Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

"Equal" Rights

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:20:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This may have been addressed in other threads, and if so, I apologize.
However, this post is not to address the benefits, successes, failures, or consequences of any particular movement.

Does the fact that there are special laws in place that protect certain groups (women, minorities) take away certain groups' claim for equality (feminists, NAACP)?

In other words, is it hypocritical for there to be groups advocating equality, yet expect/demand/desire special treatment as well?
My work here is, finally, done.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:23:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 10:20:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
This may have been addressed in other threads, and if so, I apologize.
However, this post is not to address the benefits, successes, failures, or consequences of any particular movement.

Does the fact that there are special laws in place that protect certain groups (women, minorities) take away certain groups' claim for equality (feminists, NAACP)?

In other words, is it hypocritical for there to be groups advocating equality, yet expect/demand/desire special treatment as well?

Yes.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 10:27:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you think these groups are generally hypocritical?

Or do you think that some members in a community (say the black community) support NAACP and equality, while others seek out hate crime and affirmative action legislation? Ergo, no hypocrisy for NAACP; the hypocracy is from the community, not the advocacy groups.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:18:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hate crime legislation puts race on unequal terms. A white guy kills a black guy, he gets a longer term. If a white guy kills a white guy, he gets less of one. It is not equal.
Also, there are affirmative action laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Women would be more of a social thing, I suppose. Not hitting them, no draft. A man punching a woman in the face is going to get a harsher sentence than had he punched a man in the face every time, IMO.
My work here is, finally, done.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:23:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:18:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Hate crime legislation puts race on unequal terms. A white guy kills a black guy, he gets a longer term.

No, if a white guy kills a black guy specifically because he is black and it can be shown that the race is specifically the reason for the killing, then he gets a longer term. If a white guy randomly kills a black guy, he will get the same amount of time he would get if he randomly killed a white guy.

If a white guy kills a white guy, he gets less of one. It is not equal.
Also, there are affirmative action laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Women would be more of a social thing, I suppose. Not hitting them, no draft.
I have always opposed a draft but if a draft is re-instated, yes women need to be drafter and sent out to front line. You can't have the cake without fighting for it.

A man punching a woman in the face is going to get a harsher sentence than had he punched a man in the face every time, IMO.

Proof?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:25:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Equality is a pretty vague term, and certain forms of equality make it so other terms are inequal. For example, one cannot have both equal household earnings and equal individual earnings, since households have different sides. There's a famous quote by Hayek on equality but I'll have to look it up.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:26:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time"
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:40:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:23:42 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:18:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Hate crime legislation puts race on unequal terms. A white guy kills a black guy, he gets a longer term.

No, if a white guy kills a black guy specifically because he is black and it can be shown that the race is specifically the reason for the killing, then he gets a longer term. If a white guy randomly kills a black guy, he will get the same amount of time he would get if he randomly killed a white guy.

The point is, races aren't equal, are they?
Why should it matter if I specifically kill you because you are black, slept with my wife, fired me from my job, creep me out, or any other irrational reason to kill someone? Why does only the race matter as the reason that warrants a longer prison term?

If a white guy kills a white guy, he gets less of one. It is not equal.
Also, there are affirmative action laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Women would be more of a social thing, I suppose. Not hitting them, no draft.
I have always opposed a draft but if a draft is re-instated, yes women need to be drafter and sent out to front line. You can't have the cake without fighting for it.

And feminist groups, I think, tend to fight for that. It wasn't a good example, I know. I can't really think of any sex-based laws except equal pay, but that isn't quite what I'm looking for.

A man punching a woman in the face is going to get a harsher sentence than had he punched a man in the face every time, IMO.

Proof?

Public response when me and the Mrs. are out and about and I punch her in the arm (slug bug).
I have no real proof, that is why I said it was my opinion.
My work here is, finally, done.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 11:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:40:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:23:42 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:18:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Hate crime legislation puts race on unequal terms. A white guy kills a black guy, he gets a longer term.

No, if a white guy kills a black guy specifically because he is black and it can be shown that the race is specifically the reason for the killing, then he gets a longer term. If a white guy randomly kills a black guy, he will get the same amount of time he would get if he randomly killed a white guy.

The point is, races aren't equal, are they?

They are...

