Reading your comment, I have realized that you are correct, there are at least several ways to defend it contrary to what I said, but I think your specific example is flawed.
Trans people are evil incarnate trying to destroy humanity.
I said it was impossible to defend “without basing it on bigotry,” and that is simple bigotry. I do agree with you that this is almost certainly the sort of argument you’d hear from a Trump supporter.
Like I said, though, reading your comment, I did realize that it’s theoretically possible to defend without bigotry, just as long as you allow fantasy and insanity as defenses. Like, if they say, “God told me it was the job of religious people to take away the pensions of trans people,” that would not be bigotry.
Also, sheer ignorance and stupidity can be a non-bigoted defense. You know, like, “Trump would never do something evil. Therefore, this must be good.”
There may even be some sort of pedantic defense, something like, “People who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pension.” (I don’t know that they were dishonorably discharged, or that people who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pensions. It’s just an example of how there might be a pedantic argument.)
I’d be interested if there was actually an argument that could be used to defend Trump that didn’t insult everybody’s intelligence, though.
Reading your comment, I have realized that you are correct, there are at least several ways to defend it contrary to what I said, but I think your specific example is flawed.
I said it was impossible to defend “without basing it on bigotry,” and that is simple bigotry. I do agree with you that this is almost certainly the sort of argument you’d hear from a Trump supporter.
Like I said, though, reading your comment, I did realize that it’s theoretically possible to defend without bigotry, just as long as you allow fantasy and insanity as defenses. Like, if they say, “God told me it was the job of religious people to take away the pensions of trans people,” that would not be bigotry.
Also, sheer ignorance and stupidity can be a non-bigoted defense. You know, like, “Trump would never do something evil. Therefore, this must be good.”
There may even be some sort of pedantic defense, something like, “People who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pension.” (I don’t know that they were dishonorably discharged, or that people who are dishonorably discharged are supposed to lose their pensions. It’s just an example of how there might be a pedantic argument.)
I’d be interested if there was actually an argument that could be used to defend Trump that didn’t insult everybody’s intelligence, though.