meltzerboy
New member
So you prefer a racially segregated society? And a religiously segregated one too?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
U
ucfengr
Guest
I prefer freedom.So you prefer a racially segregated society? And a religiously segregated one too?
meltzerboy
New member
Freedom to segregate based on race and religion?I prefer freedom.
C
Crossbones
Guest
That’s what the African Americans should have done in the pre-Civil Rights South.What if they do? Are people of different races incapable of opening their own places and catering to whom ever they choose? Do you think only white people are capable of running businesses? Soft bigotry of low expectations for one…
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Bruce Springsteen is deciding to not do business in the state which is rather different.Lets see if we can simplify this:
Refusing to serve a person = BAD
Refusing to provide services for an event = OK
Bruce Springsteen just took option 2 and I dont see anyone on the Left accusing him of bigotry
They did, but white people wouldn’t give them credit and without credit it is hard to run a business. White people refused to give them loans and refused to let them buy in certain locations so it was near impossible to become prosperous. If they did become prosperous white people used cross burnings and lynchings to put them down.That’s what the African Americans should have done in the pre-Civil Rights South.
C
Crossbones
Guest
I guess African Americans should have opened their own banks.They did, but white people wouldn’t give them credit and without credit it is hard to run a business. White people refused to give them loans and refused to let them buy in certain locations so it was near impossible to become prosperous. If they did become prosperous white people used cross burnings and lynchings to put them down.
L
lmachine
Guest
You can operate a private dining club that does this if you wish, but when you agree to operate a business open to the public you agree to follow the public’s rules.If a private citizen wants to open a restaurant that only caters to people of a certain race, why shouldn’t he be allowed to?
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Banks require capital to start up and they require depositors who have money.I guess African Americans should have opened their own banks.
C
Crossbones
Guest
According to ucfengr, that would be ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’Banks require capital to start up and they require depositors who have money.
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
Well, when you systematically prevent people from acquiring assets and then use firebombing, lynchings and burning crosses on people’s lawns to destroy property and intimidate any who dare challenge white supremacy by attempting to better themselves that is straight up racism and bigotry.According to ucfengr, that would be ‘soft bigotry of low expectations’
C
Crossbones
Guest
That’s what I thought, but I guess some here would disagree and blame the victim.Well, when you systematically prevent people from acquiring assets and then use firebombing, lynchings and burning crosses on people’s lawns to destroy property and intimidate any who dare challenge white supremacy by attempting to better themselves that is straight up racism and bigotry.
C
clem456
Guest
Ok so back to the topic…That’s what I thought, but I guess some here would disagree and blame the victim.
U
ucfengr
Guest
Yes. Freedom is meaningless if it only means the freedom to do what you want me to do.Freedom to segregate based on race and religion?
They actually did start businesses.That’s what the African Americans should have done in the pre-Civil Rights South.
In the post war South, nobody could get credit, not just blacks. Their economy was pretty much wrecked by the War and remained that way for more than half a century. Most antebellum Southern wealth was tied up in land and slaves, the value of which evaporated after the war.They did, but white people wouldn’t give them credit and without credit it is hard to run a business. White people refused to give them loans and refused to let them buy in certain locations so it was near impossible to become prosperous. If they did become prosperous white people used cross burnings and lynchings to put them down.
Regarding lynching, it was actually a fairly rare occurrence. The total number of blacks lynched between the end of the war and the Civil Rights era (roughly 80 years) was significantly less than the number of blacks murdered every year in the United States. This is not to dismiss its impact, but it’s equally important not to overstate it.
Anyway, getting pretty far off topic at this point. If someone wants to start a Civil War/Post Civil War thread, I’d be happy to discuss it further.
E
estesbob
Guest
Saying you support somebody’s right to do something doesn’t mean you agree with them.So you prefer a racially segregated society? And a religiously segregated one too?
E
estesbob
Guest
Wow! Who knew bakers were so violent ?Well, when you systematically prevent people from acquiring assets and then use firebombing, lynchings and burning crosses on people’s lawns to destroy property and intimidate any who dare challenge white supremacy by attempting to better themselves that is straight up racism and bigotry.
E
Ender
Guest
Actually it would be the same freedom enjoyed by Bruce Springsteen who chose to cancel a concert rather than perform in Charlotte,Freedom to segregate based on race and religion?
Ender
C
clem456
Guest
As a starting point, loss of true freedom, which happens when deception reigns.What does detract from human dignity mean to you?
Quote:
1740 Threats to freedom. The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, “the subject of this freedom,” is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."33 Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated. Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.
E
estesbob
Guest
We Do have to remember that there is a rock star exemption supported by those who oppose people being able to decline to provide services for an event they disagree with .Actually it would be the same freedom enjoyed by Bruce Springsteen who chose to cancel a concert rather than perform in Charlotte,
Ender
C
Crossbones
Guest
How do you apply this in this case?As a starting point, loss of true freedom, which happens when deception reigns.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Freedom/liberty is messy–it causes there to be times when things are not fully equal. That is the cost of freedom/liberty.
The questions come down to: Do we, as a people and a nation, value personal freedom and liberty, or do we as a people and nation value equality of result for all as the highest?
In truth, if we say that freedom/liberty is what we want, then we have to accept that sometimes things will not be equal. If we say that equality of result for all is what we want, then we must accept that many of our freedoms will disappear. We cannot have both–we either decide that freedom is the highest pursuit, or we decide equality of result for all is the highest pursuit–we simply cannot have both!
Let me illuminate this: There have been many times when so-called artists have created some pretty vile things and a great many Christians have been outraged by those so-called pieces of art. Do we want to say since millions were outraged, the so-called artist should have his/her rights taken away to make such pieces, or do we accept that holding freedom means sometimes things will happen that we just don’t like?
The questions come down to: Do we, as a people and a nation, value personal freedom and liberty, or do we as a people and nation value equality of result for all as the highest?
In truth, if we say that freedom/liberty is what we want, then we have to accept that sometimes things will not be equal. If we say that equality of result for all is what we want, then we must accept that many of our freedoms will disappear. We cannot have both–we either decide that freedom is the highest pursuit, or we decide equality of result for all is the highest pursuit–we simply cannot have both!
Let me illuminate this: There have been many times when so-called artists have created some pretty vile things and a great many Christians have been outraged by those so-called pieces of art. Do we want to say since millions were outraged, the so-called artist should have his/her rights taken away to make such pieces, or do we accept that holding freedom means sometimes things will happen that we just don’t like?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.