Chick-Fil-A President: Men shouldn't eat other men's chicken

[volinbham]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmP9Shki6_I[/youtube]

I'll give him a "C" for effort here.

 

[Thrasher865]

I'll give him a "C" for effort here.

I haven't been following this boring crap. Who is that in the video?

 

[Weezer]

Only in times where the threat to others' life is imminent. Such is not the case with who you can or cannot hire/serve.



Such a weak argument. You could make a similar argument about countless things which indirectly hurt society. Bloomberg is making a similar argument with soft drinks and baby formula.

It boggles my mind why one person would want to control another person's actions at gunpoint which do not directly harm them.



My apologies then. I thought you wanted to go down that road.



I couldn't disagree more. It comes from logic and self-interest. No morality involved.

First, comparing blatant bigotry with Bloomberg's insanity is, as you say, a weak arguement. Bigotry is an imminent threat. When schisms in society form you're headed toward violence. It's promoting segregation and societies cannot survive like that. The in-fighting in this country would be insane if the govt suddenly said, "Hey, it's okay to be a bigot." If you cannot see that as the first step down a very dark road then you need to take a few steps back and re-examine the situation. I'm someone who doesn't favor much govt involvement in most things, but in this case, I feel the govt has to nip the bigotry in the bud or there will be no country to govern.

There are people in this world with different logic and self-interest than you. To someone like Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, it was logical to kill people. In Dahmer's case it was logical to eat people. And it was in their self interest that they did so. So who decides which logic and self-interest to use? Society? And if it is society, how do they decide? Shared morality.

 

[BigPapaVol]

So you're under the impression that bigotry is going to somehow go away?

 

[volprof]

If you take his quote with a great deal of classical skepticism (as you have), then I agree. I was referencing it without a lot of classical skepticism.

I also agree that there are no moral absolutes. Everything is relative.



1) The principals of life, liberty, and property are logically derived from self-interest in respect to social contracts. There is no morality involved.


I agree with you that these principles are partially based upon the interests of the self, but, at the same time, they are also principles that institute modern democratic (and capitalist) society, which makes them social in nature as well. These principles come to us from Renaissance humanism and Enlightenment philosophy. Much of the drive behind the Enlightenment was breaking away from the morality and legal systems of autocratic and feudal Europe. Even Hobbes, who views humans as inherently anarchic and even flawed, sees the social contract as a necessity if a state of war (not any particular war, but just ongoing war as a fact of human existence) is to be avoided. As such, the social contract is inherently moral because it requires a giving up of certain "anarchic" freedoms and a giving over of oneself to at least some modicum of morality that is sufficient enough to ensure the perpetuation of the contract and the trust in which it is built upon.

2) Although I agree in your sentiment that a society ought to have a similar moral fabric if it is to have a certain level of social cohesiveness, I do not believe such a social morality should be enforced by law from the majority upon the minority. Much the same way faith is achieved in a particular religion in the US .


I agree with you that connections between the law and morality are often problematic. Furthermore, the law is not always moral or right. I admit there's problems here. However, I don't believe a certain morality should be enforced by a majority or a minority upon another group even without the law, which is what you seem to suggest is fine since you have no problem with a business owner dictating their own rules of employment and selling.

How so? It is certainly against the liberty of the private seller.


I guess we could argue about this ad infinitum.

This makes no sense. Just because a person might be offended by another's lack of morals (perception) then the former person should have his freedom encroached to satisfy the moral standard of the latter? That is crazy.

I mean yes, the world would be a better place if we could all just get along and be happy and respect one another. However, you cannot achieve such a goal by coercion at gun point.

I'm not really sure how your first paragraph in your final section addresses my statement. A person being offended by another person's morality is of my least concern here. I'm not talking about getting offended; I'm talking about being denied fair access to things ranging from food, goods, or even something like healthcare. It makes perfect sense to me that if a govt. or even a society allows a group (whether majority or minority) to form a business block that denies certain outsiders equal access to the things I mention above, then that has serious repercussions, possibly including social isolation, poverty, poor health, or even death. This is why I have pointed to examples like Nazi Germany and 1990s Serbia. You speak of holding someone at gun point; I think that allowing such things is essentially holding the denied at gunpoint.

