Government to force muslim businesses to sell alcohol and cigarettes

[Keith&Co.]

So if I'm a shopkeeper somewhere in China and muslims keep threatening to behead me or burn my business down for selling alcohol to muslims

Wait, where does it say anything about selling alcohol TO MUSLIMS?
The issue is muslims selling alcohol and selling tobacco. That's not against their religion. just against the wishes of their neighbors.

to the point where I decide to stop selling alcohol to muslims, you would want the government to force me to sell alcohol to muslims?

You're making shit up. The government isn't forcing any muslims to buy alcohol, nor to sell alcohol TO MUSLIMS.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

to the point where I decide to stop selling alcohol to muslims, you would want the government to force me to sell alcohol to muslims?

You're making shit up. The government isn't forcing any muslims to buy alcohol, nor to sell alcohol TO MUSLIMS.

He's not saying that they are. He's responding to Tom's view that if you sell it to some, you must sell it to all, and that would mean you must sell it to muslims, even though other muslims would kill you for doing so. It'd put the shop owner in a somewhat dangerous position, and take away his choice of submitting to the threats to avoid violence against him.

 

[SimpleDon]

Well, if it's a business that sells alcohol and cigarettes, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc in who they sell alcohol and cigarettes to.

And to complete the analogy, they'd have to sell gay cigarettes (ie, if there was a brand favoured by the gay community there) and cater gay smoking parties.

If they sell gay cigarettes and cater gay smoking parties to every other race, religion, etc.

 

[dismal]

You're making shit up.

Yes! This is called a "hypothetical" question.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothetical

 

[Angry Floof]

I like how dismal wrote "government to force..." in the title instead of "Chinese government to force..."

It's getting to the point where dismal and some others aren't doing anything but trying to bait the board.

I was hoping to skip directly to the part of the discussion where everyone talks about me and my motives without all the tiresome discussion about real world political issues.

You know, the stuff that makes this forum great.

Boo hoo. Your not having the wherewithal to question yourself doesn't stop anyone else from doing so.

 

[SimpleDon]

You're making shit up. The government isn't forcing any muslims to buy alcohol, nor to sell alcohol TO MUSLIMS.

He's not saying that they are. He's responding to Tom's view that if you sell it to some, you must sell it to all, and that would mean you must sell it to muslims, even though other muslims would kill you for doing so. It'd put the shop owner in a somewhat dangerous position, and take away his choice of submitting to the threats to avoid violence against him.

I am still lost. Are we talking about China, as in the OP, or the US, what seemingly the OP poster wanted to discuss? It makes a difference.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Isn't it at least a bit different when you're dealing with products and not people?

 

[KeepTalking]

China orders Muslim shopkeepers to sell alcohol, cigarettes, to ‘weaken’ Islam

Chinese authorities have ordered Muslim shopkeepers and restaurant owners in a village in its troubled Xinjiang region to sell alcohol and cigarettes, and promote them in “eye-catching displays,” in an attempt to undermine Islam’s hold on local residents, Radio Free Asia (RFA) reported. Establishments that failed to comply were threatened with closure and their owners with prosecution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-to-sell-alcohol-cigarettes-to-weaken-islam/

Based on our gay cake discussions I would assume most people would take the "government creates business licenses so it can tell businesses what to do if they want a license" line here?

Or does that change because this time it's about muslims.

I only recall one, perhaps two, poster(s) making such an argument. It was hardly most, or even many, of the posters involved in that discussion. For most of us, we made the argument that if a business sells a product to anyone, they may not refuse to sell that product to another customer based on their sexual orientation. This was also a US-centric argument, and would not apply to China, which has a completely different form of government, and could give a shit about equal treatment of their citizens. For the record, there is much with which I disagree regarding how the Chinese state governs their citizens.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You're making shit up. The government isn't forcing any muslims to buy alcohol, nor to sell alcohol TO MUSLIMS.

