Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Psukhe]

Personally, I'm less interested in the colloquial use of the term or the strict definitive meaning as what the OP intended since otherwise, as you mentioned, it devolves into a debate about semantics.

You'd have to look at the variety of factors surrounding why black people as a population commit violence more regularly on average to assess the general likelihood of danger you're putting yourself in by approaching a specific black person in a specific area whereas the simple fact that somebody possesses a weapon makes them automatically more deadly then your average person, whatever their personality or beliefs.

Absolutely. So what is the problem with discriminating against gun owners, in relation to discrimination on genetous factors such as race? Or perhaps I've misinterpreted your argument and you haven't claimed that in the first place?

[Fedel]

Personally, I'm less interested in the colloquial use of the term or the strict definitive meaning as what the OP intended since otherwise, as you mentioned, it devolves into a debate about semantics.

You'd have to look at the variety of factors surrounding why black people as a population commit violence more regularly on average to assess the general likelihood of danger you're putting yourself in by approaching a specific black person in a specific area whereas the simple fact that somebody possesses a weapon makes them automatically more deadly then your average person, whatever their personality or beliefs.

Absolutely. So what is the problem with discriminating against gun owners, in relation to discrimination on genetous factors such as race? Or perhaps I've misinterpreted your argument and you haven't claimed that in the first place?

I never claimed that in the first place, no. You're fine though.

[Galloism]

I did use the word "implying," meaning that that is how I interpret that specific definition, and how I believe many would as well, seeing the clear value in negative discrimination between genetous traits and non-genetous, even inveterate ones. Furthermore, the second definition does not present any clear negative values for divisive perceptions. My interpretation, as such, lies in the practical definition of the term, rather than the general one, as explained further below.


Yet rationality presents us with a clearer picture of the situation, that certain traits are harmless on their own and others aren't; being black does not inherently make you a dangerous person. Wielding a firearm does, by the mere fact that you're holding a tool which enables you to kill far more easily. You could argue that one could use certain statistics to build a picture of how being black makes someone, on average, more dangerous, but that would hardly be rational.

Personally, I'm less interested in the colloquial use of the term or the strict definitive meaning as what the OP intended since otherwise, as you mentioned, it devolves into a debate about semantics.

You'd have to look at the variety of factors surrounding why black people as a population commit violence more regularly on average to assess the general likelihood of danger you're putting yourself in by approaching a specific black person in a specific area whereas the simple fact that somebody possesses a weapon makes them automatically more deadly then your average person, whatever their personality or beliefs.

I mean, I could say the same thing about large muscley people though, or people with tire irons, or tools of most kinds (wrenches, hammers, etc), or even a belt. All of these are tools which enable you to kill more easily.

[Fedel]

Personally, I'm less interested in the colloquial use of the term or the strict definitive meaning as what the OP intended since otherwise, as you mentioned, it devolves into a debate about semantics.

You'd have to look at the variety of factors surrounding why black people as a population commit violence more regularly on average to assess the general likelihood of danger you're putting yourself in by approaching a specific black person in a specific area whereas the simple fact that somebody possesses a weapon makes them automatically more deadly then your average person, whatever their personality or beliefs.

I mean, I could say the same thing about large muscley people though, or people with tire irons, or tools of most kinds (wrenches, hammers, etc), or even a belt. All of these are tools which enable you to kill more easily.

Yes, agreed. I'm far more uncomfortable around people with an increased capacity for violence in proportion to myself, personally ( I.E. larger, stronger, generally more physically imposing ).

People carrying tools that are generally used for purposes outside of harming another I'm more ok with though still not entirely relaxed. I'm much more tense around people carrying actual weapons ( tools that are used mostly or solely to cause harm ) for reasons that should be obvious ( I.E. their capacity is increased as with a normal tool, but it also tells me that they're more aware of the potential for violence and prepared to engage in it if necessary ).

[Galloism]

I mean, I could say the same thing about large muscley people though, or people with tire irons, or tools of most kinds (wrenches, hammers, etc), or even a belt. All of these are tools which enable you to kill more easily.

Yes, agreed. I'm far more uncomfortable around people with an increased capacity for violence in proportion to myself, personally.

People carrying tools that are generally used for other purposes outside of harm I'm more ok with though still not entirely relaxed. I'm much more tense around people carrying actual weapons ( I.E. tools that are used mostly or solely to cause harm ) for obvious reasons.

I mean, maybe it's because I was a police officer at one point, and was surrounded by people carrying weapons regularly, but I'm not really more tense around people carrying weapons than those without.

Also living in the south will do that too you, when you regularly see people armed at McDonalds, it just doesn't even phase you anymore.

Despite that no one has ever been killed by a ski mask (as far as I'm aware), I would view a person wearing a ski mask as far more threatening than a person with a gun.

[Fedel]

Yes, agreed. I'm far more uncomfortable around people with an increased capacity for violence in proportion to myself, personally.

