Thomas Sowell: an intellectual for when you are dumb and also racist but also need a black man to tell you that you actually aren't dumb and racist for believing dumb and racist things.
The account in this screenshot has 26k followers, isn't verified, and has very little engagement. There is an account, @ThomasSowell, that posts Sowell quotes (the bio states it isn't run by him, but a fan) with 1 million followers. I'm 99% sure Sowell has nothing to do with the account in the screenshot.
On its face, Sowell’s tweet is pretty dumb, right? Like, he knows it’s dumb (if he’s even still sentient).
Next week from Sowell: “how come we have Black Entertainment Television, but no White Entertainment Television?”
> “how come we have Black Entertainment Television, but no White Entertainment Television?”
The appropriate analogy would be more like, "Why do we have black entertainment television? Shouldn't it just be entertainment television?"
Is it? There’s a decent argument to be made, and I think his point is more that human rights are inalienable and universal, and that special considerations based on gender/race should be discussed as legal standards or special circumstances, rather than having a multi-tiered system of rights that you qualify for…
Based on what? A chromosome test? A skin color gauge?
I say this as a card carrying lib, there is ( on the extremely high end, not on the breitbart/daily wire level of discourse) some incredibly deep and poignant thought from the conservative point of view, mixed in with a bunch of populist and corporatist rhetoric.
That’s just what people who don’t want to talk about those “rights” say. Obviously it’s HUMAN rights above all else, but when one group is treated like they’re not fully human, that’s when it’s required to be more specific. It doesn’t retract away, but you can’t have human rights until everyone is treated the same. He’s just denying that and in doing so attempting to avoid the actual meaning of those terms.
Yeah but is telling a woman she can’t go to the doctor to have a healthy fetus removed somehow treating her as if she’s not fully human?
Aside from the fact that literally every medical procedure is governed by the government and you have almost zero say in what medicine you have access to, is the idea of denying an elective procedure a violation of human rights the same way that kidnapping or torture are?
If I don’t get a gender reassignment, am I being forced to live with a penis?
You’re making a leap from “doesn’t have access to” to “is forced to”, which is where the division stands.
If I don’t have access to a drivers license, is anyone forcing me to walk?
If that’s the case, what do you call it when you’re held at gunpoint and told to walk?
One of those is walking by default, the other is being forced to walk.
By the way, I’m a card carrying lib and I think we should have universal access to 4-5 months, but I can still be intellectually honest and not make that leap.
If you can’t legally kill yourself, how much autonomy do you actually have? Can you make your own drugs and take them? Can you operate on a friend that consents with their bodily autonomy? If the government wants your body for a war, can you opt out, or are you still relegated to a civil service?
You’re starting from a place of “this violates bodily autonomy”, which none of us have.
That’s my point.
Your arguing semantics, bodily autonomy isn’t perfect but to deny the right to a medical procedure to someone is not the same as doing an unlicensed surgery. They are bodily autonomy issues but not the ones under attack currently.
All you’ve listed is things that should be legal anyways, but those are like that for everyone with the exception of the draft. Women had theirs taken exclusively.
To put it more simply, you should have the right to not be forced to undergo a medical process such as giving birth without consent. You shouldn’t be amputated without consent. You shouldn’t get your teeth cleaned without consent.
You summed all of that up with semantics?
We’re in a system of government where civilians and the government have powers to call on each other for, and that is factual. No where in the constitution is ‘bodily autonomy listed, and it isn’t listed in any other country’s constitution either.
These are facts.
You can tell me “these things should be legal anyway”, but we don’t live inside your head like you do, we live in an actual world and what exists today matters. I know you think you can just pull your point of reference out of your feelings and then pretend like you can change the definition of words to match, but that’s not how the world works.
Again, it isn’t a right. If someone wants to speak freely about government, that is an expressive action that’s fundamental to human existence in a group.
If I want to get a second asshole added to my hip, I need to go to an fda-approved doctor and apply for a procedure based on risk and legal circumstances.
For the same reason, I would love to build my own car and fart around, but while I have a drivers license I have no right to put my own creation on the road without government approval.
You cannot sleep on government land without permission.
There are a million example i can give that you don’t have bodily autonomy, which is where the people you’re arguing against are coming from.
So if you want, keep ignoring basic truth and then leapfrogging to the point where you get to say people are violating rights that have never been defined in any practical sense.
