But, as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, your argument hinges solely on how you personally interpret the title of this meme. All it says is that one group definitely hurt kids. That’s simply factual. What you then did was assume the meme was saying ‘the number of drag artists that have hurt kids is zero’ and it doesn’t make any such claim at all. It simply states one group has definitely hurt children.
When does a number of individuals become ‘a group’ I guess is the question. Maybe (and I fully accept this is solely my opinion) the meme is suggesting that as the number of kid hurting drag artists, although a non-zero number, is so very low it’s hard to even class them as a group. When the word ‘group’ is used by the ultra conservatives and xtians it seems to me that what they’re attempting is try and make out there’s enough offending individuals to justify referring to them as a group in a way that makes them representative of the whole.
One of the people in one of your links for example - they offended in 2008 then later became a drag artist. Is that person really a pedo drag artist? Or are they a pedo who’s realised that with the advent of drag artists reading stories to kids, becoming a drag artist was a good way to get access to kids, in the same way some pedos become teachers etc? We don’t say teachers, as a group, are inherently pedo’s or that pedo teachers are representative of teachers so why do it with drag artists?
I’m sorry, but your argument is simply incorrect. It is not merely “my interpretation” as claimed. It’s the interpretation of literally every person in this thread so far…with exception of yourself. I don’t need to bother with the rest of your reply, because it all relies on the first claim being accurate, which it is not.
You keep saying how much you value logic and fact. I’m (disingenuously, I admit) pointing out to you that stripped of all context, the title of this meme simply states that one group has hurt kids and doesn’t say only one group. It’s literally factual to say that, but - as you say - not accurate because context matters, right?
I’m trying to get you to see that there’s nuance and shades of grey that goes beyond facts and touches (as I said ages ago) on the spirit of the meme. (And really, it is just a meme, do they live and die by pure facts? Clearly not based on most of them).
I don’t think anyone is claiming that there’s a non-zero amount of drag artists who’ve hurt kids. But you saying ‘both?’ is not really taking account of various nuances and contexts, such as - is there even enough drag artists who’ve hurt kids to classify them as a group? Could it be that some of them were pedo’s who, after offending and doing time and being released realised that glomming onto the drag artist community was a way to get close to kids now?
We don’t factually know. That’s why it’s difficult to understand why you say ‘both?’ in a way that infers both are groups that represent their respective communities or are somehow equal.
But, as I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, your argument hinges solely on how you personally interpret the title of this meme. All it says is that one group definitely hurt kids. That’s simply factual. What you then did was assume the meme was saying ‘the number of drag artists that have hurt kids is zero’ and it doesn’t make any such claim at all. It simply states one group has definitely hurt children.
When does a number of individuals become ‘a group’ I guess is the question. Maybe (and I fully accept this is solely my opinion) the meme is suggesting that as the number of kid hurting drag artists, although a non-zero number, is so very low it’s hard to even class them as a group. When the word ‘group’ is used by the ultra conservatives and xtians it seems to me that what they’re attempting is try and make out there’s enough offending individuals to justify referring to them as a group in a way that makes them representative of the whole.
One of the people in one of your links for example - they offended in 2008 then later became a drag artist. Is that person really a pedo drag artist? Or are they a pedo who’s realised that with the advent of drag artists reading stories to kids, becoming a drag artist was a good way to get access to kids, in the same way some pedos become teachers etc? We don’t say teachers, as a group, are inherently pedo’s or that pedo teachers are representative of teachers so why do it with drag artists?
I’m sorry, but your argument is simply incorrect. It is not merely “my interpretation” as claimed. It’s the interpretation of literally every person in this thread so far…with exception of yourself. I don’t need to bother with the rest of your reply, because it all relies on the first claim being accurate, which it is not.
I am, I admit, playing devils advocate a bit.
You keep saying how much you value logic and fact. I’m (disingenuously, I admit) pointing out to you that stripped of all context, the title of this meme simply states that one group has hurt kids and doesn’t say only one group. It’s literally factual to say that, but - as you say - not accurate because context matters, right?
I’m trying to get you to see that there’s nuance and shades of grey that goes beyond facts and touches (as I said ages ago) on the spirit of the meme. (And really, it is just a meme, do they live and die by pure facts? Clearly not based on most of them).
I don’t think anyone is claiming that there’s a non-zero amount of drag artists who’ve hurt kids. But you saying ‘both?’ is not really taking account of various nuances and contexts, such as - is there even enough drag artists who’ve hurt kids to classify them as a group? Could it be that some of them were pedo’s who, after offending and doing time and being released realised that glomming onto the drag artist community was a way to get close to kids now?
We don’t factually know. That’s why it’s difficult to understand why you say ‘both?’ in a way that infers both are groups that represent their respective communities or are somehow equal.