In 40 years when eating meat is outlawed, your grandchildren will abandon you because of your heinous actions. In minecraft.The choice to be a hateful bigot doesn't take away others' rights to free association, amigo.
Biden v. Trump Election Mega Thread
- Thread starter Shadyside
- Start date
- Status
Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Though you seem to have missed the point. If in 40 years I make the choice that eating meat is worth more to me than my grandchildren's company, I deserve to be abandoned by them.
I mean, this is all ignoring the fact that you've compared sexism, racism, xenophobia, and general bigotry to eating meat of all things...
Abortion was universally illegal 50 years ago in the states. Xenophobia was fine and dandy - The immigration act was only repealed in 1965. Fair labor laws for women - signed in '63. Your grandparents were from that era, no? Maybe a little later in time.
Take some perspective. In 40 years there could be a massive right-wing swing and all of the things that you see now would be immoral and illegal. In 40 years eating meat could be illegal as well.
I'm afraid of the backlash if Republicans win 2020.
That kind of sounds like "If my son makes the choice that being gay is worth more to him than to his family, then he deserves to be abandoned by us."
That was intentional. The hypothetical parents are "homophobes", they don't care.
Merriam-Webster dictionary updates 'sexual preference' entry after Amy Coney Barrett hearing
Merriam-Webster added the word "offensive" to its usage guidance of "preference" and "sexual preference" when referring to sexual orientation.
www.usatoday.com
The point is: choosing to eat meat =/= not being able to choose a sexual orientation.
The comparison doesn't hold water.
Would it be a better comparison if the hypothetical parents had said "If my son makes the choice that having sex with another man is worth more to him than to his family, then he deserves to be abandoned by us"?
That way it's not about "being", it's about "doing"
Oh sunshine, no it wouldn't. God bless you for trying though.
And why not?
I don't know if you've noticed, but this is a forum, not twitter. Forums are not limited to 140 characters. You can do more than post witty one-liners. You can explain your point of view and go into detail. You can have discussions.
I really would like to have a discussion with you, but your posting style seems to consist only of posting one-liners or gifs and then disappearing for several days.
Last edited:
Short answer:
No one wants to give your nonsense comparing sexual orientation to being a vegetarian any legitimacy by actually seriously engaging with it.
Long answer is basically the same, but with a selection of colourful descriptors aimed towards you.
Y'know, I'm starting to think that understanding analogies is a skill that few people actually have.
Iron's point that avnger seemed to disagree with was: "Not everyone who gets "disowned" deserves it, or is a bigot". He gave many examples of how morals change over time. The hypothetical example of disowning someone over eating meat was one of them.
Now what comes to mind when you think of parents disowning children? Homosexuality.
Do we agree with parents who disown their children because they come out as gay? No, we don't. We recognize that this is an unreasonable response.
So we have established that not everybody who gets disowned deserves it, or is a bigot.
That's the point. Not everybody who gets disowned is automatically a bigot. Sometimes the people doing the disowning are the bigots. Sometimes the thing they are getting disowned over is not even wrong.
Now was that insulting? Was that bigoted? Did I make any sort of delegitimizing arguments against homosexuality? Have I offended anyone?
No, it was a perfectly fine analogy and you just didn't get it.
It could be argued that claiming homosex is a choice is in itself somewhat of an insult, as I have mentioned earlier.
Your persistence is admirable. Do you enjoy smacking your head against a brick wall around here? That's how I feel around here.
I didn't claim that.
That's what the hypothetical bigoted parents claimed. They're SUPPOSED to be the bad guys here.
If you're offended by what those hypothetical parents said, well good, you should be. And this should also make it clear that sometimes, those who disown are the bigots.
But to say to me, "HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH A COMPARISON!" is to completely miss the point.
I believe that nearly everyone can learn. I do not believe in "brick walls" when it comes to people.
Last edited:
Does this look like a green-water fleet to you?
List of ships of the People's Liberation Army Navy - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And I never mentioned 2020 or 2035, I mentioned 2050.
Zero is my answer as well, but with new DEWs or directed energy weapons, and advancements in tech. We should be able to be safe from PLA missiles with a future ABM system. And I did mention a next-generation anti-submarine weapon in my posts.
Also, Patriot means PAC-3 a short-range SAM system.
What, you can guarantee to intercept 100% of enemy missiles? And these anti-submarine missiles are going to destroy all Chinese submarines before they can launch? That seems optimistic.
I know what Patriot is, it's that thing they built in the 80s that failed to adaquately deal with Iraqi Scuds fired at Israel in the first Gulf War. Not saying it's useless, but it's not on the list of things to guarantee no missiles at all get through.
Not right now, but we can make progress on making a nuclear-free world, with no CCP dictatorship in China as well.
- Status