GirlChat #560026

Start A New Topic!  Date Index  Thread Index

Agreed.

Posted by qtns2di4 on 2012-July-23 20:26:30 EDT, Monday
In reply to Re: Also posted by lee lette on 2012-July-23 09:00:27 EDT, Monday
  Views: 2    Likes: 0     

I will admit that Dante framed it in less than perfect terminology, leading to a discussion about something which he didn't mean.

There are no minority rights. There are rights, period. A minority member doesn't have rights because of being a minority member, but because there are rights. That they are a minority member should be inconsequential, either way, to their rights.

And this is what he meant. That it's not compatible with rule of law to legislate away some or all rights for a demographic in a minority or subordinate status. Whether that status is granted by wealth, sex, race, or age; and whether those with the status are many (as women are, and Blacks were/are in the Confederate States) or few (as Jews, gays, and sexually active minors).

That's certainly not minority rights. That's rights for everyone, minority or not. Which is different.

Shall I expect a reply about the mentally ill or the mentally retarded, replyable with free will theory?




qtns2di4

This post is archived, preventing any new replies.

Responses