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

Is there such a thing as becoming too tolerant Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    I didn't know there was an employment problem for black people during the racist american period (the jim crow period), but still, don't you accuse me of racism just because I am a libertarian - and just because I have passionate opinions sometimes (e.g. against feminist extremism, religion, etc) that doesn't mean I am any less non-violence. quote me one message of mine where I have advocated intolerant and coercive laws. I dare you.
    I never said it was you being discriminatory. But allowing other people to be actively discriminatory is hardly different from allowing them to hurt others.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Tolerance and intolerance co-exist together. Like black and white, one doesn't exist without the other. It is natural to be intolerant of some things. This is how it should be.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    I never said it was you being discriminatory. But allowing other people to be actively discriminatory is hardly different from allowing them to hurt others.
    so I'm acting to discriminate against people, by allowing other people the autonomy to do what they want with their owned property? you are so stupid - in that case is it appropriate to get rid of free speech if it allows homophobic/gender-discriminatory speech?! you're full of bull****; you can't say that people who do not own these establishments should be calling the ****ing shots and making the policies - **** that. that's not a society that is tolerant, especially as a matter of law.

    and not employing someone is not hurting people - that is hilariously unintelligent to claim. if I owned a business and I didn't hire someone, that's my bloody right; it would be my decision to make and nobody should take away my freedom to choose who I want working for me. you might as well be telling me who I am and who I'm not allowed to invite over for dinner in my own home
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    so I'm acting to discriminate against people, by allowing other people the autonomy to do what they want with their owned property? you are so stupid - in that case is it appropriate to get rid of free speech if it allows homophobic/gender-discriminatory speech?! you're full of bull****; you can't say that people who do not own these establishments should be calling the ****ing shots and making the policies - **** that. that's not the society that is tolerant, especially as a matter of law.
    I specifically said it wasn't you being discriminatory. All I'm saying is that people should be prevented from harm, whether that be physical or not. Allowing people to discriminate based on irrelevant characteristics (e.g. race) is allowing people to restrict the freedom of others. There are certain things that are considered necessary for a normal life. Taking the example of employment again, this is essentially a necessity in society (certainly a completely libertarian one with no welfare). To allow people to deny employment based on race is to allow people to seriously harm people in an indirect fashion, for no sensible reason. To allow discrimination is to allow the creation of a state where groups of people could effectively become second-class citizens.

    And economics is not enough to make up for this, especially with regards to minority groups. The argument that 'they'll generate a market elsewhere' does not hold up if a black family wants to stay in a small Cornish village and the only B&B for miles around won't admit them. The fact is that allowing discrimination could just end up further isolating minority groups, should there be enough discrimination. To allow any discrimination (of the practical kind, I don't really think speech has any real affect unless it's threatening) is to rely on the goodness of humanity, which is sadly not up to the standard we might hope for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    I specifically said it wasn't you being discriminatory. All I'm saying is that people should be prevented from harm, whether that be physical or not. Allowing people to discriminate based on irrelevant characteristics (e.g. race) is allowing people to restrict the freedom of others.
    newsflash: the right to freedom of contract is not the right to be employed.

    There are certain things that are considered necessary for a normal life. Taking the example of employment again, this is essentially a necessity in society (certainly a completely libertarian one with no welfare).
    there is no such thing as a right to a job. if you can find a job, good. if you can't, that's nobody's fault but your own, effectively

    To allow people to deny employment based on race is to allow people to seriously harm people in an indirect fashion, for no sensible reason. To allow discrimination is to allow the creation of a state where groups of people could effectively become second-class citizens.
    why do you think people in executive company positions are going to be deciding who works for them, not based on their abilities, but based on their skin colour? and if you agree as I do that this is not a sensible reason, then this company will probably go backrupt anyway if they make such disastrously stupid decisions, but the government's role is not to regulate out stupidity in business.

