4 ms·

That's nit-picky, contrarian drivel and this whole discussion is like 10^-6 in terms of actual relevance compared to the original topic. You are literally using

That's nit-picky, contrarian drivel and this whole discussion is like 10^-6 in terms of actual relevance compared to the original topic. You are literally using the language one could use to distinguish between the two: "Eich doesn't want me to exist" versus "Eich is a proponent of genocide". The English language is flexible, playful, and inventive. There are many ways to clarify what someone's position is, and OP is not wrong. Eich wanting someone to have less rights is an expression that they are deserving of less, that their existence is not okay and they should be punished for it. Absolutely "doesn't want them to exist".

soundnote 3y ago
The original wording wasn't "doesn't want me to", it was "shouldn't be allowed to", the first of which is the same as any opinion we might have - there are lots of things I wouldn't want to be the case. "Shouldn't be allowed to" implies use of force and active action against the thing.
- tech_ken 3y ago
  IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!
  - soundnote 3y ago
    With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.
    - mrguyorama 3y ago
      >which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        > Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at? No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?

soundnote 3y ago

The original wording wasn't "doesn't want me to", it was "shouldn't be allowed to", the first of which is the same as any opinion we might have - there are lots of things I wouldn't want to be the case. "Shouldn't be allowed to" implies use of force and active action against the thing.

tech_ken 3y ago
IDK how you feel about using legal force to strip someone of a civil right, but that seems pretty active to me. It's certainly less of a stretch than characterizing OP as "blatant lies", but I guess your standards for precision of language only flow one way. Have a good one!
- soundnote 3y ago
  With your standards, people are allowed to claim that others think "they shouldn't be allowed to exist", and people wanting to distinguish it from actual totalitarian/genocidal policy are left doing the linguistic precision thing. There's a simple, clear way to describe what he did and thought and maybe thinks still, which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Very clear, no hyperbole.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >which is just that gay marriage shouldn't be legal. Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. "These two consenting adults are not allowed to do what nearly all consenting adults are allowed to do" is expressly treating them as second class citizens. You can't get around that.
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      > Which cannot be done without explicitly preventing gay people from having certain basic rights. It flies directly in the face of equality for all. No one in this thread argued that two consensual adults should be prevented from getting married, so who exactly are you directing this comment at? No one here expressed support for preventing gay people from getting married. Why are you hung up on that argument, and not the one that is being made?