Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Chanakya]

As expected, the "Artificial Life" has already kicked up a storm.


Article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm

The Vatican's response:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127036895

 

[Dak]

I think private enterprise should be allowed to discriminate. The government should not be able to tell you who you have to do business with.

As a business/land/etc. owner, I should be able to deny business to any client I choose, regardless of how petty the reason is.

 

[Cythraul]

Can you really say that is reasonable?

Do you have a reason why you think it's not that isn't based on an appeal to emotion? Serious question, by the way.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Do you have a reason why you think it's not that isn't based on an appeal to emotion? Serious question, by the way.

An appeal to emotion? Isn't it just a reasonable assessment of human nature?

 

[Cythraul]

An appeal to emotion? Isn't it just a reasonable assessment of human nature?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please clarify.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Too many beers atm. Will get back on that.

 

[Cythraul]

 

[cookiecutter]

Do you have a reason why you think it's not that isn't based on an appeal to emotion? Serious question, by the way.

I'm having trouble parsing your question but I am assuming you're asking whether being against Paul's assessment of private discrimination is actually based on an emotional rather than rational reaction. I can't say it doesn't make me emotional, but I think that it is reasonable to have safeguards in place to protect the rights of consumers. If we drain all emotion out of this it comes down to whether someone has the right to purchase whatever they want from a business*, or whether the business has the right to choose its customers. I think to have a healthy society, the consumer's rights are more important because if businesses can discriminate, it would be very hard for disparate elements of our society to integrate and cooperate. One only needs to look at the Jim Crow South for an (albeit extreme) example of a fragmented and toxic social structure which was partially buoyed by legal private discrimination. Private discrimination in the Northern urban housing markets also caused ghettoization, and I think you would agree that is not a desirable thing.

*As long as they are following the law. The discrimination I am talking about is what would be covered under the civil rights legislation Paul opposes.

 

[Matt]

As far as Rand Paul goes, nice ad hominem attack. If he really is such a "wacko", there should be no shortage of his supported policies that you could list that any reasonable person would also find "wacko". But you didn't.

He hadn't made the fact that he opposes the civil rights act public until after the primary. That is reason enough to be considered a wacko.

He opposes the Americans With Disabilities Act which, among other things, protects disable people from discrimination. He also believes that private discrimination, including in the housing market, is acceptable because it is "free". Can you really say that is reasonable?

.

I think private enterprise should be allowed to discriminate. The government should not be able to tell you who you have to do business with.

As a business/land/etc. owner, I should be able to deny business to any client I choose, regardless of how petty the reason is.

You already can, you just can't make the reason why apparent.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Sorry, but I have to agree with Dakryn on all this. I don't see what's so hard about to understand about how people can make these decisions on their own. I think most people are wise enough to realize that racism is a reprehensible behavioral pattern and don't need the government to tell them so. If it were legal to do so, how many of you would patronize a business that had a sign posted reading "No my pals allowed"? Naturally, racist private institutions would be driven out of business. The only reason that kind of shit persisted during the segregation era is because segregation was sanctioned by the government. If the gov't didn't show a bias either way, the common sense of the populace would prevail.

 

[Dak]

He hadn't made the fact that he opposes the civil rights act public until after the primary. That is reason enough to be considered a wacko.

Did he say he "opposed the civil rights act"?

Get the story straight.

 

[Dak]

Today is not a good day for the Huffington Post. Almost every headlines is either non-newsworthy or bullshit spin. They are worse than CNN/Fox. Like 30% of the headlines are opinion pieces on Rand Paul. I don't go to news sites for blog blurbs.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I can't believe you actually read Huffington Post. You're way more right wing than me, and I don't even read that shit. Same with Michelle Malkin's blog and MSNBC. As for CNN being biased? I would say only slightly. Honestly, I believe that the Wall Street Journal is about as neutral as you can get (and yes, they cover a hell of a lot more than financial news).

 

[Dak]

I check HP, but rarely is there ever anything worth reading on it. Today just happened to be like wtf-bad.

Also, I don't consider myself "right-wing", as I feel that moniker has a lot of neo-con stigma attached to it.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Well, to describe the myriad range of political ideologies, left and right seem to be the most accepted parameters to use. There's far right (Jerry Falwell) and just right of center (John McCain). There's also another set of parameters usually called authoritarian and libertarian, and I would peg you as someone who is moderate to strong right and fiercely libertarian. It is unfortunate, however, that most people who profess to being right-wing also have strong authoritarian tendencies.

 

[Dak]

Well, to describe the myriad range of political ideologies, left and right seem to be the most accepted parameters to use. There's far right (Jerry Falwell) and just right of center (John McCain). There's also another set of parameters usually called authoritarian and libertarian, and I would peg you as someone who is moderate to strong right and fiercely libertarian. It is unfortunate, however, that most people who profess to being right-wing also have strong authoritarian tendencies.

I used to know of a video that explained this better but can't find it anymore.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

That whole linear political spectrum is too limited for my taste. I prefer the multi-dimensional concept used by the political compass.

EDIT: I consider myself to basically be an anarchist, and don't see how I could be to the right of somebody like Rush Limbaugh.

 

[Cythraul]

I think to have a healthy society, the consumer's rights are more important because if businesses can discriminate, it would be very hard for disparate elements of our society to integrate and cooperate.

I don't see how this is bad. If I don't want to make sandwiches and coffee for black people then I shouldn't have to. And I don't want to make sandwiches and coffee for them. They can have a black person do it for them if they want it so badly.

Private discrimination in the Northern urban housing markets also caused ghettoization, and I think you would agree that is not a desirable thing.

Does ghettoization mean black people will live in their own crappy neighborhood and not in my nice neighborhood? Why wouldn't I find that desirable?

 

[Dak]

@Cookiecutter

This isn't really the issue. I don't think you can point to anti private business discrimination laws as doing anything to curb racism. If anything, it creates resentment (which reinforces the racism), since the racism is still there, but then a bigot would be forced to deal with (to him) undesirable elements in society.

@ Saparmurat:

While the x/y axis chart sounds good on the surface, I see no difference between authoritarian or libertarian left/right, and I have never seen anyone satisfactorily argue a differentiation.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Really? Bush and Obama are 2 great examples or authoritarian right and authoritarian left, respectively. They believe in a rigid power structure, but differ widely on social issues.