The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

[James S. Rustad]

But I digress. My post was about civil discourse and how rare that is from all sides of the aisle.  If you want to talk about something else go on ahead.

"Civil discourse" and proper "debate" are meant to uncover the truth together. Arguing seeks to win. Or, "I'm right and you're wrong" vs. "Let's try to discover the truth together."

Or, as a pinterest quote says: Discussions are always better than arguments, because an argument is to find out who is right and a discussion is to find out what is right.

I think that one of the problems in this forum is that what one person posts as a discussion topic - which may be what he believes, but is willing to hear what others say about it; is taken as an argument. Defenses rile up and a response is made to try and prove that I'm right rather than further the discussion.

According to Merriam-Webster, an argument is a line of reasoning given during a discussion (as well as the process of discussing).  I suppose we should also consider the "heated discussion".  English is slippery.
=============================
ar·​gu·​ment | \ ˈär-gyə-mənt  \
Definition of argument
1a: the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing : ARGUMENTATION
b: a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
a defense attorney's closing argument
c: an angry quarrel or disagreement
having an argument over/about money
trying to settle an argument
2a: a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
They presented their arguments in favor of the proposal.
b: a form of rhetorical expression intended to convince or persuade
3: an abstract (see ABSTRACT entry 2 sense 1) or summary especially of a literary work
4: the subject matter especially of a literary work
5a mathematics : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends
b grammar : a substantive (such as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar
c mathematics : AMPLITUDE sense 4
6 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
=============================
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/argument

[Dan Fienen]

During the push for legalization of same sex marriage and in the aftermath of the SCOTUS Obergefell decision we were assured that there was absolutely no reason for those who opposed same sex marriage to be concerned, the decision and legalization would have absolutely no effect on those who disagree with same sex marriage. If you disagree with same sex marriage, just don't enter into one. Easy peasy. Those expressing concern were being foolishly and obnoxiously paranoid.


Well, Chick-fil-A has stopped giving to several conservative Christian charities in 2012 and recently announced that it would no longer donate to Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army. LGBTQ+ groups are counting coup and celebrating it as a victory. Although they still are against Chick-fil-A.


Granted, Chick-fil-A can donate or not as they choose. And groups have the right to protest against and boycott anyone they please. There really is not a legal issue here. Why I cry foul is that supposedly there should not be a conflict here. Grant the legal right, which has been done and those who oppose simply do not avail themselves of the right they dislike. Just don't have a same sex marriage or same sex sexual relationship. And, now it turns out, don't say anything against same sex marriage or we're coming to get you. Those opposed are not simply left along with their plain vanilla heterosexuality, they must be crushed.

[aletheist]

Well, Chick-fil-A ... recently announced that it would no longer donate to Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army. LGBTQ+ groups are counting coup and celebrating it as a victory.

The media is certainly framing the story as if this decision is entirely in response to LGBTQ complaints.  Why assume that this is an accurate interpretation?  Why not simply report that Chick-fil-A is increasing its support of Covenant House and Junior Achievement?

[Dan Fienen]

Well, Chick-fil-A ... recently announced that it would no longer donate to Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Salvation Army. LGBTQ+ groups are counting coup and celebrating it as a victory.

The media is certainly framing the story as if this decision is entirely in response to LGBTQ complaints.  Why assume that this is an accurate interpretation?  Why not simply report that Chick-fil-A is increasing its support of Covenant House and Junior Achievement?

Suggest that to the media. Chick-fil-A certainly has little control over how the media plays this. The message from the media is, don't cross, don't mess with the LGBTQ+ movement. If you do and you're a business they'll try to ruin you, shut you down, make you a pariah. If you are a charity they'll target your donors until they desert you. They want to make American society unsafe for anyone who is not on board with them. At least that is the message that is getting out.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
The message from the media is, don't cross, don't mess with the LGBTQ+ movement.
I comment:
No, that is not the message "from the media". That may be the message from certain lobbyists and activist groups.