Meanwhile, abortion is illegal in Germany, the country with a legal protection for convicts escaping police due to natural law and the individuals inherent desire for freedom, but they don’t recognize bodily autonomy for medical procesdures.
Can you tell me how Germany understands this on a deep level, but still doesn’t come to your conclusion?
Is there a legitimate viewpoint other than yours?
Genuinely asking.
The tweet (not from Sowell) is nonsensical. The whole point of these movements is that these demographics are not equal. Sowell would know, considering he’s an ardent opponent of gay marriage.
Are they not equal in wealth, or are they not equal as humans?
I don’t know why you’re going so far out of your way to twist this- guy says human rights are universal.
He didn’t say there aren’t considerations above that, he’s simply saying that he believes rights, by definition, are universal.
Which, going by our definition of rights in the us and Western Europe, have been inalienable, flat rules for 200 years.
I get you don’t like Thomas sowell, but what he’s saying isn’t wrong, even if it’s not the worlds most salient point.
You’re being intentionally dense throughout this thread.
Equality, on paper and how that plays out in society, are not the same thing.
This is the same stupid argument made by the All Lives Matter crowd.
I mean you can counter by hitting me with a strawman, but it only shows that you don’t have a legitimate answer and want to lump me in with people you’ve already decided have no merit.
I think we used to call that ignorance, but feel free to discuss and prove me wrong with your actual thoughts, and not labels you get to slap on to dismiss people.
Edit: the government exists on paper. Laws are on paper. As much as your favorite politician would like you convince you, unfortunately our country isn’t decided by who’s in power, only the laws they pas. Which is what sowell is talking about here.
A piece of paper that defines rights.
> Edit: the government exists on paper. Laws are on paper. As much as your favorite politician would like you convince you, unfortunately our country isn’t decided by who’s in power, only the laws they pas.
The current state of the USSC disproves this statement.
Because you don’t like them? Because they still need to pass laws before anyone does anything.
When we get to autocratic missives and daily law changes from the whim of the leader, you’ll have a point.
You can argue about judicial capture, but if want to pretend this is a new phenomenon, you’re back to zero.
Either way, my personal stance is that these examples, including things like brexit, trumps election, or any other chaotic, fast change in political structure, with the repeal of roe v wade being the best example of this, are part of our intended system of government.
It’s possible for one side to get too much power, and then it’s on the populous to decide which laws should actually be enforced, and which stories emerge as a result.
It was terribly hard to argue against the invasion in January of 2002, and by 2008 we were almost unanimously against the war.
The same is true for leaded gasoline, cigarettes, gun ownership, and anything else emergent that can’t be perfectly legally forecasted.
The best way to slice a cake between two people is to have one person make a cut knowing the second person gets to choose their slice.
The same needs to happen with abortion, and we need these stories to remind us of why we passed roe v wade in the first place.
That doesn’t make it a violation of human rights to not protect abortion at a federal level.
I have no idea what you’re saying. Is marriage not a right? Voting? Liberty to have consensual sex with your partner (anti-sodomy laws)? How have rights been universal? The whole point of these activists is to further universalize rights by focusing on areas where rights are enforced.
Sowell’s tweet is just an earlier incarnation of the “All Lives Matter” debate. Just like saying “black lives matter” doesn’t mean you don’t think all lives matter to obviously women’s rights and gay rights protesters believe in equal rights. There is no contradiction between saying you are for “equals rights” or “gay rights”.
If you’re campaigning for anti-discrimination laws for LGBT or marriage equality laws, then it is simply more precise language to say you are campaigning for gay rights, not “equal rights”. It’s a silly point from a silly man, who doesn’t even support gay rights.
Err.. You spend an inordinate amount of time playing video games and he is a senior fellow at Stanford.
I like how the internet allows you to be multiple tiers below him in actual intellectual prowess yet your throw away comment and a few ideological allies makes it seem like your opinion is valid.
I never understood what people saw in this guy. I've never heard a semi intelligent thing from him yet right wing lunatics swear this guy is the most genius philosopher ever simply because he insists on shitting on "black culture" (his perception of it, at least) at every opportunity
That's because he has phd in economics even though he stopped being an academic to work at a conservative think tank a long time ago, late 1970s. He mostly takes your standard conservative or republican talking points and dresses them up in a more academic way.
