GOP rep discovers terrifying fact: That non-Christians exist

[Wamitoria]

No. Many businesses in the north were segregated despite the absence of laws that forced them to do so.

I don't doubt its plausibility, but source?

You really want a source? God, your history teacher needs to be fired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_seg ... _the_North

[Nazis in Space]

You really, really, really never took any classes that covered the history of the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the United States, did you?

That only existed due to the GOVERNMENT helping.

I.E Jim Crow Laws, Ferguson vs Plessy, etc.

I'm sure all the poor white folks only wanted to mingle freely with the negros, and it was the evil, evil government which forced them to separate and took away rights from the negros against everyone's will.

It couldn't possibly be that the government was chiefly motivated by the will of its electorate.

[TaQud]

GOP =

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

At best, you're arguing for making discrimination illegal in the 1960's, which I still think private people should be able to do with their money whatever they want to so long as it causes no bodily harm to themselves or others.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

That only existed due to the GOVERNMENT helping.

I.E Jim Crow Laws, Ferguson vs Plessy, etc.

I'm sure all the poor white folks only wanted to mingle freely with the negros, and it was the evil, evil government which forced them to separate and took away rights from the negros against everyone's will.

It couldn't possibly be that the government was chiefly motivated by the will of its electorate.

No, but that's why, you make it illegal for the government to support and subsidize discrimination. The government should not be able to discriminate.

[Silent Majority]

I'm sure all the poor white folks only wanted to mingle freely with the negros, and it was the evil, evil government which forced them to separate and took away rights from the negros against everyone's will.

It couldn't possibly be that the government was chiefly motivated by the will of its electorate.

No, but that's why, you make it illegal for the government to support and subsidize discrimination. The government should not be able to discriminate.

In terms of the ability to exert force. How does the state differ from a business?

Both wield authority in one way or another. So if the state doing discriminating is morally reprehensible, a business doing the same thing should be equally reprehensible.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

No, but that's why, you make it illegal for the government to support and subsidize discrimination. The government should not be able to discriminate.

In terms of the ability to exert force. How does the state differ from a business?

Both wield authority in one way or another. So if the state doing discriminating is morally reprehensible, a business doing the same thing should be equally reprehensible.

The state can lawfully throw you in jail. A business can not. The State can set laws that govern your behavior and punish them with corporal punishment or imprisonment, a business can not. The State can lawfully kill you, a business can not. The State can employ physical force on you, a business can not (with unusual circumstances included, like you try to strange your boss, or break in, or don't leave when they fire you.) The State can do more than withhold resources it lawfully owns, which is the extent of the power of a business.

[Silent Majority]

In terms of the ability to exert force. How does the state differ from a business?

Both wield authority in one way or another. So if the state doing discriminating is morally reprehensible, a business doing the same thing should be equally reprehensible.

The state can lawfully throw you in jail. A business can not. The State can set laws that govern your behavior and punish them with corporal punishment or imprisonment, a business can not. The State can lawfully kill you, a business can not. The State can employ physical force on you, a business can not (with unusual circumstances included, like you try to strange your boss, or break in, or don't leave when they fire you.) The State can do more than withhold resources it lawfully owns, which is the extent of the power of a business.

Force is not something that has to be exerted at the barrel of a gun. Using the fear of being laid off(and therefore being unable to provide for your family) is no better than using the fear of being killed.

[Wamitoria]

In terms of the ability to exert force. How does the state differ from a business?

Both wield authority in one way or another. So if the state doing discriminating is morally reprehensible, a business doing the same thing should be equally reprehensible.

The state can lawfully throw you in jail. A business can not. The State can set laws that govern your behavior and punish them with corporal punishment or imprisonment, a business can not. The State can lawfully kill you, a business can not. The State can employ physical force on you, a business can not (with unusual circumstances included, like you try to strange your boss, or break in, or don't leave when they fire you.) The State can do more than withhold resources it lawfully owns, which is the extent of the power of a business.

So, you are willfully ignoring the collusion that would be necessary in order to allow individual businesses to discriminate in the way you describe.

If I were to ban Mormons from my shop, I would have to be able to use force to prevent their entering my shop. I would call the police to remove them, and the police would be obliged by law to enforce my whims.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

The state can lawfully throw you in jail. A business can not. The State can set laws that govern your behavior and punish them with corporal punishment or imprisonment, a business can not. The State can lawfully kill you, a business can not. The State can employ physical force on you, a business can not (with unusual circumstances included, like you try to strange your boss, or break in, or don't leave when they fire you.) The State can do more than withhold resources it lawfully owns, which is the extent of the power of a business.

Force is not something that has to be exerted at the barrel of a gun. Using the fear of being laid off(and therefore being unable to provide for your family) is no better than using the fear of being killed.

Force in defense of your own property, owned by you, is a right.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

The state can lawfully throw you in jail. A business can not. The State can set laws that govern your behavior and punish them with corporal punishment or imprisonment, a business can not. The State can lawfully kill you, a business can not. The State can employ physical force on you, a business can not (with unusual circumstances included, like you try to strange your boss, or break in, or don't leave when they fire you.) The State can do more than withhold resources it lawfully owns, which is the extent of the power of a business.

So, you are willfully ignoring the collusion that would be necessary in order to allow individual businesses to discriminate in the way you describe.

If I were to ban Mormons from my shop, I would have to be able to use force to prevent their entering my shop. I would call the police to remove them, and the police would be obliged by law to enforce my whims.

In such case, the State would not be discriminating. You are, and the State is protecting your right to use your property. That's like saying the government supports the WBCs positions by showing up to protect them when people sock them in the mouth.

[Tekania]

I'm surprised that she thought the law pertained to schools that uphold-ed the faith of the founders. I haven't heard of many secular deist schools.

