Of the many replies to this post, this is the best response (so far) because it promotes discussion instead of trying to presume, argue, or pre-emptively invalidate sdegutis's opinion.
I think you mean forthcoming. I think he was initially fairly straightforward (forthright) about saying he didn't want to state his position (not being forthcoming).
It's a pedantic point, but there are implications about the character of the person you're talking about.
Good point, although I didn't even notice, and I'm probably the one who could have taken offense at it. So I guess my ignorance worked out as a win this time?
I can't. Not because I don't have legit reasoning (I'm convinced I do). But for a far more interesting reason: I'm one of the 0% in this community who hold this position. This means there's no chance for a fair debate. Socially speaking, I think this is far more interesting than my disagreement itself.
EDIT: Ignore this, I have already responded. See the rest of the thread.
No, you are making your opinion seem far worse by not even bothering to explain your reasoning.
You make it sound like you would be a victim. HN may be biased in it's views by and large but if you don't even try to explain yourself, you give the impression that you are even more ignorant of others views than the ~100% are of yours.
This belittles your argument in a way nobody else could even approach.
When someone asks you why you have come to a conclusion, they are looking to understand you. That is automatically counter to your assertion that there "is no chance for a fair debate".
More people disagreeing with you than agreeing with you is not the measurement of the validity of your opinion. There are many things that I believe that I know are unpopular but I still believe them, and if you ask me why, I will give you my reasoning.
Basically stating that you have no reason (or do but refuse to share it) is something that is bound to be ridiculed, and deservedly so, since it doesn't demonstrate a thought process at all.
I encourage you to share your reasons, so that we may understand your point of view better.
You're right in that holding a position that is extremely divergent from the consensus view is an interesting place to be.
I don't know if that necessarily follows that having a "fair" debate is impossible. There's nothing unfair about a majority of people disagreeing with you. Objective truth isn't determined by majority vote.
It is unfair to say "you're the only one who thinks that, so you must be wrong" but I don't see any of that happening here. If anything, I see a lot of "you're the only person who has expressed this opinion, I'm curious to know why that is?"
I'm thinking more of those who fall prey to the argumentum ad populum, and inspired with that confidence, they cite respectable-looking sources and consider them to be irrefutable proof. These people always win their arguments.
Interesting perspective, I would say that almost nobody ever actually wins an argument. Nor do I think that winning an argument is even a meaningful goal, especially online.
The best that you can hope to do is make a new and interesting point that will resonate with someone. Don't be afraid to do that. Even when you're wrong.
You're totally wrong on the contraception thing, by the way :)
I agree. I wasn't here to "win" any argument or debate. And the reason I didn't expound on my position at first was to avoid those who are.
And I know I'm right about the contraception thing. But exploring this open communication between people who disagree with me is much more important to me than having yet another going-nowhere debate about ethics and morals.
So you're saying it's interesting that you assume your point will be shot down? Assuming the reception of your viewpoints HN does nothing except suggest that you don't really have any reasoning at all, but want to frame yourself as a victim.
Providing contraception (especially condoms) can prevent STDs in addition to preventing unwanted child birth.