4 ms·

My 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

My 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 ago
  All 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      I'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 ago
        How 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 ago
        To 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.
        kasey_junk 10y ago
        You are not paraphrasing me. You are using a sophomoric rhetorical device to hide a straw man. Let me return the favor. To paraphrase yummyfajitas everyone should be allowed to sublease their apartment in anyway they see fit. If we ban iron smelting in residential buildings what is next? I'll tell you what, slave labor camps. Of course the world does not work that way. The extreme arguments do not define what is and is not valid, and no one actually believes they do after their introduction to rhetoric in the 8th grade. It is perfectly valid to hold the opinion that residents of a neighborhood should be able to prevent toxic waste from being dumped in adjacent yards and to hold that they shouldn't be allowed to ban people from living near them due to race.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'll tell you my core principle: you should be able to use your property in any way you see fit, provided it doesn't directly interfere with others using theirs. Dumping toxic waste does directly interfere, but AirBnBing, long term leasing or Grindring to a non-white person does not. Feel free to follow this principle and see if you can derive any conclusions from it that I don't support. If so, I'll recognize that my argument is flawed and retract it. What's your core principle that I can follow as far as it leads?

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 ago
All 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 ago
  You 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      How 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 ago
        To 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.
        kasey_junk 10y ago
        You are not paraphrasing me. You are using a sophomoric rhetorical device to hide a straw man. Let me return the favor. To paraphrase yummyfajitas everyone should be allowed to sublease their apartment in anyway they see fit. If we ban iron smelting in residential buildings what is next? I'll tell you what, slave labor camps. Of course the world does not work that way. The extreme arguments do not define what is and is not valid, and no one actually believes they do after their introduction to rhetoric in the 8th grade. It is perfectly valid to hold the opinion that residents of a neighborhood should be able to prevent toxic waste from being dumped in adjacent yards and to hold that they shouldn't be allowed to ban people from living near them due to race.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'll tell you my core principle: you should be able to use your property in any way you see fit, provided it doesn't directly interfere with others using theirs. Dumping toxic waste does directly interfere, but AirBnBing, long term leasing or Grindring to a non-white person does not. Feel free to follow this principle and see if you can derive any conclusions from it that I don't support. If so, I'll recognize that my argument is flawed and retract it. What's your core principle that I can follow as far as it leads?