Non-violent dissent catch-all

No doubt many of the same people protesting the restaurant owner's actions here were the exact same ones yelling about how it was okay to boycott the Dixie Chicks for not showing respect to the President.

They sure liked to say that everyone had free speech, but there were consequences to that speech that the market would inflict.... but then if liberals do it, loud squawking ensues.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's okay to boycott the Dixie Chicks for not respecting the President, then it's okay for the theater to boycott the Senator for not respecting gays. Personally, I'd consider the Senator's actions much worse. He's disrespecting a whole LOT of people, the vast majority of whom he's never met, and doesn't know at all. The Dixie Chicks were criticizing just one man, to whom they had actual exposure.

Stengah wrote:

The reason I don't share your position that discrimination is never okay is that it can lead to very bad things. Would you let John Wayne Gacy babysit your kids unsupervised? Would you eat a dinner prepared by Armin Meiwes? You would be discriminating against them based on their past actions if you didn't. Just for the record, these are hyperbolic examples, I'm not comparing Sen. Campfield to either of them.

I think that, from my understanding of English, this is not discrimination. People are at some times confusing selection with discrimination. Discrimination is where you would allow all else except this one or that one because of some arbitrary rule that doesn't apply to the rest. Selection is when you choose those traits desirable in the person/people/whatever you are looking at.

Unless of course you're making the argument that you're discriminating against all the 20 other babysitters that came forward when you put your ad out?

Duoae wrote:
People are at some times confusing selection with discrimination. Discrimination is where you would allow all else except this one or that one because of some arbitrary rule that doesn't apply to the rest. Selection is when you choose those traits desirable in the person/people/whatever you are looking at.

Unless of course you're making the argument that you're discriminating against all the 20 other babysitters that came forward when you put your ad out?

Both definitions above are accurate. Discriminate is often a synonym for choose. Check third definition here.

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=discrim...

Duoae wrote:

Yes but that "descriminate" is not the same as "discrimination". WHich is what i was getting at.

Agree to disagree. I usually consider the verb form of a word to follow closely with its noun.

And I for one would prefer to avoid yet another semantics argument. Would you be willing to accept how some of us are using the word, given that the dictionary says it's correct?

Seth wrote:
Duoae wrote:
People are at some times confusing selection with discrimination. Discrimination is where you would allow all else except this one or that one because of some arbitrary rule that doesn't apply to the rest. Selection is when you choose those traits desirable in the person/people/whatever you are looking at.

Unless of course you're making the argument that you're discriminating against all the 20 other babysitters that came forward when you put your ad out?

Both definitions above are accurate. Discriminate is often a synonym for choose. Check third definition here.

http://m.dictionary.com/d/?q=discrim...

Yes but that "descriminate" is not the same as "discrimination". WHich is what i was getting at. One of the things of language is that the same word, or similar words can be used for different things. The example i gave above is where people are getting confused.

You're not "discriminating"[1] against all other apples in the bag when you take one out. You're selecting one. However you are discriminating[2] when you choose it. (Just not in the other sense that the thread was started about.)

[edit] To make it clearer:
[1] - being offensive based on choice
[2] - selecting based on choice

For a different example, you don't believe that someone is describing the temperature when they say that something is cool (in the right context).

Seth wrote:
Duoae wrote:

Yes but that "descriminate" is not the same as "discrimination". WHich is what i was getting at.

Agree to disagree. I usually consider the verb form of a word to follow closely with its noun.

And I for one would prefer to avoid yet another semantics argument. Would you be willing to accept how some of us are using the word, given that the dictionary says it's correct?

I can agree that we see it differently. But i can't agree that choosing a babysitter is being discriminatory in the sense that this thread is meant against all the other applicants. You're not being offensive to them by choosing someone based on skill or preference. Especially when that misunderstanding is being used as an argument against not discriminating.

When I discriminate between the babysitter with the CPR training and the one who doesn't, it's discrimination.

I do see your point though: I just consider the onus on those who are misunderstanding the word "discrimination" to rectify it.

Seth wrote:
When I discriminate between the babysitter with the CPR training and the one who doesn't, it's discrimination.

I do see your point though: I just consider the onus on those who are misunderstanding the word "discrimination" to rectify it. :)

I understand what you mean. I just think we need a new word

Malor wrote:
It was against men who had sex with each other - which is a past action. It would also hold against heterosexual men who had sex with each other.

That is the exact same argument people in this country use to justify banning gay marriage. "Gays are free to get married, just not to the same gender of gay person."

That thinking comes (or at least coincides with) the "hate the sin" splitting of homosexual orientation from homosexual acts.

So what if this is a "religious belief" the jerk's promoting? At what point does it cross into "Catholics need not apply" religion-based discrimination of the 19th century?

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Apropos of nothing, didn't someone mention there was a user-ignore feature?

I'm asking for a friend.

Here you go. Use it, love it.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/51259?page=1

I found myself getting into pointless arguments with people who love to argue pointlessly. It's made my life much better on the forums. Blood pressure down, my own argumentative posts cut down considerably. It's a wonder what it will do for you. I mean your friend.

Robear wrote:

And it's difficult to even imagine a group of people all sharing the same rule.

Unless, of course, it's a government or religious law.

Yup. And that's one reason that laws frequently have to codify things in specific ways that we know aren't quite right, but are the best we can do.

For example, consider the age of majority. What that's trying to codify, more or less, is the point at which a person is mature enough and has a clear enough understanding of their rights and responsibilities as a citizen to exercise their rights appropriately and to be held responsible for their actions under the law. Of course, some people are mature enough to do that before 18. Some aren't mature enough even after 18. But we have settled on 18 (mostly) as a point at which the law recognizes people as being adults.

Because this is an especially tricky dividing line, there's a lot of other stuff around it, too. Ways for younger people to petition to be treated as adults earlier than they normally would. Ways to make it possible to recognize older people as not being competent for a variety of reasons. etc. But all of these things are ways for the law, which must work on certainties, to attempt to represent the root idea--that some people should not be held responsible for their actions because they are not competent to understand the meaning of their actions. All of the legal certainties that codify that are simply an attempt to create clear rules that can be enforced consistently and fairly.

To contrast that, think about the whole "pornography", "I recognize it when I see it" thing. That's a thing that's not defined by clear rules, and because of that laws involving pornography are a lot messier, and cases involving it that are in the "gray area" are a real mess. To be sure, there's stuff we can all recognize as porn, and there's stuff we can all recognize as not-porn. But there's also stuff in the middle (sex health info, for example) that some people consider pornographic and which pornography laws have had to deal with.

Laws must be clear-cut to be fairly enforced. But the moral dimensions of things are frequently less clear-cut. And that's one big reason that we have judges and juries and why we continue to use the common-law idea of precedent. Because when the law doesn't spell things out clearly enough, the best way we've come up with to try to solve the problem is to point a bunch of people at it and say "Well... what do you think? Which side of the law does this fall on? Is there some prior problem close enough to this one that we can try to decide both the same way? Or should we treat this as a new situation, and then how do we decide?"

Rule 34 is what messes up identifying pornography. No matter how innocuous something seems, somewhere, there's someone unduly enjoying themselves at the thought of it.

DanB:

I'm not saying that the example isn't homophobic nor discriminatory. The example was formulated to be exactly those. It shows that discriminating based on actions can be used to justify policies that are functionally discriminatory in terms of class. There are any number of observable actions that can be used to justify what is really class discrimination.

Thus, the only way to be rid of discrimination is to be rid of it entirely.