I’m pretty sure their underlying reason was a fundamentalist conservative Christian ideology against homosexuality as well as against feminism, which they explained. They accused me of having no morality since I’m not religious, and said that without a religious authority to govern morality, it can’t exist. Like you said, all the other arguments were just distractions to cover up their true motivations for being against things like LGBT rights, women’s rights, and animal rights/veganism. I don’t know how it relates to their vaccine and covid ideas though, that just seemed like conspiracy theory nonsense.

The one thing they didn’t demonstrate was racism, for what it’s worth. I feel like racism is so uncool these days that even these types don’t go there usually.

I totally should have called out that hypocrisy. You’re right, they are anti-vax and didn’t care about spreading COVID, and yet they used whatever argument they could think of against homosexuality including “spreading disease”. Why are those kinds of people so predictable? Like not to be offensive, but why are the kinds of people who are homophobic so often also anti-vax, anti-vegan, and misogynistic Christian conservatives? I didn’t even mention it but people in the comments predicted it accurately. It really is a type of person.

Oh they already made the “can’t cause pregnancy” argument. It went something like this:

Them: “Gay people can’t procreate and therefore they’re causing the downfall of civilisation and therefore they’re immoral.” Me: “Not everyone needs to procreate, gay people are a minority and they wouldn’t cause a decline in births on their own, plus we already have an overpopulation issue, and gay people can procreate in other ways like surrogacy/donation anyway. Gay people aren’t harmful for being gay and certainly aren’t immoral for simply being who they are which is fine.” Them: “Cancer is a minority, does that make it ok or not harmful?” Me: “Cancer is harmful in any numbers, gay people aren’t, and they aren’t equatable to cancer.” Them: “Gays are a cancer of humanity.”

And they basically made the “not the intended purpose argument” as an appeal to nature fallacy in claiming gays people were immoral due to supposedly being unnatural. That just turned into a ridiculous semantical argument.

Them: “Gay people are unnatural and therefore immoral.” Me: “That’s an appeal to nature fallacy. Also, not only is something not automatically immoral (or moral) just because it’s unnatural (or natural), but also homosexuality does exist in nature and is observable among other animals.” Them: “Now look who made the appeal to nature fallacy. Hypocrite.” Me: “I simply pointed out that claiming homosexuality is immoral because it’s unnatural is not only illogical but also factually incorrect because it arguably is natural. Stating something is natural isn’t an appeal to nature fallacy unless you make a normative or moral claim based on its natural status. The reason homosexuality is not immoral isn’t because it’s natural but because it’s not harmful and is a basic right of individuals to embrace their sexuality.” Them: “You said it’s natural. Therefore you’re making an appeal to nature fallacy. Now you also have to admit that the scientific method, scientific consensus about COVID-19 vaccines and evolution are an appeal to nature fallacy since science makes empirical observations about nature.” (They also used Christianity to claim homosexuality is a sin, and were anti-vax) Me: “Again, making an appeal to nature fallacy and forming normative or moral judgments based on what’s natural isn’t the same as simply observing nature and drawing likely conclusions about how it functions objectively, as in the scientific method. One is prescriptive solely based on the fact of something being natural or unnatural and makes claims about what ought to be based on what is, the other is simply descriptive about nature and what is.” Them: “Predictable that a gay shill can’t understand words.”

You’re on point. These homophobes are also anti-vaxxers and anti-vegans and misogynists. Ultra conservative.

They think getting a covid vaccine is immoral because it’s “bowing down to government interference in personal freedoms which sets a precedence for them to do that with other things”. Or something like that

They already conceded that hetero anal sex must also be considered immoral to maintain the view. Here’s what I’ve got; Anal isn’t a necessity. Homosexual people shouldn’t be framed as immoral simply for engaging in basic parts of life based on their sexual nature. Homosexuality isn’t inherently harmful and certainly not immoral. It’s not their fault for being the way they are, which isn’t wrong in any way, and it’s also possible to use protection to prevent STDs.

I think I understand now, but what has left me scratching my nose (metaphorically):

Why is it called “B if and only if A”, if what it really means is “B only if A and vice versa”? (Am I correct in thinking that’s what it means?)

I just don’t understand how that translates grammatically. To me, “B if and only if A” sounds the same as “B only if A”. I can accept that they mean different things in the context of logic, just like I can assign any meaning to any label, like I could say that “dog” now means “kite” in a certain context. But it seems unintuitive and doesn’t really make sense to me. Does that make sense?

Thanks. Could you possibly elaborate? Why are they not equal?

I think it’s affirming the consequent

Can you send me the video?

If car, then vehicle = true

Car if and only if vehicle = true.

Is this correct?

Therefore “If A then B” = “A if and only if B” (or “If B then A” = “B if and only if A”)?

Is “If B then A” equal to “B if and only if A”?

And let me not enjoy them? 😉

At least it’s pagan though. A bit of an F you to the mainstream religions.

Not by most people’s standards unfortunately… slaughterhouses and farms exist and are labeled “humane” despite both harming and killing animals

Thank god for TV Tropes. The “subtitle” meaning “closed captions” or “sub-name” thing still bugs me. Am I the only one bugged by one name being used for multiple things confusingly? Like how “chips” is often used to mean either potato crisps (packet chips) or potato fries (hot chips). Why not just use different names, you know?

Does something uncompassionate have to be done to a human in order for it to be inhumane? Couldn’t it also be done to non-human animals/any sentient beings?

For example someone says “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks” and you might say “that’s a questionable phrase.” or “I doubt the validity of that platitude”. But is there something specific to label it as, i.e. “That’s a [insert word]”

Sentient rights I can understand… but like… even unconscious organisms? Single celled organisms like a bacteria? o.O