Who You Are vs. What You Do

[Duer 157099]

This is the essence of the debate that Maddow had with Paul, and yet it wasn't obvious and is still confusing to some.

Paul apparently does not understand the distinction between Who Someone Is and What Someone Does.

That's why he sees no difference between a private business refusing to serve people of certain ethnic backgrounds and refusing to serve people who behave in certain ways (in this case, carrying a firearm into the business).

Private businesses ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will have the ability to discriminate against certain behaviors of their customers. No shoes? No sale. No money? No food. Being abusive to other patrons? Out on your ass. This is what it looks like when a private business "discriminates" on the basis of behavior. Carrying a firearm? Take your business elsewhere.

That's a FAR CRY from discriminating based on WHO someone is, which is exactly what racism is.

So, this asshole Paul misses a fundamental point of logic and reasoning, which should be discussed in very clear terms, because it IS very clear.

Am I wrong? Am I missing something?

[Cant trust em]

1. I just caught the tail end of the segment, so I missed the critical part.

But I thought that his talking point of "I'm not actually planning on trying to get the Civil Rights Act repealed, but I think it should be repealed" was really dumb.

Just the thought that he doesn't think such protections are noteworthy is an insight to what kind of actions he is willing to take while he is in office. With no voting record, things people say become of real value.

[notadmblnd]

4. He also thinks corporations shouldn't have to put elevators in their buildings to accomodate the

disabled. He feels they should be given an "office" on the ground floor. As if no one has to move a way from their desks during a workday. I don't know in what world everyone he knows, has an office, but most of us peons these days only have cubes.

Just another thoughtless idiot pandering to those he thinks will get him elected.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. You are right...and way, way smarter than Rand Paul

[ClassWarrior]

3. Extremely well said. This is the crux. As he kept bringing up guns, we kept shouting...

...at the TV, "BUT GUNS AREN'T PEOPLE!!"

But you summed it up so much better than that.

:thumbsup:

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

5. K&R

NGU.

[readmoreoften]

6. No need to debate the finer points on this. Moreover, this approach cosigns LGBT discrimination.

"I'm not throwing you out of this restaurant for who you are, but we don't want women in suits here; we don't want gay people holding hands or looking at one another intimately. It's not who you ARE, it's your BEHAVIOR."

[Duer 157099]

8. But restaurants DO have dress codes!

Not all of them, but many do.

I'm firm on this issue, sorry. This isn't a "finer point" but is rather THE point. imho.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Fine. You don't want people holding hands in your establishment, then ban hand-holding.

:shrug:

NGU.

[Crystal Clarity]

7. Excellent Point!

Great way to explain it if I ever come across anyone with the gaul to defend the jerk. Seriously. It's possible if you live in my neck of the woods. :eyes:

[JCMach1]

9. 1840's in the U.S. wasn't 'institutionalized racism',,,, it's called frakkin' slavery, Rand

or did you skip that week in US History!

He also seems to have forgotten Boston's school desegregation in the 1970's... as big a mess as anything in the South.

Ignorance is no excuse for Libertarianism...

[SalviaBlue]

10. Very well put!!! And you are absolutely right.

[LeftinOH]

11. However, for some people, being an asshole IS who they are..

-and they dislike anyone 'calling them out' on their assholery; they'll just say "that's the way I am / the way I feel", etc. We all know people like this.

[Duer 157099]

12. But their assholery only becomes apparent by their ACTIONS

They don't walk in the door and you go "hmmmm, look at that asshole" -- well, unless they have a Bush/Cheney T-shirt on or something, but even so.

Again, you're judging their BEHAVIOR, not their genetic code.

[Raine]

13. Totally on point! nt

[Karenina]

14. Allowing POC entry=allowing DANGER (guns)to enter the white sanctum

THIS IS A PRIVATE SPACE!!! :eyes:

[AnArmyVeteran]

16. What you said was brilliant and perfect! +1,000

You hit the nail right on the head... That is a huge difference. And it's easy enough for the masses to finally figure it out by next election. Maddow hung the poor bastard out to dry. How magnificent she is. Who else in news would have outed him so effectively?


BEHAVIOR v COLOR OF SKIN

This is the essence of the debate that Maddow had with Paul, and yet it wasn't obvious and is still confusing to some.
Paul apparently does not understand the distinction between Who Someone Is and What Someone Does.
That's why he sees no difference between a private business refusing to serve people of certain ethnic backgrounds and refusing to serve people who behave in certain ways (in this case, carrying a firearm into the business).
Private businesses ALWAYS have and ALWAYS will have the ability to discriminate against certain behaviors of their customers. No shoes? No sale. No money? No food. Being abusive to other patrons? Out on your ass. This is what it looks like when a private business "discriminates" on the basis of behavior. Carrying a firearm? Take your business elsewhere.
That's a FAR CRY from discriminating based on WHO someone is, which is exactly what racism is.
So, this asshole Paul misses a fundamental point of logic and reasoning, which should be discussed in very clear terms, because it IS very clear.
Am I wrong? Am I missing something?