Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Telconi]

So were we wrong to force a bank to open branches in majority black neighborhoods?

No

Couldn't they just get an Uber to the white folks' bank though?

[Galloism]

So were we wrong to force a bank to open branches in majority black neighborhoods?

No

Why? They had banks even closer than the people you're talking about.

[Telconi]

No

Why? They had banks even closer than the people you're talking about.

Yes, but they were black.

[San Lumen]

No

Why? They had banks even closer than the people you're talking about.

We are big cities and suburban communities right? Thats something to factor. Its not possible nor economical for the big in the lawsuit to have a branch in every municipality in the state.

As to the town upstate my aunt and uncle live in maybe Subway or Starbucks tried to open a location and town council denied the permit or there was public opposition? Are they discriminating against themselves?

[Galloism]

Why? They had banks even closer than the people you're talking about.

We are big cities and suburban communities right? Thats something to factor. Its not possible nor economical for the big in the lawsuit to have a branch in every municipality in the state.

As to the town upstate my aunt and uncle live in maybe Subway or Starbucks tried to open a location and town council denied the permit or there was public opposition? Are they discriminating against themselves?

Let's talk about banks. Since we were talking about banks.

The bank said it wasn't economical to have banks in poor crime filled areas that (the bank alleged totally coincidentally) were filled with black people.

Why is the bank required to build a loss business there, but not in the small town? What makes them more worthy?

People who, you'll be reminded, had closer access to banking already?

[San Lumen]

We are big cities and suburban communities right? Thats something to factor. Its not possible nor economical for the big in the lawsuit to have a branch in every municipality in the state.

As to the town upstate my aunt and uncle live in maybe Subway or Starbucks tried to open a location and town council denied the permit or there was public opposition? Are they discriminating against themselves?

Let's talk about banks. Since we were talking about banks.

The bank said it wasn't economical to have banks in poor crime filled areas that (the bank alleged totally coincidentally) were filled with black people.

Why is the bank required to build a loss business there, but not in the small town? What makes them more worthy?

People who, you'll be reminded, had closer access to banking already?

I think thats simply the excuse they used for not wanting to open in majority black neighborhoods.

The small isnt any less worthy. Its simply not feasible to have a location in every municipality.

[Galloism]

Let's talk about banks. Since we were talking about banks.

The bank said it wasn't economical to have banks in poor crime filled areas that (the bank alleged totally coincidentally) were filled with black people.

Why is the bank required to build a loss business there, but not in the small town? What makes them more worthy?

People who, you'll be reminded, had closer access to banking already?

I think thats simply the excuse they used for not wanting to open in majority black neighborhoods.

The small isnt any less worthy. Its simply not feasible to have a location in every municipality.

Why is not feasible to have a location in every municipality, but it is feasible to have a location in every neighborhood?

[Soviet Computocracy]

The bank said it wasn't economical to have banks in poor crime filled areas that (the bank alleged totally coincidentally) were filled with black people.

Sounds like a job for the public bank.

[Soviet Computocracy]

As to the town upstate my aunt and uncle live in maybe Subway or Starbucks tried to open a location and town council denied the permit or there was public opposition? Are they discriminating against themselves?

I guess they didn’t want the blood sucking corporations.

[Estanglia]

I don't remember us going over how your arguments can be boiled down to you supporting the status quo because it is the status quo. Or us explaining (or at least you acknowledging) that you're using our arguments.



One of them I explained in that post. You switch from using our arguments to arguing against them in the span of a couple of posts. I can't see that as being anything other than a double standard: you treat one argument as a good one in one context, then immediately drop it and argue against it in another context.



Is it not selecting customers on the basis of where they live?

You say you don't understand how you have a double standard, then you do shit like this. You say 'serve all', then admit to be willing to:
1) Not enforce it when it comes to location
2) Are willing to discriminate against bigots
3) Ignore the long list of legally allowed asterisks to that, with your only response being 'is there discrimination?', which either is dismissing the potential for discrimination there, or supporting the status quo.

I just laid out above how location for the most part is not discrimination

None of that logic voids the fact that it is discrimination.

discrimination
/dɪˌskrɪmɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

I'd argue 'location' is a category of people. Like Southerner. It's a category based on location.

You are treating people in small towns unjustly by forcing them to drive long distances to get served (something you ironically opposed when it came to refusing to serve people).

[Estanglia]

Because it is discriminatory.

No, the part where I have supported forcing businesses to open locations. I have simply said it's possible to do, and less absurd than forcing beliefs on businesses, which you already support.

So what is your solution then force large chain restaurants and stores to open locations there?

There is another way and its what most people would do. You get together what you need and go to town hall and get a building permit to open your own shop or restaurant.

So?

Why should a big bank be forced to open a location there? They have two community banks in the town to the north with is barely ten minutes away.

What if they didn't have a car?

get an Uber or Lyft?

It's quite impressive how much you use our logic, Lumen. Unfortunately, it makes you quite inconsistent, unless this is all just fluff to avoid admitting that you support the status quo because it is the status quo.

[San Lumen]

I think thats simply the excuse they used for not wanting to open in majority black neighborhoods.

