"I believe it is common sense that discouraging something can result in violence. It has in the past."
Let's have a look at prison systems, what are they put in place to do? What are death penalties put in place to do?
If you're familiar with the "Scared Straight " programs, the point is to discourage would be, wannabe aspiring criminals. Which in many instances result in not a criminal life but non violent one .
This is why I asked for proof that any person will resort to violence. You gave me your belief which is not the same as fact. You can believe, trust, think that something is true but you apparently have no proof.
That's a big burden to meet and I was betting on you not being able to fulfill it. To be able to prove any person, that's one incredible part of the burden, then prove any person will, the second astronomical part of that burden .
Take it from me, drop the point on leading to
violence.
"Maybe you wont. But the people you teach might."
I rest my case on that. Drop it.
"Why would anything be wrong? It is a moral question. Most people agree that upsetting others is wrong."
So something is wrong based on consensus, is it really?
"Just like my example, I can't allow people to do what they wish in my house because they're uncomfortable."
Your response.
"You can ask them to leave."
It makes them uncomfortable being asked to leave and left out. I can't do that, it be wrong according to you. Now you'll have to drop the point of somebody being uncomfortable as being the standard for wrongness or retract the encouragement for asking people to disassociate.
"Criminals are hurting people, hence making people uncomfortable. Not arresting criminals leads to great discomfort."
In other words you'd have to retract your standard of discomfort so we can arrest criminals. Let us not avoid that.
"Not going to dentist could lead to great discomfort."
In other words you'd have to retract your standard of discomfort so parents will take their children to the dentists . Let us not avoid that.
You're evading that point because it stands fallible.
"As stated, you dont have to discourage homosexuality. You can simply not encourage it and ask them to leave your house."
If a homosexual act is going on in my household, I do indeed have to break it up, interrupt thus discouraging the act in order to maintain control of my household. You got to think deeper than that .
"However, discouraging homosexuality is equal to hurting people. It is not something you can do in your house."
Just like parents that have control over children in their household, to have full control,they have to be able and successfully discourage behavior not permitted. Either through discipline or punishment. Either you're lost on the ranges of discouragement or need a refreshing on it.
This may be why you're confusing discouragement with hurting people. By this standard of yours, parents can't fully parent worrying about discouraging their children.
You are to drop this point as well.
"I dont see how you can "not invade personal matters" and at the same time "talk against other people's personal matters and cause them to feel bad". "
Let us get clarity on what we're talking about because I believe all of us can benefit from it. I understand there are those that can careless what a person means when saying something but I'm not one of them.
When I say "invading personal matters", it's like invading somebody's house. I'm invading in conversation by asking probing questions or perhaps ease dropping. I have the freedom of speech to say what I say of the information I know and have been made to know. If it's not of my business, that information will not be given to me because it's too personal.
I can say what I wish in my own household, control my household as I see fit .
See I'm still operating within proper boundaries. I think you're taking this to extreme, militant measures.
"The topic is apsolute. It includes outside and inside of your house, and any place, and any situation."
I guess I'll say it again, I can discourage people from within my house. If I'm actually able to do the act it's a done deal. It doesn't matter where. Why? We know it's not possible to reach every person in the world regarding this. You can't say and be correct that a police officer is not enforcing or upholding the law just because they can't apprehend or don't apprehend every single perpetrator there is.
They do so from their jurisdiction and fit the bill without having to go outside it.
"Freedom of speech is good, unless it leads to violence and people being hurt for no reason."
Fine and well. It has nothing to do with my position though.
"I would recommend that you add "in a peaceful manner" to the topic next time. "
I would suggest you not assume there's nothing peaceful in this topic across the board. The word "discourage" does not mean kill or be violent. At least when I use the word it doesn't. It is totally fallacious to lump all people opposed in with legitimate hate groups provoking bloodshed. Totally biased move on your part .
"Further, it was historically proven that discouraging usually does lead to violence."
You have to prove in all cases. This is where the "absolute" argument comes in properly. As long as there are instances we can say it's not wrong to discourage based on the meaning, that's all that's required to be focused on.
See I don't have to look at all forms of protests as corruptible resulting in poisonous hatred and whatnot. On top of that, discouragement in and of itself doesn't outright mean to hurt , harm or kill somebody. You continue to say "lead". Just lead, lead,lead, lead, lead because discouragement by itself doesn't necessitate violence. This is where we run in this correlation/causation issue as there can be many other factors separate and not exclusive or connected to discouragement. Other elements may come into play if not one alone.
Same thing with people tying homosexuality erroneously to molestation. The correlation may not be the causation.
"Could you present us proof that your version of discouraging wont lead to violence?"
Yes I discourage myself from supporting to encourage homosexuality.
Scout's honor, it has not led me to violence.
As far as something you can see for yourself, preachers that preach against homosexuality don't get violent because violence and preaching are two different things .
Another example, homosexuality in penal prison systems that's discouraged by segregating inmates certainly keeps violence away.
Trust me, discouraging and violence are not synonymous.
You can peacefully protest, peacefully demonstrate, you can discourage in and of itself or in your thought process "peacefully discourage ".
Like I say, I can break up, discourage, interrupt homosexual behavior taken place in my home kindly requesting the homosexual party to vacant.
If need be, I'm sure the authorities will do the same if called upon .
I don't know what proof a person is looking to prove a person runs their household.
It's really not about demonstrating that this occurs.
I simply just pointed out the fact that a person is entitled and justified and there's nothing wrong to discourage homosexuality inside their home. That's a fact we know exists in reality.
What is so hard to accept about this?
You know.....very factual.
I'm a fuck up and forgot notes for yall.
Notes for Pro
1. Don't give Con their moral framework, they will only use it to beat you. They chose it because it proves their point. Provide a counter framework.
2. You can't just say you need to control your house. You need to prove that.
Notes for Con
1. Push harder on discouraging is not only in the house, but a universal act. Pro was losing on this argument, and the Kantian ideal for morality is interesting to enforce.
2. You need a formal "language can be violence" claim. That with some good reasoning would get you so far.