Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?

11-18-2011 , 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
I wonder how abortion will be viewed 50 years from now? It's opposition a remnant of religious superstition or as a black mark on a barbaric society?
I think it's much more likely that we will be judged harshly for our treatment of animals than fetuses.
11-18-2011 , 12:46 AM
LKJ:
Your "necessities" argument seems out of place. Why is necessities part of your argument? If you think private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate, then you should feel they need be forced to sell Silly Bands and Hula Hoops equally, just as they are food and lodging. When you pull "necessities" into the argument, it seems to me like you are making an emotional argument, not a logical one.

As for your hypothetical with regards to blacks being shut out of necessities: as bad as the Jim Crow south was, I'm pretty sure there was no monopoly such that black people were unable to acquire any food. They must have been getting food somewhere, since they weren't all dead. In any case, Civil Rights Act or not, I can't envision us ever returning to that era. If some jerkwad puts up a Whites Only sign now, he's going to lose business, period. We don't need the government to protect us from this scenario anymore. If someone wants to have a highly unprofitable and very-hated gas station, that's their prerogative. That's liberty.

FlyWf:
You suggest that I'm one of some 5% of people who can't "draw a distinction" between those two signs, but that's not true, I can and do. The latter is reprehensible and offensive.

I can also draw a distinction between 1) The Starry Night and 2) a painting of the American flag covered in feces (use whatever you find most offensive here... grandma porn... kids dying... whatever). I just feel that if you say you believe in free speech, you have to support the artist's right to draw the latter. The shouldn't be in violation of any laws and get arrested just because he expresses something that is offensive.
11-18-2011 , 12:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ
This argument really doesn't work if you're trying to draw the analogy for who you can let into your grocery store.

Sure it does. They're both private property and the rules are set by the owner.


How about something like a wine club or some other "high society" club? Should its owners be able to allow or disallow whoever they want into the club for whatever reasons?
11-18-2011 , 01:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low Key
Yes, thinking about things is hard when you choose to ignore the actual conversation and talk about something else entirely.

Just to not completely imitate you, I'll be kind enough to point out that we were talking about social issues. Unless taxes are, in your world, social issues.
Guns and welfare are social issues dude. Not to mention that large parts of the new deal were pulled back.
11-18-2011 , 01:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LirvA
They're both private property and the rules are sometimes set by the owner.
fyp
11-18-2011 , 01:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichlemn
You're suffering from survivorship bias here. Progressive policies that were repealed or never implemented despite contentious debate are rarely remembered. The best examples I can think of are the repeals of various New Deal programs.
Sweet - condescension, subtle brag that you know a fancy psychological theory, and zero content vague rebuttal all in one post. Well played.

Which ones? The CCC? The TVA? Yeah what boondoggles that put people to work and got lost young men off the rails. Please list the progressive programs that failed since the Civil War. I've got dozens that people take for granted now.
11-18-2011 , 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ
This argument really doesn't work if you're trying to draw the analogy for who you can let into your grocery store.
why?

what if i run a small grocery store and sleep in a small room in the back of it? should i be able to choose who can and can't enter?

what if i run a pet grooming service out of my house? should i be able to choose who can and can't enter?
11-18-2011 , 01:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Which ones? The CCC? The TVA? Yeah what boondoggles that put people to work and got lost young men off the rails. Please list the progressive programs that failed since the Civil War. I've got dozens that people take for granted now.
Loaded wording here, since you could defend any program, regardless of whether it was eventually repealed, as having "succeeded". The debate is over the more objective criteria of whether the US or "history" consistently trends leftwards. According to Wikipedia, most New Deal programs were abolished during WWII. You could claim that's because they were no longer needed or they were eventually replaced by similar legislation. There's at least one aspect of policy that has unambigously moved rightwards since, though - the top rate of income tax.

11-18-2011 , 01:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddubois
LKJ:
Your "necessities" argument seems out of place. Why is necessities part of your argument? If you think private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate, then you should feel they need be forced to sell Silly Bands and Hula Hoops equally, just as they are food and lodging. When you pull "necessities" into the argument, it seems to me like you are making an emotional argument, not a logical one.

As for your hypothetical with regards to blacks being shut out of necessities: as bad as the Jim Crow south was, I'm pretty sure there was no monopoly such that black people were unable to acquire any food. They must have been getting food somewhere, since they weren't all dead. In any case, Civil Rights Act or not, I can't envision us ever returning to that era. If some jerkwad puts up a Whites Only sign now, he's going to lose business, period. We don't need the government to protect us from this scenario anymore. If someone wants to have a highly unprofitable and very-hated gas station, that's their prerogative. That's liberty.
I don't bring in necessities to make an emotional argument. I do that because I find the opinion in Heart of Atlanta compelling, and it came down the way it did because the Court determined travel to be a natural right. (Heart of Atlanta was a big hotel.) There are certain inalienable rights that need to be protected. Food and shelter fall into this category. Hula hoops do not. I don't actually oppose allowing a country club to discriminate in whatever way they choose. I think those practices are odious but I wouldn't use the law to regulate such things because I do think those are more akin to legislating who you can and cannot let into your home.

