 |
Jan 18, 2011 - 04:22 AM |
|
 |
Getting schooled on morals |
|
|
(I'm the asterisk, he's the dashes. I got schooled on morals. I need to get into school. I look like an idiot!)
- I don't think it was ever necessary. Remember how blacks would force themselves into a whites only restaraunt? That was wrong on their part. Nobody has an obligation to let you in on their property, whether that property is there restaruant, house, barber shop, etc.
*it was necessary to prove a bigger point, i believe
- You can achieve a good end by bad ends, and what they were doing was trespassing PRIVATE property.
can't*
And how lowly. Why on earth would you grovel for acceptance from someone that doesn't like you?
I would never humiliate myself like that.
I would never spend a dime on someone that hated me because of my race, ethnicity, or skin color.
* you're completely missing the point of it all
- What is the point?
*they were sitting in to demonstrate their right to sit in
which was mandated already by law
i don't have a problem with you challenging the law
- The law came into effect also because of those sit ins.
The sit ins were taking place prior to the passage of said law.
* because that's up to your robot ass to ignore the frailty of the situation
but as far as their actions, i don't see how you could condemn them
- Why not? Demanding that someone let you on their property is not something I would applaud.
I don't applaud the behavior of the people who forced their way in anymore than the behavior of the people who denied services to them because they were black.
All I am saying is that a private business owner has a right (morally) to deny service to anyone.
*As far as today is concerned, sure
I agree
but again, that law was set in place to prove a point
if some toes had to be stepped on as a means to achieve the end, so be it
- And that point was what?
What point was that law proving?
* that discrimination is unacceptable
- But of course discrimination is not unacceptable. We all discriminate.
* now you're taking what i've said out of context
- So you mean racial discrimination?
*specifically.
- OK, but even then I would dispute that. Are there not certain racial groups you find unattractive? And do you not discriminate members of that group when you choose not to pursue women from those groups?
I don't mean that you find them inferior, only unattractive.
And is there anything wrong with not finding certain groups attractive?
It's one thing if you say, "OK, I am going to outlaw inter-racial marriage." but another to say, "Look, I don't find this group attractive, but that doesn't mean I'm going to hate someone who does."
*Sure.
- The underlying principle is freedom, that is, the freedom to choose who and who not to associate with.
*But I don't discriminate or take away their freedoms.
Again, if some toes had to be stepped on as a means to achieve the end, then so be it.
- Denying someone service on your property is not taking away their freedom. Rather, it is exercising YOUR freedom of associationg. By them forcing there way in, they are robbing you of YOUR freedom.
* Oh i meant as far as my discrimination goes
I wasn't referring to the owner's rights, which again, I agree with you
they should be able to choose
their toes were stepped on and this was a necessary step in the whole civil rights process
- Ah, so by that logic, should we turn the tables and step on the toes of blacks to recuperate the freedom of association that business owners have now lost?
Because it goes both ways.
*We should just give the business owners their rights back.
- Should we inject discrimination into our laws now to prove "the greater point" of freedom of association? But it won't work that way, because to many blacks and so-called black "leaders" will oppose it.
* It isn't necessary now. The law served its purpose.
We should revoke it.
But it was a necessary sacrifice, imo.
- It was not. Sooner or later business owners would have given in to the forces of the market, and the market almost always works more efficiently than government.
Sooner or later those business owners that kept on discriminating would have gone out of business.
*And that law helped it along faster.
It's the same reason why I think we should restrict campaign contributions for politicians running for office.
Sure, you SHOULD be able to throw your money at whoever you want, for just about whatever reason.
- Let's back track a bit.
Do you believe morality is objective?
* Doesn't change the fact that I feel the law was necessary and positive at the time.
- I was going to say that if you don't believe morality is objective, then you have no objective basis on which to say that racial discrimination was wrong.
All you can say is that you don't like it, an opinion with which anyone is free to disagree.
And that your feelin that law was necessary and positive at the time was just that: a FEELING.
And such was not objectively necessary or positive, because no objective truth or goal was being pursued.
*Hmm
- I'm not implying that. What I am saying is that if morals are not objective, then the civil rights movement was not fighting for anything that was objectivel true or purposeful, it was only fighting for an opinion that objective was no better than the opinion of Hitler.
In other words, unless morals are objective, the civil rights movement was not objectively morally superior to the Nazi regime.
And, if you are saying that the ends justify the means, then are you effective exonerating Hitler and his regime.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
- If you can accept this, fine, you're being consistent. But then you're effectively saying that racism is not objectively morally inferior to non-racism.
That's absolutely right.
Godwin's law is correct, because Hitler's atrocities are the most well documented in history.
It's a matter of simple mathematics and probability theory.
But, it doesn't disprove the point. I could have alluded to Nero, to Stalin, to the invading Spaniards, etc, etc.
* No, no.
I just thought it was funny.
- Ah, OK.
* I'm reading what you said.
- And you know that what I'm saying is true. It's an unavoidable conclusion.
* I'm reading this
http://www.bigissueground.com/philos...bjective.shtml
I have an argument I want to make, but I'm not prepared to make it, if that makes any sense.
- This cognitive dissonance is amazing, isn't it? How most of can say that right and wrong do not objectively exist, and yet live as if the opposite is true.
That makes sense. What you mean to say is, "I have leaped to a conclusion, but I am not prepared to provide the premises in support of it."
* Yes, I'm backtracking at the moment.
Figuring out just what it is I'm supporting.
|
|
|
|
|
