3 ms·

I agree that irrational fear, extreme aversion, discrimination not rooted in sincere religious/moral beliefs, and dislike simply for the sake of dislike should

I agree that irrational fear, extreme aversion, discrimination not rooted in sincere religious/moral beliefs, and dislike simply for the sake of dislike should be incomprehensible. This, however, is compatible with the uncontroversially true belief that disagreement outside of the conditions stated above exists. Obviously, there is absolutely no sense in revising definitions such that they fail to account for the actual use of the terms. So, I get your point.

7952 7y ago
My point was rather that discrimination should be incomprehensible regardless of the moral or religious sincerity. To borrow from Christianity we should love and forgive our neighbor. Or from a secular point of view we should respect the rights and dignity of individuals. Of course that is a somewhat contraversial political opinion. And the way we speak and the words we us is also political motivated. But then why should our use of words or their definitions need to be politically neutral? The uncharitable nature of words can be a feature. And really it is amazing how forgiving society has been of homophobes.