Nine French police injured as student protests intensify (AFP)

[livemusic]

As I said before, calling people names and whatnot is not illegal

Over here it is.

 

[FoolKiller]

Who friggen' cares about specific positive outcomes? Thins aren't made legal for the positives; they're legal by default and then made illegal if it violates another's rights.

Here's a benefit: skinheads enjoy being racist. How's that?

What about, the KKK gets to get some exercise as they march up and down the street?

Over here it is.

And that makes sense to you? You are essentially outlawing rudeness.

In the states it isn't. I can speak my mind and feel free to express my feelings and opinions as long as I don't incite violence.

 

[Carl.]

Who friggen' cares about specific positive outcomes? Thins aren't made legal for the positives; they're legal by default and then made illegal if it violates another's rights.

Here's a benefit: skinheads enjoy being racist. How's that?

Well, let's say I enjoy street racing. I never had any accident, and I swear, I won't have any, I'm that good.

Should I be allowed to? I'm not violating anyone's right here after all. Freedom!!

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, let's say I'm enjoy street racing. I never had any accident, and I swear, I won't have any, I'm that good.

Should I be allowed to? I'm not violating anyone's right here after all.

But you are risking the chance that you might violate their rights.

Plus, if you are street racing and closing down the road other taxpayers who have equal rights to that road can't use it. If you are racing in traffic then you cannot say that you won't have an accident and kill someone, because you cannot guarantee their actions.

Besides, the term accident means you didn't think it would happen. Hence, it is an accident.

 

[Carl.]

But you are risking the chance that you might violate their rights.

Plus, if you are street racing and closing down the road other taxpayers who have equal rights to that road can't use it. If you are racing in traffic then you cannot say that you won't have an accident and kill someone, because you cannot guarantee their actions.

Besides, the term accident means you didn't think it would happen. Hence, it is an accident.

I can still do that an manage to avoid having any accident. On a fundamental level, since we like to get there apparently, until something happens I'm not violating any of their basic rights, at worst i'm giving them a little scare.


Since I know Danoff is viewing this issue from a libertarian perspective, and you seem to be following, let's take a recent case of racial segregation: South Africa.

Let's say that to solve the issue of Appartheid, they decided to get a true libertarian government, and allow everyone the right to vote (how nice!). Black people are now given equal access to every public places and services!

Wait. That excludes education, healthcare, social security, along with hospitals, schools, libraries... since now they're all privately owned by white people who won't allow anyone black inside. Well, they still have the freedom to try to find work for white people who need cheap labor don't they? Obviously, a fair situation like that isn't likely to end up in riots and bloodsheds, since everyone is enjoying their freedom, right?

 

[Danoff]

...that has been decide by?

Reason, logic, necessity... you're headed down the wrong path here. Yes, the constitution is open to modification if a supermajority of representatives vote for it - but that's also out of necessity, not philosphy.

Think of it more like law than like policy for a moment. Law isn't decided democratically, we have judges that decide law based on?? based on logic and reason. Our elected representatives are supposed to use the same judgement when screwing with the foundations of our government.

Perhaps you mean that people back in 1787 own the one and only truth, that shall never be changed?

There is one objective truth in this matter. The folks in 1787 didn't get all of that correct.

No, it doesn't. It's quite weird, especially for you, to say so. The person abusing it is the one being harmful, and he's doing it to himself.

I agree that he's the one harming himself. I don't think that should be legal. I was poiting out that things don't have to have merit to be legal. They simply are legal until they violate someone else's rights.

You really believe that?

Yup. And Famine and Foolkiller seem to have covered it nicely.

I'm not saying things should have a merit to be legal, just trying to see why you're fighting so hard to allow them to enjoy being racist. It does violate people rights, if I look at the (now defecated on) constitution.

Don't get ahead of yourself. It does not violate people's rights according to our constitution. It breaks the law, (which has defecated on the constitution), but it isn't a right enumerated in the constitution.

So what happened in Rwanda, for example, was all fine and dandy? (ok, I get you: up until people start slaughtering each other... the radio, being the main media there never had anything to do with it - or the racial segregation going on for decades in the country). There are absolutely no obvious negative consequences to the use of hate speech whatsoever.