I used to agree with you on this. I used to make the same arguments that you're making. But I have to say that I think the arguments, on balance, fall short. Monopolies that prevent all food transactions are really unlikely to take place, but:
1. Having the law (or lack thereof) in place to even allow for the possibility is wrong, because it essentially states that only some of these businesses are getting the same property rights. After all, if they all exercised the same ones, you'd have to do something, right? So those rights really aren't being protected at all.
2. You would still have situations where certain necessities would be far more difficult to get a hold of in certain areas. You could imagine a monopoly like this taking place in a small town in the deep south, couldn't you? That doesn't seem like a big stretch to me. If it even got to the point where a black person had to head a town over to get what they needed to subsist, then I don't think that's acceptable.
3. It's not like an unlimited number of grocery stores in an area can all exist and remain profitable. Once as many as the market will bear are established, there will be enough disincentives that other prospective owners who may not have the discriminatory policies are not going to set up shop as well.

For these reasons, I just don't think the law should protect property rights in that way when they are implicitly protecting the infringement on other rights in the same process. Sorry, but I'm comfortable cutting somewhat against the libertarian grain here, and I honestly don't think I'm getting there via an emotional argument.
11-18-2011 , 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannenj
why?

what if i run a small grocery store and sleep in a small room in the back of it? should i be able to choose who can and can't enter?

what if i run a pet grooming service out of my house? should i be able to choose who can and can't enter?
Detailed in my post above. I think any grocery store needs to have anti-discrimination laws apply. Again I just think that there are only so many businesses that can reasonably offer that service and I don't think we can enable all of them to feasibly be able to shut out a discriminated group. On the latter example, I lean toward allowing a pure luxury industry to do what they will in terms of what customers they serve.
11-18-2011 , 01:41 AM
tannenj: Are you aware what the current laws are? Like, maybe that would be a good place to start before we embark upon this discussion. But really, I wonder whether it might be possible to contain the ever-fascinating "what is a public accommodation" to a more appropriate thread. (Lots of discrimination by private firms is legal. Who knew!)

Even though I understand that the evergreen "States' rights means that it's OK if Alabama makes murdering a black man a lessor offense than murdering a white man" line of reasoning, I'm not sure we need to go through it again here.

Well, at least I'm going to stay out of it this time. Have fun, though!

But, hey, Republicans are running for national office, so we get to discuss what level of bigotry is acceptable. This year's topic: Muslims. Can we still allow them to live and worship freely in the USA, or did 9/11 change everything?
11-18-2011 , 01:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Sweet - condescension, subtle brag that you know a fancy psychological theory, and zero content vague rebuttal all in one post. Well played.
Oh, I'm sorry. If someone displays an uncommon logical fallacy, you can't call them out on it because that's just bragging that you know the name of the fallacy.
11-18-2011 , 01:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ
Detailed in my post above. I think any grocery store needs to have anti-discrimination laws apply. Again I just think that there are only so many businesses that can reasonably offer that service and I don't think we can enable all of them to feasibly be able to shut out a discriminated group. On the latter example, I lean toward allowing a pure luxury industry to do what they will in terms of what customers they serve.
1. idiot racist grocery store owners in random town refuse business from X/Y/Z, giving away large sums of money in the process
2. extremely obvious/easy source of profit presents itself
3. businessman w/ a pulse acknowledges the above
4. problem solved

yes/no?

Quote:
It's not like an unlimited number of grocery stores in an area can all exist and remain profitable. Once as many as the market will bear are established, there will be enough disincentives that other prospective owners who may not have the discriminatory policies are not going to set up shop as well.
the incentive is free money. the stores w/ discriminatory policies are literally giving away money to stores w/o such policies.
11-18-2011 , 02:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannenj
1. idiot racist grocery store owners in random town refuse business from X/Y/Z, giving away large sums of money in the process
2. extremely obvious/easy source of profit presents itself
3. businessman w/ a pulse acknowledges the above
4. problem solved

yes/no?



the incentive is free money. the stores w/ discriminatory policies are literally giving away money to stores w/o such policies.
If I believed that overt and open racism in all areas was eliminated then I might agree, but I do think pockets of the south exist where a risk is still run. An area with one businessman bigoted and stupid enough to do this is more likely to be an area where he's not the only one who thinks this way, especially since a "whites only" sign is going to be like lighting money on fire not only in refusal to sell to blacks but in business lost to disgusted whites as well.

I have more faith in the free market than the average person on this board (I'm guessing), but I do come back to it simply being improper to leave open the feasible possibility, no matter how remote, of multiple businesses doing this simultaneously with each other and causing the type of problems I referred to.

