3 ms·

> given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking ques

by svrb 6y ago

> given that you appear to identify as part of "the right". What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint. > To suggest such a thing is closed minded. First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims. It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth? ---- I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response: You: > inherent in an outgroup What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. You: > To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said? Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace. --- I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.

joshuamorton 6y ago
I've already said there is nothing inherent in an outgroup that makes someone morally bad. Repeating that assertion doesn't make it anymore true. Repeating it while accusing me of misinterpreting you is ironic. You seem to be redefining terms at random. You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left, but you only recently added that qualifier. Changing your argument mid-conversation and then accusing me of misunderstanding you is, shall we say, bad manners. The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. This makes the right intolerant. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. That's the entire argument. Everything else you're saying is distraction. Note that "outgroup" never appears in this argument. The relationship between outgroups and morality was your invention. > First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. It follows from the definitions. To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. > What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Because you take attacks on the right personally, and intentionally misinterpret arguments that you feel pain the right negatively or paint the right well.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
joshuamorton 6y ago
> You: > inherent in an outgroup > What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup Yes, when I said "this argument is closed minded", I wasn't talking about LGBT people. I was talking about your generic argument. (This is obvious from the context, since when I originally stated it, I stated "there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup.", note no mention of any specific outgroup. But for the specific example of LGBT people, I had previously noted that I did consider LGBT people to be an outgroup due to their minority status, and took objection solely and specifically to your equivocation between out-group-ness and wrongness). Note that, more than once, you draw an equivalence between outgroup and morally wrong. I'll quote you doing it twice: "other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group", "something inherently out-group...something inherently wrong". That's twice where you write the same phrase substituting "out-group" for "[morally] wrong". I can draw no other conclusion than that you consider being an out-group to be equivalent to being morally wrong. This is a prejudiced view, and I stand by this claim. Note once again that the specific example is irrelevant. Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is closed minded. > You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left > What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. To clarify: I'm not suggesting, and did not ever suggest that you claimed that the left was discriminatory toward LGBT people, nor that LGBT people were an outgroup of the left. I claim that you did not originally qualify your statement as the LGBT community being an outgroup specifically of the left, and only began to later. (I should note that this too is obvious from the context, since I included the words "the qualifier", which you removed when you quoted me, and I italicized the qualifier "of the left" when I quoted you, making it clear what I was referring to) The broader context here is that I'm claiming that the left defends LGBT rights, despite the LGBT community being an outgroup. It appears that you might claim something like the LGBT community isn't an outgroup of the left (but this is an essentially circular argument), so this is not showing open-mindedness. I wanted to avoid any such classes of arguments so pointed out this semantic shift early. You instead just didn't address the arguments I made at all. > What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT I never said you did. To reiterate: Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is prejudiced. The specific example doesn't matter. The line of reasoning is inherently closed-minded. It ascribes moral failings to the other solely by virtue of them being other. And one again, you introduced this equivalence with your comparisons between outgroup-ness and moral-wrong-ness: "the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group" Please don't accuse me of lying again. I did not, and I have not. And just for good measure, I'll once again present you the argument I've made, in its entirety, that you've still failed to address: The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Feel free to ignore everything in my post except that argument and chalk it up to one big misunderstanding. But please address that 3 sentence argument, because it demonstrates, quite concretely, the lack of open-mindedness on the right.

by svrb 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

I've already said there is nothing inherent in an outgroup that makes someone morally bad. Repeating that assertion doesn't make it anymore true. Repeating it while accusing me of misinterpreting you is ironic. You seem to be redefining terms at random. You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left, but you only recently added that qualifier. Changing your argument mid-conversation and then accusing me of misunderstanding you is, shall we say, bad manners. The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. This makes the right intolerant. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. That's the entire argument. Everything else you're saying is distraction. Note that "outgroup" never appears in this argument. The relationship between outgroups and morality was your invention. > First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. It follows from the definitions. To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded. > What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Because you take attacks on the right personally, and intentionally misinterpret arguments that you feel pain the right negatively or paint the right well.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

joshuamorton 6y ago

> You: > inherent in an outgroup > What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup Yes, when I said "this argument is closed minded", I wasn't talking about LGBT people. I was talking about your generic argument. (This is obvious from the context, since when I originally stated it, I stated "there is nothing morally wrong about being in an outgroup.", note no mention of any specific outgroup. But for the specific example of LGBT people, I had previously noted that I did consider LGBT people to be an outgroup due to their minority status, and took objection solely and specifically to your equivocation between out-group-ness and wrongness). Note that, more than once, you draw an equivalence between outgroup and morally wrong. I'll quote you doing it twice: "other than the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group", "something inherently out-group...something inherently wrong". That's twice where you write the same phrase substituting "out-group" for "[morally] wrong". I can draw no other conclusion than that you consider being an out-group to be equivalent to being morally wrong. This is a prejudiced view, and I stand by this claim. Note once again that the specific example is irrelevant. Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is closed minded. > You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left > What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights. To clarify: I'm not suggesting, and did not ever suggest that you claimed that the left was discriminatory toward LGBT people, nor that LGBT people were an outgroup of the left. I claim that you did not originally qualify your statement as the LGBT community being an outgroup specifically of the left, and only began to later. (I should note that this too is obvious from the context, since I included the words "the qualifier", which you removed when you quoted me, and I italicized the qualifier "of the left" when I quoted you, making it clear what I was referring to) The broader context here is that I'm claiming that the left defends LGBT rights, despite the LGBT community being an outgroup. It appears that you might claim something like the LGBT community isn't an outgroup of the left (but this is an essentially circular argument), so this is not showing open-mindedness. I wanted to avoid any such classes of arguments so pointed out this semantic shift early. You instead just didn't address the arguments I made at all. > What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT I never said you did. To reiterate: Believing a moral failure on someone due to their status as a member of an outgroup is prejudiced. The specific example doesn't matter. The line of reasoning is inherently closed-minded. It ascribes moral failings to the other solely by virtue of them being other. And one again, you introduced this equivalence with your comparisons between outgroup-ness and moral-wrong-ness: "the out-group, i.e., the morally wrong group" Please don't accuse me of lying again. I did not, and I have not. And just for good measure, I'll once again present you the argument I've made, in its entirety, that you've still failed to address: The right considers lgbt people to be morally wrong. The left does not. This makes the right more intolerant than the left. Feel free to ignore everything in my post except that argument and chalk it up to one big misunderstanding. But please address that 3 sentence argument, because it demonstrates, quite concretely, the lack of open-mindedness on the right.