Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Telconi]

No shit, what of it?

That allowing people to acting in ways that you consider non-poorly causes harm.

Logic is pretty simple.

X people form an exclusive group where they only want their own due to Y reasons. Can be anything, really doesn't matter, since it's a private affair.

If this is too complex to grasp that's on you.

Ah, the is-ought fallacy. You have yet to answer the question of why.

So?

[Kowani]

That allowing people to acting in ways that you consider non-poorly causes harm.


Ah, the is-ought fallacy. You have yet to answer the question of why.

So?

Harm is to be avoided, unless by allowing harm the material circumstances will improve.

[Grand Britannia]

Relying on calling everything you dislike a fallacy is a fallacy in of itself.

You don't need a reason to form an association of people beyond wanting it. Unless their end game is illegal they really don't need to justify whatever they do to anyone but themselves, nor should anyone else care, to be honest.

[Kowani]

Relying on calling everything you dislike a fallacy is a fallacy in of itself.

Dancing around the point, I see.

You don't need a reason to form an association of people beyond wanting it.

A business is not the same as a friendship club.
[quote="Grand Britannia";p="35587466"Unless their end game is illegal they really don't need to justify whatever they do to anyone but themselves, nor should anyone else care, to be honest.[/quote]
Not actually true. The endgame could be legal, yet the methods not so.
When what they do affects others, then they should care.

EDIT: Fixed quote tags.

[Telconi]

So?

Harm is to be avoided, unless by allowing harm the material circumstances will improve.

Why?

[Kowani]

Harm is to be avoided, unless by allowing harm the material circumstances will improve.

Why?

To which part?

[Grand Britannia]

There is a degree of risk inherent with granting people any type of freedom, restricting it just because people might abuse it is how you get to a level of control no one wants over their life.

And no where did I mention businesses but I guess bringing a strawman was overdue at this point.

[Telconi]

Why?

To which part?

Why is harm to be avoided?

[Kowani]

There is a degree of risk inherent with granting people any type of freedom, restricting it just because people might abuse it is how you get to a level of control no one wants over their life.

If only people didn’t have a history of abusing it, you’d be right. Sadly, we do, and therefore, you’re not.

And no where did I mention businesses but I guess bringing a strawman was overdue at this point.

My apologies, this thread has been about businesses being allowed to discriminate, so I assumed you were talking about that.


EDIT: Fixed Quote Tags (Again)

[Kowani]

To which part?

Why is harm to be avoided?

Because the quality of life is better and therefore more enjoyable.

[Telconi]

Why is harm to be avoided?

Because the quality of life is better and therefore more enjoyable.

That's awfully subjective too eh?

[Kowani]

Because the quality of life is better and therefore more enjoyable.

That's awfully subjective too eh?

Not as much as you seem to think it is.

[Grand Britannia]

My point is a freedom shouldn't be restricted or removed because of its inherent risk.

One could argue even a business could be allowed to discriminate on it's service side and it wouldn't make a difference. Doesn't make sense to decrease your demographics and therefore profits. The few examples of "discrimination" in recent times have been from specific request that went against what the owner believed (who goes specifically to a christian bakery to ask for custom made LGBT pastry is beyond me in the first place). At worse places that discriminate on their services would become noncompetitive and swept to the sidelines.

Regardless of what businesses now a days say they only care about one color; green, and that ain't changing.

[Cappuccina]

My point is a freedom shouldn't be restricted or removed because of its inherent risk.

One could argue even a business could be allowed to discriminate on it's service side and it wouldn't make a difference. Doesn't make sense to decrease your demographics and therefore profits. The few examples of "discrimination" in recent times have been from specific request that went against what the owner believed (who goes specifically to a christian bakery to ask for custom made LGBT pastry is beyond me in the first place). At worse places that discriminate on their services would become noncompetitive and swept to the sidelines.

Regardless of what businesses now a days say they only care about one color; green, and that ain't changing.

I'd still say allowing discrimination in business would be a negative.

[Grand Britannia]

My point is a freedom shouldn't be restricted or removed because of its inherent risk.

