|
Post by assisi on Jul 4, 2018 16:30:05 GMT
This being the 4th July I read a little article on Independence day, some snippets: On July 4, 1826 - the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence - one of the most amazing coincidences in U.S. history unfolded. On that day, Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration’s author, and John Adams, perhaps its greatest advocate, died within hours of each other. The deaths of those two Founding Fathers left just Charles Carroll of Carrollton - the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence - as the sole survivor of the 56 men who had boldly added their signatures to the charter dated July 4, 1776, and the Marylander used that national spotlight to promote religious freedom, which he said was a central message of the new nation’s founding document. Full article at: cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/07/04/july-4-remembrance-americas-catholic-founding-father/
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 11:07:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 15:58:47 GMT
I don't think my reaction was in any way excessive, considering that you're willing to facilitate racial segregation, even if you don't personally agree with it. How would you have ended Jim Crow in the South if you oppose forcing compliance (and don't forget that the South had to be dragged kicking and screaming into intergrating)? To say that the Civil Rights Act was worse than Jim Crow, as the last article claims is ridiculously hyperbolic. Opposing the Act because pro-gay "marriage" types and sceularists abuse it to further their own agendas is like saying that the possibility of welfare fraud means that there should be no social welfare at all, or that since governments can overstep their authority (looking at you, Mr. Varadkar), there ought to be no such thing as governments.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 16:12:42 GMT
I don't think my reaction was in any way excessive, considering that you're willing to facilitate racial segregation, even if you don't personally agree with it. How would you have ended Jim Crow in the South if you oppose forcing compliance (and don't forget that the South had to be dragged kicking and screaming into intergrating)? To say that the Civil Rights Act was worse than Jim Crow, as the last article claims is ridiculously hyperbolic. Opposing the Act because pro-gay "marriage" types and sceularists abuse it to further their own agendas is like saying that the possibility of welfare fraud means that there should be no social welfare at all, or that since governments can overstep their authority (looking at you, Mr. Varadkar), there ought to be no such thing as governments. I don't think this is a case of "abuse does not negate use", as there seems to be no logically consistent reason to apply social engineering in this case but not in others. If you want to change peoples' attitudes, the way to go should be argument and non-coercive means. I can accept anti-discrimination laws applying to public and government buildings, but not to private organisations and businesses. They should be as absolutely free as private dwellings and personal relationships, in my view. (Or, rather, I think there is a case to be made for this viewpoint.)
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 16:27:23 GMT
I don't think my reaction was in any way excessive, considering that you're willing to facilitate racial segregation, even if you don't personally agree with it. How would you have ended Jim Crow in the South if you oppose forcing compliance (and don't forget that the South had to be dragged kicking and screaming into intergrating)? To say that the Civil Rights Act was worse than Jim Crow, as the last article claims is ridiculously hyperbolic. Opposing the Act because pro-gay "marriage" types and sceularists abuse it to further their own agendas is like saying that the possibility of welfare fraud means that there should be no social welfare at all, or that since governments can overstep their authority (looking at you, Mr. Varadkar), there ought to be no such thing as governments. I don't think this is a case of "abuse does not negate use", as there seems to be no logically consistent reason to apply social engineering in this case but not in others. If you want to change peoples' attitudes, the way to go should be argument and non-coercive means. I can accept anti-discrimination laws applying to public and government buildings, but not to private organisations and businesses. They should be as absolutely free as private dwellings and personal relationships, in my view. (Or, rather, I think there is a case to be made for this viewpoint.) If abolishing Jim Crow counts as "social engineering", then well done to the social engineers. As for argument and non-coercive means, that was tried for many years and it failed. There was no way that the South would give up Jim Crow of its own volition, especially given the influence the Southern Democrats had in Congress, which would have been directly threatened if Jim Crow went.
