Anyone else interested in minority rights issues?

[AmyNelson]

There didnt seem to be a more fitting forum for this issue.

Any views on minority rights?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

First, welcome to DF. We're happy to have you.

I believe the Civil Rights forum we've created would address minority rights. If you believe we could word the section better or hyphenate the topic please make a suggestion.

We're relatively new, less than two months old, and we tired to make the forums as broad as possible but tried being a little bit specific on general discussion areas. That said user interest and participation will greatly impact what categories and topics we give specific forums.

Note that we are trying to keep the format here simple, one introduction page, and really don't want to add 100 categories given we have about 90 members at this point. There's no sense in having specialty forums that see one new post every 3 months.

[AmyNelson]

Thats fine. If its ok in this forum I can discuss it here. :)

I am particularly interested in the issue of autistics as a social minority group. I am on the spectrum myself, with aspergers syndrome, and would like to see an official recognition of autistics as a minority in order to stop some of the terrible human rights abuses that happen.

As a whole we do fulfill the criteria of a minority group ( I could show some things I've written if anyone was interested) but to proceed with the United Nations is very hard to do and slow.

[trefer]

I think people outside US think that this country is against civil rights, or at least Bush, and nobody is doing anything.

[AmyNelson]

Do you have a view on minority rights in particular?

[longjonsilver]

My view on minority rights is that we have gone too far. Through socially engineering tactics such as affirmative action we have begun fighting fire with fire. This has fliped the descrimination in America from the minority, to the majority, and thats whose rights I am concerned for. The average white male who is forced to take it on the chin when applying to universities or businesses who have been restricted with racial and other quotas. Changing the deciding factor of admission to an issue that has no relevance. The way to end descrimination is not to repeat the mistake that you are trying to correct, but rather to in no way use race or creed in decision making.

[Nathan Brazil]

Hmm...."minority rights"....what? Should someone get special treatment because of their skin color or religion or anything else?

No, of course they shouldn't. The Fourteenth Amendment states that all persons should be treated equally before the law. Unless minorities aren't considered people, they shouldn't be treated specially.

[Labrocca]

Rights and mentality are 2 different things. However I agree with you Nathan on your principal that the 14th amendment already grants equal rights.

[Alonzo]

The issue is whether, given the prejudice of society as a whole, can minorities be treated equally if we were to attempt to bar anything but complete blindness? I don't think society would need to be free of prejudice, or close to it, for that to work.

[Athena]

I do not think minority rights would be an issue if there were a good understanding of democracy. It is my preference we increase awareness of democracy, rather focus on all the possible minorities.

However, I am also concerned about what is meant by I am particularly interested in the issue of autistics as a social minority group. I am on the spectrum myself, with aspergers syndrome, and would like to see an official recognition of autistics as a minority in order to stop some of the terrible human rights abuses that happen.

I have been involved with people with a variety of disabilities, and the masses seem unaware of the problems they face, and the solutions. Also, I believe I have some autistic qualities, and make efforts to adjust my life so it is comfortable to me. When people first became aware of technology, they thought it possible to create a perfect human race. But what happened is prolonging the lives of people with disabilities and adjusting to their special needs. I think this effort makes us better human beings. What changes would you like to see made?

[Mayberry]

Anyone else interested in minority rights issues? In a word, no. All men are created equal. No special treatment. Period. Giving any minority any kind of special consideration is tantamount to discrimination, it doesn't matter how you slice it, sugar coat it, wrap it, or ship it. I'm so disgusted with all these "minority" groups crying about how they're so mistreated. Anyone looking for minority "rights" in my book is looking for a handout, plain and simple. I'm sorry if I have OFFENDED anyone, but I believe we have all evolved to the point where equal opportunity, affirmative action, etc. have become obsolete. Sure, there are still and probably always will be people that discriminate, and these people can and will be dealt with on a case by case basis. Personally I don't care if you're black, purple, handicapped, or whatever. Folks ought to be judged on their own individual merit. 'Nuff said.

[Athena]

I said a better understanding of democracy should elemenate the need to focus on minorities, but that is idealism and we are far from it. If Israel had made as much effort to assimulate Palestinians into their society as the US has made to resolve the racial problems, the years of human suffering that followed the establishment of Israel might have been prevented. There are times when a society most take special steps to achieve the ideal.

Another example of this is, the number of working people with disabilities. Another example is, the Older Americans Act was very successful in improving the lives of long lived people, until we slashed domestic budgets and put the money into military spending.

This is only recognizing there are people with specific barriers to the good life, and by working together we can reduce or eleminate those barriers. I am all in favor of this. Besides, in my life time we have gone from women being enslaved as unpaid family care givers, and being barred from colleges and professions, to considering a woman for president. Yes, sometimes special effort is necessary.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nope, not a bit. There's a difference between passing legislation that controls how the government conducts it's hiring and employment practices, and allegedly similar legislation that violates the civil liberties of private parties to conduct their own private business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had NO business being applied to private parties. If Joe didn't want to serve nigras at his lunch counter, he doesn't have to. What part of it being HIS lunch counter do the liberals not understand? If Joe prospers, that's fine, it's his business. If his business fails, that's his business, too. Under no circumstances is it the government's business, unless the government has issued Joe a contract for delivery of a thousand sliders a week.

Ditto for people with disabilities. Compliance with that stupid Americans with Disabilities Act cost me thousands of dollars. Know what? Making my shop accessible for someone in a wheelchair wasn't going to make me HIRE a man in a wheelchair. It was just a waste of money. Nor was I going to hire anyone I knew to be diseased to handle food.

What about the freedoms of the average Joe? Why is he denied the freedom to decline to participate in the liberal game? Any worker today that could sock away 15.5% of his paycheck would never need Socialist Security or Medicare. Forcing him to pay for that crap forces him to need that crap later. Ponzi scheme, is that the liberal game?

[Labrocca]

Nope, not a bit.Â*Â*There's a difference between passing legislation that controls how the government conducts it's hiring and employment practices, and allegedly similar legislation that violates the civil liberties of private parties to conduct their own private business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had NO business being applied to private parties.Â*Â*If Joe didn't want to serve nigras at his lunch counter, he doesn't have to.Â*Â*What part of it being HIS lunch counter do the liberals not understand?Â*Â*If Joe prospers, that's fine, it's his business.Â*Â*If his business fails, that's his business, too.Â*Â*Under no circumstances is it the government's business, unless the government has issued Joe a contract for delivery of a thousand sliders a week.

Ditto for people with disabilities.Â*Â*Compliance with that stupid Americans with Disabilities Act cost me thousands of dollars.Â*Â*Know what?Â*Â*Making my shop accessible for someone in a wheelchair wasn't going to make me HIRE a man in a wheelchair.Â*Â*It was just a waste of money.Â*Â*Nor was I going to hire anyone I knew to be diseased to handle food.

What about the freedoms of the average Joe?Â*Â*Why is he denied the freedom to decline to participate in the liberal game?Â*Â*Any worker today that could sock away 15.5% of his paycheck would never need Socialist Security or Medicare.Â*Â*Forcing him to pay for that crap forces him to need that crap later.Â*Â*Ponzi scheme, is that the liberal game?


Another winner of a post from Nathan. Let's just say I think 99% of what you said was crap.

[Nathan Brazil]

Nope, not a bit.Â*Â*There's a difference between passing legislation that controls how the government conducts it's hiring and employment practices, and allegedly similar legislation that violates the civil liberties of private parties to conduct their own private business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had NO business being applied to private parties.Â*Â*If Joe didn't want to serve nigras at his lunch counter, he doesn't have to.Â*Â*What part of it being HIS lunch counter do the liberals not understand?Â*Â*If Joe prospers, that's fine, it's his business.Â*Â*If his business fails, that's his business, too.Â*Â*Under no circumstances is it the government's business, unless the government has issued Joe a contract for delivery of a thousand sliders a week.

Ditto for people with disabilities.Â*Â*Compliance with that stupid Americans with Disabilities Act cost me thousands of dollars.Â*Â*Know what?Â*Â*Making my shop accessible for someone in a wheelchair wasn't going to make me HIRE a man in a wheelchair.Â*Â*It was just a waste of money.Â*Â*Nor was I going to hire anyone I knew to be diseased to handle food.

What about the freedoms of the average Joe?Â*Â*Why is he denied the freedom to decline to participate in the liberal game?Â*Â*Any worker today that could sock away 15.5% of his paycheck would never need Socialist Security or Medicare.Â*Â*Forcing him to pay for that crap forces him to need that crap later.Â*Â*Ponzi scheme, is that the liberal game?


Another winner of a post from Nathan.Â*Â*Let's just say I think 99% of what you said was crap.Â*Â*


Which part was the 1%? The part where I said it cost me thousands to comply with a law that violated my rights as a private citizen to run my private business?

The part where I said I'd never ever hire a guy in a wheelchair to work in that business?

That part where I said a man could do far better on his own with 15.5% of his paycheck left in his own account rather than trusting Nancy Pelosi or George Bush to hang onto it for him?

