Okay, not exactly a direct rejoinder, but your hyperbole here makes me wonder if you think we should allow people who believe gays should be thrown off of buildings and killed into this country. We have a name for these people — sharia believing muslims. Do we really need to consider their culture as appropriate for importation into our country, or any country for that matter?

Your conception of Sharia is a perfect example of an idea nobody should be forced to consider. Sharia believing Muslims do not all believe gay people should be thrown off buildings. Nowhere in any holy text of Islam does it say, “gay people should be thrown off buildings.” And, even if it did in some translation of some esoteric passage, it still doesn’t mean everyone believes it. By that same token, even though Leviticus says that gay people are an abomination and must “be cut off from their people,” it does not mean that all Christians or Jews believe gay people should be exiled (though, of course, some do).

Interesting fact: Syria does not have the death penalty for being gay. Saudia Arabia and Iran do. Not even all Muslims agree on interpretations of Sharia, much like not all Christians agree about gay marriage or abortion. The reason: religion is politics. People are welcome to identify with religions under whatever interpretations they want; they need not conform to your narrow conception of Sharia or Sharia-believing.

When you paint with a broad, overtly disingenuous brush, it doesn’t help your case that a diversity of ideas is good. Those types of fallacious tactics (along with the pedantry of asserting that 2 and 2 isn’t 4) are irritating to reason-based thinkers, so it’s not likely to win you an invitation to their discussion.

Just answer the simple questions: should all ideas be given equal weight and time? Should all ideas be considered by everyone in every circumstance? My answer is no to both. What are your answers? If you can’t answer those basic questions with a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ then I’ll assume you’re being intellectually dishonest, and we’re done here.

Here’s the danger you don’t quite understand — someone can make the same specious argument about left wing ideas. Simply demonize your opponent, and discredit their position not through argument, but through ad hominem.

You can’t make the same argument about my ideas, because they are founded on logic and reason. They are not founded on fear and hate or dubious appeals to authority. Ergo, I really do not care if other people try to attack me on a personal level, because it just goes to show that I’m right and they’re reaching.

Furthermore, at no point do I engage in ad hominem about this. Like I said, people are entitled to believe whatever bad ideas they want. They are humans and they have that right. I also have the right to ignore them and exclude them from non-public discussions when they try to tell me the world is flat or tell me (in the algebraic group of real numbers, base 10, across the arithmetical operation of addition) that 2 and 2 is 17. It’s 4. If they want to stand in front of Town Hall and assert that, more power to them. I won’t be watching.

By that same token, if they want to go have a private discussion without me and my superior ideas, that’s their right. I’m not going to be a butt-hurt special snowflake and cry about it.

Just the facts: Writer. Gamer. Feminist. Educated in Astrophysics. Professional Gambler. Student of Language. Satanist. Anarchist. He/Him.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store