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
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SirDowden
Still missing the point - "laws" as rules that have punishments for violations are a step too removed - damage is done when someone has violated a law There need to be rules for public spaces that allow people to interact without conflict - those rules can't be the same for all
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SirDowden
The rules shouldn't be the same because people aren't the same - groups differ Let's take a hypothetical group that has the trait of extreme random violence when under the influence of any alcohol at all - as a practical matter members of this group should be forbidden to drink
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SirDowden
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
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.