Speaking in the context of *after* a crime's been committed misses the most important reason of why "equality under the law" is an insane idea The goal is to set up rules that allow freedom but prevent crimes from - those rules are guaranteed to be different for different types
If there was a hypothetical group that if they had a single drink went into a random, murderous rampage you wouldn't support rules against them being allowed to drink? Why not? Because that rule doesn't apply to everyone? Why does that matter?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'm talking about a hypothetical example where some particular readily identifiable group, differs in this way The point is to demonstrate that Enlightenment principles are just a particularist set of rules that work only in very specific circumstances Outcomes are important
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.