Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[Ramo]

I have to agree with, well, everyone except Agathon. Freedom of association and all that...

[Ben Kenobi]

Congratulations to Mike Weir... The first Canadian to EVER win one of the Majors. OH CANADA!

And this is the only news you will here about the Master's North of the Border.

Even in Toronto, Agathon.

[Agathon]

Well well.. again I don't agree with this gutter libertarianism.

My argument is quite simple and works for racism or discrimination against gays as well. All it requires as a moral premise is that, say, for example, racism is an injustice. If it's an injustice then why should racists be allowed to construct discriminatory institutions and why shouldn't the law be changed to make it harder to do so?

I don't buy the "it's a private club" argument for the simple reason that just because a club is private it doesn't mean that it can do whatever it likes. In this case I'm arguing that clubs that have racist admission policies should be punished by the law. I don't see how a private club with racist admission policies is any less odious than a privately owned mall that won't admit blacks.

It's just stupid to argue that blacks can go to other malls - the very existence of racially segregated malls is an injustice. Same goes for segregated drinking fountains or toilets or whatever.

If you want to argue the opposite then you are basically arguing that the rights of racists to be racist override the rights of minorities to live in a non-racist society. As far as I'm concerned, if you're a racist then the government has a perfect right to come in and mess you up badly. The reason is that if you're a racist promoting a racist institution, you're an evil scumbag. If you defend the right of racists to segregate then you are a party to an injustice.

The argument that private golf clubs are analogous to groups of friends is a bit much (this is Ming's: "the government will force you to invite people you don't like to your wedding"). Regarding the golf clubs I know this is a misleading analogy since these clubs have hundreds of members most of whom don't know each other too well. This comparison is stretching it.

But this argument is irrelevant, because my argument doesn't entail that you are generally forced to admit people you don't like to your private club: my position is that you can refuse who you like for whatever reason apart from race or sex. If you do that and are caught you should be hammered by the state. Once again I don't give a fig for the feelings of racists - a society with no racist institutions is more important than the feelings of a few bigots. If trampling on their feelings is the road to a less racist society then I'm all for it.

As for the "but women have their own gyms" argument. My own view is that they need them because men behave like pigs. Some posters disagree because they think these claims is exaggerated. Fair enough - it makes absolutely no difference to my argument. The point of the example is that the sexes can be treated differently and it doesn't necessarily have to be wrong if there is a good reason for it. This is just the commonplace that not all different treatment of groups is necessarily bad. If you can't understand this then there is something wrong with you.

And as for the argument that "the clubs discriminate by only letting in people who can pay the fees" - this is a completely stupid argument which you'd have to be a 24 carat idiot to buy. In essence it's saying "some discrimination is good, so no discrimination is bad." Of course this ignores the fact that people use the term to refer to unfair distributions rather than different distributions.

[yavoon]

agathon ur words are dangerous. afterall free speech includes things u disagree w/. and in ur case I"d say one of those things is racism.

its really easy to allow the things u like afterall.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
I have to agree with, well, everyone except Agathon. Freedom of association and all that...

Amen to that.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon

Really? So if it was "no blacks; no Irish; and no Jews" you wouldn't object at all?

You mean like the Klan? They still exist, and get plently of bad press for their activities. We should treat this club at least as well.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
I expected better arguments from Apolyton.

You can't even handle our poor shoddy plywood arguments, why would you want to be completley humiliated?

Originally posted by Agathon
Similarly, with the "women are treated differently in X" argument. This is also not a sufficient response. One can justify treating the sexes differently when there is a good reason to do so, and not when there isn't. For example, women aren't entitled to publicy funded prostate exams because they don't have prostates; and we have separate toilets for men and women because anyone whose ever used a "gents" knows that men are pigs.

This is the fourth time you have insulted men in this thread. I'm beginning to see where the real sex discrimination problem lies.

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't believe that anyone here thinks that either racism or sexism is not unjust. What this issue boils down to is the conflict between two freedoms.

(1) The freedom of racists to construct racist institutions.

and

(2) The freedom of minorities not to be discriminated against.

Violation of the second is clearly the more harmful so the first should be curbed. This needn't be by making it illegal, rather the tax system could be brought to bear.

This has nothing to do with racists. If you want to make it about race start another thread. Also, women as it turns out are not a minority. If they are sufficiently alarmed by what is going on they certainly have enough power in our system through the use of their votes to deal with this legally in any way short of a violation of the constitution.

Originally posted by Agathon
Would anyone care to suggest that violating (1) is more harmful? I think not. All the arguments about liberty and so one have to face this uncomfortable fact.

Neither of your stipulated "facts" above are germain to the issue at hand.

Originally posted by Agathon
In other words racist institutions should not be tolerated. There are of course pragmatic limitations to what can be done (as there are with any policy), but giving racist clubs and corporations a hard time seems feasible.

And yes - I think the KKK should be outlawed - it is basically a criminal gang set up with the express purpose of violating the civil rights of black people.

And we care very little for your opinion here in the U.S. It's nice for you that your country cracks down on people you don't like for you, but we prefer to brave the battlefield of ideas with the confidence that the superior ideas will win the day, while stuff like racism gets less and less popular over time. Remove the government of this country (as was done recently in Iraq) and you won't find a race war waiting to boil up, because it isn't the government that is holding this country together, it is people who trust our system of giving even bad ideas a chance to be heard that hold this country together.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny that everyone except Agathon (left, right, center) all believe there is a Freedom of Association, even if we disagree with it.

I think it is because people on the internet realize the benefits of Freedom of Speech and Association, especially considering that 'you' could be next. Agathon, it wasn't all that long ago when Communists were considered to be backing an injustice and thus didn't need rights to their views. You agree with that?

[Boris Godunov]

I think philosophers shouldn't be entitled to free speech, as theirs is undoubtedly causing environmental damage by heating up the atmosphere so much.

[JohnT]

"and we have separate toilets for men and women because anyone whose ever used a "gents" knows that men are pigs."

Spoken like a man who has never had to regularly clean a womans bathroom. Nothing nicer than seeing a toilet full of vomit, with a used tampax on top to add color.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Sava
BTW, the KKK issued a statement saying it supported Augusta's decision.

So? I believe that Swedish girls are hot. So does (probably) most of the KKK. Does this mean that I'm wrong and Swedish girls aren't hot?

But on a lighter note... Do they think that anyone who was formerly undecided will suddenly have a change of heart and join Augusta's side because of their support???

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Agathon
But this argument is irrelevant, because my argument doesn't entail that you are generally forced to admit people you don't like to your private club: my position is that you can refuse who you like for whatever reason apart from race or sex.

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.

[SlowwHand]

A woman needs to be kept bare-foot and pregnant, cooking for her man.

[SpencerH]

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.

Wutang

I have no problem with personal discrimination but I do have a problem with governmental discrimination.

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)

What this issue boils down to is the conflict between two freedoms.

(1) The freedom of racists to construct racist institutions.

and

(2) The freedom of minorities not to be discriminated against.

I would say that the freedom of racists to be privately racist takes precedence.

[SlowwHand]

Congrats! One of the most hypocritical posts I've yet to see.

"I have no problem with personal discrimination but I do have a problem with governmental discrimination."

You're scary.