Why is discrimination of the majority ok?

[ansutherland]

Many businesses have a sign right on the wall stating "We maintain the right to deny service to anyone", which is probably the way it should be, if we really live in a free country. :smile::smile:

That right to deny someone business cannot be based upon gender or race.

:roll:
Punjabi is a regional thing in a nation. Caucasian is a subspecies of human. Try equating things that are at least similar.

Caucasian is not a subspecies of human, rather a fairly meaningless biological classification. Modern humans, it is sometimes argued, are a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, thus sometimes referred to as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There is however no such distinction between the races. You're welcome for the clarification. And, yes it is fair to compare the denial imposed by one ethnic group over others to that of Caucasians forming exclusively Caucasian groups. For one thing, I believe Punjabi can be rightly classified as an ethnicity, despite it being a region, much the way that Jews are a religious group and a "people".

The issue at hand is denying other groups entrance to something based upon things they cannot help that are not important to the event or club in discussion. If this right is going to be allotted to some, then it should be to all.

 

[L Gilbert]

That right to deny someone business cannot be based upon gender or race.



Caucasian is not a subspecies of human, rather a fairly meaningless biological classification. Modern humans, it is sometimes argued, are a subspecies of Homo Sapiens, thus sometimes referred to as Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There is however no such distinction between the races. You're welcome for the clarification. And, yes it is fair to compare the denial imposed by one ethnic group over others to that of Caucasians forming exclusively Caucasian groups. For one thing, I believe Punjabi can be rightly classified as an ethnicity, despite it being a region, much the way that Jews are a religious group and a "people".

The issue at hand is denying other groups entrance to something based upon things they cannot help that are not important to the event or club in discussion. If this right is going to be allotted to some, then it should be to all.

:roll: Excuse me for using the term "sub-species" so haphazardly.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

Notice Punjabi isn't in the list?

Race (classification of humans) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

Cavalli-Sforza on Human Races

 

[ansutherland]

:roll: Excuse me for using the term "sub-species" so haphazardly.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

Notice Punjabi isn't in the list?

Race (classification of humans) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cavalli-Sforza on Human Races

You've defined some racial groups, so what. I never said that Punjab's were a race, nor did I say Jew's were.....they can be rightly classified as an ethnicity. This is irrelevent anyways, as I originally pointed out that women were allowed to have their own social clubs that excluded men, by the opposite was always challenged in court. As you likely know, the distinction of men and women is not a racial dichotomy. This discussion need not be focused on different people's interpretations of race, as that is not the matter at hand. It is the exclusion of different groups from participating in something that only allows certain members, memebers defined by race, ethnicity, and gender. I don't have a problem with Punjabs having their own games, and whether or not you think of them as a unique ethnicity is not the point, my problem is that when the "majority", as defined more in the socialogical sense, forms an exclusive club, it's challenged in court. I say make it the same for all.

 

[L Gilbert]

You've defined some racial groups, so what. I never said that Punjab's were a race, nor did I say Jew's were.....they can be rightly classified as an ethnicity. This is irrelevent anyways,

Just pointing out that equating a race with an ethnic group as you called it, is foolish.

as I originally pointed out that women were allowed to have their own social clubs that excluded men, by the opposite was always challenged in court. As you likely know, the distinction of men and women is not a racial dichotomy.

Then your analogy about Punjabis and caucasians was ridiculous.

This discussion need not be focused on different people's interpretations of race, as that is not the matter at hand. It is the exclusion of different groups from participating in something that only allows certain members, memebers defined by race, ethnicity, and gender. I don't have a problem with Punjabs having their own games, and whether or not you think of them as a unique ethnicity is not the point, my problem is that when the "majority", as defined more in the socialogical sense, forms an exclusive club, it's challenged in court. I say make it the same for all.

