5 ms·
It is related to that culture war. We both accept a man can become a woman so all those things are ok for the transexual debate. If we don't accept a box of c
by narrator 4y ago
It is related to that culture war. We both accept a man can become a woman so all those things are ok for the transexual debate. If we don't accept a box of chips and plastic is a human, or my purely imaginary friends are people then it's not ok to follow that reasoning. That's the point I'm trying to make in its essence.
That you are confused by this argument means that you will accept anything as long as it has the right form and presentation. Nazis were anti-smoking. That I am anti-smoking does not mean I'm a Nazi, but you could make that argument with your reasoning because it has a similar form and presentation. The advocate of robots rights will say that opposition to it has a similar form and presentation as the opposition to trans rights in the past. Thus, will you support robot rights, because not doing so is similar in form, like your nazi salute analogy to opposing trans rights? This is the weakness in arguing by analogy.
- bowsamic 4y agoUsing the term “transsexual” is even more concerning. Are you anti trans? It’s difficult to read this as anything other than an indirect attack on trans people
- narrator 4y agoYou didn't read my previous post. I am not up to date on the latest words, but I'm fine with a person being able to change their gender. I am just blown away by the defectiveness of your reasoning process though. Speaking of which. Using the term “robot” instead of "non-biological person" is even more concerning to me. Are you anti robots? It’s difficult to read this as anything other than an indirect attack on robot persons. I can only assume you are a hateful awful person because you refuse to recognize that robots are people. Denying that robots are people is similar to all the racists who denied that all races are equal. /s <--- That tag means the last paragraph was sarcastic reducto ad absurdium because you are really hard to get a point across to. Besides, you want to figure out what my political beliefs are in another area to decide if you should be pro or anti-robot. This is how the modern world works. Nobody examines the argument, they just want to know what your other beliefs are before they decide to agree. I recently had a discussion about the California propositions with people who I consider highly intelligent. Disappointingly, They did not care to read and discuss the actual propositions, they only wanted to know who was supporting or more importantly, who was AGAINST the propositions and funding the propositions and that's the only thing that mattered. Nobody can come to their own understanding of a matter, they had to rely on authority or analogizing it often very poorly with something else.
- bowsamic 4y agoI’m not really interested in the robot thing, I’m more interested if this is a thinly veiled attempt at transphobia, as it seems to be
- Handytinge 4y agoI don't think so. GP is simply making intentionally over the top comparisons to show a potential timeline of how this could go. The obvious absurdity of the comparison is not "transphobic" (whatever thst vague term means), and could have been any over the top comparison, they simply picked a topical one. If this were slashdot, I'd be giving it a funny/insightful.