Are they affiliated with the government?

Iconic to children was my point. I don't care about adults.

You think that changes his answer at all?

I think that first you should make sure you understand my point of view and currently you don't.

Such as?

Is someone arguing that they be 'legally silenced'? Not me. So we're in agreement there. So, if they discriminate against gays (do they?) and non-Christians, how would you go about changing that?


What is it that you think I'm doing right now?

I don't know how approach this question. I'm totaly dunbfounded.

What question?

If you're confused about the direction this thread has turned in, then join the club. I make a comment about a group's 'right' to discriminate and suddenly I'm anti-freedom of speech. Apparently. Right now I'm not even sure what it is some people think that I think.

It seems that several other people interpreted your words in the exact same way as I did. The evidence therefore suggests that you have not articulated yourself clearly, as it is reasonably unlikely that this many people would misunderstand your point of view if you had stated it in a precise manner.

(Skimming over many of your other posts, this appears to be a theme. You say something, someone makes a counter-point responding to the words that you've used, and then you accuse them of not understanding. At some point, you need to come to terms with the fact that your words are the common denominator of the misunderstandings.)

I was typing quickly and didn't really use "silenced" correctly, so change "legally silenced" to "legally banned from discriminating" and the message is exactly the same. The Boy Scouts in the US at least discriminate against gays, not sure about their UK counterparts.

Earlier, you said, "Some people believe in fighting to change things including laws that support unacceptable discrimination, I guess I'm one of those and not a shrugger."

This tells me 2 things:

1) You do believe in changing laws that allow discrimination, so in the context of this thread you are saying you want privately funded organizations to be forcibly and legally prevented from discriminating. We are not in agreement. I think this is a terrible way to go about this because of all the obvious reasons that freedom of speech and assembly are important.

2) You are indirectly accusing the rest of us who disagree with you of being "shruggers." I take offense to that. You make it seem like we don't care enough about this just because we don't support your anti-democratic stance. But I do care, and more personally than most as I explained. I just want to solve the problem the right way.

It seems to me that you are arguing the side of forcing them to stop discriminating, but I have no idea because while it seemed clear you were saying that you keep telling us we don't know what you're saying and you haven't yet clarified. Why don't you cut out all these games and tell us what your positions actually are?

You can be for peoples right to discrimination and not shrug off that discrimination at the same time.

I haven't read the thread so I may be off target to whats being discussed. My general position is this: There should be no law against restaurants not allowing black customers. However if that policy is found out by a black child there should be no law against shooting the restaurant owner.

Interesting, as there *IS* such a law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act

Title II: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

Even more interesting. Do you have a newsletter?

Two points. First, whatever the reason you think that restaurants should not be legally restrained from race-based discrimination towards their customers, I assume it isn't because the restaurant is viewed as iconic by black children. So this general position doesn't tell me much about your reasoning regarding the Boy Scouts.

Second, I think the bolded is a jokey way of saying that in fact there should be a law against restaurants not allowing black customers. After all, that policy certainly will be found out by black children, which means by your logic that the state should legalize race-based warfare among its citizens, something no state would allow on a permanent basis (assuming it had the power to prevent it). After all, the restaurant owners would presumably still have the right to self-defense...

Lol, well played

You are making this too complicated. Bottom line is that I believe that certain trivial freedoms should be curtailed to avoid making children or handicapped people feel really bad.

I don't think there's anything trivial about these freedoms being discussed.

On the issue of freedom of speech I certainly haven't articulated myself well because I never intended it to become the topic of conversation and have simply found myself lurching from one kneejerk response after another to some assumption or attack made on or about my beliefs.

The Scouts certainly have the right to request a pledge of loyalty from their members to any authority they choose, since they're a privately funded organisation. My only objection is that I'm not a fan of the Authority in question and believe that the pledge plays a small part in a greater more general effort to inculcate religiosity in the young and vulnerable. Unfortunately for me, neither of those are grounds for stopping the Scouts from doing it. Fortunately for me, the new leader of the Girl Guides feels the same way I do and is launching an effort to remove god from the Guide pledge, and the signs are that the Scouts will follow in her footsteps. They of course also have the right to do that and discriminate against people who would prefer to pledge their loyalty to a deity.

I assuming that this is intended to be ironic. It's soon to be a moot point anyway, in the case of the Scouts and Girl Guides.

Can you please clarify if in the above quote you are saying that you support laws that would forbid privately funded organizations from discriminating on grounds of religious belief? And if you are not arguing that, can you explain how else one can interpret this quote?

So you're arguing that while there are currently no laws to stop this, you think that there should be?

Thats how i read it. Lest he be a shrugger.

You know MB, if you would come up with a clear thesis, state it, and stick to it we wouldn't have so many of these communication problems.

Insted you ask these openended questions expecting to pull a Socrates. I mean, I love the Socratic but only with someone who knows how to wield it. Those kinds of people pretty damn rare and, I'm sorry man but, you are not one of those people.

Ok. I'll just shrug off the well deserved ribbing and try not to spend too much time wishing I'd never made that remark. :P

The Honest answer is that I don't know. I clearly have a problem with discrimination on religious grounds if I feel that it's supporting a behaviour of which I personally disapprove (and I generally find those are behaviours which are commonly disapproved of) but I haven't at this point thought through the legal and ethical implications of legally blocking the Scouts from using the word god in their pledge.

So, I need to learn more about why some types of discrimination are legal and other not because despite how I may have come across I'm not an enemy of freedom of speech, in fact, I detest censorship.

That wasn't my intention at all, sometimes I just ask questions because I want to know what people are thinking. Given that I didn't even know what the Socratic method was till I started posting here I guess I won't be offended at the charge of not 'wielding' it well. Maybe that will change with time.

Well at least there is some positive change going on: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...ay-rights.html

BSoA is "considering" changing their official policy against banning gays - after extensive pressure, I might add - at the national level (leaving it up to local troops to decide for themselves, it seems).

That accepting gays happens before accepting atheists is telling.

How so - seems perfectly consistent.