Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (80736)	6/22/2004 6:14:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It should be fairly obvious that I do not suggest that people should all be treated the same. I do not kiss your girlfriend on the lips, do I? Would it be abusive if all of my romantic or sexual relationships where with people of one sex. Should it be illegal for me to place a personal add specifying race, or religion? If some woman turned you down and told you "I don't go out with <people of your racial/ethnic background> should you be able to sue her? If the law doesn't allow for such suit should it be changed to do so? If it was changed it such a way would the law be an injustice that should be fought against or would it be ok to lock up people who get "uppity" about it? I am trying to get across to you the basic idea that your “free association” does not prevent society from limiting the manner and degree to which you are permitted to MISTREAT others before funning afoul of social law and moral opprobrium. None of our rights natural, constitutional, statutory, regulatory, or contractual prevent society from doing what it wants if there is enough of a push behind the effort. But the attempt to severely infringing on the freedom of association is an example of some people mistreating others, while basing hiring decisions on race, while obnoxious and in the worst cases perhaps even vile, is not an abuse of them or an example of aggression against them. By equal treatment I mean equal protection under the law against mistreatment on the basis of race, religion, etc. Again equal protection of the law is a legal term that refers to actions of the government. You apparently are asserting far more then equal protection of the law you are rather asserting an affirmative right to demand aggressive legal action back by physical force against anyone who refuses to deal with someone because of race, religion ect. ”Not forbidding something or not punishing someone for doing it is not the same thing as legally sanctioning it.” If there are no legal sanctions against the behavior then it is legally tolerable. The law can be very minimal without society accepting or even tolerating certain things. The whole world can denounce some activity without it being illegal. There can be demonstrations, even boycotts of people who do certain things, they can perhaps be forced out of business, all without their actions being a law against, or resulting in extra-legal physical force being used against them. ” It does not mean that the government forces others to treat people equally.” Again, I am not talking about treating people equally. I am talking about all people being equal under the law and equally protected against mistreatment under the law. Again you are talking about far more then equal treatment under the law. If the law said that anyone can hire or fire anyone they want then you would have equal treatment under the law. Individuals might use that freedom to treat some people differently then others but the law would be treating everyone the same way. What I said was: ” I don't think that UNEQUAL treatment under the law represents a civilized value”. What you said was - "And all people purchasing goods or services are entitled by law to equal treatment without regard to colour,race, religion, or gender. It is called CIVILIZATION. Love it or leave it. " I responded "Civilization has been around a lot longer then anti-discrimination laws. Such laws are not a requirement for or a necessary consequence of civilization." to which you said "I would disagree with you. " If you disagree with me that means that you think either that such laws are a requirement for civilization or a necessary consequence of civilization. So any civilization would presumably not last long without such laws. Since Western civilization had been around a long time by 1950, I assume it was not truly a civilization because there where few if any such laws at or before that time. Tim