6 ms·

It’s not a moral comparison, it’s recognizing that both could lead to situations where the person in question could prize the propriety of said facts above hone

It’s not a moral comparison, it’s recognizing that both could lead to situations where the person in question could prize the propriety of said facts above honest execution of their duties. People in debt aren’t morally bad either, but the same can be said of them as well.

slg 8y ago
And the same would apply to a political official who refuses to disclose their financial obligations to foreign powers. Except OP didn't call out an individual like that. They didn't call out someone who has substantial debt. They didn't even leave it as "anyone with a secret shouldn't run for political office". They singled out two and only two groups of people and equated them together as both being unfit for political office. Bucketing LGBTQ individuals in with people who have a moral strike against them is one of the many reasons why some feel pressured into staying in the closet.
- travmatt 8y ago
  You’re attempting to move the goalposts. Nobody bucketed LGBTQ people with them, OP specifically said closeted LGBTQ people, meaning those those people for whom forced disclosure of their orientation could potentially form a basis of leverage. To make it perfectly clear, the issue is not their sexuality, it is private information about them and the lengths they may be coerced into going to maintain that privacy. As another commenter said, any secret that a person values would be at issue.
  - slg 8y ago
    I am not moving the goalposts and I am not even disagreeing with OP's underlying point. I am simply calling them out for their language. I wouldn't have said anything if their original comment said "any secret that a person values would be at issue". Instead they listed only two groups of people and didn't even hint at that list being incomplete. People are always going to have affairs, go into debt, or have secrets they want to keep private. But people don't always have to feel shame in revealing their identity or orientation. That is simply a societal problem and one step to fix it is to be more mindful of the language we use.
    - travmatt 8y ago
      It could also occur in the instance that a person is of a different religion then their community, or a person who eats meat in a community of vegans, but we don’t enumerate every possible situation in which leverage over other may be obtained. Failure to enumerate every possible instance as opposed to just mentioning the most common instances isn’t intended to slander anyone.
      - slg 8y ago
        You are still missing the point. The problem was not the idea. The problem was the way that idea was communicated. The problem was not that every potential group was not listed. The problem was that only two groups were listed. The problem was that there was nothing to even insinuate that the same argument applies to anyone outside of those two groups. The problem was that someone readying the original argument can interpret it as belief that closeted LGBTQ people should not hold political office due to some personal flaw. I never would have commented if OP listed more groups to make their reasoning more clear or said their list was not all encompassing.
        geezerjay 8y ago
        > You are still missing the point. The problem was not the idea. The problem was the way that idea was communicated. No, the problem is that you are trying to misrepresent what was actually said and in the process using your misunderstanding to fuel your baseless outrage and moral tirade.
        jplayer01 8y ago
        > if you're closeted non-hetero sexually The only way to misinterpret this is if you want to.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Bucketing LGBTQ individuals in with people who have a moral strike against them Your reading compeehension skills are failing you, or you're desperate to be outraged for having read something no one wrote. I suggest you read parent's comment again to try to understand what was actually said and to acknowledge the real point that was made, and subsequently apologize for the silly insinuations.

slg 8y ago

And the same would apply to a political official who refuses to disclose their financial obligations to foreign powers. Except OP didn't call out an individual like that. They didn't call out someone who has substantial debt. They didn't even leave it as "anyone with a secret shouldn't run for political office". They singled out two and only two groups of people and equated them together as both being unfit for political office. Bucketing LGBTQ individuals in with people who have a moral strike against them is one of the many reasons why some feel pressured into staying in the closet.

travmatt 8y ago
You’re attempting to move the goalposts. Nobody bucketed LGBTQ people with them, OP specifically said closeted LGBTQ people, meaning those those people for whom forced disclosure of their orientation could potentially form a basis of leverage. To make it perfectly clear, the issue is not their sexuality, it is private information about them and the lengths they may be coerced into going to maintain that privacy. As another commenter said, any secret that a person values would be at issue.
- slg 8y ago
  I am not moving the goalposts and I am not even disagreeing with OP's underlying point. I am simply calling them out for their language. I wouldn't have said anything if their original comment said "any secret that a person values would be at issue". Instead they listed only two groups of people and didn't even hint at that list being incomplete. People are always going to have affairs, go into debt, or have secrets they want to keep private. But people don't always have to feel shame in revealing their identity or orientation. That is simply a societal problem and one step to fix it is to be more mindful of the language we use.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    It could also occur in the instance that a person is of a different religion then their community, or a person who eats meat in a community of vegans, but we don’t enumerate every possible situation in which leverage over other may be obtained. Failure to enumerate every possible instance as opposed to just mentioning the most common instances isn’t intended to slander anyone.
    - slg 8y ago
      You are still missing the point. The problem was not the idea. The problem was the way that idea was communicated. The problem was not that every potential group was not listed. The problem was that only two groups were listed. The problem was that there was nothing to even insinuate that the same argument applies to anyone outside of those two groups. The problem was that someone readying the original argument can interpret it as belief that closeted LGBTQ people should not hold political office due to some personal flaw. I never would have commented if OP listed more groups to make their reasoning more clear or said their list was not all encompassing.
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        > You are still missing the point. The problem was not the idea. The problem was the way that idea was communicated. No, the problem is that you are trying to misrepresent what was actually said and in the process using your misunderstanding to fuel your baseless outrage and moral tirade.
      - jplayer01 8y ago
        > if you're closeted non-hetero sexually The only way to misinterpret this is if you want to.
geezerjay 8y ago
> Bucketing LGBTQ individuals in with people who have a moral strike against them Your reading compeehension skills are failing you, or you're desperate to be outraged for having read something no one wrote. I suggest you read parent's comment again to try to understand what was actually said and to acknowledge the real point that was made, and subsequently apologize for the silly insinuations.