    And economics is not enough to make up for this, especially with regards to minority groups. The argument that 'they'll generate a market elsewhere' does not hold up if a black family wants to stay in a small Cornish village and the only B&B for miles around won't admit them. The fact is that allowing discrimination could just end up further isolating minority groups, should there be enough discrimination. To allow any discrimination (of the practical kind, I don't really think speech has any real affect unless it's threatening) is to rely on the goodness of humanity, which is sadly not up to the standard we might hope for.
    and again, you are *extremely* pessimistic. but again, nobody should have the right to threaten someone to hire them or else *insert violent/coercive legal/non-legal consequence here*
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    why do you think people in executive company positions are going to be deciding who works for them, not based on their abilities, but based on their skin colour? and if you agree as I do that this is not a sensible reason, then this company will probably go backrupt anyway if they make such disastrously stupid decisions, but the government's role is not to regulate out stupidity in business.
    As I've already said, there are clearly instances where this has happened. The economic argument would only work if there were no instances of successful businesses or countries with widespread discrimination. I pointed out the US (and the UK was almost as bad) during the 1950s.

    The economic argument only works where a group is large enough to be important. It works for women - there's no pay gap for women because they make up 50% of the population. However, smaller communities do not have the strength of numbers and whole economies can easily succeed despite widespread discrimination against certain groups.


    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    and again, you are *extremely* pessimistic. but again, nobody should have the right to threaten someone to hire them or else *insert violent/coercive legal/non-legal consequence here*
    It's not threatening to hire or else, it's ensuring that they hire without unfair discrimination. Does not everyone have the right to be treated on an equal basis, despite their superficial differences of race, religion, sexuality, etc.? Show me an example of a large scale free market without discrimination, I'd love to see an example.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    As I've already said, there are clearly instances where this has happened. The economic argument would only work if there were no instances of successful businesses or countries with widespread discrimination. I pointed out the US (and the UK was almost as bad) during the 1950s.

    The economic argument only works where a group is large enough to be important. It works for women - there's no pay gap for women because they make up 50% of the population. However, smaller communities do not have the strength of numbers and whole economies can easily succeed despite widespread discrimination against certain groups.
    and women shouldn't get privileged treatment.

    It's not threatening to hire or else, it's ensuring that they hire without unfair discrimination.
    oh right, so it's rather "hirely me in a manner the government (e.g. the institution with a monopoly on the legal practice of violence) sees fit, or else."

    Does not everyone have the right to be treated on an equal basis, despite their superficial differences of race, religion, sexuality, etc.?
    nobody has a right to anything other than their own personal liberty. if somebody does something literally non-violent which you happen to disagree with strongly, that still doesn't give you a moral right to initiate violence, or to threaten it through the government which should not be making coercive cultural rules.

    Show me an example of a large scale free market without discrimination, I'd love to see an example.
    no such thing; that's idealism/utopianism. I'm not making a utopian argument here.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    and women shouldn't get privileged treatment.
    Umm, yes?


    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    oh right, so it's rather "hirely me in a manner the government (e.g. the institution with a monopoly on the legal practice of violence) sees fit, or else."

    nobody has a right to anything other than their own personal liberty. if somebody does something literally non-violent which you happen to disagree with strongly, that still doesn't give you a moral right to initiate violence, or to threaten it through the government which should not be making coercive cultural rules.

    no such thing; that's idealism/utopianism. I'm not making a utopian argument here.
    Ultimately, there's a decision to be made between the liberty of different people. Either you give people the freedom to discriminate, or the freedom to not be discriminated against. While it may not restrict their legal freedoms, in practice it does limit their freedoms, as we've seen in the past, and still today.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    Umm, yes?




