Bigots are not the only ones hurt by bans on discrimination.
- Thread starter Calabrio
- Start date
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Glad there are so many others who realize that too. Golly, I am getting tired of reading Hitler or Nazi every other post he makes.
Lol, loved the link he gave to where he supposedly gave a reason that the interstate commerce act was unconstitutional. Same thread when he insisted it was unconstitutional, and when I asked him why he believed that, he said it cannot be proved, therefore it must be true, followed up by him saying if I don't believe it, then I don't understand the constitution.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
Despite your lies, I have been very careful to avoid the Reductio ad Hitlerum argument and only bring up National Socialism in specific contexts. However the particulars of what is and is not a Reductio ad Hitlerum argument probably do not concern you; weather the connection being drawn is incidental or substantive is apparently irrelevant.
The platform of the National Socialist (Nazi) party is rooted in, guess what, SOCIALISM (with a nationalist sentiment attached to it). Since that same fundamental logic is being applied today in a myriad of areas, it is VERY relevant to point out historical examples and how they played out; including Nazi Germany.
However, you would actually have to have some basic understanding of the political philosophy involved to know that and you have clearly shown a complete and utter ignorance of political philosophy (misunderstanding the concepts of the rule of law and social justice being two great examples).
In citing those two links you are, by inference, suggesting that mentioning Nazi Germany is somehow verboten in any and all debate. When the debate concerns the application of the core philosophical assumptions and principles inherent in both Nazi Germany and in policy today, viewing the topic of Nazi Germany as "forbidden" is patently absurd and you would be a fool to even suggest that.
The fact that you don't see the connection I am drawing shows that it is, in no uncertain terms, YOU who is in fact ignorant of German politics specifically around the time of WWII.
You really know nothing of political philosophy or the lineage of social justice and Marxism (or the logical consequences of either). It is really quite entertaining to watch you, in your childish ignorance, continue to unknowingly stick your foot in your mouth.
Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.:blah:
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
It= The Jim Crow laws that governed the south for majority of the 1900's.
This is not a republican -vs- democrat issue, both sides have done wrong. People get so caught up on right -vs- left, life is bigger than that.
You might what to check hrmwrm's history on this forum. Having a petulant little man-child troll who is a demonstratable liar with a proven lack of intellectual integrity or maturity is not someone to be proud to have agreeing with you.
You really don't know anything about the interstate commerce clause and it's history do you. Most anyone with any background in law can tell you that clause has been distorted well beyond the scope of it's original intent. The fact that you don't know that only shows your ignorance.
I was pointing you to the reason given as Constitutional justification in the civil rights legislation in question. A reason that you, in that same thread, were to ignorant to realize and to lazy to look up. It DISPROVED your LIE that, "No amount of searching on this forum will reveal an answer to how you believe that matter is unconstitutional". That very same thread you were engaging me in held that answer that you said couldn't be found by any "amount of searching on this forum". In other were lying or too ignorant to realize the truth. You stuck your foot in your mouth. Again.
But no one has defended the Jim Crow laws or the ability for the state governments to engage in racial discrimination. That was the success of the CRA and I have repeatedly said so much in this thread. Government should not engage in racial discrimination, federal or state.
But the disagreement here is about title II of the Civil Rights Act. And it's a little frustrating to see that I wrote a response you that you clearly didn't read, but replied to and dismissed. I even wrote the provision out in the last post.
Political philosophy and the understanding of the role of government is important though.
That wasn't a partisan attack, it was a philosophical identification. If there were Republican, or Progressive Republicans who were using internment camps that I forgot to list, then let me know and I'll include them. The point wasn't donkey or elephant, it had to do with political philosophy. Those were Presidents who embraced a pragmatic political philosophy that regarded the constitution as outdated or an obstruction.
That doesn't happen when the President embraces the constitution and believes in limited government.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote if you're going to respond to it as though it was a partisan attack.
....tell you what, I'll edit out the word "Democrat" right now to emphasize that point. With that distraction gone, please re-read it and comment.
Agreed, this is much more important then that. This is an issue of weather or not the rule of law has any meaning. If the rule of law can be circumvented because of some vague noble cause, then we start marching down that road to serfdom. No "greater good" is served by reducing individual liberty for vague, unrealistic Utopian ideals.
:bowrofl::bowrofl::bowrofl:
What Cal wrote in his 'non partisan attack'...
It's important to realize that it was progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government like Woodrow Wilson who segregated the military.
It was progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government who used the massive power of the federal government and propaganda to discriminate and persecute people of different heritages. And to justify physical assaults and violence perpetuated against those groups of people.
It was the progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government who embrace eugenics and supported abortions to reduce minority populations.
And it was progressive Democrats using the power of the federal government who used the power of the federal government to throw people who spoke against government policy into internment camps.