See Foolkiller's response.

Well, I knew you'd say that. We're in the same boat here. I'll never feel free unless I can use my driving skills to drive at any speed I want, where I want. But since that freedom isn't allowed, I guess I'll never know what a free nation really is.

Look, if you're not going to read what I write, then I'm not going to waste my time. I already explained to you (twice) that public roads are owned by the public - NOT YOU. That means you have to share your rights to them.

Wait. That excludes education, healthcare, social security, along with hospitals, schools, libraries... since now they're all privately owned by white people who won't allow anyone black inside. Well, they still have the freedom to try to find work for white people who need cheap labor don't they? Obviously, a fair situation like that isn't likely to end up in riots and bloodsheds, since everyone is enjoying their freedom, right?

It's like you've never taken a class in economics.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yea, sure. Who cares about fairness or justice. Who cares about morality. At least two people are being overpaid. Sure it means that money was effectively stolen from 3 other homeless people. That doesn't matter, it's ok to steal money from poor people to make yourself more comfortable.

Got it. 👍

Think of Joe as a customer, shopping around for services in exchange for his money, just like you shop around for services in exchange for your money. Nobody should force you to give your money to someone just because they don't think you were being fair - if they can do that, it isn't your money.

You're ideas of possesion have changed.

I also like how someone who likes the idea of people being payed so little that they can barely support themselves mentioning fairness and morality 👍

I think now I've 'Got it'.

When deciding how many people they want to employ, they decide how much they can afford to spend and then figure out how many people they can afford. Minimum wage impacts how many they can afford, not how much they're willing to spend.

Companies have profit margins. Profit margins are nice. Profit margins can be broken into. If a company can't hire as many as they need on a previous budget, then if possible they adjust.

 

[Carl.]

Reason, logic, necessity... you're headed down the wrong path here. Yes, the constitution is open to modification if a supermajority of representatives vote for it - but that's also out of necessity, not philosphy.

Think of it more like law than like policy for a moment. Law isn't decided democratically, we have judges that decide law based on?? based on logic and reason. Our elected representatives are supposed to use the same judgement when screwing with the foundations of our government.

I do see a necessity against racial discrimination that follows logic, reason and empirical evidence, not a philosophy.

I agree that he's the one harming himself. I don't think that should be legal. I was poiting out that things don't have to have merit to be legal. They simply are legal until they violate someone else's rights.

Again, I only wanted to see the drawbacks of the law for that particular case. Practically, besides allowing people to enjoy behing assholes, the only benefit seems highly philosophical to me.

Yup. And Famine and Foolkiller seem to have covered it nicely.

And I think history has covered it nicely too, only with a different answer.

Don't get ahead of yourself. It does not violate people's rights according to our constitution. It breaks the law, (which has defecated on the constitution), but it isn't a right enumerated in the constitution.

Ok. It is deemed harmful and therefore illegal according the law, which is in the annotations the first ammendment.

See Foolkiller's response.

I addressed it. The fact remains that it was racial segregation, along with hate speech were main factors that led to the Genocide.

Look, if you're not going to read what I write, then I'm not going to waste my time. I already explained to you (twice) that public roads are owned by the public - NOT YOU. That means you have to share your rights to them.

Please point out where you explained anything besides asking if we have a right to drive on publicly owned roads however fast you want to go, and then giving no as an answer. Look, if you want to pull out, fine, just don't try to make me look I don't bother reading your posts.

It's like you've never taken a class in economics.

Belittling is always a nice way to avoid giving a proper answer. 👍

 

[Danoff]

I do see a necessity against racial discrimination that follows logic, reason and empirical evidence, not a philosophy.

Do tell. You haven't established it as a necessity so far...

Again, I only wanted to see the drawbacks of the law for that particular case. Practically, besides allowing people to enjoy behing assholes, the only benefit seems highly philosophical to me.

Allowing people to be assholes is part of freedom, and freedom is a HUGE part in the success of America.

And I think history has covered it nicely too, only with a different answer.