    Ultimately, there's a decision to be made between the liberty of different people. Either you give people the freedom to discriminate, or the freedom to not be discriminated against. While it may not restrict their legal freedoms, in practice it does limit their freedoms, as we've seen in the past, and still today.
    "freedoms" are different from "rights". freedom is the ability of one to live an autonomous and independent life that is not dependent upon the works or lives or others (so it works both ways), e.g. that's why speech/religion/protests are freedoms as opposed to rights because they don't cost money naturally to exist until they are taken away through an individual's violence or threat of violence (which would thus establish the "right" to be protected from coercion). what you're talking about is a right that is not a natural right (e.g. liberty and the right from violence); what you're asking for is the right to make people act in a way that conforms to your ideals (through force) - that is a coercive and dictatorial "right". there is no coherent concept of "freedom from someone else's opinion/decision" if it doesn't harm you or infringe your liberty (again, liberty, not synthetic state-made "rights", and I put it in inverted commas because I don't agree with it being a right at all because it is a matter of intolerance if it has violence as the means)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    "freedoms" are different from "rights". freedom is the ability of one to live an autonomous and independent life that is not dependent upon the works or lives or others (so it works both ways), e.g. that's why speech/religion/protests are freedoms as opposed to rights because they don't cost money naturally to exist until they are taken away through an individual's violence or threat of violence (which would thus establish the "right" to be protected from coercion). what you're talking about is a right that is not a natural right (e.g. liberty and the right from violence); what you're asking for is the right to make people act in a way that conforms to your ideals (through force) - that is a coercive and dictatorial "right". there is no coherent concept of "freedom from someone else's opinion/decision" if it doesn't harm you or infringe your liberty (again, liberty, not synthetic state-made "rights", and I put it in inverted commas because I don't agree with it being a right at all because it is a matter of intolerance if it has violence as the means)
    Forgive me for not using your own definitions of 'freedom' and 'liberty', which were never explained. I simply used them as synonyms, following the common usage.

    People have the right to liberty in the sense that they have the right to do as they please. Governments do not have a monopoly on restricting freedoms/liberty. Just as you would never allow a state to prevent a certain group of people from doing something for no valid (i.e. rationally defensible) reason, you should not allow an individual to prevent someone from doing what they please (assuming of course no harm is done). You must appreciate that in practice people can be denied a huge amount of freedom merely by respecting the rights of other individuals to discriminate against them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    Forgive me for not using your own definitions of 'freedom' and 'liberty', which were never explained. I simply used them as synonyms, following the common usage.

    People have the right to liberty in the sense that they have the right to do as they please. Governments do not have a monopoly on restricting freedoms/liberty. Just as you would never allow a state to prevent a certain group of people from doing something for no valid (i.e. rationally defensible) reason, you should not allow an individual to prevent someone from doing what they please (assuming of course no harm is done). You must appreciate that in practice people can be denied a huge amount of freedom merely by respecting the rights of other individuals to discriminate against them.
    you must surely understand that in this society, a job/career is a privilege. to employ someone isn't just some throw away concept - it is to select them for a task performing service, which is essentially for the business they produced/bought, over many other candidates for that job. you can't just look at jobs as rights, because they are essentially a means to acquiring material possessions and happiness, and the latter two are not rights, or else the moment someone feels depressed, they'd have money thrown at them by the government, and really, with regards to material possessions, who, and by what rational and objective universal criterion, do they decide how much is enough for each person?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    you must surely understand that in this society, a job/career is a privilege. to employ someone isn't just some throw away concept - it is to select them for a task performing service, which is essentially for the business they produced/bought, over many other candidates for that job. you can't just look at jobs as rights, because they are essentially a means to acquiring material possessions and happiness, and the latter two are not rights, or else the moment someone feels depressed, they'd have money thrown at them by the government, and really, with regards to material possessions, who, and by what rational and objective universal criterion, do they decide how much is enough for each person?
    Why the assumption that a government can only act to protect people's rights? A government is also the collective pooling of national resources to achieve greater good in the country.

    Furthermore, I never said that jobs were rights. I agreed with you regarding the right to freedom. This includes the freedom to get a job. Discrimination restricts this freedom for no valid reason.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    Why the assumption that a government can only act to protect people's rights? A government is also the collective pooling of national resources to achieve greater good in the country.
    "the greater good" = meaningless; it is technically for the greater good to kill all thieves/petty criminals, disabled people, old people, etc, or to enslave millionaires for their skills and resources, but that says nothing about the rights that these people possess as individuals

    Furthermore, I never said that jobs were rights. I agreed with you regarding the right to freedom. This includes the freedom to get a job. Discrimination restricts this freedom for no valid reason.
    so by this same logic, if I told a religious person about the evidence against their religion, that would be me infringing their freedom of religion...?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    "the greater good" = meaningless; it is technically for the greater good to kill all thieves/petty criminals, disabled people, old people, etc, or to enslave millionaires for their skills and resources, but that says nothing about the rights that these people possess as individuals
    A terrible set of examples, but I accept the point.


