Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm clearly not going to be able to explain it to you.

  What I think is going on here is a fallacy of equivocation. The expression
"minorities need more protection" is ambiguous and can be understood in two
distinct ways:

  1) It is more often the case that a minority requires protection. (In
other words, if we count the cases where authorities need to step in to
protect someone, this number is higher per capita with minorities than with
the majority.) In other words, "minorities need more *often* protection"
(rather than special treatment).

  2) Minorities, besides being protected by the same laws as everybody
else, need *additional* laws that apply only to them (ie. "more
protection").

  I think that, as with many other such cases, these two possible
interpretations are confused and interchanged when it's most convenient
(intentionally or not). Applying the second meaning in practice is
justified by the first meaning, and these two different meanings are
being muddled and confused.

  However, the second meaning is unconstitutional and against the basic
principles of equality and freedom.

  (And, again, I'm here talking about the "minorities" that are so only
in terms of inconsequential things, such as ethnic background. Of course
other minorities, such as people with disabilities, may need special
treatment as a practical necessity. I'm not talking about them.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message