|
|
|
America
Jul 5, 2018 17:28:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 17:28:02 GMT
Well, I will leave it there, as I feel I've made my case. You can portray my argument in favour of unconditional freedom of association as a defence of segregation if you so wish. I'm confident that any reasonable person reading this exchange will realise my argument is an attempt to defend society from social engineering and a deadening sameness, and to do so in an intellectually consistent way.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 17:38:12 GMT
Well, I will leave it there, as I feel I've made my case. You can portray my argument in favour of unconditional freedom of association as a defence of segregation if you so wish. I'm confident that any reasonable person reading this exchange will realise my argument is an attempt to defend society from social engineering and a deadening sameness, and to do so in an intellectually consistent way. You might not be defending segregation, but you are in favour of facilitating it, regardless of how you try to rationalise it. Come to think of it, referring to desegregation as "social engineering" could be interpreted as implying that segregation is the natural order of things and integration is merely a utopian ideal. By this logic, couldn't Christianity be dismissed as social engineering in that it requires its adherents to carry their cross and control their basest instincts under pain of damnation in the next life?
|
|
|
America
Jul 5, 2018 17:51:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 17:51:56 GMT
I trust God to know what is good for us and to have our best interests at heart. I don't trust man, and still less government.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 17:59:48 GMT
I trust God to know what is good for us and to have our best interests at heart. I don't trust man, and still less government. But surely legislation ought to reflect morality (which is Catholic teaching BTW)? Since racial discrimination is immoral, therefore it is perfectly legitimate to forbid it.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 18:13:23 GMT
I trust God to know what is good for us and to have our best interests at heart. I don't trust man, and still less government. But surely legislation ought to reflect morality (which is Catholic teaching BTW)? Since racial discrimination is immoral, therefore it is perfectly legitimate to forbid it. Lots of things are immoral but still should not be outlawed, because the good of personal freedom outweighs the evil involved. This is the whole principle of limited government. I have never heard a serious Catholic thinker argue for sin to be made illegal. As we have discovered-- your own initial post actually makes this argument-- trying to legislate for tolerance involves endless future interventions, because the Promised Land is never achieved and the elites keep broadening the definition of discrimination. We live in a society where people are scared to make a joke, venture an unfashionable opinion, or subscribe to anything but liberal-internationalist-secularism outside their closest, trusted friends, or in some very controlled situation. We are in dystopia and it's only going to get worse. I'm posting under my real name here, with my own picture. Hardly anybody else does, and for a very good reason. Says it all, really.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 18:30:23 GMT
I think there's also an argument to be made from ambiguity. I'm not actually a libertarian and I'm all for banning pornography or having a strict censorship against obscenity in entertainment, for instance. Those things are not really ambiguous, despite the desperate attempts to portray smut as art.
But I think even you would agree that there are HUGE difficulties in determining if an action is actually racist. And today anything that CAN be racist IS racist. Example: the incident where H&M had an ad in which a black boy was wearing a hoodie which said: "The coolest monkey in the jungle", and there was an outcry. His parents were fine with the ad. The company would have had to be insane to INTEND any racism. But it didn't stop the uproar. It's insane and trying to legislate for tolerance just enables such hysteria.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 18:30:49 GMT
But surely legislation ought to reflect morality (which is Catholic teaching BTW)? Since racial discrimination is immoral, therefore it is perfectly legitimate to forbid it. Lots of things are immoral but still should not be outlawed, because the good of personal freedom outweighs the evil involved. This is the whole principle of limited government. I have never heard a serious Catholic thinker argue for sin to be made illegal. As we have discovered-- your own initial post actually makes this argument-- trying to legislate for tolerance involves endless future interventions, because the Promised Land is never achieved and the elites keep broadening the definition of discrimination. We live in a society where people are scared to make a joke, venture an unfashionable opinion, or subscribe to anything but liberal-internationalist-secularism outside their closest, trusted friends, or in some very controlled situation. We are in dystopia and it's only going to get worse. I'm posting under my real name here, with my own picture. Hardly anybody else does, and for a very good reason. Says it all, really. I don't believe in limited government for its own sake: it is