LogFAQs > #973318075

joe40001 posted...

And that principle is related to another principle I have which is "if a conclusion is incredibly convenient relative to my beliefs, it probably isn't comprehensively true."

Isn't it awfully convenient for you, in this topic where you've downplayed Republicans' intentions and policies regarding trans people, to conclude that the guy talking about eliminating transgenderism doesn't mean trans people by that? Rather than seek to prod the ambiguity in his statement, the way you do with comments about healthcare and genocide you immediately conclude that his intent is the least abhorrent possible. That seems a little convenient, to me.

There's a pattern where you're willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to some while tut-tutting what you perceive as rhetorical excesses from others.

joe40001 posted...

I bet you have occasion to be around people who might call for the patriarchy to be torn down, wiped from the face of the earth, etc. Or people who say "all cops are bastards", and we need to "get rid of" the police, or something like that. Do you interpret those people as calling for mass executions?

Being a cop is a job. It's not an inherent quality to a group of people.

What do you think "transgenderism," as an "ideology", is? Could you clarify that ambiguity?