The second someone says “x type of person” has an inherent right to do “z type of person” wrong, following a form of reasoning that attempts to justify an exception to an ethical principle, is the same second people are trying to justify self serving bias, egotism, narcissism, fear, paranoia, anger and anxiety instead of promoting a system and set of behaviors centered around reason and justice.
No amount of narcissism or paranoia justifies the violations of other’s Rights.
Either everyone has a Right to be free of violations, or no one does.
Pickling and choosing when to follow ethics solely comes from self-serving bias, which itself can only extend from ignorance, narcissism, bias or fear.
While debating, defending, upholding and preserving Rights is a common socio-political pastime, often people have a tendency to go overboard by proclaiming one side has more Rights than others, and this often results in stereotyping groups and “othering” individuals in an attempt to justify the outrage people feel about violations of Rights, by attaching identity of a group with a violations of Rights in such a way that isn’t statistically justifiable (and is therefore dishonest).
Trying to exaggerate the circumstances of a situation (through disconnected logic) in which no Rights have been violated in order to promote both a preemptive violation of Rights and the acceptance/justification of the violation of Rights… is inherently a flawed and biased system of “sometimes ethics”.
If the Rights of Party A haven’t been violated, then it doesn’t make sense to promote the violation of Rights of Party B. Just because some do not understand the relationships and differences between Parties A & B, and lack the ability to reason and vocalize their objections without relying on flawed presumptions, it doesn’t indicate it makes sense to promote the violation of the Rights of either party.