3 ms·

https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ ... the donation does not in itself constitu

by sehr 13y ago

https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ https://brendaneich.com/2012/04/community-and-diversity/ ... the donation does not in itself constitute evidence of animosity. Those asserting this are not providing a reasoned argument, rather they are labeling dissenters to cast them out of polite society. To such assertions, I can only respond: “no”. There are other reasons for opposing things, religious reasons for example. Not saying they're well thought out or even remotely valid, but thinking in such a black and white manner isn't beneficial to decent conversation.

wpietri 13y ago
You're saying that if I have a religious reason for harming you, then you'll be happy to treat that harm as a good-faith action, and propose "decent conversation" with me?
- sehr 13y ago
  Of course not, but then again I don't consider intentional physical harm & objections to marriage even remotely comparable situations. Latent effects of refusing marriage like lack of insurance coverage leading to preventable deaths would be a much better match though. And to that, I still believe conversation is a better tool than outright condemnation & intolerance.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    No idea where "intentional physical harm" came from, but it wasn't me. Preventing a family from getting married is harm. It is at the very least expensive in time and money. But it also puts children at substantial risk. See the recent decision on the Michigan Marriage Amendment for more on that: http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF
    - sehr 13y ago
      Sorry, I took 'harming you' as meaning physical harm, that's my mistake.
tommorris 13y ago
> thinking in such a black and white manner isn't beneficial to decent conversation. Should having "decent conversation" be the goal? Because I prioritise not being discriminated against by my government because of my sexual orientation slightly higher than having a decent conversation.

by sehr 13y ago

wpietri 13y ago

You're saying that if I have a religious reason for harming you, then you'll be happy to treat that harm as a good-faith action, and propose "decent conversation" with me?

sehr 13y ago
Of course not, but then again I don't consider intentional physical harm & objections to marriage even remotely comparable situations. Latent effects of refusing marriage like lack of insurance coverage leading to preventable deaths would be a much better match though. And to that, I still believe conversation is a better tool than outright condemnation & intolerance.
- wpietri 13y ago
  No idea where "intentional physical harm" came from, but it wasn't me. Preventing a family from getting married is harm. It is at the very least expensive in time and money. But it also puts children at substantial risk. See the recent decision on the Michigan Marriage Amendment for more on that: http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF http://www.freep.com/assets/freep/pdf/C4220110321.PDF
  - sehr 13y ago
    Sorry, I took 'harming you' as meaning physical harm, that's my mistake.

tommorris 13y ago

> thinking in such a black and white manner isn't beneficial to decent conversation. Should having "decent conversation" be the goal? Because I prioritise not being discriminated against by my government because of my sexual orientation slightly higher than having a decent conversation.