i guess for me the pleasure also lies in seeing people's perspectives and learning how varied people's opinions can be and trying to unpack what underlies them, but the directions people take confuse me. i think a few threads ago i saw a guy argue that homosexuality is bad because it's caused by childhood molestation, and everyone focused on unpacking whether there was a link between being molested as a child and homosexuality, but nobody talked about the underlying premise (that things inherit the moral or ethical goodness of their causes) and the issues with that premise, and that's wild to me. i can't imagine living in a world where things inherit the morality of their causes. even if his premise is true, that's wild! if homosexuality is bad just because it's caused by being molested, then what about like, that guy that took a nail gun to the head and woke up able to play the piano. is playing the piano bad now because it was caused by a bad thing? if so, is it just him playing the piano that's bad, or did the nail gun accident retroactively make all piano playing bad? how far does this perspective extend? the cure for polio was motivated by people dying of polio. does that make the cure for polio bad? i didn't see anyone bring this up. they tried to attack his facts instead of the way he was using his facts, and that was really interesting. i see that a lot in these discussions as an observer. people are fascinating. after observing for a while i decided that he had a cultural-moral belief about homosexuality and was trying to work backwards to justify it, which is another odd behavior i see a lot. i would love to get involved in discussions online, but i find it uncomfortable and scary