3 ms·
The fact that there seem to be no major AirBnB disasters suggests that hotels are probably overdesigned, and this is all unnecessary. Another is that usually s
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
The fact that there seem to be no major AirBnB disasters suggests that hotels are probably overdesigned, and this is all unnecessary.
Another is that usually short term rentals are already against rules or regulations so the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change.
At one time people purchased homes assuming they weren't going to live next to negroes. Did they also have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change? If not, why not?
- kasey_junk 10y agoBecause one is about how someone is born and one is about how they intend to use a thing? The idea that they are in any way equivalent is so preposterous I can only presume you are making a poor form rhetorical point of some sort.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoMy point is that your argument is clearly incorrect - you don't actually find the same argument convincing when applied to a case where it clearly applies, but which contradicts your intuitions. I.e., it's a rationalization, not a reason.
- dwaltrip 10y ago> when applied to a case where it clearly applies Typing these words doesn't remove the differences between the situations. "Desiring to rent out my apt to tourists" is not a protected class.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoAll you are really saying is that currently the law often prohibits AirBnB and does not prohibit renting to non-whites. I'm saying that the law should do neither one. Kasey_junk - if I understood him correctly - was arguing that the law should not be changed because "the people who bought assuming they weren't going to live next to a hotel have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change." If that argument were valid, then the law about renting to non-whites should not have changed either to create protected classes (which didn't exist at the time the original zoning laws were made).
- dwaltrip 10y agoYou think it should be legal to discriminate based on race as a landlord or property manager? Edit: I'm less interested in Kasey_junk's argument and moreso in your unwillingness to acknowledge the vast difference between discriminating against protected classes and regulation of commercial activity in private recidences.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoI'm arguing a reducto ad absurdum. Specifically, X => Y. Y is crazily wrong. Therefore, X must be false. I have no strong opinion on the legality of discrimination by race. It offends my moral intuitions, but I cannot construct a solid argument in favor of it that doesn't lead to other crazy conclusions. So I accept my uncertainty here. Edit: I'm less interested in Kasey_junk's argument and moreso in your unwillingness to acknowledge the vast difference between discriminating against protected classes and regulation of commercial activity in private recidences. I acknowledge the vast difference in feelings that these situations inspire. But I cannot come up with a good principled argument to justify the existence of protected classes, or to distinguish between these cases in some other way.
- dwaltrip 10y agoHow does it lead to other crazy conclusions? I likely will disagree with the other crazy conclusions and the logic that leads to them :)
- yummyfajitas 10y agoTo paraphrase kasey_junk: "people purchased homes assuming they weren't going to live next to negroes have a reasonable expectation to have a say on if that's going to change." I argue that this line of reasoning is invalid - if it were valid, then white homeowners had some reasonable expectation to have a say on if segregation was going to change. I don't believe they did.
- 10y ago