Should There Be A Right To Discriminate?

[Grand Britannia]

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

"fringe minority"

Such as major political parties, personalities, people easily manipulated by media narrative, etc.

[Kowani]

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.

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.[/quote]
True. However, Statistics are a very good way to decide in which way to point a society.

[San Lumen]

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

"fringe minority"

Such as major political parties, personalities, people easily manipulated by media narrative, etc.

show your work

[Grand Britannia]

"fringe minority"

Such as major political parties, personalities, people easily manipulated by media narrative, etc.

show your work

Inb4 bad source

inb4 ignored.

[Telconi]

"fringe minority"

Such as major political parties, personalities, people easily manipulated by media narrative, etc.

show your work

The official platform of the Democrat party calls for gun bans. Is literally the officially published party platform a fringe minority now?

[Galloism]

show your work

Inb4 bad source

inb4 ignored.

A lot of the rest of it is arguable, but he materially misrepresented the incident with the IRS and nonprofit applications. That had everything to do with classification as a 501(c)4 social welfare organization instead of section 527 political organizations. The IRS received a 400% increase in applications but no additional funding for the not for profit application department. They did something foolish as a shortcut - targeting organizations by title, using both liberal and conservative organization buzzwords within the title and pulled those for closer inspection.

It did not disproportionately target conservatives - that's just the only ones people ever talked about. Liberal organizations using liberal buzzwords were similarly harangued by the process as they didn't have enough people to do the job to determine whether all these applications were social welfare organizations or political organizations in a timely manner.


A lot of the rest seems suspicious given the blatant lie in the middle.

[Grand Britannia]

Inb4 bad source

inb4 ignored.

A lot of the rest of it is arguable, but he materially misrepresented the incident with the IRS and nonprofit applications. That had everything to do with classification as a 501(c)4 social welfare organization instead of section 527 political organizations. The IRS received a 400% increase in applications but no additional funding for the not for profit application department. They did something foolish as a shortcut - targeting organizations by title, using both liberal and conservative organization buzzwords within the title and pulled those for closer inspection.

It did not disproportionately target conservatives - that's just the only ones people ever talked about. Liberal organizations using liberal buzzwords were similarly harangued by the process as they didn't have enough people to do the job to determine whether all these applications were social welfare organizations or political organizations in a timely manner.


A lot of the rest seems suspicious given the blatant lie in the middle.

There's this. And this.

Indirectly how social media and financial organizations either ban or stop service to anyone that doesn't look fromt he correct side of the spectrum.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

No.

[Kowani]

A lot of the rest of it is arguable, but he materially misrepresented the incident with the IRS and nonprofit applications. That had everything to do with classification as a 501(c)4 social welfare organization instead of section 527 political organizations. The IRS received a 400% increase in applications but no additional funding for the not for profit application department. They did something foolish as a shortcut - targeting organizations by title, using both liberal and conservative organization buzzwords within the title and pulled those for closer inspection.

It did not disproportionately target conservatives - that's just the only ones people ever talked about. Liberal organizations using liberal buzzwords were similarly harangued by the process as they didn't have enough people to do the job to determine whether all these applications were social welfare organizations or political organizations in a timely manner.


A lot of the rest seems suspicious given the blatant lie in the middle.

There's this. And this.

Indirectly how social media and financial organizations either ban or stop service to anyone that doesn't look fromt he correct side of the spectrum.

“But Hillary!”

[Ors Might]

No.

Yes.

[Grand Britannia]

There's this. And this.

Indirectly how social media and financial organizations either ban or stop service to anyone that doesn't look fromt he correct side of the spectrum.

“But Hillary!”

Nice debunk.

[Kowani]

“But Hillary!”

Nice debunk.

The only way you could’ve been more laughable is if you had gone with Obama.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

No.

Yes.

ok cool I guess that's that then

[Ors Might]

Yes.

ok cool I guess that's that then

You could give your reasoning as to why there shouldn’t be. You might get a better response.

[Grand Britannia]

Nice debunk.

The only way you could’ve been more laughable is if you had gone with Obama.

10/10 debunking, try again.

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

ok cool I guess that's that then

You could give your reasoning as to why there shouldn’t be. You might get a better response.

I just don't agree with discrimination on any level. I don't see the logic of it.

[Kowani]

The only way you could’ve been more laughable is if you had gone with Obama.

10/10 debunking, try again.

Hilary is considered by the majority of the left to be irrelevant. The left is the side attempting to maintain anti-discrimination laws. Her statements don’t help in any way.

[Ors Might]

You could give your reasoning as to why there shouldn’t be. You might get a better response.

I just don't agree with discrimination on any level. I don't see the logic of it.

Discrimination on any level? No Shirt No Shoes No Service included?

[Grand Britannia]

10/10 debunking, try again.

Hilary is considered by the majority of the left to be irrelevant. The left is the side attempting to maintain anti-discrimination laws. Her statements don’t help in any way.

Sure as hell wasn't irrelevant 2 years later.

[Kowani]

Hilary is considered by the majority of the left to be irrelevant. The left is the side attempting to maintain anti-discrimination laws. Her statements don’t help in any way.

Sure as hell wasn't irrelevant 2 years later.

Did you mean 2 years ago?
‘Cause if so, she’s not relevant anymore.

[Grand Britannia]

Sure as hell wasn't irrelevant 2 years later.

Did you mean 2 years ago?
‘Cause if so, she’s not relevant anymore.

People sure liked her platform if she got so much clout 2 years ago so while the person may not be around the idea surely is.

[Kowani]

Did you mean 2 years ago?
‘Cause if so, she’s not relevant anymore.

People sure liked her platform if she got so much clout 2 years ago so while the person may not be around the idea surely is.

Possibly, it could be that people liked other parts of her platform, or maybe the two party system could’ve helped her, or the DNC’s corporate backers, or the alternative that was Trump, or just basic tribalism...
Seriously, there’s a multitude of reasons why Hilary was relevant besides “half the country wanted to destroy the first and second amendments.

[Telconi]

People sure liked her platform if she got so much clout 2 years ago so while the person may not be around the idea surely is.

Possibly, it could be that people liked other parts of her platform, or maybe the two party system could’ve helped her, or the DNC’s corporate backers, or the alternative that was Trump, or just basic tribalism...
Seriously, there’s a multitude of reasons why Hilary was relevant besides “half the country wanted to destroy the first and second amendments.

There are certainly people who supported her despite that stuff, but a not-insignificant portion of the population supports these things, you don't get radical fringe positions to be adopted by the major parties.

[Kowani]

Possibly, it could be that people liked other parts of her platform, or maybe the two party system could’ve helped her, or the DNC’s corporate backers, or the alternative that was Trump, or just basic tribalism...
Seriously, there’s a multitude of reasons why Hilary was relevant besides “half the country wanted to destroy the first and second amendments.

There are certainly people who supported her despite that stuff, but a not-insignificant portion of the population supports these things, you don't get radical fringe positions to be adopted by the major parties.

Well, yeah, because by that point, they’re no longer radical.

[Telconi]

There are certainly people who supported her despite that stuff, but a not-insignificant portion of the population supports these things, you don't get radical fringe positions to be adopted by the major parties.

Well, yeah, because by that point, they’re no longer radical.

Not according to Lumen, which is the whole point here.