Women-only ‘full nudity’ spa’s ‘no male genitals’ rule ignites transgender debate in Toronto

[Bomb#20]

I.e., you're making an assertion about human psychology; you're defending it with a "no-true-luxury" word game; and the reason you're using that fallacy instead of making a substantive argument is because your assertion isn't true. Yes, of course chocolate is a luxury. I went without chocolate for five years straight when my doctor told me to; but it's not the counter-productiveness that makes it a luxury; it's the getting along without it. (I'm cured; I get to eat it again -- yay! -- in moderation -- dangit!)

You wrote "If we take commodities. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods. The only reason why luxury goods are valuable is because most people can't afford them.". That doesn't make any sense. Luxury goods are valuable because people value them. Luxury goods are in contrast to necessity goods because you can get along without them but you want them anyway. The usual reason you want them anyway is because you enjoy them. Another common reason is because they're high quality and will last longer than cheap substitutes, and being rich allows you the luxury of longer-term decision making. Wanting things because other people can't afford them happens sometimes, but it isn't one of the top reasons for wanting things.

That's circular. We both buy necessity products and luxury products because they give us joy. Whatever definition we use we have have come up with one that sets luxuries apart from necessities.

How does luxuries give us joy that necessities don't, and why? I can't see you attempted to answer that?

Huh? Where the heck did I say necessities don't give us joy? What sets luxuries apart from necessities is that you can't get along without necessities. We call them "necessities" because they're necessary. I included "you want them anyway" as part of the definition of "luxury" because being able to get along without something isn't a sufficient condition for something to be a luxury. People can get along without an iron ball chained to their ankle, but they don't call that a luxury item since they didn't want one in the first place.

Anyway, if you're dissatisfied with my definition, let's go with the professionals:

Definition of luxury
plural luxuries
1
: a condition of abundance or great ease and comfort : sumptuous environment - lived in luxury
2
a : something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary - one of life's luxuries
b : an indulgence in something that provides pleasure, satisfaction, or ease -had the luxury of rejecting a handful of job offers — Terri Minsky
3
archaic : lechery, lust

- Merriam-Webster

I think you are absolutely correct. It is arbitrary. 15 years ago they changed the Swedish royal succession. Before it was the oldest male heir that came to the throne. Because it was considered unequal they changed the succession order to whatever the oldest child was regardless of gender. How ... is that any more equal? It's not. It's just a bizarre quirk in public opinion.

You are absolutely correct. We second children have bloody well had it up to here with always being put second! I always figured Canada should celebrate being the second biggest country in the world by giving Charles the heave-ho and offering the throne to Princess Anne.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, it's not.
PyramidHead seems to be saying that the distinction about what's accepted by society is based on whether the trait is changeable. The claim is false, but what he's saying does not appear related to refusing to visit places than ban Blacks.

So what? It's not changeable for most people. Most poor people stay poor. That's just a fact. If we make the case that there's a difference because banning blacks is unfair. Well... then we've made the case that poor people are poor because they deserve to be poor. Erm... no. Life is just unfair.

I don't understand what you're objecting to. I said that PyramidHead's theory about the reasons why society accepts some cases of discrimination but not others is false, but nothing he said appears related to the issue of refusing to visit places that ban blacks, so I think that the answer to your question "Isn't that the same thing as refusing to visit places that ban blacks?" is "no", though I'm not sure why you'd ask the question since what he was saying did not appear related to that.
At any rate, I don't understand what part of what I said you are objecting to.

I think Bomb#20 nailed it. We've just decided that one is ok, and the other isn't because that's the trendy opinion to hold now. Still not any more fair.

I think he did, but who's "we"? I didn't decide anything. And whether it's okay is not the same thing as whether one is in favor of banning it. For example, I'm against banning (in usual realistic contexts) all sorts of speech that are not okay.