Maybe it was the phrase "Ponzi Scheme", for that accurately describes today's social entitlement programs, especially Socialist Security?

Oh, no. No, of course not. It must be the part where I said the federal government doesn't have any business regulating the relations between private citizens. That goes without saying. No one could disagree with that.

[Athena]

If Joe didn't want to serve nigras at his lunch counter, he doesn't have to. What part of it being HIS lunch counter do the liberals not understand? Nathan Brazil

Good use of the word "liberal" which comes from the word "Liberty".

I think we need to distinguish between private and public property.
Our homes are private property. A restaurant is public property because it wouldn't have any business if it didn't serve the public. One of the most important elements of democracy is the equality of all citizens.

I think you are thinking of autocracy, where people are not equals.

However, in a democracy, everyone gets to participate in making the laws, and these laws are for the good of everyone. That means when it is necessary to protect the rights of citizens, laws are made for this purpose.

We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure democratic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Wouldn't it be nice of Israel and Iraq started their constitutions with this thought of Justice For All? And thank you Nathen for the good example of how difficult it is for people to live up to high moral of democracy. You expressed a thought that is focused on self rather than an understanding of democracy, and this is exactly the cause of trouble in Israel and the surrounding area. Good relating, Nathen.

[Nathan Brazil]

I think we need to distinguish between private and public property. Our homes are private property.Â*Â*A restaurant is public property because it wouldn't have any business if it didn't serve the public.Â*Â*One of the most important elements of democracy is the equality of all citizens.

A whole stinking ton of BS. If the taxpayers haven't funded the restaurant, it's property of the individual or individuals that put the money up to build the place. Period.

That the private property was built to SELL services and goods to the general public DOES NOT make it a public property.Â*Â*

NOW we've made the clear distinction between public and private property.


I think you are thinking of autocracy, where people are not equals.

People aren't equals. No two are alike. The use of the word "equal" in the law means that the government is required to treat unique individuals as if they were in fact identical.

However, in a democracy, everyone gets to participate in making the laws, and these laws are for the good of everyone.Â*Â*That means when it is necessary to protect the rights of citizens, laws are made for this purpose.

Yeah, in a democracy, everyone can vote to steal Joe's lunch counter and end his freedom of ownership. That's why democracy is inherently evil. By passing a law controlling how Joe runs his business, the democracy isn't protecting the rights of citizens, they've just stolen Joe's property.

Wouldn't it be nice of Israel and Iraq started their constitutions with this thought of Justice For All?Â*Â*And thank you Nathen for the good example of how difficult it is for people to live up to high moral of democracy.Â*Â*You expressed a thought that is focused on self rather than an understanding of democracy, and this is exactly the cause of trouble in Israel and the surrounding area.Â*Â*Good relating, Nathen.Â*Â*Â*Â*

[utahraptor]

Â*If Israel had made as much effort to assimulate Palestinians into their society as the US has made to resolve the racial problems, the years of human suffering that followed the establishment of Israel might have been prevented.Â*Â*There are times when a society most take special steps to achieve the ideal.Â*Â*


If Israel had done this, the terrorists would be living amongst them. There is and never has been a question of assimilating for Israel, the muslims want to destroy them and shove their rotting bodies into the ocean.

[utahraptor]

Nope, not a bit.Â*Â*There's a difference between passing legislation that controls how the government conducts it's hiring and employment practices, and allegedly similar legislation that violates the civil liberties of private parties to conduct their own private business.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had NO business being applied to private parties.Â*Â*If Joe didn't want to serve nigras at his lunch counter, he doesn't have to.Â*Â*What part of it being HIS lunch counter do the liberals not understand?Â*Â*If Joe prospers, that's fine, it's his business.Â*Â*If his business fails, that's his business, too.Â*Â*Under no circumstances is it the government's business, unless the government has issued Joe a contract for delivery of a thousand sliders a week.

Ditto for people with disabilities.Â*Â*Compliance with that stupid Americans with Disabilities Act cost me thousands of dollars.Â*Â*Know what?Â*Â*Making my shop accessible for someone in a wheelchair wasn't going to make me HIRE a man in a wheelchair.Â*Â*It was just a waste of money.Â*Â*Nor was I going to hire anyone I knew to be diseased to handle food.

What about the freedoms of the average Joe?Â*Â*Why is he denied the freedom to decline to participate in the liberal game?Â*Â*Any worker today that could sock away 15.5% of his paycheck would never need Socialist Security or Medicare.Â*Â*Forcing him to pay for that crap forces him to need that crap later.Â*Â*Ponzi scheme, is that the liberal game?


You hit a homerun with this post. I agree 100% with what you said.