The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-02-2018, 02:13 PM   #8961 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,548
Default

Not once you look past the surface though.

Basically this discussion comes down to which of these you think is more valuable: Freedom to discriminate as you please or freedom from unjust discrimination. I think that the latter does a lot more for equal rights than the former.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 02:14 PM   #8962 (permalink)
Born to be mild
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
Say someone is paying you to build them a house. They ask you to build a rape dungeon with murals of little kids getting fucked and puppies and kittens getting tortured.

By your standards, you have no right to say no to them.
You sort of don't though, because then you're judging someone by your own moral standards, and for all you know, this could be getting built for, say, a documentary, film or other innocent purpose. And even if it isn't, if that was a valid reason for refusing, what would happen to all the poor dominatrixes in America and elsewhere? Should they have to build their own dungeons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
I say yes. The law says no. And froundland says whatever the law says.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
No, again, my argument is that you don't have the right to someone else's labor. I don't know how I can make that any more clear.

In this case, the doctor would have most likely signed a contract with his employer, stating that he he cannot refuse service, so this is a moot point.

If you sign a contract to do something and then break that contract, then you should be fired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
I'm not saying that he SHOULD refuse, I'm saying that he should have the RIGHT to refuse.
You have heard of the Hippocratic Oath, I assume?
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 02:54 PM   #8963 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
You have heard of the Hippocratic Oath, I assume?
As a doctor who takes an oath [enters into a contract], they should have to abide by it, or cease practice.

As a private citizen who HASN'T entered into a contract, they are free to do as they please, within reason [Non-Aggression Principle].
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 02:56 PM   #8964 (permalink)
Born to be mild
 
Trollheart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: 404 Not Found
Posts: 26,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
As a doctor who takes an oath [enters into a contract], they should have to abide by it, or cease practice.

As a private citizen who HASN'T entered into a contract, they are free to do as they please, within reason [Non-Aggression Principle].
Are you literally trying to have it both ways then? You're saying they should be bound, as ALL doctors are, by the Hippocratic Oath, but that they should also have the right to refuse if they don't agree with the race/politics/sex of the person to be treated???
__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018
Trollheart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 03:01 PM   #8965 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
As a private citizen who HASN'T entered into a contract, they are free to do as they please, within reason [Non-Aggression Principle].
NAP is a good starting point but using it as the sole basis for morality is pretty erroneous since it allows for a lot of amoral behaviour.
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 03:04 PM   #8966 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart View Post
Are you literally trying to have it both ways then? You're saying they should be bound, as ALL doctors are, by the Hippocratic Oath, but that they should also have the right to refuse if they don't agree with the race/politics/sex of the person to be treated???
No, because they CHOSE to enter into a contract. It wasn't FORCED upon them.

I'm saying that if they CHOOSE to take the oath, they should, by all means, abide by it.

If for some reason they are in a medical practice where they didn't have to swear some kind of oath or enter into some kind of contract [be they a privately owned and operated medical institution], then they can do what they want, within reason.

It's about freedom. Not discrimination. Plain and simple. You can spin it to fit whatever agenda pleases you the most [not you personally TH, people in general], but that doesn't change what it is.
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 03:07 PM   #8967 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland View Post
NAP is a good starting point but using it as the sole basis for morality is pretty erroneous since it allows for a lot of amoral behaviour.
So does a lot of things, if abused. Certain religions say that it's okay to own slaves or force yourself sexually upon children. Anything can be taken to the Nth degree and abused if you elaborate enough.
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 03:15 PM   #8968 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,548
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
No, because they CHOSE to enter into a contract. It wasn't FORCED upon them.

I'm saying that if they CHOOSE to take the oath, they should, by all means, abide by it.

If for some reason they are in a medical practice where they didn't have to swear some kind of oath or enter into some kind of contract [be they a privately owned and operated medical institution], then they can do what they want, within reason.
Offering your services to the public is a similar type of oath. You're not compelled to own a business if you don't like how you're required to operate so business owners have a lot of options if they don't like what they're being "forced" to do (like treating one customer the same as another even if you're jealous that his husband is cuter than your wife).

Quote:
It's about freedom. Not discrimination. Plain and simple. You can spin it to fit whatever agenda pleases you the most [not you personally TH, people in general], but that doesn't change what it is.
It is about discrimination, repeating that it isn't doesn't make that so. What you're arguing for is the superiority of the freedom compared to discriminate to the freedom from unjust discrimination. If you value oppression above equality, then fine, but don't try to dance away from that when it's clearly what's motivating your reasoning.

Are you familiar with the concept of a social contract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by [MERIT] View Post
So does a lot of things, if abused. Certain religions say that it's okay to own slaves or force yourself sexually upon children. Anything can be taken to the Nth degree and abused if you elaborate enough.
What? Limitations are not the same as abuses.

NAP is very often used as an absolute barometer for morality, so I guess that could be considered abusing it. Why do you do that?
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 03:34 PM   #8969 (permalink)
Toasted Poster
 
Chula Vista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: SoCal by way of Boston
Posts: 11,332
Default

Brass tacks man. Your analogies just keep getting more and more out there.

And Hawk, the argument doesn't hold up. The USA has laws regarding discrimination, both in the public and the business sectors.

You want to open a business in this country and call it your own? OK. You still have to abide by laws - local, state, and federal. You want to profit off of our free market system? Cool. But you have to play by the rules to cash in.

You can not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Basic human rights 101.
__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”
Chula Vista is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2018, 03:45 PM   #8970 (permalink)
SOPHIE FOREVER
 
Frownland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: East of the Southern North American West
Posts: 35,548
Default

Besides for "freeeeedom", what do businesses lose when they're not allowed to discriminate against customers? What do individuals lose when they are discriminated against? Which one of those is the bigger or more important loss?
__________________
Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

Frownland is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.