I'd suggest leaving well enough alone. Women have groups, men have groups. Leave it that way.
The last I heard a private outfit can refuse service to whomever the hell it wants to as long as it has good grounds. My bet is that none of the haircutters in the barbershop thoight they could give the dipshyte a good enough haircut so they refused. The woman decided it was a gender issue and not an aptitude one and so on. It happens now and again. Most women wouldn't bother heading for a barber to get a haircut in the first place and most women wouldn't think it odd that the barbers in the shop refused.
Like I said at the very first: molehill ---> mountain.

 

[ansutherland]

Just pointing out that equating a race with an ethnic group as you called it, is foolish. Then your analogy about Punjabis and caucasians was ridiculous. I'd suggest leaving well enough alone. Women have groups, men have groups. Leave it that way.
The last I heard a private outfit can refuse service to whomever the hell it wants to as long as it has good grounds. My bet is that none of the haircutters in the barbershop thoight they could give the dipshyte a good enough haircut so they refused. The woman decided it was a gender issue and not an aptitude one and so on. It happens now and again. Most women wouldn't bother heading for a barber to get a haircut in the first place and most women wouldn't think it odd that the barbers in the shop refused.
Like I said at the very first: molehill ---> mountain.

If you fail to see the relevance in my comparisons, then I suggest we will never agree on this issue. If you really think that it is ok to have a group like women forming their own clubs, then challenge the legality of male only clubs, then you are endorsing double standards. If it's not ok for one group, then it's not ok for the other. This however does not seem to be your position. You do not really care about the issue at all, rather you see fit to ridicule my use of analogy and comparison when the discussion has really nothing much to do with the things you are criticizing.

My advice: Make sure you understand what the debate is even about, then work out a tenable argument.

 

[EagleSmack]

"Only white males are discriminated against in Canada."

Can't speak for Canada but here in the States it is generally acknowledged that those who harbor such thoughts have a very low self estimation.

Of what?

 

[Tonington]

If it's cool to have the Punjabi Games, then the Caucasian Games should be OK too. If however whites cannot have their own games, then neither can anyone else. I have a feeling though that even if you named it the Caucasian Games yet made it open to anyone, you would have a public outrage.

The analogy would be Highland games, which we do have.

 

[JLM]

:roll: Excuse me for using the term "sub-species" so haphazardly.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

Notice Punjabi isn't in the list?

Race (classification of humans) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cavalli-Sforza on Human Races

Punjabis are Caucasian.

 

[TenPenny]

We have the Highland Games, we also have the Acadian Games.

 

[JLM]

That right to deny someone business cannot be based upon gender or race.

And no one in their right mind would, but being allergic to curry or garlic breath would probably work, or their manners. I don't believe you even have to state a reason and you'd probably be better off not to. ABout 35 years ago I took my family to a Chinese restaurant, where we were totally ignored for 1/2 an hour, before we said "screw them" and left. I sure as hell don't want to be where I'm not wanted.

 

[ansutherland]

We have the Highland Games, we also have the Acadian Games.

I'm sure that entrance into these games is based upon a willingness to compete in the types of events they have, those being traditionally Acadian or Scottish?? If I'm right, that seems fair, but if you had to be of Acadian ancestry then that is totally different.

And no one in their right mind would, but being allergic to curry or garlic breath would probably work, or their manners. I don't believe you even have to state a reason and you'd probably be better off not to. ABout 35 years ago I took my family to a Chinese restaurant, where we were totally ignored for 1/2 an hour, before we said "screw them" and left. I sure as hell don't want to be where I'm not wanted.

I have no problem with this, as long as it's applied equally. If women don't want men in their club, that's fine. The opposite however gets challenged in court all the time, and that equates to unequal treatment of the sexes.

 

[JLM]

Yes, it all can get kind of stupid. Like would a mud wrestler want to join a lawn bowling club or would a Hottentot want to join the Sons of Norway club? Surely we have the right to discriminate based on nothing more than differing interests.

