you justified ignoring the bad consequences in order to institute a principle

its very clear

@Green Syndicalism Have you considered the consequences of the rights you are trying to institute?

we have already seen those consequences dude

I expressed a preference for holding everyone to the same universal standard rather than instituting inequality under the law based on protected class, sure.

we have protected classes

We also have a far more overreaching, bloated police state than we had before they were created. Coincidence?

the consequences are:
blacks are closing IQ/education gaps
they've closed some of the wealth gap

*"I remember saying earlier most conservatives have never touched philosophy all be it anecdotal it just keeps happening"*

@uncephalized i would say coincidence actually, yes

what would a leftist argument be without rampant arrogance

Then I would say you are blind.

because the police state came about through other legislation. nothing to do with protected classes

it came about because of the drug war and 9/11

Oh you sweet summer child.

so yea, complete coincidence

the fact you conflate those things shows me you struggle to see causation over correlations

Your policies result in the eroding of liberty for people not of the protected classes. Aren't you then anti-consequentialist?

Also I'm pretty sure most or all of the wealth and education gaps were closing *before* the Civil Rights Act. I'd have to check though.

youre the kinda guy who is like "it rains whenever i hit a jackpot! hence i will only try lotto when it rains!"

gender is protected? yuma

It shouldn't.

no because the consequences of race and identity discrimination is far worse than taking away the freedom to discriminate for no good reason @yuma_8

<@145051506289147905> That is your opinion. We believe that the loss of freedom is far worse than any discrimination that may result.

yea and i think thats delusional

You are, therefore, by your own logic, anti-consequentialist.

that's one way of putting it. Another is that the consequences of destroying people's livelihoods because they're jerks about who they associate with is kinda authoritarian

LMAO thats so illogical. i literally just gave you a consequentialist reasoning

YUMA you do NOT believe that

And I think that you are delusional.

"no because the consequences of race and identity discrimination is far worse than taking away the freedom to discriminate for no good reason"

Giving the power to decide what is and is not a good reason to discriminate to the state is far worse than the incidental negative discrimination that will be allowed by reserving that power to the people. See, I can have a subjective opinion too.

the state has that power anyway you spaz

take advantage of it for *good*

Except my opinion doesn't require making different laws for different colors of people...

*when being refused a cake is worse than the state stealing your business and taking everything you own*

ah, yes, *I will only use my power for good, I promise!*

*Give me the Ring, Frodo...*

dude, the state has the power and its not going to lose it

*play with the tools in existence*

you are very fatalistic

the arc of history is very long