Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Freedom of Association = good
Selective Freedom of Association = bad

[Agathon]

Originally posted by loinburger

Explain why it is acceptable for me to keep the Jews, Burmese, and Commies out of my treehouse but unacceptable to keep blacks and women out of my treehouse. Your problem is that you've continually failed to justify why discrimination based on race or gender is fundamentally different from discrimination based on, say, nationality or religion or politics; or, put another way, why associations based on race or gender are fundamentally unacceptable while associations based on, say, nationality or religion or politics are fine and dandy. You're being hideously arbitrary with your argument -- your argument essentially boils down to "Jews are allowed to associate with Jews, but men aren't allowed to associate with men, because men are pigs." Fine, two can play at this discrimination game: "Men are allowed to associate with men, but Commies aren't allowed to associate with Commies, because Commies are godless and unpatriotic." Obviously godlessness and lack of patriotism are bad, therefore I fully support the government's ability to stamp them out wherever they are found -- my right to live in a God-fearing nation of patriots trumps the Communists' right to freely associate, just as your right to live in a nation of Castrati trumps the right of men to freely associate.

No. You've completely misunderstood my position. We aren't talking about treehouses either.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Freedom of Association = good
Selective Freedom of Association = bad

If you say it, then it must be true. :rolleyes"

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SpencerH

I may dissapprove if you, as an individual or as a group, dont wish to associate with blacks, whites, jews, etc simply for that reason, but I dont agree that the government has any place in regulating such activity. So insofar as Agathon has set his skewed comparison (since its not clear how minorities are discriminated against when not allowed into a private gathering)

Again, it depends what you mean by a "private gathering". If you mean something like a wedding or private party then yes, I agree. I think it's a stretch to say that a golf club is like that, most I know aren't. It's an even bigger stretch to say that a business is like that since a business doesn't usually operate as a society of friends.

The only issue here is, where does the anti-discrimination legislation stop. I'd say that is a practical matter, where it does more harm than good.

[SlowwHand]

Do they let Communists on the course ?
Of course, I'm only asking amout male Commies.
We know female Commies aren't.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Do they let Communists on the course ?
Of course, I'm only asking amout male Commies.
We know female Commies aren't.

I actually think it's OK for them to discriminate on the basis of politial beliefs in something like a country club. Political beliefs are something you are responsible for, the race or sex you are born into is not. Your political beliefs and values by themselves have moral significance, your race or sex does not.

Of course in business life you should never be allowed to discriminate in this fashion because it would mean a general loss of political freedom.

[Ming]

Hmmm... race or sex have no moral significance...



And even if that was true using some definition that you have still not explained so anybody else can understant, why would that be a limiting factor when it comes to discrimination.

For somebody who is SOOOOOO against discrimination at Private Golf Clubs/Mens clubs... you seem to discriminate against a lot of things yourself... kind of a double standard on your part, don't you think.

[Q Classic]

The goal of my agenda is to curb racism by making it hard for racists to construct racist institutions. I think that the goal is worth the price of treading on the toes of a few rednecks.

you yourself here are being rather discriminatory here. by calling members of the augusta national "rednecks", you are implying that they backwards and stupid people simply because they are white and because they are from the south. even though i myself am not caucasian, i am southern, and i take that as an offense.

Who decides what counts as a good reason? Well I'd say that a democratic government makes law and judges interpret it. That's customary in our society.

if the court sided with augusta national, would that end your complaint?

Only the rights of racists to be racist are restricted. Now please attack my actual position rather than some fictional version of it that you have concocted.

their position, as well as mine, is that you cannot restrict the rights of a small group simply because you don't like their policies, because to do so would create a slippery slope. why stop at the rights of racists to associate? do some not find the practices of, say, communists abhorrent and dangerous to the american way of life? why respect their freedom to associate (cf the McCarthyist Era)? when french people gather and speak only the french language, how do we know they're not plotting something against america? in our defense, we naturally have to make it difficult to bar french gatherings...

