Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Civil rights, for example, doesn't take away a person's freedom of speech. Why, do you think racists are like Westboro Baptist Church that they both deserve their freedoms (beyond that of free speech) regardless of the consequences?
The first amendment provides for the right to freely associate with whomever you like, it also allows for free speech. The truth is, if you read the civil rights act you will notice that most of the "Freedom to associate" has been left intact. In fact, basically any private group in this country can discriminate. Private clubs can discriminate, as well as many other types of businesses. There were only a select group of businesses that were pulled out with the Civil Rights act, and then were prohibited from discriminating.
The Civil Rights act wasn't created on any sort of constitutional grounds. Whether or not a motel allowed you to sleep there or not does not take away your rights to life, liberty, or property.
I don't particularly like the Westboro Church, I know there are millions of people in this country that would love if they were arrested, and their church closed. But that tolerance of views you don't agree with is the foundation of a free society.
Quote:
It is not illegal to freely associate or freely speak with whoever you like. You just can't do that on certain grounds.
The question is, who gets to decide what grounds one should be free to associate? It is basically the slippery-slope of the loss of freedom. What you are doing is ripping up the constitution and destroying the republic, and imposing a democracy subject to majority whims. You need to realize that democracy is a VERY scary thing.
Quote:
1- In my world, business is an artificial entity, created and run by people.
2- In my world, they don't vote or run for office. Person(s) running them, however do.
3- You're alluding to the Citizen United ruling that is referred to as corporate personhood, right? As in that corporations and unions have the same rights to free speech as a person? Corporations and Unions are still artificial entities. No? May be not in your world, they are born and they die as a person?
Look, lets pretend that you are a barber and you cut hair in your own home. Are you running a business? What is the business exactly? It is whatever you want it to be. If there is a law that says you can only cut hair between 9 AM and 9 PM, and you decide that you want to cut your sons hair at 9:30 PM. Are you breaking the law?
If I own a piece of land and I want to create a garden, and I need the soil turned. If I offer my 12-year-old son $20 to turn the soil and he agrees, am I or he running a business? Am I breaking child-labor laws? What if I walk into town and look for a hired-hand to turn the soil, I run into some day-laborers and I hire the white guy instead of the Mexican only on the basis that he is white. Am I not discriminating? But am I breaking the law? If i own a convenience store and I refuse to hire anyone but white males, am I discriminating? Is it against the law?
Why is a business, whose decisions are entirely made by a person or group of people, of any real difference from an actual person? I might be making decisions for money, but there are plenty of other decisions I make that might not be for money. I might help my friend paint his house, so that he will fix my car. The very definition of business is stupid, a business is nothing more than a person or a group of people. Businesses don't truly exist at all.
The point is, most of the laws that are on the books are completely arbitrary, they are not founded on any sort of principle. But no one cares, because the majority of the population agrees with them. Discrimination is discrimination is discrimination, none of it is unconstitutional. It is only against the law because a democratically elected group of people made it that way. For hundreds of years discrimination was perfectly legal, and sometimes government imposed.
Anti-Discrimination laws have nothing to do with constitutionality or your rights, it is nothing more than morality legislation. And the federal government has absolutely no authority to impose moral legislation.
Quote:
There are billionaire and multi-millionaire African Americans, I am sure helping bring food to many who adhere to white supremacy. I wonder how that came about. As for me, why do you think color of skin should take precedence over intellect and educational qualifications?
I never said anything of the sort. I did say because of all the affirmative-action programs and diversity programs, many people who have certain qualifications aren't really qualified at all. They are just passed through school to give the illusion of equality. Thus, the appearance of qualifications is no guarantee of actual qualifications. So in reality affirmative-action undermines the very nature of qualifications and makes them worthless.
I see nothing wrong with taking the most capable person, but I do not like the government telling me who that person will be. Nor is the most qualified person always the best fit for a particular job, depending on the other people already employed in that field. What you are doing is forcing people next to each other who don't get along, and you don't understand why the crime rate went through the roof during the 1960's and onward.
Quote:
I know, and that is exactly why the government had to turn things around. But, phase I really happened in 1807 when the federal government decided to ban slave trade. Civil War was phase II and ultimately the civil rights. Now, it is only a matter of time before we grow up as a society and treat each other with respect.
Look, tell me what other major country in the world had a Civil War to end slavery? Then contrast that to the understanding that basically every major country had slavery at one point in time. The Civil War was simply unnecessary. Secondly, most major nations other than the United States have never had any sort of Civil Rights movement. And almost all of them do not have nearly as many racial issues that we have in this country. Do not be fooled for a minute thinking that violence and coercion are the way to peace.