Lastly, it also makes sense to me that a person having equal access is more socially essential than someone having the right to hire or sell to whomever they wish based upon prejudice. If a business owner can't stand the idea of having to hire or sell to a particular group they don't like, then they have the right and opportunity to pursue other forms of subsistence/employment. However, if someone is denied access then that person may not always have recourse to other options.

 

[Weezer]

So you're under the impression that bigotry is going to somehow go away?

Not at all, but it shouldn't be promoted. The govt condoning it, even in the private sector, is an invitation for general acceptance.

 

[volinbham]

I haven't been following this boring crap. Who is that in the video?

He's the guy who in an effort to lash out against hate organizations like Chick-fil-A berated a young CFA employee at the drive thru, posted it on Youtube where everyone who saw it agreed he was a douchebag and was subsequently fired from his job as an executive at a medical device company.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The problem is that these decisions do violate the liberties of others. Refusing service based on blatant racism most certainly interferes that - there's no way it couldn't.

How so? What liberty is it violating?

After a long night on the strip, you are drunk and craving Zaxby's, are your liberties being violated because they (as a private business) have elected to close shop and stop serving customers at 10pm?

You're looking at this strictly from the perspective of the initial party involved. Why does the right to refuse service need to be protected, but not for consumer freedom? This isn't a situation where both sides maintain those rights. It's either one or the other.

Why are others entitled to someone's time, labor, energy, and capital?

If you start a business selling product X, should the government tell you who you can and cannot sell to, what price you have to sell your product at, or how much you can sell? I have experienced this in other countries. If you are a very small business (only do it in your spare time) and want to sell only to your friends, family, or church, should the government be allowed to tell you that you cannot limit your customer base to just them?

Everyone seems to get caught up with emotions of race and disregard the logic involved.

As for consumer freedom, the consumer has the right to shop or exchange goods with whomever is willing to engage in a commerce transaction with them. They ought to have no right to force a seller into a transaction with them.

This all becomes exponentially worse when it comes to hiring practices. If there's a widespread culture among the private sector that refuses to hire minorities, does that somehow not violate their individual liberties and the ability to pursue a worthwhile standard of living?

No. You are not entitled to a job in a private company. Why should you be? If you opened up a business, and wanted to only hire UT alumni, you should be able to. As a private businessman, you ought to be able to hire whomever you want based on whatever criteria you want even if such practices are disadvantageous to you economically. Again, it seems when race is tossed into the equation all rationality goes out the window.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Not at all, but it shouldn't be promoted. The govt condoning it, even in the private sector, is an invitation for general acceptance.

but the government shoving down our throats that we can't be opinionated is different, how?

 

[PKT_VOL]

First, comparing blatant bigotry with Bloomberg's insanity is, as you say, a weak arguement.

The motivation is irrelevant whether it be bigotry or "for the greater good of society". The principal is the same. Regulating an individual's activities which do not directly harm another based on perception of harm done on a social scale. That was the point. They are similar arguments. The only difference is one is based on the indirect perceived harm of obesity and the other of racial relations. The logic is the same.

Bigotry is an imminent threat.

How so? How does another's thoughts harm you?

When schisms in society form you're headed toward violence. It's promoting segregation and societies cannot survive like that. The in-fighting in this country would be insane if the govt suddenly said, "Hey, it's okay to be a bigot." If you cannot see that as the first step down a very dark road then you need to take a few steps back and re-examine the situation. I'm someone who doesn't favor much govt involvement in most things, but in this case, I feel the govt has to nip the bigotry in the bud or there will be no country to govern.

How is government going to regulate the thoughts of it's citizens besides propaganda? Should personal thoughts be a crime?

There are people in this world with different logic and self-interest than you. To someone like Ted Bundy, or Jeffrey Dahmer, it was logical to kill people. In Dahmer's case it was logical to eat people. And it was in their self interest that they did so. So who decides which logic and self-interest to use? Society? And if it is society, how do they decide? Shared morality.