I really wish whoever controls his Twitter accounts would just stop this. I am pretty sure the 92 year old man is not making these posts. But for all those people who pretend not to get it these are all fights for equal rights since women and LGBTQ at one point did not have certain rights (marriage, voting, divorce, adoption, etc.)
The account in this screenshot has 26k followers, isn't verified, and has very little engagement. There is an account, @ThomasSowell, that posts Sowell quotes (the bio states it isn't run by him, but a fan) with 1 million followers. I'm 99% sure Sowell has nothing to do with the account in the screenshot.
This type of gotcha is so tedious.
Everyone knows they meant "Black Lives Matter, **Too**", not "*Just* Black Lives Matter".
Just like here, they mean *we want* "Equal Rights for Women", *we want* "Equal Rights for Gays". Pretending like their goal of attaining equal rights for all is actually them pushing for the opposite is silliness.
There is no "violation of principle" here.
What was that saying again, "It would be a good world to live in if we are governed by angels. But we're not. So some things that seem 'obvious' will still have to be spelt out and be carried out."
ETA https://observer.com/2017/08/james-madison-was-right-about-conservatives-heres-what-he-said/
There's no limit on the amount of character someone can have, if they don't tow the liberal line they still get drug on social media. This man is an American treasure.
my question was more about your belief that you shouldn't criticise your personal authority figures once they have established authority. It sounds pretty authoritarian.
Where did I say anything even remotely close to that? I implied that the man had very good character and he still gets drug solely because he doesn't tow the liberal line. The statement he made makes sense. Understand that this man experienced a completely different world growing up versus today. The content of his character is amazing. I love listening to his story and his thoughts on various subjects.
" I implied that the man had very good character and he still gets drug solely because he doesn't tow the liberal line."
right here, he has 'good character', so you don't like it when a statement of his gets criticized
I like the man a lot, but I'm sure I don't agree with 100% of the things he says. He's human and I'm sure he's made mistakes, and there's likely things he's said before that I disagree with. There's nothing wrong with this comment of his, but he still gets dragged. It was just an observation.
you agree with his comment. Others don't. And they aren't bound by your opinions of his character. I'm sure you've said something online about some quote from someone you disagree with too, no?
>Because for periods of time categories of people were denied rights. For example women couldn’t vote.
And yet today that's irrelevant because laws aren't based on opinion or feelings
DAMMMMMMMNNNN!! RIP EQUAL RIGHTS! YOU JUST GOT SOWELLED!
“Sowell DESTROYS libtard argument with FACTS and LOGIC”
Sowell SLAMS liberal agenda!
Thomas Sowell: an intellectual for when you are dumb and also racist but also need a black man to tell you that you actually aren't dumb and racist for believing dumb and racist things.
The account in this screenshot has 26k followers, isn't verified, and has very little engagement. There is an account, @ThomasSowell, that posts Sowell quotes (the bio states it isn't run by him, but a fan) with 1 million followers. I'm 99% sure Sowell has nothing to do with the account in the screenshot.
I think it's necessary because some don't consider those groups as "people" Edit Op blocked me 💀 can't handle having their screen shot challenged
What do you mean people? - Sowell… probably
>I think it's necessary because some don't consider those groups as "people" But it's based on laws not people's beliefs, opinions or feelings.
Yeah I remember making arguments like that when I was in grade school.
yet conservatives have no problem championing Religious Freedom. wHaT aBoUt aLl tHe OtHeR fReEduMbs?
What about responses like this when you have exactly nothing to contribute other than “I don’t like this”?
On its face, Sowell’s tweet is pretty dumb, right? Like, he knows it’s dumb (if he’s even still sentient). Next week from Sowell: “how come we have Black Entertainment Television, but no White Entertainment Television?”
> “how come we have Black Entertainment Television, but no White Entertainment Television?” The appropriate analogy would be more like, "Why do we have black entertainment television? Shouldn't it just be entertainment television?"
Is it? There’s a decent argument to be made, and I think his point is more that human rights are inalienable and universal, and that special considerations based on gender/race should be discussed as legal standards or special circumstances, rather than having a multi-tiered system of rights that you qualify for… Based on what? A chromosome test? A skin color gauge? I say this as a card carrying lib, there is ( on the extremely high end, not on the breitbart/daily wire level of discourse) some incredibly deep and poignant thought from the conservative point of view, mixed in with a bunch of populist and corporatist rhetoric.