Give me a break. I say racism should be legal, and you give me examples of killing (which obviously cannot be legal).

Ok. It is deemed harmful and therefore illegal according the law, which is in the annotations the first ammendment.

The first ammendment doesn't mention exceptions for "hate speech". The law does, but the law also says it's illegal to shoot a buffalo from the second floor of a hotel in texas (not the first though, that's ok).

I addressed it. The fact remains that it was racial segregation, along with hate speech were main factors that led to the Genocide.

What's your point? Free speech led to the abolition of slavery, which led us to the single most bloody war in American history. Yes, people may kill as a result of what they hear - that's not a justification for censorship. It's a justification for police.

Please point out where you explained anything besides asking if we have a right to drive on publicly owned roads however fast you want to go, and then giving no as an answer. Look, if you want to pull out, fine, just don't try to make me look I don't bother reading your posts.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2173025&postcount=116

Belittling is always a nice way to avoid giving a proper answer. 👍

You want me to teach you economics? Ok, here's your first lesson. in order to sell things you need people willing to buy them.

You're ideas of possesion have changed.

No they have not. In the free scenario, 5 people were paid $2. In forced scenario, 2 people were paid $5. The difference being that the force resulted in $2 being taken from 3 people and given to 2.

I also like how someone who likes the idea of people being payed so little that they can barely support themselves mentioning fairness and morality

Hey, that's what I'm all about. I like the idea of people being payed what they earn. I'm crazy that way. I like the idea of the person who thinks he's doing good by creating homeless people.

Companies have profit margins. Profit margins are nice. Profit margins can be broken into. If a company can't hire as many as they need on a previous budget, then if possible they adjust.

Many companies operate on losses for a good portion of the time they exist. Most of them reinvest the money that you'd call "profit" into the company to create more jobs and services. Either way you look at it you're cutting jobs.

 

[Dave A]

Most companies cut job's as well when the losses don't come back. Take what I do as an example, say I make a gross income of £5000 in one month, straight away £2000 is tax, then £1500 goes into the business account, then £500 goes into claw backs, then roughly £700-800 goes on the cost of running. That leaves between £700 and £800 left which go on a few other bit's and my wages, now of I had an employee working for me, I wouldn't make much more than I do now, but out of all that I'd have to pay thier wages as well, and it wouldn't be up to me how much thoes wages were. I can tell you right now, at best I'd come out with an extra £800 on a good month with someone working for me, because that would take time from me actively making money myself. If I was to keep someone working for me and remain profitable I'd need a damn sight more than that, so if I took the gamble and hired somone and that's all I did get, It wouldn't be long before I can't afford to keep them and then they're back out of a job. An employer spends more on their staff than just wages. especially if it's office based.

Personally I'm %110 behind Danoff on this one, if the job is that menial anyone can do it, why be forced to pay them more than the job's worth, also if paying £2 per hour means 3 less people unemployed then it's all the better for it. Depriving 3 people of work and £2 per hour is a hell of a lot worse than depriving 2 people of an extra £3 per hour for stacking shelves.

 

[///M-Spec]

Sheesh. I forget this thread for a week and look how far back I've fallen Seems to be quite the hot topic. I feel like the usual suspects (like Duke, danoff, Famine and Zrow) have already articulated my position very nicely so what I'm posting may be somewhat redundant, but FWIW...

Here's another way to look at the issue.

An employee who is disgrunted quits. Before he does, deletes computer files which are critical to a company's day to day operations. He is disgruntled because he dislikes the company CEO, who is a black woman. The direct result is the company loses $10,000 in operating revenue.

A company terminates a contract worker who is Pakistani. The company does this because they feel he may be a security risk because of his country of origin. The man is out of a job for several months and needs to relocate in order to find employment. Between moving and lost wages, he is out $10,000.

So looking at both situations where racism or sexism played a part, which is worse? Or are they the same? Why?

To which the response came...

Though that is true, it is different to a work just walking out like we are disussing. That worker is being actively or maliciousley racist. They are commiting criminal damage on racist grounds.

That is a good point and I must conceed there is key a difference in these scenarios.