He's not saying that they are. He's responding to Tom's view that if you sell it to some, you must sell it to all, and that would mean you must sell it to muslims, even though other muslims would kill you for doing so. It'd put the shop owner in a somewhat dangerous position, and take away his choice of submitting to the threats to avoid violence against him.

Which is completely unlike the actual actions of China's government, so I guess he's admitting that the comparison in the OP fails. Now we're searching for some other fantasy comparison with no real relevancy.

 

[SimpleDon]

I was just repeating what the Chinese government said was the reason that it was doing this. I don't know why the Chinese want to weaken religion. I support weakening religion for any reason.

I just woke up. Maybe I am not attuned to reading the poster's motives between the lines yet. I don't really understand what the OP's point is yet. I am not sure the OP poster had a very clear idea going into it.

His point, which I agree with, is asking is under what circumstances can government dictate how a business runs a business. He wanted to make sure people were consistent and said it was okay for China's government to issue this policy. Though I do wonder if people on here would be okay okay with Iran's government coming out with saying that a business can't server an atheist.

In general it is a government's responsibility to tell businesses within what limits businesses must operate. Governments have to define what a business can legitimately do and what they can't do. It is parallel to the government's responsibility to define what limits the actions of individuals.

What I am still having trouble understanding is why would anyone believe that anyone else would have to be consistent talking about two, now three since Iran has been added, different countries? Different laws, different goals, different cultures.

 

[dismal]

He's not saying that they are. He's responding to Tom's view that if you sell it to some, you must sell it to all, and that would mean you must sell it to muslims, even though other muslims would kill you for doing so. It'd put the shop owner in a somewhat dangerous position, and take away his choice of submitting to the threats to avoid violence against him.

Which is completely unlike the actual actions of China's government, so I guess he's admitting that the comparison in the OP fails. Now we're searching for some other fantasy comparison with no real relevancy.

Hypotheticals are often used to test principles.

If someone actually has the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" this hypothetical is a breeze. If the hypothetical causes some great need to squirm and avoid answering the question then one may question whether one actually holds the principle without qualifiers.

 

[fromderinside]

If someone actually has the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" this hypothetical is a breeze. If the hypothetical causes some great need to squirm and avoid answering the question then one may question whether one actually holds the principle without qualifiers.

Breeze becomes hurricane when one sees that one may not be holding a principle at all. Rather one avoids answering the question for any number of reasons. It appears to be a stupid question, "that's obvious" or "that's political". Its an invasion of privacy question "I have religious freedom so I just won't answer you" or "I'm going to see how far you go on this track". The point is self evident, "You want to know about principles use your own", etc.

There is just no way one can get to a decision about others principles other than having them write them in stone or making lots of presumptions about whatever they say or do. Your 'simple' test is illustration of you using the latter requirement.

You put your politics on your sleeve on this one sir.

Are you a racist?

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-to-sell-alcohol-cigarettes-to-weaken-islam/

Based on our gay cake discussions I would assume most people would take the "government creates business licenses so it can tell businesses what to do if they want a license" line here?

Or does that change because this time it's about muslims.

I only recall one, perhaps two, poster(s) making such an argument. It was hardly most, or even many, of the posters involved in that discussion. For most of us, we made the argument that if a business sells a product to anyone, they may not refuse to sell that product to another customer based on their sexual orientation. This was also a US-centric argument, and would not apply to China, which has a completely different form of government, and could give a shit about equal treatment of their citizens. For the record, there is much with which I disagree regarding how the Chinese state governs their citizens.

The biggest problem with government in China is that all parts of the government try to keep their bosses happy, the government above them. They don't answer to the people that they govern. Most of the serious abuses that you hear about in China are when some local government official in Outbackastan* goes off the rails trying to guess what the officials above him meant rather than what they said. The assumption of ambiguity is a Chinese national trait.



* doesn't actually exist

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Which is completely unlike the actual actions of China's government, so I guess he's admitting that the comparison in the OP fails. Now we're searching for some other fantasy comparison with no real relevancy.

Hypotheticals are often used to test principles.

