Karl

I don't object to anyone rejecting anyone else without any given reason. I wouldn't choose to give my custom to a shop that did so specifically because of gender, colour, sexual preferences, transvestism etc. Personally I would vote with my wallet. That's the best way of encouraging a shop owner that being a racist isn't profitable. As long as it's a privately owned place it is the owner that must decide who he serves. That is his right and it's has been trampled on. However, that's the tip of the iceberg. Going back to the OP-this removal of rights is actually liberal racism. I'm not racist, but I am unhappy with liberal racism that tramples on majority rights in favour of a minority. Racism doesn't go away by utilising reversed racism, in fact it makes more people begin to divide. It creates greater ill feeling amongst people that weren't racist to begin with and plays right into the hands of those that are. I sometimes wonder if this is a deliberate Government policy to cause friction.

This does set the ground work which isn't likely to differ much if you are generally a materialist (I know by your posts that you aren't strictly that persuasion). Well done on getting through it. Philosophy can be a bit of a dry subject.

Not everyone. It seems to me that the words and definitions have been changed in order to dehumanise men. It is not possible to discriminate-a necessity-without being racist. I hadn't noticed until I looked up the definition. At one time 'discrimination' was considered important. It's the laws which are racist in your example.

I want sufficient food in it to survive. I can't fill it with love and no amount of love will fill it.

You are using the modern sense of discrimination, I am using it in the epistemological sense. I object to racism not discrimination. One is a brute violent manifestation of collectivist tribalism, the other is a necessity for survival. This illustrates the gulf of understanding between us and why it feels I'm living on the planet of the apes. This is why the philosophy must be changed as discrimination is now conflated with racism. This is irrational barbarism.

It won't fill your stomach.

I would equally have that argument against genuine oppression regardless of who was being oppressed. The degree of oppression doesn't minimise that it is oppression. White people were the ones shouting to have slavery laws repealed. It was white people who repealed them. Yet, not a word is ever spoken about the black slavers. The implication is that white is bad and black/minorities are good. There are plenty of male rapes occurring every day, but it hardly gets a mention. It isn't heterosexuals doing that. Blacks are busy murdering each other at a rate that makes the entire 'black lives matter' campaign pointless. If black lives really mattered then they could stop murdering each other. Of course whites aren't innocent either, but let's have some balance, the real issue is not colour or sexuality, but the morals of the people beneath the skin.

There I agree with you there, however I'm not going to give you a 'thanks' because your answer to spiritual mysticism is muscle mysticism. It's just a pseudo scientific version of the religion you condemn.

You mean you are waiting to get up the enthusiasm to read all the other posts ;-) I'm not even certain why I'm doing it. I think it's partly about improving my own understanding. Peikoff has said in a few of his lectures that whilst writing his version-that I'm plagerising to an extent-that he would discover that things he was certain he knew, were actually somewhat I'll defined. Special and unique have too many connotations these days. :-) Another word is infinite-that's a word that should be excised from the dictionary.

So we all have a perfect nature, it's our judgement that is necessarily imperfect, otherwise we wouldn't be exactly what we are :-) I hope you are reading my very laborious objectivism 101. It's got all that stuff in it.

Which is exactly what I'm doing whilst you encourage the opposite. Stop encouraging the initiating of force in either direction.

It impinges no ones freedom if someone discriminates against you in thought or deed. You are making it about race and minorities, but it's about people. All you are saying is that one person should be forced to accept another. Someone in that situation is not being granted their freedom. Then you add a straw man 'burned at the crucifix' which is a violation of right to life. In no way have I suggested or implied this is acceptable. What you are saying is that racism is acceptable as long is it is the minority who is being racist. If racism isn't right, then it cannot be right whoever does it. If I walk into a restaurant and the guy doesn't like the look of me because I'm sporting a hells angels cut off, then he has the right to deny me a table. If I go outside get my gang and return with shotguns and knuckle dusters, threaten to smash up his restaurant and put him in a cage if he doesn't give me a table am I acting correctly ? Is this ending the restaurant owners discrimination against motorcycle gangs ? It makes no difference if it's a gang or the government that is employed as the medium of force. I speak from experience because this is precisely how it was during the 1970s. If we turned up at a pub we would be shown the door. A motorcycle helmet and leathers resulted in discrimination. The owners didn't know we were nice guys, he just saw thugs, trouble and an alienation of his customer base. We were thrown out of fish and chip shops, restaurants and garages wouldn't serve us fuel. The answer was not to force people to accept us by creating a law. The reason why these people rejected us was a whole raft of film, book, newspaper and TV propaganda that had motorcyclists down as violent, thieving, rotten, dirty people. When the media stopped portraying us debauched maniacs it was no longer an issue.

