5 ms·
Well, you are logically consistent. The caveat is that society, invested with the power to regulate behaviors, chooses to regulate certain types of behavior dee
by AbrahamParangi 10y ago
Well, you are logically consistent. The caveat is that society, invested with the power to regulate behaviors, chooses to regulate certain types of behavior deemed "discriminatory" towards "protected classes".
This is generally because there is some historical precedent showing that if you don't have such laws, some groups of people will treat other groups of people as less-than-human. Additionally, society believes that it is in the general best interest if such treatment is minimized.
You may disagree with what counts as discriminatory or which classes should be protected, but I hope this at least makes some general sense.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- olleromam91 10y agoWhere were you when this thread started?
- TallGuyShort 10y agoIt doesn't make much sense at all, precisely because people disagree with what counts as discriminatory. Letting society arbitrarily decide what behaviors they like and don't like regardless of whether or not someone is being actively, materially harmed is the same reason you end up with sodomy laws (and then society does an almost complete 180 a few decades later).
- AbrahamParangi 10y agoWhile I agree with the premise that societal restrictions on behavior might be improved if they involve tests for harm, the particular constraints you disagree with exist precisely to prevent material harm. Anti-discrimination laws are built on a history of groups being excluded from access to housing, loans, schooling, contracts, etc. I don't think it is hard to see that depriving certain groups of access to the instruments of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness causes material harm.