rehmwa 2 #101 March 7, 2014 billvon>Do you feel that if all the anti-discrimination laws were removed society >would revert back to pre civil rights era? Not at all. As each generation grows up in an environment with less and less discrimination, the problem fades. That won't reverse just because you end all the anti-discrimination laws. At worst it will fade more slowly. another thought is that removing some of the more belligerent and biased anti-discrimination laws might let it fade faster, not slower. I think there is a tipping point where fewer laws will improve the situation while more laws will worsen it. It's about it becoming a societal norm vs obtusely forcing it by law. (setting expectations can be much more effective that just attempting to dictate behavior) Frankly, it seems like most laws being proposed today are simply no value added, or, even worse, laws that propogate more discrimination despite how they are being sold as the opposite. Or even just barely disguised attempts at political showmanship with not even an ability to enforce - cosmetic only. The fact that it's being debated now about which side of the tipping point we are now on is likely a good sign that we've crossed it. clean 'em up, reduce to the minimum and make them completely neutral to support all individuals equally - that would be a great step forward Edit: and then I read the rest of your exchange with Bolas and see you guys are already talking those points pretty well....it's funny how people view the purpose of laws - some people are rather strategic about it, others are a lot more narrow and tactical about it - it really drives very different expectations/baselines ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #102 March 7, 2014 Laws are like steps in an inspection, or in a safety process of some type. Most of them are written with the blood of mistakes, and as long as there are people around who remember those mistakes, or who wear that blood (yeah, blood is over the top, but you know what I mean), it's very hard to remove the laws. We should start with the amendments to the constitution; as long as there are amendments in there specifically granting the right to vote to non-whites and women, there is an inherent assumption that they weren't worthy of it in the first place Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #103 March 7, 2014 Wendy understands. And your second paragraph isn't that silly. I don't consider the amendments 'granted' those rights. They confirmed that those rights were applicable to all. The tactical people wanted to address the short term issue and made it specific. If they had been more focused on the big picture, (re-affirmation that these rights are not restricted) would have sent a more positive message, and been more universal. In short - granting rights - to any specific demographic is a statement that things changed - but no one was wrong (i.e., the inherent assumption you noted) but - affirming rights to all - is a statement that we fixed a mistake. it seems minor, but I don't think it really is ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #104 March 9, 2014 Bolas ***>If we truly want to end discrimination we have to acknowledge and expose it. That works now partly BECAUSE of those laws. If someone tried to "expose" a lunch counter in 1950 that wouldn't serve blacks, it would have increased their clientele and hence their income, sending a clear message - "if you want to stay in business, bar blacks." Fortunately that sort of thinking is now mostly gone, and I look forward to the day where we don't need laws to protect minorities/gays from that sort of mistreatment. And therein lies the problem with these laws. Their focus is not equal treatment for all, but to "protect" one group from another. Group specific protection laws become reverse discrimination. If both groups had the equal rights/privileges under the law, then one of them wouldn't need 'protecting.' Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #105 March 9, 2014 Under the law they have equal rights and protections. It's just that the law, being enforced and applied by humans, isn't used evenly. Sometimes the law leaves things open to interpretation. Which is, of course, done by people. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LyraM45 0 #106 March 10, 2014 wmw999Under the law they have equal rights and protections. It's just that the law, being enforced and applied by humans, isn't used evenly. Sometimes the law leaves things open to interpretation. Which is, of course, done by people. Wendy P. Maybe in certain situations they do, but the laws are definitely not equal for everybody right now, IE: marriage.Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #107 March 10, 2014 I was addressing the more general point about why do we need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, including against African-Americans etc. But you're right, marriage rights aren't there, are they Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #108 March 10, 2014 LyraM45 ***Group specific protection laws become reverse discrimination. If both groups had the equal rights/privileges under the law, then one of them wouldn't need 'protecting.' I think Bolas is correct in this. It comes down enforcing the broadly based law. By definition, a law should be for everyone. Then those that are wronged get protected under that law - it doesn't require preferential laws - that's a clear contradiction. Protecting the subgroup is equal to protecting all of us. If we protect the subgroups under a law that is written for all (instead of the current biased writing), then everyone wins. Frankly - any law that says "this group" or "that group" is flawed from the start. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #109 March 10, 2014 rehmwa ******Group specific protection laws become reverse discrimination. If both groups had the equal rights/privileges under the law, then one of them wouldn't need 'protecting.' I think Bolas is correct in this. It comes down enforcing the broadly based law. By definition, a law should be for everyone. Then those that are wronged get protected under that law - it doesn't require preferential laws - that's a clear contradiction. Protecting the subgroup is equal to protecting all of us. If we protect the subgroups under a law that is written for all (instead of the current biased writing), then everyone wins. Frankly - any law that says "this group" or "that group" is flawed from the start. Except, those that don't.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
