]On Dec 20, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
Huh? So a business which could reduce wages and increase profits would rather hire more expensive staff because men prefer other men to money? If we're just playing the 'most men are sexist' card wouldn't that favour the idea that men would hire young females on low wages? Makes no sense at all. [/quote]

It's an "old boys" type of thing; based on fear, and ultimately rooted in shame.

The sexism would cause them to see the man as the better value, since men are better at everything. As an underling, and possibly an object...sure.
As an equal? No freaking way.

Also the "alpha male" mentality needs a competition they themselves can respect. Competing against weak women is shameful.

In your scenario the sexist male would, in order to save money, be surrounded by lower paid females that he considered good only for things which had nothing to do with the job he needed them to do.

And that's just the heterosexual aspects.

Is it less confusing now?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Dec 20, 2017 10:18PM)
Actually no that seems like a lot of leaps.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 21, 2017 02:47AM)
I assume Twister is being sarcastic. At least I hope so, because otherwise ....
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 21, 2017 04:41AM)
Nope.

Surely you have men in the U.K. who believe that a woman's place is in the home.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 21, 2017 06:35AM)
Oh, you're serious.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 21, 2017 07:18AM)
Like you said, it's not logical. Therefore the reason must be illogical.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 21, 2017 09:45AM)
The reason for what?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 21, 2017 10:22AM)
The reason that men would hire a man at a higher rate.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Dec 21, 2017 11:50AM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
I assume Twister is being sarcastic. At least I hope so, because otherwise .... [/quote]

If you state your position in context (and it's motivating drivers, please) we can discuss.

That's not an enthymeme ;)
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 21, 2017 01:25PM)
NYCTwister:

I'm genuinely surprised and interested in your position - it seems quite shocking to me, and I'd like to know why you think the way you do.

First, I better make sure I have a handle on exactly what your POV is :)

So, to be clear, do you believe that:
A) women are often paid less than men (for the same work, having the same qualifications) in the US and UK?
B) it is legal for companies to pay women less than men for the same job?
C) that if it was legal to pay women less, companies would generally still prefer to hire men?
D) that companies presently prefer to hire men rather than women (assuming all other things being equal)?
E) that the main reason men prefer to hire other men is sexism?
F) that these sexist hiring and pay variations is the principle reason behind the average earning difference across genders?

Thanks in advance for your answers and a no-doubt stimulating discussion! :)
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 21, 2017 05:24PM)
[quote]On Dec 21, 2017, Terrible Wizard wrote:
NYCTwister:

I'm genuinely surprised and interested in your position - it seems quite shocking to me, and I'd like to know why you think the way you do.

First, I better make sure I have a handle on exactly what your POV is :)

So, to be clear, do you believe that:[/quote]

A) women are often paid less than men (for the same work, having the same qualifications) in the US and UK?
I don't know about "often".

B) it is legal for companies to pay women less than men for the same job?
I don't know, but probably not here. I don't know about the UK.

C) that if it was legal to pay women less, companies would generally still prefer to hire men?
D) that companies presently prefer to hire men rather than women (assuming all other things being equal)?
I'm speaking about sexist males, not companies in general.

E) that the main reason men prefer to hire other men is sexism?
Sexist men...yes

F) that these sexist hiring and pay variations is the principle reason behind the average earning difference across genders?
I'd imagine it's a factor.

Why does this surprise you?

Like all improper inequalities it's being addressed by evolution.

Btw, you never mentioned if you knew any backward thinking males.

Also btw, my name is Dan.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 21, 2017 05:48PM)
Ok, it seems I might have misunderstood you - I thought your view was something other than it was.

It seems, if I'm not mistaken, that your POV on the wage gap is that on the occasions where sexist men prefer to hire men over women it's for sexist reasons. I'm not sure that is much of a shocking view, but neither am I sure it says much about the real world at all! Oh well, my bad.

If you'd have answered that you thought women were often paid less than men, or that it was legal for companies to pay women differently, or that many companies preferred to hire men over women, or that most men were sexist, or that this was a major reason for the earnings gap, or something like that, then I'd find that shocking.

Regarding do I know any men who think a woman's place is in the home, no, I've never met any (assuming you mean men who think women should never work).
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 21, 2017 10:03PM)
It's not a shocking view at all; which is why I asked why you were surprised.

As far as the real world it's less prevalent now than it was fifty years ago; and it should be better fifty years from now.
Like I said, evolution.

I find it hard to believe that you've never met an alpha male, but if that's true it explains the general tone of your posts.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 22, 2017 02:51AM)
Your view isn't shocking, no. But what I thought your view was is shocking.

Never met an alpha male? What is an alpha male (in human terms)? How does that connect to my own view? What time?

My view, to be clear: I don't think there is a pay disparity between men and women and that it is a bit nonsensical to think there is; that it is clearly and obviously illegal to pay men and women different rates (all other things being equal); I don't think personal sexism has any significant role to play in why women on average earn less than men, rather it's mostly down to biology and culture; therefore gender quotas, affirmative action for females, and the such like are wholly unecessary, even harmful to society (in the UK at least, and prob the US).
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 31, 2017 10:05AM)
Https://static.theintercept.com/amp/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments.html
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 31, 2017 11:11AM)
I don't trust governments. I don't trust big social media. The two together are trouble :(

Why does it seem so few people, especially those in power, care much for freedom of speech and freedom of ideas? Rhetorical question, I guess.

Facebook is too big. I'd be ok with private companies choosing to censor who and what they wanted so long as: a) there was genuine, varied competition in the marketplace, and b) they had to be transparent about it.

Also, what was that alpha male thing all about?
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (Dec 31, 2017 01:07PM)
Those in power fear free speech and free exchange of ideas because those are the things that can cause them to lose power.
Look at the restriction Iran is placing on social media during these protests; citing a possible danger to the public due to "incitement". The powerful love to invoke the impossible to define "greater good".

The alpha male thing was my attempt to explain the reason certain men would hire a higher priced man.

Happy New Year Mr. TW.

Hang on brother! According to all the crazies this is the year where the feces will come in contact with the air circulating device.
Message: Posted by: Terrible Wizard (Dec 31, 2017 01:10PM)
Lol :)

Happy New Year!