Message from @uncephalized
Discord ID: 612900468825391104
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
but I suppose I generally prioritize means over ends, yes
and we have some of these people elected to congress
how fucked up
so if that makes me an anti-consequentialist, so be it
"too bad if my ideals kill 74 million people, so be it" - mao
and also you
except for the part where Mao was the one willing to justify any means to achieve his ends, liar
mao was trying to instill a MEANS
no, he was trying to create his utopia via whatever means seemed expedient
he wanted his own ideology implemented no matter what the cost