4 ms·
Your stance in (3) is debatable. These are both issues that have more affect on poor people. E.g. In the Northern hemisphere, the east ends of cities are genera
by batmansbelt 13y ago
Your stance in (3) is debatable. These are both issues that have more affect on poor people. E.g. In the Northern hemisphere, the east ends of cities are generally where more poor people live because they are downwind of the pollution (if the geography allows for an east end).
- pyre 13y agoThat statement was less of a stance than an explanation. The parent seemed to not understand why people would be so upset about Eich's homophobia, while at the same time not question his other views. My explanation is that people are more up in arms about issues that specifically target a sub-section of people. While health care and environment issues may affect the poor more than the rich, someone's views on either topic don't necessarily translate to "I don't like poor people and want to restrict their rights" in the same way that financially rallying against gay marriage does translates into expressing specific views about a specific group of people.
- alexqgb 13y agoThere's a big difference between a policy that has an indirect effect on a variety of groups and one that very explicitly targets a specifically defined group for formal mal-treatment under law. And yes, systematically violating someone's 14th Amendment rights is map-treatment writ large.