Discrimination Open

[FTS]

This thread is for the debaters only. The thread is now open and will close Friday evening at 6:00 PM CST. The sides of the debate can be switched if both debaters agree and PM me their agreement.

Razor will be affirming the topic, and Couch Potato will be negating it.

Resolved: When in conflict, society's goal of eliminating discrimination ought to transcend an individual's right to participate in exclusive, voluntary associations.

[FTS]

This thread is for the debaters only. The thread is now open and will close Friday evening at 6:00 PM CST. The sides of the debate can be switched if both debaters agree and PM me their agreement.

Resolved: when in conflict, society's goal of eliminating discrimination ought to transcend an individual's right to participate in exclusive, voluntary associations.

Gelgarin will be affirming the topic, Milenko, negating.

[Gelgarin]

Are we supposed to have two questions?
Anyway, I have to go watch small Japanese guys do flips right now, so I'll invite Milenko to get things under way if possible.

[couchpotato]

Before I start, I'd like to say good luck to Razor; I'm looking forward to debating you.

When in conflict, society's goal of eliminating discrimination should not transcend an individual's right to participate in exclusive, voluntary associations.

So, my opponent for this week, judges, readers of this debate, here I present my views as to why I believe the above statment. I shall give a brief introduction post, let Razor do an introduction to his arguments, then see how it goes.

Introduction

In the past, throughout all the conflicts in world history, there always has been one constant amongs the people fighting them, sorting them out diplomatically, etc, those peoples need to provide for their families, and themselves. Whether right or not in your view, this is man's primal instinct, a) to survive, and b) to provide for their families. Obviously there are some exceptions to this, but let me speak in general. Where am I going with this you might say? Here's where.

If societys goal, at all times, is to eliminate discrimination, and therefore it expects all the people being discriminated against to, if you will, rise up, with the help of a country's Government. Obviously, in some cases, like Zimbabwe, discrimination is acrively encouraged by the Government. But in countries like America, or even here in the UK, discrimination is here all the time, be it racial, sexist, etc.

What I'm saying, in a roundabout way, is in the case of people who are not affected by discrimination, and getting involved in such a conflict would cause risk to themselves, is it not their right to distance themselves from it, and be a part of any voluntary associations they please?

I welcome Razor's arguments and his rebuttal.

[Leafy Shuffleboard]

I believe I am replacing Milenko so I wish the best of luck to Gelgarin

I am negating the subject of "when in conflict, society's goal of eliminating discrimination ought to transcend an individual's right to participate in exclusive, voluntary associations." No government should stop an individual's voluntary associations for any reason. A person should be able to practice their beliefs as long as they do not cause another person bodily harm.

The main part of this subject is "exclusive, voluntary" this means all people in the event are there by their own will and are aware of all events following. Are all people allowed to practice their own religion and own beliefs? No purpose of the government should take away a person's given rights.

Discrimination is a problem but not a major problem in this world that is in the degree of taking away rights. A group following a racist idea should hold that idea within their group and not hurting the group they are against. Look at American government. Different parties vote for their own party without opening their minds to the others ideas. Is this not discrimination, grouping a entire group of people without respecting an individuals ideas.

Yet this goes on during the world so the government can not stop an individuals ideas while they go on with this practice. So a group of government officials can not take away a person's rights without looking at themselves as the discriminant people.

[Gelgarin]

Well that's lovely, and whilst I'm generally happy to dismiss the entire Republican party as a racially motivated fringe group, I think it would be beneficial for us both to ground this debate with some realistic examples.

When in conflict, society's goal of eliminating discrimination ought to transcend an individual's right to participate in exclusive, voluntary associations.

Let's take a moment to consider what the question is actually telling us to consider. The phrasing of these dabtes makes them sound like they origionate from FTS fucking a manual of etiquette, then feading her fertaliser before the birth, so it's probably a good idea to break the terminology down to uncover what we are actualy supposed to be discussing.

Wikipedia defines a volentary association as a group of individuals who voluntarily enter into an agreement to form a body or orgonisation in order to accomplish a purpose. Obvious examples would be political parties, trade unions and similar.

In our case however we are being asked to talk about 'exclusive' volentary orgonisations, and as such we have to narrow our focus a little. An exclusive orgonisation is one that has requirments in place dictating who can and cannot join. The resolution we are being asked to discuss specifically references the issue of discrimination, so I think it's fairly plain that the exclusive organisations we are being directed to discuss are the far right fringe groups that build their agendas upon racism, homophobia and the like.

Let me start out by presenting a very short list of some of the "voluntary associations" that my opponent is looking to defend.

Number 1) The Ku Klux Klan - An American hate group with a history of using and promoting hatred, violence, intimidation, murder, lynchings and acts of terrorism aimed at African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, more or less any other non-Caucasians, Homosexuals, Jews and anybody who in any way associated themselves with any of the aforementioned groups. The KKK has continued to actively promote encourage violence in recent years, as recently as 2006 three card carrying clan members were convicted of savagely beating a Native American youth, then trying to distort the judicial process by mailing hundreds of death threats.
A group that partakes in such activites should not have its existance protected under the law.