I would hate to see what a partisan attack by Cal would look like...
And also remember the right would like to associate anyone who is a Democrat or votes Democrat with any Democrat who has ever lived, and they must embrace every Democrat philosophy ever put forth by every Democrat....
I certainly don't think that Cal embraces every right wing nut case cause, just because the are both on the 'right' - I actually think he is capable of 'independent thought', too bad he doesn't afford the same courtesy...
And Lincolnx2, of course this is an issue that concerns left, right and everything in between, and it would be extremely difficult for the congress to repeal Title II.
I was thinking when Cal said that he would actually let this one slide - with an admonishment of 'don't do it again', that perhaps there is a 'scale' of rights? Are some more important than others? Do we allow the government to infringe a tiny bit on the right of personal property so we don't have race wars?
Perhaps - I would fight tooth and nail for the KKK to say whatever they want, whatever hate they want to spew (within the SCOTUS guidelines for free speech - the whole calling up a white hood army to kill blacks - nope, they can't go there). They must be allowed their freedom of speech, just as I hope they would fight for my right to say how disgusting they are. The first is as close to sacred as you can get. The second is as well. But, are there 'gray' areas?
Now I know the right only sees 'black and white' and certainly the argument of if you start to chip away at rights, where does it end - in a Leninist/Mao state - is valid. I wouldn't want any of the 1st or 2nd removed, but, we have expanded rights - allowing blacks and women the right to vote, and we have removed rights.
Natural rights are natural rights, inside of us, not 'given' to us. But, in the quest to create a series of laws, for a large and diverse society, are there times where rights are 'altered' as they were when we allowed slavery, or when women didn't have the right to vote? We have in the past circumvented rights - for society's sake, or as shag says 'the greater good'. I view Title II as that - to prevent something truly awful, a property right was removed. We can't live in a utopia, but we can't live in a country torn apart by race conflicts, or gender conflicts, just ask Lysistrata and the men of Greece...
Perhaps someday, the country will change enough that it would make sense to remove Title II, just as we eventually allowed women to vote.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Consequences
Yes, I believe that private business should be allowed to do almost anything in a business way. If the chosen activity is not supported by the market, the business goes 'out of business'. Discriminatory practices may very well be foolish, but 'freedom' includes the right to be foolish.
Trying to restrain people in that way is doomed to failure, because you can't successfully legislate away peoples desires. Prohibition didn't work!
You jumped over the most important part of my statement regarding locked doors. IT'S COMMON, IN DETROIT, TO HAVE LOCKED DOORS IN BUSINESSES IN DETROIT. AND DISCRIMINATORY SIGNS POSTED ON GHETTO BUSINESS WALLS. Where is your indignation?
KS
Yes, I believe that private business should be allowed to do almost anything in a business way. If the chosen activity is not supported by the market, the business goes 'out of business'. Discriminatory practices may very well be foolish, but 'freedom' includes the right to be foolish.
Trying to restrain people in that way is doomed to failure, because you can't successfully legislate away peoples desires. Prohibition didn't work!
You jumped over the most important part of my statement regarding locked doors. IT'S COMMON, IN DETROIT, TO HAVE LOCKED DOORS IN BUSINESSES IN DETROIT. AND DISCRIMINATORY SIGNS POSTED ON GHETTO BUSINESS WALLS. Where is your indignation?
KS
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
I fear that repealing the CRA will eventually lead to "Jim Crow" Laws.
I read every word you wrote, I wasn't convinced, and my worries still were'nt adressed. I don't participate in the political form to dismiss what people write, I am actually here to learn, I like to see both sides of a situation.
You guys always make it a Democrat -vs- Republican issue, please don't insult me Cal (if that is what you were trying to do).
I dont have a college degree, but I am from from stupid, you don't have to edit anything for me. I read you post, I saw your post in a different light than you did, that happens when you have two completely different, from two completely different backgrounds reading the same thing.
Last edited by a moderator:
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
Agreed Shag, but minorities are afraid! Even with the CRA there is still a bunch of racism in the USA, the CRA is the only "protection" minorities have from outright bigotry.
That last part wasn't in your post KS - here is your post...
I wonder how many former slaves there are around.
It's quite common, in the get-toe to have doors of businesses locked and to have to be buzzed in.
I believe it's fairly common on Rodeo Drive also.
Dirty bigoted B A S T A R D S.
KS
I sincerely doubt if Rodeo Drive has any discriminatory signs.
But, if you would like to post one of those discriminatory signs from Rodeo Drive - I would love to see one.
Indignation is difficult if I don't have the 'full story'.
However, yes, if there are signs that say 'black only' the authorities need to be called in. It is a terrible thing to have anything like that in America, and it is also against the law.