That doesn't mean a racist act is the same as one that doesn't involve racism.

Why should it matter if I specifically kill you because you are black, slept with my wife, fired me from my job, creep me out, or any other irrational reason to kill someone? Why does only the race matter as the reason that warrants a longer prison term?

All of those things matter as well. Why do you think murder 1 is different from murder which is different from homicide which is different from manslaughter?

If a white guy kills a white guy, he gets less of one. It is not equal.
Also, there are affirmative action laws and anti-discrimination laws.

Women would be more of a social thing, I suppose. Not hitting them, no draft.
I have always opposed a draft but if a draft is re-instated, yes women need to be drafter and sent out to front line. You can't have the cake without fighting for it.

And feminist groups, I think, tend to fight for that. It wasn't a good example, I know. I can't really think of any sex-based laws except equal pay, but that isn't quite what I'm looking for.

A man punching a woman in the face is going to get a harsher sentence than had he punched a man in the face every time, IMO.

Proof?

Public response when me and the Mrs. are out and about and I punch her in the arm (slug bug).
I have no real proof, that is why I said it was my opinion.

Well, then. I deny that you would get a harsher sentence for punching a woman that you would if you punch a man.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 12:02:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 11:48:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:40:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:23:42 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:18:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Hate crime legislation puts race on unequal terms. A white guy kills a black guy, he gets a longer term.

No, if a white guy kills a black guy specifically because he is black and it can be shown that the race is specifically the reason for the killing, then he gets a longer term. If a white guy randomly kills a black guy, he will get the same amount of time he would get if he randomly killed a white guy.

The point is, races aren't equal, are they?

They are...

That doesn't mean a racist act is the same as one that doesn't involve racism.
Nor should the punishment be the same, IMO.
However, as it stands, it is a separate crime (technically an enhancement) to commit a murder with racist intent. That is not treating races equally, as I could be just as hateful to something that you are (perhaps a police officer or military), and not be charged with an additional crime.

Why should it matter if I specifically kill you because you are black, slept with my wife, fired me from my job, creep me out, or any other irrational reason to kill someone? Why does only the race matter as the reason that warrants a longer prison term?

All of those things matter as well. Why do you think murder 1 is different from murder which is different from homicide which is different from manslaughter?

Murder 1 is premeditated with intent to kill
Murder 2 is "heat of the moment" with intent to kill
Manslaughter 1 is premeditated harm which results in death
Manslaughter 2 is "heat of the moment" harm which results in death

Not of this deals with why a crime is committed. That is for the sentencing phase of the trial, where mitiagating circumstances and aggrevating factors are weighed.
My work here is, finally, done.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 4:00:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Darkkermit wrote:
"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time"
Good call, I was about to say pretty much the same thing. I would add the following caveat though. We can achieve equality if we pursue a policy of unequal treatment long enough so as to eliminate all ways in which we are different. Then we have true equality because we are all the same.

At 6/18/2013 12:02:45 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:48:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 6/17/2013 11:40:04 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The point is, races aren't equal, are they?

They are...
Depends on whether you mean equivalent or equally valuable for different reasons.

That doesn't mean a racist act is the same as one that doesn't involve racism.
Nor should the punishment be the same, IMO.
However, as it stands, it is a separate crime (technically an enhancement) to commit a murder with racist intent. That is not treating races equally, as I could be just as hateful to something that you are (perhaps a police officer or military), and not be charged with an additional crime.
Yes, it is, just not treating the crime of racially motivated violence equal to non-racially motivated violence. It is recognising that a difference exists without using that difference to alter the punishment of the killer. I would argue that a white man who kills a white man specifically because he is white is guilty of this offence also, it's just really hard to prove.

Why should it matter if I specifically kill you because you are black, slept with my wife, fired me from my job, creep me out, or any other irrational reason to kill someone? Why does only the race matter as the reason that warrants a longer prison term?

All of those things matter as well. Why do you think murder 1 is different from murder which is different from homicide which is different from manslaughter?

Murder 1 is premeditated with intent to kill
Murder 2 is "heat of the moment" with intent to kill
Manslaughter 1 is premeditated harm which results in death
Manslaughter 2 is "heat of the moment" harm which results in death

Not of this deals with why a crime is committed. That is for the sentencing phase of the trial, where mitiagating circumstances and aggrevating factors are weighed.

