Discrimination

[Catherineanne]

How is a racist any worse than a sexist? Or, how are they any worse than a woman who will not date bald men?

Choosing to be selective in who we date is not about intolerance. It is about having self respect.

As for comparing racism and sexism, well, that is like saying, is it better to kill with a gun or knife. The answer is, don't kill.

 

[Verv]

Anti-discrimination laws abridge freedom... So aren't they wrong?

If your goal is freedom, that is -- but some people want to control other people.

 

[cantata]

Anti-discrimination laws abridge freedom... So aren't they wrong?

No.

All laws abridge freedom.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What an odd comparison.

Whom you choose not to date, and of whom you are intolerant, are often very separate things. Is it sexist to be hetero- or homosexual rather than bisexual? No. Is it discriminatory not to find bald men, bald women, men with small ears, women with large breasts, &c., attractive? No. It would certainly be discriminatory to deny any of these people employment, goods, or services on the basis of their appearance, though.

Sexual attraction and discrimination are different.

I disagree: discrimination is separating a group into several subgruops, and preferring some over the others (you distinguish between one subgroup and another, hence the name). It doesn't matter why you discriminate; so long as you make the distinction, you're discriminating.

So, no, sexual preference is discrimination.

 

[Catherineanne]

Anti-discrimination laws abridge freedom... So aren't they wrong?

Freedom to do what exactly?

 

[Verv]

No.

All laws abridge freedom.

Yeah, but they do things like: don't kill people or take their property or physically violate them, and this one is like, [/i]believe the way I believe and run your business the way I want you to run it.[/i]

The debate topic in my debate class next week is actually international marriage (not even interracial, INTERNATIONAL marriage) and whether or not it is right and moral for even a Korean to marry a Japanese or a Chinese, let alone a white or a black.

Racism and sexism are fine as long as they do not attack me.

Racism and sexism are some of the most natural, animal-like expressions that we have.

Some barriers are rarely broken down... And so what? I do not really care what other people do with their life.

Cantata, would you want to force others to believe certain ways?

 

[cantata]

I disagree: discrimination is separating a group into several subgruops, and preferring some over the others (you distinguish between one subgroup and another, hence the name). It doesn't matter why you discriminate; so long as you make the distinction, you're discriminating.

So, no, sexual preference is discrimination.

“Discrimination” has taken on a pejorative sense. Conflating this sense, which I think is what is being discussed here, with “discrimination” meaning simply “distinguishing”, is hardly helpful.

Yeah, but they do things like: don't kill people or take their property or physically violate them, and this one is like, [/i]believe the way I believe and run your business the way I want you to run it.[/i]

It does nothing of the sort.

Laws which tell you not to kill people do not force you not to believe that other people should be killed. Laws which tell you not to steal things do not force you not to believe that you have a right to other people’s property.

Anti-discrimination laws do indeed tell you how to run your business, as do laws which protect workers from unjustified redundancy or sexual harassment in the workplace. But they do not force you not to have racist, sexist, or otherwise obnoxious beliefs.

Cantata, would you want to force others to believe certain ways?

No. I do not believe it is even possible to force people to believe certain things. Fortunately, anti-discrimination laws do not try.

 

[Verv]

Freedom to do what exactly?

Be a racist and live your life the way that you choose to live it.

Some people want to live their lives as racists and they should be allowed to do so.

It is quite natural and normal to be a racist and prefer people of your same cultural or ethnic group -- I deal with racism daily and it doesn't bother me. I understand they do not want white people marrying into their families and that's fine -- I will not force myself on anyone, nor do I believe I am entitled to do so.

It does nothing of the sort.

Laws which tell you not to kill people do not force you not to believe that other people should be killed. Laws which tell you not to steal things do not force you not to believe that you have a right to other people’s property.

Anti-discrimination laws do indeed tell you how to run your business, as do laws which protect workers from unjustified redundancy or sexual harassment in the workplace. But they do not force you not to have racist, sexist, or otherwise obnoxious beliefs.

Yes they do.

You should be able to say "I do not want to hire any women, or any Mormons, or any Jews, or etc. etc. etc." People have a right to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with their private property.

Why?

Because they own it and the government doesn't.