    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    so by this same logic, if I told a religious person about the evidence against their religion, that would be me infringing their freedom of religion...?
    Umm, no? Because you aren't preventing them from practicing their religion. You're not denying them any freedoms that another person possesses. In discriminating against someone in employment or service provision, you are denying them something that others have. To argue against religion does not do the same.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    Umm, no? Because you aren't preventing them from practicing their religion. You're not denying them any freedoms that another person possesses. In discriminating against someone in employment or service provision, you are denying them something that others have. To argue against religion does not do the same.
    no I'm not fully preventing them practising their religion but I'm making it harder for them by scrutinising their belief, e.g. like discrimination does in terms of having a job, even though having a job isn't a right
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    no I'm not fully preventing them practising their religion but I'm making it harder for them by scrutinising their belief, e.g. like discrimination does in terms of having a job, even though having a job isn't a right
    Ultimately the difference is that they have a choice about religion. Whether or not you become employed is ultimately up to the employer. The employer holds the power, and anti-discrimination laws are in place to prevent the abuse of this power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes there is. I cannot stand these liberals who let their desperation for peace and counterproductive or unrealistic social harmony and being liked blur their judgement and compromise their morals/values if those existed in the first place, then try to guilt-trip you with being a bigot if you dare speak your mind :laugh:. If you're so damn accepting then accept me not being that way :closedeyes: Liking everyone is ineffectual; slow down on the positive reinforcement, you might end up encouraging something that truly is wrong just because you're vindicating your probably isolated childhood; maybe you were picked on, so now you're all fist-in-the-air for "loving everyone as they are" via trying to silence someone's free thinking and speech. Please get off it. :talkhand:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ApeMob)
    Yes there is. I cannot stand these liberals who let their desperation for peace and counterproductive or unrealistic social harmony and being liked blur their judgement and compromise their morals/values if those existed in the first place, then try to guilt-trip you with being a bigot if you dare speak your mind :laugh:. If you're so damn accepting then accept me not being that way :closedeyes: Liking everyone is ineffectual; slow down on the positive reinforcement, you might end up encouraging something that truly is wrong just because you're vindicating your probably isolated childhood; maybe you were picked on, so now you're all fist-in-the-air for "loving everyone as they are" via trying to silence someone's free thinking and speech. Please get off it. :talkhand:
    So you want them to be more tolerant of you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On that note, if there is a due reason to not like or accept or trust someone because of how they are in front of you then take that reason and God can deal with you later, and criminal law if so necessary. If you don't like someone's race or religion or weight or whatever fine; I don't care if someone doesn't like me for those reasons so I'm not afraid to encounter that person. The people who are all accepting tend to be running on some internalized childhood fear of not wanting to be made fun of, so now they try to make liberalism a trend, not realising that they are condoning something that is very well negative. :rolleyes:


    Liberals are gonna end up being soooo tolerant of one thing, that they often soon find themselves obligated to wave that liberal banner and will end up having to be accepting of something that will probably compromise how they really feel. Oh yea, smart :congrats: Like being tolerant of morbid obesity just because you don't wanna "be mean" to someone. Ok fine, granted. Though someone can die from this... but you don't "wanna be mean." Lmao, so you sit texting or something while someone stuffs their face literally to death on the trip of not wanting to be mean? You don't have to throw eggs at a 400 pound person but I'm not gonna tell them they're beautiful how they are either :laugh:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    Ultimately the difference is that they have a choice about religion. Whether or not you become employed is ultimately up to the employer. The employer holds the power, and anti-discrimination laws are in place to prevent the abuse of this power.
    "abuse of his power"? are you kidding me? objectively how is an employer obligated to abide by standards of subjective cultural fairness? who exactly are they harming or infringing the liberty of by being dicks? your property is yours, not someone else's to control when your practises do not harm others - whether their ways hurt people's feelings is none of their business unless it costs them their profits. the only thing they as an employer are obligated to do is 1) make money (for both themselves and their share/stake holders, and 2) pay their taxes (which shouldn't be very high)
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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