Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    Except that I quite clearly laid it out that I wasn't using that argument. I couldn't have made it any clearer. Saying "it's the law anyways, so they should face consequences" is not "it's the law, so it's therefore the right thing". Simple stuff.

    It is "right" to uphold the law because it's the law, otherwise we would have anarchy where everybody does what they want and ignores laws they don't want. For better or worse, current laws must be upheld in most cases. There are cases where this rule can be broken, but they are rare exceptions for extreme injustices. Losing money because you flagrantly broke a law you knew existed, because you didn't want to follow it, is not an injustice at all.

    In the case of "hate speech on twitter is illegal" and someone used hate speech, we would again have to see them prosecuted for breaking the law, and then use our ability of being voters in a democracy to have the law changed if enough people think it isn't right. We don't get to go "well he shouldn't suffer any consequences because it's a stupid law", even if we think that is the morally right thing in that case.
    except my argument was simply that the law was wrong, not that we should have anarchism :| how are we going to reform the law without calls for anarchy in your opinion, then?!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Having no interest whatsoever in reading/watching:
    Harry Potter
    Lord of the Rings
    Star Wars/Trek (what's the difference?)
    'The latest animated film'; 'Frozen' obsession seems to annoy me particularly. I feel I'm a bit old for that sort of thing or maybe it's because I don't have any younger siblings to watch them with...

    ... and the latest 'cult' being... 'Game of Thrones'.

    No thanks! Just because everyone else does, why should I? We all have different tastes on many things in life, so why is it now deemed 'compulsory' to have seen all these by a certain age? The reactions I get when I 'confess' to not having seen any would be similar to as if I said I was an alien or something... If you like them, great, just don't shove it down my throat!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    except my argument was simply that the law was wrong, not that we should have anarchism :| how are we going to reform the law without calls for anarchy in your opinion, then?!
    You weren't very clear in your speech and it seemed like you were ridiculing the prospect of carrying out an existing law, hence the anarchy thing.

    We live in a democracy where you can vote crazy laws away. All you have to do is get majority support. Obviously things change if you're in some dictatorship run by a tyrant, where you really have no other path. In this case more people side with my view that it's moral and right to ban discrimination like this. It's basically denying people their civil rights because you have a different idea to them (that's all religion is).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj1)
    Having no interest whatsoever in reading/watching:
    Harry Potter
    Lord of the Rings
    Star Wars/Trek (what's the difference?)
    'The latest animated film'; 'Frozen' obsession seems to annoy me particularly. I feel I'm a bit old for that sort of thing or maybe it's because I don't have any younger siblings to watch them with...

    ... and the latest 'cult' lark being... 'Game of Thrones'.

    No thanks! Just because everyone else does, why should I? We all have different tastes on many things in life, so why is it now deemed 'compulsory' to have seen all these by a certain age? The reactions I get when I 'confess' to not having seen any would be similar to as if I said I was an alien or something...
    Latest cult smh shits been going on for six seasons.

    1) Frozen was actually really good
    2) LoTRs' movies are better than the books.

    Stop being a little ***** and conform, read or even just watch the harry potters - it's like a right of passage.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrs.Grey)
    This should be interesting :rolleyes:
    That breeding licenses should be a thing in this country. It should be illegal to have children unless you are certified as being suitable as a parent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    Horseshoe theory brah.
    Indeed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think people should be free to speak as they wish about anything.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    You weren't very clear in your speech and it seemed like you were ridiculing the prospect of carrying out an existing law, hence the anarchy thing.