If someone actually has the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" this hypothetical is a breeze. If the hypothetical causes some great need to squirm and avoid answering the question then one may question whether one actually holds the principle without qualifiers.

I would actually say yes, he has to sell the alcohol to anyone who has a legal standing to purchase it. Why are these hypothetical muslims policing the lawful sellers of the alcohol instead of their own heretic purchasers? And why is the hypothetical government not protecting this law abiding seller of alcohol from these dangerous individuals?

aa

 

[SimpleDon]

Which is completely unlike the actual actions of China's government, so I guess he's admitting that the comparison in the OP fails. Now we're searching for some other fantasy comparison with no real relevancy.

Hypotheticals are often used to test principles.

If someone actually has the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" this hypothetical is a breeze. If the hypothetical causes some great need to squirm and avoid answering the question then one may question whether one actually holds the principle without qualifiers.

Why does anyone have to hold principles without qualifiers? Can you tell me a principle that you hold without qualifiers pertaining to this question?

One that is valid in China and the US?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

He's not saying that they are. He's responding to Tom's view that if you sell it to some, you must sell it to all, and that would mean you must sell it to muslims, even though other muslims would kill you for doing so. It'd put the shop owner in a somewhat dangerous position, and take away his choice of submitting to the threats to avoid violence against him.

I am still lost. Are we talking about China, as in the OP, or the US, what seemingly the OP poster wanted to discuss? It makes a difference.

Why would that make a difference?

If an action is right or wrong, it's right or wrong regardless of the geographic location it takes place in.

If you think discrimination is bad, then it should be bad no matter where you do or what the laws of that place are. If you think that the government shouldn't tell businesses what they can or cannot sell, then it shouldn't matter which government you're talking about.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hypotheticals are often used to test principles.

If someone actually has the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" this hypothetical is a breeze. If the hypothetical causes some great need to squirm and avoid answering the question then one may question whether one actually holds the principle without qualifiers.

I would actually say yes, he has to sell the alcohol to anyone who has a legal standing to purchase it. Why are these hypothetical muslims policing the lawful sellers of the alcohol instead of their own heretic purchasers? And why is the hypothetical government not protecting this law abiding seller of alcohol from these dangerous individuals?

aa

Well, not all Muslims are doing it. Just the evil ones in this town. You can't judge all Muslims based on the actions of a single town's worth of Muslims.

 

[dismal]

Hypotheticals are often used to test principles.

If someone actually has the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" this hypothetical is a breeze. If the hypothetical causes some great need to squirm and avoid answering the question then one may question whether one actually holds the principle without qualifiers.

Why does anyone have to hold principles without qualifiers? Can you tell me a principle that you hold without qualifiers pertaining to this question?

One that is valid in China and the US?

One is not required to have principles without qualifiers. Indeed one is not even required to have principles at all. I have in fact argued in the past that the principle "if you sell something you must sell it to everyone" is an arbitrary principle.

 

[Malintent]

Yeah, to be parallel, China would have to maintain that IF a muslim business was selling fags, they'd have to sell them to fags, too.
Or maybe if the US government was forcing all Christain businesses, bakery or plumbers or airlines, to sell gay wedding cakes...

Other than that, it makes no sense to compare the two.

Try to imagine it's a general thread about times when the shopkeeper's religious beliefs conflict with the government's political agenda.

What are the boundaries of acceptability for government telling shopkeepers what to do?

What if the "government agenda" was to better the general health and welfare of the society? Not that this is the case with cigarette sales, etc..

I suspect there may be an issue with a religious group gaining too much power over local resources and the government is stepping in to say, "the general publick makes the culture, not the consortium of shop keepers". It is kind of the opposite of what is happening in the US with government forcing companies to be 'fair'.

 

[Malintent]

Well, if it's a business that sells alcohol and cigarettes, then they shouldn't be able to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, etc in who they sell alcohol and cigarettes to.

And to complete the analogy, they'd have to sell gay cigarettes (ie, if there was a brand favoured by the gay community there) and cater gay smoking parties.

All cigarettes are fags.