Steve Whitehead Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The first, I continue to fail to see why you should be allowed protections on who enters your home when others are not allowed those protections on properties that they've purchased and maintain with their privately earned/spent money. In truth, there is no difference. I think it's both discriminatory and immoral to exclude people solely based on race, sex, ethnicity or spirituality. I don't apply these rules to my home and if you do, you are, by definition discriminatory. Make peace with it. If someone says, "People who are black can't come in my home. I don't care who they are. I exclude them from my home because they are black." They are racist. If they make the distinction because they are female they are gender biased. (By definition.) I exclude people from my home for more appropriate and morally sound reasons. Reasons like..."I don't know you." This is a judgement I can apply even handedly to anyone who shows up at my door. If you'd like to make a case that I discriminate against strangers...OK. I'm at peace with that. It's interesting to me when you say "...This test is indeed biased. It's biased against people who are not physically fit enough to do the job. In a selection process, this is a perfectly acceptable bias. It's acceptable because it pertains to an actual standard of the expected job performance and because it can be applied to every human being who shows up to be tested.." as it sounds to me as if you are then protecting, as the fire services have been famous for doing for generations, your own 'brotherhood bias' as you don't have to be in this business long to know that many, many firemen could no longer pass such a test, making the test bigoted by it's nature, don't you think? I couldn't agree with you more. I don't know if bigoted is the right word but it is an unacceptable contradiction. If we say that this is the minimum physical standard at the time of hiring, it should remain the physical standard for as long as you do the job. The service should remain biased against people who are unfit to do the job from the time of hiring to the time of retirement. It's part of the job. There's no excuse for 300 lb. fat firefighters. They are a danger to themselves and others. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. (And yes, I am biased against them for what I feel are morally sound reasons.) If it was my choice, I would exclude them from the fire service until they met the same minimum standard applied to all new hires. Should blacks be allowed? My single answer is 'no.' But that would not represent my entire thought on the subject. But my argument would not change if we were speaking of race instead of sex. Then we are simply at a theological road block Dwayne. We just fundamentally believe in different core values. That's OK. We were all meant to believe things in lock step. I believe that it is morally unjustifiable to use race, gender, ethnicity or spirituality as a means to select or admit people...anywhere. These aren't morally appropriate measuring sticks. Clearly, many, many people disagree with me. (Including the board of directors of the Augusta Country Club.) We may just need to agree to disagree on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HERBIE1 Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Wow- the thread that would not die. LOL Well, I'll jump back in. The problem is perception and interpretation. I looked up the word discrimination and depending on the context- legal, social, civil rights related, etc- there are many different nuanced definitions. Here's a pretty standard, generic one: The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex. Those 2 words are key. Is it unjust or prejudicial to exclude women from a private club? No- they are entitled to make and enforce their own rules, as long as they do not violate the law. They do not say women are inferior to men, so they should not be allowed. They do not say they are not capable of golfing. So what exactly would you call Augusta's policy? Archaic- sure. Misogynist? Depends on your point of view, I guess. I'd argue that last point though since I'm quite sure most of the men in Augusta love and respect women- they just prefer them not to be members in their club. They let women use the club, just as guests. I can't join Women's Workout World or Curves- I have other options, and have been a member of Bally's(now LA Fitness) for 25+ years. Women cannot join Augusta National. SO WHAT? Is this the end of the world? Is someone truly being harmed by this? I find it amusing that the folks who are complaining the loudest have nothing to do with the club nor are they even affected by the policy. There are plenty of country clubs that would be more than happy to take outrageous amounts of money from any woman who is so inclined to provide them with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Whitehead Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 And again Herbie...the question wasn't, "Is it legal to exclude women?" It wasn't, "Are women being harmed?" It wasn't, "Are they entitled to make their own rules?" It wasn't, "Are their examples of similar discrimination against men?" (Your own offered definition of discrimination does not hinge on any of these factors.) Just because they are legally entitled to exclude women doesn't make their decision just, or non-prejudicial or non-discriminatory. They are free and legally entitled to be as unjust, prejudicial and discriminatory as they want to be in their private club. Should they do away with their unjust, prejudicial, discriminatory policy? Yes...yes they should. The fact that