Pastor Fienen:
If you do and you're a business they'll try to ruin you, shut you down, make you a pariah.
I comment:
Well, I'm not shopping at a certain hobby store or eating poultry promoted by bovines who can't spell. But I'm sure others are. Maybe you want to avoid doing business with Democrats or anyone supporting the ACLU. Fine with me.

Pastor Fienen:
If you are a charity they'll target your donors until they desert you. They want to make American society unsafe for anyone who is not on board with them. At least that is the message that is getting out.
Me:
"Unsafe"? "Unsafe"? Don't use that word in that context if you are talking to a gay man who has been beaten, bullied, demeaned or otherwise putdown by snide comments, jokes or terminology, or has suffered (or seen his friends suffer) actual violence.
How in the name of Aunt Gertie's goat do you feel "unsafe" because you do not approve of our current laws concerning gay marriage?

[Dan Fienen]

Perhaps unsafe was the wrong word, although that is tossed around quite a bit these days. Students on a college campus may feel unsafe if a conservative is invited to speak on campus, not because they are fearful of being caught in a violent Antifa demonstration, but because a conservative speaking in public makes them feel unsafe. Or the students who objected that Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh as a guest lecturer made them feel unsafe.


Would it be better to say that there is an effort to marginalize anyone who does not tow the LGBTQ+ preferred positions, or to exclude from public life and commerce anyone who disagrees with their positions?


I suppose that living in a society that has a diversity of opinions is difficult, so much easier if those who disagree are shunted away where normal people (people like me and my friends) don't have to hear, see, or even acknowledge their existence. How much better to live in spaces safe from people like that.


You say that you will not shop at a certain hobby stores, or eat sandwiches from shops that employ misspelling bovine sign designers, and if I do not want to shop at places that support thee ACLU that's fine with you. OK. But do you support the idea of local governments refusing to allow the businesses that you dislike to set up business in your community even if they obey local zoning ordinances for that kind of business? Would you support the local government to ban Salvation Army kettles in your area because it has been decided that they are not friendly enough to LGBTQ+ causes?  Should our communities have ideological zoning?

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
Would it be better to say that there is an effort to marginalize anyone who does not tow the LGBTQ+ preferred positions, or to exclude from public life and commerce anyone who disagrees with their positions?
I comment:
No, it would not.

Pastor Fienen:
I suppose that living in a society that has a diversity of opinions is difficult, so much easier if those who disagree are shunted away where normal people (people like me and my friends) don't have to hear, see, or even acknowledge their existence. How much better to live in spaces safe from people like that.
Me:
Just stop. You love to play the victim, and you weren’t victimized at all.

Pastor Fienen:
You say that you will not shop at a certain hobby stores, or eat sandwiches from shops that employ misspelling bovine sign designers, and if I do not want to shop at places that support thee ACLU that's fine with you. OK. But do you support the idea of local governments refusing to allow the businesses that you dislike to set up business in your community even if they obey local zoning ordinances for that kind of business?
Me:
No, I do not support that. And where did such a dumbass idea come from?

Pastor Fienen:
Would you support the local government to ban Salvation Army kettles in your area because it has been decided that they are not friendly enough to LGBTQ+ causes?  Should our communities have ideological zoning?
Me:
Of course not. Do you have to take everything to ridiculous, insane extremes?

[Dan Fienen]

But there have been cities who have tried to exclude Chick-fil-A, college campuses with fast food franchises who have banned Chick-fil-A even when many students wanted one on campus, etc.

[Charles Austin]

Yeah. Sometimes stupid things happen. They don’t always have cosmic significance.

[peter_speckhard]

Yeah. Sometimes stupid things happen. They don’t always have cosmic significance.

But when woke college administrators work in concert with LGBTQ activists, stupid things ALWAYS happen. And you never seem to care.

And it isn’t like deliberate targeting of conservative Christians for economic harm is anything of serious, cosmic significance, like using English pronouns when speaking English rather than whatever made up neologism is in vogue. That is a genuine hate crime.

[Charles Austin]

We just might disagree, Peter, on what a “stupid thing” is.