Again I have sympathy with your arguments since I used to use all of them myself, but they just don't persuade me quite enough anymore.
11-18-2011 , 02:18 AM
Quote:
...multiple businesses doing this simultaneously with each other and causing the type of problems I referred to...
but what about the new business to which i alluded? your explanation doesn't really address the point in my post, imo.
11-18-2011 , 02:23 AM
You're assuming a new business swoops in to take advantage. That's a likely scenario but far from a certainty. In a hypothetical (?) community where this even takes place without significant public uproar, it's especially not a certainty there.
11-18-2011 , 02:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichlemn
Loaded wording here, since you could defend any program, regardless of whether it was eventually repealed, as having "succeeded". The debate is over the more objective criteria of whether the US or "history" consistently trends leftwards. According to Wikipedia, most New Deal programs were abolished during WWII. You could claim that's because they were no longer needed or they were eventually replaced by similar legislation. There's at least one aspect of policy that has unambigously moved rightwards since, though - the top rate of income tax.

Er yeah and we're in kind of a financial mess right now as well. Notice the boom years of the 60s and 70s.

Ok off the top of my head here:

Good progressive policies that were controversial in their time but now are pretty much taken for granted as a success and/or a good idea
public libraries
abolition
national parks
CCC
TVA
women't suffrage
civil rights
anti-smoking/tobacco campaigns
child labor laws
meat and food inspection
40-hour-workweek
conservation
mandatory nutrition labels
whaling bans
dolphin-safe tuna
free STD clinics
PBS
gay rights
minimum wage
abolition of Jim Crow laws
migrant worker rights
miranda rights
clean air act
clean water act
DDT ban
seatbelts in cars
seatbelt laws
smoking bans
the post office
food stamps
endangered species act
workplace discrimination laws
Americans with disabilities act
FDIC
whistleblower laws
aerosol CFC bans
methadone clinics
shutting down state mental hospitals
workplace safety laws
acid rain regulations
vehicle smog restrictions
teaching evolution
carpool lanes
tougher drunk driving laws
workmen's comp
animal cruetly laws
free school lunches for poor kids

still controversial
social security (only because of supposed insolvency)
medicare (same)
affirmative action
unions
the DREAM act
gay marriage
renewable energy subsidies
Obamacare
carbon caps
medical marijuana
helmet laws
healthy school lunches

bad progressive policies
prohibition
55 mph speed limit

Ok that took me 15 minutes to come up with. I'm sure I'm missing many. Your turn.

Last edited by suzzer99; 11-18-2011 at 02:56 AM.
11-18-2011 , 02:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichlemn
Oh, I'm sorry. If someone displays an uncommon logical fallacy, you can't call them out on it because that's just bragging that you know the name of the fallacy.
It is if you just swing your fancy condescending fallacy around like a club while providing zero evidence or arguments to back up your claim.

And hey thanks for linking too because otherwise I was completely dumbfounded as to what "survivorship bias" could possibly mean. That really is a tough advanced concept to grasp. I've been reading the wiki you linked to, but I need to lie down every now and then. I think the aha moment is going to come very soon.

BTW I find your behavior typical of someone that suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Last edited by suzzer99; 11-18-2011 at 02:41 AM.
11-18-2011 , 02:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LKJ
In a hypothetical (?) community where this even takes place without significant public uproar, [a new business swooping in is] especially not a certainty there.
so ... every inhabitant of this community (aside from the targets of discrimination [ToD], of course) who has any interest whatsoever in running such a business is racist, am i correct?

if so, then

1. this is a contrived hypothetical

and

2. the ToD in this community should move elsewhere regardless of this issue. why should they have any interest in living here, even if the gov't is forcing the would-be discriminators not to discriminate?
11-18-2011 , 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Good progressive policies that were controversial in their time but now are pretty much taken for granted as a success and/or a good idea

...
...
...
lol at listing these things as "good" like it's a fact
11-18-2011 , 02:46 AM
suzzer,

imagine how much more dope all of those policies might be if we had a sound currency that wasn't manipulated by a private entity! or if we weren't fighting immoral unjust wars based on lies that were helping bankrupt the us and destroying massive amounts of capital!
11-18-2011 , 02:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannenj
so ... every inhabitant of this community (aside from the targets of discrimination [ToD], of course) who has any interest whatsoever in running such a business is racist, am i correct?

if so, then

1. this is a contrived hypothetical

and

2. the ToD in this community should move elsewhere regardless of this issue. why should they have any interest in living here, even if the gov't is forcing the would-be discriminators not to discriminate?
I think the problem would be more likely to arise in small towns, in which case it's not necessarily THAT contrived. It's not like every small town is just chock full of aspiring grocery store owners.

As to your second question, there are still communities with plenty of racial animus where minorities do continue to exist in significant numbers. When a Mississippi high school has segregated proms, it indicates that there is a strong racial divide and also that there still were enough black people to fill up their own prom. I don't think it's so readily evident that blacks would just get the hell out of such a racist area...it is intuitive that they would, but it doesn't seem to bear out that way.
11-18-2011 , 02:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannenj
lol at listing these things as "good" like it's a fact
Seriously. Plenty of objectionable items listed.
11-18-2011 , 02:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichlemn
Oh, I'm sorry. If someone displays an uncommon logical fallacy, you can't call them out on it because that's just bragging that you know the name of the fallacy.
I laughed, wp
11-18-2011 , 02:53 AM
Yeah his no-content hand-wavy style is right up your alley ikes. Maybe you should form a super duo.

      
m