I have no association with they Augusta Country Club has no bearing on my opinion about racial, gender, ethnic or spiritual discrimination. It is wrong in every context. (the fact that I'm male has no bearing either.) Look ya'll. Here's where we are just not going to come to terms. Some folks here on this thread believe that discrimination is OK and appropriate in some contexts and other believe that it is not OK in any context. I fall on the side of not ok in any context. We can disagree on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DwayneEMTP Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (Edit: I created my post while working, over several hours. So both Steve and Herbie posted while I was in edit mode. It's not my intention to continue the conversation if no one wants to. I just refuse to delete it at this point is all.) (Edit II: To tell the truth Steve I've not found any support of your argument in your posts other than you're belief that it is 'morally' wrong, and that it is currently PC so it must be correct. I'm truly trying to see your point of view but "It's just wrong" continues to fail to convey the reasons that you seem to steadfast on this subject.) Fair enough. But just to be clear for those that don't know me and may only read this in the future, I'm only arguing for a persons freedom to associate with whomever they choose in the privacy of any place that they create with their own money when no one else is harmed by that. It just seems to me that your stance disallows differences in people as well as an inherent 'sameness' in some ways in people as well. Disallowing women does not only disallow breasts and vaginas but the cultural, sexual, and emotional aspects that can be expected to come with those anatomical pieces. The same can be said for race. I have nothing against the Chinese. But with my limited experience with them in Mongolia I found many of their social norms really rude and frustrating. At least the limited number of Chinese in that environment seemed to share them. I love them, I want them all to be healthy and happy and to spend their days laughing, but if I had a private club I wouldn't be inclined to open it to Chinese tour buses based on my experiences and resulting expectations. It's not about better or worse, simply different. Your argument seems to disallow recognition and recreational separation based on those differences without seeming to believe that someone is being harmed, or those doing the disallowing are doing so out of a belief of their superiority and/or a desire to harm, and that confuses me. I want everyone to be able to excel and find happiness in whatever way that they choose. I just don't see where infringing on one person's right to pursue their happiness with whomever they choose impinges on another persons right to find happiness as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Quoting Dwayne here "I want everyone to be able to excel and find happiness in whatever way that they choose. I just don't see where infringing on one person's right to pursue their happiness with whomever they choose impinges on another persons right to find happiness as well. " Damnit Dwayne, if everyone cannot be happy and even if one person is not happy then we all have to be miserable and if you won't let me in your house then I'm not happy thus you must also not be allowed to be happy ergo, I must be allowed into your house. See how this works. It's in the constitution, you my friend are going against the constitutional clause of the pursuit of happYness and I won't have that Dwayne, I'm therefore drawing up a constitutional amendment that makes it a federal crime to not be happy. Edited May 1, 2012 by Captain Kickass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 In truth, there is no difference. I think it's both discriminatory and immoral to exclude people solely based on race, sex, ethnicity or spirituality. All things being equal, would you consider it to be equally immoral and discriminatory to force a people upon another people based on race, sex, ethnicity or spiritually? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cscboulder11 Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8284599/augusta-national-adds-first-two-female-members Looks like we have our answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFIB Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 http://espn.go.com/g...-female-members Looks like we have our answer. Funny how that worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard B the EMT Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 All things being equal, would you consider it to be equally immoral and discriminatory to force a people upon another people based on race, sex, ethnicity or spiritually? Just wonder how the members of the KKK feel, with Mr. Obama in the White House as POTUS. I have the feeling that, for the last 4 years, they have not been too happy. (Disclosure: Hoping it is not a springboard to a discussion on it's own, I am a registered Democrat. I will neither confirm or deny if I voted for, or will vote for, Mr. Obama, on this particular forum) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 Just wonder how the members of the KKK feel, with Mr. Obama in the White House as POTUS. I have the feeling that, for the last 4 years, they have not been too happy. (Disclosure: Hoping it is not a springboard to a discussion on it's own, I am a registered Democrat. I will neither confirm or deny if I voted for, or will vote for, Mr. Obama, on this particular forum) Well Richard, have you been happy with your choice of who you voted for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts