Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Of all things, cooking a steak is the worst example maybe. Also, there is no reasoning around not allowing things or people to exist because, for one, they exist.
You can always put them to sleep, you know? The fact they exist doesn't mean they will be allowed to continue doing so. Cooking a steak is a great example, but perhaps too emotionally charged.
That is not the same as making them cease to exist. A lot of people wish that was the case, but hundreds of martyrs, saints and not, prove them wrong.
Yes, you're right. I just think the original comment was not about people wanting trans to not exist as a phenomenon, it was about people who know it exists, but who want trans people to be punished for being what they are.
Isn't that sort of the point? They can't actually get rid of us, but they think they can and should. That's not something I'll "agree to disagree" on.
It is not the point of this discussion in particular because I am talking about positions held on the basis of reasoning. The wet dreams of an American conservative are not exactly a bright example of logic.
If you don't understand that you're saying that in the context of a thread about "agree to disagree" then I'm not sure there's anything more to say.