No. I do not believe it is even possible to force people to believe certain things. Fortunately, anti-discrimination laws do not try.

They only prevent people from doing things the way that they want to do them, which is IMMORAL, because it is THEIR PROPERTY.

I believe in America and in the "West" there should be "LIBERTY FOR ALL," and no, that doesn't mean let's give all the rights to all of the little darlings of the Left Wing... It means EVERYONE.

Racists, Mormons, Jews, Blacks, Whites, American Indians and Indian Indians.

Why do you support laws that discriminate against racists?

 

[cantata]

Yes they do.

You have moved the goalposts. Initially you claimed that the law legislates what people are permitted to believe. This is false.

You should be able to say "I do not want to hire any women, or any Mormons, or any Jews, or etc. etc. etc." People have a right to do WHATEVER THEY WANT with their private property.

Why?

Because they own it and the government doesn't.

Laws preventing discriminatory hiring practices are not the only kind of laws pertaining to the running of businesses. There are many hundreds of laws which regulate the way that a business may be run. Do you object to all of them, or just this one?

Why do you support laws that discriminate against racists?

The laws do not discriminate against racists. No one—racist or otherwise—is allowed to be discriminatory in their hiring practices. The same rule applies to everyone.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

“Discrimination” has taken on a pejorative sense. Conflating this sense, which I think is what is being discussed here, with “discrimination” meaning simply “distinguishing”, is hardly helpful.

On the contrary, that is exactly the point of thread: which forms of discrimination, if any, are to be condemned? To which acts and mindsets do we use 'discriminate' as a pejorative? I think you're oversimplifying the issue: not all discrimination is bad (and I'm of the opinion that no form of discrimination is bad; regrettable, but certainly not immoral).

Anti-discrimination laws do indeed tell you how to run your business, as do laws which protect workers from unjustified redundancy or sexual harassment in the workplace. But they do not force you not to have racist, sexist, or otherwise obnoxious beliefs.

But they do remove the free expression thereof. Why can't a private business place arbitrary restrictions on whom it will employ?

No. I do not believe it is even possible to force people to believe certain things. Fortunately, anti-discrimination laws do not try.

True, but this mentality could extend to the freedom of speech: you can hold whatever belief you want, you just can't act on it, or say it, or whatever.

 

[NotreDame]

I never said that discrimination was wrong. I simply said that I don't see a distinction between one form of discrimination and another: if racism is wrong, then so too are sexism, etc. If racism isn't wrong, then neither are the rest.

Note that I'm using racism as an example. My point is that either all forms of discrimination are wrong, or none are.

I reject this false dilemma, because it is a false statement either all forms of discrimination are wrong, or none are. This is not a matter of mutually exclusive absolutes being only the two viable options. Rather, there is a third option, which states some forms of discrimination are bad, reprehensible, and immoral but not other forms.

The Holocaust survivor who refuses to invite his neighbor Adolf Eichmann over to his house for a neighborhood picnic, but invites everyone else in the neighborhood, is discrimination but not immoral or reprehensible discrimination.

However, a medical doctor in some small, rural west Texas town, who is the only one qualified to perform open heart surgery in the town, and refuses to do so for anyone who is not white, is immoral and reprehensible discrimination.

 

[NotreDame]

If we take every teaching of Jesus seriously, then yes, for a Christian he would say this is wrong. Honestly, I think it requires more faith to follow the teachings of Jesus than it is to believe for a physical healing or miracle.

What exactly about Christ's teachings places a positive duty upon the Holocaust survivor to invite his neighbor, Adolf Eichmann, to a neighborhood picnic at the Holocaust survivor's home?

 

[NotreDame]

I disagree: discrimination is separating a group into several subgruops, and preferring some over the others (you distinguish between one subgroup and another, hence the name). It doesn't matter why you discriminate; so long as you make the distinction, you're discriminating.

So, no, sexual preference is discrimination.

Let's suppose it is discrimination. According to your reasoning of either all discrimination is bad or none is bad, an individual preferring blondes to brunettes is either doing something bad or not. So, if we find all discrimination to be bad, then an individual preferring blondes to brunettes is engaging in bad discrimination, and all heterosexuals are equally condemned.

This is why I find your reasoning of all or nothing untenable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I reject this false dilemma, because it is a false statement either all forms of discrimination are wrong, or none are.

It is my personal opinion. It is as valid as yours.

This is not a matter of mutually exclusive absolutes being only the two viable options. Rather, there is a third option, which states some forms of discrimination are bad, reprehensible, and immoral but not other forms.

And I reject that viewpoint: why should some forms of discrimination be allowed and not others? Why can I discriminate against people for some things, but not others? What's the difference between discriminating against someone for their hair colour (I'm partial to brunettes) and their race?

The Holocaust survivor who refuses to invite his neighbor Adolf Eichmann over to his house for a neighborhood picnic, but invites everyone else in the neighborhood, is discrimination but not immoral or reprehensible discrimination.

Agreed.

However, a medical doctor in some small, rural west Texas town, who is the only one qualified to perform open heart surgery in the town, and refuses to do so for anyone who is not white, is immoral and reprehensible discrimination.

It is immoral that he refuses heart surgery, period, not that he discriminates. If he refused to perform heart surgery on anyone, that would be equally immoral.

 

[NotreDame]

It is my personal opinion. It is as valid as yours.

It is my personal opinion. It is as valid as yours.

Well, validity rests upon the strength of the reasoning and evidence in support of it. How "valid" an opinion is, at all, much less relative to another, is predicated upon at least reasoning and evidence, and not a given.

And I reject that viewpoint: why should some forms of discrimination be allowed and not others? Why can I discriminate against people for some things, but not others? What's the difference between discriminating against someone for their hair colour (I'm partial to brunettes) and their race?

The answer is because of the potential harm which may result from not discriminating. An individual who refuses to allow a leper in his home, while certainly discriminating, is not engaging in the type of discrimination which is reprehensible or bad. An individual who refuses to shake the hand of a leper, but shakes the hand of everyone else, is not engaging in reprehensible discrimination.

A young lady who refuses to have intimate sexual relations with a man who has a contractable STD, while discrimination, is not they type of kind of discrimination rendered reprehensible, wrong, or immoral.

The point here is some forms of discrimination are permissible because of the potential harm which is avoided. Now, I want to focus upon the following question below.

What's the difference between discriminating against someone for their hair colour (I'm partial to brunettes) and their race?

There is some truth to Cantata's previous point of comparing apples to oranges here. Your example above being used to emphasize your point all discrimination is the same, either it is wrong, or it is not wrong. Some let's use some more examples which defy any notion it is an all or nothing game.

Sexual preference is discriminatory, as a heterosexual is quite obviously going to choose someone, almost all the time if not all the time, an individual of the opposite sex to have intimate sexual relations with as opposed to someone of the same sex. Yet to equate this type and kind of discrimination with ALL other forms is non-sense. To equate a son's discrimination against his mother, father, and sister from a list of potential sexual options as the same kind or type of discrimination as a child who consistently chooses to hang out with kids close to his age as opposed to 40 year olds, or to a heart surgeon who refuses to perform necessary cardiac surgery to save a life because the patient is non-white, is non-sense.

Yes, the examples are discriminatory, but they are different in the sense the reasons and motivations for the discrimination, along with the effects, are not the same. Yet, two examples are not wrong, bad, reprehensible, or immoral, but one is most certainly reprehensible. However, to do equate all discrimination as being the same, such as those above, is non-sense.

It is immoral that he refuses heart surgery, period, not that he discriminates. If he refused to perform heart surgery on anyone, that would be equally immoral.

Your remarks above are besides the point. The surgeon refusing to perform open heart surgery for anyone who is non-white is immoral and wrong, whereas the individual who refuses to allow a leper in his home or shake a leper's hand, while discrimination, is not wrong or immoral. The point here being, we have discrimination in both instances, one where it is wrong to discriminate, another where it is not only permissible to discriminate but logical, and consequently, this undermines your all or nothing approach. These examples demonstrate the idea either all forms of discrimination are bad or none are is erroneous.

 

[keith99]

I reject this false dilemma, because it is a false statement either all forms of discrimination are wrong, or none are. This is not a matter of mutually exclusive absolutes being only the two viable options. Rather, there is a third option, which states some forms of discrimination are bad, reprehensible, and immoral but not other forms.

The Holocaust survivor who refuses to invite his neighbor Adolf Eichmann over to his house for a neighborhood picnic, but invites everyone else in the neighborhood, is discrimination but not immoral or reprehensible discrimination.

However, a medical doctor in some small, rural west Texas town, who is the only one qualified to perform open heart surgery in the town, and refuses to do so for anyone who is not white, is immoral and reprehensible discrimination.

May I take it just one step farther into total absurdity?

If I own a shop it is discrimination if I do not sell to blacks. But is is also discrimination if I say 'No shirt, no shoes, no service'. Or for that matter if I treat a customer leaving the store with merchandise diffently depending on if he has paid tfor it or not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Let's suppose it is discrimination. According to your reasoning of either all discrimination is bad or none is bad, an individual preferring blondes to brunettes is either doing something bad or not. So, if we find all discrimination to be bad, then an individual preferring blondes to brunettes is engaging in bad discrimination, and all heterosexuals are equally condemned.

This is why I find your reasoning of all or nothing untenable.

Why? You completely ignore the other alternative: if we find all discrimination to not be bad, then individual preferences aren't engaging in bad discrimination, and so all heterosexuals won't be condemned.

As I've already stated, my belief is that discrimination in and of itself is not immoral. It can lead to actions which are immoral, but then, so can a lot of otherwise innocent things.

Well, validity rests upon the strength of the reasoning and evidence in support of it. How "valid" an opinion is, at all, much less relative to another, is predicated upon at least reasoning and evidence, and not a given.

I disagree. Reasoning and evidence supports the opinion and helps sway people to it, but it doesn't make it any more or less valid. Validity is an either/or thing (much like the morality of discrimination ): either it's valid, or its invalid.

But then, perhaps we're getting out vocabularies mixed up.

The answer is because of the potential harm which may result from not discriminating. An individual who refuses to allow a leper in his home, while certainly discriminating, is not engaging in the type of discrimination which is reprehensible or bad. An individual who refuses to shake the hand of a leper, but shakes the hand of everyone else, is not engaging in reprehensible discrimination. A young lady who refuses to have intimate sexual relations with a man who has a contractable STD, while discrimination, is not they type of kind of discrimination rendered reprehensible, wrong, or immoral.

So, according to you, discrimination that prevents harm is allowable, while discrimination that doesn't prevent harm is immoral?

Your remarks above are besides the point.

They're exactly the point: I'm simply pointing out that his discrimination is irrelevant, despite what you claimed.

The surgeon refusing to perform open heart surgery for anyone who is non-white is immoral and wrong, whereas the individual who refuses to allow a leper in his home or shake a leper's hand, while discrimination, is not wrong or immoral. The point here being, we have discrimination in both instances, one where it is wrong to discriminate, another where it is not only permissible to discriminate but logical, and consequently, this undermines your all or nothing approach.

No, it doesn't: neither the hand-shaker nor the heart surgeon are immoral for discriminating. Refusing to operate is what's immoral, not the fact that the surgeon discriminates.

These examples demonstrate the idea either all forms of discrimination are bad or none are is erroneous.

You are still making presumptions about how the examples are concluded. My point about the heart surgeon was that it is not immoral for him to discriminate. He can discriminate till his heart's content.
However, it's the fact that he refuses to operate at all that's immoral. Discriminating against potential patients is not immoral in and of itself, but rather, it's the fact that he refuses to treat them at all, whatever his reasons may be, that's immoral.

 

[Stormahead]

Each of us has a natural right to discriminate in whatever manner we chose as to our associations and use of our resources.

 

[Stormahead]

..................However, a medical doctor in some small, rural west Texas town, who is the only one qualified to perform open heart surgery in the town, and refuses to do so for anyone who is not white,.....................

has an absolute right to do so. If such bothers you, YOU are free to handle the finances out of YOUR resources to arrange an alternative

 

[cantata]

has an absolute right to do so. If such bothers you, YOU are free to handle the finances out of YOUR resources to arrange an alternative

What if it’s an emergency?