If that isn't getting through to the force mongers then maybe this will.

The law should prevent one person initiating force against another. As MLK made it clear, a law cannot end racism, it can only attempt to prevent the initiation of force. Justice should be blind and objective. If it forces one group to love another, then it is no longer objective or blind. It is therefore no longer just or lawful. If you could see it, then you would know it. My wife isn't a philosopher, she has never read Rand, but she has her own philosophy and sense of justice. She says to treat and judge everyone as individuals, not by the colour of their skin, their race, creed, religion, sex or sexuality. It is neither right for a black majority to condemn a white minority, nor a white minority to condemn a black majority. This is two sides of the same racist tribalism. The law should not speak to tribalism, it should only account for men's actions as unique individuals beyond any specific attributes-all men equal before the law and not the law to make all men equal.

I have a rug like that. It's 70 years old and was produced by a family as a dowry. It has initials of the couple (I presume) incorporated into the design - looks like an A and N in little heart shapes.

Mans nature is perfect. Only because it is and can be no different than it is. A rock or a flower is perfect because it cannot ever be more or less than it is. Perfection is a conceptual judgement. Man is a volitional animal and therefore must be judgemental by nature.

I am :-)

Seems like sage advice to me, pity most of you don't follow it.

Right to life, liberty, justice, property and the pursuit of ones own happiness. That means respecting every person as an individual-something you are failing miserably at with your comment about "white heterosexual male" and so you confirm your own racism by that comment. If a large group practice collectivism and irrationality against a smaller group, then that is called racism. When the smaller group practice the same collectivism and irrationality it is called ethnicity. Neither group has any right to force another group, just as one individual does not have the right to initiate force against another individual. Read the list of rights. None of those rights operate in a silo, or with any Cardinal order. One right is not subordinate to another and neither can any right be ignored or raised higher than any other. You cannot prevent racism until you completely change the mentality which causes it. Racism doesn't end when a minority group forces a majority group, it's just liberal racism. No one should be forcing anyone, it's wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Take the emotionalism out of your post and what remains is thinly disguised reverse bigotry. You should ask yourself how you came to think that way. That it is OK for a small group to beat up a majority because they are a small group. It is logically and morally deficient.

That's their right-as philosophically devoid of reason and warped as it is. Yet it is no different to those who are practising reverse racism. Both are examples of collectivism. They are the same kind of moral rent seeking. The only way to stop it is to attend to the philosophy not the use of force. You won't see it, because you refuse to acknowledge the underlying issue. It sometimes seems to me that I'm living amongst brute and unenlightened apes. That if this is their claim to intellect we are, as a race, doomed. If we are to have any hope at all we must use reason and logic, to stop looking at things through the eyes of the collective, the tribal group, either the majority or the minority and give up this altruistic ideology which is causing so much damage and misery.

It isn't a 'public good for all' and neither is a 'licence' a ticket to avoid going bankrupt. The license has to be bought, taxes have to be paid, regulations must be abided by and that all costs the business owner. This does not prevent black, LGBT or female starting a rival business either and then rejecting white, male heterosexuals. The right wing religious fanatics are exactly the same as the LGBT right wing fanatics. Both are insisting they have a claim on other people's rights to liberty and to go about their businesses peacefully.

Liberty is a right, that means liberty to discriminate against someone. It isn't logically possible to be free not to be discriminated against as it denies Liberty. Speech IS being used to harm someone. SJW/LGBT activists have used their Liberty to speak to strip the Liberty from others.

You are still missing the point. Is it a blindness or an evasion ? Your concern is whether you can trust that I would discriminate against LGBT or not ? If I had said I would discriminate then I certainly wouldn't apologise for doing so. I stated a personal view, I equally accept the views of those who do discriminate, even if I don't agree with them I defend their right to do so.

Cute, cute, cute :-) The ducklings have been out on the river during the week. They chase flies and kind of skip across the water like water boat men (insect). Cute, cute, cute.

Sticks and stones etc For me, from the perspective of LGBT it's just a non subject. In other words I've never discriminated and never would. If I had a business ai would take anyone's money-even yours. If I owned a rental home, or hotel you are welcome to stay and will get the same care as any guest. I can't marry you and a partner because I'm not a priest/officer of the state, but if I was I certainly would. If you came for a job and were the best candidate then I'd employ you. I'm happy to have a meal with you, or take you for a blast on my bike as long as you are decent company. My concern is immediately you go and get the state to force me at gun point to do all those things. Then I'm wondering what kind of person pushes a gun in my face and demands I hand over something that they have no right to. You see how that seems ? The only people I know who act that way are violent criminals.