The small isnt any less worthy. Its simply not feasible to have a location in every municipality.

Why is not feasible to have a location in every municipality, but it is feasible to have a location in every neighborhood?

The answer should be obvious.

So what is your solution then force large chain restaurants and stores to open locations there?

There is another way and its what most people would do. You get together what you need and go to town hall and get a building permit to open your own shop or restaurant.

Why should a big bank be forced to open a location there? They have two community banks in the town to the north with is barely ten minutes away.

get an Uber or Lyft?

It's quite impressive how much you use our logic, Lumen. Unfortunately, it makes you quite inconsistent, unless this is all just fluff to avoid admitting that you support the status quo because it is the status quo.

What is the status quo?

Why is this concept regarding building so difficult for you and others to understand? If it really was discrimination dont you think someone would have done something by now. Or is it all part of this supposed bias against rural communities?

[Galloism]

Why is not feasible to have a location in every municipality, but it is feasible to have a location in every neighborhood?

The answer should be obvious.

It really isn't.

[San Lumen]

The answer should be obvious.

It really isn't.

Lets go back again to my example of Jefferson City, Missouri. It is by far the largest municipality in the county with almost 60 percent of the population. No other community in the county even comes close to it in population. They several very small communities and the other unincorporated areas. T

Those small communities of a few hundred should be able to force any business they want to build there when they probably have locations in Jefferson City?

The same goes for the county my aunt and uncle live in? Most of the towns dont have much in way of business. Its either farms and a few local business. If it has a diner they are lucky. I fail to see how this qualifies as discrimination.

[Estanglia]

Why is not feasible to have a location in every municipality, but it is feasible to have a location in every neighborhood?

The answer should be obvious.

It's quite impressive how much you use our logic, Lumen. Unfortunately, it makes you quite inconsistent, unless this is all just fluff to avoid admitting that you support the status quo because it is the status quo.

What is the status quo?

Protection for the four categories you consistently mention and little other, a forced right to service, not forcing businesses to open shops in certain areas, and the existence of private clubs.

Why is this concept regarding building so difficult for you and others to understand? If it really was discrimination dont you think someone would have done something by now. Or is it all part of this supposed bias against rural communities?

Oh, I understand it. It's still discrimination, just like how it's still discrimination to refuse service to Gingers, something you ignore because there is no current discrimination.

And the irony of you again using our arguments (this time it's 'why is it so hard to understand that you don't have a right to service?') is funny.

And that logic makes no sense. Discrimination for a variety of categories exist, yet nobody is doing anything about it.

[Estanglia]

It really isn't.

Lets go back again to my example of Jefferson City, Missouri. It is by far the largest municipality in the county with almost 60 percent of the population. No other community in the county even comes close to it in population. They several very small communities and the other unincorporated areas. T

Those small communities of a few hundred should be able to force any business they want to build there when they probably have locations in Jefferson City?

The same goes for the county my aunt and uncle live in? Most of the towns dont have much in way of business. Its either farms and a few local business. If it has a diner they are lucky. I fail to see how this qualifies as discrimination.

How is it not discrimination? And an actual argument, not a reference to the status quo or profit (which doesn't invalidate the potential for discrimination).

And have you not noticed we are using your arguments to justify this idea? Every one of your arguments can be used to justify this, and yet you don't support it as it's not the status quo.

[San Lumen]

The answer should be obvious.

What is the status quo?

Protection for the four categories you consistently mention and little other, a forced right to service, not forcing businesses to open shops in certain areas, and the existence of private clubs.

Why is this concept regarding building so difficult for you and others to understand? If it really was discrimination dont you think someone would have done something by now. Or is it all part of this supposed bias against rural communities?

Oh, I understand it. It's still discrimination, just like how it's still discrimination to refuse service to Gingers, something you ignore because there is no current discrimination.

And the irony of you again using our arguments (this time it's 'why is it so hard to understand that you don't have a right to service?') is funny.

And that logic makes no sense. Discrimination for a variety of categories exist, yet nobody is doing anything about it.

So tell me your solution then? Forced building in every municipally and take away zoning and planning from local areas?

[Galloism]

It really isn't.

Lets go back again to my example of Jefferson City, Missouri. It is by far the largest municipality in the county with almost 60 percent of the population. No other community in the county even comes close to it in population. They several very small communities and the other unincorporated areas. T

Those small communities of a few hundred should be able to force any business they want to build there when they probably have locations in Jefferson City?

The same goes for the county my aunt and uncle live in? Most of the towns dont have much in way of business. Its either farms and a few local business. If it has a diner they are lucky. I fail to see how this qualifies as discrimination.

Ok, and going with Jefferson city, how is it more economically feasible to have a bank in Jefferson City proper and each of the 10 constituent neighborhoods of Jefferson city, then to have one in each of the cities and villages in Cole County, totalling 8 cities and villages, including one in Jefferson City?

[Telconi]

Protection for the four categories you consistently mention and little other, a forced right to service, not forcing businesses to open shops in certain areas, and the existence of private clubs.



