LGBT are hated for no reason

Individual crimes aren’t any kind of intelligent persons justification for hating an entire group. Everyone on the planet belongs to some demographic that has, at some point, committed a terrible crime. If this demographic committed crimes at a remarkable rate compared to the rest of the population maybe there’d be something to that, but just a link to a few individual crimes? There’s no way a person with their wits would find that compelling.

It’s also unlikely that your second example is genuinely non binary.

2 Likes

The OP claimed “no reason”.

I gave obvious reasons, undeniable. You can’t even argue against the point, unless of course, you secretly approve of Trannies shooting up churches and school children?

He was.

Ah so you mean technically there’s a reason even if it’s a bad one. I understand now.

Let the record show, that FJ believes mass spree-shooting children is not a “bad reason” to reject LGBTQ+++ agate tree.

Not a bad reason to reject what tree? What are you talking about?

Don’t worry about it. Just know that you won’t convince many others that spree-shooting Christian and Conservative American children is a ‘good’ thing.

But you genuinely think, with all of your intellect, that listing 4 individual crimes is a genuine justification for hating a group of people?

Does your intellect not acknowledge that anybody can list 4 crimes from any demographic? You could justify hating men, women, black people, white people, Asian people, truck drivers, nurses, financial advisors and mothers if 4 crimes were enough to justify hating an entire group.

Do you understand that? If this is the criteria, we’ve got everybody.

That’s why it can’t be a good criteria for someone with their wits. The only remaining question is, do you still have your wits?

1 Like

So Nazis shouldn’t be blamed on Hitler and vice-versa then too?

Nazi Germany should NOT be blamed on “just one man” and just one instance??

Yes, we obviously can use one or a few examples, to rule-out entire nations, just like you do casually.

So you also hate straight people because there are more than 4 crimes that can be listed by them, right?

Nazis were Germans. According to your logic, all Germans should be blamed for eternity.

What type of nonsense is this? Not liking LGBTQ is one thing, accusing all of them for crimes of individuals is completely different. Mass shootings of children has happened by various groups of people, we do not stigmatise the entire groups.

1 Like

Sometimes, yes. But straight people aren’t sexually dysfuncitonal or pretending to be other genders.

That’s the point of the exchange though …every group is representative of its parts, for good and for bad.

LGBTQueers need to accept culpability for their Murderers, and the Charlie Kirk assassination.

Ok, then why don’t you tell us which group of people has all their members being saints that have never committed something bad.

1 Like

The Archbishops of Rome perhaps? You said it yourself …the Saints, throughout History.

It is very difficult to live life without Sin. 99.99% of humans cannot do it, or even try to do it.

Is this a joke? The big scandal of Catholic Church back in 2012 with massive children sex abuse cases has been conveniently erased from your memory. Even the Pope had to make public apology on 2018.

For the saints… You should read Christopher Hitchens’ book on mother Teressa, which became a saint afterwards. It is quite reveiling on how saints are selected…

So if one Bishop falters, the whole of them are Evil and Bad?

One mistake and an entire religion fails?

And I presume you have no actual stake in that religion too, arguing for the sake of argument?

EDIT:

By the way, is your argument to imply that LGBTQ+ has any type of moral superiority, let alone any type of moral, social, or ethical WORTH?

That’s… literally your logic about LGBT people. 4 crimes and they’re all bad.

1 Like

You did the same thing with LGBTQ, remember? I showed you how your accusation of a complete group of people can backfire.

Exactly as not all Archibishops are child rapists, not all LGBTQ are mass shooters.

Who said anything about moral superiority? I commented only about accusing a complete group of people for crimes of individuals.

The crimes of individuals should bring accusations for these individuals alone. We should not start accusing arbitrarily people for other people’s crimes.

The moral worth of a person has other metrics than the sexual preferences. Unless of course we refer to illegal sexual activities.

It’s a false-equivolency fallacy though.

LGBTQ++ is not a MORAL RELIGION based upon NOT SINNING.

It’s the exact opposite in fact! Their sexual perversion is their “Pride”!

You two are being ridiculous now…

And of course the world gets divided into two categories. One must be woke or anti-woke. A binary schema.

Woke used to mean black people who were aware when traveling where they could go safely and where they could not. It expanded a bit in the 60s though it was still mainly focused on black social justice issues and, well, common sense in a racist nation. But then it got coopted, we could even say culturally appropriated, by white people who expanded the meaning to include things like LG etc. movements, but also by opponents who used it as a sarcastic term.

Woke refers to specific positions moral and ethical positions. Unless you are saying that if one disgrees, say about trans issues (how much: can one be pro-trans but think that children should not be able to set in motion surgery and hormone treatments?) one cannot be moral, that’s a very strange question. There are all sorts of moral and ethical issues not covered by woke. And it’s extermely complicated, for example, in minority communities who may well be very supportive of certain aspects of work but critical of others. They often tend to be more conservative when it has to do with trans issues. Are they then just binarily immoral?

us/them. Binary. Like it would be impossible to be feminist and anti racist by not believe that most or any transpeople are actually something other than what they think they are. Even good old hostile McCheese has no problem with gays, but does have issues with trans.

Must everyone completely commit to team A or B or be considered completely immoral?