4 ms·

6. Dan doesn't understand or empathize with Bob that while Bob may or may not approve just one aspect of a politician but that believes Pence is better than 'x'

6. Dan doesn't understand or empathize with Bob that while Bob may or may not approve just one aspect of a politician but that believes Pence is better than 'x' and thus is also a bigot.

mch82 10y ago
I think that's where we disagree. Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay. Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana. Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government. It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?
  - mch82 10y ago
    Maybe, can you put your example in context?
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Bob doesn't want to be drafted into a war with Russia, say.
      - mch82 10y ago
        I'm pretty sure if you said to someone that you were worried a vote for Clinton is a vote for war with Russia then that person would understand what you meant. A person might disagree with you, but a person is not going to worry you feel the way you do because of their skin color or religion. Does that distinction make sense?
- masondixon 10y ago
  So if the other candidate was Hitler (and happened to support homosexuals in the military)...Bob is a bigot unless he supports Hitler. Taking the extreme positions in a logical argument help to reveal the inconsistencies. Its all about what each party prioritises. The liberals prioritised certain things above all else. Its a very principaled yet emotional approach.

6. Dan doesn't understand or empathize with Bob that while Bob may or may not approve just one aspect of a politician but that believes Pence is better than 'x' and thus is also a bigot.

mch82 10y ago

I think that's where we disagree. Given, Dan can't change the fact he's gay. Given, Mike Pence has formally expressed that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service" and signed into law legislation allowing businesses in Indiana to kick out gay customers when he was governor of Indiana. Given, Mike Pence's party controls the Congress, Executive, and Legislative branches of government. It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote for Pence and who don't want to be seen as racist, because it sure looks racist.

Chris2048 10y ago
> It follows it is likely harmful to homosexual people to elect Mike Pence. And the burden for explaining why that risk is okay falls on the people who vote If an establishment candidate like Hillary is seen as harmful to Bob, is there a burden on Dan to explain why the risk of voting for her is Ok?
- mch82 10y ago
  Maybe, can you put your example in context?
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Bob doesn't want to be drafted into a war with Russia, say.
    - mch82 10y ago
      I'm pretty sure if you said to someone that you were worried a vote for Clinton is a vote for war with Russia then that person would understand what you meant. A person might disagree with you, but a person is not going to worry you feel the way you do because of their skin color or religion. Does that distinction make sense?
masondixon 10y ago
So if the other candidate was Hitler (and happened to support homosexuals in the military)...Bob is a bigot unless he supports Hitler. Taking the extreme positions in a logical argument help to reveal the inconsistencies. Its all about what each party prioritises. The liberals prioritised certain things above all else. Its a very principaled yet emotional approach.