Originally posted by inimalist
this assumes there is a large enough pool of employers from the majority who are willing to hire from the persecuted group.theoretically, a business from the minority group could become successful enough to supplant the majority run industries, but that is unlikely for reasons similar to there being few minority run corporations during segregation.
I think you would need a lot of very racist employers for that to be a problem. White people will not rise up as a group and stop hiring blacks simple because they can.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, and that's why we can't allow it to regress back to that state.
Which really ought to be a social thing. I doubt the modern dearth of overt racism is due to laws that make it difficult.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure it is. It's called Reductio ad Absurdum. If your logic leads to absurd consequences, it is itself absurd.
Doesn't stop Reductio ad Absurdum from being a ridiculous tactic of argument.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, just like the other freedoms people enjoy. Freedom of speech, for instance, has caused quite a few issues in America; the world would be a better place if Glenn Beck weren't allowed to talk. But I'm not going to say that Glenn Beck can't talk even though he's an idiotic, loudmouthed rabble-rouser who has tricked working-class Americans into fighting against their best interests.
and your definition of freedom prevents you from distinguishing from a policy that let's idiots say dumb things and one that would legitimately cause racially based economic stratification and segregation?
Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure it is. It's called Reductio ad Absurdum. If your logic leads to absurd consequences, it is itself absurd.
Oh boy, that's an insane misunderstanding, KK, and I think you really know that, too.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think you would need a lot of very racist employers for that to be a problem. White people will not rise up as a group and stop hiring blacks simple because they can.
they certainly have in the past, and introduce this thinking into heavily rural rather than cosmopolitan urban setting, the idea that there isn't a supportive enough majority is much less tenable.
Originally posted by King Kandy
Sure it is. It's called Reductio ad Absurdum. If your logic leads to absurd consequences, it is itself absurd.
Originally posted by REXXXX
Doesn't stop Reductio ad Absurdum from being a ridiculous tactic of argument.
Originally posted by King Kandy
It's a well accepted form of argument. If I was to say "I think people should be able to do whatever they want", it would be perfectly valid for someone to say that means people should be able to commit crimes.
The logic behind it is sound, the way you applied it is not.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh boy, that's an insane misunderstanding, KK, and I think you really know that, too.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. Clearly, my principal of "private property rights" means that business owners should be able to kill customers in their stores because that's what I was suggesting. Yessir, that's the logical conclusion of my ideology.
In an ideal free-market system with ideal consumers, a place that unfavorably discriminated* would lose customers due to the moral offense their business brings to the system.
Let's get real: half the people in my state are racist, ignorant, bigots. They are in no way the ideal consumer. If it were allowed to go rampant, we'd see racism and other sorts of nasty -isms all over the place. The ideal consumer doesn't exist on a massive scale, yet. (The ideal consumer also pays cash for everything, imo.)
*I worded it that way because some places SHOULD discriminate against who they hire and hire a specific type of a person. i.e. Hiring a Rabbi to be part of a Jewish counseling system only for Jews, hiring Chinese immigrants for your authentic Chinese restaurant, only having female personal trainers for your women only workout facility. Etc.