1) Everyone acts in their own self-interest.

2) Those two committed crimes which violated another's life. Their motivations are irrelevant. Just the actions themselves matter.

3) The last couple sentences didn't resemble any coherent thought.

 

[volprof]

How so? What liberty is it violating?

After a long night on the strip, you are drunk and craving Zaxby's, are your liberties being violated because they (as a private business) have elected to close shop and stop serving customers at 10pm?

The problem I see with your argument PKT, is that you are confusing something like Zaxby's closing at 10 PM with something like what went on in Nazi Germany (I know I keep harping on that) or even 18th - 20th century America (regarding Native Americans and Blacks and their access to services, goods, healthcare, etc.). I don't think UTRavens (and I know I don't) is particularly concerned about Zaxby's closing at 10 PM - that's not harming anyone's personal wellbeing. (But UTRavens can speak for himself on this matter; I don't want to project his own views for him.)

 

[volprof]

And yes, no one particular company refusing access to a group is going to have any great effect upon that group's wellbeing. However, it is the principle of the matter, and we know from history that allowing any one business to pursue such practice can lead to the formation of blocks. Businesses working as blocks when it comes time to who they wish to hire or sell to is very very problematic at best. That's when the wellbeing of certain individuals and groups come into question.

If, as I said earlier, the social contract by nature requires a giving over of some anarchic freedoms, then we choose to sacrifice the anarchic freedom of the business owner to pick and choose based upon prejudice over the freedom of the person to pursue gainful employment and/or access to certain goods, services, etc.

 

[BigPapaVol]

And yes, no one particular company refusing access to a group is going to have any great effect upon that group's wellbeing. However, it is the principle of the matter, and we know from history that allowing any one business to pursue such practice can lead to the formation of blocks. Businesses working as blocks when it comes time to who they wish to hire or sell to is very very problematic at best. That's when the wellbeing of certain individuals and groups come into question.

surely you'd agree that said blocks can close, as a group, at 3 PM and become problematic, at best, all the same.

Drawing the line here is impossible. Gov't intervention in private enterprise is more problematic.

 

[volprof]

surely you'd agree that said blocks can close, as a group, at 3 PM and become problematic, at best, all the same.

Drawing the line here is impossible. Gov't intervention in private enterprise is more problematic.

I'm not sure how a business or a business block closing at 3 PM or any other time for that matter (as long as they're open a sufficient enough time to serve people) is necessarily problematic. And please no one ask me what a "sufficient enough time" is. Common sense.

I guess just one difference between you and me is that I see both government and private enterprise as equally problematic and possibly oppressive.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm not sure how a business or a business block closing at 3 PM or any other time for that matter (as long as they're open a sufficient enough time to serve people) is necessarily problematic. And please no one ask me what a "sufficient enough time" is. Common sense.

I guess just one difference between you and me is that I see both government and private enterprise as equally problematic and possibly oppressive.

who gets to determine "sufficient enough time to serve people" for private enterprises?

private enterprise doesn't have the authority to be oppressive.

 

[volprof]

who gets to determine "sufficient enough time to serve people" for private enterprises?

private enterprise doesn't have the authority to be oppressive.

Sir, nothing I say is going to give you course to see eye-to-eye with me here. You keep on with your views, and I'll keep on with mine.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Sir, nothing I say is going to give you course to see eye-to-eye with me here. You keep on with your views, and I'll keep on with mine.

hold up. You were asking me to agree? Is that what you needed here?

How about the ability to oppress? Which private enterprise has the capacity to oppress like the government can? Where do we draw that line? Do we ask you?

 

[volprof]

hold up. You were asking me to agree? Is that what you needed here?

How about the ability to oppress? Which private enterprise has the capacity to oppress like the government can? Where do we draw that line? Do we ask you?

