If DeSantis wins

[tstorm823]

I'll answer them as soon as you answer mine.

My questions were the answer to yours. I'll answer them for you.

a) People's ethnicity is determined by their parents ethnicity. There is a causal piece of information we can point at entirely outside of a person to determine their ethnicity.
b) Sexuality has no such piece of information. People can speculate all they want about gay genes or hormones in the uterus or whatever they want, someone could fit into all of those things and not be gay or fit none of them and still be gay.

These are not the same thing.

Which is entirely due to your Motte of "gay people living in places where they're at great risk of dying are doing so because they sexually crave danger and choose to be" initial argument, yeah.

Just say that was wrong, bro.

You put those words in quotation marks, but I never said those words. I said:

" Not only do I believe that is the case, I also think you may be listing the causes for some people. Have you seen the frequently illegal other sexual things people choose to do in our countries? Some people are actively attracted to the risk. "

If you want to dispute that, go ahead and dispute that. I'm not backing off that claim, it's completely accurate. People do illegal sexual acts everywhere, things that if they are caught, their life is effectively, if not literally, over. The question posed to me was whether I could seriously say someone would choose to be gay in places with severe consequences, the logic being that nobody would ever choose to experience that, but people all over the world choose to commit actually heinous acts that genuinely earn similar consequences, and I don't think anyone here is going to say "nobody would ever choose to be a sex offender, so they must not have had a choice."

 

[Silvanus]

My questions were the answer to yours.

None of that answers my question.

You're pretending that merely treating a characteristic as being unrelated to choice is, in itself, treating those people as "a monolith".

Whatever your justification is for why you consider X a choice and Y not a choice is irrelevant to that question.

 

[Silvanus]

People do illegal sexual acts everywhere, things that if they are caught, their life is effectively, if not literally, over. The question posed to me was whether I could seriously say someone would choose to be gay in places with severe consequences, the logic being that nobody would ever choose to experience that, but people all over the world choose to commit actually heinous acts that genuinely earn similar consequences, and I don't think anyone here is going to say "nobody would ever choose to be a sex offender, so they must not have had a choice."

Underlining mine, because there's a subtle rewrite you're making to the conversation here.

The original question referred to "people". As in, "people are still gay in these repressive situations", and asking you whether you believe they're still choosing it despite zero expedience and lethal risk. That question obviously concerns a wide community of people.

You've shifted to talking about whether its conceivable that someone would do it, and implying that whenever someone disputes the reason, they're therefore denying that anyone would do it. But what serves as an explanation for extreme outliers and individuals doesn't serve as an explanation for a wide community and phenomenon.

For example: Imagine two people were arguing about disability. X says people who've lost a leg choose it. Y says they don't choose it, and part of Y's argument is that it's overwhelmingly a drawback and barrier in life. People (generally) obviously wouldn't choose that.

X then responds: "A few people have self-mutilation fetishes. You said nobody would ever choose it, but that's not true!"

....Except that's a nonsense reply. Because outliers do not provide an explanation for the wider community, and the original statement didn't insinuate (for any reasonable reader) that not a single person in any circumstance would choose it.

 

[tstorm823]

None of that answers my question.

You're pretending that merely treating a characteristic as being unrelated to choice is, in itself, treating those people as "a monolith".

Whatever your justification is for why you consider X a choice and Y not a choice is irrelevant to that question.

If there is a single unified reason a person is a thing, it is correct to treat all people who are that thing as though they share a single unified reason for being so, regardless of whether that reason is a choice or not a choice.

....Except that's a nonsense reply. Because outliers do not provide an explanation for the wider community, and the original statement didn't insinuate (for any reasonable reader) that not a single person in any circumstance would choose it.

Reminder of what I said, underlining mine:
Me: " I also think you may be listing the causes for some people."

I had many explicit qualifiers indicating the limited scope of what I was saying, but you reacted without acknowledgment to them, and are still behaving as though I said something heinous about gay people in general. That reaction reinforces the idea that you meant to say nobody would ever make that choice, if you're getting upset at the idea that anyone could.

Let me put it this way: if no reasonable person would read your posts and conclude that you think nobody would choose to be gay in those circumstances, why did you not say "what about everyone else" instead of being upset at the suggestion that anyone would make that choice for a reason you don't like?

 

[Silvanus]

If there is a single unified reason a person is a thing, it is correct to treat all people who are that thing as though they share a single unified reason for being so, regardless of whether that reason is a choice or not a choice.

And that's equivalent to treating them as "a monolith"? Don't shy away from the words you used before.

Because let's be honest: you said I was "treating people as a monolith" to imply my position was insulting.

Reminder of what I said, underlining mine:
Me: " I also think you may be listing the causes for some people."

I had many explicit qualifiers indicating the limited scope of what I was saying, but you reacted without acknowledgment to them, and are still behaving as though I said something heinous about gay people in general. That reaction reinforces the idea that you meant to say nobody would ever make that choice, if you're getting upset at the idea that anyone could.