Number 2) The British National Party - A "non-violent" political party that prohibits the membership of non-whites. Repeated media infiltrations into the group have found it to be a hot hive of violence and racism. A recent documentary entitled "Inside the BNP" displayed how the groups private meetings involved the promotion of violence and intimidation against Black people living in the area, varying from verbal abuse to arson.
Political bodies of this nature should not have its existence protected under the law, and as a matter of fact UK law is on my side here. A recent inquiry has found the BNP to be an illegal organisation due to it's openly racist membership qualifications, and the party is now being forced to accept members of all nationalities.

Number 3) Abû-Qatâda Fatwa Committee - Another group that was officially "non-violent", prior to his arrest, the radical cleric used his 'exclusive voluntary organisation' to glorify and encourage terrorism. His association helped finance terror groups such as the Mujahedin, all under the guise of a simple ultra-conservative Islamic association.
Dangerous terror groups such are these should not have their existence protected under law, now matter how strong a veneer of reputability the maintain.

Any exclusive voluntary organisation that promotes hatred or violence should be outlawed.

Now my opponent is going too try and distinguish between violent and non violent groups, a rather folly exercise given that all three of the groups I have mentioned are officially non violent (some chapters of the KKK are at least). The problem comes from the fact that any organisation that is built on the premise of discrimination, hatred or fanaticism is going to manifest in violence regardless of its official intent. If you think that black people aren't prober human beings, or that Hitler was right, or that it is the duty of Muslims to slaughter infidels, then you are going to turn to violence, and we shouldn't be supporting the existence of organisations that help to bring this about.

[Leafy Shuffleboard]

Well that's lovely, and whilst I'm generally happy to dismiss the entire Republican party as a racially motivated fringe group, I think it would be beneficial for us both to ground this debate with some realistic examples.

Realistic examples? I believe every politician has voted on a bill at least once based on which party leader is backing the bill. Also I'm glad you said the Republican party was racially motivated. Did you read my response? I said they based on the ideas of a leader not accepting the ideas of another. The definition of discrimination is "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" This can mean a political party or a racial group.

In our case however we are being asked to talk about 'exclusive' volentary orgonisations, and as such we have to narrow our focus a little. An exclusive orgonisation is one that has requirments in place dictating who can and cannot join. The resolution we are being asked to discuss specifically references the issue of discrimination, so I think it's fairly plain that the exclusive organisations we are being directed to discuss are the far right fringe groups that build their agendas upon racism, homophobia and the like.

Yes an exclusive organization is one that has requirements, but don't many groups have requirements such as athletic or intelligence ability? Discrimination can refer to one's athletic ability or intelligence so should the government close down the MLS and the NFL? No,because these groups were based on taking the athletic best and using them. Racist groups are found on different beliefs but are, in their minds, taking the best and promoting their beliefs. Why do you think we are directed to discuss the far right fringe groups. No where in FTS's subject does it say what kind of discrimination. Discrimination is a wide umbrella reaching many groups.

Number 1) The Ku Klux Klan - An American hate group with a history of using and promoting hatred, violence, intimidation, murder, lynchings and acts of terrorism aimed at African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, more or less any other non-Caucasians, Homosexuals, Jews and anybody who in any way associated themselves with any of the aforementioned groups. The KKK has continued to actively promote encourage violence in recent years, as recently as 2006 three card carrying clan members were convicted of savagely beating a Native American youth, then trying to distort the judicial process by mailing hundreds of death threats.
A group that partakes in such activites should not have its existance protected under the law.

Number 2) The British National Party - A "non-violent" political party that prohibits the membership of non-whites. Repeated media infiltrations into the group have found it to be a hot hive of violence and racism. A recent documentary entitled "Inside the BNP" displayed how the groups private meetings involved the promotion of violence and intimidation against Black people living in the area, varying from verbal abuse to arson.
Political bodies of this nature should not have its existence protected under the law, and as a matter of fact UK law is on my side here. A recent inquiry has found the BNP to be an illegal organisation due to it's openly racist membership qualifications, and the party is now being forced to accept members of all nationalities.

Number 3) Abû-Qatâda Fatwa Committee - Another group that was officially "non-violent", prior to his arrest, the radical cleric used his 'exclusive voluntary organisation' to glorify and encourage terrorism. His association helped finance terror groups such as the Mujahedin, all under the guise of a simple ultra-conservative Islamic association.
Dangerous terror groups such are these should not have their existence protected under law, now matter how strong a veneer of reputability the maintain.

You use examples of groups that start from non-violent and go to their violent ends. This is why when a group is started with discriminant ideals should be closely watched and have strict guidelines that state no bodily harm to the discriminated group. When a group is found to break the contract the group will be immediately disbanded and forbidden to meet again. Because after this, the group elevates itself from "exclusive group" to threat to the public.

[Razor]

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my tardiness. College life and engineering. It sucks. But, let's get to what we're here for.

Originally Posted by FTS

Resolved: When in conflict, society's goal of eliminating discrimination ought to transcend an individual's right to participate in exclusive, voluntary associations.

