4 ms·

So it's equally ok to discriminate on child bearing abilities and race? Hint: one of these attributes has a practical purpose in the perpetuation of human soci

by codexon 17y ago

So it's equally ok to discriminate on child bearing abilities and race? Hint: one of these attributes has a practical purpose in the perpetuation of human society, and the other does not.

rsheridan6 17y ago
That would only apply to people who intend to bear children. What if you're childfree and intend to remain that way, beyond your childbearing years, or you've had a vasectomy/tubal ligation? By your logic, would it not then be ok to discriminate based on race?
- codexon 17y ago
  If you are going to make a sweeping argument with such specific circumstances, it is up to you to prove that it applies to the majority.
  - rsheridan6 17y ago
    I'm not the one who said it wasn't ok to discriminate based on race when you choose who you're going to date. Fuck or don't fuck whomever you want, it's none of my business (FWIW I am white and married to a white woman, but would not have automatically rejected someone for being of another race). I was just asking asking a question. Nobody here has attempted to prove that anything - that it's ok or not ok to discriminate based on race or gender. I'm just asking, what's the difference? It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. This is the logical consequence of the position that discrimination is not acceptable. Your first attempt to show the difference, based on procreation, was a failure, so you're reduced to calling the next logical step "ridiculous," which is not really an argument. I don't think there is a good argument for your position. 20 years ago, people would have said that the idea that not dating people of a particular race makes you racist was ridiculous, but here we are.
    - codexon 17y ago
      > It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. Applying the "principle of equality" with a total disregard for the facts is fallacious. Why stop at race and gender? Why do we discriminate against corpses (necrophiliacs) or even different species (zoophilia)? This is the ridiculous argument you are presenting. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the tone of your skin should be a far less compelling characteristic than gender.
      - rsheridan6 17y ago
        I'm not presenting a ridiculous argument, I'm just pointing out the consequences of making non-discrimination your highest principle. I'm not interested in telling other people who to have sex with. And there are definitely zoophiles who seek acceptance and are waiting for their Stonewall, probably necrophiles too. It looks like you've arbitrarily decided where the cutoff should be between acceptable discrimination and unacceptable discrimination. There are others who still think (as almost everybody did from about the 60s-90s) that the line should be drawn entirely outside of dating preferences. I don't see what makes your opinion any more binding than theirs.
        codexon 17y ago
        > "I'm just pointing out the consequences of making non-discrimination your highest principle. I'm not interested in telling other people who to have sex with. And there are definitely zoophiles who seek acceptance and are waiting for their Stonewall, probably necrophiles too." The problem with your argument is that the high percentage of females refusing to associate with different races (even their own race) is essentially dictating who other people have sex with. What happens if this trend continues? A large portion of the male population will likely either die out as virgins or be forced to relegate themselves to a dwindling number of minority females. I'm not trying to pull the race card, but you as a white male are likely not very concerned about this as it will not affect you in the slightest while minorities are worrying daily about how their dating prospects and why so many people simply ignore them.
rictic 17y ago
Ok, if that's the basis of your objection then the situation of dating a woman who is physically unable to have children is analogous to dating a man?
- codexon 17y ago
  The point is that using gender preference as an excuse for race preference is ridiculous.
  - hughprime 17y ago
    Gender preference is certainly non-equivalent to race preference. On the other hand, it does show that certain forms of discrimination which would be wrong (and just plain illegal) in other settings are perfectly okay in a dating setting. As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands. Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is.
    - codexon 17y ago
      >"As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands." If you looked at the other OkCupid chart, it shows that race has little impact on interracial match %. It's fairly certain that "old, ugly, fat, have children" are all characteristics that would lower the match %, therefore you argument of equating these different traits is debunked. Your bit about hiring is also suspect. Think about 50+ years ago when minorities such as blacks really weren't up to standard due to years of slavery and persecution. Back then it was also seen as "legitimate" (using your argument) to not hire black people in the same way that people aren't dating minorities today. >"Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is." What is this "actual" racism? Since when is there "actual" racism and "fake" racism? I'm amazed at how many upvotes you have received with what is basically a No true Scotsman fallacy comment.

by codexon 17y ago

So it's equally ok to discriminate on child bearing abilities and race? Hint: one of these attributes has a practical purpose in the perpetuation of human society, and the other does not.