 

[petros]

Quoting L Gilbert
:roll: Excuse me for using the term "sub-species" so haphazardly.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

Notice Punjabi isn't in the list?

Race (classification of humans) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cavalli-Sforza on Human Races

Punjabis are Caucasian.

Khan and his crew injected a **** load of Mongoloid into Asia and Europe too.

 

[numbnuts]

Aside from that why would she want to go to a barber shop?

Probably because she was a dyke.

 

[petros]

Quick!!! Call the Dutch, she sprung a leak!

 

[AnnaG]

If you fail to see the relevance in my comparisons, then I suggest we will never agree on this issue. If you really think that it is ok to have a group like women forming their own clubs, then challenge the legality of male only clubs, then you are endorsing double standards. If it's not ok for one group, then it's not ok for the other. This however does not seem to be your position. You do not really care about the issue at all, rather you see fit to ridicule my use of analogy and comparison when the discussion has really nothing much to do with the things you are criticizing.

My advice: Make sure you understand what the debate is even about, then work out a tenable argument.

Quit snivelling. You made a ridiculous analogy and got a comment on it. From that, you blew it out of proportion.
As far as women's groups and men's groups, and kid's groups go, I don't see a problem between most people either. I think the press has blown things like the barbershop issue waaaay out of proportion. So I agree with Les.

Punjabis are Caucasian.

Irrelevant but yes they are caucasian without being caucasoid.

I have no problem with this, as long as it's applied equally. If women don't want men in their club, that's fine. The opposite however gets challenged in court all the time, and that equates to unequal treatment of the sexes.

Do you have statistics, or is this "all the time" just an offhand remark based on your opinion?

 

[Downhome_Woman]

Probably because she was a dyke.

Actually because she had really short hair and it 's hard to find a women's salon that cut's really short hair.
For the record, I have really short hair - I've been married for 29 years and I have two children and I'm no 'dyke.
Hair length doesn't indicate sexual preference.
Your name, 'numbnuts'? good choice.

 

[ansutherland]

I was not aware that I needed stats to back up my claim, but if you wish, just type in "all male clubs challenged in court" on google and you will come up with examples. Some that come to mind are the LPGA as well as another all male golf club whose name escapes me. Besides that, do you really not know that this goes on? It just seems that if there is an inequality that favours women, you will overlook it, agree with it, or just simply say that I'm whining. Is the opposit true? Do you overlook the advantages bestowed upon men, or do you wish to see equal treatment for all?

 

[AnnaG]

I was not aware that I needed stats to back up my claim, but if you wish, just type in "all male clubs challenged in court" on google and you will come up with examples.

I did and came up with stuff like this:

Law: Storming The Last Male Bastion - TIME

It also came up with stuff like this:

Lawyer's Suit Challenges Women-Only Gyms - NYTimes.com

IOW, it is a game for fools and lawyers and the fools will lose, the lawyers will win.

Some that come to mind are the LPGA as well as another all male golf club whose name escapes me. Besides that, do you really not know that this goes on?

Who said that? The stuff pops up once in a while on the news, but the immaturity of the issue is blatant and catering to the issue is making mountains from molehills. IOW, people should bluddy well grow up. Most women don't care what men do in their precious little clubs and most men don't care what goes on in women's. But most people will take up the issue for purely childish reasons.

It just seems that if there is an inequality that favours women, you will overlook it, agree with it, or just simply say that I'm whining. Is the opposit true? Do you overlook the advantages bestowed upon men, or do you wish to see equal treatment for all?

No, I am not necessarily for equal treatment for all. Women and men are friggin different, both physically and psychologically. That fact seems to escape people and they get on this "equality" wagon and drive it down the road waaaaaaaay past the turnoff into the driveway. Equal pay for equal work done and other stuff is fine but this isn't the same sort of issue. And people cannot seem to be able to distinguish the difference.

 

[JLM]

The smartest comment on the forum today. Like are apples = oranges? :smile::smile::smile: