frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





We have non discrimination laws based on Race, Gender, LGBT, etc. Why not politics?

Debate Information

Why is it ok to discriminate against Conservatives applying for jobs? We have laws that prevent employers from even asking questions about a person's religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Why is it ok to deny a person a job based on their politcal persuasion? Big Corporations are joining forces to deny employment to people who worked in the Trump administration!
We have big corporations refusing to sell products, such as My Pillow, when the owners are Conservative Trump supporters.
We have TV sponsers denying sponsership to Conservative programming.

Why are those on the Left such hypocrites? Why is job discrimination perfectly ok if done against Conservatives? The double standards from people on the Left is truly nauseating and goes to show the cherry picked phony concerns they have in regards to non discrimination in the workforce.
Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenDebater123ConservativeGirl0519TreeManNomenclatureZeusAres42
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    I do not believe that "businesses ought to be allowed to do whatever pleases them". But I do believe that businesses ought to have unrestricted consensual interactions with whoever accepts them, and ought not to have unconsensual interactions imposed on them. It is no one else's business what two adults do in their bedroom, and just as much it is no one else's business what two adults do behind the doors in a Goldman Sachs office.
    CYDdharta said:

    Going too far in any one direction leads to corruption and disaster, which is why nearly everyone moderates their view.
    Okay, let us apply this to some things.


    Your application leaves a lot to be desired;

    "Murder should never be allowed" is too far in one direction. We need moderation: murder should sometimes be allowed.
    Apparently you're never heard of justifiable homicide.

    "Rape should never be allowed" is too far in one direction. We need moderation: rape should sometimes be allowed.
    A 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old if fine, a year later the 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old is rape, a year after that the 19 year old having sex with an 18 year old is fine.  You are correct, sometimes rape should be allowed.

    "Highway robbery should never be allowed" is too far in one direction. We need moderation: highway robbery should sometimes be allowed.
    There's no statute against "highway robbery".  There are laws against robbery.  Apparently robbery can be justified, as illegals aren't charged for committing robbery in sanctuary cities.


    "Moderation" is a keyword for "I do not have a well developed position and cannot take a firm stance". I am quite unapologetic in my defense of property rights, and I do not believe that their violation in some cases should be allowed, and the idea that it should is just as abhorrent in my eyes as the above three statements.
    And most people agree with it, when it comes to what they see as "personal property". Few people will say that the government should sometimes be able to just take your car away from you, because it has some economical need or something.

    "Moderation" is a key word for acknowledging that nothing is ever black and white, that there are always shades of gray.

    10% of Americans (~34 million) support asset seizure.  About twice that number support the government allowing illegals to steal your property, as sanctuary cities have about 20% support.  Roughly 70 million is not a number to just dismiss. 

    It is too bad that people do not understand that businesses are just as much a personal property as a car. Facebook is not a "public square" or anything; it is a property of its shareholders. What they do with it is up to them. They should be free to ban conservatives, they should be free to ban gays, they should be free to ban Christians, they should be free to ban Muslims, they should be free to ban women - anyone they like. And people who do not like it are free not to use their services, just like people who do not like you, CYDdharta, do not get to tell you how to run your home. You do with your property whatever you please.

    It is too bad that you do not understand that Facebook is a public platform, not simply a private business.  They receive special immunities and privileges as a public platform.  The reason they have those special immunities and privileges is to foster free speech on their platform.  If they were subject to the same laws and rules as every other media company, I'd agree with you, but should a government sponsored facility be free to ban anyone they want?  Should a homeless shelter be free to ban black people?





  • @Happy_Killbot

    Yes we've experienced the consequences of the authoritarian Democrat Party's affirmative action, their so called non discrimination laws to protect only their special interest groups, the monopolies now being created in our corporations.

    We on the Right hate it and only now have been forced to demand fairness against these monopolies.

    What you are doing, AS ALWAYS, is giving the Left a pass and judging those on the Right for finally being forced to do what Democrats have been doing for decades.
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • @MayCaesar

    You never answered me. Would you like our utility companies denying you electricity because of your political beliefs?
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfen
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 5557 Pts   -  
    @We_are_accountable ;
    We on the Right hate it and only now have been forced to demand fairness against these monopolies.
    The right is the reason these companies exist and are allowed to do that in the first place, don't you get it? Privatization is the reason that these companies can do what they do, you did this.

    The right protects the option of these companies to kick off whoever they want, whenever they want, for any reason they see fit. That isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment.

    Seriously, can you explain what "right wing economics" is all about, or are you too propagandized to understand and articulate even that?
    What you are doing, AS ALWAYS, is giving the Left a pass and judging those on the Right for finally being forced to do what Democrats have been doing for decades.
    No $4!t Sherlock, by saying that companies should have restrictions: You are the "Authoritarian leftist" now aren't you?

    If you don't want these tech monopolies to "censor" your speech, then you should support public infrastructure by refusing to vote for Republican candidates who actively sabotage it, don't believe me look at Texas right now...
    CYDdhartaWe_are_accountablePlaffelvohfenSkepticalOneZeusAres42
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    "Justifiable homicide" is not murder, consensual sex is not rape by definition (and laws that classify it as such are self-contradictory), and someone not being charged for robbery does not make robbery legal.
    Do you agree that murder, rape and robbery should sometimes be allowed?
    Let us take it a step further: should robbery of your home sometimes be allowed? Not too often; let us say, once every 2 years? Better not be too far in one direction on this one!

    Truth and false, logic and illogic, identity and contradiction - these are pretty black and white. Seeing shades of grey in them indicates to me lack of desire to think.

