3 ms·

I don't think it's preposterous to note that there are people who don't speak English and wanting to include them, any more than it's preposterous to note that

I don't think it's preposterous to note that there are people who don't speak English and wanting to include them, any more than it's preposterous to note that there are people who can't afford an education and wanting to find a way to get them one, or noting that there are people who don't like in the US but wanting to find a way to have them participate in programming. There may not be a reasonable trade-off between utility and value, but preposterous isn't a word I accept for valuing the idea of being more inclusive.

stickfigure 14y ago
This is disingenuous. You are not merely suggesting that we be be more inclusive of non-english speakers. You imply that requiring english is the moral equivalent of racial segregation. That is preposterous. This argument is not even reasonable on its face. You're overlooking one of the essential characteristics of utility-based pro-segregation/anti-gay arguments - they're demonstrably false. It's clear that a desegregated military is more effective, not less. Homosexuality, I am sure, will prove itself similarly.