Conversation

People are getting mad at this tweet so I'm gonna do the hopeless thing where I try to explain what I meant, thinking people will somehow prefer to know my actual perspective over their more sensationalist interpretation:
Quote Tweet
Replying to @scullytaco
Maybe it is killing a baby, but if killing a fetus = killing a baby then i'm fine with mothers killing their babies.
Replying to
I meant that words are irrelevant - that at the end of the day we're both talking about the same cluster of cells with the same properties, and nothing changes if you call it "baby" or "fetus" - so if you say "sensational words" = the thing we're talking about, then sure whatever
4
56
But sensational words don't change the fundamental thing. If we say "kissing your kid on the forehead is sexual assault" then I'm gonna say "then I'm fine with sexual assault", because we're not here to fight over words, we're here to communicate about the underlying thing!
11
85
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
Replying to
No, I stated a position with words that can be interpreted uncharitably and you're hopping on that because the uncharitable view reaffirms your position.
1
4
Show replies
Replying to
The response to this is crazy. I wonder what the response would be if you made the same argument w/ a point from their side. Suppose somebody said "gun control is murder prevention." I don't think they'd change their position on GC just b/c somebody said it was something else.
1
1
Show more replies