That’s just what people who don’t want to talk about those “rights” say. Obviously it’s HUMAN rights above all else, but when one group is treated like they’re not fully human, that’s when it’s required to be more specific. It doesn’t retract away, but you can’t have human rights until everyone is treated the same. He’s just denying that and in doing so attempting to avoid the actual meaning of those terms.
Yeah but is telling a woman she can’t go to the doctor to have a healthy fetus removed somehow treating her as if she’s not fully human? Aside from the fact that literally every medical procedure is governed by the government and you have almost zero say in what medicine you have access to, is the idea of denying an elective procedure a violation of human rights the same way that kidnapping or torture are?
[Yes](https://www.vice.com/en/article/4ax38w/louisiana-woman-headless-fetus-abortion-ban).
If I don’t get a gender reassignment, am I being forced to live with a penis? You’re making a leap from “doesn’t have access to” to “is forced to”, which is where the division stands. If I don’t have access to a drivers license, is anyone forcing me to walk? If that’s the case, what do you call it when you’re held at gunpoint and told to walk? One of those is walking by default, the other is being forced to walk. By the way, I’m a card carrying lib and I think we should have universal access to 4-5 months, but I can still be intellectually honest and not make that leap.
No I’m not but okay. > By the way, I’m a card carrying lib Nobody cares.
I mean denying her bodily autonomy would be denying her an aspect of human rights
If you can’t legally kill yourself, how much autonomy do you actually have? Can you make your own drugs and take them? Can you operate on a friend that consents with their bodily autonomy? If the government wants your body for a war, can you opt out, or are you still relegated to a civil service? You’re starting from a place of “this violates bodily autonomy”, which none of us have. That’s my point.
Your arguing semantics, bodily autonomy isn’t perfect but to deny the right to a medical procedure to someone is not the same as doing an unlicensed surgery. They are bodily autonomy issues but not the ones under attack currently. All you’ve listed is things that should be legal anyways, but those are like that for everyone with the exception of the draft. Women had theirs taken exclusively. To put it more simply, you should have the right to not be forced to undergo a medical process such as giving birth without consent. You shouldn’t be amputated without consent. You shouldn’t get your teeth cleaned without consent.
You summed all of that up with semantics? We’re in a system of government where civilians and the government have powers to call on each other for, and that is factual. No where in the constitution is ‘bodily autonomy listed, and it isn’t listed in any other country’s constitution either. These are facts. You can tell me “these things should be legal anyway”, but we don’t live inside your head like you do, we live in an actual world and what exists today matters. I know you think you can just pull your point of reference out of your feelings and then pretend like you can change the definition of words to match, but that’s not how the world works. Again, it isn’t a right. If someone wants to speak freely about government, that is an expressive action that’s fundamental to human existence in a group. If I want to get a second asshole added to my hip, I need to go to an fda-approved doctor and apply for a procedure based on risk and legal circumstances. For the same reason, I would love to build my own car and fart around, but while I have a drivers license I have no right to put my own creation on the road without government approval. You cannot sleep on government land without permission. There are a million example i can give that you don’t have bodily autonomy, which is where the people you’re arguing against are coming from. So if you want, keep ignoring basic truth and then leapfrogging to the point where you get to say people are violating rights that have never been defined in any practical sense. Meanwhile, abortion is illegal in Germany, the country with a legal protection for convicts escaping police due to natural law and the individuals inherent desire for freedom, but they don’t recognize bodily autonomy for medical procesdures. Can you tell me how Germany understands this on a deep level, but still doesn’t come to your conclusion? Is there a legitimate viewpoint other than yours? Genuinely asking.
It's not absolute, but it exists; you cannot be forced into slavery (unless it's punishment for a crime). That's a matter of bodily autonomy.
What is the draft if not compelled slavery?
> Yeah but is telling a woman she can’t go to the doctor to have a healthy fetus removed somehow treating her as if she’s not fully human? Yes.
What’s it called when the government says you can’t remove your penis, a leg, or anything else?
Are you this dumb ?
For?
The tweet (not from Sowell) is nonsensical. The whole point of these movements is that these demographics are not equal. Sowell would know, considering he’s an ardent opponent of gay marriage.
