USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Re: Married? Again?
Philosophical argument phrased in more concrete terms: Should the Wisconsin legislature be permitted to deny all African Americans admission to the University of Wisconsin Madison?
Women? Non christians? People who refuse to comply with the student code of conduct?
Philosophical argument phrased in more concrete terms: Should the Wisconsin legislature be permitted to deny all African Americans admission to the University of Wisconsin Madison?
Women? Non christians? People who refuse to comply with the student code of conduct?
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Yes. There's a reason we have the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. No philosophical argument needed.
Re: Married? Again?
The protected class concept came later, as it was believed that it was taking society too long to achieve the envisioned equality, so some extra "boosts" were desirable for a few special classes of people to try to bring them up more quickly.
Interesting. Philosophically, I would argue that "protected classes" are completely antithetical to the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, whose underlying principle was that all people (well, at least all males) should be treated equally. Of course, they were authored with the intent of bringing certain classes "up" from poorer treatment to the standard enjoyed by the majority, rather than eliminating special privilege of a protected class. Regardless, equality for all was the aim - not special treatment by class.
The protected class concept came later, as it was believed that it was taking society too long to achieve the envisioned equality, so some extra "boosts" were desirable for a few special classes of people to try to bring them up more quickly.
unofan
Well-known member
You don't think those amendments are the specific result of slavery and racial discrimination in this country? The 15th reads exactly like a modern day civil rights statute, explicitly mentioning race and color.
Whatever their ideals and open-endedness as applied to modern society, there is no doubt in my mind they were originally meant to protect people from racism, thereby making race and color the first protected classes.
Last edited:
Re: Married? Again?
Thoughts?
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/09/the-case-that-destroyed-marriage
Thoughts?
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/09/the-case-that-destroyed-marriage
unofan
Well-known member
He sounds old and probably complains about kids being on his lawn.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Married? Again?
If kids were playing on your lawn, wouldn't you tell them to knock it off?
Re: Married? Again?
As usual, the deafening cognitive dissonance of someone claiming to believe in marriage and yet arguing against there being more marriages.
Re: Married? Again?
Given all the school shootings lately, not only should there be protected classes, there probably should be protection for the buildings that house the classes, and probably protection for the whole campus, too!
eh, what's that?
oh, never mind....
Given all the school shootings lately, not only should there be protected classes, there probably should be protection for the buildings that house the classes, and probably protection for the whole campus, too!
eh, what's that?
oh, never mind....
Re: Married? Again?
In a more serious vein, it seems to me today that the general answer is, "yes, any class to which I belong should be a protected class because I am more special than anyone else."
In a more serious vein, it seems to me today that the general answer is, "yes, any class to which I belong should be a protected class because I am more special than anyone else."
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Married? Again?
The beauty about me being a classless person is that I don't aspire to being protected from anyone.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
There is no cognitive dissonance to them because marriage is defined one way and one way only. To them you are fading a very hard line.
Note: their logic is completely flawed just saying why to them it works.
Re: Married? Again?
Lynah Fan only seems to believe in simplified caricatures of those with other view points. Not believing others can have honestly held differences in view and opinion undermines any ability to respect others and have reasonable discussions.
Lynah Fan only seems to believe in simplified caricatures of those with other view points. Not believing others can have honestly held differences in view and opinion undermines any ability to respect others and have reasonable discussions.
Re: Married? Again?
Feel free to provide us with the nuances of your viewpoint any time. You've been invited repeatedly to do so, and decline every time.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Married? Again?
It is easier to complain that you aren't capable of listening and then leave in a huff than actually post his position. Even better, he can say he posted his opinion sometime in the past (although no one will be able to find it if they search) and he's not going to do it again.
It is easier to complain that you aren't capable of listening and then leave in a huff than actually post his position. Even better, he can say he posted his opinion sometime in the past (although no one will be able to find it if they search) and he's not going to do it again.