Yes, I'm well aware that you made the shift to talking about outlier individuals in your first reply. My point from then has been that that's an insufficient and insulting reply to a post that was not about outlier individuals, but rather people in general.

Let me put it this way: if no reasonable person would read your posts and conclude that you think nobody would choose to be gay in those circumstances, why did you not say "what about everyone else" instead of being upset at the suggestion that anyone would make that choice for a reason you don't like?

Because if you respond to a question about people in general by pointing to extreme outlier fetishes, it's demonstrative of your attitude towards those people in general.

Just like if someone opined that people who lost a limb did so out of choice, and then pointed to mutilation fetishists as their example, I would consider that indicative that the speaker has a contemptuous, victim-blaming attitude towards amputees in general, rather than just mutely responding "ah but what about the others? I know you're only talking about a few when you say that".

 

[tstorm823]

Because let's be honest: you said I was "treating people as a monolith" to imply my position was insulting.

It's not that it's insulting, it's that it's lacking in nuance in a way that makes it obviously untrue.

Because if you respond to a question about people in general by pointing to extreme outlier fetishes, it's demonstrative of your attitude towards those people in general.

Disagree. I think it's an undeniable example of the type of thing you're not accounting for. I'm never gonna convince you of anything if you can't recognize the things that you're not considering.

 

[Cheetodust]

The dude whose kink is lights off, shirts on, no female orgasms allowed is lecturing on fetishes? Cool.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The dude whose kink is lights off, shirts on, no female orgasms allowed is lecturing on fetishes? Cool.

And if you're thinking about anything other than making new soldiers for God then you're going to Hell.

 

[Silvanus]

It's not that it's insulting, it's that it's lacking in nuance in a way that makes it obviously untrue.

(Putting aside that you did indeed earlier imply it was insulting, because I really don't have the time to track down every little shifted goalpost).

There's no greater "nuance" involved in ascribing something to choice than to saying it ain't up to choice. There are no "nuances" that are overlooked if something isn't a choice.

Disagree. I think it's an undeniable example of the type of thing you're not accounting for. I'm never gonna convince you of anything if you can't recognize the things that you're not considering.

OK, so here's a question: how, exactly, does my position "not account for" such people? Where is the explanatory gap caused by the existence of such people? The fact that some people are sexually excited by danger... is a fact that can exist just as easily in a world where orientation is not a choice. That phenomenon doesn't prove anything about either of our positions.

My position only "wouldn't account" for them if you could actually demonstrate that people have indeed chosen their orientation for such a reason, or that such fetishes have prompted people to make such a decision. But you can't-- that step is speculation on your part. So there's no "failure to account" for them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Robert Atkins died twenty (20) years ago, he's not a top advocate for anything

But his diet is obviously right wing somehow...

I would point out that I dont think Antivaxxers fit neatly into Left/Right spheres of influence. But, as Rogan has noted himself, he gravitates to Right Wingers and has trouble actually questioning them as he does those on the Left

What has Rogan said that's actually right-wing (just right or conservative isn't right-wing)? The left has recently gone rather crazy with several things so tons of people that are now magically right-wing when they really haven't changed much, and Rogan (from clicking on an occasion JRE 5min clip on Youtube like once or twice a month) seems like he's basically the following meme.

 

[Silvanus]

The left has recently gone rather crazy with several things so tons of people that are now magically right-wing when they really haven't changed much

Go on then, let's have some examples.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

But his diet is obviously right wing somehow...

This is my semi-annual questioning of if your first language is english?

 

[tstorm823]

Where is the explanatory gap caused by the existence of such people?

Your argument is literally one giant explanatory gap. If we want to get debate-y about it, all you've actually done is an argument from incredulity. If you can't easily imagine something being the truth, it's therefore false, which is a logical fallacy. You then moved to the most extreme example to try and make it as difficult as possible for me to imagine what I said being true, so I presented what should have been an easily understandable possible way for it to be true in that circumstance.

Every explanation I've given, even the most speculative ones, is strictly more explanation than you've given, because your argument is simply "I can't imagine that being true."

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Your argument is literally one giant explanatory gap. If we want to get debate-y about it, all you've actually done is an argument from incredulity. If you can't easily imagine something being the truth, it's therefore false, which is a logical fallacy. You then moved to the most extreme example to try and make it as difficult as possible for me to imagine what I said being true, so I presented what should have been an easily understandable possible way for it to be true in that circumstance.

Every explanation I've given, even the most speculative ones, is strictly more explanation than you've given, because your argument is simply "I can't imagine that being true."

There's a difference between explanation and speculation.

But sure: everybody who's gay in parts of the world that will persecute or kill then for it is just unbelievably horny for danger. It's the only explanation you have, so it must be true

Just like sex offenders!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

For anybody keeping track:

1. One specific person, who is a woman.
2. I have certainly done things voluntarily to lock those feelings in. I am not incapable of imagining a relationship with a man.

This is you, being bi and monogamous

Have you read the replies to me here?

