5 ms·

This is a really dumb reasoning. If the "Pro Apples" party voted to ban apples, would that be the metric by which we defined Pro Apples?

krapp 4y ago
It would be more valid than insisting they can't possibly be against apples, despite their blatant anti-apple policies and constant drumbeat of anti-apple propaganda, because that isn't what "Pro Apples" means.
- kevviiinn 4y ago
  I wonder what pro life means. Do they support life that already exists? Oh no, not that life. Just the theoretical life
olliej 4y ago
> If the "Pro Apples" party voted to ban apples, would that be the metric by which we defined Pro Apples? Yes. This already happens: There are people, religions, and political parties who claim to be, and are reported on as, "pro life", yet consistently take the position that life is secondary to their religious beliefs.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  The fact that you do this or others do this does not make it reasonable or authoritatively true. If the conservative party votes for more government control we best not defer to it but rather call them out on it.
  - olliej 4y ago
    The core of every “conservative” political party in the US is that the government gets to choose who is and who is not a person. Who does and does not have bodily autonomy. What specific version of what specific religion is legal, and that if you have those beliefs you can force your beliefs on anyone else, and discriminate against anyone you want. So how about you drop this BS “conservatism” is not about government control when the core and original and still core tenet of “conservatism” is that not all people are equal, and that not all people should have the same rights, and it has been forever.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      You're insisting that the definition of a term gets to be whatever some group that refers to themselves by it says it is. That is wrong. And acknowledging that its wrong does not legitimize their unrelated views.

krapp 4y ago

It would be more valid than insisting they can't possibly be against apples, despite their blatant anti-apple policies and constant drumbeat of anti-apple propaganda, because that isn't what "Pro Apples" means.

kevviiinn 4y ago
I wonder what pro life means. Do they support life that already exists? Oh no, not that life. Just the theoretical life

olliej 4y ago

> If the "Pro Apples" party voted to ban apples, would that be the metric by which we defined Pro Apples? Yes. This already happens: There are people, religions, and political parties who claim to be, and are reported on as, "pro life", yet consistently take the position that life is secondary to their religious beliefs.

spywaregorilla 4y ago
The fact that you do this or others do this does not make it reasonable or authoritatively true. If the conservative party votes for more government control we best not defer to it but rather call them out on it.
- olliej 4y ago
  The core of every “conservative” political party in the US is that the government gets to choose who is and who is not a person. Who does and does not have bodily autonomy. What specific version of what specific religion is legal, and that if you have those beliefs you can force your beliefs on anyone else, and discriminate against anyone you want. So how about you drop this BS “conservatism” is not about government control when the core and original and still core tenet of “conservatism” is that not all people are equal, and that not all people should have the same rights, and it has been forever.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    You're insisting that the definition of a term gets to be whatever some group that refers to themselves by it says it is. That is wrong. And acknowledging that its wrong does not legitimize their unrelated views.