You seem determined to misrepresent what was said?
Only you are talking about stigmatising people, and if someone expresses those ideas then how can you claim they do not hold such ideas?
Straw man fallacy, where did anyone remotely claim they would do this?
Au contraire, if someone is advocating raping children (for example) we should all be listening, very carefully.
No one has assumed this, no one suggested it should ever be assumed, so another straw man fallacy.
I disagree, as firstly this is a bit facile, since crimes vary drastically, and some crimes deserve to be stigmatised, especially if it helps protect people from such crimes, other crimes can be forgiven when someone has served their sentence or atoned for their crime, and I would not stigmatise someone just because they had in the past committed a crime. The US criminal justice system seems to something of vengeful lottery, that stigmatises the poor, and certain ethnic groups and skin colour prima facie.
You ignored that a second time, instead producing straw men arguments, what am I to make of that? Please address what was actually said, rather than preaching across posts.
I believe what Iām saying makes sense and answers your question. I will only stigmatize someone after hearing their arguments (with the sole exception of child abuse, which is as clear-cut as issues like killing, rape, or robbery). Then I can determine if they truly are what I initially thought or if thereās something else going on.
It demonstrably does not make sense or address what I said, as I never suggested stigmatising people, but ideas they expressed, I even requoted the post verbatim, so your claim you wouldnāt stigmatise people before knowing what they thought, is an irrational straw man, since I made no such claimā¦
I even requoted my original post to demonstrate your error?
Why are you telling me this? Please quote me claiming I would stigmatise someone without hearing what their ideas were? Here is my original post again then:
Will you lie a third time? Only I will find it impossible not to see that as trolling.
Well there is no point trying to challenge made up stats, but I would always challenge and condemn deeply pernicious behaviours like racism, homophobia, misogyny, and child abuse.
I doubt it, but even if they were, I should still be obliged to condemn them.
The example you posted cannot be compared to the statements this man has made. I refuse to put everything on the same level. Iām not avoiding answering your first question, which obviously deserves to be condemned in every possible way. However, this is not what this man has said.
My two posts were not directly connected to each other. Thatās why I made two separate posts, each responding to a specific statement you made and using the quote function.
It appears to me that you make an awful lot of assumptions (straw manning) about what posters mean. Typically, folks here write what they mean and mean what they write.