Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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