Comments on: Institute on the Constitution: There Is No Reason Why Men Should Not Discriminate On Grounds of Religion, Race, or Nationality

By: Warren

Warren — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:18:27 +0000

In reply to Tom Van Dyke. Tom - I don't understand your point. Are you saying wearing Klan outfits is an immutable trait?

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:45:47 +0000

First, we all should admit that anti-discrimination activities are more and more dissolving civil liberties.
So, for the sake of civil liberties, we have to restrain anti-dicrimination activities. When and where is a matter of debate. (Re-publishing Nymeyer is a useful tool for promoting such a debate, even if you don’t share Nymeyer’s point of view.)
I see that it is a possible restraint for anti-discrimination activities when you restrain them to “immutable” traits (and insofar I sympathize with Dr. Throckmorton). On the other hand we must see that on the long run, less and less traits will be “immutable”. (As I’ve said before: A hundred years from now, there will be some kind of effective SOCE – perhaps by genetical or hormonal changement).
On my opinion, the superior point of view must be the Golden Rule. If you think that black-only associations are justified, you ought to accept white-only associations, too. If you think that gay-only associations are justified, you ought to accept heterosexual-only associations, too.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:36:27 +0000

Funny. The "immutable" issue seems to b a strong argument for why a black person should not be able to discriminate against whites, but be perfectly justified discriminating against whites wearing Klan outfits. This of course touches on why gay-agenda advocates tend to insist that homosexuality/homosexual attractions are "immutable," an unalterable function of what a person is, not a free will choice of what one does.

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:36:27 +0000

Patrocles# ~ Sep 5, 2013 at 5:41 am
“First, we all should admit that anti-discrimination activities are more and more dissolving civil liberties.”
I don’t believe that is true.
“I see that it is a possible restraint for anti-discrimination activities when you restrain them to “immutable” traits”
that would mean that there would be no religious protections, nor would there be protections for political affiliations (which are a matter of public record).
And given how some use the term “immutable” (i.e. it is possible for some people to change under the right conditions), gender isn’t immutable either.
“As I’ve said before: A hundred years from now, there will be some kind of effective SOCE – perhaps by genetical or hormonal changement). ”
Again I disagree, I suspect 100 years from now people will look at the idea of trying to change a person’s orientation, the same way many today would look at the idea of trying to change a person’s race (i.e. a sad and offensive commentary on how discrimination by the majority adversely effects the minority).
“If you think that black-only associations are justified, you ought to accept white-only associations, too.”
1st, if you are discussing PRIVATE organizations, then the law already allows such things.
2nd, after you have gone through a semester or 2 of being the only (or 1 of only a few ) white person in your classes perhaps then you might start to understand the need for minority-based (but not necessarily minority-only) organizations.

By: Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:36:25 +0000

Warren# ~ Sep 4, 2013 at 9:28 pm
Tom – I don’t understand your point. Are you saying wearing Klan outfits is an immutable trait?
No, the opposite, of course, and why it’s OK to discriminate against behavior we find objectionable or offensive.