Keep in mind they’re sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don’t know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I’m pro-LGBT.
Keep in mind they’re sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don’t know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I’m pro-LGBT.
‘disease spreading’ is an incredibly low bar for morality… any and all human contact, likely, immoral
this is just like the’ doesnt/cant lead to pregnancy’, ‘not the intended purpose’ justifications with extra steps, which make no sense in reality.
you cannot logic someone out of a position they didnt logic themselves into… you have to know your words do not matter to these people.
I’d be willing to bet that that the person making that argument was not properly wearing fitted N95 masks for the duration of the pandemic…and during the 2023/4 flu season…
I totally should have called out that hypocrisy. You’re right, they are anti-vax and didn’t care about spreading COVID, and yet they used whatever argument they could think of against homosexuality including “spreading disease”. Why are those kinds of people so predictable? Like not to be offensive, but why are the kinds of people who are homophobic so often also anti-vax, anti-vegan, and misogynistic Christian conservatives? I didn’t even mention it but people in the comments predicted it accurately. It really is a type of person.
I think it’s the kind of person who has everything “figured out”.
They “figured out” how the world works at 16, and just called it a day on building up their understanding of the world any further. Anything that doesn’t fit into their worldview is discarded, and anything that contradicts it is evil/bad/lies/whatever.
But as for this person, they’re worse than a gay man (in their own warped definition of morality). Because anal sex spreading disease happens between CONSENTING adults. But spreading covid happens to UNconsenting victims.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this would change their mind. But at the least, it should embarrass them! (Probably won’t, but it should)
The one thing they didn’t demonstrate was racism, for what it’s worth. I feel like racism is so uncool these days that even these types don’t go there usually.
Oh they already made the “can’t cause pregnancy” argument. It went something like this:
Them: “Gay people can’t procreate and therefore they’re causing the downfall of civilisation and therefore they’re immoral.” Me: “Not everyone needs to procreate, gay people are a minority and they wouldn’t cause a decline in births on their own, plus we already have an overpopulation issue, and gay people can procreate in other ways like surrogacy/donation anyway. Gay people aren’t harmful for being gay and certainly aren’t immoral for simply being who they are which is fine.” Them: “Cancer is a minority, does that make it ok or not harmful?” Me: “Cancer is harmful in any numbers, gay people aren’t, and they aren’t equatable to cancer.” Them: “Gays are a cancer of humanity.”
And they basically made the “not the intended purpose argument” as an appeal to nature fallacy in claiming gays people were immoral due to supposedly being unnatural. That just turned into a ridiculous semantical argument.
Them: “Gay people are unnatural and therefore immoral.” Me: “That’s an appeal to nature fallacy. Also, not only is something not automatically immoral (or moral) just because it’s unnatural (or natural), but also homosexuality does exist in nature and is observable among other animals.” Them: “Now look who made the appeal to nature fallacy. Hypocrite.” Me: “I simply pointed out that claiming homosexuality is immoral because it’s unnatural is not only illogical but also factually incorrect because it arguably is natural. Stating something is natural isn’t an appeal to nature fallacy unless you make a normative or moral claim based on its natural status. The reason homosexuality is not immoral isn’t because it’s natural but because it’s not harmful and is a basic right of individuals to embrace their sexuality.” Them: “You said it’s natural. Therefore you’re making an appeal to nature fallacy. Now you also have to admit that the scientific method, scientific consensus about COVID-19 vaccines and evolution are an appeal to nature fallacy since science makes empirical observations about nature.” (They also used Christianity to claim homosexuality is a sin, and were anti-vax) Me: “Again, making an appeal to nature fallacy and forming normative or moral judgments based on what’s natural isn’t the same as simply observing nature and drawing likely conclusions about how it functions objectively, as in the scientific method. One is prescriptive solely based on the fact of something being natural or unnatural and makes claims about what ought to be based on what is, the other is simply descriptive about nature and what is.” Them: “Predictable that a gay shill can’t understand words.”