Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So it's OK for your people to discriminate?
So, in your opinion, certain degrees of discrimination are acceptable. If it is "more" of something other than discrimination, then the discrimination doesn't count. Notwithstanding that it is usually, in the eyes of the accused discriminator, more of something else, such as religious belief for instance, than discrimination. And yet, for the "good" of society in general, courts keep striking down that "more of something else" in favor of it just being discrimination. But, as it is your people who are discriminating in this case, I can see how you would be good with it.
That "settlement" thing is ominous. Is that in perpetuity? Are your people forever "legally" allowed to discriminate? Is it settled that those with traces of your people's blood will be allowed from now on to legally to discriminate? I can see why it would be "cool," as you put it, to be one of your people.
Concerning your "its legal ...". . . anti-discrimination "laws" are generally discriminatory. They discriminate against the personal proclivities of one party (even if they are "more" of something else) in favor of those of another party. Of course, such laws are, as you say, "more of a settlement than discrimination." They're legal . . .
If their is a problem with this sort of mixed legality, it is that there is no concrete principle behind the "laws." They are more opinion which shifts depending on the "justice" du jour. If your "people" benefit . . . hooray. If not, you should just go away.
Another problem is that as a country we are divided into separate opposing "people" rather than one comprised of unique individuals.
|
Now you got it. When Spence doesn't sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's discrimination. When Spence does sympathize with whomever is on the receiving end, it's not discrimination, but rather, a "settlement."
Do you have it now, Detbuch? Does it make sense...
Hybrid Mode
