Whizbang wrote:I have seen on other discussions of this forum where arguments in the form of "X is worse than Y so we shouldn't stop Y until we stop X" get soundly ridiculed by all and sundry. Please explain how this situation is different.
Because it's obvious that the people calling for the removal of Thing X are not doing it because of Good Reason A, but rather Horrible Reason B, because if they actually believe in Reason A over B they wouldn't call for only the removal of Thing X and not Thing Y.
Imagine a country made up of ethnic stereotypes when it comes to drugs and so forth. Poor working-class Irish people drink beer exclusively. Rich WASPS in control of the country drink wine exclusively. The country has a history of abusing the Irish. If the country issued a ban on beer, but not wine, would you assume that this is because the people in charge actually believe beer is bad but wine is fine, or that they were doing it because they hate the Irish?
Incidentally, this is what happened during Prohibition; wine was given an exception because rich people drank it, but beer, cider and liquors were banned. Marijuana is banned because it's an Hispanic drug, Opium because it's Chinese, but alcohol is legal and it so happens to be more White than the other drugs. Crack is Black and Coke is White, and while they are the same drug, guess which one has the harsher penalties for possession?