I wasn't asking anyone to agree with me, so if that's how it came across, I did not mean to imply that. I'm simply asking for you (and any other poster) to at least understand my perspective (and I think it's a fairly reasonable one). Furthermore, I'm not sure why you asked me the question you did in your previous post. I had just stated common sense ought to dictate that. And please don't ask what common sense is. You of all posters on here seem to believe in such a concept just as much as the next guy. Please don't try to pull a "Aha, I gotcha" on me with details like this.

And as far as oppression is concerned, we can debate all day long and more about the philosophical/legal/moral definitions of oppression, but, once again, from a common sense standpoint (and I think we share some common ground here), I think it should be clear how a private enterprise can become oppressive even if that oppression doesn't rest upon any sort of legal authority. You can read my previous posts in this thread to learn more about how I construct that point. I'm tired of bantering on about it. Furthermore, just look up events like the Battle of Blair Mountain, the Ludlow Massacre, etc. if you need any more insight into how private enterprise can become oppressive in this country, not to mention others.

I'd like to know why you have such a faith in business, corporations, and the private sector. I'm not saying it's necessarily misguided or wrong, I just want to know why. Why should we have more faith in those things than government? I think both can be just as oppressive, just as I think both can be very rewarding and good.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Don't ask you questions because I should know better? Common sense should dictate?

It isn't clear how, today, as business can become oppressive. Not the least clear. You can't even argue that point. You can point to historical examples, and that's well and good, but it's tantamount to pointing out why unions have a place today because they served a purpose 100 years ago. Tell me how today businesses are going to become oppressive. On the other hand, I am 100% certain that nobody anywhere needs examples of government oppression.

I don't have a faith in business, but I do have faith in an aware public keeping business in check. I have faith in the diversity of businesses and lack of conforming thought throughout business owners to avoid rampant bigotry. I have no faith at all in a legal authority, especially when votes are bought and sold, to make sensible decisions vis a vis the good of the country.

There is no remote prayer that a corporation, which we use by personal choice, can be as oppressive as a monolith with taxing authority, legal authority, weapons and jails. No possible way.

Oh, and I like how you've implied you're the one with the open mind and the only one considering opposing views. Very professorial of you.

 

[volinbham]

I don't have a faith in business, but I do have faith in an aware public keeping business in check. I have faith in the diversity of businesses and lack of conforming thought throughout business owners to avoid rampant bigotry. I have no faith at all in a legal authority, especially when votes are bought and sold, to make sensible decisions vis a vis the good of the country.

And there's the point - power is clearly more concentrated and less restrained in our governmental institutions than in our businesses. At the Federal level we vest immense power in less than 600 people (for 300 million plus) and the best we can do is remove a fraction every 2 years. As one poster used to argue, the ratio of citizens to representatives is massively out of whack (although I'm loathe to double or triple the size of Congress).

This doesn't even get into the problem of Federal Agencies that operate as free-for-alls that justify their own existence and at best risk their top management being turned every 4 - 8 years.

Compare that to even a massive company such as Arthur Anderson that vanished nearly overnight due to alleged illegalities brought by one of said Federal agencies.

The faith I have in business is other businesses and consumer choice are a far superior method to keeping them honest - the most democratic way to allocate resources (though clearly not perfect).

 

[volprof]

Don't ask you questions because I should know better? Common sense should dictate?

It isn't clear how, today, as business can become oppressive. Not the least clear. You can't even argue that point. You can point to historical examples, and that's well and good, but it's tantamount to pointing out why unions have a place today because they served a purpose 100 years ago. Tell me how today businesses are going to become oppressive. On the other hand, I am 100% certain that nobody anywhere needs examples of government oppression.

I don't have a faith in business, but I do have faith in an aware public keeping business in check. I have faith in the diversity of businesses and lack of conforming thought throughout business owners to avoid rampant bigotry. I have no faith at all in a legal authority, especially when votes are bought and sold, to make sensible decisions vis a vis the good of the country.

There is no remote prayer that a corporation, which we use by personal choice, can be as oppressive as a monolith with taxing authority, legal authority, weapons and jails. No possible way.

Although I disagree with you on many things, I think you make some valid points here. That's not to say I concede the argument to you or am suggesting that I'm wrong about my points. It's just to say that people are capable of making viable and credible points even if we don't necessarily always agree with their arguments.

