You know, boring someone to death is not a way to persuade them of anything.
Wise words, Hawker. May they serve you well! 
Topic: "Book club" - page 5. (Read 6482 times)
The real thing here is where the author of the book stands. He was favour of allowing racial discrimination. He is also in favour of the military draft. You agree with him on allowing racial discrimination. I assume you agree with him about conscription being OK.
You assume incorrectly. As I have said, I advocate a completely voluntary society, and the draft is decidedly against that. You can safely assume that anything that would require a state, I differ in my opinion on from the author.
Now that you have failed to explain why you believe that some behaviors are an acceptable basis for discrimination, and others are not, allow me to explain why I defend all discrimination:
The store owner owns his property. It is his store. It is his goods that he sells there. If he chooses not to sell them to someone, for whatever reason, that is his choice. Forcing him to do so against his wishes is a violation of his property rights.
Well if you don't agree with Friedman, why did you ask us to read the book?
The real thing here is where the author of the book stands. He was favour of allowing racial discrimination. He is also in favour of the military draft. You agree with him on allowing racial discrimination. I assume you agree with him about conscription being OK.
You assume incorrectly. As I have said, I advocate a completely voluntary society, and the draft is decidedly against that. You can safely assume that anything that would require a state, I differ in my opinion on from the author.
Now that you have failed to explain why you believe that some behaviors are an acceptable basis for discrimination, and others are not, allow me to explain why I defend all discrimination:
The store owner owns his property. It is his store. It is his goods that he sells there. If he chooses not to sell them to someone, for whatever reason, that is his choice. Forcing him to do so against his wishes is a violation of his property rights.
There is a difference between refusing service based on how a person is born as opposed to how they behave.
But religion is a behavior. It can be changed.
You know, boring someone to death is not a way to persuade them of anything. I've done you the courtesy of reading the book. To be honest, I expected Friedman to be in favour of the NAP and the conversation to be about that. Instead you want to talk about why racial discrimination should be legal and to wander up and down a list of things that may or may not be offensive. Its clear that you will go on forever - no thanks.
The real thing here is where the author of the book stands. Friedman was favour of allowing racial discrimination. He is also in favour of the military draft. You agree with him on allowing racial discrimination. I assume you agree with him about conscription being OK. Where does this leave your advocating the NAP?
There is a difference between refusing service based on how a person is born as opposed to how they behave.
But religion is a behavior. It can be changed.
There is a difference between refusing service based on how a person is born as opposed to how they behave.
Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?
No.Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes. You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black. ... Disgusting.
OK, thank you. Now that I have gotten you to outline your position, We're going to switch gears a little. Why, exactly, is discriminating on the basis of behavior OK, but race and religion bad?
Sorry not wasting time on this. I had expected you to be opposed to legalising discrimination based on race. You aren't.
No, no... this is important. You may even be able to change my mind here. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong. I honestly want to know why you are OK with the shop owner refusing service on some terms, but not on others.
Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?
No.Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes. You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black. ... Disgusting.
OK, thank you. Now that I have gotten you to outline your position, We're going to switch gears a little. Why, exactly, is discriminating on the basis of behavior OK, but race and religion bad?
Sorry not wasting time on this. I had expected you to be opposed to legalising discrimination based on race. You aren't.
Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?
No.Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes. You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black. ... Disgusting.
OK, thank you. Now that I have gotten you to outline your position, We're going to switch gears a little. Why, exactly, is discriminating on the basis of behavior OK, but race and religion bad?
It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.
Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?
No simple answer. I grew up with Catholic only and Protestant only housing, education and businesses. Of course that is bad and its now illegal. That doesn't mean that a Protestant has to accept an application from a Catholic to be the local pastor. So on religion the law has to assume that discrimination is bad except where it is needed.
But we are speaking of a shop owner, refusing business. Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?
No.
It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.
Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?
No simple answer. I grew up with Catholic only and Protestant only housing, education and businesses. Of course that is bad and its now illegal. That doesn't mean that a Protestant has to accept an application from a Catholic to be the local pastor. So on religion the law has to assume that discrimination is bad except where it is needed.
But we are speaking of a shop owner, refusing business. Is refusing business to someone because they are Catholic, or Protestant, or Jewish, or Muslim, an acceptable practice, or not?
It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.
Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?
No simple answer. I grew up with Catholic only and Protestant only housing, education and businesses. Of course that is bad and its now illegal. That doesn't mean that a Protestant has to accept an application from a Catholic to be the local pastor. So on religion the law has to assume that discrimination is bad except where it is needed.
It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie.
Oh, but it does! This is the society you are proposing and defending, so I need to know exactly what is OK, an what is morally repugnant. I promise you, this is the last question along these lines that I will ask. Is discrimination on religious basis OK or not?
Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes.
Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?
So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?
Why are you wandering off onto talking about behavioural discrimination? No-one is born saying "God bless."
No, but religious discrimination is often just as prevalent as racial.
I just want to know where your boundaries are. Bear with me, and answer the question?
It doesn't matter where my boundaries lie. Friedman is OK with "No blacks need apply" being legal as part of a job description and with "Whites only" restaurants. I'm not. You are. So your vision of society is going to be very different from mine.
Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes.
Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?
So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?
Why are you wandering off onto talking about behavioural discrimination? No-one is born saying "God bless."
No, but religious discrimination is often just as prevalent as racial.
I just want to know where your boundaries are. Bear with me, and answer the question?
Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes.
Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?
So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?
Why are you wandering off onto talking about behavioural discrimination? No-one is born saying "God bless."
Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes.
Ah, good. I trust that wasn't too painful?
So you feel that it's OK to discriminate against people who say things which the proprietors disagree with. What if they are saying "God bless," or "L'chaim"? Is it OK to discriminate against people who are saying those words?
Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
You avoided answering this question.
Its a question on another subject. Why waste time on it?
Because it is on topic to the discussion: Discrimination. I ask again: Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Yes. The topic is racial discrimination. That is an example of behavioural discrimination.
EDIT for clarity. Thats a yes - if someone is badly behaved of course the business can deny them employment or service.
Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
You avoided answering this question.
Its a question on another subject. Why waste time on it?
Because it is on topic to the discussion: Discrimination. I ask again: Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?
You avoided answering this question.
Its a question on another subject. Why waste time on it?
The subject here is the book you chose. It says that the owner of a business should be free to deny employment and service to people based purely on the colour of their skins. Not something they can change - something they are born with.
That vision leads back to a society with "No blacks need apply" at the bottom of job descriptions. Saying that the blacks are better off if that happens doesn't make it OK. Saying that the business is losing out on diversity and on black workers doesn't make it OK.
Jump to: