Racist Cup Cake Sale!

[quote name='UncleBob']Which, of course, is why racism has stopped and no longer exists.

Also, why prohibition was so successful and why laws prohibiting abortion will stop people from seeking abortions.[/QUOTE]

Strawman.

I never claimed that the laws against institutional racism completely eradicated all racism. Obviously they have not. However these laws have suceeded in significantly reducing the amount of institutional racism that takes place in America.
 
[quote name='camoor']Strawman.

I never claimed that the laws against institutional racism completely eradicated all racism. Obviously they have not. However these laws have suceeded in significantly reducing the amount of institutional racism that takes place in America.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, now it's just hidden behind the scenes where people either assume it doesn't exist or, if it does, that the government will come in and take care of any issues... "No one would ever do that... it's illegal!".

So, good job. We've cleaned the roaches out of the floor. Ignore the ones in the walls that come out when you turn off the lights.
 
So no one made a video of them eating said racist cupcake going "racism is delicious"?

Anyways, racism will always exist. Sexism will always exist. Stop worrying about it. You'll go bald.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, now it's just hidden behind the scenes where people either assume it doesn't exist or, if it does, that the government will come in and take care of any issues... "No one would ever do that... it's illegal!".

So, good job. We've cleaned the roaches out of the floor. Ignore the ones in the walls that come out when you turn off the lights.[/QUOTE]

So now it seems like you do support the anti-racism legislation? You're just saying it doesn't go far enough?
 
[quote name='camoor']So now it seems like you do support the anti-racism legislation? You're just saying it doesn't go far enough?[/QUOTE]

No. You can't legislate morality.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']No. You can't legislate morality.[/QUOTE]

There are laws against stealing. Do you want to recall those too?

Maybe we don't need them. Maybe if you just speak out against theft and thieves it will solve the problem, just like your racism solution.
 
[quote name='camoor']There are laws against stealing. Do you want to recall those too?

Maybe we don't need them. Maybe if you just speak out against theft and thieves it will solve the problem, just like your racism solution.[/QUOTE]

Stealing is the removal of property from its rightful owner. It's a way of inflicting harm upon another party - something the government is supposed to prevent.

An individual choosing who he or she wishes to associate with does not inflict harm upon anyone.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Stealing is the removal of property from its rightful owner. It's a way of inflicting harm upon another party - something the government is supposed to prevent.

An individual choosing who he or she wishes to associate with does not inflict harm up on anyone.[/QUOTE]

First off we're not talking about association. I think almost all Americans agree that you can associate with whoever you wish. We're talking about commerce. The act of buying and selling.

Secondly if you define removal of property as harm, then it stands to reason that cutting a race of people out of the market also counts as harm. Whether members of society remove acquired goods or prevent the goods from being acquired in the first place, the victim is still "harmed"
 
[quote name='camoor']First off we're not talking about association. I think almost all Americans agree that you can associate with whoever you wish. We're talking about commerce. The act of buying and selling.[/quote]

Commerce requires association.

Whether members of society remove acquired goods or prevent the goods from being acquired in the first place, the victim is still "harmed"
Click to expand...
Refusing to sell you something that is mine does not mean I have "inflicted harm" upon you. It's mine and I should get to choose who I wish to sell it to based on whatever criteria I wish. Let's say you find a job - but it requires you to have a cell phone. You only have $5 on you. You want to buy my cell phone for that $5. By refusing to sell it to you, you are harmed (i.e.: no job), but it is not my fault - I have not inflicted harm upon you.
 
[quote name='camoor']Secondly if you define removal of property as harm, then it stands to reason that cutting a race of people out of the market also counts as harm. Whether members of society remove acquired goods or prevent the goods from being acquired in the first place, the victim is still "harmed"[/QUOTE]

Bingo.

Either no one sells to them, which is a hindrance to their quality of life.

Or a limited amount of merchants sell to them, that would not only be an inconvenience but the stores would be sure to take advantage of the lack of competition to jack up prices.

There is no rational reason to support those policies, IMHO only a not very subtle racist would.
 
[quote name='camoor']
Secondly if you define removal of property as harm, then it stands to reason that cutting a race of people out of the market also counts as harm. Whether members of society remove acquired goods or prevent the goods from being acquired in the first place, the victim is still "harmed"[/QUOTE]

It's cute that you just described why affirmative action is a bad idea without intending to do so.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']It's cute that you just described why affirmative action is a bad idea without intending to do so.[/QUOTE]
It's cute how you think affirmative action is only good when it's for whites and not anyone else. It'd be nice if you could actually understand what I just said, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.
 
[quote name='dohdough']It's cute how you think affirmative action is only good when it's for whites and not anyone else. It'd be nice if you could actually understand what I just said, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that one.[/QUOTE]

You would be correct, however, your point holds no relevancy unless you can show me where, today, the federal government has intentionally written laws that favor whites over other races.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You would be correct, however, your point holds no relevancy unless you can show me where, today, the federal government has intentionally written laws that favor whites over other races.[/QUOTE]
Intentionality is irrelevant when historically favored groups, like whites, are still favored by colorblind policies in practice.
 
thrust,

Let's just say Affifrmative Action (for this hypothetical AA as you understand it) was to be replaced tomorrow by something that offered financial aid etc. to poor people of any race.

Would you be for that?

You don't have a very good track record of honestly answering relevant questions so I am not holding my breath.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You would be correct, however, your point holds no relevancy unless you can show me where, today, the federal government has intentionally written laws that favor whites over other races.[/QUOTE]

Because of the growth of the African-American population in the state since the 2000 census, the Hamer PAC had asked the Governor's Redistricting Advisory Committee to create a third African American congressional district. The PAC asserts that African American voters are being gerrymandered into reconfigured congressional districts for the sole purpose of protecting white, Democratic incumbent lawmakers.
Click to expand...

http://baltimore.citybizlist.com/1/...ongressional-Districts-And-May-File-Suit.aspx

Not the fed, but you get the idea
 
So much willful ignorance. It's like plugging your ears and covering your eyes all at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top