Quote:
Civil War brought out the reality. It was like trampling on an ant hill. And likes of KKK didn't just come about as a black and white issue, but also against Jews and lately Hispanics. They came about as promoting one race (and religion) over all others. They existed in one form or the other well before the civil war and around the globe.
They came about because they didn't like the government imposing upon them people of other races and cultures. They felt the white-christian culture would be destroyed by those "outsiders". They also came about because the government was giving non-white Christians special priviledges(in the south, they carved up slave-owner land and gave it to blacks for free). They basically wanted to be left alone, they hated the carpetbaggers and other northerners trying to tell them how to live their lives. But the federal government attempts to tell them that "you will get along with X, Y, and Z and there is nothing you can do about it".
The KKK simply would not exist at all in the absence of government interventions. Most white militia groups' primary complaint is the government. They hate the government telling them what to do. Can you not understand that? The problems in the world today are almost always a direct cause of government, not the latter. Racism is perpetuated by government intervention. Get rid of government and you get rid of racism.
The problem is you have so-called "progressives" who cannot wait for things to naturally occur, they must push and push and push. Not realizing that they aren't really making anything better.
The Civil war is as great an example for such a case as any. The Civil War was completely unnecessary. A very very small fraction of the southern population actually owned slaves. Slavery was dying, and would have died on its own. It might have lasted another 10 or 20 years at the most. But instead we got 4 years of war, almost a million American deaths, a despotic overreaching federal government, and a hundred years of Jim-crow.
The Civil Rights act wasn't created on any sort of constitutional grounds. Whether or not a motel allowed you to sleep there or not does not take away your rights to life, liberty, or property.
It does. People can now challenge another no discriminatory grounds, that they couldn't. As for constitutionality, like I said, take it to the courts and I will watch.
Quote:
The question is, who gets to decide what grounds one should be free to associate? It is basically the slippery-slope of the loss of freedom.
Either way someone's freedoms is being lost. Better the bigot that loses it.
Quote:
What you are doing is ripping up the constitution and destroying the republic, and imposing a democracy subject to majority whims. You need to realize that democracy is a VERY scary thing.
A republic can be equally scary. That is why we have a democratic republic where minorities are also protected. Ripping the constitution. Heh!
Quote:
Look, lets pretend that you are a barber and you cut hair in your own home. Are you running a business...
It is still a business, and business is not a person. Decision maker is a person(s).
Quote:
Am I breaking child-labor laws?
No, in this case, you're technically playing a game.
Quote:
What if I walk into town and look for a hired-hand to turn the soil, I run into some day-laborers and I hire the white guy instead of the Mexican only on the basis that he is white. Am I not discriminating? But am I breaking the law? If i own a convenience store and I refuse to hire anyone but white males, am I discriminating? Is it against the law?
Madoff wasn't a criminal until he was caught.
Quote:
Why is a business, whose decisions are entirely made by a person or group of people, of any real difference from an actual person?
Because a business is chartered/licensed to exist. It is artificial, regulated entity.
Quote:
The point is, most of the laws that are on the books are completely arbitrary, they are not founded on any sort of principle.
Wrong. On the contrary, laws like the civil rights, or slave trade ban (1807) are very much founded on some sort of principle.
Quote:
Anti-Discrimination laws have nothing to do with constitutionality or your rights, it is nothing more than morality legislation. And the federal government has absolutely no authority to impose moral legislation.
But only if you decide to limit to such laws as merely moral legislation when they go past that. One could just as easily argue that laws against rape are nothing but moral legislation.
Quote:
I did say because of all the affirmative-action programs and diversity programs, many people who have certain qualifications aren't really qualified at all.
Probably. But at the same time, they can be necessary if a certain segment was oppressed for centuries. I'm however, not for a race based affirmative action, however. But it won't come as a surprise if those oppressed on racial grounds will make for a higher percentage.
Quote:
I see nothing wrong with taking the most capable person, but I do not like the government telling me who that person will be.
The government is not doing that unless you start proving this idea that qualifications is tied to color of the skin, however.
Quote:
Look, tell me what other major country in the world had a Civil War to end slavery?
A lot of countries still practice slavery. They just have the misfortune of not having a Mahatma Gandhi or a Nelson Mandela or a major political leader along those lines, or at the very minimum the ability to organize.
Quote:
Do not be fooled for a minute thinking that violence and coercion are the way to peace.
I would agree with that. However, why do you think it was the north that showed aggression to the peace loving, pro-slavery, southerners? Didn't they organize into a confederacy, denounce Presidential election results and institute their own President (the loser of the elections), take aggressive actions against federal authorities, only to be eventually put in place?
Quote:
They came about because they didn't like the government imposing upon them people of other races and cultures.
What if the government is the one working against them?
Quote:
The KKK simply would not exist at all in the absence of government interventions. Most white militia groups' primary complaint is the government. They hate the government telling them what to do...
Of course they do. But the government only becomes a problem when it gets in their way.
Quote:
Can you not understand that? The problems in the world today are almost always a direct cause of government, not the latter.
No, the problem is with the people, not with the government. Remember, this country was fought for, for a government.
Quote:
Racism is perpetuated by government intervention. Get rid of government and you get rid of racism.
Why didn't the founders think of that?
Quote:
The problem is you have so-called "progressives" who cannot wait for things to naturally occur, they must push and push and push. Not realizing that they aren't really making anything better.
Being in touch with the reality is not a bad thing. You can assume it will work out, but it never does.
Quote:
A very very small fraction of the southern population actually owned slaves. Slavery was dying, and would have died on its own. It might have lasted another 10 or 20 years at the most.
Do you think the law banning slave trade in 1807 had anything to do with that?
Could be in some cases but it can also be due to the environment such as school, friends a few bad experiences and so forth.
Who’s to say? Maybe Johnny got beat down by a different race for years while he was a kid in school, now Johnny doesn’t like anyone of that race, is he wrong? Yeah he is but then again it’s not really his fault he was a victim of his environment..
Could be in some cases but it can also be due to the environment such as school, friends a few bad experiences and so forth.
Who’s to say? Maybe Johnny got beat down by a different race for years while he was a kid in school, now Johnny doesn’t like anyone of that race, is he wrong? Yeah he is but then again it’s not really his fault he was a victim of his environment..
Getting beat down by another race, goes back to how the other individuals in the beating were raised.
I was a kindergarten teacher, and there was no racism at all, the children played with everyone. I don't remember a time that a child every said anything about someone's color in a negative way.
It does. People can now challenge another no discriminatory grounds, that they couldn't. As for constitutionality, like I said, take it to the courts and I will watch.
Either way someone's freedoms is being lost. Better the bigot that loses it.
I already know I would lose that court case, but I highly doubt it would be a unanimous decision. I would almost guarantee that Scalia would agree that it is unconstitutional. Of course he ascribes to the originalist interpretation of the constitution. Not the "living document" method, which basically states the supreme court can interpret the constitution any way they feel like, as long as they can make a coherent argument for why they feel that way.
Quote:
A republic can be equally scary. That is why we have a democratic republic where minorities are also protected. Ripping the constitution. Heh!
Why is a Republic scary? Do you even know what a Republic is? A Republic means there is a fixed body of laws that cannot be changed upon a simple majority vote. It means you know that the government(the people) will not wake up one day and pass laws that intend to harm one group for the benefit of another. How can a Republic possibly be scary? They don't really change at all.
Quote:
It is still a business, and business is not a person. Decision maker is a person(s).
They are in essence a person. If I, as a person, don't want black people in my home, I have that right. If I run a business out of my home, then it is illegal for me to not allow black people in my home. Do you see the problem?
Quote:
Because a business is chartered/licensed to exist. It is artificial, regulated entity.
A business isn't necessarily chartered or licensed. I am currently doing "business" out of my home right now. I employ friends and family. Am I not a business? Though I can be regulated(although there aren't any regulations I currently fall under).
Quote:
Wrong. On the contrary, laws like the civil rights, or slave trade ban (1807) are very much founded on some sort of principle.
Do you have any idea what constitutional basis those acts were based on? Do you have any clue?
Quote:
But only if you decide to limit to such laws as merely moral legislation when they go past that. One could just as easily argue that laws against rape are nothing but moral legislation.
No you cannot, rape is an attack on another person. Rape is harming others. That is the purpose of government, to protect citizens from harm by others. To prevent coercion and fraud. And to defend the country from foreign enemies. The basic concept of freedom is that I can do anything I want that doesn't harm someone else(and I don't just mean emotionally). The Westboro church harms people emotionally, but that is perfectly legal. As long as they don't go pushing anyone around, or beating anyone up, then theres nothing you can really do to stop it.
Quote:
I would agree with that. However, why do you think it was the north that showed aggression to the peace loving, pro-slavery, southerners? Didn't they organize into a confederacy, denounce Presidential election results and institute their own President (the loser of the elections), take aggressive actions against federal authorities, only to be eventually put in place?