    We live in a democracy where you can vote crazy laws away. All you have to do is get majority support. Obviously things change if you're in some dictatorship run by a tyrant, where you really have no other path. In this case more people side with my view that it's moral and right to ban discrimination like this. It's basically denying people their civil rights because you have a different idea to them (that's all religion is).
    I'm sorry but who exactly going to argue "it is the law therefore it's gotta be enforced" in a philosophical discussion? in the context of advocacy, what is the point of that kind of argument? in the context of idealism (that word not being used with negative connotations*) why bother saying "well it's law so it's got to be enforced" - I don't get that; are you really imagining that my argument is "never enforce the laws that aren't fully supported"? I'm not arguing against democracy, I am arguing against laws that harm individual liberty. in democracies, you have advocates on both sides of the house arguing both for and against laws regarding their introduction or their repeal, surely?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    I'm sorry but who exactly going to argue "it is the law therefore it's gotta be enforced" in a philosophical discussion? in the context of advocacy, what is the point of that kind of argument? in the context of idealism (that word not being used with negative connotations*) why bother saying "well it's law so it's got to be enforced" - I don't get that; are you really imagining that my argument is "never enforce the laws that aren't fully supported"? I'm not arguing against democracy, I am arguing against laws that harm individual liberty. in democracies, you have advocates on both sides of the house arguing both for and against laws regarding their introduction or their repeal, surely?
    I'm going to argue it because it's how the society we live in works. We have laws, if you break them, they're enforced and you face consequences, regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks the law is right or not. I can't see how anyone can argue against that without promoting anarchy.

    And yeah like I've said, the only individuals losing their liberty are the people being discriminated against. If you can't run a business legally, then you can't run a business. It's your own fault, and you're not losing any rights because all you have to do is follow the law. You could be doing business, but you chose to break the law, so you get fined and stopped.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    I'm going to argue it because it's how the society we live in works. We have laws, if you break them, they're enforced and you face consequences, regardless of whether you or anyone else thinks the law is right or not. I can't see how anyone can argue against that without promoting anarchy.

    And yeah like I've said, the only individuals losing their liberty are the people being discriminated against. If you can't run a business legally, then you can't run a business. It's your own fault, and you're not losing any rights because all you have to do is follow the law. You could be doing business, but you chose to break the law, so you get fined and stopped.
    how did we get into this argument? I never said that just because a law was wrong that we should have anarchy, I said we should advocate changes (via my language, e.g. the word "should") :| - for instance, if the law is against individual liberty and criminalises people for acts that harm or damage nobody/nothing then that law should not exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    how did we get into this argument? I never said that just because a law was wrong that we should have anarchy, I said we should advocate changes (via my language, e.g. the word "should" :| - for instance, if the law is against individual liberty and criminalises people for acts that harm or damage nobody/nothing then that law should not exist.
    I'm not even disagreeing with this. I obviously don't agree with your idea that it's against liberty, or that is causes no harm to people. But I've said, if you personally think it's bad then you have the right to protest it and ask it to be changed. Most people don't agree with you though so it's very unlikely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    I'm not even disagreeing with this. I obviously don't agree with your idea that it's against liberty, or that is causes no harm to people. But I've said, if you personally think it's bad then you have the right to protest it and ask it to be changed. Most people don't agree with you though so it's very unlikely.
    but it's literally true - not serving somebody a cake wedding cake doesn't infringe their individual liberties nor does it break the terms of a contract - so why would it be banned? it isn't an individual liberty to force somebody else to make you something that they don't want to make, because then that breaks their own individual liberty to do what they want with their time and money.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Let's leave the EU!!!!

    Unpopular among my generation, very popular among other generations!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    but it's literally true - not serving somebody a cake wedding cake doesn't infringe their individual liberties nor does it break the terms of a contract - so why would it be banned? it isn't an individual liberty to force somebody else to make you something that they don't want to make, because then that breaks their own individual liberty to do what they want with their time and money.
    It's not the product that matters. It's that they are discriminating based against someone and refusing service to them because they are part of a certain group, which breaches the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the US. They're not being forced to do something they don't want to do, more that they're being forced to provide equal service to people who are equal under the law to any of their other patrons. Someone's right to do business (if such a thing even exists) is superseded by another person's right to equal treatment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asiimov)
    It's not the product that matters. It's that they are discriminating based against someone and refusing service to them because they are part of a certain group, which breaches the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the US. They're not being forced to do something they don't want to do, more that they're being forced to provide equal service to people who are equal under the law to any of their other patrons. Someone's right to do business (if such a thing even exists) is superseded by another person's right to equal treatment.
    oh my god you're doing it again - you're quoting the law as if the law is an ethical authority.
    why should individuals be forced to give equal treatment? "equal treatment" is a public consideration, not a private consideration. in this sense as well, democracy is a public consideration, but do the employees of a company democratically control the company they work for, or does the CEO/owner control it? if a private company wants to specialise towards a particular group and not for another, then surely that's their own business? why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? what if it was, say, an all-black barbers? what about an all female gym?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You cannot be racist to white people.

    If you would like me to explain, racism is the systematic oppression of a group based on their skin colour, we all know that, right? Right. It is the belief that certain characteristics can be attributed to one race and these random characteristics make the race inferior to other races, to sum it all up, if your characteristics from your race makes you inferior to another race, you are experiencing racism. Now, we understand?

    Discrimination. We all know that anyone and everyone can experience discrimination as it is not always racially charged. You can discriminate a white person, however, it will not be seen as racism. Let me just say, I am not justifying the discrimination of whites, it is wrong but it is not racism. Let me reiterate, I am not saying it is any more okay for whites to face discrimination but it is not racism, let me give an example if you’re confused.

    A white man says, “prison cells are like 99.9% black bro”, this is racism. This is due to the privilege that whites have as a community. White privilege, is to put it simply, are societal privileges whites hold above other races, mainly due to the fact that white people are seen as the default race.

    If you do not understand this, let me quote a friend of mine on Tumblr:

    So if a White person were to say “Black people can’t stay out of jail” it would be racist because Black people are consistently and systematically persecuted in the criminal justice system. The key here is that it is a system—one that is made to put Black people and other minorities at a disadvantage time and time again. It would be racist because in the same circumstance, a White person would not/could not suffer those same systematic injustices due to White privilege.

    Now, we see that whites do not experience racism as they are the superior majority and only minorities face racism. This is in no way justifying discrimination and bullying against whites, it is wrong if whites have to face any sort of discrimination, but calling it racism is wrong as reverse racism, to put it simply, is people trying to feel victimised by something they created.

    Whites are cool, blacks are cool, everyone is cool.

    And let me say, this is a completely unbiased answer so, do not ask any personal questions. I do hope this made you understand why you can’t be racist to whites much more clearly.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xobeauty)
    Liking food because it taste good, is rational. Boobs, idk. That's why I ask.
    Why does it taste good?

    Are we seein the point yet?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Being a Tory doesn't make you a bad person *gasp*

    'Safe spaces' are for people who don't want to engage in any meaningful discussion contrary to their own world view-they promote insularity and exclusivity.

    Jeremy Corbyn isn't as great as people think he is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    oh my god you're doing it again - you're quoting the law as if the law is an ethical authority.
    why should individuals be forced to give equal treatment? "equal treatment" is a public consideration, not a private consideration. in this sense as well, democracy is a public consideration, but do the employees of a company democratically control the company they work for, or does the CEO/owner control it? if a private company wants to specialise towards a particular group and not for another, then surely that's their own business? why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? what if it was, say, an all-black barbers? what about an all female gym?
    I'm not though. I still don't see how you're getting that, when all I'm saying is such a law exists and they are bound by it.

    The morality of it is entirely subjective and neither of us is likely to change their mind, least of all me. Why should they be forced to give equal treatment? Well to me, because it's the right thing to do. But obviously this is subjective. However the law currently says that they have to right now, regardless of our differing opinions.

    There's a difference between catering to the interests of a group and refusing to provide a service you provide to everyone else, to a select group. Not that I agree with an-all black barber or a female gym. I'm glad there are cases being won against such things (female gyms) which use existing anti-discrimination law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hate junk food
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.