No one is trashing rights. No one is denying LGBT people, their humanity. Thiel is literally a homosexual, why do you choose to ignore that. I don't think it is in his self interest to dehumanize himself.

It's quite well known that rich people are the least affected by policies like anti-LGBT. Thiel may not personally have much to lose if gay marriage was banned, but for many people it makes a huge difference. For example child rights, tax advantages, end of life decisions.

Anyways, you're actually very wrong - people ARE trashing rights. People in Trump's camp ARE denying LGBT their humanity. Evangelicals for example. How about "kick out every muslim"? The constitution explicitly doesn't call for a religious test to apply.

Oh yeah, explain this https://shop.donaldjtrump.com/products/lgbtq-for-trump-mens-...

Where was the M for Muslim in LGBT?

You'll need to quote where you found "kick out every Muslim" because that's the first I've heard that.

One-time only service: for-all humans h, i: h can-marry i; has never been true. Marriage is not an individual human right, it never was. It's a dyadic operation, conjugal. The issue was (pre-Obergefell) US State (as in US Federal System) rule of law.

If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems. Or you are confused.

> If you don't accept this, and continue to insist any human can marry (or should be able to marry) any other human, you're making things up that are not reflected in real legal or philosophical systems.

What is a "real philosophical system", and what distinguishes it from an unreal or fake philosophical system?

In particular, if a person who is not a professional philosopher has a set of beliefs about what is knowable or what is moral or what the nature of consciousness is, and if that set of beliefs is unusual, is their set of beliefs a "real philosophical system"? Conversely, if that person is a professional, full-time, employed philosopher and their set of beliefs is very popular and influential, is that set a "real philosophical system"?

So...what do you think about the women who are still voting for Trump(who number in the millions), even though they've probably seen the same video you have(and come to different conclusions about it being sexual assault).

Are they too stupid to know what's good for them? Trapped in some kind of Trump stockholm syndrome? They enjoy being dehumanized?

I guess all I can say is that the truth isn't subject to voters approval.

Human rights and LGBT rights, and women's rights are part of a natural truth. Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect.

Sure. And just because you think something is true doesn't make it true.

What percentage of black people were voting for KKK-associated politicians? Was it 43%? Why do 43% of voting age women disagree with your take on the matter? Are they all delusional?

> Maybe you can spin that as an opinion, but to me you're denying a logical sequence of reasoning that tells me that everyone deserves equality and respect.

'I am perfectly logical, and anyone who disagrees with me is illogical'

> everyone deserves equality and respect.

I absolutely agree.

43% of voting age women aren't supporting Trump, as you imply. His support is around 43% overall, but it's much lower with women, and higher with men.

I'm referring to here[1], which states that Clinton is +15 on average compared to Trump with women. Yes, I did assume that it is only a 2-person playing field because I don't know how those polls were conducted(was it "who are you voting for?", or "would you choose Trump or Clinton?")

[1] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-ar...

So, you conflated share of the voting age population with share of those planning to vote for one of the two major candidates, tried to get a number for that from percentage spread between the two major candidates among those planning on voting for any candidate, and then rounded favorably to your candidate. Resulting in an implausibly high number matching Trump's support in the general electorate even though the same source says that his support among women is substantially lower.

Okay. So what is the correct number? Do you disagree with the core of my argument, or are you just interested in quibbling?

If Trumps support was something extremely small like 1-9% for any group, then I would say there is a pretty good possibility that that group sees something very wrong with the candidate. If it is something more, like say in the twenties or higher, then there is hardly a consensus.