Like, for example, denying them rights?
I don’t see it as a change in policy.
Which is exactly what would happen if I hijacked that thread to argue at length how I, at least, am not motivated by ill intent.
~Max
I wouldn’t consider clarifying your motivations to be a hijack. You’re entitled to do that.
However, if the discussion devolved into only that, then I would consider the discussion pointless. You and whoever was engaging in a protracted back and forth would be directed to move on, having stated your positions.
Or even better. Some people think they should spank young children. It would be wildly inappropriate in a debate, the topic of which is why do some people who spank their children do it, for a participant to accuse spankers as “always” harboring ill will toward their children. To appropriate Der_Trihs’s words, it would be inappropriate in GD to say they do it “to demonize” the children, that with spankers “it’s always about malice; ‘the cruelty is the point’”.
~Max
Or even better, you could answer the question.
No, I don’t feel that is a distinction being made. If it was, I wouldn’t feel insulted and we wouldn’t have this thread. Stratocaster was explicit but even so, the implication in-thread is very clear to me: that I intend to do harm and even prefer it, by virtue of my opinion that being gay is a lifestyle choice, therefore I am malicious, vile, evil, &etc and actively wish harm on gay people. Regardless of the reasons I might state for my opinion, they do not think I can be convinced otherwise, I do not think others are interested in me defending myself, and frankly I don’t think I should have to. It would be a waste of time, distract from the topic, and further evidence (in the minds of some) that I am more trouble than I’m worth.
~Max
Noting that “this is the wrong thread to get into these debates”, I can’t think of any situation where I support separating children from the parents because of immigration status. I don’t think most people even among conservatives support that. I would in some cases ‘support’ deporting the parent of a child who happens to be U.S. citizen, and those are two different positions because the parent can take the child with them.
~Max
The point is you identify with a group which is provably and actively malicious towards LGBTQ+ people. Maybe you personally have no malice but you are ok being part of a group that absolutely does have malice. It’s hard to split-hairs on that one and make the distinction you seem to want when you support that group and work to see their vision be reality.
So “conservatives” is a group defined by ideology. It’s not like something you entirely choose to associate with or distance yourself from based on other individuals in the group. It’s not like Democrats or Republicans. (Although I am a Republican, that is only for access in the primaries in my state). My views make me conservative whether I acknowledge it or not. I could stop being conservative, but then I would have to change my views, for example on whether being gay is a lifestyle choice. So in that sense, the insult is directed personally at virtually everybody who takes the contra position in that debate. To limit the insult to most conservatives but not me, sort of defeats the point of making it - especially as a reply to my post.
~Max
Does this argument work on any conservative and/or Republican message boards you might happen to visit, when a liberal and/or Democrat raises the issue?
I am not familiar with any conservative and/or Republican message boards. And besides… what does that matter?
~Max
I should also think I’m entitled to participate in a debate on whether conservatives think being gay is a choice, and if so what they think the benefits of being gay are, without having the debate interrupted with accusations that conservatives are vile and hate gay people. Who would agree to such a thing?
What kind of Great Debates are you defending here?
There’s a thread on book banning in Utah. Say someone went in an tried to explain why they support the bans of these particular books. Would it be acceptable to respond with, oh, people who support book banning are really motivated by hatred for women? Who in their right mind would return to that thread and defend the book ban?
There’s a thread on the Mormon Church and transgender people. Say someone, a Mormon, tried to explain why their faith requires these new restrictions. And the response to that post doesn’t address the explanation at all. It says, Mormons really just want to hurt transgender people, they really just want to see them kill themselves and die. That’s the real goal. Is that appropriate for GD? Who in their right mind would ever return and try and defend the Mormons here again?
There’s a thread (that I started) about whether DEI is good or bad. Suppose someone came in and patiently explained why they believe some aspects of DEI are neutral or even bad (which happened). Now suppose the response is, people who say DEI is bad are really motivated by hatred of women and Black people. Which almost actually happened in that thread. GIGOBuster, whose contributions in that thread (and others) I value very much, made a similar point about “the right” almost every post. But he did so in a way that I think did not impugn the people he was discussing with in-thread. He addressed points directed at him and there was a lot of respectful back and forth. Even so I was legitimately concerned it would derail the thread and took affirmative steps to steer the conversation away from the motives of “the right”. Note that nobody responded to those accusations directly.
~Max
Imagine some heinous act and then someone says they want to debate in a calm manner why that is reasonable (or not) without any accusations of them being vile for supporting it. (I can come up with lots of hypotheticals for this but I hope I do not have to…I am sure you can conjure some up too.)
Would that be ok with you?
Yes, as a matter of fact it would. If this was a popular opinion which actually has an effect on things. If I respect the person, I should add. I would try very hard to understand their point of view top to bottom. That’s what debates are for. If for whatever reason I just couldn’t do it without insulting them, then I would turn down the request.
~Max
Max. Dear Max. Quit digging; you’re 30 feet deep already and getting farther down with every post.
You’re in effect advocating for a rule that every thread involving the currently Fascist Right of the USA be forced directly to the Pit.
If you’re unhappy now, just wait until you see the consequences of what you’re advocating.
And this is why you’re never going to understand or agree with the rest of us on this. That just isn’t a normal view. It prioritizes your desire to discuss something over the impact to the people being discussed.
If the impact of the people being discussed is of greater importance, we should simply ban advocacy that harms them outright. That’s analogous to turning down the offer to debate. Like I said about the rules concerning debate on transgender identity.
~Max
I’ll also note that during the debate over same sex marriage, here and elsewhere there was the constant insistence that such non-malicious, non-bigoted reason to oppose SSM existed, that it must exist…but none of the people doing so ever provided such a reason. Not here, not on other forums, not in court, nowhere.
Claiming that a non-malicious reason to do or support something exists while failing to come up with even a hypothetical example is at best highly disingenuous. It’s not an argument, it’s claiming that an argument exists without providing it, then condemning everyone else for not accepting it on faith.
But I have stated my opinion on that exact question. See also here, here, here, here, the list goes on.
~Max
You seem incredulous that this should be so. Interesting. You can’t seem to grasp that some issues are simply not debatable to decent people.