Yale made a stand in support of anti-gay laws; SJWs slammed

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm mildly flabbergasted than you don't see how passing laws that fall unequally on men as opposed to women for the same exact behavior is not problematic.

Well maybe if you didn't insist on putting words in my mouth you would be less flabbergasted.

Seriously, what is the motivation behind such persistent and low quality contrarianism that comes up with such great arguments as "Why should we do a good thing? Maybe someone will undo it in the future." or "Maybe we can expect that the police state won't arbitrarily enforce this law."

You could always try re-reading things to see what was actually said, rather than blatantly misrepresenting things.

You've never heard of liberal democracy? Where minorities have rights even though they are minorities?

If you make it illegal for fraternal twins with red hair to eat, that would still be highly unjustifiable, even though only a very small minority of people are fraternal twins with red hair.

How did the West come to fail to understand liberalism so? Every place on Earth should just become like Singapore. Tyranny of the majority for the masses!

When I said "I can already predict what the counter argument to this is going to be by the way"... well that was pretty much it. I knew that as soon as I mentioned minorities not getting their own way that you would take that as some sort of support for totalitarian domination in any and all cases, and concoct some ridiculous example involving some minority being literally killed. The fact that you see this as an interchangeable example just shows that you really are dealing in absolutes. "Five friends want to get pizza and one wants to get Chinese? Well if you think the odd one out should compromise and just eat pizza then you must support stoning gays to death in the streets!"

 

[Hygro]

Multi

Well maybe if you didn't insist on putting words in my mouth you would be less flabbergasted.

quote

You could always try re-reading things to see what was actually said, rather than blatantly misrepresenting things.

is your

When I said "I can already predict what the counter argument to this is going to be by the way"... well that was pretty much it. I knew that as soon as I mentioned minorities not getting their own way that you would take that as some sort of support for totalitarian domination in any and all cases, and concoct some ridiculous example involving some minority being literally killed. The fact that you see this as an interchangeable example just shows that you really are dealing in absolutes. "Five friends want to get pizza and one wants to get Chinese? Well if you think the odd one out should compromise and just eat pizza then you must support stoning gays to death in the streets!"

friend

 

[Aea]

Seriously, what is the motivation behind such persistent and low quality contrarianism that comes up with such great arguments as "Why should we do a good thing? Maybe someone will undo it in the future." or "Maybe we can expect that the police state won't arbitrarily enforce this law."

Here's my theory. The contrarians see everybody advocating for any social issues as the , GG, Reddit caricature of a SJW. That's the cause for vehement opposition and poor arguments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ryika]

Here's my theory. The contrarians see everybody advocating for any social issues as [...]

So I have to ask again: Who exactly is defending these laws in your opinion? Please provide quotes where people have said that the law is perfectly fine and who argue against the progress of removing discriminatory laws from the books.

Everybody agrees that the ideal situation would be if the laws didn't exist, so what the hell does this "see everybody advocating for social issues" you're talking about even mean? The topic people are talking about is whether it is reasonable for that woman to keep her job or whether there's a conflict of interest. Whether the law should or should not exist is not what people are arguing about, there is nobody saying: "This law is totally valid." - the topic of the discussion is whether the woman who, because it's her duty as an Ambassador, explained that their country decided to keep the law but not enforce it must be removed from her position.

 

[Angst]

Why do you guys even respond to him? Have any of you actually gotten any useful discussion that way?

I keep on waiting for a zenlike state where my eyes blur out at the faint hint of purple.

EDIT: OK, that might have been too snide, I just don't get how the hell these ideas are supposed to be totalitarian. How is granting rights supposed to be the same as removing them?

 

[aelf]

When I said "I can already predict what the counter argument to this is going to be by the way"... well that was pretty much it. I knew that as soon as I mentioned minorities not getting their own way that you would take that as some sort of support for totalitarian domination in any and all cases, and concoct some ridiculous example involving some minority being literally killed. The fact that you see this as an interchangeable example just shows that you really are dealing in absolutes. "Five friends want to get pizza and one wants to get Chinese? Well if you think the odd one out should compromise and just eat pizza then you must support stoning gays to death in the streets!"

Who said anything about killing? There are ways to sustain yourself without eating these days, like Soylent. I just picked another habit that is as natural and biological as having sex.

But, okay, make that red-haired fraternal twins aren't allowed to have sex; or take a dump except on weekends. Do you have any other argument besides whining about "dealing in absolutes"?