jeffwExplosive police report reveals how Moms for Liberty co-founder arranged bisexual threesomes - LGBTQ Nation
curiousaurSo what? We don’t judge people for their sexuality. Challenges of hypocrisy are ad hominem.
Their views and politics are trash no matter what they like to do in the bedroom. If we can’t be better…
The issue is not the appeal to hypocrisy, it is discriminating against the rights of others while giving yourself those same rights. For a party that runs on a illogical foundation, having your leaders be shown to be following what they preach against is powerful enough for people to emotionally disconnect and actually think through the information. Yes an appeal to hypocracy is a fallacy, but “you can’t logically argue someone out of a position they didn’t logically obtain”, it is better to use a fallacy to force them to think, then use only logic and be ignored.
Your first sentence, you state it’s not an appeal to hypocrisy, then you define hypocrisy in the same sentence.
The issue is not discriminating against the rights of others while giving yourself those same rights. The issue is discriminating. Period. There’s no other caveots there.
If you’re going to sex shame them, you’re just as bad as them. Let’s celebrate their sexuality instead.
Then your last sentence, “it is better to use a fallacy to force them to think logically”. C’mon what the fuck are you even saying? It’s self defeating since you’re already not thinking logically if you’re using fallacies. You’re talking about FORCING SOMEONE TO THINK? You are just as bad as them.
If you’re going to sex shame them
Where did the person that you respond to do this? You’ve claimed this in a few comments, but people aren’t doing what your think is being done.
People are attacking her for having bisexual threesoms. That’s a shitty thing to do. Let her have all the sex she wants with whoever she wants, it’s none of our business.
She made it our business when she decided to try and control what others do in their bedroom.
CileTheSanePeople are attacking her for having bisexual threesoms
People are attacking her for being a hypocrite. “Rules for thee and not for me” is worth pointing out.
The legal investigation started because their +1 partner accused the husband of raping her. Not because of the consensual play. She is only getting roasted for being hypocritical, not for having a girlfriend. And the legal investigation is about the rape, not the consensual sex.
Okay, please tell me do I convince an anti-intellectual logic that they refuse to use? I have tried to with no success.
I do not want my gay friends imprisoned for wanting to be happy, I do not want my trans friends lynched for being able to look at themselves in the mirror. How do you propose I convince those that do through logic alone, when these people are only willing to consider emotional/illogical arguments?
I don’t care about arguing, I care about solutions, what are your solutions to this discrimination we both hate?
You’re talking sheer pregmatics here? Awesome, now you’re speaking my language.
Celebrate her relationship. Turn her into a gay folk hero for hooking up with women despite the upbringing / programming.
Such a solution could actually work (the example of a Republican finding no controversial stuff in her school’s curriculum comes to mind), however the problem is it would require the person involved to disassociate with there (presumably anti-gay) friends and family and be accepted by her former “enemies”, which would be especially hard if they had a public facing role. They possibly may even have to reject a emotionally driven worldview/ideology they may have adopted, which is quite difficult.
You don’t have to consent to becoming a gay folk hero.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HimToo_movement
#HimToo became connected with rape allegations … when a mother in the United States tweeted about her son with the #HimToo hashtag. She claimed that her son, Pieter Hanson, was afraid to go on dates because of false rape allegations. Hanson himself disavowed his mother’s tweet, saying that … he never has and never will support #HimToo.
For better or worse, past evidence suggests people can’t be heroized against there will until they are dead (as was the case for the anti-nillist philosopher Nietzsche)
I don’t think it’s an ad hominem when you’re making/influencing legal policies and then violating those rules yourself.
You just defined ad hominem in the same sentence you said it’s not.
If they are making bad policy, then focus on that because it’s bad. Not because the individual doesn’t actually follow it.
If they are making bad policy, then focus on that because it’s bad
People are and have been.
Not because the individual doesn’t actually follow it
When the individual is ignoring any arguments on the basis of an Appeal to Authority “Everyone knows this is wrong” then it’s valid to point out “Then why are you doing it?”
No it’s not valid. That’s litterally the tu quoque fallacy a form of ad hominem.
None of this is an argument for Homosexuality being wrong or right. If people were saying “she’s having sex with women so sex with women must be okay” then it would be a tu quoque fallacy.
People are pointing out that shes a huge fucking hypocrite. Hypocrisy by itself isn’t an argument for or against anything, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth calling out.
This isn’t a debate. Gloves are off.
I’m not saying it’s a debate, just be the change you want to be. If we sex shame them, we’re saying they’re right to be doing the same.
Try being the change you want to see. Celebrate their relationship.
Decrying hypocrisy is not the same as decrying the behavior they’re being hypocritical about.
So you’re saying she should not be having bisexual threesomes? I think that’s fucked up, let her have whatever adult sex she wants.
I’m not sure how I can be more clear. Keep banging that drum, but it has nothing to do with what I said.
Tristan Schorn@curiousaur @jeffw What kind of take is this? That those who would propose the rules for society should themselves be immune from those same rules?
Her entire argument is an appeal to morality. “Gay is bad because it’s immoral.” So when she is then engaging in this ‘immoral’ activity it is relevant: “Even you don’t believe it’s actually immoral, which is your entire argument.”
That’s a fallacy. If I say it’s bad to kill people, then I kill someone, was I wrong when I said it’s bad?
What someone does is separate from the validity of what they say.
If you say it’s bad to kill people, then kill someone, I’m not going to put you in charge of a group with the express purpose of preventing people getting killed. If you found such a group I am going to question their ethics.