> Refusing to give alms to the poor "because it would discriminate against the rich" seems obviously fallacious to me.
In what way is this obviously fallacious? Alms have to come from somewhere, and if you take them from the rich then it is clearly discrimination against the rich. You could very well make the argument that this is justified, but fallacious it is not.
That aside, it doesn't take a lot of scanning through those who purportedly wish to give alms to the poor before you find some outright revenge-driven rhetoric.
It’s also a broken analogy because “the rich” are always more privileged than “the poor”, but a given white person may be less privileged than a given nonwhite person.
> You could very well make the argument that this is justified
Discrimination isn't just "we treat people differently" - we put prisoners in jail, we don't trust liars, we try to keep abusers away from positions of power.
Discrimination is when it crosses the line into injustice - when you're acting solely off hatred and stereotypes.
Since you're conceding that it's justified, it seems that no actual injustice is occurring here.
Funnily enough, the poor having some more money often makes the rich wealthier in absolute terms just not in relative terms. The poor having money juices the economy a lot more than the rich having yet more money. Similarly with more diversity everyone is better off.
In what way is this obviously fallacious? Alms have to come from somewhere, and if you take them from the rich then it is clearly discrimination against the rich. You could very well make the argument that this is justified, but fallacious it is not.
That aside, it doesn't take a lot of scanning through those who purportedly wish to give alms to the poor before you find some outright revenge-driven rhetoric.