He’s openly plotting to persecute his enemies, assume kinglike powers, and deport millions of people. But at least we’ll all have flying cars!

Many of Trump’s proposals for his second term are surprisingly extreme, draconian, and weird, even for him. Here’s a running list of his most unhinged plans.

  • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
    1·
    1 year ago

    Well, then how about you read the other points that supplement that one factor sufficiently and explain that

    You’ve made no other points.

    you are wrong in this regard.

    In courts age related restrictions are reviewed using a reasonable basis standard, whereas race related restrictions are reviewed using a strict scrutiny standard for that exact reason.

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      Okay, once again, to facilitate reading comprehension: I did not say that age discrimination and racial discrimination are exactly the same in all their aspects. Instead, I cited both as examples for

      1. different treatment

      2. based on personal attributes

      In these categories, they are exactly alike. IN. THESE. CATEGORIES. they are the same (again: not in all other features).

      I do recognise that there are also differences but IN TERMS OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED CRITERIA,

      they

      are

      exactly

      alike.

      Yes, one is legal in a wider range of situations than the other. Also one starts with the letter R and the other starts with the letter A, so they are not exactly alike in that regard either, but they ARE both very much both a type of different treatment based on personal features that is rendered illegal by a number of laws (which is the context i used the comparison in up there). THAT group, they absolutely share.

      Your objections amount to

      “Apples and oranges are both fruits.”

      “No, they are NOT both fruits because one of them doesn’t grow around here!”

      Yes, they are indeed different, but the difference you insist on does not matter in how they are both examples of the group I mentioned; they both fall squarely into the category for which I cited them as examples. Just like in your example above

      In the same way stealing a candy bar and murder aren’t analogous simply because they’re both illegal.

      I am decidedly NOT saying that they are EXACTLY THE SAME, but if I were to enumerate examples of behaviors that are illegal in most cases, then yes, they would actually both fall into that category, despite having differences outside of that.

      In conclusion: both examples of different treatment due to specific properties of people? Yes. Exactly the same? No and nobody claimed they were.

      • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 year ago

        In these categories, they are exactly alike. IN. THESE. CATEGORIES. they are the same (again: not in all other features).

        In other words, in the ways they are alike, they are alike. Congratulations, you’ve created a tautology.

        Your objections amount to

        No. I’m not claiming they’re not fruits, I’m rejecting the claim that because they are both fruits their other qualities and attributes are transitive.

        Your argument basically boils down to they are both fruits, therefore apples also have a lot of vitamin C.

        I agree that age and race are reasons that someone could treat another person disparately but the similarities end there, which makes race a bad analogy.

        Great, we agree that they share a single common factor, but that alone does not make race analogous to age. The many reasons why they’re different, is why it’s a bad analogy, it is why they’re not analogous.

        • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          Your argument basically boils down to they are both fruits, therefore apples also have a lot of vitamin C.

          This is where you are wrong. My argument is and has always been “fruit a belongs in the category fruits, just like fruit b”.

          “Age discrimination consists of the following factors: [different treatment], [based on personal properties] - just like racism, which also consists of the following factors [different treatment], [based on personal properties]”. Go look it up up there.

          I don’t know where you’re pulling the assumption that I was ever saying anything different from, but that’s all happening on your end.

          • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            My argument is and has always been “fruit a belongs in the category fruits, just like fruit b”.

            I agree race and age are two bases for different treatment. If you have no point beyond that, then fair enough, your analogy is useless.

            • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 year ago

              your analogy is useless

              Not quite, it did serve as another example of different treatment that is based on personal features. Mission 100% absolutely successful.

              • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
                1·
                1 year ago

                Not quite, it did serve as another example of different treatment that is based on personal features. Mission 100% absolutely successful.

                OK, I agree, but how did that elucidate my understanding of the use of age as a factor in disparate treatment? Because, again, the myriad of differences between the two make the comparison inapplicable, IMO.

                • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  It was meant to serve as an example for different treatment based on personal properties:

                  • different treatment based on the personal feature “age” being called age discrimination and
                  • different treatment based on the personal feature “race” being called racism.

                  Nothing more, nothing less.

                  I’m sorry, it didn’t satisfy whatever additional objectives you’re picking now, but then again it was never supposed to (and even if it did satisfy them, you’d just move that goalpost farther anyway).