People carrying tools that are generally used for other purposes outside of harm I'm more ok with though still not entirely relaxed. I'm much more tense around people carrying actual weapons ( I.E. tools that are used mostly or solely to cause harm ) for obvious reasons.

I mean, maybe it's because I was a police officer at one point, and was surrounded by people carrying weapons regularly, but I'm not really more tense around people carrying weapons than those without.

Also living in the south will do that too you, when you regularly see people armed at McDonalds, it just doesn't even phase you anymore.

Despite that no one has ever been killed by a ski mask (as far as I'm aware), I would view a person wearing a ski mask as far more threatening than a person with a gun.

Understandable. Exposure to something makes you more comfortable with it.

Yes but that's not me fearing an increased capacity for violence, it's me fearing the likely intent of the person wearing the ski mask.

[Militarized Algerstonia]

My opinion on this whole thing is that there should not be a right to discriminate. However, I frankly believe that there is no un-radical way to stop discrimination without infringing on our freedoms. The government just isn’t able to stop racial slurs being uttered or hate attacks. It simply does not have the manpower to deal with it- and the country is the fourth-biggest in the world.

[Fedel]

My opinion on this whole thing is that there should not be a right to discriminate. However, I frankly believe that there is no un-radical way to stop discrimination without infringing on our freedoms. The government just isn’t able to stop racial slurs being uttered or hate attacks. It simply does not have the manpower to deal with it- and the country is the fourth-biggest in the world.

How exactly do you define discrimination, out of curiosity?

[Psukhe]

I never claimed that in the first place, no. You're fine though.

A taste for polemics does put me in that spot sometimes. Oh well.

Anyway, I do believe that there should be a right to discriminate, as I believe in minimal governmental intervention in our lives. It would, however, require a rather intelligent society in which such discrimination would lead to an outcome optimal in my view, whereby the discriminator is discriminated by not, say, being patronised by customers, in case of certain shops and whatnot.

[Militarized Algerstonia]

My opinion on this whole thing is that there should not be a right to discriminate. However, I frankly believe that there is no un-radical way to stop discrimination without infringing on our freedoms. The government just isn’t able to stop racial slurs being uttered or hate attacks. It simply does not have the manpower to deal with it- and the country is the fourth-biggest in the world.

How exactly do you define discrimination, out of curiosity?

My definition of discrimination is any way to separate or insult a minority ethnicity if you think or actually do have some sort of power against them, such as white nationalist directing racial slurs at African- Americans, or the KKK making a demonstration outside an African-American majority community.

[Fedel]

How exactly do you define discrimination, out of curiosity?

My definition of discrimination is any way to separate or insult a minority ethnicity if you think or actually do have some sort of power against them, such as white nationalist directing racial slurs at African- Americans, or the KKK making a demonstration outside an African-American majority community.

Gotcha.

I never claimed that in the first place, no. You're fine though.

Anyway, I do believe that there should be a right to discriminate, as I believe in minimal governmental intervention in our lives. It would, however, require a rather intelligent society in which such discrimination would lead to an outcome optimal in my view, whereby the discriminator is discriminated by not, say, being patronised by customers, in case of certain shops and whatnot.

Agreed.

[Galloism]

I mean, maybe it's because I was a police officer at one point, and was surrounded by people carrying weapons regularly, but I'm not really more tense around people carrying weapons than those without.

Also living in the south will do that too you, when you regularly see people armed at McDonalds, it just doesn't even phase you anymore.

Despite that no one has ever been killed by a ski mask (as far as I'm aware), I would view a person wearing a ski mask as far more threatening than a person with a gun.

Understandable. Exposure to something makes you more comfortable with it.

Yes but that's not me fearing an increased capacity for violence, it's me fearing the likely intent of the person wearing the ski mask.

Well, and intent is really what matters most.

Killing a person really isn't that hard, gun or no gun. So it doesn't seem to really matter all that much on the threat level, unless you live in a place where guns are not commonplace, and so carrying one implies a certain ill intent (much akin to wearing a ski mask in florida).

[Fedel]

Understandable. Exposure to something makes you more comfortable with it.

Yes but that's not me fearing an increased capacity for violence, it's me fearing the likely intent of the person wearing the ski mask.

Well, and intent is really what matters most.

Killing a person really isn't that hard, gun or no gun. So it doesn't seem to really matter all that much on the threat level, unless you live in a place where guns are not commonplace, and so carrying one implies a certain ill intent (much akin to wearing a ski mask in florida).

I think it's less about the ability to kill as opposed to the likelihood that someone will kill. I think that someone with a weapon is generally more likely to kill then one without because the immediate repercussions ( if not the long term ones ) are less obvious. I.E. if you get on top of someone and start choking the life out of someone in a public place, you're likely to be pulled off of that person or be apprehended immediately after by the crowd. The crowd is far less likely to take action against you if you're wielding a knife and even less likely if it's a gun of some sort.

I do live in California so that might be part of it.

[Telconi]

Well, and intent is really what matters most.

Killing a person really isn't that hard, gun or no gun. So it doesn't seem to really matter all that much on the threat level, unless you live in a place where guns are not commonplace, and so carrying one implies a certain ill intent (much akin to wearing a ski mask in florida).

I think it's less about the ability to kill as opposed to the likelihood that someone will kill. I think that someone with a weapon is generally more likely to kill then one without because the immediate repercussions ( if not the long term ones ) are less obvious. I.E. if you get on top of someone and start choking the life out of someone in a public place, you're likely to be pulled off of that person or be apprehended immediately after by the crowd. The crowd is far less likely to take action against you if you're wielding a knife and even less likely if it's a gun of some sort.

I do live in California so that might be part of it.

It's more a relative comparison I think. How likely a bystander is to intervene depends on how that bystander matches up to the attacker, not about the raw violent potential of the attacker.

[Galloism]

Well, and intent is really what matters most.

Killing a person really isn't that hard, gun or no gun. So it doesn't seem to really matter all that much on the threat level, unless you live in a place where guns are not commonplace, and so carrying one implies a certain ill intent (much akin to wearing a ski mask in florida).

I think it's less about the ability to kill as opposed to the likelihood that someone will kill. I think that someone with a weapon is generally more likely to kill then one without because the immediate repercussions ( if not the long term ones ) are less obvious. I.E. if you get on top of someone and start choking the life out of someone in a public place, you're likely to be pulled off of that person or be apprehended immediately after by the crowd. The crowd is far less likely to take action against you if you're wielding a knife and even less likely if it's a gun of some sort. I do live in California so that might be part of it.

Could be. I lived in Arkansas and Florida, where those carrying firearms tend to be the older more responsible more restrained crowd.

It's sort of like how most exceptionally large men I've met (the 300lb 1% body fat guys) tend to be exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, knowing their power, I have a similar experience with most armed people. But most armed people here tend to be older, more mature, and more secure in themselves, and less prone to senseless violent acts - reserving it for truly significant situations.

When I dated a judo instructor many years ago, her and her entire class were similar, probably for the same reason.

[Fedel]

I think it's less about the ability to kill as opposed to the likelihood that someone will kill. I think that someone with a weapon is generally more likely to kill then one without because the immediate repercussions ( if not the long term ones ) are less obvious. I.E. if you get on top of someone and start choking the life out of someone in a public place, you're likely to be pulled off of that person or be apprehended immediately after by the crowd. The crowd is far less likely to take action against you if you're wielding a knife and even less likely if it's a gun of some sort.

I do live in California so that might be part of it.

It's more a relative comparison I think. How likely a bystander is to intervene depends on how that bystander matches up to the attacker, not about the raw violent potential of the attacker.

Yes of course. I just meant on average.

I think it's less about the ability to kill as opposed to the likelihood that someone will kill. I think that someone with a weapon is generally more likely to kill then one without because the immediate repercussions ( if not the long term ones ) are less obvious. I.E. if you get on top of someone and start choking the life out of someone in a public place, you're likely to be pulled off of that person or be apprehended immediately after by the crowd. The crowd is far less likely to take action against you if you're wielding a knife and even less likely if it's a gun of some sort. I do live in California so that might be part of it.

Could be. I lived in Arkansas and Florida, where those carrying firearms tend to be the older more responsible more restrained crowd.

It's sort of like how most exceptionally large men I've met (the 300lb 1% body fat guys) tend to be exceptionally restrained when it comes to violence, knowing their power, I have a similar experience with most armed people. But most armed people here tend to be older, more mature, and more secure in themselves, and less prone to senseless violent acts - reserving it for truly significant situations.

When I dated a judo instructor many years ago, her and her entire class were similar, probably for the same reason.

Makes sense.

[Elwher]

Does that mean that there are no moral principles, only situational ethics?

Even so, what is wrong with that?

If that is your position on ethics, then so be it. I believe in absolute principles, others do not. While I disagree with you, I respect your right to hold to what you believe.

[San Lumen]

Even so, what is wrong with that?

If that is your position on ethics, then so be it. I believe in absolute principles, others do not. While I disagree with you, I respect your right to hold to what you believe.

The law is frequently not absolute.

[Telconi]

If that is your position on ethics, then so be it. I believe in absolute principles, others do not. While I disagree with you, I respect your right to hold to what you believe.

The law is frequently not absolute.

Shouldn't it be?

[San Lumen]

The law is frequently not absolute.

Shouldn't it be?

It depends on what law your talking about.

[Telconi]

Shouldn't it be?

It depends on what law your talking about.

All of them.

[Kowani]

It depends on what law your talking about.

All of them.

No. An absolute law is unadaptable.

[Telconi]

All of them.

No. An absolute law is unadaptable.

A law which isn't absolute is unfair.

[Abaja]

If people don't want a certain groups of others in their store, don't open it in the first place.
As diverse as the world is becoming, how can you expect only your "desired" group of people to come in?
Stores are supposed to be open to everyone as long as the people are reasonable.

[Kowani]

No. An absolute law is unadaptable.

A law which isn't absolute is unfair.

Other way around, actually.