One cheap debate trick is reframing opposing opinions as having some sort of 'moral failure' and therefore foregoing all rights. For example, lots of attempts to shut down 'open debate' do so by framing the opposing opinions not as wrong, but as as "interruptive"
Saying a trans person is mentally ill is not saying a trans person shouldn't exist? If I think "liking potatoes" means they have a mental illness then where am I getting "people who like potatoes have no right to exist"?
-
-
Saying homosexuality is curable or that ace people need to find the right person is not the same as saying homosexuals and ace people "shouldn't" or "have no right to" exist. "No right to exist" is something you say to a genetic experiment gone wrong when you think it should die
-
Homosexuality is cureable therefore take the cure and stop and existing as a homosexual. If you just ate enough potatoes you'd eventually realise you were a potato lover all along. There's more than one way of removing those you consider undesirable
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.