Total Posts:129|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments for/against Civil Rights Act (1964)

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 8:51:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm curious to see the different sides of the issue. Do private institutions have the right to segregate their facilities, and if so, why? Does morality and fairness supersede property rights? How would peace be sustainable under the option of segregation?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 8:52:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
*Jimtimmy, spare me. I don't want to hear it, and I'm sure no one else does either.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 8:54:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would say, to SOME extent, fairness supersedes property rights.

As for morality, no.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 8:57:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My belief is that, in a society which supports equality, segregation should be prohibited because, with segregation, things can be twisted into inequality, fast. The south before the civil rights act is, of course, the prime example of this.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.
President of DDO
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:13:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nowadays, this may be true. But that's only after racism became an institution to be frowned upon. Obviously the "hurts my business" idea doesn't hold true if racism does. As we obviously saw throughout history.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:14:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nonsense. Tell me what happens when 80% of US Businesses treat African Americans unequally, or still receive money from them, but force them to sit in the back of the bus or be put in run down locations. Are they to simply live with it, or boycott all those industries until they comply? How feasible do you think that would be? .....Your loss of business argument is the weakest imaginable.

I knew this would happen. Save your breath, I'd rather not have to stomach this garbage.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:17:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:14:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nonsense. Tell me what happens when 80% of US Businesses treat African Americans unequally, or still receive money from them, but force them to sit in the back of the bus or be put in run down locations. Are they to simply live with it, or boycott all those industries until they comply? How feasible do you think that would be? .....Your loss of business argument is the weakest imaginable.

I knew this would happen. Save your breath, I'd rather not have to stomach this garbage.

Ouch.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:19:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:14:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nonsense. Tell me what happens when 80% of US Businesses treat African Americans unequally, or still receive money from them, but force them to sit in the back of the bus or be put in run down locations. Are they to simply live with it, or boycott all those industries until they comply? How feasible do you think that would be? .....Your loss of business argument is the weakest imaginable.

I am saying that that would not happen.


I knew this would happen. Save your breath, I'd rather not have to stomach this garbage.

Wow. Are you even open to any opposing views?
President of DDO
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:20:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.

Ha ha. Yes, because the government is what caused the Whites to hate minorities. Okay.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:21:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:14:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nonsense. Tell me what happens when 80% of US Businesses treat African Americans unequally, or still receive money from them, but force them to sit in the back of the bus or be put in run down locations. Are they to simply live with it, or boycott all those industries until they comply? How feasible do you think that would be? .....Your loss of business argument is the weakest imaginable.

I knew this would happen. Save your breath, I'd rather not have to stomach this garbage.

000ike, at least give him points for at least trying to be civil.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:21:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:20:52 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.

Ha ha. Yes, because the government is what caused the Whites to hate minorities. Okay.

And of course, we have to remember who was in control of this government who "caused all the segregation". So yeah.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:26:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I share jimbo's opinion on the matter.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:28:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:21:24 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:14:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nonsense. Tell me what happens when 80% of US Businesses treat African Americans unequally, or still receive money from them, but force them to sit in the back of the bus or be put in run down locations. Are they to simply live with it, or boycott all those industries until they comply? How feasible do you think that would be? .....Your loss of business argument is the weakest imaginable.

I knew this would happen. Save your breath, I'd rather not have to stomach this garbage.

000ike, at least give him points for trying to be civil.

Fix'd.
WriterSelbe
Posts: 410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:48:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:28:25 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:21:24 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:14:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nonsense. Tell me what happens when 80% of US Businesses treat African Americans unequally, or still receive money from them, but force them to sit in the back of the bus or be put in run down locations. Are they to simply live with it, or boycott all those industries until they comply? How feasible do you think that would be? .....Your loss of business argument is the weakest imaginable.

I knew this would happen. Save your breath, I'd rather not have to stomach this garbage.

000ike, at least give him points for trying to be civil.

Fix'd.

You no correct people. You're not supposed to be stupendous, hypocritical foo'.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2011 9:48:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:21:24 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:14:35 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:07:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
First, let me say that I find business owners excluding certain races from their businesses both wrong and stupid (it hurts their business).

Having said that, however, I do think that business owners should have the right to do this. I know that this is a hard view to swallow, but I do believe that everybody is better off when people are able to more freely associate.

I also think that very few business owners would discriminate by race, as it would be bad for their business.

Nonsense. Tell me what happens when 80% of US Businesses treat African Americans unequally, or still receive money from them, but force them to sit in the back of the bus or be put in run down locations. Are they to simply live with it, or boycott all those industries until they comply? How feasible do you think that would be? .....Your loss of business argument is the weakest imaginable.

I knew this would happen. Save your breath, I'd rather not have to stomach this garbage.

000ike, at least give him points for at least trying to be civil.

I concur. You weren't very civil yourself, ike.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 2:59:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.

This is the biggest lie that I have read all day. The free market leads to segregation against the poor, and the South did not magically transition from slavery to integration. Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 3:05:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 2:59:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.

This is the biggest lie that I have read all day. The free market leads to segregation against the poor, and the South did not magically transition from slavery to integration. Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying.

Do you not see the blatant contradiction here?

"Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying."

Do you really not see that the Jim Crow Laws WERE government intervention?

I mean, that should be fairly obvious.
President of DDO
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 5:09:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The act was opposed on Constitutional grounds by the National Review and conservatives. The problem was the heavily Democratic South which actually had law based on Race. Forgotten in the years since is that the institutionalized racism of that era was only in the South. The North never had race laws or Jim Crow. (Bus Boycot is an example) The attitude which gave rise to these laws was part of the "southern culture", and was still rampant in the 1980's.

I s no way, currently, that the government can stay out of these sorts of things. The average American is far to ignorant to understand the difference between substance and accidence in a philosophical sense. Ideally, anyone who engaged in racism or bigotry of any sort would have no customers and cease to be. This, sadly, does not work. (See walmart) More interesting is the actual effect of Brown v. Board of education on African American Higher Education.
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 5:12:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 3:05:03 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/21/2011 2:59:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.

This is the biggest lie that I have read all day. The free market leads to segregation against the poor, and the South did not magically transition from slavery to integration. Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying.

Do you not see the blatant contradiction here?

"Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying."


Do you really not see that the Jim Crow Laws WERE government intervention?

I mean, that should be fairly obvious.

Are you intentionally obtuse? Jim crow were State Laws, advocated by States Rights Southern morons. Good to see the good ol southern idiocy lives.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 5:22:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is a difference between discrimination by the state and discrimination by private citzens.

Discrimination by the state is, and should remain illegal. However, if I don't want to serve people with long hair, people who don't wear suits, or people who resemble anyone off of Sanford and Son, that should be up to me.

It isn't a matter of respecting discrimination based on these things, it is about respecting someone's right to do it. Personally, I think it breeds a more gonest and ultimately more open culture.

I could care less if a business gets hurt by practicing discrimination, though common sense seems to predict this happening in some form. You can only do something like that for so long before you start pissing people off.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 5:26:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 5:22:33 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is a difference between discrimination by the state and discrimination by private citzens.

Discrimination by the state is, and should remain illegal. However, if I don't want to serve people with long hair, people who don't wear suits, or people who resemble anyone off of Sanford and Son, that should be up to me.


It isn't a matter of respecting discrimination based on these things, it is about respecting someone's right to do it. Personally, I think it breeds a more gonest and ultimately more open culture.

I could care less if a business gets hurt by practicing discrimination, though common sense seems to predict this happening in some form. You can only do something like that for so long before you start pissing people off.

There may be a distinction but there is no difference. It is ignorant, indicative of an uneducated sloth and must not be tolerated when on t basis of skin color, religion or political ideation to name a few.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 5:42:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 5:22:33 AM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
There is a difference between discrimination by the state and discrimination by private citzens.

Discrimination by the state is, and should remain illegal. However, if I don't want to serve people with long hair, people who don't wear suits, or people who resemble anyone off of Sanford and Son, that should be up to me.


It isn't a matter of respecting discrimination based on these things, it is about respecting someone's right to do it. Personally, I think it breeds a more gonest and ultimately more open culture.

