haircuts, faith and yada yada yada - Page 2
Old 11-15-2012, 10:57 PM   #21 (permalink)
------------------------

Senior Member
 
XiaominWu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,415
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pzabby View Post
You're questioning Muslim faith there which is fine but you can't blame the dude for it. He was born into it and brainwashed into it (most likely). Yes there's a shitload wrong with the Muslim religion but that goes for all religions. In this case I think the barber has a point. He was exercising his religious belief not questioning gender equality. I think the woman is just milking it or is highly ignorant of the Muslim religion. Either way, I don't think this'll drag on to court
are there no muslim doctors? do they not treat women?

i mean, i know that we have to respect someone's right to practice their religion... but within that there has to be a modicum of common sense thrown in, right? there are a lot of seriously antiquated things written in those holy books.

from the standpoint of a barber.... a man's head and a woman's head are virtually identical.... the hair grows the same way. this woman is not asking for anything different from every other customer they serve.
XiaominWu is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:05 PM   #22 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmats7returns View Post
lulz.

the same reason H.L.A. Hart says there can be no international law.

He's right that it's probably nonsense to you though. I prefer to stay away from stipulative definitions in the 'rights' game though.
lulz is not an argument, it's an escape.

and, quite obviously, you want to stay away from any definitions at all. it's a lot easier when you can just rely on a 'sacred text' and not bother with defining anything.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:19 PM   #23 (permalink)
censored

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,356
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
not well put at all. the muslim faith is no different from a cult, from the easter bunny, from the flying spaghetti monster, etc. it's all fairy tales, and fairy tales are fine and dandy for personal spirituality, but should have absolutely no influence on what happens in terms of public and social policy in a secular democracy. it's total bullshit.
religions aren't fairytales, they're rules for governing people. i'd hate to be you when you find out that you currently live by those rules that were thought out by religious leaders many years ago.
dfunkie1 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:24 PM   #24 (permalink)
Fides et Ratio.

Junior Member
 
Bmats7returns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 78
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
not well put at all. the muslim faith is no different from a cult, from the easter bunny, from the flying spaghetti monster, etc. it's all fairy tales, and fairy tales are fine and dandy for personal spirituality, but should have absolutely no influence on what happens in terms of public and social policy in a secular democracy. it's total bullshit.
*yawn*Russel's teapot*yawn*God of the gaps*yawn*flying spaghetti monster*yawn*

I thought they finally put Dawkins into the children's section. I didn't come here to debate a dumbed-down atheism.

What is a human right and where do they come from (or how do we come to know/define them)?

Are you familiar with legal positivism, interpretivism, and realism? In case you are wondering who I'd put in those categories, I'd put Hart in the first, Dworkin in the second and Leiter/Hutcheson in the third.
Bmats7returns is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:32 PM   #25 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfunkie1 View Post
religions aren't fairytales, they're rules for governing people. i'd hate to be you when you find out that you currently live by those rules that were thought out by religious leaders many years ago.
rules based on fiction and a denial of reason. rules that cannot be questioned and that are enforced by the threat of eternal suffering. rules that i never agreed to, nor that i continue to give assent to. make-believe justifications for servitude.

the values i currently hold as critical are the byproduct of humanism, and are by no means the property of faith. adding "god grants you" in front of "the right to freedom and happiness" does not make it any more valuable, nor any more the product of a particular tradition. these same faiths that stand for whatever humanist arguments you think i believe in also stand for other very objectionable things. and the fact that people pick and choose which parts to adhere to is further evidence that the 'rules' and their enforcement are not explicit.

it is absurd to insist that a secular in upbringing an a-religious (not anti-religious) household in a predominantly judeo-christian environment means that everything i believe in was created for me by religious leaders. that's not something i can take seriously.
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 11:52 PM   #26 (permalink)
www.torontoraptorsforum.com

giant steps
 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 15,191
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bmats7returns View Post
*yawn*Russel's teapot*yawn*God of the gaps*yawn*flying spaghetti monster*yawn*

I thought they finally put Dawkins into the children's section. I didn't come here to debate a dumbed-down atheism.

What is a human right and where do they come from (or how do we come to know/define them)?

Are you familiar with legal positivism, interpretivism, and realism? In case you are wondering who I'd put in those categories, I'd put Hart in the first, Dworkin in the second and Leiter/Hutcheson in the third.
trying to paint me as a caricature is not going to work, especially because that post was not directed at you or at a point you made. i'm really not sure what you are getting at with this post.

the answer to your last questions are yes, and no i'm not.

are you actually asking me what i think a human right is and where i think they come from, or are you just putting that down to get a lead in to a discussion on the philosophy of law?
'trane is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:34 AM   #27 (permalink)
Fides et Ratio.

Junior Member
 
Bmats7returns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 78
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
trying to paint me as a caricature is not going to work, especially because that post was not directed at you or at a point you made. i'm really not sure what you are getting at with this post.

the answer to your last questions are yes, and no i'm not.

are you actually asking me what i think a human right is and where i think they come from, or are you just putting that down to get a lead in to a discussion on the philosophy of law?
A caricature? You actually said flying spaghetti monster, easter bunny and fairy tales in this discussion. But fine, maybe you meant them sarcastically and are not one of the sheeple of this new dumbed-down atheism that uses that language consistently. Also, not sure how this isn't directed at me when you told me I rely on 'sacred texts' and not definitions.

So I am asking you, what do you think a human right is and where do they come from (or how we come to know/define them). The definitions that I use are clear for the debate (the philosophy of law). I'm not sure what other definitions there are.
Bmats7returns is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:38 AM   #28 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfunkie1 View Post
religions aren't fairytales, they're rules for governing people. i'd hate to be you when you find out that you currently live by those rules that were thought out by religious leaders many years ago.
What grounds the rules? What makes them right?

What do we do when we have competing religions or rules?
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:05 AM   #29 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

What are the actual rights that are being defended or attacked? I have a few different formulations in mind:

On the side of the barber:
1) An individual has the right to offer or refuse service or exchange of goods with whomever they please in an agreement that does not violate established rights of the receiver.

On the side of the haircut:
1) An individual has a right to receive any service or any good they desire from any party who offers that service or good to any other party (w/out being contra established rights). As long as the individual receives the service from someone, their rights have been met.
2) An individual has a right to receive any service or any good they desire from any particular party who offers that service or good to any other party (usual caveat). The individual must receive the service/good from the party they desire, so long as that party also offers the service/good to others.

Whether the context is essential goods or services, the latter is harder to defend without denying that right of the barber. If the former collapses into the latter, which seems possible but not necessarily plausible in a sufficiently diverse market, then we're stuck in the same scenario. Since I take this to be where the conflict lies, the question, to me, is whether the barber should actually have the right to refuse service he offers to others, so long as it does not violate established rights.

The premise, I think, is that to refuse the barber this right would be refusing him essential autonomy and liberty. However, I take it for granted that we have the right to enforce upon individuals certain rules that are conducive to success in the market more broadly, in part because market activity, especially in a contemporary context, is not really that private. We don't let companies bait-and-switch, for example, because it undermines confidence in the market more generally. I think a similar argument can be extended to arbitrary refusal of service. It undermines confidence in the market and seems contrary to the very purpose of offering services and goods.

I'm not claiming that consumers are then permitted to do everything. Since every exchange involves two parties, consumers must also act in a way that does not undermine the confidence of sellers, and this includes, say, berating an employee, ignoring debts, etc.


What BMats has pointed towards is a challenge I'm somewhat sympathetic to but which requires a great deal of work. When you ask what ultimately grounds all rights, and when we start with individual liberty and autonomy as the fundamental principle, we start to run into chaos because individuals can have mutually exclusive views of their liberty and autonomy when interacting with each other. Out of that, I think there is a bit of a practical need to acknowledge that liberty and autonomy must be restricted in some sense, and that is when we start to ask about what sort of society you like. You then try to actualize the most practical rights to achieve that sort of society.

I think this is where I depart from libertarianism. I do not think that the best society can be actualized by libertarianism. I find socialist libertarianism extremely attractive, particularly on theoretical grounds, but I try not to be distracted by utopian ideas when the evidence on the ground seems to point in the other direction.

Yes, I do believe that politics, economics, and ethics are fundamentally pragmatic in nature.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:15 AM   #30 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

Re-reading my post, I see a weakness is where I describe this as a case of "arbitrary refusal of service." The religiously inclined, or those who see primacy in individual conscience, would likely disagree that this is by any means arbitrary.

What makes it arbitrary, I believe, is the grounds for justification. We cannot justify it simply by making recourse to individual conscience; we must still be able to defend the claim itself. If a matter of fact can be established, then it should be observed as such. If it becomes a matter of value, then we should land on the side that has the smallest practical negative impact. For example, we shouldn't agree to a value that will undermine the co-operation of individuals in fundamentally co-operative contexts.

Now don't make me defend fact-value distinction or what a fact really is. I'm not ready for that.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:37 AM   #31 (permalink)
Keep it simple

Senior Member
 
Dario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,614
Representing:
Send a message via Skype™ to Dario
Default

wheres the article or video?
Dario is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:46 AM   #32 (permalink)
the gat'll killya quicker, when I'm drunk off the liquor

The Mara sisters are hot!
 
