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.
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
No, it's not. According to the strict basic theory of property rights, a person can refuse sale to anybody for any reason, no matter how silly or irrational.
in practice, we have laws that outlaw this. Such legislation does not alter the theory though.
Lol, that's not the terms of usage for the car, that's the terms of a credit agreement. The terms and conditions cover the loan used to buy the car, not the car itself. Like when you buy a phone, the contract you sign isn't terms of usage for the phone, it's terms of usage for the network. That's why it says Vodafone or O2 on the piece of paper, not Apple or Nokia.
never mind. my initial suspicion was correct.
You are backing your points up with a "theory"?
Whilst you say there are laws with outlaw these bad practices, you then mention that the legislation doesnt alter the theory. It does alter the theory, it makes it totally irrelevant. Earlier on you were saying it was ok to do what apple have done, now you are saying its ok because of some theory, the same theory which you have even just alluded to being made irrelevant by legislation.
My point isn't confused.
Theory is different from practice. For ethical considerations, we stop firms from discriminating in who they sell to. But it does not mean that the basic theory is invalid.
Well I'll take this as a serious question, even if it doesn't deserve a response. It's quite fucking simple (look at me, I can say naughty words too). The racism question is relevant, because it goes right to the core of the question of how much freedom shop owners and businesses should have over how, when and to whom they sell their stuff. It's a way of determining whether we're talking to the usual libertarian or not. Although I used it as an example, because I was under the mistaken impression that Kira was making claims about what the law is, rather than what (s)he thinks it should be.
You can make the same point with sexuality or gender too.
Yes, but you've failed to at any stage highlight the relevance of this theory. In theory Apple can put any terms they want on the sale of their items, of course. And in theory, I can sign up to those terms and break them. So what does that show?
I think that the point being made is that a seller doesn't have the legal right to dictate terms and that anti-racist legislation is proof of that.
It's an extreme example but a factual one.
which legal theory says a person is allowed to break a contract?
It's not the same as you completely ignore how racism is about power and this debate is about some silly little toys, twat.
Yeah okay, go fuck yourself. You've obviously got some sort of chip on your shoulder, so go and cry about it somewhere else.
Nomnomnom
You probably can't understand, that's what I'm putting it down to.
I'm afraid you're not quite correct about the second point. Even firms have to follow the law of the land before their own conditions.
consider a contract, or a 'terms of use agreement' that you tick before using a program. If that contract says that they can gather information about you, and sell it to other people, but the law of the land says that the way in which they do that is -illegal- (privacy laws, e.g), then the contract is not worth the paper it is printed on - this is in the exact same way that you can't sign a contract with someone to give them permission to kill you.
Now I'm no expert on the ins and outs of all the different caselaws in different countries, and its one of these changing areas (privacy, data ownership, etc) so who knows what the law will be in a few years time - but they are skirting close to the line. If someone challenged it in court, I can see a judge letting it go to court rather than throwing it out perhaps even as a test case.
Consider that Windows used to have windows media player and microsoft internet explorer integrated into the operating system so you couldn't remove them and they argued 'my product, my rules' - but both the US government and the EU found this to be illegal, to prevent someone removing software they didn't want that wasn't core functionality.
Company's certainly don't get carte blanche, and Apple is a very good example of a 'corporate bully' at the moment in the sense that it doesn't really have to operate 'within the spirit of the law' because it has enough money, enough lawyers and ultimately enough legal clout in the industry to avoid any serious litigation or restrictions on its shady practices.
Terms of service is a contract. You can break a contract if it's illegal.
Refusing an individual service is a right. You cannot refuse service on illegal grounds.
It boils down to the fact that the law of the land trumps other legal documents or rights under some conditions, in both cases. Stop QQing and insulting more intelligent members of the boards because you don't understand, and read more.
More simples for you now?
Listen, several members have no responded to your deliberately insulting comments with their justification for using the examples they chose, and you've offered nothing but more insults to them, so stop embarrassing yourself. If you want to debate it, come up with decent points and maybe, just maybe, express them within the rules of the forum.
I lol'd
Come on, dude. This ain't like you.