Oh, I understand it. It's still discrimination, just like how it's still discrimination to refuse service to Gingers, something you ignore because there is no current discrimination.

And the irony of you again using our arguments (this time it's 'why is it so hard to understand that you don't have a right to service?') is funny.

And that logic makes no sense. Discrimination for a variety of categories exist, yet nobody is doing anything about it.

So tell me your solution then? Forced building in every municipally and take away zoning and planning from local areas?

Solution to what?

[Estanglia]

Protection for the four categories you consistently mention and little other, a forced right to service, not forcing businesses to open shops in certain areas, and the existence of private clubs.



Oh, I understand it. It's still discrimination, just like how it's still discrimination to refuse service to Gingers, something you ignore because there is no current discrimination.

And the irony of you again using our arguments (this time it's 'why is it so hard to understand that you don't have a right to service?') is funny.

And that logic makes no sense. Discrimination for a variety of categories exist, yet nobody is doing anything about it.

So tell me your solution then? Forced building in every municipally and take away zoning and planning from local areas?

Allow businesses to choose their clientele, including where they place their businesses.

The point is not that we support it, it's that, by your own logic, you should be supporting it. And yet you're not.

We don't actually support this, by the way.

[San Lumen]

Lets go back again to my example of Jefferson City, Missouri. It is by far the largest municipality in the county with almost 60 percent of the population. No other community in the county even comes close to it in population. They several very small communities and the other unincorporated areas. T

Those small communities of a few hundred should be able to force any business they want to build there when they probably have locations in Jefferson City?

The same goes for the county my aunt and uncle live in? Most of the towns dont have much in way of business. Its either farms and a few local business. If it has a diner they are lucky. I fail to see how this qualifies as discrimination.

Ok, and going with Jefferson city, how is it more economically feasible to have a bank in Jefferson City proper and each of the 10 constituent neighborhoods of Jefferson city, then to have one in each of the cities and villages in Cole County, totalling 8 cities and villages, including one in Jefferson City?

The lawsuit you spoke about involved a much larger community. Chicago right? I doubt a branch of the bank in a town of a few hundred is going to be profitable. Jefferson City is the hub of the community. Two of the seven communities not including Jefferson city have a community bank another has a regional bank. This is according to Google Earth.

I dont see how you would have a compelling case in that county or many rural counties for discrimination.

[San Lumen]

So tell me your solution then? Forced building in every municipally and take away zoning and planning from local areas?

Allow businesses to choose their clientele, including where they place their businesses.

The point is not that we support it, it's that, by your own logic, you should be supporting it. And yet you're not.

We don't actually support this, by the way.

Well you could have fooled me.

[Estanglia]

Allow businesses to choose their clientele, including where they place their businesses.

The point is not that we support it, it's that, by your own logic, you should be supporting it. And yet you're not.

We don't actually support this, by the way.

Well you could have fooled me.

Unsurprising. It is your own logic, after all.

[Galloism]

Ok, and going with Jefferson city, how is it more economically feasible to have a bank in Jefferson City proper and each of the 10 constituent neighborhoods of Jefferson city, then to have one in each of the cities and villages in Cole County, totalling 8 cities and villages, including one in Jefferson City?

The lawsuit you spoke about involved a much larger community. Chicago right? I doubt a branch of the bank in a town of a few hundred is going to be profitable. Jefferson City is the hub of the community. Two of the seven communities not including Jefferson city have a community bank another has a regional bank. This is according to Google Earth.

I dont see how you would have a compelling case in that county or many rural counties for discrimination.

And the bank argued that the branches in the black neighborhoods wouldn't be profitable because of the higher risk and greater expenses associated with those neighborhoods, along with lower account ownership and higher risk of default for loans.

Which leads us back to the same problem. Either we can point a gun at a business and say "you must open an unprofitable location for antidiscrimination reasons" or we can't. And, besides that fact, there were already other banks in the immediate area that the people could use. They don't even have to go to another community. There was one in their community.

Your excuses, consistently applied, would say the settlement between Associated Bank and HUD was wrong. But you don't consistently apply your excuses.

Have the courage of your convictions, San Lumen.

[Telconi]

The lawsuit you spoke about involved a much larger community. Chicago right? I doubt a branch of the bank in a town of a few hundred is going to be profitable. Jefferson City is the hub of the community. Two of the seven communities not including Jefferson city have a community bank another has a regional bank. This is according to Google Earth.

I dont see how you would have a compelling case in that county or many rural counties for discrimination.

And the bank argued that the branches in the black neighborhoods wouldn't be profitable because of the higher risk and greater expenses associated with those neighborhoods, along with lower account ownership and higher risk of default for loans.

Which leads us back to the same problem. Either we can point a gun at a business and say "you must open an unprofitable location for antidiscrimination reasons" or we can't. And, besides that fact, there were already other banks in the immediate area that the people could use. They don't even have to go to another community. There was one in their community.

Your excuses, consistently applied, would say the settlement between Associated Bank and HUD was wrong. But you don't consistently apply your excuses.

Have the courage of your convictions, San Lumen.

It's the fundamental failure of justifying emotional responses after the fact.