291–299 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A mob of LGBT allies will make your life a living hell if you don't pledge total fealty, so yes, they are fundamentalists and zealots of their own little religion.
It seems unreasonable to essentially accuse the group "gay and trans people" of being a religion of fundamentalist zealots who demand total fealty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And where do those role models get it from? You can't rebuke me with just "it's role models all the way down".
Culture- such as the culture of homophobia- takes on a life of it's own. It does not represent beliefs or fear it just is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one is saying they are not human (straw man). Aren't thieves or murderers human as well? This is a weak argument frankly.
I think a lot of people consider murderers as less than human, and reflect that in the way they talk about them and the punishments they should face. I think a lot of people consider homosexuals as deviants and in some way less than human, also. They might not say it openly but they think it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a hand wavy answer that won't hold up to scrutiny. In some cultures, human sacrifice was permitted and seen as normal and acceptable. I think you would consider that a violation of human rights, but based on what? I agree that companies should be forced to abide by the local laws and norms.
I think the keyword there is “some”. Extreme edge cases matter in things like mathematics, but they rarely make a compelling argument for fringe socioeconomic policies or viewpoints or enumerating human rights. For my own sentiment, referenced as hand wavy, it is not that hard to let people do what they want with their own life as long as it does not hurt or infringe upon others’ rights. Is that really that difficult…
Secondly, what or who is your authority that people doing what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone is a valid generalization to make for all actions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The relevant question is, whether a powerful state is right to impose its values (which it, undoubtedly, holds in high esteem) on other states. I thought we were talking about Amazon, not a state. But let's say we were talking about a state, I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be the North Star that we hold states accountable to (incl. the United States of America). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U…
First, UAE hasn't signed that declaration. Do we hold UAE accountable to a declaration they never signed just because we've signed it and hold it a "North Star"? Second, the Declaration has nothing on LGBT rights, and it's not by mistake, but rather by the agreement of the signing parties at the time.
Yes, we should. Pressure so they increase human rights is the moral thing to do.
> Second, the Declaration has nothing on LGBT rights, and it's not by mistake, but rather by the agreement of the signing parties at the time.
Yep, the fight must continue because we're still second class in most places and hunted down in many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It actually happened in 1998, and the courts correctly dismissed the case. This was more of a case of the district attorney trying to punish some people and digging up an old 1973 law to do it because they didn't have a case. Now that law is formally defunct, rather than just being forgotten. ...so yeah, that's not a good example of your argument.
No, no, it's a good example. The law was on the books. Leaving enforcement up to the whims of a DA has a chilling effect.
It's like having a 30 year old comment in a Windows driver about a variable no one uses anymore - no one cares and it doesn't reflect anything today.
Also, ONE stupid incident with ONE stupid prosecutor does not reflect society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of people consider murderers as less than human, and reflect that in the way they talk about them and the punishments they should face. I think a lot of people consider homosexuals as deviants and in some way less than human, also. They might not say it openly but they think it.
Quoted post unavailable.
My opinion is that a lot of people think murderers are less than human, full stop.
I don't know how my opinion can coherently be described as a fallacy when it's what I believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Except for the fact that you agree with one ('cos it's "a good thing") and disagree with the other ('cos it's "a bad thing"), Well, no... I don't give a shit if Amazon sells porn. Whether or not they do doesn't really disproportionately harm a minority group. > what are these differences? One actively targets a minority group.
> Whether or not they do doesn't really disproportionately harm a minority group. It does disproportionately harm a minority group of porn afficionados. If your point is that LGBT minority group has some rights that porn afficionados minority group does not have, you'd need to prove it. > One actively targets a minority group. The search results will equally be hidden from heterosexuals and homosexuals alike. It's no…
Are you really saying at someone who likes porn and isn't able to buy it is comparable to a gay man being indicted (or worse) for loving a man?...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of people consider murderers as less than human, and reflect that in the way they talk about them and the punishments they should face. I think a lot of people consider homosexuals as deviants and in some way less than human, also. They might not say it openly but they think it.
Quoted post unavailable.
HN is not the place for any of this, so please stop.