This is such a circular argument lol.

<:pepega:562563641975767040>

it doesnt matter if they exist in the abstract thinking of some moron's mind, what matters for you and me in reality is whether the state protects them. until they become a legal right, *they may as well not even exist for real-world circumstances*

i could sit here and say i have the right to kill your whole family. does this right matter to anyone?

ofc it doesnt

but they do matter, natural rights do make their way into law in some form, otherwise people get pissed, and start to ignore the law

if that is truly what you believe then you have no right to demand *anything* from the state

yes i do

i have legal rights

to ask

He doesn't believe in rights, he believes only in power Spader

whatever the powers enforce is what goes

as I said

Then may you never have power

but natural rights spread out amongst the people do have a power of their own, you can't expect to rule an unruly people, that are constantly rebelling and not listening to the powers that be

to go back to the issue of anti-discrimination laws, I will personally own my opinion that it was wrong to create a legal protection from discrimination *in association or commerce* for protected classes

agreed

so back to segregation?

in some states

'states rights'

#toxic

?

not enforced by law, no

if we're talking about state mandated segregation we oppose that too

#letsDevolveBackToRaceWars

this anti-consequentialist thinking is so retarded for governing the real world

well it would be if all the pop of a state wanted no blacks in their restaurant

but I don't believe it should be illegal to refuse to buy or sell from *anyone*, for *any* reason, including racial prejudice, even though I would lose respect for someone who made that choice

its like these guys live in a deontological fairy land where their idealistic principles matter more than any consequences

yup

it's not anti-consequentialist, I understand that this would lead to real-world examples of discrimination and segregation. I also understand that it would not be a one-way street.

Green have you done the incest argument? I seems to trigger conservatives the most

then you are ignoring these consequences to keep your ideals in play

hence anti-consequentialist

nah

Ignoring is not the same as accepting as an unfortunate consequence of a more fundamental principle that in fact protects the rights of everyone, including the 'oppressed class'

dude, put it however you want. you're literally saying "fuck the consequences, i want to instill these rights anyway"

*thats anti-consequentialist*

you can put whatever label you want on my opinion, I gave you my reasons

its fairytale stuff

it truly is