Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 14 submissions in the queue.

Texas Republicans Adopt Extremely Controversial Platform

posted by NCommander on Monday June 09 2014, @10:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the unbelievable dept.

Subsentient writes:

Texas Republicans have decided on a platform that includes abolishing minimum wage, cancelling climate research, banning the teaching of evolution at schools, and repealing the voting rights act, among other things, but hilariously (or depressingly) the one thing on this laundry list that people are angry about is their plan to "rehabilitate" homosexuals, a practice that many say is harmful.

BBC News has more: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27774102

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Texas Republicans Adopt Extremely Controversial Platform | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 143 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by lubricus on Tuesday June 10 2014, @08:03PM

    by lubricus (232) on Tuesday June 10 2014, @08:03PM (#53902)

    You can't set aside his initial premise for one minute and examine the rest of his logic? I realize that said foundational assumption may be repugnant to you, but he was trying to explain how you get from there to here, and that it's a logical process. You dismissing his initial assumption does not make the rest of his logic illogical.

    I did, but this is one of those arguments that sound more sophisticated than it really is. It breaks down to this:

    If something is bad, then it's always bad, even if it's genetic.

    Sure. But if I don't think it's bad, then it isn't. The genetic part is just a red herring.

    Throwing on top of that some false equivalence, equating homosexuality with alcoholism, does not change the argument:

    'See, there's this other thing that everyone agrees is partly genetic, and everyone agrees is bad, so we should be able to accept that homosexuality is also bad.'

    The argument still boils down to whether or not you start with the prior belief that homosexuality is bad, so what's the point of the rest?

    I'm all for having an open conversation where people can voice their opinions, but that includes accepting the replies.

    --
    ... sorry about the typos
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2