Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Here's everyone's problem in this debate, you're trying to find a black and white answer. Answers like this rarely exist in the world, if at all. Sometimes it is right to descriminate if you're hiring for a certain theme (Porn,Restaurants), and sometimes it isn't right (when there's no reason for it. IE. No blacks allowed to be camera men O,o).

This has been said before in other topics but discrimination and assumptions CAN be just things, and they CAN have their uses. There is no black and white.

I've given examples with descrimination. Want an example of useful assumptions? Lets just look at what is constantly ravaged by the public, blacks being picked up by police more often.

Well, if you've got their society in all the latest music videos TRYING to portray themselves as 'gangsters' and all-around 'bad-ass mutha-fuckas'... then that would arise some suspicion if you're a store clerk and you see a black guy in very thuggish clothing coming into your store at night. It's only reasonable to be a bit wary, and there's nothing wrong with it. As long as you don't judge too unfairly and whip out a shotgun and demand he leave the store right away =P (yet again, no black and white there).

The police probably do the same thing, it's called common sense. Yes, they will watch black thugs and white punks closer, there's nothing wrong with that. It's called common sense. Common sense in itself is assumptions. Another reason blacks are watched a bit closer is due to the fact they are a very different minority, they naturally stand out. This is a bad way to descriminate, but it's hard to help it. For some people it's like walking into a room of lab-coat scientists and white walls, and seeing a butterfly =P. People are distracted by things that are different. These people might stand out more yes, but they're only going to get into trouble if they're doing something wrong... if they still get into trouble, then yes, it's racism, and it's wrong.

I've said alot of things here, and alot of it is going to be a confusing blur, but if you get anything out of it... just realize that there are never any black and white situations, and that it isn't 100% wrong to make assumptions. I only consider it racism if a member of a group is discriminated against when he/she hasn't actually done anything 'wrong'.

At 3/21/03 10:59 PM, PreacherJ wrote:

At 3/21/03 07:14 AM, swayside wrote:

No... if this was your point, you'd have said "I think it should be ok to discriminate against people with no education."

Instead, you choose to discriminate against all manner of things that you consider "changeable", including homosexuality.

all of that was encompassed in my point.

Well Hoo-Rah! Glad we could finally clear this whole point up after 5 pages.

*Disco Dances*

Looking forward to any other ideas for threads you have in the future.

um, ok.

let's put aside the gay thing for now. we can pick that back up in another topic if some of you are so inclined.

the whole point of this topic was to say that everyone has a right to discriminate against things of personal choice.

for example, if slizor (an extreme left-winger) owned a business, and nemesisz (a moderate right-winger [i think]) applied for employment, slizor has the right to denie nemesisz a job on the grounds of nemesisz's political stance because that is a changeable thing. the same goes for more obscure things like if someone was against the opperation of cars and owned a business, that person would have the right to hire people who, likewise, don't drive cars.

any qualms?

any qualms?

Yes....my first qualm is why am I running a business? And secondly, more obviously, if you decide upon someone's political stance, it's discrimination...mmmkay? Discrimination is bad...discrimination is against the idea of free speech...mmmkay?

At 3/31/03 04:20 PM, Slizor wrote:

Yes....my first qualm is why am I running a business?

because you are the most extreme person i know of with your views.

And secondly, more obviously, if you decide upon someone's political stance, it's discrimination...mmmkay?

mmmkay...

Discrimination is bad...discrimination is against the idea of free speech...mmmkay?

no, it's not. not in the least. the idea of free speech does NOT include anything that says reprecussions will be none.

(dictionary entry for free speech)

free speech
n.
The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.

not only does not mention absense of reprecussion, it mentions nothing of private business, only the government.

that dictionary entery was from www.dictionary.com , by the way.

no, it's not. not in the least. the idea of free speech does NOT include anything that says reprecussions will be none.

Reprecussions = Restraint. If you don't have a view, or do something because you fear the repercussions you are restrained. Also that definition is a US-centric one. It is obvious that Free Speech equals.....free speech...no? Not Free from interference from the Government Speech.

Let's have something NEW to discuss on this topic if you're going to keep ressurecting it.

At 4/2/03 05:48 AM, Slizor wrote:

no, it's not. not in the least. the idea of free speech does NOT include anything that says reprecussions will be none.

Reprecussions = Restraint. If you don't have a view, or do something because you fear the repercussions you are restrained.

why do you assume that reprecussions are always a bad thing? you don't always have to fear them. if you were in a group of people who thought like you do, would you be afraid of what would happen if you expressed your views? a good reaction on their part is a positive reprecussion. but, reprecussions aren't a necessary consequence of expressing one's opinions.

Also that definition is a US-centric one. It is obvious that Free Speech equals.....free speech...no? Not Free from interference from the Government Speech.

i really don't know what you were trying to say here.

anyone have some other point?

At 2/19/03 04:32 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: being gay is unnatural, changeable, and tramples the ethics and moral values of many people.

People must learn to tolerate the sexual orientations of others before the world can move on and continue to grow as a whole. People who view homosexuals as 'less' or 'not worth tolerating' stand against everything America and equality stand for.

How can you say one's sexual orientation is changeable? Yeah it true some people do it for attention but the majority can't help it that they aren't attracted to the opposite sex. It’s feeling inside. I knew a kid who went to church everyday and believed in god, a kid that wasn't exposed to homosexuality and felt it was wrong. He couldn't help but be attracted to the same sex no matter how hard he tried. There are millions of stories like this, stories that even end in suicide, stories of kids who went through extreme torment because of it and you are gonna say that those people chose not to put themselves through that, those people chose to kill themselves over something they could clearly fix?

I do agree with you about having to tolerate the sexual orientations of others so the world can move on though. One person has no right to determine the freedom/censorship of one’s preferences. If you don’t like something don’t expose yourself to it