3 ms·
Because if you read the post, the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds, that are only incidentally political to folks who choose to reduce it t
by exogen 8y ago
Because if you read the post, the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds, that are only incidentally political to folks who choose to reduce it to that (like you did). Specific immoral actions are named, not political ideologies. The change is not to protest “ICE under conservative leadership.”
It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other (and could you please not bring it up by the way because it’s rude to talk about politics).
- voidr 8y agoI think we can agree to disagree on this one: I read the article a second time and I still think it's a political move. > the author is clearly making this change on moral grounds To me it looks like he is trying to indirectly force the government to do something he wants. If it would be that clearly immoral, then surely one of the higher courts would have had an opinion on it, unless you are willing to make the argument that he is more qualified than a court. > It’s apparent by now that to many folks, it’s unbelievable that “ICE should not rip toddlers from their families and put them in camps” is something that could be dismissed as just a political opinion valid as any other https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion We can continue this thread forever, let's just agree to end it and move on.