If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You're being totally contradictory again. You claim to be for freedom, but you're only in favour of freedom for people with money, power, business owners. What about the freedom of the person with a different skin colour to buy food?
The shopkeeper sells the food that he/she owns at his/her discretion on his/her property.
But my house and a shop are different things with different social functions. A shop selling food does not just have a private function does it? It has the function of providing food for people. You only seem to be in favour of freedom for the business owner. What about the freedom of someone to buy food? To live?
So in your defintion of freedom, the business owner has freedom but the shopper doesn't. That ain't freedom.
Putting words into peoples mouths is a juvenile way of debating - you defined 'straw man' for Klintock so why do it yourself?
But at the end of the day a shopkeepers shop belongs to the shopkeeper, and if they discriminate against black people but say 'it's because I don't like your shoes' then what can you do? It's not right but it's people attitudes you have to change; you can't force people to trade with people they don't want to for whatever reason.
I'm not putting words into anyones mouth. This is precisely the crux of the matter. You're arguing for the right of property owners and property owners only. What that does is limit freedom freedom for everyone else.
That'd be you then.........
Shyboy
It wasn't a shopkeeper that excluded someone, it was a security guard refusing entry to someone on the basis of their looks. Shopping centres are different to tuxedo bars or clubs........
No I'm not - I'm not a property owner but I do want to be free not to deal with anyone I choose not to deal with.
Would you take my freedom of association away?
Unlimited freedom is not realistic and I have never used the term freethepeeps - I've only said that the freedoms I would extend would be extended to all.
I haven't. Quote me. I won't get into debates with you in future cos you're not honest and I haven't the time to chase your tail.
True in some sense, but in another sense they are just another business establishment. The security guard was only ordered to by the management, and the management represents the interests of itself and the shops inside the shopping centre. Whether it's a good choice or not is debatable, but I still think there is no issue of authority and whether they should be allowed to do it. Take a more extreme example; if you walked in naked they would stop you wouldn't they?
If you walked in naked, you would probably be arrested for public indecency - its different to trying to get to a shop and being refused because of your dress sense. Essentially what we're looking at is another round of enclosure where commercial spaces are only open to members of the public that dress according to dictat....
That's the practical upshot of what you're arguing for. You're arguing for the right of a property owner to be free of interference from anyone as to who he deals with - a negative freedom, a freedom from, from interference. However this has then impinged on the freedom of the hypothetical black person to buy food, to eat (a positive freedom). This is why the distinction between positive and negative freedoms is so important and why arguing only for negative freedoms is in effect arguing for freedoms only for people with power.
Look, here's a scenario. A black person lives on an estate. They are unemployed (or work part time in a low income job), they have kids. They don't own a car. There is only one shop within walking distance. Now for you to argue for the right of the shopkeeper to be racist, you're actually restricting the right of the black person to get food for his family. Do you see?
I think it's slightly different in that it's not forcing people to conform, it's just trying to stop people who dress offensively (in the eyes of some people). I don't agree with it myself personally, but from a logical point of view I think it can be easily justified.
I think the more important question, is why is dressing like this deemed offensive and therefore why has dressing like this been banned? Is it because it really does intimidate other people or is it because they are trying to discriminate against teenagers without officially discriminating against teenagers.
I know most people on here and in real life probably wouldn't be scared by someone who dresses like a goth. A lot of people might find it amusing, but I doubt intimidating.
The hypothetical black cannot use freedom as his argument to make demands which would curtail the freedom of the shopkeeper. That would just be me-firstism.
This is the problem with the pos/neg approach -you're not actually arguing for freedom you're arguing for rights. Rights which in this case would take away freedom of association for shopkeepers or racists, not to mention economic, intellectual and political rights.
Freedom first - without it there are no rights. I know you see it the other way around - we'll just keep banging heads.
We've both made our position very clear - we're coming from opposite angles and can't help but collide. We give priority to opposing freedoms.
You think the Black should have the freedom to shop wherever he likes, I think the shopkeeper should have the freedom not to serve him.
Square pegs and round holes. I'm leaving it for now.
But there are natural limits to freedom anyway, well perhpas not natural, I don't know how to articulate it, but limits that should be there. Like, I could walk into your house and sit down and start watching your TV, that's freedom for me to do what I want, but that's not fair on you. I know people being excluded from the shopping centre can argue that that's not fair on them, but they don't have any 'rights' to it in the same sense as you have the right to your house, because you've bought it, you work for it, it's your property. A shopping centre is just there and is owned by a private company. If run by a council then it's a different matter, because they would have funded it out of council tax wouldn't they? Anyway, that's my take on it... do you see where I'm coming from?
I think that people should have the basic freedoms to live their life and to self-determination. That means that people should have food, shelter, warmth, all the basic stuff. If they don't then they're not free.
You're arguing for freedom only for people with property and money. There is no getting around this, its the practical upshot of your argument.
Yes, I see where you're coming from. However, as I already said, my private dwelling and a shop selling food and clothes, have very different social functions.
That's true enough, but there are alternative shops for food and clothes. Not sure if that's the right attitude but anyway!
In my hypothetical scenario, there wasn't. Its true for some people, they only have one shop on the estate within walking distance and don't have a car. What if that shop refuses to serve them? Where's their freedom then?
If it was urgent I'd go home, take off the black make up, pull on some jeans or trousers and a shirt or top, wash my hair and go back down to the shop. Perhaps it's not fair to force people to do this if it's their only option though, but I personally see a shopping centre as a luxury as predominantly it's indulgence items that are bought. Thorntons chocolate, snazzy clothes shops etc. etc.
Hmmm - not all shopping centres are like that though. The Elephant and Castle is an inner-city shithole, but the day after the Bluewater ban on hoodies, they joined in.
It won't stick at luxury shopping centres, jumped up little shopping centre managers will imitate the tactic.
If it isn't acceptable to refuse someone entry because they look black or disabled, how is it acceptable to refuse them entry because they look Goth?
dressing in black is a choice...and one that may offend apparently
That's the theory, I don't agree with it, but that's the justification. Originally Bluewater said you weren't allowed to conceal your face by having a hood up, so you could go in but you had to pull it down. I think other shopping centres are taking it too far and it will backfire on them. Having a group of teenagers with their faces concealed is threatening and intimidating. Having a group of teenagers wearing face-paint and purple spikes is entertaining (for me, anyway