Well then. I'll argue that when in conflict, society's goal of eliminating discrimination should transcend an individual's right to participate in exclusive, voluntary associations.

Let's imagine a world. A world in which everyone is equal. Not socialism, I'm speaking of merely social equality. No one is barred from any such thing, they can do anything they want. However, it's not as it seems.

There is a charity down the road. It's a rather well-to-do charity, owned by rich black men. They can trace their lineage back to their African ancestors, and think highly of themselves for it. Now, they're looking for volunteers to help hand out soup for the homeless. While these black men don't think they're necessarily better than white men, they'd really rather have black men doing the handing out of soup. I mean, their foundation is founded and run by black men of African decent. So when a white man comes up to the charity to help, out of his own free will, he is turned away. They say it's no big deal, they just want a specific section of the community, the black people, to help in this event. Thanks for your time, but we won't need your service.

I ask, how is this equal treatment? Sure, it's a completely voluntary action, the white man didn't nor does he have to participate. However, this man wanted to help. He was willing to give up his day, hours of his life, up to help the homeless. But he was turned away because he was white. No hard feelings they said, nothing meant by this, they said. Whitey's alright! They shouted. (Though,to tell the truth, the man was a little creeped out by the last part.)

This applies to anything. How could it be complete inequality when a man can't eat at a restaurant because he's black, but being turned down for an exclusive, voluntary role in the community because you're black/white/Asian/Hispanic/Purple/Rainbow colored not be? This man was turned down from associating with the charity because he was white, in my story. Extrapolate it out to the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Frats, Sororities, whomever you want. I don't care. It's the same concept, really.

That is racism folks, pure and simple. And it's not true equality until such racism is barred from society. I'm not arguing for quotas, those are stupid and lame. I am, however, arguing for a culling of even the idea that such barring because of race or another other "inequality" is okay from our society.

Again, I'd like to apologize for my tardiness. I know, "real life" and stuff, but still. I hope this hasn't inconvenienced you in any way, couchpotato.

[Gelgarin]

Realistic examples? I believe every politician has voted on a bill at least once based on which party leader is backing the bill. Also I'm glad you said the Republican party was racially motivated. Did you read my response? I said they based on the ideas of a leader not accepting the ideas of another. The definition of discrimination is "Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit" This can mean a political party or a racial group.

Yes an exclusive organization is one that has requirements, but don't many groups have requirements such as athletic or intelligence ability? Discrimination can refer to one's athletic ability or intelligence so should the government close down the MLS and the NFL? No,because these groups were based on taking the athletic best and using them. Racist groups are found on different beliefs but are, in their minds, taking the best and promoting their beliefs. Why do you think we are directed to discuss the far right fringe groups. No where in FTS's subject does it say what kind of discrimination. Discrimination is a wide umbrella reaching many groups.

Oh please; I know FTS said he was looking forward to seeing people attempt to twist the question, but this is just laughable. But hay, FTS has extended the deadline, so instead of making relevant and constructed arguments, I'll play your pathetic little game of semantics.

OUr question references "society's goal of eliminating discrimination". Now tell me, which sections of society are going after the autonomous existence of MENSA? Which section of society has displayed that disbanding the MSL or NFL is one of its primary objectives? The answer of course is that none of them have, because that is fucking stupid.
In contrast, Western society has displayed numerous times a desire to combat discrimination based on race, colour, creed, sexual preference and the like. That's why civil rights acts have been brought in internationally to combat racial prejudice, but nothing has been done regarding ones ability to play football.

Now can we please retrieve our common sense and actually debate the question?

You use examples of groups that start from non-violent and go to their violent ends.

No I don't. Over the past decade Abû-Qatâda, Nick Griffin and Ron Edwards have maintained strict policies of avoiding the direct avocation of violence. Nick Griffin doesn't tell his members to go out and beat up Arabs, but that doesn't change the fact that that's what his meetings lead to. Abû-Qatâda knew perfectly well that if he was caught aiding terrorism that he would be deported (as is happening now anyway) so he was extremely careful about what he said. Under your plan, a group would be able to continue existing right up to the point that it commits "bodily harm".

This is why when a group is started with discriminant ideals should be closely watched and have strict guidelines that state no bodily harm to the discriminated group.

What this means is that Abû-Qatâda can say to a room of fanatical Muslims that "A strict reading of the Qur'an tells us that it is our duty to destroy the infidels".
It means that Nick Griffin can gather up the violent racists in an area and tell them stories about how their daughters are getting raped by gangs of evil black people, knowing full well what it's going to lead to.

And whilst I'm pulling this piece of text apart, can I take a moment to mention how utterly impractical it is. You're valiantly protecting the right to free association, then insisting that any fringe group have to sit with a government minder at all times? That sounds practical. There are 179 chapters of the KKK in the US alone. I would imagine that there's a similar number of radical mosques... you want to employ surveillance teams to monitor them all in case they turn to violence? That's expensive, impractical and, to put it bluntly, idiotic.

What should happen is very simple. If they are a group promoting racial hatred (or homophobia or anti-Semitism or the like). A philosophy that states that one kind of human is inferior to another will always manifest its self in violence, and we don't have a place for that in society.