Bill Haverchuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,375
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dario View Post
wheres the article or video?
Check the "headlines" thread, dude. It should be in there under a post from yesterday or the day before that.
Bill Haverchuck is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:54 AM   #33 (permalink)
Keep it simple

Senior Member
 
Dario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,614
Representing:
Send a message via Skype™ to Dario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Haverchuck View Post
Check the "headlines" thread, dude. It should be in there under a post from yesterday or the day before that.
got it thanks bro.
Dario is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 06:46 AM   #34 (permalink)
LX
effin' ineffable

In the Paint
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,071
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by XiaominWu View Post
are there no muslim doctors? do they not treat women?

i mean, i know that we have to respect someone's right to practice their religion... but within that there has to be a modicum of common sense thrown in, right? there are a lot of seriously antiquated things written in those holy books.

from the standpoint of a barber.... a man's head and a woman's head are virtually identical.... the hair grows the same way. this woman is not asking for anything different from every other customer they serve.
It's not solely about religion. From what I picked up from travelling through a few different Muslim countries, there is a pretty fair flexibility as to what people can decide to live by. A bigger aspect is culture. This dude is defined by a culture whereby he seeks to be honourable. He could just take a person's money and not worry about it, but the fact is that the culture he knows and was defined by will not allow him to do that. If he wanted to be a doctor he would of course need to accept a different culture. As a barber I'm not sure it's necessary to expect that much from him. I just don't see too many positives from technocrats drilling down this far all the time.
LX is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 06:48 AM   #35 (permalink)
LX
effin' ineffable

In the Paint
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 30,071
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
this is neither simple or petty. the reality of competing rights butting up against one another is an increasing problem in secular societies. i would be wholly and completely uncomfortable with the notion that people's make-believe trumps others reality. to call this prosthelytizing is to deny the reasonable point being made.

'living his life within a reality that includes multiple truths'... i have seen you reference this meaningless drivel too many times. it's about time you explained how this is real, and how this should impinge on a woman's right to get service in her own community. there is bit one truth, and the question is whether or not people can see it. most can't, so we reason through it. one way to make sure you won't see it is to invent your own, or, even worse, to believe in someone else's invention without questioning it.

muslim, catholic, zeus-worshipping, i don't give a flying fuck. none of it is my reality, and none of it has a shred of credibility to support it.
Preach on. I will stop my drivel and search out that one truth that you have found as one of the chosen few.
LX is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:23 AM   #36 (permalink)
and a 1, and a 2, and a 1,2,3,4!

Senior Member
 
pzabby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: toronto
Posts: 7,055
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
not well put at all. the muslim faith is no different from a cult, from the easter bunny, from the flying spaghetti monster, etc. it's all fairy tales, and fairy tales are fine and dandy for personal spirituality, but should have absolutely no influence on what happens in terms of public and social policy in a secular democracy. it's total bullshit.
Even though I agree with you on the reality of the Muslim or Any faith at all for that matter, it doesn't matter what we think. He believes in it and is living by it. That's a right for all Canadians. It just so happens the Muslim faith is very controlling and it affects his work. He denied service based on his faith not letting him touch a stranger of a woman's hair. Not because she wanted a "man's" haircut. He's not discriminating against her here and that's the key point.
pzabby is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 07:49 AM   #37 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,653
Representing:
Default

Nobody has to do business or provide a service to somebody if they don't want to.

Words or not - don't have to.

What this woman is doing - is wasting people's time, wasting people's money, wasting government resources.

It's a waste. Walk down the street and get a haircut somewhere else.
bjjs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:54 AM   #38 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,093
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjjs View Post
Nobody has to do business or provide a service to somebody if they don't want to.

Words or not -
Bare assertion. Great.

I take it that you feel an ER surgeon is justified in arbitrarily refusing to treat a particular patient, even if that patient dies as a result?
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:50 PM   #39 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,653
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
Bare assertion. Great.

I take it that you feel an ER surgeon is justified in arbitrarily refusing to treat a particular patient, even if that patient dies as a result?
No. And I think justice should come into play in such a matter.

A barbershop hair cut for a woman trying to take down a barbershop so she can sit proud and roar loud - no justification for you - go away annoying person - stop wasting everyones time.

Let me know when the Toronto barbershop industry has collectively given her the cold shoulder and she has been left with the option of paying a ridiculous price at a hair salon, or cutting her own hair in front of the mirror.
bjjs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:43 PM   #40 (permalink)
censored

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,356
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ligeia View Post
Bare assertion. Great.

I take it that you feel an ER surgeon is justified in arbitrarily refusing to treat a particular patient, even if that patient dies as a result?
does an ER surgeon own the hospital?
dfunkie1 is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24