OrpheusAgonistes
Posts: 253
Joined: 3/29/2010 Status: offline
|
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your argument descends pretty quickly into incoherence. quote:
I don't see this is as really a freedom of speech issue. Why not? quote:
If the sign just made fun of Obama, or even black people more generally (who's kidding whom? race is likely a factor), then this would be a freedom of speech issue. Two things: 1) You try to sneak in the assertion that "who's kidding whom? Race is likely a factor." That's a clumsy rhetorical trick, totally lacking in substance. There is no reason to assume that any and all criticism of Obama is racially motivated. I don't deny that racism still exists or that many of Obama's harshest critics may have some kind of lingering racial resentment. I do deny, emphatically, that any and all criticism of Obama and his policies must be racially motivated, which is what your aside is asking the reader to believe. 2) That would indeed be a free speech issue. It would be a free speech issue on which I would be loath to defend the right to free speech. In most cases I probably still would. Principled political views sometimes mean you wake up next to some unsavory characters. But your assertion does nothing to show why this act, this political, non-overtly racist, not particularly funny sign is not also an issue of free speech. This is where your argument breaks down. Your argument is the equivalent to saying "Jumping rope can't be cardiovascular exercise because running is cardiovascular exercise." Two different actions can belong to the same class of action. What you're trying to argue here is really bizarre. quote:
If restaurants cannot selectively refuse people based on race, why should doctors be allowed to do so based on politics (er... as well as race)? That's at least one form of the relevant argument. Equal access, opportunities, etc. He hasn't refused service. He has hung a sign. He has told a bad joke. There is no evidence he has turned anyone away. There is no evidence he has ever asked anyone's political beliefs or for which candidate they voted. Crucially, he has not even explicitly denied service to anyone in his sign. It may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between the way he phrased the sign and saying "If you voted for Obama I will not treat you." quote:
Now, there's this questionable response of, well, just go to another doctor. Okay... what if more doctors start to do the same thing, and more, and more. Suppose all doctors refused to treat Democrats -- you'd admit that that's wrong, right? So why is it right if some doctors refuse treatment? Where exactly is the line, Sorites? There are levels of absurdity in this contention into which, thankfully, there is no need to delve because the only salient question remains "Has he, in fact, refused service to anybody?" The only answer we can give, given the facts at our disposal is "No. Not as far as we can tell. So relax."
_____________________________
What I cannot create, I do not understand.--Feynman Every sentence I have written here is the product of some disease.-- Wittgenstein
|