Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard
FWIW (  )
Yes you were. Specifically, "I don't think 'society' bases their opinions on fear and bigotry". Whereas my response was that opinions are frequently based on fear and - if not bigotry (I'm not comfortable with that word), then at least ignorance.
No. That's called a fallacy. When I said "argument", I meant something, you know, with legs. I also used the word convincing, and used it very deliberately.
I don't argue that opponents of gay marriage are bigots or homophobes. But an argument doesn't automatically become watertight by mere virtue of not being rooted in homophobia or "bigotry".
Anyway I'm taking dubman's advice and cutting out the rest of my post, particularly having just read this:
Really, if we can't get past the catch-all accusation of "you're biased!" then I can't be bothered wasting my time.
|
I don't really think it's airtight either. But the argument does exist. Maybe I misinterpreted something when I wrote that I don't think 'society' is voting on fear or ignorance. What I meant to say was quite a bit more complex than that. Of course people vote on fear all the time, but I don't necessarily think that fear has to be out of hatred or bigotry.
That 'fear of gays' thing is going to subside anyway; I'm 99% positive gay marriage is going to be legal in my lifetime, probably sooner rather than later.
I think maybe you should drop the bias thing, because that's really not what I meant. Read my posts again. Some people are biased, and some are not. My only point behind that is that it doesn't just swing one way. I don't like the argument of "we are using logic and reason, and you are biased" and some of the forceful language in this thread was implying. I'm not sure why people got so hung up on it.