"I don’t actually see why communities shouldn’t prohibit inter-racial marriage if they want to. I’d prefer not to live in such a community — given my domestic circumstances, in fact, I wouldn’t be able to! — but this doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable or immoral restriction for a state or country to impose on its citizens."It strikes me as both unreasonable, immoral, and incompatible with the individualism of Charles Bradlaugh. I fear Mr. Derbyshire may need a new pseudonym; he's disgracing this one.—John Derbyshire, posting as "Bradlaugh" at Secular Right
Maryland gerrymandering push reignites after major losses nationwide
-
An earlier push to redraw the state was snuffed out in the state Senate,
but prominent Marylanders argued that the recent Supreme Court decision
targeting ...
12 hours ago
Faith In Honest Doubt had a good takedown of his original post. He's just digging in deeper. I like Derbyshire, but saying that prohibiting interracial marriage isn't unreasonable or immoral is just ridiculous. His argument reminds me a bit of Old South defenses of slavery.
ReplyDelete