Again, it depends what you mean by a "private gathering". If you mean something like a wedding or private party then yes, I agree. I think it's a stretch to say that a golf club is like that, most I know aren't. It's an even bigger stretch to say that a business is like that since a business doesn't usually operate as a society of friends.

how familiar are you with augusta national? it is NOT a public golf club. indeed, to be a member, you have to be quite wealthy and of a certain limited demographic. thus, it is by definition a private golf club which simply happens to hold an event that members from the public are invited to attend.
i also disagree in this particular case with your allegation that the rights of those being discriminatory being quash is less harmful than the rights of those who are being discriminated against.
augusta national was one of the largest private donors to many local charities before this entire flap. many of those charities have not received any funding from augusta national this year, simply because augusta national has no money to give.
it's disturbing that a one-woman crusade has caused this much damage. indeed, if you poll most of the women around the south, the majority of them do not care about it; one of the most absurd results is that burk asked the mayor of atlanta, shirley franklin, to "donate some protestors".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who decides what counts as a good reason? Well I'd say that a democratic government makes law and judges interpret it. That's customary in our society.

Yes, but you are against the majority, you realize. Look at this thread, for instance. It is you and Slowhand vs. everyone. I believe this shows that our 'good reasons' are accepted (at least on Poly).

However, we aren't a democracy. We are a republic, we believe in protecting rights.

You are contradicting yourself. The South wanted to prevent blacks from doing anything near whites. The majority agreed with them. According to your reasoning, that was a sufficiently good reason to discriminate... the majority thought it was a swell idea.

I'll respond by saying that the right to free association is left largely untouched by my scheme. Only the rights of racists to be racist are restricted. Now please attack my actual position rather than some fictional version of it that you have concocted.

You aren't serious, are you? By restricting the right of racists to be racist (by, say, banning the KKK), you HAVE affected the freedom of association. Just because it hasn't affected me, doesn't mean there is no affect.

Why are their views less worthy than mine?

Again, you think this but you have no argument for it.

You think that racists should be restricted from being racist, but you have no argument for it .

Just because you ignore my arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. I've said that freedom of association is required for a functioning democratic republic.

Without diversity of ideas, which is gotten by freedom of speech and association, you have a broken democracy, because you are then asserting that some views are not tolerated.

As long as you don't hurt anyone physically, you should be able to protest your viewpoint because by allowing everyone to speak their politics do we allow everyone to have proper democratic rights in our republic.

But you have no argument so far. My argument is that the consequences of respecting the rights of racists to be racist are worse than the consequences of prohibiting their racist behaviour. Who is harmed more: the people who can't discriminate on the basis of race or those who would be discriminated against. Come on Imran, it's the latter who are harmed more.

You are absurd! You say I don't have an argument, then say your argument is consequences of B are worse than the consequences of A, when my argument is exactly the reverse. Just because the argument is different than yours doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!

Society is hurt MORE by taking away the rights of A. It shows that if we don't like your POV, we'll simply stop you from saying it. In a society that SAYS it respects differing opinions and freedom of speech, that is utterly inconsistant and reprensible.

If you mean by "addressing" expressing your belief that the right to free association trumps others without any supporting reason, then you are right. Of course that's of limited worth.

Why? After all your argument comes down to preventing the rights of racists to be racist trumps all others without any supporting reason.

And in general slippery slope arguments are fallacious without good reason to assume that the consequences are likely to pan out. I don't see any reason why an anti racist law would necessarily lead to 1984. You need to provide a better reason for thinking this is likely to happen.

Hmmm... Communists in the '50s, Islamic Arabs in the present day (who, say, support Saddam), etc., seem to me to be good reasons to stop trying to restrict peoples' rights because of their beliefs (we are saying that we don't like your beliefs, so you can't lobby for them). Because that is ultimately what you are doing. You are saying racists have no rights to be racist because you think they are bad for society. In the 1950s people said Communists have no right to lobby for Communism because they are bad for society.

Why should you allow discrimination based on political views but not on race and gender? Isn't it bad for society to discriminate against Communists? Don't you believe that the rights to the victims of discrimination are more important than the discriminators' right to discriminate?

[SlowwHand]

"Yes, but you are against the majority, you realize. Look at this thread, for instance. It is you and Slowhand vs. everyone. I believe this shows that our 'good reasons' are accepted (at least on Poly)."

Not that I mind being against everyone, with one more or alone, but the fact is, I don't care.
I think the majority of women are too smart to want to walk around a hot-ass golf course all day.

[SlowwHand]

And this. This is faulty, too.

"However, we aren't a democracy. We are a republic, we believe in protecting rights."



We're in a Dictatorship. You come in, what do you notice?
Dicheads everywhere.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... race or sex have no moral significance...



And even if that was true using some definition that you have still not explained so anybody else can understant, why would that be a limiting factor when it comes to discrimination.

For somebody who is SOOOOOO against discrimination at Private Golf Clubs/Mens clubs... you seem to discriminate against a lot of things yourself... kind of a double standard on your part, don't you think.

Not really, now you are just trolling.

What moral significance does being black or white intrinsically have? I can't see any.

[Ming]

No... I'm not trolling. I'm just pointing out that you seem to be totally against discrimination, but are the first to admit that discrimination is OK. To you, it only depends on who is being discriminated against. It's ok to discriminate against men, but not communists...

GET A GRIP... You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

And I'm sorry... if you can't see the difference between being a man or a woman... or the difference between Blacks and Whites... then you will never understand how illogical your arguments are. And your comments that all men are pigs, and to use that as justification why women should have their own clubs, but men shouldn't just shows how there is no logic or reason in any of your arguments...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Who decides what counts as a good reason? Well I'd say that a democratic government makes law and judges interpret it. That's customary in our society.

Yes, but you are against the majority, you realize. Look at this thread, for instance. It is you and Slowhand vs. everyone. I believe this shows that our 'good reasons' are accepted (at least on Poly).

That's not what I meant. What I was saying was that the determination of what counts as good reasons would be ultimately decided by a court based on the antidiscrimination law which would provide a basis for the decision. This isn't meant to be a controversial point - the answer to "whose reasons" is "the law's reasons".

And as for being in the minority on Poly - that doesn't bother me at all. Since when did a vote decide the validity of an argument?

However, we aren't a democracy. We are a republic, we believe in protecting rights.

I agree, the United States is far from a democracy. But in any case if you believe in protecting rights then there will still be conflicts of rights.

You are contradicting yourself. The South wanted to prevent blacks from doing anything near whites. The majority agreed with them. According to your reasoning, that was a sufficiently good reason to discriminate... the majority thought it was a swell idea.

No I am not contradicting myself. This objection rests on your erroneous interpretation of my comments about the role of the law.

I'll respond by saying that the right to free association is left largely untouched by my scheme. Only the rights of racists to be racist are restricted. Now please attack my actual position rather than some fictional version of it that you have concocted.

You aren't serious, are you? By restricting the right of racists to be racist (by, say, banning the KKK), you HAVE affected the freedom of association. Just because it hasn't affected me, doesn't mean there is no affect.

That's why I said that the right is "largely untouched". In fact you are just being silly here, governments can and have restricted the rights of freedom of association for a very long time, and justifiably so. For example, a court can issue an order that certain persons are not allowed to associate with criminals. The right to freedom of association is, as you said, not absolute. That means there are exceptions. I'm arguing that this is an exception..

Why are their views less worthy than mine?

Again it isn't their views or beliefs that are being legislated against. It is certain actions that are being legislated against. And these actions are less worthy of non-interference than yours because they are racist actions. They violate the rights of others.

Again, you think this but you have no argument for it.

