Einherjar86
Active Member
If the establishment is justifying its behavior on an appeal to privacy rights, then why the hell not? It all seems equally as frivolous to me.
I don't understand the first question. What indignation are you talking about?
As far as the second question goes, excluding people based on sexual orientation or disability has no rational basis other than bigotry. Those people cause no harm to others. Exclusion based on violence or dangerous behavior is obviously understandable; but not exclusion based purely on what we might call someone's interior identity or personal appearance (i.e. their "private" sense of self). It makes no sense, if we are appealing to privacy and/or other "rights."
At this point, the more internally logical thing to do is to deny his personal bigotry and force him to serve those he would rather not.
I don't know what else to call it when you speak of the reattaching of heads and the state of the world being improved by this persons demise. Disgust, indignation, etc. Synonym potahto.
We might call sexual preference a form of bigotry, or monogamy, or hell, refusing sex with anyone who asks at any given time a form of bigotry. Because feelings. What harm is this 2bit bartender causing that, again, isn't being caused at thousands of clubs across the world. But we love that sort of exclusion and bigotry. We allow and love and express all sorts of exclusion and bigotry, but only this guy and his sort/sort of bigotry are the untenable lot. Viewing this perspective from the outside leads me to the next part:
Logic is certainly one thing I don't see making any appearance here at all.
Maybe you should specify whom you're talking about.
That whole story just pisses me off...... They should have the opposing views forced down their throats. I will sit in at that bigot's restaurant and tell him he's a fucking idiot.
The world will be better off when people like him are gone.
He's a fucking idiot, and he needs to have his head reattached.
No, sexual preference, monogamy, or refusing to have sex with someone don't count as forms of exclusion. That's your skewed semantic obsession running off the rails. The exclusion we're speaking of is not personal but systematic.
Logic is only ever a normative science. You just think your thought processes pursue logic because you're biased toward them.
It's possible to be critical of logic.
here's the deal; he has some right to private ownership of a business to deny certain persons service? Fuck his ass, those persons also have individual rights to be served. The problem with appealing to privacy is that the patrons he's refusing can appeal to that same right.
He isn't trying to insert his land into their bodies, he is resisting the insertion of their bodies onto his land. The logic or rationality of this rejection is irrelevant, and nothing about rejection of insertion violates any sort of privacy.
Privacy is a byproduct of certain choices available with self-ownership, not the reason for it.
S.J. Gould said:At this point in the chain of statements, the classical error of reductionism often makes its entrance, via the following argument: If our brain’s unique capacities arise from its material substrate, and if that substrate originated through ordinary evolutionary processes, then those unique capacities must be explainable by (reducible to) “biology” (or some other chosen category expressing standard scientific principles and procedures).
The primary fallacy of this argument has been recognized from the inception of this hoary debate. “Arising from” does not mean “reducible to,” for all the reasons embodied in the old cliche that a whole can be more than the sum of its parts. To employ the technical parlance of two fields, philosophy describes this principle by the concept of “emergence*,” while science speaks of “nonlinear” or “nonadditive” interaction. In terms of building materials, a new entity may contain nothing beyond its constituent parts, each one of fully known composition and operation. But if, in forming the new entity, these constituent parts interact in a “nonlinear” fashion—that is, if the combined action of any two parts in the new entity yields something other than the sum of the effect of part one acting alone plus the effect of part two acting alone—then the new entity exhibits “emergent” properties that cannot be explained by the simple summation of the parts in question. Any new entity that has emergent properties—and I can’t imagine anything very complex without such features—cannot, in principle, be explained by (reduced to) the structure and function of its building blocks.
S.J. Gould said:Please note that this definition of “emergence” includes no statement about the mystical, the ineffable, the unknowable, the spiritual, or the like—although the confusion of such a humdrum concept as nonlinearity with this familiar hit parade has long acted as the chief impediment to scientific understanding and acceptance of such a straightforward and commonsensical phenomenon. When I argue that the behavior of a particular mammal can’t be explained by its genes, or even as the simple sum of its genes plus its environment of upbringing, I am not saying that behavior can’t be approached or understood scientifically. I am merely pointing out that any full understanding must consider the organism at its own level, as a product of massively nonlinear interaction among its genes and environments. (When you grasp this principle, you will immediately understand why such pseudosophisticated statements as the following are not even wrong, but merely nonsensical: “I’m not a naive biological determinist. I know that intelligence represents an interaction of genes and environment—and I hear that the relative weights are about 40 percent genes and 60 percent environment.”
And Dak, I don't see how you've countered my claim.
Your problem is that you're smart, and you project your intellect into others who might behave similarly, but do so for different reasons.
Privacy is privileged by our society as a right, which means it exists not as a byproduct, but as an essence. The most fundamental form of privacy, in the liberal humanist mindset, is the self; this precedes all other forms of property. Of course, it's important to acknowledge that privacy doesn't actually exist as an essence; but it is appealed to as an essence in many forms of liberal humanist thought.
The private property of the self is also the source of the fundamental contradiction of private property in general, since the self inevitably intersects with other subjectively experienced selves.
The excuses you're making for the restaurant owner are not derived from logic, but are mere rationalizations of one specific site of private property. Private property as a whole is a paradoxical institution.
EDIT: my disgust for that man is purely emotional; but I tend to find that my emotions have the ability to point me in the right direction, even if they won't compensate for the lack of a critical argument.
I was specifically countering that we aren't seeing anything new as it regards "interplay of value", unless you merely are referring to the scope as new, but I didn't get that from what you posted. Certainly we are seeing a broader scope than ever before, but that in itself isn't "revolutionary".
I'm not projecting my argument on "society". "Society" changes it's mind about what is and isn't allowed and the reasons for these allowances or disallowances depending on the day, the second, the mile. I'm sure THAT guy certainly hasn't given it much thought past "dis HEER be PRIVAHT PROPERDY!". But that is irrelevant to my reasoning for letting it alone.
Under your proffered existing social conceptualization, I can see how private property is a gordian knot, so we may as well err on the side of yelling at people we don't like/disagree with (but making sure to serve them if we own a business).
I'm sure Voltaire says something about this situation...
I think it's grounded in revolution (nota bene: not Marxist revolution). We're witnessing the active shift and displacement in value itself.
Yes, absolutely; that's what the business is there for. It isn't there to reinforce its owner's bigotry.
So does Antonio Damasio; he claims that emotions don't hamper critical thought, but in fact enable and embolden it.
There's no reason not to feel passionately about the things you argue for.
There is no new shift in value. There is a shift in the number of people with extra resources. That "shift in value" has always been present for those with available resources.
The business is there to do what the businessman wants. Whether or not customers find it valuable will determine its success. Sam Walton wanted to do Walmart, Henry Ford wanted to make cars. But people have to buy. If enough people are disgusted with the that guy, he'll have to shut down anyway - or at least run on a severely crimped lifestyle. The regulatory effect of voluntary transactions. And no, I don't see this as paradoxical, or conflicting, etc.