As we're talking about a person who basically posits things from a viewpoint which seeks to favor particular religions over others...... there should never be any surprise.

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm sure all the poor white folks only wanted to mingle freely with the negros, and it was the evil, evil government which forced them to separate and took away rights from the negros against everyone's will.

It couldn't possibly be that the government was chiefly motivated by the will of its electorate.

No, but that's why, you make it illegal for the government to support and subsidize discrimination. The government should not be able to discriminate.

Says the man who wants to keep gay marriage illegal. Do you not see the hypocrisy in that?

[Wikkiwallana]

So, you are willfully ignoring the collusion that would be necessary in order to allow individual businesses to discriminate in the way you describe.

If I were to ban Mormons from my shop, I would have to be able to use force to prevent their entering my shop. I would call the police to remove them, and the police would be obliged by law to enforce my whims.

In such case, the State would not be discriminating. You are, and the State is protecting your right to use your property. That's like saying the government supports the WBCs positions by showing up to protect them when people sock them in the mouth.

Walking into a shop is not the same as punching someone in the mouth. Not even in the same category.

[R Ev0lution]

You really, really, really never took any classes that covered the history of the African-American Civil Rights Movement in the United States, did you?

That only existed due to the GOVERNMENT helping.

I.E Jim Crow Laws, Ferguson vs Plessy, etc.

Oh, really? Like how, in order to keep white homeowners happy, real estate agents in the 1920s deliberately showed only the shittiest homes in the shittiest neighborhoods to African-American customers, while letting their white customers see the nice homes in the nice neighborhoods? Or how, even if you account for economic disparities, banks were far more generous with the loans they gave out to white families buying their homes and far more stingy with the loans they gave out to black families?

Observe: In both of these cases, the government only "helped" BY NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

[Big Jim P]

Way to out the real purpose of vouchers for religious schools. Not that anyone was fooled in the first place.

[Big Jim P]

QUICK! We must make a private satanic school in Louisiana and get funding just for shock and troll value.

Sadly Big Jim P isn't on right now.

I am now.

So, whose going to pay for my armed guards? I can only shoot so fast myself.

[Ifreann]

Sadly Big Jim P isn't on right now.

I am now.

So, whose going to pay for my armed guards? I can only shoot so fast myself.

Call them students and the state will pay for them.

[Farnhamia]

That only existed due to the GOVERNMENT helping.

I.E Jim Crow Laws, Ferguson vs Plessy, etc.

Oh, really? Like how, in order to keep white homeowners happy, real estate agents in the 1920s deliberately showed only the shittiest homes in the shittiest neighborhoods to African-American customers, while letting their white customers see the nice homes in the nice neighborhoods? Or how, even if you account for economic disparities, banks were far more generous with the loans they gave out to white families buying their homes and far more stingy with the loans they gave out to black families?

Observe: In both of these cases, the government only "helped" BY NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

Now, now, don't you know that the best way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating? That nice Mr. Chief Justice Roberts told me this one time when I visited him on his impregnable island fortress. *nod*

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

That only existed due to the GOVERNMENT helping.

I.E Jim Crow Laws, Ferguson vs Plessy, etc.

Oh, really? Like how, in order to keep white homeowners happy, real estate agents in the 1920s deliberately showed only the shittiest homes in the shittiest neighborhoods to African-American customers, while letting their white customers see the nice homes in the nice neighborhoods? Or how, even if you account for economic disparities, banks were far more generous with the loans they gave out to white families buying their homes and far more stingy with the loans they gave out to black families?

Observe: In both of these cases, the government only "helped" BY NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

And the government supported it by making all public facilities discriminatory anyway.


Anyway, assume, arguendo, you're right. This isn't the 1960s.

[Big Jim P]

I am now.

So, whose going to pay for my armed guards? I can only shoot so fast myself.

Call them students and the state will pay for them.

I do want to bring marksmanship and firearm safety classes back to schools. We may be on to something.

[Ifreann]

Call them students and the state will pay for them.

I do want to bring marksmanship and firearm safety classes back to schools. We may be on to something.

"Hail Satan and pass the ammo!"

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Some examples of Jim Crow laws are the segregation of public schools, public places, and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants, and drinking fountains for whites and blacks.

The Jim Crowe Laws MANDATED they be separated.

[Big Jim P]

I do want to bring marksmanship and firearm safety classes back to schools. We may be on to something.

"Hail Satan and pass the ammo!"

[R Ev0lution]

Oh, really? Like how, in order to keep white homeowners happy, real estate agents in the 1920s deliberately showed only the shittiest homes in the shittiest neighborhoods to African-American customers, while letting their white customers see the nice homes in the nice neighborhoods? Or how, even if you account for economic disparities, banks were far more generous with the loans they gave out to white families buying their homes and far more stingy with the loans they gave out to black families?

Observe: In both of these cases, the government only "helped" BY NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

And the government supported it by making all public facilities discriminatory anyway.


Anyway, assume, arguendo, you're right. This isn't the 1960s.

No, but the time period during which these cases of segregation occurred is irrelevant to my point. You said that Civil Rights violations count as such ONLY they're done through violent force or are carried out by the state. You made a broad, blanketing generalization, and I called you out on it. By the way, do you want to know what happened in the 1960s which largely put an end to the housing segregation practices I just mentioned? The government intervened (GASP).

By the way, how the fuck is making a public facility discriminatory "supporting" a case of privatized housing segregation? If the government randomly decided to desegregate public schools and water fountains in the 1920s, would it have struck a crippling blow to privatized housing discrimination? Or did the government secretly donate five cents to the Housing and Real Estate Segregation Fund every time a black person took a shit in a blacks-only public restroom?