I would imagine the conversation around it would end up quite unconstructive. Many find this a deeply emotional issue, and I think it needs to be both supporte

I would imagine the conversation around it would end up quite unconstructive. Many find this a deeply emotional issue, and I think it needs to be both supported and challenged in the logical realm. Julius Caesar's paraphrased defense of Catiline comes to mind here: > Chosen fathers of the Senate, all men who decide on difficult issues ought to free themselves from the influence of hatred, friendship, anger and pity. For when these intervene the mind cannot readily judge the truth, and no one has ever served his emotions and his best interests simultaneously. When you set your mind to a task, it prevails; if passion holds sway, it consumes you, and the mind can do nothing. A rebuttal that says: I disagree, whomever supports this is {a pig} supports the author's ideas around suppression of discussion while doing nothing to dissuade less passionate readers. I call this "The Trump Problem": people should be able to present their opinions and discuss them toward perhaps a better conclusion. Right now, dissenters of the popular opinion seem to either choose to be silent or get "backed into a corner and strive to justify themselves" (As Dale Carnegie has mentioned). A deeper analysis of the Manifesto on junk-v-decent arguments would be useful for everyone, even if you think the entire document is crap.