I garuntee you there was. Maybe not on Twitter, but there was. Its odd to me that you would doubt that.

Because people receiving the death penalty theoretically did something wrong, and fetuses did not. I’m neither against abortion nor pro death penalty, and I don’t really see a contradiction there.

I use pomade and it surprised me how often its branded like that. I have seen at least three brands that unironically use flaming skeletons. Also I have to say dapper dan is not great (at least the modern kind).

Edit: Apparently the modern kind is the only kind. O Brother just made it up, and someone took the design and made it real in 2011.

My public school in Louisiana had very similar toilet paper. I’m not sure if its actually the same, but it certainly looks like it.

Always is a real stretch, but I get your point. The reason is that being angry is easier than being happy.

There’s a small town in Missouri I visited named Versailles and its pronounced ver-sails.

Air travel is an infinitely more complex and involved problem to solve. There is no method of safely flying without going through mountains of bullshit first.

Are you just referring to the mechanic that lets you pick up other players? I wouldn’t quite call that riding.

Any director who isn’t doing something subversive with the content has their head up their own ass.

Its a school musical dude, calm down. If you want a subversive and thoughtful performance then don’t go to a school production.

Oklahoma isn’t “poisonous” its just weird. But, its fun for high school students to perform, and that’s all it has to be. The purpose of a musical theater program in a school isn’t to impress you with complex well written narratives, its to provide the students with an experience they wouldn’t get otherwise.

So my point isn’t that there is some great threat from Republicans.

That’s the argument you seemed to be making, or at least that’s how it seemed to me.

Yes, this is a population effect. This doesn’t mean we should single out Republicans for discrimination, just that they need to stop treating people who dress funny as an inherent threat.

I completely agree, but you were saying previously there needs to be a specific effort to prevent Republicans from committing sex crimes. That seems to fit the discrimination you are now saying you don’t support.

That’s why I corrected you and said the effort should not be specifically geared towards republicans.

However, on a given day, a random child is much more likely to encounter a Republican child predator than a drag queen child predator.

That’s true but again, only because there are more republicans than drag queens. If they aren’t more likely to be a child predator than others, they don’t require different treatment than others.

Now add in the overwhelming statistics that show child predators are usually known to and trusted by the child’s parents, and the emphasis that conservatives place in trusting those placed in authority above them, and you have a recipe for disaster.

I do not find this very convincing. I don’t see how republican ideals would result in more predatory behavior. Again, if you have evidence of this that isn’t anecdotal I would love to see it.

No, a larger effort should be made to protect children from child predators in general. I haven’t seen any evidence that republicans are more likely than the average person to be a child predator, nor have I seen any that suggest the same for drag queens. If you have that evidence, I would like to see it.

This might sound crazy but i think texas has a higher population of republicans than drag queens

It isn’t supposed to be used in densely populated areas because its extremely dangerous. Even if it wasn’t intentionally used as a weapon (which it very obviously was), then its still not excusable because it still causes a lot of harm to civilians.

If you took a much larger dose than is normally prescribed, you would probably feel it too.

The discussion is apparently over now because you won’t continue it. But that doesn’t stop you from naming fallacies at me I guess.

We’ve had quite a long conversation, and you have yet to provide a half decent argument for your distrust of religious people. Therefore, hateful nonsense. I can’t misrepresent your argument when I’m not even actually representing it. I’m just describing what I think it essentially boils down to. Its hateful nonsense.

Again, correcting you is not gaslighting. You are literally just wrong.

I did not personally attack you. I have worded things in passive aggressive ways throughout this conversation, but that’s about it. If you are referring specifically to the “hateful nonsense” part, that’s again just a description of your belief.

Are you actually done now? Or will you keep saying random words hoping something works.

Emotional awareness" is the conscious aspect. You are describing a philosophical model in which to evaluate the emotional reaction.

No, I am describing emotional awareness. The ability to understand your emotions and limit their effect on your reasoning is not a philosophical model.

Plenty of societies justify killing for everything from self defense to promoting a master race to appeasing the gods. The emotional response to such killings are based on the philosophical model of the individual. The emotion follows the philosophy, it does not guide it.

This is a surprisingly good argument, but it does not prove the conclusion you came to. Its more of an exception to what I said. It demonstrates that emotional responses can be impacted by philosophy. It does not demonstrate that this is always how it works, or even most of the time.

It seems important that you be right.

Yes, my goal in this argument was in fact to prove I am right. I do not like hateful views with no reasoning behind them.

Now, do you wish to continue the journey anywhere else, or are you happy where you arrived?

I’m not particularly happy because you are going to continue believing hateful nonsense, but at least I tried. I should’ve expected as much anyway, given that I’m arguing with people on the internet.

There is no point in discussing them because we cannot directly affect them.

There absolutely is a point in discussing things you can’t affect. Also, you can affect their power over your ability to reason if you are emotionally aware enough.

That is not an important question. Again, emotions are automatic responses.

It is. If part of the topic of this conversation is people that think with their emotions, it would tell you that emotions are absolutely related to this conversation. You brought those groups up as examples yourself.

The only route through which we can affect emotional response is philosophy.

Not true. You can learn to control your emotions to some extent without changing philosophy. Also, your philosophy is usually based on your emotions. Not the other way around. The belief that murder is bad comes from emotion. There is no argument to be made that a human life has value. We all agree its bad anyway though, because death causes negative emotions.

A philosophy that an individual’s personal beliefs are of greater importance than objective reality exacerbates the issues you discuss

No one believes their personal beliefs to be more important than objective reality. They believe their personal beliefs are objective reality. They do this because of their emotions. That’s why its important to discuss them.

You are knowingly choosing a dead-end road

It is a destination, not a dead end. The destination being the obvious conclusion that you have no reason to distrust all religious people.

I have nothing of value to add to your decision to follow that path, and I do not choose to walk it with you.

You had nothing of value to add to begin with. You literally just dislike religion for no reason.

Anyone who has any decency or feeling of inner justice will support innocent civilians regardless of their country of origin, and will condemn terrorist acts and war crimes regardless of who commited them.

That’s what I was just doing, but I guess I’ll expand upon it.

Remember all of the groups of people you mentioned earlier, like anti vaccine or anti mask people? Do you think it was a fully conscious decision to hold that belief? No, they did not sit down and logically come to the conclusion that vaccines or masks are bad. Chances are, they heard a story on Facebook about it that scared them into that belief.

They thought with their emotions instead of actual logic, because they aren’t in touch with their emotions enough to reliably differentiate between the two.

There was no conscious decision to conflate personal belief with reality. All of the examples you’ve given were not caused by a conscious decision at all. They were caused by unconscious emotional processes that they failed to recognize.

To say that things that happen without conscious input are irrelevant to this conversation is completely incorrect. The difference between a normal religious person and a religious person with the problematic beliefs you’ve mentioned is this unconscious process.

A normal person regardless of religiosity is mentally capable of recognizing that process. A mentally unhealthy person regardless of religiosity is not capable of this.

When you say that’s outside of the scope of this conversation, here’s what I hear:

I have nothing more of value to add to this conversation, so I will desperately try to end it while maintaining the illusion that my argument had any value in the first place.