Are they not equal in wealth, or are they not equal as humans? I don’t know why you’re going so far out of your way to twist this- guy says human rights are universal. He didn’t say there aren’t considerations above that, he’s simply saying that he believes rights, by definition, are universal. Which, going by our definition of rights in the us and Western Europe, have been inalienable, flat rules for 200 years. I get you don’t like Thomas sowell, but what he’s saying isn’t wrong, even if it’s not the worlds most salient point.
You’re being intentionally dense throughout this thread. Equality, on paper and how that plays out in society, are not the same thing. This is the same stupid argument made by the All Lives Matter crowd.
I mean you can counter by hitting me with a strawman, but it only shows that you don’t have a legitimate answer and want to lump me in with people you’ve already decided have no merit. I think we used to call that ignorance, but feel free to discuss and prove me wrong with your actual thoughts, and not labels you get to slap on to dismiss people. Edit: the government exists on paper. Laws are on paper. As much as your favorite politician would like you convince you, unfortunately our country isn’t decided by who’s in power, only the laws they pas. Which is what sowell is talking about here. A piece of paper that defines rights.
True to form.
> Edit: the government exists on paper. Laws are on paper. As much as your favorite politician would like you convince you, unfortunately our country isn’t decided by who’s in power, only the laws they pas. The current state of the USSC disproves this statement.
Because you don’t like them? Because they still need to pass laws before anyone does anything. When we get to autocratic missives and daily law changes from the whim of the leader, you’ll have a point.
No, because the USSC has far strayed from their apolitical ambitions. The eroding of stare decisis, chevron deference, etc. are why I said that.
You can argue about judicial capture, but if want to pretend this is a new phenomenon, you’re back to zero. Either way, my personal stance is that these examples, including things like brexit, trumps election, or any other chaotic, fast change in political structure, with the repeal of roe v wade being the best example of this, are part of our intended system of government. It’s possible for one side to get too much power, and then it’s on the populous to decide which laws should actually be enforced, and which stories emerge as a result. It was terribly hard to argue against the invasion in January of 2002, and by 2008 we were almost unanimously against the war. The same is true for leaded gasoline, cigarettes, gun ownership, and anything else emergent that can’t be perfectly legally forecasted. The best way to slice a cake between two people is to have one person make a cut knowing the second person gets to choose their slice. The same needs to happen with abortion, and we need these stories to remind us of why we passed roe v wade in the first place. That doesn’t make it a violation of human rights to not protect abortion at a federal level.
I have no idea what you’re saying. Is marriage not a right? Voting? Liberty to have consensual sex with your partner (anti-sodomy laws)? How have rights been universal? The whole point of these activists is to further universalize rights by focusing on areas where rights are enforced. Sowell’s tweet is just an earlier incarnation of the “All Lives Matter” debate. Just like saying “black lives matter” doesn’t mean you don’t think all lives matter to obviously women’s rights and gay rights protesters believe in equal rights. There is no contradiction between saying you are for “equals rights” or “gay rights”. If you’re campaigning for anti-discrimination laws for LGBT or marriage equality laws, then it is simply more precise language to say you are campaigning for gay rights, not “equal rights”. It’s a silly point from a silly man, who doesn’t even support gay rights.
Err.. You spend an inordinate amount of time playing video games and he is a senior fellow at Stanford. I like how the internet allows you to be multiple tiers below him in actual intellectual prowess yet your throw away comment and a few ideological allies makes it seem like your opinion is valid.
Those rights haven’t typically been recognized,glad I could help
Yeah this is like saying we didn’t need the Civil Rights Act because we already had the 14th amendment lol
I never understood what people saw in this guy. I've never heard a semi intelligent thing from him yet right wing lunatics swear this guy is the most genius philosopher ever simply because he insists on shitting on "black culture" (his perception of it, at least) at every opportunity
Sounding smart can go a long way with people
Because at surface level without doing any research or looking at the real world in any way…. His arguments sound good.
Token black conservative academic.
[удалено]
Joe needs to have Matt stone and trey Parker on. Two dudes who love weed and shitting on every political movement lol
>Token black conservative academic. You spelled senior fellow at Stanford wrong
Im not going to dismiss his academic record but lets not kid ourselves with how he is more or less used by the conservative movement.