First, you seem to know absolutely nothing about the Civil war or the politics surrounding it. It is true that the Southern states seceeded from the United States, just as the Colonies seceeded from Britain decades before. The president of the CSA did not run in the 1860 presidential elections. And the south felt justified in seceeding because there was no constitutional provisions that kept them from it, and they felt the northern states had become tyrannical in pushing through unconstitutional laws.
As for the "aggressive action" that the south took, you are talking about Fort sumter, and the aggressive action was South Carolina trying to kick the federal troops off its land. And that battle of Fort Sumter produced a grand total of ZERO union deaths. The south was quite cordial, they simply wanted to be independent of the north, but the north couldn't let them go.
Quote:
No, the problem is with the people, not with the government. Remember, this country was fought for, for a government.
Say what? This country was fought for because it wanted freedom. It was tired of Britain taxing the colonies to pay for things to benefit "the empire". The colonists wanted to be left alone. The colonies never would have fought to rid themselves of England, if they knew they would lose their sovereignty to an all-powerful central government. The colonists and the founding fathers would be completely appalled to see us engaged in two wars(going on a third) and the almost complete consolidation of power in the hands of the few in Washington. Don't delude yourself and recreate history how you want it to be.
Quote:
Do you think the law banning slave trade in 1807 had anything to do with that?
The law banning the slave trade was under Thomas Jefferson, one of the biggest advocates for freedom this country has ever known. Secondly, it only banned the international slave trade, because that comes under the auspices of the "commerce clause" which gives the federal government the power to regulate trade between us and other nations. It was therefore constitutional(and good IMO).
The law did not prohibit slavery, that judgement was left up to the people. And you saw the slow destruction of slavery across the country. Freedom was on the march, but people are impatient, and decide that they cannot wait, and must force their ideas on others. And when you force others to change, they will fight against you, many times even if they know it is in their best interest. This is the nature of all the foreign conflicts we have been in since WWII.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 03-21-2011 at 05:06 PM..
Racism is cultural which I observed in the South. In the South, racial identity is very important and one of the first things people notice and ask about is your race whereas in metropolitan areas outside of the South, people do not have the same curiosity toward one's racial identity because they have more diversity and are used to people of different races. When I lived in cities like Dallas, Oklahoma City, Memphis and Charlotte, the first thing people would ask was my race. I also noticed that separation of races is espoused in these areas with regard to marriage/dating/relationships. There was a double standard. It was okay to be friends with people of different races but opposed interracial relationships. Even people who claimed not to be racist were always trying to hook me up with another Hispanic person as if I wasn't allowed to date outside my race.And even among friendships, there were limitations. In the South, it was okay to be friends with minorities at school but it was an entirely different thing to have them over for sleep overs or be your neighbors next door. And this type of thinking is so prominent there that they don't find the view to be racist. They genuinely think they aren't racist by espousing these types of views. To them, it's just more of the equal yet separate mentality.
And they definitely frowned upon Blacks dating and marrying Whites. It starts in the teenage years where people will use race to put down others while simultaneously having parents tell their children not to date members of a certain race. It was ingrained at an early age in the South and many of those people are still ignorant and unaware of how racist they truly are. It is truly a product of bad parenting and non-progressive culture.
Maybe a white kid who has been taught to treat all races equally learns it when he goes to school and gets attacked by a gang of black kids for no other reason than that he is white. That could probably color your attitudes for a lifetime.
Yeah, well I knew this black guy at Jr. college and he never beat me up. So there!
But he did elbow me in the side when I tried to sit at their table ....... Hmmmmm
Yup. They learn it from their folks and other adults and then when no one stops them or when their little buddies think its funny, it blossoms into full racist behavior.
I think something this thread is ignoring is the idea that racism comes in one flavor. Most racists are not the extreme type found in the movies. In fact, I would say most racists aren't even aware they are racist. They would never use the N word and are not against Civil Rights. Their racism is more subtle. While they don't believe in saying racial epithets and denying civil rights, they are not exactly thrilled about certain races living in their neighborhood and dating their children. They don't see that as racism. That's the type of racism you see today.
I think something this thread is ignoring is the idea that racism comes in one flavor. Most racists are not the extreme type found in the movies. In fact, I would say most racists aren't even aware they are racist. They would never use the N word and are not against Civil Rights. Their racism is more subtle. While they don't believe in saying racial epithets and denying civil rights, they are not exactly thrilled about certain races living in their neighborhood and dating their children. They don't see that as racism. That's the type of racism you see today.
Yea those types are more likely to snub people of other races instead of being open about it or getting too extreme. There are some people like that here where I live and they will somewhat snub other races but they wouldn't go as far as being too open about it just like you said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Racism = bad parenting, upbringing