BUT, I can pretty easily make a simple change and transform the "malicious intent" to "disregard for the welfare of the employer/employee".

Let's try Scenario 1 again.

An employee who is disgrunted quits. He is disgruntled because the new company CEO is a black woman (or a gay man of Innuit descent or whatever...). He decides to quit a week before the company is to win a major contract. Because he was a key member of the sales team and enjoyed a good relationship with the prospective client, his departure caused the company to lose the contract. In fact, he goes to work for a new company and takes the contract with him.

The direct result is the company loses $10,000 in operating revenue.

This time, no malicious intent, just disregard for the welfare of his company and it's new CEO because of his racism and sexism.

So, back to the question. How are the two scenarios any different?


M

 

[livemusic]

In my opinion if you fire a person you are directly damaging his life. You live him with no ground, no income for him to pay his bills. If you do that because of his race that qualifies as a racist attack, and that's a crime and should not be tolerated.

If you quit you might be making your company lose some clients or something like that, but you won't be directly affecting a person's life. They'll still have their jobs, they just need to get someone to replace you. You will only be affecting the company directly, so that wouldn't qualify as racism in my view.

People can be racist, they just can't use racism to damage someone else's life directly.

It's a bit hard for me to make my views understood in English apparently, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

 

[Danoff]

In my opinion if you fire a person you are directly damaging his life. You live him with no ground, no income for him to pay his bills. If you do that because of his race that qualifies as a racist attack

That implies that if you fire a person for non-racial reasons, then it's just a normal attack. Which it isn't.

Firing a person for any reason is not an attack. It's a refusal to purchase services from that person - which is perfectly acceptable.

 

[livemusic]

That implies that if you fire a person for non-racial reasons, then it's just a normal attack. Which it isn't.

Firing a person for any reason is not an attack. It's a refusal to purchase services from that person - which is perfectly acceptable.

You just don't get it. Firing the person is not the problem, the reason you did it is. I can fire someone because he's lazy, skips work all the time or is stealing the company. I'm still directly affecting his life, but my reason is justified. If I fire someone just because of their skin colour that is a racist attack, it's a crime. Firing the person is not the crime, racism is.

 

[Famine]

And you should still not be required to give your money to someone you don't like, with no reference to the reason you don't like them.

 

[Dave A]

Exactley, you shouldn't have to give a reason to not want to pay somone for their services anymore. And no, firing someone is not ruining their lives, it's not hard to get a job, a fill in job at least, and no one's implying that a notice period shouldn't have be given. Just a reason, the employer should have full control over who he fire's, who he doesn't want to pay for their services anymore, not partial control.

 

[Danoff]

Firing the person is not the problem, the reason you did it is.

Do you have to give a reason for leaving your dentist?

Same thing.

 

[///M-Spec]

In my opinion if you fire a person you are directly damaging* his life.

* emphasis mine

I've gotta take some exception to the usage of this word here:

damage

I don't feel it accurately describes what happens.

What does damage mean? Well, if you look up the dictionary definition it means this:

1. Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness.

So when you damage something, you are making a change to something valuable, causing it to decline in value.

If I throw a brick through the window of someone's car, I've damaged the value of his car. If I punch someone's lights out I've damaged this poor person's physical well being.

This, of course, is bad because neither of these things belong to me. If I threw a brick at my car or punched my own lights out (which I managed to do this last St. Patrick’s Day-- but that's another thread), that'd be no problem.

Pretty simple so far, right?

Now, here's an important difference between how we think of damage to an object or person and your phrase "damaging his life".

A job isn't an object. You can't own it. Employment is not something you have sole possession of. It is an economic transaction between two parties. In a free society, economic transactions are --well, free. Meaning you can choose to participate in one or you can choose NOT to.

You don't have right to force a transaction upon someone who isn't interested in one. This should be both ways. An employer should not be forced to employ someone they find objectionable. Just like an employee should not be forced to work for someone they object to.

Say I buy a cheesecake from a small bakery every week for 10 years straight. This bakery depends on loyal regular customers like me to keep their business running. But lately competition has grown, supply costs have gone up and they're feeling the pinch. Business is down and they need to sell every cheesecake they can.