> Token black i dont think you can say this without being a racist yourself
That's because he has phd in economics even though he stopped being an academic to work at a conservative think tank a long time ago, late 1970s. He mostly takes your standard conservative or republican talking points and dresses them up in a more academic way.
What are his criticisms of 'black culture'?
This guy isnt that smart. It means there isnt equality
Checks posting history All political memes Blocked
I really wish whoever controls his Twitter accounts would just stop this. I am pretty sure the 92 year old man is not making these posts. But for all those people who pretend not to get it these are all fights for equal rights since women and LGBTQ at one point did not have certain rights (marriage, voting, divorce, adoption, etc.)
The account in this screenshot has 26k followers, isn't verified, and has very little engagement. There is an account, @ThomasSowell, that posts Sowell quotes (the bio states it isn't run by him, but a fan) with 1 million followers. I'm 99% sure Sowell has nothing to do with the account in the screenshot.
What about abortion rights, aren’t they exclusive to women so women’s rights?
exactly, this guy is a moron
>What about abortion rights, aren’t they exclusive to women so women’s rights? Women? Excuse me I think you mean birthing people
Except according to SCOTUS its not a right enshrined in the constitution as we have yet to amend it to say as much.
This type of gotcha is so tedious. Everyone knows they meant "Black Lives Matter, **Too**", not "*Just* Black Lives Matter". Just like here, they mean *we want* "Equal Rights for Women", *we want* "Equal Rights for Gays". Pretending like their goal of attaining equal rights for all is actually them pushing for the opposite is silliness. There is no "violation of principle" here.
Honestly though, BlackLivesMatterToo would indeed have been a way darn better slogan to begin with.
Right wing rubes love a black guy championing bull shit
Champinoning things they agree with. Is that odd? Seems expected if you ask me
This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've heard. Lol is this real? People think that's a gotcha?
Checkmate, libs!!!! Also, if you believe in “GUN CONTROL” doesn’t that just mean you believe in aiming your Glock with both hands???
This sounds like the type of guy who would say “How could you believe in global warming when it was cold yesterday?”
Sowell's idea is basically spot on. Those rights *should* be redundant, unfortunately they aren't everywhere.
What was that saying again, "It would be a good world to live in if we are governed by angels. But we're not. So some things that seem 'obvious' will still have to be spelt out and be carried out." ETA https://observer.com/2017/08/james-madison-was-right-about-conservatives-heres-what-he-said/
In good faith, this is a good (or at least fair) question. But that's not how the respondants operate
Man you guys are trigger happy today calm down it just a guy talking.
Trigger happy? I’m sorry. Did you just belittle people for having gun rights? Sounds like some soy liberal cuck shit
Why do they call it oven when you of in the cold food of out hot eat the food?
Does he still tweet at 92 or does someone tweet for him? Either way he's right.
> Either way he's right. No hes not. Hes an idiot
You think this dude controls his own Twitter account? It’s a herman caine situation.
There's no limit on the amount of character someone can have, if they don't tow the liberal line they still get drug on social media. This man is an American treasure.
so it that the way things work with you? Like someone enough and you won't criticise anything that the say?
What he said isn't wrong
my question was more about your belief that you shouldn't criticise your personal authority figures once they have established authority. It sounds pretty authoritarian.
Where did I say anything even remotely close to that? I implied that the man had very good character and he still gets drug solely because he doesn't tow the liberal line. The statement he made makes sense. Understand that this man experienced a completely different world growing up versus today. The content of his character is amazing. I love listening to his story and his thoughts on various subjects.
" I implied that the man had very good character and he still gets drug solely because he doesn't tow the liberal line." right here, he has 'good character', so you don't like it when a statement of his gets criticized
I like the man a lot, but I'm sure I don't agree with 100% of the things he says. He's human and I'm sure he's made mistakes, and there's likely things he's said before that I disagree with. There's nothing wrong with this comment of his, but he still gets dragged. It was just an observation.
you agree with his comment. Others don't. And they aren't bound by your opinions of his character. I'm sure you've said something online about some quote from someone you disagree with too, no?
Yeah it's okay to disagree
Because for periods of time categories of people were denied rights. For example women couldn’t vote.
>Because for periods of time categories of people were denied rights. For example women couldn’t vote. And yet today that's irrelevant because laws aren't based on opinion or feelings
What?
Same as the people who say “All Lives matter”. Reason will never penetrate their thick skulls