Human beings are have a very bad habit of not wanting to disagree with those arguing for “their side”, for reasons that are obvious once you stop to think about it: in the ancestral environment, politics is a war and arguments are the troops in that war--when you attack one of your side’s arguments, you’re stabbing the troops in the back. The problem with that kind of thinking is, it doesn’t make your position stronger, it makes it weaker--in reality, you have jeopardized your credibility by attaching your support to a bad argument, because now it looks like you’re desperately throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
No, you should not support LGBT rights because homosexuality is God/Nature’s solution to overpopulation; you should do it because limiting the freedom of and making less equal people who have done nothing wrong is called “oppression.”
The proper response to pedophiles forming online communities, coming up with cutesy names for themselves like “nop” (non-offending pedophile), “map” (minor-attracted person), “nomap” and “somap” (”semi-offending” map) and defending this by saying “Thoughts =/= actions uwu” isn’t “Thoughts lead to actions,” it’s “These are also actions; if propaganda wasn’t effective, militaries wouldn’t spend so much money on it.“
No, natural disasters aren’t nature’s revenge for global warming--if they were, they wouldn’t target random villages in the third world, they’d target Mar-a-Lago. They’re just the natural consequences of several decades of allowing the richest and most powerful among us to dump poison into our atmosphere and plunder our environment with free abandon that could have been entirely avoided had we just acted intelligently and will get progressively worse if we continue to refuse to act intelligently (Jesus Christ, isn’t that enough?).
