> given that you appear to identify as part of "the right".
What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint.
> To suggest such a thing is closed minded.
First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims.
It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth?
----
I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response:
You:
> inherent in an outgroup
What I actually said from the very beginning:
> inherent outgroup
You:
> You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left
What I actually said from the very beginning:
> The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights.
You:
> To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded.
What I actually said from the very beginning:
> I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT
In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said?
Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace.
---
I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.
> On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.
I've tried, to the beat of my abilities, to state my interpretation of your words clearly. As far as I can tell, you agree that my comments have value.
I invite you to clarify, but to accuse me of anything in bad faith is upsetting, unfair, and I'll note, a violation of the hacker news guidelines. It is possible that I misunderstood you, but you should address that by adding clarification, not by demanding that I remove my own statements. When you called me a liar, I didn't demand you remove the offending statement, not when you claimed, more than once now, that I'm acting in bad faith. I simply clarified since your accusations held no merit. I only ask that you do the same. Clarify, and de-escalate instead of accusing people of acting in bad faith. If my statements merit a response, respond.
This is made all the more confusing since I cannot know which statements you feel are me speaking for you. I don't believe I've spoken for you at all. I've provided my interpretation of your words. And you seem to want to respond to some of what I've said. Removing my clarifications or something that you wish to respond to is a disservice to the both of us.
And again, I invite you to clarify if I misunderstood, but I ask you to do so assuming good faith on my part. It's the same courtesy I extend to you.
On a more technical note, I believe I can only edit one of my posts, and it's the most recent one where I defend myself from your accusations that I am a liar.
What leads you to believe this? Because I'm asking probing questions about the left? Is asking questions in order to learn a trait of someone on the right, and not the left? Big if true, and I'm surprised that you're promoting this viewpoint.
> To suggest such a thing is closed minded.
First of all, this doesn't follow from any evidence in the discussion so far. But to accuse me of this also ignores the most important word in my sentence, whose formatting you've stripped: "inherently". I was saying that the way to become part of an "inherent" outgroup (i.e. not contingently) is to be morally wrong. But I did not say that LGBT is part of an inherent outgroup. In fact I said literally the exact opposite thing: I said that LGBT is not part of the outgroup of the left, implying that they're not somehow inherently an outgroup. I'm not even sure that there's any such thing as an inherent outgroup; I used the phrase only as part of a counterfactual attempt to derive meaning from your original claims.
It's very frustrating to discuss anything with people who insist on deliberately (as far as I can tell, since I assume a certain baseline reading comprehension from HN commenters) misinterpreting my words, such as by dropping important qualifiers from parenthetical, counterfactual claims and then presenting the resulting manufactured sentence as if I had expressed it as a sincerely held belief! How can you justify such behavior in the pursuit of truth?
----
I can't reply any deeper, but here's my response:
You: > inherent in an outgroup
What I actually said from the very beginning: > inherent outgroup
You: > You are now claiming that lgbt people are not an outgroup of the left
What I actually said from the very beginning: > The left is universally supportive of LGBT rights.
You: > To suggest moral failings due solely to being a member of an outgroup is prejudiced and closed minded.
What I actually said from the very beginning: > I don't think it [being morally wrong] applies to LGBT
In each of these cases, why do you feel it is a useful conversational practice to lie about what I said, when thanks to the power of the internet it's right there for anyone to see? Or is the conversation so emotionally difficult that you honestly believe that I've made claims which are the exact opposite of what I actually said?
Either way, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. I hope you too find peace.
---
I see you wish to continue the conversation. I too think I have something useful to say about your new claims. However, I cannot continue with the conversation unless you repudiate and delete all of your claims about what I've said and allow my words alone to speak for me. On what other grounds could I possibly continue the conversation?! Until you do that I can only assume you wish to continue in bad faith.