One that comes to mind for me: “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is not always true. Maybe even only half the time! Are there any phrases you tend to hear and shake your head at?
One that comes to mind for me: “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is not always true. Maybe even only half the time! Are there any phrases you tend to hear and shake your head at?
True. How to cook a steak, whether coffee or orange juice is better in the morning, are topics upon which reasonable people may differ, and for those, agreeing to disagree is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However, an aggravating number of people genuinely believe that whether or not trans people should be allowed to exist is one such topic, and say this to avoid having their beliefs challenged.
One-inch thick top sirloin steak. Salt and pepper heavily. Grill at 400. Four minutes total. Flip each minute to get the good grill marks. Let sit for two minutes. Down the hatch.
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.