There isn't much that couldn't be accomplished if humanity were to stand united.

I agree. That doesn't make it any more possible unfortunately.

EDIT:
Out of interest, (and please don't take this the wrong way) but what do you personally do to try and bring this about?

I ask because it's obviously an issue you are passionate about.

I actually appreciate your ability to accept reason. The truth is that most people either respond with ad hominem, or simply avoid discussion altogether. It is not in our nature to accept truth all of a sudden, but the willingness to even consider information that conflicts with existing beliefs is a lot rarer than it should be.

It does seem an unlikelihood, but it's important to bear in mind that what we "know" is infinitesimal compared to what we don't know.

As for myself, I'm focussing on self-improvement and healing at present. Meditation, proper breathing, diet and excercise. Think globally, act locally. ;p

Except that's a complete misrepresentation of my point.

Now, would you kindly explain how you can possibly know that a person was not hired because of "X characteristic"?

Hey come on now, a moment ago you were all up in dtgreene's face for acting locally. :P
I'm not suggesting I know how to investigate such cases, but it's not so long ago that employers were much more obvious about rejecting people on the basis of "X characteristic" which is the reason such laws were needed in the first place. It's had the side effect of making bigots more secretive of course, but opening up employment opportunities for minorities that are crapped on by some people seems worth it to me.

Yes--an employer has the right to decide whom to pay with his own money. Who else would have that power? No one is required to take the personal risk of starting a business, and no one is required to create jobs by paying people with his own money. No one can be entitled to a job, because no one can be entitled to something that does not necessarily exist.

There is nothing bigoted about the right to decide precisely who you pay with your own money, and who will be working with you day in and day out. No one has the right to tell an atheist that he can't reject Christians because he doesn't consider them acceptable candidates. No one has the right to tell a woman that she can't hire only women. No one has the right to tell a black that he can't hire only blacks. Anyone who thinks otherwise is flat-out anti-liberty.

At any rate, my question was not answered. If one can not read a person's mind, then even if such a law were moral, how could it possibly be justly enforced?

Right. By invoking the spectre of Nazi Germany in a conversation with a German that isn't alt-right. o.O

Dissection.

There are very few people who aren't in some way anti-liberty. Murder for example is frowned upon by a majority of people. Hyperbole I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that liberty is all well and good until the point where you're hurting people. So yeah, if someone dies homeless because an entire town is racist then that liberty is absolutely hurting people. I get it though, you're Ron Swanson, rules are bad.

Sorry, I thought I covered that. Such laws are only useful in provable circumstances which have mostly just taught bigots to be secretive. I fully admit that there's plenty of circumstances where anti-discrimination laws can't help, but at least for the racists/homophobes/etc who are stupid enough to make it obvious why they're mistreating someone then there's some recourse.
I agree that bringing up Nazi Germany was tactless and fairly pointless, but you then went on to basically say that dtgreene should instead be fighting for Palestine and not fighting for a cause that is personal to her which is exactly the opposite of your "act locally" motto. That's exactly how we got onto the whole prioritisation thing.


Phew, I need to take a break from this thread or go back to shitposting.

I'm confused. You live in the US. US law gives you NONE of those rights. You might not think they are moral laws @@, but they're there. So yeah, the US government has the right to tell you you can't. Discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, genetic information, age (partly), and disabilities (partly) is prohibited by law, and until recently, these laws explicitly covered transgender individuals.

No, I suggested that she live in Gaza for a year so she could better understand the universality of human suffering.

Humans in isolation are prey. Humans cooperating with one another are unstoppable. Any questions?

With respect, you replied without addressing my point. You also engaged in prejudice. Contrary to what some believe, we all engage in prejudice from time to time. (I don't know who Ron Swanson is, by the way.) If I thought rules were bad I would be an anarchist. I believe that private property is essential and communism is destructive.

Such laws are never provable without an admission. There is no possible way to know why an individual made this or that decision. I consider that self-evident if ever anything was.

You did not address my point that such a law is unjust from the outset. No one has the right to decide whom to hire but the person signing the paycheck. And no one is even required to hire someone to begin with. Even if an homosexual had only one applicant and did not want to hire him because he is heterosexual, all that he has to do is simply decide not to hire anyone at that time. On what planet (or communist regime) can a person be forced to hire a person with his own money? There is no getting around this. By doing what you advocate, you are definitely hurting people by blatantly trampling all over their most basic liberties.

As I said, I'm out. Thankfully babark is better at this than I am.

I'm confused as well. The only thing you did is state that unjust laws exist--or if you would rather me put it another way, that such-and-such laws exist. Okay...but did you have another point? The parallels that I could draw are too obvious to even mention.

I'm talking about the most basic concepts of liberty and private property, and the rights that entail. If you , after 100+ years of death and destruction are advocating communism, then at least say so.


I had hope, but it would be disingenuous to pretend that I didn't fear this. Perhaps I can find a religious person or cultist who is more willing to discuss his beliefs.