> So you have read several times that this term is criticized as offensive, yet claim that in your perception the word is the opposite of offensive. What more would it take to get through to you?
Why do you want to "get through" to me? I heard the discourse, and disagreed with the arguments, it's that simple. I am perfectly capable of understanding a conflicting point of view without being convinced by the arguments.
> This is a such strange thing to double down on.
There is nothing for me to double down on, this is simply how I see the situation. Whether you choose to believe that I'm sharing my view in good faith, is up to you.
> Some people are disabled. (...) You don't get to call them irrational any more than they get to call you intolerant.
I already made it clear that I consider irrationality in the light of whether someone is capable of making the opposite (rational) choice. If they are not (for any reason, including disability), then there is no reason to call them rational or irrational, because you cannot measure their behaviour with this metric.
Why do you want to "get through" to me? I heard the discourse, and disagreed with the arguments, it's that simple. I am perfectly capable of understanding a conflicting point of view without being convinced by the arguments.
> This is a such strange thing to double down on.
There is nothing for me to double down on, this is simply how I see the situation. Whether you choose to believe that I'm sharing my view in good faith, is up to you.
> Some people are disabled. (...) You don't get to call them irrational any more than they get to call you intolerant.
I already made it clear that I consider irrationality in the light of whether someone is capable of making the opposite (rational) choice. If they are not (for any reason, including disability), then there is no reason to call them rational or irrational, because you cannot measure their behaviour with this metric.