But, should we also be responsible for the consequences of stupid people - say someone who puts up a 'white only' sign in their restaurant (in the imaginary world without Title II). If a large and rather hateful protest (but legal) happens on the sidewalk outside their restaurant - and no one is willing to cross the protesters because they are brandishing weapons and telling the would be patrons that they are racist scum, and that they will get what's coming to them if they step inside the restaurant, should the owner just accept that as a consequence of his action?
For almost a century we had slavery, obviously an affront to natural rights, however, we did it to keep the country as 'one' and to appease the south when America was in its infancy. We made a decision that building a strong, unified nation was more important that a very basic right - the right to be 'free' (probably number one on the old rights list).
Does Title II fall into the same sort of category-while we were on the verge of racial unrest, riots, etc, was it more important to allow whites in the south to continue to hang 'white only' in their windows, or was it more important to move forward with civil rights and in the interest of the safety and security of society not allow the bigots of the south that right?
And I knew your viewpoint on this KS - it is Shag that is hiding - by not taking a stand.
And no one is proposing doing away with the CRA (1964). No one even questions the majority of the legislation. It went a long way toward doing away with institutional discrimination (at least in the areas focused on by the bill) by taking it out of government at all levels. The only problem is when it tries to go above and beyond that to do away with discrimination all together.
What we have left is, for the most part, incidental discrimination (at least in the areas the bill focuses on) and that is something that any free society is going to have. To try and do away with incidental discrimination is to infringe on the rights people in pursuit of a vague, unrealistic utopian ideal; it is to say that you can not even think discriminatory thoughts. It is a dangerous experiment in social engineering that assumes that the government can and should change human nature.
The phrase "you can't legislate morality" was coined during the debate on this very bill, and with good reason; this bill, in going beyond merely attempting to remove institutional discrimination from all governmental institutions, is attempting to impose a certian morality on society.
Famed Christian thinker C. S. Lewis made a brilliant point on this long ago:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons then under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience
In the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville spoke of what he called a "soft tyranny" due to basically moral busybodies who think they know what is best for society and engage in social engineering for the "good of society".FYI: anyone referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 might want to use something other then simply "CRA" because that abreviation is typically used (in this forum and elsewhere) to refer to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. I would suggest noting the year that the bill was passed to make the distinction. Perhaps '64CRA or CRA (1964).
lincolnx2
Dedicated LVC Member
I would love for Cammerfe to tell me where Descriminatory signs are posted in Detroit, I am from Detroit (Fenkel and Schaefer) and my family now reside in Wabeek in the hills subdivision in Bloomfield Township. I have never seen any descriminatory signs anywhere in Michigan.
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
You really don't know anything about the interstate commerce clause and it's history do you. Most anyone with any background in law can tell you that clause has been distorted well beyond the scope of it's original intent. The fact that you don't know that only shows your ignorance.
I was pointing you to the reason given as Constitutional justification in the civil rights legislation in question. A reason that you, in that same thread, were to ignorant to realize and to lazy to look up. It DISPROVED your LIE that, "No amount of searching on this forum will reveal an answer to how you believe that matter is unconstitutional". That very same thread you were engaging me in held that answer that you said couldn't be found by any "amount of searching on this forum". In other were lying or too ignorant to realize the truth. You stuck your foot in your mouth. Again.
Yeah yeah sure, whatever. Keep saying that. I am not such a sadist to even continue seriously replying to you. Your responses are immature, you either do not understand what other people are posting, or you intentionally choose to misrepresent it, and you spend nearly all your time telling people they don't understand something while NEVER posting anything that would demonstrate even a layman's understanding of what you are writing. You speak of politics as if you were taught by Fox News and a Hobo, and have made a comparison to Nazi's every 2nd or third post you have made for more than a week now.
Nothing in that thread shows why you believe that the matter is unconstitutional, or provides specific proof that the matter is unconstitutional. All you say in the thread it that it is unconstitutional, then when I asked why you believed it was unconstitutional, you insisted I did not understand the constitution.
All you do in here is accuse people of lying when they don't agree with your insane ramblings. Stuck my foot in my mouth? Please. I don't think there is anyone who is buying that, no matter how many times you say it.
Quit trolling my posts, you ignorant child.
THANK YOU!!!!!
That is appriciated more then you will probably ever know.
Coming from a troll that dismisses EVERYTHING that people write who don't believe in his narrow-minded and frankly wrong interpretation of the constitution?
Shag - it doesn't even propose to say you can't 'think discriminatory thoughts' - or have you read a different bill than I have.
How about posting that part - about the part with the 'thought police'? I'll be waiting, patiently...
And it wasn't 'incidental' discrimination in the south-that is belittling the problem shag.
And to this day you still have incidental discrimination - ask Lincolnx2 - that hasn't gone away either.
What CRA '64 (better?) is doing is protecting a minority from a majority. And perhaps the other way around as well. Post a 'no blacks' sign in south side Chicago and you could die.