I could care less if a business gets hurt by practicing discrimination, though common sense seems to predict this happening in some form. You can only do something like that for so long before you start pissing people off.

I find this argument particularly one-track minded because property rights are not the only factors in the decision of forced integration. There is a balance of virtues and I hardly think property reigns supreme. You must look at all the other things we lose as a society and then prove that a gain in property rights is more pressing and more necessary than all the others, not provide a case for property in an utter vacuum.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 5:43:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you feel that way, you can organize a picket, or "occupy douche bag store" on the public property outside the place with the "No Mexicans allowed" sign on the front.

In fact, we should just do away with enforced property rights too. Your ability to enforce is measured by the amount of bullets you have. Then you could rally on the guy's private property.

No matter what, state or not, there is going to be some form of government.

I wouldn't take these anti-discrimination laws to court, in other words
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 6:31:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 3:05:03 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/21/2011 2:59:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.

This is the biggest lie that I have read all day. The free market leads to segregation against the poor, and the South did not magically transition from slavery to integration. Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying.

Do you not see the blatant contradiction here?

"Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying."


Do you really not see that the Jim Crow Laws WERE government intervention?

I mean, that should be fairly obvious.

I think its the distinction between federal government and state government. The state government enforced the jim crow laws, not the federal government.

I'm not too entirely sure how it would have played out If government just decided to stay out: both federal and state. I mean, the world back then was really racist. Just think "Birth of a nation" and you get the idea.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 3:39:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/21/2011 6:31:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 12/21/2011 3:05:03 AM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 12/21/2011 2:59:05 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 12/20/2011 9:16:49 PM, mongeese wrote:
Ironically enough, the South was fairly integrated directly after the Civil War. It was government-enforced segregation of railcars, unsurprisingly despised by the railroad industry, that led to segregation. The free market does not naturally lead to segregation in any way.

This is the biggest lie that I have read all day. The free market leads to segregation against the poor, and the South did not magically transition from slavery to integration. Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying.

Do you not see the blatant contradiction here?

"Jim Crow laws were established immediately after federal troops pulled out, and African Americans would not have gained any property without the federal government's intervention. You are either deluded or are blatantly lying."


Do you really not see that the Jim Crow Laws WERE government intervention?

I mean, that should be fairly obvious.

I think its the distinction between federal government and state government. The state government enforced the jim crow laws, not the federal government.

I'm not too entirely sure how it would have played out If government just decided to stay out: both federal and state. I mean, the world back then was really racist. Just think "Birth of a nation" and you get the idea.

LOL birth of A Nation was banned in the North, except Indiana, it was Wilson who popularized it. racism is a Southern thing. Are you all really taught that it was the entire US? Jim Crow...Civil War South ONLY.Hollywood jumped on the bandwagon to sell tickets in Alabama et al. The South is still the problem.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 3:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fact of the matter is that businesses are a part of society and they serve functions necessary for people to survive in life and get a fair chance at success. When you make something open to the public to serve the public, that entity becomes a part of this function. What kind of country and what kind of life are we creating when we allow unequal opportunities just because people were born a certain way that by no means affects their ability to complete the task?

Why do you think its okay to permit a situation whereby so many businesses have closed their doors to a certain race that people are born into the world inherently disadvantaged? Why is it okay to allow a structure NECESSARY to the function of human society to turn away a group of people, and deprive them of a necessity. How will those people make money, get jobs, do anything?

I understand the necessity of freedom and control over one's possessions, but I WILL NOT let that superimpose the virtues that grant people an adequate shot at life. I will not let the freedom of one become the end of another. We must balance the values we protect in life and realize that sacrificing an ounce of freedom for the preservation of basic fairness and equality is more than a good trade.

My principle problem with the right is that freedom is not all we hold dear in life, and it is not the sole key to the expression and fulfillment of human life. There is a balance of virtues and the others must be acknowledged.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2011 4:00:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Forced integration is a violation of property rights. When a man owns private property he is (or should be) the sovereign of that territory and should have the full right to exclude whoever/whatever he wants from the premises (as governments can do in their sovereign territory) be they negroes, whites, homosexuals, jews, atheists, dogs, cats, malays, or mongrels.

I will debate you on this 000ike if you wish.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right