Originally posted by dadudemonYou didn't read my post within the context of the argument.
And so was Bill Clinton (and rape) but that didn't stop democrats from flocking to Bill, twice.
By saying this you're actually supporting my argument. If millions of people are willing to tolerate the bad behavior of men like Bill Clinton and Trump, then how can we trust market forces to be a morals equalizer?
Originally posted by Firefly218
You didn't read my post within the context of the argument.By saying this you're actually supporting my argument. If millions of people are willing to tolerate the bad behavior of men like Bill Clinton and Trump, then how can we trust market forces to be a morals equalizer?
I did and I did understand it. You missed my point.
They are unrelated. You're drawing a connection that just is not there: hence my mention of Obama.
You are making a case for why our Oligarchical, two-party system needs to taken down.
Originally posted by Firefly218
You didn't read my post within the context of the argument.By saying this you're actually supporting my argument. If millions of people are willing to tolerate the bad behavior of men like Bill Clinton and Trump, then how can we trust market forces to be a morals equalizer?
Because we have seen then on do so on numerous occasions.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0I agree with you, it has worked on numerous occasions. But your philosophy does not guarantee justice, does it? It only argues that justice is statistically favorable.
Because we have seen then on do so on numerous occasions.
Just because I hit a home run 5 times in a row, doesn't mean I'm gonna hit home runs forever.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Because we have seen then on do so on numerous occasions.
*Racist, sexist, or homophobic business does something bad*
*People proceed to lose their shit against the business or person*
And people (Firefly218) are complaining about how increasing freedom will cause us to descend into a state worse than when slavery was legal.
Originally posted by Firefly218
I agree with you, it has worked on numerous occasions. But your philosophy does not guarantee justice, does it? It only argues that justice is statistically favorable.Just because I hit a home run 5 times in a row, doesn't mean I'm gonna hit home runs forever.
But it does mean that the majority of people want you to hit the home run. Which means that discriminating institutions will fall to the snare of competition.
Originally posted by dadudemon
*Racist, sexist, or homophobic business does something bad**People proceed to lose their shit against the business or person*
And people (Firefly218) are complaining about how increasing freedom will cause us to descend into a state worse than when slavery was legal.
It is just silly for them to want the government to be forcing folk to make cakes.
And this won't be decided until summer lol. How many other shitty court cases like this are clogging the system?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0The entire foundation of your theory relies on the morality of people, which is variable. Morality is dependent on the region, on the person, on the culture. What is acceptable and what isn't changes at the drop of a dime.
But it does mean that the majority of people want you to hit the home run. Which means that discriminating institutions will fall to the snare of competition.
Originally posted by Firefly218
The entire foundation of your theory relies on the morality of people, which is variable. Morality is dependent on the region, on the person, on the culture. What is acceptable and what isn't changes at the drop of a dime.
No, it's not. The market has an incentive to meet the needs of displaced customers, as a result, they create competition institutions to earn their vote. The fact is even in the 40's south black people were hired more often then whites.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
No, it's not. The market has an incentive to meet the needs of displaced customers, as a result, they create competition institutions to earn their vote. The fact is even in the 40's south black people were hired more often then whites.
This is why I say just let the market take care of it.
Take a "no whites allowed" place. I'd laugh at the hypocrisy of such a thing if it didn't garner as much outrage as it would have if it was "no blacks allowed". But if you handed me temporary power from the government and said "what you wanna do" I would say let the place stay open. I would think such a place(whether it is "no whites" or "no blacks"😉 wouldn't do well in business.
The point would come where the choice would be either change your own ways or you lose your business. Which is how it should be. If it remained successful okay, I think it would be the exception and not the rule.
Originally posted by Surtur
This is why I say just let the market take care of it.Take a "no whites allowed" place. I'd laugh at the hypocrisy of such a thing if it didn't garner as much outrage as it would have if it was "no blacks allowed". But if you handed me temporary power from the government and said "what you wanna do" I would say let the place stay open. I would think such a place(whether it is "no whites" or "no blacks"😉 wouldn't do well in business.
The point would come where the choice would be either change your own ways or you lose your business. Which is how it should be. If it remained successful okay, I think it would be the exception and not the rule.
Exactly, I don't have a right to anyone's labor.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
But it does mean that the majority of people want you to hit the home run. Which means that discriminating institutions will fall to the snare of competition.
Right, this is a point I have made in this thread multiple times.
One item that is important to remember is that we do NOT live in the same country as 1820's America. It is much different. If you remove the threat of state sanctioned violence against people who wish to conduct business in a discriminatory manner, it will not result in Wild West tumbleweed taverns where "we're the only place in town and we don't take too kindly to your type around here."
That's just asinine. It just doesn't happen. Even in the most racist parts of the US where racism still happens, almost every single business owner cares more about the dollar you have rather than where you like to put your genitals or what your skin color is.
I wonder if the same people saying refusing to bake a cake is a violation of human rights would be willing to denounce affirmative action programs in college admissions... which is a form of discrimination sanctioned by the US Supreme Court.
Or the diversity quotas companies have that haven't been overturned by anti-discrimination legislation...
Originally posted by Emperordmb
I wonder if the same people saying refusing to bake a cake is a violation of human rights would be willing to denounce affirmative action programs in college admissions... which is a form of discrimination sanctioned by the US Supreme Court.Or the diversity quotas companies have that haven't been overturned by anti-discrimination legislation...
Similar points have been made already.
I wonder if these same people would be okay with forcing, via the government, a transgendered person to make an Anti-transgender themed cake?
Originally posted by Emperordmb👆
I wonder if the same people saying refusing to bake a cake is a violation of human rights would be willing to denounce affirmative action programs in college admissions... which is a form of discrimination sanctioned by the US Supreme Court.Or the diversity quotas companies have that haven't been overturned by anti-discrimination legislation...
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
No, it's not. The market has an incentive to meet the needs of displaced customers, as a result, they create competition institutions to earn their vote. The fact is even in the 40's south black people were hired more often then whites.
Firefly is a bit of a bigot, he believes only people from the south are racist. he's actually said that anti-discrimination laws were passed to force the south(and only the south) to accept blacks.