|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> wrote:
> You're arguing that we don't need reverse-discrimination laws (aka
> affirmative action) because of what you believe. Yet you also acknowledge
> that what you believe isn't common. If what you believed was common, we
> wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws in the first place, let alone
> reverse-discrimination laws.
What I'm saying is that fighting discrimination with more discrimination
is not the correct solution.
> >> Is it age discrimination to outlaw adults having sex with prepubescents? If
> >> not, why not?
> >
> > You might as well ask if it's discrimination to outlaw people from stealing
> > and murdering.
> From that, you seem to think it is *not* age discrimination?
What does causing physical or monetary harm to somebody have to do with
whether it's discrimination or not?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |