Flames' Pride Night slotted for March 28 vs. LA

[Yeah_Baby]

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by cannon7

So let's unpack this. According to you, the jersey is endorsing inclusivity. But according to you someone can be inclusive without endorsing something. So how does one go about doing that if the thing being endorsed is inclusivity itself?

In my opinion... if a person is not willing to endorse inclusivity, the person is not truly inclusive.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by cannon7

You left out the personal bias part. They didn't even elaborate on how I was downplaying such a thing, it was entirely framed around some perceived personal bias.

Well it was the last sentence of a post, so "entirely framed" is a bit much. If you want to understand Godwin's law here is a quote from Wikipedia which you could have found in 30 seconds:

"Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.'

Your bringing Godwin's law into this shows you believe a comparison of LGBTQ+ discrimination to the KKK (or Nazi's) is somehow hyperbole, when in fact it's completely reasonable...I mean you can read up on how the Nazi's treated homosexuals.

So either you are being dishonest in your statements or your personal bias is preventing you from seeing the hatred and violence directed at the LGBTQ+ community.

I'm unsure if pointing out someone's bias could be considered Ad Hominem. It's definitely one of the more tame personal attacks going.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What’s the end goal for people defending Reimer, still, in a thread that wasn’t meant to be about Reimer? What is the main issue you’re actually arguing against and what change would you like to see?

Because, at the end of the day, Reimer got some mild criticism from people who disagreed with his choice and everything then continued as normal with most people moving on. So if one of the 2-3 people obsessing about this would like to clearly and succinctly explain their issue with that then maybe everyone else can provide you with some closure.

So only 2 or 3 people obsessed about Reimer not wearing a warm up jersey?

Really?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

What’s the end goal for people defending Reimer, still, in a thread that wasn’t meant to be about Reimer? What is the main issue you’re actually arguing against and what change would you like to see?

Because, at the end of the day, Reimer got some mild criticism from people who disagreed with his choice and everything then continued as normal with most people moving on. So if one of the 2-3 people obsessing about this would like to clearly and succinctly explain their issue with that then maybe everyone else can provide you with some closure.

People are not really defending Reimer's beliefs.

They are defending the principles of a liberal society.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by cannon7

So claiming I'm downplaying LGBT struggles because of a personal bias is not an ad hominem?

Let's see...



There I go again, reading dictionaries.

Seems like an ad hominem to me. Instead of attacking my position, they instead are attacking me for some perceived personal bias.

Yeah, you're wrong.

Ad hominen is attacking the character instead of the argument. Your post had no argument to refute, you used Godwin's Law wrong to try and act in bad faith to stifle arguments. You had no argument to refute, so ad hominen can not exist.

Hey you're an Oiler fans, so if you believe in the round earth theory it must be wrong - that's an ad hominen attack.

Hey you're letting your own personal biases with the very topic at hand result in you being a ###### in this thread - that's just a position.

[OptimalTates]

cannon7 posts a three word sarcastic (and wrong) post then cries that his "argument" wasn't fairly refuted. What an absolute dunce lol

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

So let's unpack this. According to you, the jersey is endorsing inclusivity. But according to you someone can be inclusive without endorsing something. So how does one go about doing that if the thing being endorsed is inclusivity itself?

A. It’s not “according to me”.

B. You can endorse inclusivity for all by endorsing inclusivity for all. It’s really not that hard.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A. It’s not “according to me”.

Sorry, mixed you up with the other poster.

Originally Posted by GioforPM

B. You can endorse inclusivity for all by endorsing inclusivity for all. It’s really not that hard.

But you can't be inclusive without the endorsement. So it is all or nothing.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Do you know who else compared people to Hitler?

Spoiler!

HITLER!

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

Well it was the last sentence of a post, so "entirely framed" is a bit much. If you want to understand Godwin's law here is a quote from Wikipedia which you could have found in 30 seconds:

"Godwin's law itself can be applied mistakenly or abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, when fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparison made by the argument is appropriate.'

Your bringing Godwin's law into this shows you believe a comparison of LGBTQ+ discrimination to the KKK (or Nazi's) is somehow hyperbole, when in fact it's completely reasonable...I mean you can read up on how the Nazi's treated homosexuals.

So either you are being dishonest in your statements or your personal bias is preventing you from seeing the hatred and violence directed at the LGBTQ+ community.

I'm unsure if pointing out someone's bias could be considered Ad Hominem. It's definitely one of the more tame personal attacks going.

Making a comparison to another person's position to the KKK is arguing in bad faith. The whole point of Godwin's law is that this is such a banal trope that it is in effect a capitulation to resort to such hyperbole. But if this is the best you can do, then I won't stop you.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

People are not really defending Reimer's beliefs.

They are defending the principles of a liberal society.

BoLevi and I don't agree on a lot of things. Maybe most things. But we can still defend the principles of liberalism. The venue notwithstanding, it doesn't always need to be a team sport.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Sorry, mixed you up with the other poster.



But you can't be inclusive without the endorsement. So it is all or nothing.

No. You don’t get it at all. He is saying he’s inclusive and refusing to do a minor thing that would demonstrate it. So people are rightly saying it’s BS.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

No. You don’t get it at all. He is saying he’s inclusive and refusing to do a minor thing that would demonstrate it. So people are rightly saying it’s BS.

Fair enough. My interpretation of Reimer's words is that he thinks there is a distinction between being inclusive and a personal endorsement. That you can have one without the other.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

People are not really defending Reimer's beliefs.

They are defending the principles of a liberal society.

You certainly aren't.

You're basically saying someone shouldn't face public scrutiny for refusing to wear a pride jersey during warmup, while all his teammates were wearing said jerseys without making a fuss.

Don't you believe in freedom of speech?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Fair enough. My interpretation of Reimer's words is that he thinks there is a distinction between being inclusive and a personal endorsement. That you can have one without the other.

An endorsement of what? Something he made up in his head.

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You certainly aren't.

You're basically saying someone shouldn't face public scrutiny for refusing to wear a pride jersey during warmup, while all his teammates were wearing said jerseys without making a fuss.

Don't you believe in freedom of speech?

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law.

In what ways are his arguments inconsistent with liberalism? wouldn't everyone wearing the jersey be more consistent with collectivism?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

An endorsement of what? Something he made up in his head.

Someone made up Pride night, in their head.

[Infinit47]

Originally Posted by cannon7

Making a comparison to another person's position to the KKK is arguing in bad faith. The whole point of Godwin's law is that this is such a banal trope that it is in effect a capitulation to resort to such hyperbole. But if this is the best you can do, then I won't stop you.

It's funny that you end your posts with attacks and then whine about ad hominem.

I said taking a position where everyone is 100% required to tolerate everyone else would mean being forced to accept the KKK as legitimate, which it is not.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Comparing anti LGBTQ+ propaganda and the ensuing violence that occurs to Nazi's and the KKK is not hyperbole, it's happening right now.

Are you just pissed because you no longer get to live in a bubble where your thoughts are validated simply because you have them? It seems you consider a challenge to you as a personal attacks, at the same time as attacking others.

Did you buy a Charlie Kirk spinning wheel of outrage to use whenever you get offended online? I'm excited for "woke" ""snowflake" and "alpha male" to come up. Is it like a board game, or an online thing where you have to pay for each spin?

[cannon7]

Originally Posted by Infinit47

It's funny that you end your posts with attacks and then whine about ad hominem.

But I thought we all agreed that this wasn't an ad hominem? If we're going to be contrarian, let's at least be consistently so.

Originally Posted by Infinit47

I said taking a position where everyone is 100% required to tolerate everyone else would mean being forced to accept the KKK as legitimate, which it is not.

Can you have tolerance towards a group without giving it legitimacy?