From the article: "When it comes to the earlier examples of racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism, these don’t imply any underlying motive or context. You are simply “against” something; someone who “discriminates” based on one single factor."
Enough said..
They're deciding why someone might discriminate???
That takes any reasoning right out of it.
I have reasons to discriminate. I have to be asked why before anyone can decide if it's reasonable or not.
They're deciding why someone might discriminate???
Historically it has always been so that a societal norm dictates whether a motive was right or wrong or a valid reason for a statement or action.
That takes any reasoning right out of it.
I dissagree; you have every right to feell any way about anything, but sometimes the right to state something publicly is not there.. or is say, unwise.
I have reasons to discriminate. I have to be asked why before anyone can decide if it's reasonable or not.
Everybody have reasons and no; you may reserve the right to remain silent or to say "just because" or "i do not wish to explain why"..
I know more or less exactly what you mean and feel the same way in some situations and when your opinion is not shared by the majority, it's sometimes just easier to dissagree and refuse to explain.. and stand ones ground.
To claim that people who don't like fags have homophobia is not logical.
A phobia is defined as "an irrational fear of something", which means they are claiming that a) the person has no rational basis for their dislike, and b) that the person's dislike is based on fear.
You can argue all you want that this label (homophobia) is accurate, but it's not. Opinions are not enough to make a valid argument. Reasoning is. I'll stick with reason.
(post is archived)