One could argue even a business could be allowed to discriminate on it's service side and it wouldn't make a difference. Doesn't make sense to decrease your demographics and therefore profits. The few examples of "discrimination" in recent times have been from specific request that went against what the owner believed (who goes specifically to a christian bakery to ask for custom made LGBT pastry is beyond me in the first place). At worse places that discriminate on their services would become noncompetitive and swept to the sidelines.

Regardless of what businesses now a days say they only care about one color; green, and that ain't changing.

I'd still say allowing discrimination in business would be a negative.

When hiring, maybe.

On the businesses end, it's doubtful. Only issues would be very small businesses that don't get much attention, and even then it would have to be a big personal reason to refuse service. Which they probably still do now regardless while using elaborate reasons to get away with it.

[Telconi]

That's awfully subjective too eh?

Not as much as you seem to think it is.

And you can somehow prove that life being enjoyable is objectively related to your concept of harm?

[Slotted Floppies]

There is no “society” at most there’s a series of interconnected communities and individuals.

Right, a society.

This is why measurement on a national level isn’t ever going to give you an accurate idea.

Why do we even have analytics or data collection.
It’s why protecting what rights people have is more important than any attempt to gauge the outcome of a piece of legislation.

Non sequitor. And, no.

So no your tangible is a lie,

Is income no longer a thing? How about GDP per capita? Or was it regional GDP?

it’s measurement is a lie,

I’m sure that’s true in fantasyland, but we live in reality.

and all it’s outc are predicted on being violent.

Your point?

You’re missing that society implies an order or level of organisation. All attempts at this are based in violence and are invalid.

So no, no society. We have analytics because people are fond of their own utopias, and don’t mind interfering in others lives to do so. As an example the removal, hiding or outright dismissal of male rape victims. The people performing the research don’t want to admit them, are scared that it will interfere with the money they can steal of others to fix a problem they have overblown in the first place.

[Socialist Workers Combine]

There is a degree of risk inherent with granting people any type of freedom, restricting it just because people might abuse it is how you get to a level of control no one wants over their life.

Has non-discrimination caused you undue discomfort

[Kowani]

My point is a freedom shouldn't be restricted or removed because of its inherent risk.

Yes, this is where we disagree.

Right, a society.

Non sequitor. And, no.

Is income no longer a thing? How about GDP per capita? Or was it regional GDP?
I’m sure that’s true in fantasyland, but we live in reality.

Your point?

You’re missing that society implies an order or level of organisation. All attempts at this are based in violence and are invalid.

You fail to explain how the threat of violence invalidated a society.

So no, no society. We have analytics because people are fond of their own utopias, and don’t mind interfering in others lives to do so.

Oh look, more tinfoil hats. i

As an example the removal, hiding or outright dismissal of male rape victims. The people performing the research don’t want to admit them, are scared that it will interfere with the money they can steal of others to fix a problem they have overblown in the first place.

Wrong thread, but that’s not exactly what happens.

Not as much as you seem to think it is.

And you can somehow prove that life being enjoyable is objectively related to your concept of harm?

Statistics would seem to prove so.

[Holy Tedalonia]

There is a degree of risk inherent with granting people any type of freedom, restricting it just because people might abuse it is how you get to a level of control no one wants over their life.

If only people didn’t have a history of abusing it, you’d be right. Sadly, we do, and therefore, you’re not.

Ah yes, lets get rid of freedom of speech because of cussing, bloody pricks keep using it.

And get rid of guns, because of those damn shooters.

Freedom of Association? Who put this into the constitution, the only protests I see are called “trouble”.

Hm, Freedom of Religion, we get to many zealous fanatics, am I right?

Oh, and Freedom of Press, fake news is getting out of hand...

[Kowani]

If only people didn’t have a history of abusing it, you’d be right. Sadly, we do, and therefore, you’re not.

Ah yes, lets get rid of freedom of speech because of cussing, bloody pricks keep using it.

Cussing isn’t inherently negative, though.

And get rid of guns, because of those damn shooters.

Right after we figure out how to beat the black market that would pop up if we did.

Freedom of Association? Who put this into the constitution, the only protests I see are called “trouble”.

If your protest isn’t discriminatory in who it includes, that’s fine.

Hm, Freedom of Religion, we get to many zealous fanatics, am I right?

Nah, this can stay. It’s unenforceable without expensive measures. Oh, and the winning camp would be Evangelical Protestants, and I don’t think anyone wants that.

Oh, and Freedom of Press, fake news is getting out of hand...

Libel laws exist for a reason.

[Grand Britannia]

There is a degree of risk inherent with granting people any type of freedom, restricting it just because people might abuse it is how you get to a level of control no one wants over their life.

Has non-discrimination caused you undue discomfort

I honestly dont care whether they let businesses discriminate or not, I only care if they start telling that to people doing non-business related private activities.

[Telconi]

My point is a freedom shouldn't be restricted or removed because of its inherent risk.

Yes, this is where we disagree.

One could, but they’d be wrong.
[quote="Grand Britannia";p="35587528"Doesn't make sense to decrease your demographics and therefore profits. [/quote] Yes, it’s a pity people aren’t perfectly rational actors, huh?
[quote="Grand Britannia";p="35587528"The few examples of "discrimination" in recent times have been from specific request that went against what the owner believed (who goes specifically to a christian bakery to ask for custom made LGBT pastry is beyond me in the first place). [/quote] Beyond being not true 1,2, that might be because other forms of discrimination have been declared illegal. Although there are many cases of service side discrimination as well.
https://gender.stanford.edu/news-public ... r-jennifer (At worse places that discriminate on their services would become noncompetitive and swept to the sidelines.[/quote] This depends on a large market of the discriminated against party and a large amount of competition.
https://gender.stanford.edu/news-public ... r-jennifer
Regardless of what businesses now a days say they only care about one color; green, and that ain't changing.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s not entirely true…

[quote="Slotted Floppies wrote:

Right, a society.

Non sequitor. And, no.

Is income no longer a thing? How about GDP per capita? Or was it regional GDP?
I’m sure that’s true in fantasyland, but we live in reality.

Your point?

You’re missing that society implies an order or level of organisation. All attempts at this are based in violence and are invalid.

You fail to explain how the threat of violence invalidated a society.

So no, no society. We have analytics because people are fond of their own utopias, and don’t mind interfering in others lives to do so.

Oh look, more tinfoil hats. i

As an example the removal, hiding or outright dismissal of male rape victims. The people performing the research don’t want to admit them, are scared that it will interfere with the money they can steal of others to fix a problem they have overblown in the first place.

Wrong thread, but that’s not exactly what happens.

Not as much as you seem to think it is.

And you can somehow prove that life being enjoyable is objectively related to your concept of harm?

Statistics would seem to prove so.[/quote]

Statistics may prove the popularity of a belief, which doesnt I inherently make it less subjective. If 99 people think broccoli is really good, and one person thinks it tastes bad, that doesnt make liking broccoli less subjective.

[San Lumen]

If only people didn’t have a history of abusing it, you’d be right. Sadly, we do, and therefore, you’re not.

Ah yes, lets get rid of freedom of speech because of cussing, bloody pricks keep using it.

And get rid of guns, because of those damn shooters.

Freedom of Association? Who put this into the constitution, the only protests I see are called “trouble”.

Hm, Freedom of Religion, we get to many zealous fanatics, am I right?

Oh, and Freedom of Press, fake news is getting out of hand...

No one is calling for any of that but a fringe minority

[Telconi]

Ah yes, lets get rid of freedom of speech because of cussing, bloody pricks keep using it.

And get rid of guns, because of those damn shooters.

Freedom of Association? Who put this into the constitution, the only protests I see are called “trouble”.

Hm, Freedom of Religion, we get to many zealous fanatics, am I right?

Oh, and Freedom of Press, fake news is getting out of hand...

No one is calling for any of that but a fringe minority

Lots of people are calling for lots of that stuff.