Women and Augusta National Golf Club

[SpencerH]

Perhaps that wasnt phrased 'quite' right but I dont see how it was hypocritical. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary.

As an individual you (one) may choose to discriminate against another group. As far as I'm concerned, you have that right, and that right takes precedence over the rights of those discriminated against. As an individual, I also have the right to support your position or not. What I disagree with is the government mandating your personal values and choices since it leads down the road noted by loinburger.

[Ming]

When I saw Agathon's latest post, I thought that there might be a problem with the data base... because it looked a lot like his previous posts

Again... it seems like he is advocating that only mens clubs should be treated differently. And he provides no logical reasons why this should be the case.

He also continues to prove his knowledge of Private Golf Clubs is limited.

[DinoDoc]

I haven't seen this many people agree with each other since CivNation.

[SlowwHand]

"As an individual you (one) may choose to discriminate against another group. As far as I'm concerned, you have that right, and that right takes precedence over the rights of those discriminated against. "



I can tell you're not a hiring manager.

[Ming]

Hiring somebody for a job is different than picking your friends

[SlowwHand]

As noted, KKK is swell then.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by SlowwHand

I can tell you're not a hiring manager.

Thats true. I'm a scientist, I hire my own staff.

Your point is, I take it, that if I was in such a position I would be forced by law to pretend that I dont have preferences as to who I prefer to associate with (or in this case hire). I disagree with such laws as infringements on our rights to make our own choices. I believe that you should have the right to decide what is best for your situation and hire whom you wish.


EDIT: If, for example you wish to hire someone less qualified but whom you feel would be less disruptive, you shouldnt be faced with legal action for exercising your right to choose.

[SlowwHand]

Hell, I don't care. I'm just running my mouth.
I've never even shot a round of golf.

Ming is into golf. I figure if women on the course aggravate him, I'm all for them being there.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by 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.

Touche

[Imran Siddiqui]

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."

How is that hypocritical at all?! I believe the exact same thing. You can be as discriminating as you want in your personal life (pick your own friends based on race), but the government shouldn't do it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

Again... it seems like he is advocating that only mens clubs should be treated differently. And he provides no logical reasons why this should be the case.

I suggest you read more carefully, Ming. Nothing in my post entails that only mens' clubs are subject to this. All I claimed is that different treatment based on race or sex is justifiable when there is a good reason for it. If in fact it was shown to me that there is no good reason for having women only gymnasia, then I would argue that they should be prohibited. This in no way impugns the point I am making: that different treatment is justifiable when there is a good reason.

The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict. On the one hand there is the right of freedom of association, on the other the right of people not to be the subject of racist or sexist discrimination. If we give the first absolute priority over the second then you will be in the position of allowing anybody to be a racist, of allowing mall owners to ban blacks or jews if they want to. If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism.

All I have suggested is that it be made illegal for private clubs to discriminate on the basis of sex and race without good reason. They can pick and choose on any other grounds they like, but not race or sex.

The only thing this will inhibit is the desires of racists to be racist. Frankly I think that's a price worth paying for a less racist society. It's certainly a better price to pay than allowing discrimination.

Why won't somebody take this argument head on? Show me why it produces a better result to respect the rights of racists to be racist rather than the rights of people not to be the subject of racist discrimination. As I said before, unless you can answer this question, you aren't really addressing my argument.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that different treatment is justifiable when there is a good reason.

Who decides the 'good reason'. We've given you good reasons, but you reject them out of hand. Since everyone else agrees it is a good reason, then perhaps we are all right, and you, as the lone dissenter are wrong.

The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict.

Um... we have addressed this. We believe that the right to association is more important. I even said this a few pages ago.

If we give the first absolute priority over the second then you will be in the position of allowing anybody to be a racist, of allowing mall owners to ban blacks or jews if they want to.

THIS is your problem. You want to assume "absolute" priority of one over the other. There is NO freedom which is absolute, none, zip, nada. So why assume we are saying there is an absolute right to freedom of association? We are merely saying IN THIS CONTEXT freedom of association is the more important right.

If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism.

Compared to freedom of association, then you are right, I don't.

Why won't somebody take this argument head on? Show me why it produces a better result to respect the rights of racists to be racist rather than the rights of people not to be the subject of racist discrimination.

WE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS ARGUMENT! Jeez, just because you are purposely blind, doesn't mean we are ignoring you.

We respect those rights because it is better for everyone to have a right to their beliefs, because there is the threat, that if we articulate positions outside the norm, WE might be silenced.

You haven't even looked at the point we raised about Communists in the 50s. If you say that we must prevent the right of rascists to be rascist because that is wrong, what else can the government prevent because it is 'wrong'?

It's called the 'slippery slope'.

[SlowwHand]

Well, I'll argue just a little bit with you, Imran.
The government is nothing but people.
People, try as they will, let personal viewpoints shadow their unpersonal decisions.

If you can follow that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


How is that hypocritical at all?! I believe the exact same thing. You can be as discriminating as you want in your personal life (pick your own friends based on race), but the government shouldn't do it.

The problem with this is that "your personal life" has ill defined boundaries. Someone might say it just includes your relationship with your friends. Other people might want to claim that employer hiring practices are "private" or that who you let into your store is an entirely private matter. The problem is that this allows for a significant amount of racist behaviour to have a real effect on the lives of minorities.

I don't care whether Jonny X doesn't have any black friends and doesn't like them. There isn't much we can do about that because it isn't practically feasible, and would probably do more harm than good (even though it would be a good thing to stope everyone from being racist). What we can do is prevent Jonny X carrying out his racist agenda in business or other institutions which can have a real effect on the lives of minorities. Quite where we draw the line as to which institutions are subject to the law will be an entirely practical matter.

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. Again - whose rights matter more: the racists or their victims?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

that different treatment is justifiable when there is a good reason.

Who decides the 'good reason'. We've given you good reasons, but you reject them out of hand. Since everyone else agrees it is a good reason, then perhaps we are all right, and you, as the lone dissenter are wrong.

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.

The central point I have been making, which no one has directly addressed is that in this sort of situation rights can conflict.

Um... we have addressed this. We believe that the right to association is more important. I even said this a few pages ago.

Yes, but you believing it isn't really arguing, is it? 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.

If we give the first absolute priority over the second then you will be in the position of allowing anybody to be a racist, of allowing mall owners to ban blacks or jews if they want to.

THIS is your problem. You want to assume "absolute" priority of one over the other. There is NO freedom which is absolute, none, zip, nada. So why assume we are saying there is an absolute right to freedom of association? We are merely saying IN THIS CONTEXT freedom of association is the more important right.

OK - that's better. This is the point of disagreement. Again, you think this but you have no argument for it.

If you don't find anything wrong with this, then I suggest that you don't really care about racism.

Compared to freedom of association, then you are right, I don't.

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.

WE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS ARGUMENT! Jeez, just because you are purposely blind, doesn't mean we are ignoring you.

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.

We respect those rights because it is better for everyone to have a right to their beliefs, because there is the threat, that if we articulate positions outside the norm, WE might be silenced.

It's called the 'slippery slope'.

Finally, this is more like it.

I'd point out that no one is being prevented from having racist beliefs on my scheme, they are merely being prevented from carrying out certain actions on the basis of those beliefs.

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.