I don’t think you can just walk in here and declare that violence isn’t human nature. Of course it is. A child hits, until he learns not to.
Absolutely.
Yes, I can agree with that, except for one thing. What if you get in a big debate with some right-wing freak who insists that he has proof that gays are all molesters and you can’t budge him, since the studies that contradict his are all liberally biased and all that crap? And you spend days trying to convince him otherwise, and then you’re fully invested in your approach, yet he walks away thinking he’s right. What then? Do you stop him and say “Well, it doesn’t matter anyway.”? I think in a case like that, you hit right at the heart of his logical flaw, not try to start a long, futile debate over his facts.
And again, what if you’re wrong? What if some new, reliable, neutral study comes out some day and concludes that gays, even if slightly, are more likely to molest kids? What then?
But you said violence was “deeply ingrained in humans”. It’s not. It’s a strategic choice, not a hydraulic force. Stereotyping isn’t a choice.
You’re not going to convince that guy with any logical argument, be it one based on science or one based on the laughable (to him) notion that gays should be treated as individuals, and are the equal of straights.
If it’s only slightly, then nothing needs to be changed. If it could be shown that left-handed people were 1.1% more likely to be child molestors, I doubt anyone would ramp up their anti-lefty prejudices.
If it’s a large difference, then you adjust tactics, depending on what we’re dealing with.
I don’t think this debate is going to go far, or help. I think it’s fair to say that violence is something humans would resort to more often without learning self-control, and this is comparable to acting on stereotypes as a choice.
Probably not, but I think my approach has a much better shot.
Of course it would. If a study showed that gays molest children 1.1% more than straights, that would be more than enough for the gay-haters.
But now it’s too late - you’ve already invested so much in the statistics mattering. To suddenly be confronted by numbers that contradict you, and then say “well, they don’t matter anyway” will remove all credibility in the eyes of your opponent. “Suddenly the numbers don’t actually matter?” they’ll ask. “You just can’t admit you lost.”
It’s actually pretty different, in that it’s impossible to choose not be influenced by stereotypes, but it is possible to choose not to be violent, because there’s no innate urge to violence. We can drop it if you wish, though.
When he’s convinced, per your hypothetical, that all gays are child molesters, telling him to treat gays as individuals who may or may not be child molesters isn’t going to change his mind at all. It’d be like convincing him that not all lakes are wet.
Those people are not going to be persuaded by an appeal to treat gays as equal individuals.
I said “adjust tactics”, depending on the specifics, not that numbers don’t matter. Certainly, if it were proven that, say, 80% of gay men were child molesters, I wouldn’t scold the boy scout’s mother for refused to let her son participate in scouting with a gay scout leader. That would be a sensible choice, an exercise in risk management.
It’s not possible to choose not to be influenced by stereotypes?
Really?
No, you explain to him that his own data shows that SOME gays are child molesters, but not ALL. That’s something about his data you can be sure is true.
Then why bother trying to convince them that gays aren’t more likely to molest children anyway?
So the bottom line is that YOU are perfectly willing to be a gay-hater too?
You said he “insists that he has proof that gays are all molesters”.
The hardcore, irrational bigots weren’t my target, I had in mind more the honestly misinformed. I’m sure plenty of people believe gay men are mostly child molesters because they’ve been told that, but haven’t internalized homophobia to the extent that they can’t be persuaded otherwise.