Quote (JessiWan @ Sep 8 2021 02:59pm)

Not sure what you are trying to get at, to be honest. Can the equal protection clause of the 14th compel private entities to not discriminate? Yes or no.

And let's say there are colleges that are entirely privately funded. Do you believe they should be allowed to discriminate however they want?

Quote (Handcuffs @ Sep 8 2021 03:10pm)

If it's a private university that receives federal funding, then the primary legal lens would be Title VI.

Quote

The number of universities that don't receive any federal funding of any kind is very small, and I believe around ~20 across the US.

Quote (JessiWan @ Sep 8 2021 03:14pm)

I didn't ask you where the primary legal lens would be. I asked you, 'Can the equal protection clause of the 14th compel private entities to not discriminate?"

I did not ask you whether the number of universities that don't receive any federal funding of any kind is very small or not. I asked you, "Do you believe colleges that are entirely privately funded should be allowed to discriminate however they want?"

Why are you dancing around and not answering my questions?

Quote (Handcuffs @ Sep 8 2021 03:18pm)

I have been answering your questions. The 14th is not particularly relevant to private universities that receive federal funding, so the answer to your question would be: No.

Quote (JessiWan @ Sep 8 2021 04:41pm)

And this supposedly makes it better?

So, you yourself are admitting that affirmative action exists and the government forces some (though not all) businesses to hire a certain number of minorities, roughly speaking. If the government can do this, then it can compel businesses to not fire the un-vaccinated.

My point: either the government can tell privately owned businesses what to do, or it cannot. You cannot have it both ways.

I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about how rights are applied, which I do not disagree with. But what I am trying to get across is how rights should be. IMHO, they should be something that's inherent. Not something that's granted to an individual by an outside entity like the government.

For example, lets say your government tomorrow re-wrote the constitution to remove the freedom of speech (technically not a right, but just bear with me for argument's sake). And indeed, us as regular people could not do shit about it. But I would say that the government is merely trampling on our rights. I would not say that now I don't have the freedom of speech anymore just because the government disregarded it. In fact, I would likely say, "Let's claim our right (or freedom, as the case might be) back!" as a rallying call to get others to overthrow such a government. And the fact a lot of people would follow me is testament that people believe that they have freedom of speech, it's something that's inherent to them, not something that can simply be taken away by a government.

Quote (JessiWan @ Sep 8 2021 03:22pm)

No to which question? I asked two.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Sep 8 2021 03:23pm)

The government can't force non-associating businesses to do anything.

Quote

But if you associate, then the other party has the right to disassociate. That's just how it is.

Quote

Rights are not inherent. I know you'd like it to be that way, but it is simply a statement of fact that they are not. You can claim "my right to life is inherently mine" as a bear is eating you but that doesn't mean it's not going to kill you.

Quote (JessiWan @ Sep 8 2021 05:37pm)

I am not sure what you are saying. You first admitted that affirmative action exists and that the government forces some businesses to hire minorities. And now you are saying this. Two conflicting things..



We are going around in circles. So, in the interest of clarifying this exchange, let me simply ask you this: do you believe that the government can tell private businesses what to do? Yes or no.


No offense but your "bear" hypothetical made me laugh. You realize that rights are a man-made concept that is thought up by humans, is only applied to humans, and can only exist between humans, right?

And just let me be very clear, yes, the bear is going to kill me regardless whether I cite my right. But my right to life still exists as far as me and my government are concerned. Remember, we live in a world populated with humans. We are not in nature where men still wrestle with wild animals. If my government tries to take this right away, they better be prepared for a fight. And why do I fight? That's right, it's because I believe I have the right to life, it's inherent to me, it's not simply something that government grants me, and if it attempts to take it away, it is trampling on said right.

Question for you: if your government did away with your right to life tomorrow, would you fight it or not?

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Sep 8 2021 03:50pm)

Government can tell private businesses to do if that business contracts with the government, and they can enforce that "telling them what to do" by terminating their contract.

Quote

If the government kills you, do you have a right to life? Obviously not.

Quote

Rights exist between equals.

Quote

They don't have to be fought for because they are understood. If you have to fight for the right, you don't currently have it.

Quote (duffman316 @ Sep 8 2021 05:40pm)

I thought exactly as you did on the bolded and it turned out i was wrong. The vaccine supposedly lowers your odds of dying significantly but it isn't in itself a cure. Afaik measles is making a come back precisely because of anti vax rhetoric https://elemental.medium.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-measles-a6ddd01b8285

coronovirus/polio/measles/rotavirus/rubella are viruses that are part of a global pandemic that is largely unavoidable and vaccine mandates serve as a means towards eliminating them - that is ofcourse if we achieve the desired numbers. See measles comeback above. It's a no brainer to mandate something that is a net positive for society which also has support from the majority. aside from some incredibly rare side effects, society at large benefits from vaccine mandates.

Alcohol by comparison does not have purely detrimental effects, and consumed in moderation it can do some good. You can also opt out from drinking as i do. This is why it wouldnt make sense to try banning alochol outright despite it's higher death toll although we do have laws moderating alcohol consumption to lower the negative impact to society - you can't operate motorized vehicles while drunk as an example.