The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[David.]

Comparing logical paths isn't equating the subjects to each other. Come on guys.

And no one is comparing pedophilia to same sex insofar as the behavior etc. It's illustrating application of principle.

 

[Binkster]

I didn't say those two things are equal. The logic is the same, nobody likes to hear either thing. Keep in mind I disagree with the first fat guys assessment if that is indeed what he believes.

No, it's not even remotely close to the same logic.

I might disagree with Windy. Meanwhile, Clovis is fundamentally wrong and is offering more than an opinion. He's instigating a discussion encouraging people to equate gays to pedophiles.

He is openly encouraging hate and discrimination.

One guy has barbaric views that are dated, offensive, and harmful. One works in sports. If you want to drag down an entire group of people based on their sexuality, all bets are pretty much off. You forego any special considerations.

Sorry, the logic doesn't align.

 

[TyGuy]

No, it's not even remotely close to the same logic.

One guy has barbaric views that are dated, offensive, and harmful. One works in sports. If you want to drag down an entire group of people based on their sexuality, all bets are pretty much off. You forego any special considerations.

Ehh, you're just trying to defend your first response to me. You say it's different logic paths, then you go back to comparing the subjects.

 

[Binkster]

Ehh, you're just trying to defend your first response to me. You say it's different logic paths, then you go back to comparing the subjects.

What the hell are you talking about? What do I need to defend? My sarcasm?

You guys are willing to defend literally anything at this point. Sad stuff.

 

[gourimoko]

Comparing logical paths isn't equating the subjects to each other. Come on guys.

And no one is comparing pedophilia to same sex insofar as the behavior etc. It's illustrating application of principle.

Are these the comparable logical paths though?

It would seem to me that same-sex marriage is based on the principle that two consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever sexual or marital situation they choose.

Both the term "consenting" and "adult" seem to put this line of reasoning on a completely different track than pedophilia, literally by definition, since that would entail one party not being an adult, and given context here, it would seem "consent" is also being thrown out the window.

So, this would seem more of an irrational slippery slope argument rather than some rational comparison between one more equitable and thus preferable outcome and another obviously undesirable outcome that is supposedly along some congruent future logical path.

 

[David.]

Are these the comparable logical paths though?

It would seem to me that same-sex marriage is based on the principle that two consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever sexual or marital situation they choose.

Both the term "consenting" and "adult" seem to put this line of reasoning on a completely different track than pedophilia, literally by definition, since that would entail one party not being an adult, and given context here, it would seem "consent" is also being thrown out the window.

So, this would seem more of an irrational slippery slope argument rather than some rational comparison between one more equitable and thus preferable outcome and another along some congruent logical path.

Its not about consenting adults, it's about two individuals loving each other.

That was the argument right?

Therefore a man and a boy can love each other. A parent can sign off on it.

 

[gourimoko]

Its not about consenting adults, it's about two individuals living each other.

That was the argument right?

Therefore a man and a boy can love each other. A parent can sign off on it.

I honestly might be missing something here...

Is that the argument?

EDIT:

I went back and looked and his argument is specifically regarding protected classes with respect to the SC decision legalizing same-sex marriage. So, this would be about "fundamental rights," and consenting adults.

Here's his argument in some degree of context:

"There's no equivalency there between the civil rights issue associated between those protected classes and the civil rights of someone who engages in a particular behavior," continues Clovis. "Follow the logic, if you engage in a particular behavior, what also becomes protected? If we protect LGBT behavior, what other behaviors are we going to protect? Are we going to protect pedophilia? Are we going to protect polyamorous marriage relationships? Are we going to protect people who have fetishes? What's the logical extension of this? It can't be that we're going to protect LGBT and then we'll pull up the ladder. That's not going to happen, it defies logic. We're not thinking the consequences of these decisions through."

When a questioner said some might call what Clovis' words extreme -- comparing the approval of same-sex protections to allowing pedophilia. Clovis said it was "logical."

"I don't think it's extreme," said Clovis. "I think it's a logical extension of thought. And if you cannot follow the logic then you're denying your in denial."

 

[TyGuy]

What the hell are you talking about? What do I need to defend? My sarcasm?

You guys are willing to defend literally anything at this point. Sad stuff.

Yeah, we are sad human beings because we disagree with you. Everybody that disagrees with us isn't sad though, just us.

 

[TyGuy]

So we are totally going to go off the rails to argue some dumb shit that is meaningless? Thanks again Gouri!

 

[David.]

I honestly might be missing something here...

Is that the argument?

I wasn't around for the same sex debates but I would be shocked if the focus was on the consent of marriage and not "two people who love each other can marry" taking precedent rather than union of man and woman.

Am I missing something?

 

[gourimoko]

I wasn't around for the same sex debates but I would be shocked if the focus was on the consent of marriage and not "two people who love each other can marry" taking precedent rather than union of man and woman.

Am I missing something?

I think so, check my edit above; Clovis is specifically talking about the SC decision re: same-sex marriage.

Clovis' argument is that the government can make discriminatory laws against LGBT persons because being LGBT is a choice, and thus, they are not a protected class of individuals. He states openly that these folks are comparable to pedophiles because both choose (according to him) to act, and thus have agency rather than an immutable status or class.

So I don't think love is a factor here, insomuch as Clovis feels the States have every right to decide who can or cannot get married so long as that doesn't violate the law with respect to whom is or isn't in one of the specifically outlined protected classes.

It's the same argument used by the GOP, he simply extends it to pedophilia.

 

[gourimoko]

So we are totally going to go off the rails to argue some dumb shit that is meaningless? Thanks again Gouri!

What are you talking about?

 

[Binkster]

Yeah, we are sad human beings because we disagree with you. Everybody that disagrees with us isn't sad though, just us.

No, it's sad that you've gone to lengths to explain why it's offensive to "fat shame" Sam Clovis but somehow his comments equating gays to pedophiles is not.

It's also sad that many others have rushed to the defense of Nazi rights.

But I digress...

 

[Binkster]

What are you talking about?

He's talking about the argument that he initiated and blaming you for engaging in it.

 

[David.]

I think so, check my edit above; Clovis is specifically talking about the SC decision re: same-sex marriage.

Clovis' argument is that the government can make discriminatory laws against LGBT persons because being LGBT is a choice, and thus, they are not a protected class of individuals. He states openly that these folks are comparable to pedophiles because both choose (according to him) to act, and thus have agency rather than an immutable status or class.

So I don't think love is a factor here, insomuch as Clovis feels the States have every right to decide who can or cannot get married so long as that doesn't violate the law with respect to whom is or isn't in one of the specifically outlined protected classes.

It's the same argument used by the GOP, he simply extends it to pedophilia.

Don't know clovis, don't know how many of the GOP held which argument but any argument I've heard is that the principle is changed to "people who love each other" and that's what was taken issue with, among the break down of the family, which I don't think has been supported by data since.

In any event, I'm sure states rights nor "people who love each other" were the best or only arguments from either side. It does t mean they weren't made.

Edit: actually does applh still. Normalization of pedophilia has seemed to be an agendpedophiles. "can't discriminate against pedophiles."