<i>You have made the assumption that the inverse of my statement is true: that because I denounce discrimination based on attributes outside of people&#x27;s control that I must support discrimination...</i><p>I made no such assumption. I merely pointed out that your principle doesn&#x27;t prohibit such things.<p><i>In this case with Uber and Lyft the city&#x2F;state has the right (one could argue duty) to take steps to ensure the trustworthiness&#x2F;safety of drivers...Even if, hypothetically, you assume that statistically one race is more prone to violence than another that does not speak directly about this candidate.</i><p>Neither does past criminal history. Some criminals are reformed and will not commit crimes. Both past criminal history and race are <i>statistical</i> predictors of future criminal behavior. So are various things under one&#x27;s control like the neighborhood they live in, their friends, etc.<p>It&#x27;s a fact, and one I haven&#x27;t fully come to grips with philosophically, that base rates matter. I.e., you&#x27;ll do a better job predicting violence if you take race into account [1]. Actually using it makes me uncomfortable, but not using it is also burying our heads in the sand. From a moral philosophy perspective I&#x27;m simply confused.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Base_rate_fallacy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Base_rate_fallacy</a>