Basically the punishment can be related to the choice of victim and the reasons for this choice (that's just good sentencing practice because these factors are predictive of the possibility and mechanisms for reform)
The punishment should not be relevant to characteristics of the offender other than the characteristics which directly contribute to their decision to commit the crime.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 4:12:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd like to bring up another problem area here, to do with how we determine this equality. I was observing a discussion between pro and anti gay marriage supporters and noticed that one particular sticking point kept on going backward and forward.

Basically, both sides claim that their side supports equal rights. How this works is the following.

Marriage if defined as between a man and a woman (this is not my definition but you have to accept that it is not a completely unreasonable one on the face of it) is an equal right. All men have the right to marry a woman. All women have the right to marry a man. Thus they all have a right to marriage.
Marriage if defined as between two individuals (another not unacceptable definition) is equal only if everybody has the right to marriage.

So I present the case that perhaps a more useful equality is not so much about whether under the definitions any individual has the same opportunities. But whether they are allowed to pursue their goals at the same level of 'expense' to society. Every individual does things that are against social wishes sometimes, should we not let them pursue their wishes up to a threshold of social badness? I guess my point is that the golden rule is a bit na"ve and to be honest, nowhere near as practical a maxim as it used to be (before people had as many opportunities as they do now to explore different life paths).

New thread idea! Coming soon!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 7:52:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 7:49:46 AM, Danielle wrote:
^^^ Wrong photo lol - http://2.bp.blogspot.com...

LOL.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 11:25:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 10:20:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
This may have been addressed in other threads, and if so, I apologize.
However, this post is not to address the benefits, successes, failures, or consequences of any particular movement.

Does the fact that there are special laws in place that protect certain groups (women, minorities) take away certain groups' claim for equality (feminists, NAACP)?

In other words, is it hypocritical for there to be groups advocating equality, yet expect/demand/desire special treatment as well?

No, and people who call those laws (and I don't know what you're referring to specifically) "special treatment" don't really have a proper understanding of social dynamics anyway.

I'm not going to get into a huge rehash of this, but again, if you're naive enough to think that privilege and discrimination don't exist, then you would find it hypocritical.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 1:54:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 11:25:32 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 6/17/2013 10:20:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
This may have been addressed in other threads, and if so, I apologize.
However, this post is not to address the benefits, successes, failures, or consequences of any particular movement.

Does the fact that there are special laws in place that protect certain groups (women, minorities) take away certain groups' claim for equality (feminists, NAACP)?

In other words, is it hypocritical for there to be groups advocating equality, yet expect/demand/desire special treatment as well?

No, and people who call those laws (and I don't know what you're referring to specifically) "special treatment" don't really have a proper understanding of social dynamics anyway.

I'm not going to get into a huge rehash of this, but again, if you're naive enough to think that privilege and discrimination don't exist, then you would find it hypocritical.

That's absurd. One can easily admit that privilege and discrimination exist, and think that it's hypocritical of a group decrying privilege and discrimination to seek to have it enshrined in law in their favor.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2013 2:18:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/22/2013 11:25:32 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 6/17/2013 10:20:02 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
This may have been addressed in other threads, and if so, I apologize.
However, this post is not to address the benefits, successes, failures, or consequences of any particular movement.

Does the fact that there are special laws in place that protect certain groups (women, minorities) take away certain groups' claim for equality (feminists, NAACP)?

In other words, is it hypocritical for there to be groups advocating equality, yet expect/demand/desire special treatment as well?

No, and people who call those laws (and I don't know what you're referring to specifically) "special treatment" don't really have a proper understanding of social dynamics anyway.


I'm not going to get into a huge rehash of this, but again, if you're naive enough to think that privilege and discrimination don't exist, then you would find it hypocritical.

So, let me get this straight:
There is priviledge and discrimination.
There are laws that serve to reduce/prevent said priviledge and discrimination.
However, these laws do not, by definition, treat groups equally. How can they if their aim is to reduce/prevent discrimination?

Now, you have groups promoting equality, and you have groups promoting laws to fix discrimination. My question is, are there people/groups that do both? If so, isn't that hypocritial?
My work here is, finally, done.