    "Public platform" or not, Facebook is a private organization. If it enjoys some special protection and privileges due to its status, then it should have them revoked. And if there are restrictions put on what services it can or cannot agree or refuse to provide to consensual individuals, then those should be revoked too - and new ones should never be invoked.
    A homeless shelter absolutely should be free to ban black people, or any other people that it chooses to. That would kind of go against the purpose of this shelter in the first place, but, hey, if it is privately owned, then it is up to its owners to decide who to let or not let in.


    @We_are_accountable

    I would not "like" it, but it is its right, assuming that it is privately-owned (and in my view, all companies should be privately-owned).
    In the US most utility companies are nationalized or semi-nationalized. When that is the case, then the company should serve all taxpayers, so the argument does not apply. Again, I would love to see them all fully privatized, and then they are free not to serve me if they choose to do so.

    I would hope, however, that in a civilized culture most companies would not be so petty as to deny someone service over their political views - for one, because politics would not play a major role in such society to begin with. Politics is seen as a big deal in the US because the government has its claws everywhere here. But if the government was properly restricted to several basic functions and did not stick its nose anywhere else, then my political views would not be of much interest to most people, as they would be pretty inconsequential, and then it is unlikely that many people would refuse to trade with me over it.
    ZeusAres42
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    "Justifiable homicide" is not murder, consensual sex is not rape by definition (and laws that classify it as such are self-contradictory), and someone not being charged for robbery does not make robbery legal.
    Do you agree that murder, rape and robbery should sometimes be allowed?
    Let us take it a step further: should robbery of your home sometimes be allowed? Not too often; let us say, once every 2 years? Better not be too far in one direction on this one!

    Truth and false, logic and illogic, identity and contradiction - these are pretty black and white. Seeing shades of grey in them indicates to me lack of desire to think.

    "Public platform" or not, Facebook is a private organization. If it enjoys some special protection and privileges due to its status, then it should have them revoked. And if there are restrictions put on what services it can or cannot agree or refuse to provide to consensual individuals, then those should be revoked too - and new ones should never be invoked.
    A homeless shelter absolutely should be free to ban black people, or any other people that it chooses to. That would kind of go against the purpose of this shelter in the first place, but, hey, if it is privately owned, then it is up to its owners to decide who to let or not let in.

    Let us take it a step further: should you have to serve dinner to people who just show up on your doorstep?  Not too often; let us say, once every 2 years? Better not be too far in one direction on this one!

    IF the laws are changed and Facebook's special privileges and immunities are removed, then, and only then, would you have a valid point. 
    Happy_KillbotPlaffelvohfenDee
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    Well, to be moderate, I would have to say that you do have to serve dinner to them every now and then. Not too often, but not too rare either. Once every 2 years sounds reasonable.
    But then, I do not want to be moderate; you do.

    No, I do not think that existence of bad laws validates introducing more bad laws. This is the kind of logic that leads to the government growing uncontrollably. Better to have one bad law, than a gazillion bad laws trying to balance each other.
  • Why not politics?

    A more perfect union can be filed grievance set against civil claims of prejudice.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Well, to be moderate, I would have to say that you do have to serve dinner to them every now and then. Not too often, but not too rare either. Once every 2 years sounds reasonable.
    But then, I do not want to be moderate; you do.


    ...and you would be wrong.  I own a house (private), not a restaurant (public).  If I lived in a public establishment that provided meals, then yes, I would need to have to serve dinner to people who showed up looking for a meal, or I'd have to have a valid reason to deny them service.  Also, I never said anything about being a moderate, that was all you.

    No, I do not think that existence of bad laws validates introducing more bad laws. This is the kind of logic that leads to the government growing uncontrollably. Better to have one bad law, than a gazillion bad laws trying to balance each other.
    ...except that what I've been discussing is about removing bad laws, not about introducing anything new.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    No, in a proper free market system you would not. If it is your restaurant, then you can bar anyone from entrance. The restaurant is just a building, and the fact that you are conducting some business there does not change anything. You can open a restaurant for your friends at your own home right now and let no one else into your home, and you will be within your legal rights to do so. It should be no different for all types of food establishments.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    No, in a proper free market system you would not. If it is your restaurant, then you can bar anyone from entrance. The restaurant is just a building, and the fact that you are conducting some business there does not change anything. You can open a restaurant for your friends at your own home right now and let no one else into your home, and you will be within your legal rights to do so. It should be no different for all types of food establishments.

    Do you have a point?  I'm talking about reality.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    @CYDdharta

    This is reality. This is how basic property rights work. That the government systematically violates them does not change the fact that they are there.

    My point is that Facebook is no different than a restaurant or your home, and thus should not be treated differently by the law. The fact that Facebook has a lot of clients and huge revenue does not change anything. If you learn to make the best apple pie in the world and people from all over the world start coming to your home to eat it and pay you a lot of money for it, it still remains your home and your property, and it is up to you to decide who to let in and who to not, who to kick out and who to not.

    My explanation is not very confusing, is it?
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    This is reality. This is how basic property rights work. That the government systematically violates them does not change the fact that they are there.

    My point is that Facebook is no different than a restaurant or your home, and thus should not be treated differently by the law. The fact that Facebook has a lot of clients and huge revenue does not change anything. If you learn to make the best apple pie in the world and people from all over the world start coming to your home to eat it and pay you a lot of money for it, it still remains your home and your property, and it is up to you to decide who to let in and who to not, who to kick out and who to not.

    My explanation is not very confusing, is it?

    In what country is there a free market operating as you've described it?  It certainly isn't the US.

    In the US there is most definitely a difference between a public company and a private residence.

    Your explanation isn't confusing, it just isn't reality.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch