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: TimF who wrote (80757)	6/22/2004 9:00:27 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"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?" The answer to each and all of those questions is "no". We certainly have no disagreement there, I hope. "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." Your sentence is a bit awkward. I don't understand your meaning, but I will guess a bit. Freedom of Association is a right just as equal treatment under the law is a right. Anyone familiar with my posts would recognize that I do not cherry pick which "rights" ought to be affirmed. But all rights are constrained by the rights of others. Freedom of Association is not Absolute. Just as freedom of speech is not Absolute. You can but you may not yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. "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." Protection does require force. If somebody abused the property you own rather than the property that you are, you would appreciate that force is the only remedy against those who would use force to violate your rights. How a smart guy like you could think that your right to property is legitimate but that your right to equality and equal treatment is ephemeral is beyond me. You have to understand the point of anti-discrimination laws (other than the point that racial and other prejudices harm and threaten the safety and liberty of all of humanity--which is sufficient reason to support those laws). If we had not made it unlawful to treat others via such overt prejudice...we would still have slavery (and citizens such as women) who do not have equal rights under the law....and who are therefore not full citizens as is their right under the Constitution. "The whole world can denounce some activity without it being illegal." And they have done so. They have also made many activities illegal. Support of human rights is a work in progress, is it not? It is why we have laws to protect freedom of association. "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" NO. Allowing some misfit to destroy a family without just cause is no more justifiable than allowing that same misfit of society to destroy property. If you think a human being is less entitled to protection than his property then you have one Hell of a lot to learn. Equal pay for equal work and such were social initiatives to create an equal playing field for humanity outside of racial and gender hate and prejudice. Basically, you are asking for the RIGHT to be abusive toward people without rational cause. Well, smarten up, Tim. You are not a child anymore who can't get his head above an idealistic cowpie. Rational people do not support abuse or assault against people. Prejudice is legal...but violating the human right to equal treatment under the law is illegaL. AND IT DAMN WELL OUGHT TO BE. "What you said was..." What I said was between my quotation marks. Don't play games. You were trying to pretend that "unequal treatment under the law" as an uncivilized value was somehow countered by the very STUPID argumentive reference to the fact that we consider (rightfully so, I say) America to be civilized. Having uncivilized values DOES NOT vouchsafe a lack of civilization within society. I have already explained that adequately.