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
-
-
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.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SirDowden
Again, you're talking about what to do about the barn door after the horse has bolted The idea is to set up rules so that *murders don't happen* Looking at the societies that succeed at this they sure as hell aren't guided by Enlightenment ideas about practical governance
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Singapore absolutely doesn't treat everyone as equal under the law https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/singapore/homicide-rate …pic.twitter.com/zlCefMXW6U
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.