Georgia: Macon-Area Students Fight Segregated Prom

• Magenera wrote on 2013-04-09 17:50

  Quote from Cynic;1065167:

  When it infringes on another person's rights, then yeah, no. They have no right to do so.

  
  The only people who's rights would be infringed are the one's who is being forced to integrate other racial group in their private party. Private groups, can allow or not allow anyone for what ever reason. Racist as they may be, the school doesn't endorse the prom, and leaves that up to the parents who can do what ever they want.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-04-09 18:00

  Quote from Magenera;1065524:

  The only people who's rights would be infringed are the one's who is being forced to integrate other racial group in their private party. Private groups, can allow or not allow anyone for what ever reason. Racist as they may be, the school doesn't endorse the prom, and leaves that up to the parents who can do what ever they want.

  
  
  People do have the rights to choose their action, but when their action affect others, it's no longer their rights to accept or deny as they please. They don't have rights to other people's lives (parents or school). At which point it becomes a social and moral conflicts. It's no longer about people's rights, it's about who has the moral high ground, because neither party can claim they have rights to do as they please.
• Magenera wrote on 2013-04-09 19:05

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1065532:

  People do have the rights to choose their action, but when their action affect others, it's no longer their rights to accept or deny as they please. They don't have rights to other people's lives (parents or school). At which point it becomes a social and moral conflicts. It's no longer about people's rights, it's about who has the moral high ground, because neither party can claim they have rights to do as they please.

  
  People have a right to privacy, and who they can invite or not invite for what ever reason. The schools doesn't endorse the prom, nor do they endorse the private party that the parents host's. That is their right, to say that you have the moral high ground is false. As their right to pick and choose who comes to their party as racist as that may be, is still a right guarantee by law. To ignore that and force them to do so, would be ironically worse by moral and social standards, as you are basically forcing a private group to invite a group they considered to be undesirable. Their rights trumps your and other's feelings, they have the moral high ground. Key note here, tolerance doesn't mean acceptance, people need to stop confusing the two.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-04-09 19:31

  Quote from Magenera;1065591:

  People have a right to privacy, and who they can invite or not invite for what ever reason. The schools doesn't endorse the prom, nor do they endorse the private party that the parents host's. That is their right, to say that you have the moral high ground is false. As their right to pick and choose who comes to their party as racist as that may be, is still a right guarantee by law. To ignore that and force them to do so, would be ironically worse by moral and social standards, as you are basically forcing a private group to invite a group they considered to be undesirable. Their rights trumps your and other's feelings, they have the moral high ground. Key note here, tolerance doesn't mean acceptance, people need to stop confusing the two.

  
  
  Prom is not a private party, and as I recall correctly kids also pay for the fee. I don't want to get into a debate on who actually owns the prom in which case said person would have the right to expel people, but it's simply not the case. And if it is someone's private party, it shouldn't be called "prom".
  
  Now with that out of the way, you should see that your argument on the basis of people's right to privacy doesn't apply. This is a public event. What's left is the racist agenda being applied to a public event, which should be wrong.
• Magenera wrote on 2013-04-09 19:36

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;1065601:

  Prom is not a private party, and as I recall correctly kids also pay for the fee. I don't want to get into a debate on who actually owns the prom in which case said person would have the right to expel people, but it's simply not the case. And if it is someone's private party, it shouldn't be called "prom".
  
  Now with that out of the way, you should see that your argument on the basis of people's right to privacy doesn't apply. This is a public event. What's left is the racist agenda being applied to a public event, which should be wrong.

  
  It's not a public event though. If it was public I would express outrage, but it's private. That was the whole point, the school doesn't do proms, nor do they endorse them, it's a strictly private affair. So yes, they have that right to do so. Why does the information about the "prom" being a private affair seems to be miss?
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2013-04-09 20:00
  They may have the judicial right, but not the moral right to expel anyone based on anything else but his personal merits and technical qualifications (which are clearly non-racial in the case of a prom) from a party that is not truly private, even if it is privately organised.
  
  Therefore it is right and proper that people should complain and try to improve the situation, perhaps even overthrow the current system and replace it, which they are in their freedom to do. When you have the moral right to overthrow a government that abuses its fully legal powers to the unfair detriment of arbitrarily chosen people, then most certainly it is just as right to fight segregationist proms which are just as obscene, even if on a much smaller scale.
  

  Quote from Magenera;1065603:

  Why does the information about the "prom" being a private affair seems to be miss?

  The technicalities happen to be completely irrelevant here. This isn't about laws, it's about ethics. That is the thing YOU missed.
• Magenera wrote on 2013-04-09 21:06

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;1065608:

  They may have the judicial right, but not the moral right to expel anyone based on anything else but his personal merits and technical qualifications (which are clearly non-racial in the case of a prom) from a party that is not truly private, even if it is privately organised.
  
  Therefore it is right and proper that people should complain and try to improve the situation, perhaps even overthrow the current system and replace it, which they are in their freedom to do. When you have the moral right to overthrow a government that abuses its fully legal powers to the unfair detriment of arbitrarily chosen people, then most certainly it is just as right to fight segregationist proms which are just as obscene, even if on a much smaller scale.
  The technicalities happen to be completely irrelevant here. This isn't about laws, it's about ethics. That is the thing YOU missed.

  
  I didn't miss the ethics here, I said straight up, you don't have the moral nor ethical high ground if you're telling people to forgo their rights, because you deemed there actions offensive. The question was asked, how this was legal? Answer, it's a private affair, their rights to do so. To then be told that they should forgo that right because it's offensive and immoral was laughable. That people rights were being infringed because they didn't get invited to a private party based on racial qualities, was laughable. To claim the high ground, why telling people that they have no right to invite or not invite for what ever reason, laughable. You have all rights to be outrage, to be mad, to advocate a change in school policy, to host your own racial integrated prom. But you don't get to say you have the ethical and the moral high ground, when you tell a group to forgo their rights, cause you find it offensive. I never missed the ethics, it just wasn't considered when the question was based on the legality of the event. But I did took note of it when Cynic and TLCBonaparte was advocating people rights being infringed, and to say calling a right to be a irrelevant technicality.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2013-04-09 21:41
  Well I guess you could just continue repeating the same flawed nonsense over and over agian when I post my response over and over again so I'm not gonna do it. If you still don't understand that this isn't private in any other sense than a technical legal one, then you're not going to understand in 5 posts. Hopefully in 5 years at least.
• Magenera wrote on 2013-04-09 22:31

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;1065689:

  Well I guess you could just continue repeating the same flawed nonsense over and over agian when I post my response over and over again so I'm not gonna do it. If you still don't understand that this isn't private in any other sense than a technical legal one, then you're not going to understand in 5 posts. Hopefully in 5 years at least.

  
  Then enlighten me, cause all I see is a law for schools to not endorse proms. A bunch of racist held a party to take it's place, making it white only. People are mad, and the question on the forum was asked, is this legal, I gave the correct answer, it's a private affair, so they have every right to do so. So if they invite the entire fucking school minus all the minorities, nothing can be done about that. It went from, people rights are being infringed cause they are not allowed on a all white private party, which it's not. Too they don't have the right to do that, because moral and ethical reason, which it's not as the only one who would have the moral and ethical high ground would be the racist who is being told that they have to invite them, as at that point their rights to privacy would be infringed. To it being a public event, which it's not, and noted that people were thinking it was a public event and was missing that tidbit of information of it being private.
  
  I even stated later on, that when question whether it was legal, I didn't care about any of the ethical or moral implications of the racist group actions, only that yes, it is legal and that they have the right to do so. Just because they invited every fucking white student at the school, and have a big ass party, doesn't change that it's still a private party. It is a rather big technicality to call irrelevant, when discussing the legality of a hosting a private prom that is white's only.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2013-04-10 13:43
  Are you one of those guys for whom morality = law? I can't really make heads or tails of your standpoint otherwise.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-04-10 16:05

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;1066103:

  Are you one of those guys for whom morality = law? I can't really make heads or tails of your standpoint otherwise.

  
  
  tsk tsk, better watch out, you are falling into ad hominem territory. Stick with the argument, not the person.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2013-04-10 16:55
  No, I'm trying to figure out his premises, as his position doesn't make any sense to me as it is.
  
  I'm also not completely sure how to consistently remain unpersonal when attacking a moral view held by someone else, considering moral is subjectively formed and not simply objectively quantified. It is at some point unavoidable to employ personal attacks when you are criticising a part of their thought process, and as such not fallacious. It can be compared to attacking someone for having no work ethic if he did very sloppy work. It's exactly spot on.
  
  An actual ad hominem would be something along the lines of "you already showed that you're an idiot by liking Bieber, so how could anyone take your stance on orange juice seriously?". Refer to this.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2013-04-10 20:57

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;1066147:

  No, I'm trying to figure out his premises, as his position doesn't make any sense to me as it is.
  
  I'm also not completely sure how to consistently remain unpersonal when attacking a moral view held by someone else, considering moral is subjectively formed and not simply objectively quantified. It is at some point unavoidable to employ personal attacks when you are criticising a part of their thought process, and as such not fallacious. It can be compared to attacking someone for having no work ethic if he did very sloppy work. It's exactly spot on.
  
  An actual ad hominem would be something along the lines of "you already showed that you're an idiot by liking Bieber, so how could anyone take your stance on orange juice seriously?". Refer to this.

  
  
  I am just saying you stopped arguing about the point and focus on the person too much. You can tell you have done it too can't you?
• Magenera wrote on 2013-04-10 20:59

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;1066147:

  No, I'm trying to figure out his premises, as his position doesn't make any sense to me as it is.
  
  I'm also not completely sure how to consistently remain unpersonal when attacking a moral view held by someone else, considering moral is subjectively formed and not simply objectively quantified. It is at some point unavoidable to employ personal attacks when you are criticising a part of their thought process, and as such not fallacious. It can be compared to attacking someone for having no work ethic if he did very sloppy work. It's exactly spot on.
  
  An actual ad hominem would be something along the lines of "you already showed that you're an idiot by liking Bieber, so how could anyone take your stance on orange juice seriously?". Refer to this.

  
  
  What don't you get? You have the right of privacy, you can invite or not invite anyone for what ever reason. Not getting invited to a private party because you are not white, does not infringe upon your rights, as the person, or people have every right to do so. Question was ask how it's legal? Answer right to privacy. If saying that the racist should be forced to invite the non-whites to their private party, then you don't have the moral, nor ethical high ground, as posters where leading on. I was also told by you that I missed the ethics of the situation, and missed the point, even though I was right about the legality of the situation. Which I asked where was I wrong, what point did I missed? Was it me not showing condemnation on their actions? Cause I stated earlier, that because it's a private party, I really can't be outrage, nor care about the situation for the fact that it's their rights. I did stated that if you believe that they should be forced to make invite, or want me to believe that they should be forced to integrate with non-whites, then you have no moral, nor ethical grounds to stand on, that you can't claim the high ground, cause it's a right that you are screwing with.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2013-04-10 21:02

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;1066103:

  Are you one of those guys for whom morality = law? I can't really make heads or tails of your standpoint otherwise.

  
  
  You can use logic to make any point.