The authors of the civil rights acts may have hoped by ending public and business discrimination and segregation that we would be exposing our children to less hate somewhere down the line, and perhaps that might alter behavior. But I doubt if one of them thought that it would change the minds of the KKK, or would change that there will always be bigots. It isn't entirely a 'learned' behavior. It can certainly be reinforced by learning, and if immersed in it, there is a chance it could become ingrained behavior, but it is also just part of us, we aren't 'noble'.
Perhaps we create laws because we know we aren't.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
You need to be very careful before you presume to correct others. 'Remove the beam from your own...'
KS
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
what?!?
Presume to correct others? He stated that I was conceding something. Since this was obviously not a truthful summation of my post, I corrected that. Since he wrote it in such a way, it appeared he was attempting to start debate on that very matter. The fact that he denies it now does not change his post. The lack of a question mark does not cause a statement to not be a question in some way. When one makes a statement to a person about that persons words or thoughts, there is inherently a question in such a statement, especially if that person making the statement does not understand the thoughts or words they are speaking of.
If I were to respond to you, "So you have a gay love for shagdrum." (I mean no offense by this, it is just an extreme example) you would view that as a challenge to your identity or a questioning of your identity. Anyone reading that would expect a positive or negative response to that statement, regardless of whether or not there is a question mark following it. This is because the question, despite being unsaid, is understood by any persons who communicate normally with other persons.
remove the beam from your own...
Just what exactly was that intended to be? If you wish to quote scriptures, 1: use the entire scripture, 2: Don't bother, I do not believe in such nonsense and 3: Be sure that it is applicable in that instance.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Signs
I'm not in the city very much, but the last time I observed hostile signage was in a local-owned food emporium on McNichols somewhat east of Evergreen. I was passed over to be waited-on for about ten minutes, complete with dirty looks. I never opened my mouth. Just finally walked out.
Unless you count the sign in the window in the store in Northland very soon after the election.
That one said, "It's our turn now. Whitey get F U C K E D." T-shirts also in the window of that store echoed the same general sentiment.
I was there for better than an hour and I didn't see a single white face.
I simply take it as an indication of the basic IQ of the people who do such things. X2, if you're honest, you'll admit that the Local Majority, in general, enjoy their status. And many still champion Kwame.
I also believe that there is, very likely, a significant number of the populace that are willing to live in amity. But they aren't very vocal about it.
I'd be happy to buy you a cup of coffee and politely kick this around. We probably have more in common than just appreciation for the LS
KS
It's been all of two weeks since I had to be 'buzzed' in to a service concern on Northwestern.
I'm not in the city very much, but the last time I observed hostile signage was in a local-owned food emporium on McNichols somewhat east of Evergreen. I was passed over to be waited-on for about ten minutes, complete with dirty looks. I never opened my mouth. Just finally walked out.
Unless you count the sign in the window in the store in Northland very soon after the election.
That one said, "It's our turn now. Whitey get F U C K E D." T-shirts also in the window of that store echoed the same general sentiment.
I was there for better than an hour and I didn't see a single white face.
I simply take it as an indication of the basic IQ of the people who do such things. X2, if you're honest, you'll admit that the Local Majority, in general, enjoy their status. And many still champion Kwame.
I also believe that there is, very likely, a significant number of the populace that are willing to live in amity. But they aren't very vocal about it.
I'd be happy to buy you a cup of coffee and politely kick this around. We probably have more in common than just appreciation for the LS
KS
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
So, despite this treatment, you believe that business owners will not willingly choose to discriminate based on things such as race, and we will have equality and brotherhood between all persons in the United States if we stop permitting anti-discrimination legislation.
Not that I really expect you to respond to this, especially given my previous post on the matter of statements made in this fashion, but, this should serve to illustrate the point I was trying to make, correct?
Do we have this now? Do we have "equality and brotherhood between all persons in the United States" presently?
What qualifies as "equality" in your view? Equal treatment under the law? Equal standards of living? Something else?
Should one standard of "equality" be preferred over the other?
Are humans even capable of achieving "equality" in your view?
FIND
Dedicated LVC Member
To answer your questions in the order in which you ask.
No, no, equal treatment under the law is a good start, equal standards of living is unrealistic and a silly notion that would only work in a communist utopia, the two have no basis for comparison, and yes.
I would generally agree with all those answers.
Why do you adamantly defend the part of the CRA (1964) that goes beyond attempting to ensure equal treatment under the law (at all levels of government) and works toward the end of "equal standards of living" (social justice)?
If you need justification for that last part here you go. The law works toward social justice by imposing certain specific morals on society in an attempt to ultimately change human nature; a necessary prerequisite for the greater realization of social justice under any ideology with social justice as it's ultimate goal.