To concede another point to you, I can't tell you how if businesses today were to get relatively free reign they would become oppressive; I simply don't know. What I can tell you, however, is that given the course of all of human history, one oppressive system gives way to and replaces another oppressive system. I don't know why I should necessarily think that a world ran in the manner you'd like to see would be any better than the one we inhabit now. But perhaps it would be. Maybe an ideal business world where the consumer keeps big business in check is possible. It didn't work in the late 1800s, but that's not to say it wouldn't necessarily work if given another chance. I'm still skeptical.

 

[volprof]

Furthermore, one of the primary reasons unions aren't as useful now as they once were is because government finally stepped in and said enough is enough to the big corporations.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Eat mor chiken

 

[BigPapaVol]

Furthermore, one of the primary reasons unions aren't as useful now as they once were is because government finally stepped in and said enough is enough to the big corporations.

Proliferation of information has effected the changes and made unions obsolete.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I agree with you that these principles are partially based upon the interests of the self, but, at the same time, they are also principles that institute modern democratic (and capitalist) society, which makes them social in nature as well. These principles come to us from Renaissance humanism and Enlightenment philosophy. Much of the drive behind the Enlightenment was breaking away from the morality and legal systems of autocratic and feudal Europe. Even Hobbes, who views humans as inherently anarchic and even flawed, sees the social contract as a necessity if a state of war (not any particular war, but just ongoing war as a fact of human existence) is to be avoided. As such, the social contract is inherently moral because it requires a giving up of certain "anarchic" freedoms and a giving over of oneself to at least some modicum of morality that is sufficient enough to ensure the perpetuation of the contract and the trust in which it is built upon.

I am well aware of philosophy of Hobbs, Locke, and Rousseau on social contracts. The point of the social contract is to get man out of the state of nature. The state of nature means different things to those philosophers. However, none of them derived the their social contract on the basis of morality. Questions of sovereignty are not moral in nature. They are rooted in rational self-interest.

I agree with you that connections between the law and morality are often problematic. Furthermore, the law is not always moral or right. I admit there's problems here. However, I don't believe a certain morality should be enforced by a majority or a minority upon another group even without the law, which is what you seem to suggest is fine since you have no problem with a business owner dictating their own rules of employment and selling.

How is a business owner "enforcing" his morality upon another? Expressing his morality (either implicitly or explicitly)? Yes. Enforcing his morality upon another? No. He is not trying to control the actions of anybody else nor is he trying to change their own morality.

I guess we could argue about this ad infinitum.

Is it not?

I'm not really sure how your first paragraph in your final section addresses my statement. A person being offended by another person's morality is of my least concern here. I'm not talking about getting offended; I'm talking about being denied fair access to things ranging from food, goods, or even something like healthcare. It makes perfect sense to me that if a govt. or even a society allows a group (whether majority or minority) to form a business block that denies certain outsiders equal access to the things I mention above, then that has serious repercussions, possibly including social isolation, poverty, poor health, or even death. This is why I have pointed to examples like Nazi Germany and 1990s Serbia.

You are going to have to explain why you think Person A is automatically entitled to Person B's time, labor, and capital to produce a product or service.

Your argument works perfectly for the public sector. Until you can come to terms with the above stated question, your argument is flawed for private enterprises (regardless of what the products is).

You speak of holding someone at gun point; I think that allowing such things is essentially holding the denied at gunpoint.

Really? The denied have the freedom to walk down the street and engage in an economic transaction with whomever else wants to do business with them.

As it stands, a business person goes to jail if they attempt to hire or sell to whomever they want by whatever criteria they want.

Lastly, it also makes sense to me that a person having equal access is more socially essential than someone having the right to hire or sell to whomever they wish based upon prejudice. If a business owner can't stand the idea of having to hire or sell to a particular group they don't like, then they have the right and opportunity to pursue other forms of subsistence/employment. However, if someone is denied access then that person may not always have recourse to other options.

This makes absolutely no sense. I don't even know where to begin.