|
|
|
|
|
|
by ars
1269 days ago
|
|
|
You don't get to tell another person what beliefs they are allowed to have. For example you listed certain things that you think everyone must agree with. But another person might think those things are unimportant and climate change is the thing no one is allowed to disagree about "because it's going kill everyone", which makes it easily outweigh your things. > I have no need or desire to pretend that we’re having a mere policy disagreement. In your mind everyone must agree with you, except on things that you define as "policy disagreements"? What happens when another person feels just as strongly as you, but in the other direction? Is the only possible result a never-ending fight? You seriously can not think of single argument against your positions? If you can't, then you are problem, not them. |
|
|
Never said I did - just said that I’m not going to simply agree to disagree. In a disagreement between someone pushing for change and someone advocating for maintaining the status quo, “agreeing to disagree” is a win for the status quo.
> In your mind everyone must agree with you, except on things that you define as "policy disagreements"?
Again, not what I said. You are free to hold those positions but I’m not going to “agree to disagree” and I’m going to judge someone who holds those positions.
> You seriously can not think of single argument against your positions? If you can't, then you are problem, not them.
I definitely can, but I don’t particularly care to examine or take seriously the arguments against “trans people shouldn’t be discriminated against”.