You think that racists should be restricted from being racist, but you have no argument for it.

Of course I have an argument for it. My argument is that racist institutions are wrong and that they harm those who they discriminate against. Having malls that are whites only is wrong for the same reason the Jim Crow laws were wrong - they in effect relegate blacks to being second class citizens.

I trust that you accept that racial discrimination is wrong. If you don't then I'm really worried. But if you do then the argument is as I said it was a conflict of rights. And since the harm done by discrimination is far worse than the harm done by stopping a few racists from actively being racist I don't see the problem.

Just because you ignore my arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. I've said that freedom of association is required for a functioning democratic republic.

And restrictions on it are also required for a functioning democratic republic - it is not an absolute right. Thus it has to be reconciled with other rights, particularly the right not to be the victim of racial discrimination.

Without diversity of ideas, which is gotten by freedom of speech and association, you have a broken democracy, because you are then asserting that some views are not tolerated.

This is a thoroughly ridiculous and extremist view. No society can be based on absolute tolerance since laws enforcing tolerance and punishing intolerance need to be in place for it to function. Societies can only be more or less tolerant. In fact the problem of what to do with the intolerant is the central problem that faces societies like ours. Every society has to be organised by some rules. Those, like racists, who don't accept the rules are better off going somewhere else or going to jail.

As long as you don't hurt anyone physically, you should be able to protest your viewpoint because by allowing everyone to speak their politics do we allow everyone to have proper democratic rights in our republic.

I don't see how I have prevented racists from expressing their views. I've just argued that they shouldn't be able to perform some actions.

Society is hurt MORE by taking away the rights of A. It shows that if we don't like your POV, we'll simply stop you from saying it. In a society that SAYS it respects differing opinions and freedom of speech, that is utterly inconsistant and reprensible.

Again we aren't talking about speech here.

I can't understand how you think society is hurt more by taking away the rights of A. We are only taking away the rights of racists to be racist, that is not very much at all. Nothing else is being proposed. Now you can't sit there with a straight face and tell me that a few people being prevented from creating racist institutions (and that is all I'm suggesting - nothing else) is more harmful overall than many people being discriminated against.

On this line of argument you would support a sort of informal Jim Crow situation.


As for a reason = the reason is the obvious one that racism is bad.

And in general slippery slope arguments are fallacious without good reason to assume that the consequences are likely to pan out. I don't see any reason why an anti racist law would necessarily lead to 1984. You need to provide a better reason for thinking this is likely to happen.

Hmmm... Communists in the '50s, Islamic Arabs in the present day (who, say, support Saddam), etc., seem to me to be good reasons to stop trying to restrict peoples' rights because of their beliefs (we are saying that we don't like your beliefs, so you can't lobby for them). Because that is ultimately what you are doing. You are saying racists have no rights to be racist because you think they are bad for society. In the 1950s people said Communists have no right to lobby for Communism because they are bad for society.

People indeed did say that. Once again I think that you are taking me to be saying things I don't. I'm not saying that racists should be kept quiet. I've said no such thing in this thread.

Why should you allow discrimination based on political views but not on race and gender? Isn't it bad for society to discriminate against Communists? Don't you believe that the rights to the victims of discrimination are more important than the discriminators' right to discriminate?

If it was bad for every institution to discriminate on political grounds, the Republican party could not exclude communists. That would be absurd.

In short where the organisation is centred around people being of a like minded view and that's in a large part the point of it (say like an organisation of Catholic youth) there is no problem with excluding others who don't hold similar values (because the values are the point of the organisation) - with the important exception of racist organisations like the KKK - because racism is wrong and racists need to be prevented from having any ability to turn their poisonous views into reality.

[SlowwHand]

I thought golf and topics related to golf were supposed to be a means of RELIEVING stress.

Call in Cheese Weasel ! My latest accidental discovery.

http://community-2.webtv.net/ifcomics/Ashpileandcompany/page2.html