4 ms·

What else denies the right of someone to exist, other than threats to physically mutilate and kill? Do you think the child has a soul separate from the body th

What else denies the right of someone to exist, other than threats to physically mutilate and kill? Do you think the child has a soul separate from the body that the parents won't be able to touch? Do you think the child has a clean innocent soul that's immune to harm?

mpweiher 8y ago
I did not see a threat to kill. The "knife" comment was a crude, terribly crude, reference to a "transitioning" operation. Again, I am not condoning the crude language and possible actions, but among those I don't see "denying the right to exist". Objecting to use of bathrooms is not denying the right to exist.
- jeromebaek 8y ago
  > The "knife" comment was ... reference to a "transitioning" operation Just because you dress up violent language in multisyllabic official-sounding words like "transitioning operation" doesn't mean the violence of the language disappears.
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    >> > The "knife" comment was ... reference to a "transitioning" operation The ellipsis: "crude, terribly crude," If the only way you can make your points is by egregious selective quoting, maybe you should reconsider those points. Anyway, I've already stated that I find the language not just crude but also despicable. While I think it is rather obviously over-the-top hyperbole it could also in my mind (no legal expert) rise to the level of incitement to violence, and of course the language is violent, though not "violence". None of it is "denying the right to exist", which again, does not mean it is not completely wrong and despicable.
    - jeromebaek 8y ago
      The ellipsis doesn't matter, because whatever reservations you may have about the comment, your final verdict is that it is harmless. I don't care whatever reservations you have. They only serve to make your position seem more palatable when in fact what matters isn't your reservations, it's your conclusion. And your conclusion is wrong. Maybe you are misguiding yourself with softening language like "crude, terribly crude" to lead you to a conclusion you realize is wrong, immoral.
      - mpweiher 8y ago
        > your final verdict is that it is harmless. No. My final verdict is that it is not "denying the right to exist". If you can't tell the difference, I really can't help you.
        mcphage 8y ago
        > > your final verdict is that it is harmless. > No. My final verdict is that it is not "denying the right to exist". You disagree that it’s harmless... does that mean you consider such speech harmful? Does it constitute harm?
        mpweiher 8y ago
        Reading comprehension? I disagreed with "your final verdict is that it is harmless" Because my "verdict" was that it is not "denying the right to exist". I also said the language was "despicable" and "crude", all of which I can do without knowing whether or not it is harmful, on which I haven't said anything. See also "So you're saying": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmYvjt5lGX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmYvjt5lGX0
        mcphage 8y ago
        Fair enough, so I’m asking: do you think it is harmless or harmful?

mpweiher 8y ago

I did not see a threat to kill. The "knife" comment was a crude, terribly crude, reference to a "transitioning" operation. Again, I am not condoning the crude language and possible actions, but among those I don't see "denying the right to exist". Objecting to use of bathrooms is not denying the right to exist.

jeromebaek 8y ago
> The "knife" comment was ... reference to a "transitioning" operation Just because you dress up violent language in multisyllabic official-sounding words like "transitioning operation" doesn't mean the violence of the language disappears.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  >> > The "knife" comment was ... reference to a "transitioning" operation The ellipsis: "crude, terribly crude," If the only way you can make your points is by egregious selective quoting, maybe you should reconsider those points. Anyway, I've already stated that I find the language not just crude but also despicable. While I think it is rather obviously over-the-top hyperbole it could also in my mind (no legal expert) rise to the level of incitement to violence, and of course the language is violent, though not "violence". None of it is "denying the right to exist", which again, does not mean it is not completely wrong and despicable.
  - jeromebaek 8y ago
    The ellipsis doesn't matter, because whatever reservations you may have about the comment, your final verdict is that it is harmless. I don't care whatever reservations you have. They only serve to make your position seem more palatable when in fact what matters isn't your reservations, it's your conclusion. And your conclusion is wrong. Maybe you are misguiding yourself with softening language like "crude, terribly crude" to lead you to a conclusion you realize is wrong, immoral.
    - mpweiher 8y ago
      > your final verdict is that it is harmless. No. My final verdict is that it is not "denying the right to exist". If you can't tell the difference, I really can't help you.
      - mcphage 8y ago
        > > your final verdict is that it is harmless. > No. My final verdict is that it is not "denying the right to exist". You disagree that it’s harmless... does that mean you consider such speech harmful? Does it constitute harm?
        mpweiher 8y ago
        Reading comprehension? I disagreed with "your final verdict is that it is harmless" Because my "verdict" was that it is not "denying the right to exist". I also said the language was "despicable" and "crude", all of which I can do without knowing whether or not it is harmful, on which I haven't said anything. See also "So you're saying": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmYvjt5lGX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmYvjt5lGX0
        mcphage 8y ago
        Fair enough, so I’m asking: do you think it is harmless or harmful?