This is you, being aggrieved that people are reacting badly to your Motte as part of your Bailey

 

[Cheetodust]

And if you're thinking about anything other than making new soldiers for God then you're going to Hell.

I hate to kink shame, but his kink is shame. So I'm helping?

 

[Silvanus]

Your argument is literally one giant explanatory gap. If we want to get debate-y about it [...]

No, don't shift the conversation. You said I "don't account for" their existence. How does my explanation have no space for the existence of danger fetishists? They still exist just as easily in the context of my explanation as yours.

all you've actually done is an argument from incredulity. If you can't easily imagine something being the truth, it's therefore false, which is a logical fallacy.

My argument comes from the testimony of the community itself, direct personal experience of exactly the phenomenon we're talking about, and the fact that expedience is an obviously insufficient explanation for why millions of people would choose something when it's overwhelmingly inexpedient.

You then moved to the most extreme example to try and make it as difficult as possible for me to imagine what I said being true, so I presented what should have been an easily understandable possible way for it to be true in that circumstance.

The 'extreme example' I cited, gay people still existing in repressive societies, covers millions upon millions of people. Whereas your "possible way" to account for it covers... an infinitesimally tiny fraction of outlier fetishists.

Every explanation I've given, even the most speculative ones, is strictly more explanation than you've given, because your argument is simply "I can't imagine that being true."

Firstly: your explanation has /all been pure speculation/.

Secondly: you are speculating that people have made decisions when those people are overwhelmingly telling you they haven't. Pointing out that relevant testimony overwhelmingly contradicts your speculation is an argument from relevant experience. It's a lot more than incredulity.

Thirdly: so far, your sole reason for dismissing the possibility its not a choice has been the accusation of "treating people like a monolith", which boils down to incredulity. Except in your case, you're incredulous about the testimony of people with relevant experience, whereas I'm incredulous about.... uhrm, some guy without any experience ascribing decisions to me personally.

 

[Ag3ma]

What has Rogan said that's actually right-wing (just right or conservative isn't right-wing)? The left has recently gone rather crazy with several things so tons of people that are now magically right-wing when they really haven't changed much, and Rogan (from clicking on an occasion JRE 5min clip on Youtube like once or twice a month) seems like he's basically the following meme.

Joe Rogan has said plenty of things that are right wing. At the most basic level he has self-described himself as "libertarian", which contextually is right wing on many issues. He's also said and done a load of stuff that isn't right-wing. I would suggest that Joe Rogan is perhaps not readily classifiable on a simple, linear political scale (actually, many aren't). Not least because he doesn't seem to strongly hold a lot of opinions, frequently admitting he's been wrong in the past.

The "left" is a lot more than "woke progressives". I would suggest that "woke progressives" tend to be heavy in the educated middle class and elites who have outsize media influence. In reality, a lot of left-wingers (like, inclined towards socialism) are significantly more socially conservative, but they tend to be relatively ignored by the media environment. One might point out that the success of the far right is often through appealing to some of these voters with forms of social conservatism, nationalism and so on that they don't feel they get from "woke progressives".

 

[Trunkage]

What has Rogan said that's actually right-wing (just right or conservative isn't right-wing)? The left has recently gone rather crazy with several things so tons of people that are now magically right-wing when they really haven't changed much, and Rogan (from clicking on an occasion JRE 5min clip on Youtube like once or twice a month) seems like he's basically the following meme.
View attachment 8736

Maybe you want to reread what I wrote. I was talking about what ROGAN stated about himself. HE stated that he had a bias and was picking right-wing people to interview

But his diet is obviously right wing somehow...

His diet? No, his diet wasn't obviously right wing. Obviously, a bunch of right wingers decided to make an identity out of following the Atkins diet. It's like Pepe the frog. A bunch of racist decided to use it to own the libs and now they are linked

 

[Trunkage]

Joe Rogan has said plenty of things that are right wing. At the most basic level he has self-described himself as "libertarian", which contextually is right wing on many issues. He's also said and done a load of stuff that isn't right-wing. I would suggest that Joe Rogan is perhaps not readily classifiable on a simple, linear political scale (actually, many aren't). Not least because he doesn't seem to strongly hold a lot of opinions, frequently admitting he's been wrong in the past.

The "left" is a lot more than "woke progressives". I would suggest that "woke progressives" tend to be heavy in the educated middle class and elites who have outsize media influence. In reality, a lot of left-wingers (like, inclined towards socialism) are significantly more socially conservative, but they tend to be relatively ignored by the media environment. One might point out that the success of the far right is often through appealing to some of these voters with forms of social conservatism, nationalism and so on that they don't feel they get from "woke progressives".

I would also call woke corporations who pretend to care about social issues. With the addendum that this woke is way better than when corporations were against things like gay people and the civil rights movement

Also, an actual left-wing speaker is far more likely to be uninvited from a university. This has been normal for centuries. Just because it starts happening to conservatives as well, does not mean it hasn't happened to actual lefties

Anyway, woke current definition is now are far cry from its roots in the BLM movement in 2012.