quite legitimate to base legislation on public morality. One need only look that the 1937 Constitution to see that, with its frequent references to "subject to public morality". It is impossible to make all sin illegal, true, but that does not mean that we cannot discourage it using legal means if necessary. I think that is your interpretation of my original post - my intention was to show that much liberal virtue-signalling over the race issue was hypocritical (note the references to Obama and the lack of improvement for the lot of African Americans during his presidency, as well as his putting social liberalism before fixing America's underlying problems.), since it is not solely the preserve of white Southern evangelicals as Democrats like to claim. Are their liberals and secularists trying to enforce their own agenda on the public? Of course there is, no one has ever denied that here. That doesn't mean that we have to defend the "right" to people to segregate their businesses on the basis of race. If anything, it only plays into the hands of said liberals. Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 18:34:52 GMT
OK, Young Ireland, I'll put it this way; if you can give me an argument for anti-discrimination laws based on race which DOESN'T also justify other acts of social engineering in private life, I will admit that there is no case for my strong libertarian position on freedom of association.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2018 18:40:50 GMT
I think there's also an argument to be made from ambiguity. I'm not actually a libertarian and I'm all for banning pornography or having a strict censorship against obscenity in entertainment, for instance. Those things are not really ambiguous, despite the desperate attempts to portray smut as art. But I think even you would agree that there are HUGE difficulties in determining if an action is actually racist. And today anything that CAN be racist IS racist. Example: the incident where H&M had an ad in which a black boy was wearing a hoodie which said: "The coolest monkey in the jungle", and there was an outcry. His parents were fine with the ad. The company would have had to be insane to INTEND any racism. But it didn't stop the uproar. It's insane and trying to legislate for tolerance just enables such hysteria. If it's OK to ban pornography or obscenity (which I fully support btw), then it's legitimate to ban segregation, since they are both dehumanising to other people. While I agree that there are nuances where racism is concerned (and btw even though I think your position is abhorrent, it's not racist per se since you're not actively advocating segregation), calling a black person a monkey is certainly an objectively offensive and racist action, regardless of the person's intention as the usual context of that slur is to imply that black people are less than human. I might add that some things (like fornication) are still wrong even if there is consent.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2018 18:50:56 GMT
I think there's also an argument to be made from ambiguity. I'm not actually a libertarian and I'm all for banning pornography or having a strict censorship against obscenity in entertainment, for instance. Those things are not really ambiguous, despite the desperate attempts to portray smut as art. But I think even you would agree that there are HUGE difficulties in determining if an action is actually racist. And today anything that CAN be racist IS racist. Example: the incident where H&M had an ad in which a black boy was wearing a hoodie which said: "The coolest monkey in the jungle", and there was an outcry. His parents were fine with the ad. The company would have had to be insane to INTEND any racism. But it didn't stop the uproar. It's insane and trying to legislate for tolerance just enables such hysteria. If it's OK to ban pornography or obscenity (which I fully support btw), then it's legitimate to ban segregation, since they are both dehumanising to other people. While I agree that there are nuances where racism is concerned (and btw even though I think your position is abhorrent, it's not racist per se since you're not actively advocating segregation), calling a black person a monkey is certainly an objectively offensive and racist action, regardless of the person's intention as the usual context of that slur is to imply that black people are less than human. I might add that some things (like fornication) are still wrong even if there is consent. I honestly don't understand the hysteria about race. Racism is bad, yes, but lots of things are bad. The idea that if a soccer player calls another player fat, ugly, a moron etc. it's allowable but if he uses a racial slur, it's a national scandal...I don't get that. It's just bizarre to me. Hurting or humiliating or otherwise committing an ill against a black person is wrong because they are a person, not because they are black. I find it ridiculous when pro-life people play the "abortion discriminates" card. Is abortion worse, somehow, if the aborted human being is the member of a particular group? Crazy. I must admit it seems to me like an irrational, visceral reaction implanted by TV and the media. And I think the underlying psychology might actually be, paradoxically, quite patronising and racist. I think we should stick to the ideal of colour-blindness. And no, I don't think "correcting historical imbalances" is a good argument, because there are always imbalances.
|
|