Dahs is on point today!

Posted by all3 on 3/4/2021 1:14:00 PM (view original):
dahs, I do not see those things as being equally important, but the point is, if you want Government involvement in some such things and not others, who gets to draw the line as to where Government involvement is "needed"? You, me, God forbid rsp or tang?

It has nothing to do with importance. It has to do with the category of things you are allowed to "discriminate" against. If Facebook started doing background checks into people's political affiliation and refused to let people who identify as Republican sign up, that would be a problem for me. If Facebook wants to revoke public posting privileges from people who have used the Facebook platform to broadcast misinformation or hate speech that's a whole different kettle of fish. The bowling alley gets to ban you if you keep bowling before the guard comes up, not when you show up with an afro. I think there's a clear bright line here.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/4/2021 3:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 3/4/2021 1:14:00 PM (view original):
dahs, I do not see those things as being equally important, but the point is, if you want Government involvement in some such things and not others, who gets to draw the line as to where Government involvement is "needed"? You, me, God forbid rsp or tang?

It has nothing to do with importance. It has to do with the category of things you are allowed to "discriminate" against. If Facebook started doing background checks into people's political affiliation and refused to let people who identify as Republican sign up, that would be a problem for me. If Facebook wants to revoke public posting privileges from people who have used the Facebook platform to broadcast misinformation or hate speech that's a whole different kettle of fish. The bowling alley gets to ban you if you keep bowling before the guard comes up, not when you show up with an afro. I think there's a clear bright line here.

Well said.

When hand-picking examples it's easy to use situations where the line is clear to the vast majority. However, I think we'd all agree that in everyday life there are an extreme number of situations where people would debate where that line should be drawn. Again, who gets to decide? The richest, the loudest, the majority (even if only slight), or who?
Still say I'd prefer it left in the hands of the people for as many things as possible instead of involving the Government. Maybe they'd actually take time to address the overcrowding at borders, the broken health care system or the education inequities if they weren't spending so much time determining what people and businesses should or shouldn't be allowed to do.

Well, they're trying to do that, but Republicans are blocking it from happening

Posted by all3 on 3/4/2021 4:38:00 PM (view original):
When hand-picking examples it's easy to use situations where the line is clear to the vast majority. However, I think we'd all agree that in everyday life there are an extreme number of situations where people would debate where that line should be drawn. Again, who gets to decide? The richest, the loudest, the majority (even if only slight), or who?
Still say I'd prefer it left in the hands of the people for as many things as possible instead of involving the Government. Maybe they'd actually take time to address the overcrowding at borders, the broken health care system or the education inequities if they weren't spending so much time determining what people and businesses should or shouldn't be allowed to do.

I don't agree with this statement. At all. Like I said, I think the basic criterion that you can be banned from any private business as a result of actions taken at/towards that business is a clear bright line.

Give me an example that's fuzzy relative to that criterion.

Now I think we're talking apples and oranges. I agree 100% that any private business should be able to ban anyone , especially if they refuse to adhere to known business rules. I just don't want the Government getting involved to say where businesses can or can't draw the line.

Posted by all3 on 3/4/2021 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Now I think we're talking apples and oranges. I agree 100% that any private business should be able to ban anyone , especially if they refuse to adhere to known business rules. I just don't want the Government getting involved to say where businesses can or can't draw the line.

You’re inadvertently advocating for Jim Crow here.

Posted by Uofa2 on 3/4/2021 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 3/4/2021 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Now I think we're talking apples and oranges. I agree 100% that any private business should be able to ban anyone , especially if they refuse to adhere to known business rules. I just don't want the Government getting involved to say where businesses can or can't draw the line.

You’re inadvertently advocating for Jim Crow here.

5 bux says he denies it, even though you nailed it.

Someone just ask all3 directly whether he thinks the government should intervene in a case where a business hangs up a sign that says "no blacks allowed."

Posted by Uofa2 on 3/4/2021 8:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 3/4/2021 5:49:00 PM (view original):
Now I think we're talking apples and oranges. I agree 100% that any private business should be able to ban anyone , especially if they refuse to adhere to known business rules. I just don't want the Government getting involved to say where businesses can or can't draw the line.

You’re inadvertently advocating for Jim Crow here.

And you're purposely being a moron.
Why not try actually answering the question someone asks, if you're going to try to argue them? Who gets to decide where the law if drawn and why is it them who gets to decide? Should we maybe have a couple hundred referendums on every ballot to decide such issues?

"If you can dodge a ball, you can dodge a wrench." And apparently a direct question.

Posted by tangplay on 3/4/2021 9:14:00 PM (view original):
Someone just ask all3 directly whether he thinks the government should intervene in a case where a business hangs up a sign that says "no blacks allowed."

so alll3 can answer the question somebody asks....

No, I do not think the Government should intervene. Word of mouth and social media will kill that business quick enough. Isn't that a more fitting result?