One day I discover my cholesterol is through the roof. I need to change my diet, which means I need to stop eating cheesecake.

So the baker seems me walk past her shop one day and says "you've been buying my cheesecake every week for 10 years... what happened?"

And I say "I've stopped eating it. My doctor says I need to lower my cholesterol, so I've cut a lot of things out."

So have I damaged this woman's life? She owns a small business who needs customers like me to survive. Do I have an obligation to continue my economic transaction with her even though I'm not interested in her product anymore? Should it be unethical? Should it be morally reprehensible? Should it be a crime?

Of course not.

Conversely, should an employer have to continue employment of someone just because they've become dependant on the income?

"...well, you can fire people, but only for the right reasons," you might say.

To which my reply would be "what gives you the right to decide for ME what reasons are good enough?"

What if I just decide I don't want cheesecake one day? What if I decide I don't like the bakery owner because she paints neon green glitter on her nails or snaps gum while she talks or listens to Kenny G?

What about if she hangs a Bush poster in the shop and I don't like Bush? Or maybe she is openly gay and has a lesbian life partner and I don't approve of their lifestyle? What if she's Jewish and I happen to be Lebanese and I have a bone to pick with what the sons and daughters of Abraham are doing in the Holy Lands?

Should I let YOU decide how to spend my money? Or do I get to decide?


M


P.S. Sorry for the length folks. Server loads can be a real b**ch and I got plenty of time on my hands today.

 

[livemusic]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. I'm just explaining why firing a person because of their colour is considered racism but quiting a job for the same reason isn't, as Duke questioned a few pages ago. I'm not questioning if you should give a reason or not to fire someone.

 

[Famine]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing here. I'm just explaining why firing a person because of their colour is considered racism but quiting a job for the same reason isn't, as Duke questioned a few pages ago. I'm not questioning if you should give a reason or not to fire someone.

They are part of the same thing.

It doesn't matter what the reason is, even IF the reason is because you hate Chinese people, or you think the person's politics stink, or the person stinks. It boils down to:

"I decide to whom I give my money."

 

[livemusic]

I get what you're saying, and I partially agree with it. It's your money and you decide to whom you'll give it. But, in this particular case, by firing someone because of their skin colour you are infringing another law. By doing that you are directly affecting that person's life, which in my opinion qualifies as a racist attack, and it should not be allowed.

 

[Dave A]

Not liking black people isn't against the law, verbally or physically abusing a black person is against the law. The point isn't that your going to start abusing the person as you fire them, it's also not a debate as to what the law is. Now firing somone because they're skin is black IS against the law at the moment, but it shouldn't be. Say a black person walks out of a job working for a white person, small company still heavilly reliant on hard working staff, he's directly affected the owners life, should that be illegal? No it shouldn't, that person has every right to decide if he wants to continue offering his services to a white person. It should go both ways. Besides that your ultimately mising the entire point of the debate, regardless of the issue or the reasons involved, a manager should have the right to terminate employment of anyone, without having to give a reason. If his reason happens to be racial he shouldn't have to say so, if it's because the guy think's his wife look's like Cruella Deville, he shouldn't have to say so, all that should be required is the notice period and the words, "I no longer want your services".

 

[///M-Spec]

I get what you're saying, and I partially agree with it. It's your money and you decide to whom you'll give it. But, in this particular case, by firing someone because of their skin colour you are infringing another law. By doing that you are directly affecting that person's life, which in my opinion qualifies as a racist attack, and it should not be allowed.

Why is it different when you fire someone vs. choosing not to buy a person's product or services? Either way you are affecting that person's life.

What if I refuse to buy the cheescake because of racial/religious reasons? Maybe I'm a Polish jew who lost family members in the holocaust and the baker is German and I have a deep resentment for this person's race even though she wasn't even alive in the 1940s? What then?

Say I'm in a certain county not far from Las Vegas for the weekend and I'm approached by some prostitutes ...but they're caucasian and I only like black girls. If I refuse to hire the hookers because of my racial perference should that be allowed?


M