rsheridan6 17y ago

That would only apply to people who intend to bear children. What if you're childfree and intend to remain that way, beyond your childbearing years, or you've had a vasectomy/tubal ligation? By your logic, would it not then be ok to discriminate based on race?

codexon 17y ago
If you are going to make a sweeping argument with such specific circumstances, it is up to you to prove that it applies to the majority.
- rsheridan6 17y ago
  I'm not the one who said it wasn't ok to discriminate based on race when you choose who you're going to date. Fuck or don't fuck whomever you want, it's none of my business (FWIW I am white and married to a white woman, but would not have automatically rejected someone for being of another race). I was just asking asking a question. Nobody here has attempted to prove that anything - that it's ok or not ok to discriminate based on race or gender. I'm just asking, what's the difference? It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. This is the logical consequence of the position that discrimination is not acceptable. Your first attempt to show the difference, based on procreation, was a failure, so you're reduced to calling the next logical step "ridiculous," which is not really an argument. I don't think there is a good argument for your position. 20 years ago, people would have said that the idea that not dating people of a particular race makes you racist was ridiculous, but here we are.
  - codexon 17y ago
    > It seems to me that the same principle of equality that says it's not ok to have a preference in partners based on race should say that it's not ok to have a preference based on gender, assuming that discrimination based on gender in general is not ok. Applying the "principle of equality" with a total disregard for the facts is fallacious. Why stop at race and gender? Why do we discriminate against corpses (necrophiliacs) or even different species (zoophilia)? This is the ridiculous argument you are presenting. A line has to be drawn somewhere and the tone of your skin should be a far less compelling characteristic than gender.
    - rsheridan6 17y ago
      I'm not presenting a ridiculous argument, I'm just pointing out the consequences of making non-discrimination your highest principle. I'm not interested in telling other people who to have sex with. And there are definitely zoophiles who seek acceptance and are waiting for their Stonewall, probably necrophiles too. It looks like you've arbitrarily decided where the cutoff should be between acceptable discrimination and unacceptable discrimination. There are others who still think (as almost everybody did from about the 60s-90s) that the line should be drawn entirely outside of dating preferences. I don't see what makes your opinion any more binding than theirs.
      - codexon 17y ago
        > "I'm just pointing out the consequences of making non-discrimination your highest principle. I'm not interested in telling other people who to have sex with. And there are definitely zoophiles who seek acceptance and are waiting for their Stonewall, probably necrophiles too." The problem with your argument is that the high percentage of females refusing to associate with different races (even their own race) is essentially dictating who other people have sex with. What happens if this trend continues? A large portion of the male population will likely either die out as virgins or be forced to relegate themselves to a dwindling number of minority females. I'm not trying to pull the race card, but you as a white male are likely not very concerned about this as it will not affect you in the slightest while minorities are worrying daily about how their dating prospects and why so many people simply ignore them.

rictic 17y ago

Ok, if that's the basis of your objection then the situation of dating a woman who is physically unable to have children is analogous to dating a man?

codexon 17y ago
The point is that using gender preference as an excuse for race preference is ridiculous.
- hughprime 17y ago
  Gender preference is certainly non-equivalent to race preference. On the other hand, it does show that certain forms of discrimination which would be wrong (and just plain illegal) in other settings are perfectly okay in a dating setting. As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands. Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is.
  - codexon 17y ago
    >"As a better example, I'm not interested in dating women who are old, ugly, fat, or have children, and that's perfectly okay. If I were not interested in hiring women who were old, ugly, fat or have children then I'd have a serious lawsuit on my hands." If you looked at the other OkCupid chart, it shows that race has little impact on interracial match %. It's fairly certain that "old, ugly, fat, have children" are all characteristics that would lower the match %, therefore you argument of equating these different traits is debunked. Your bit about hiring is also suspect. Think about 50+ years ago when minorities such as blacks really weren't up to standard due to years of slavery and persecution. Back then it was also seen as "legitimate" (using your argument) to not hire black people in the same way that people aren't dating minorities today. >"Now personally, I think that refusing to date someone based on their race is both regrettable and closed-minded, but it's not detestable the way that actual racism is." What is this "actual" racism? Since when is there "actual" racism and "fake" racism? I'm amazed at how many upvotes you have received with what is basically a No true Scotsman fallacy comment.