> You can apply any principles here - why should we apply the principles that you agree with???
The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored.
If you want some other principles then I'm going to insist that you're very clear about what they are, so I can make sure they're applied consistently to you as you would have them applied to anyone else.
> First off, it's old age that is a protected class.
There are many different laws that specify what a protected class is and it's not uncommon for the text to say no more than "on the basis of age". For example, people under 40 aren't protected for the purposes of federal employment discrimination but it's illegal in New York City to discriminate against younger people for housing:
> how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
>The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored.
You immediately within the same sentence just said "when principles are being applied".
>There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.
This isn't a good faith debate as to whether or not that is discrimination. You are one of the most unreasonable and bad faith posters I've engaged with here.
The principles that I agree with are that no one should be censored. Most people can agree to that because most people can see that good speech being censored is much worse than bad speech not being censored.
If you want some other principles then I'm going to insist that you're very clear about what they are, so I can make sure they're applied consistently to you as you would have them applied to anyone else.
> First off, it's old age that is a protected class.
There are many different laws that specify what a protected class is and it's not uncommon for the text to say no more than "on the basis of age". For example, people under 40 aren't protected for the purposes of federal employment discrimination but it's illegal in New York City to discriminate against younger people for housing:
https://www.nyc.gov/site/fairhousing/rights-responsibilities...
> how could anyone take this argument in good faith?
There are people who literally believe that life begins and conception and abortion is murder. Planned Parenthood's position is that a fetus isn't a person until it gets older. Which position you agree with is the very point of contention in the debate. The people who take the other side are not acting in bad faith. They honestly disagree with you.