Report comment

Report comment

Report comment

Back in my June 1, 2015 at 3:38 am post, I said

If you were trying to analogize between “a man is allowed to marry a woman, but a woman is not allowed to marry a woman” and “a white child is allowed to go to a white school, but a black child is not allowed to go to a white school”, that would have some validity, but analogizing between “a straight man is allowed to marry a woman, but a gay man is not allowed to marry a woman” and “a white child is allowed to go to a white school, but a black child is not allowed to go to a white school” is absurd.
And yet people continued to disagree with me, so clearly there is disagreement that goes beyond asserting that the law discriminates in allowing a man to marry a woman, but not allowing a woman to do so.

Report comment

Report comment

Observations:

Some very smart people with heavy exposure to rationality, who started in a position of enlightenment liberalism and progressivism, who have gay and ally friends, who have no obvious sign of mental illness or pathological contrarianism change their minds and come to believe that “gay people are bad”. This is obviously crazy.

Possible Hypotheses:

* The official worldview is basically righteous and everyone who disagrees is just nuts or evil.

* They know something you don’t:

Standard Fuck Party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9JlONzrVU

The Institute for Advanced Homophobia: (collection of choice quotes and statistics to get you started on your quest to understand the homophobic mind) http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/6651-the-institute-for-advanced-homophobia/

(I am not trying to imply that these are the only available evidence, or the best, but perhaps they are enough to cast doubt)

Report comment

Report comment

By my count, (b) is shorter.

… oh, hold on: you’re talking about how you describe the categories that the rules use, not what the rules are. That’s odd, to say the least, but even so the category for who a man can marry is “a woman” in one case and “a person” in the other. The latter description is still simpler.

Report comment

Wow, that’s quite a load of hypocrisy. If you don’t like me calling you on your bullshit, then quit posting bullshit.

“Your only response to that has been to insist really hard that your categories are the right ones and that I’m a terrible awful idiot for daring to question your logic.”

See, posting this sort bullshit and then whining about me not being nice to you really is not helping the discussion. When I try over and over to explain my point, and you insist that I presented nothing but argument by assertion, and claim that the reason I’m calling you an idiot for questioning your logic, when in fact I’m calling you an idiot for presenting idiotic claims like “There was nothing white kids were allowed to do that black kids weren’t” (while implying that this is somehow a logical consequence of my position), it really is hypocritical for you to call me a jerk.

“Why should I prefer ‘person of opposite gender’ to ‘person’?”

And … more bullshit. I never said you should prefer “person of opposite gender” to “person”. I said that “woman” and “man” refer to the same categories in all cases, while “person that you’re attracted to” refers to different categories. Either you are too stupid to engage in simple reading comprehension, or you’re lying. And no, I don’t feel obligated to put up with you lying, over and over again, about what I have written, and still remain polite.

“Why should I prefer ‘school of the same colour’ to ‘school’?”

Again, I never said you should.

“I don’t see how the description that takes more bits to specify is supposed to be more natural a category.”

How the hell does “woman” take more bits than “member of the sex for which one, in general, feels the greater attraction towards”?

Report comment

Report comment