Apparently we’re all meant to function with such an extreme level of cognitive dissonance that we should separate the fact that a person has openly advocated for enforced child abuse from any reflection on the character of that person because their abusive “opinions” exist entirely separately to who they are as a person; opinions are just some ethereal thing floating around randomly and have nothing to do with the person who holds them, like little pollen particles that happen to get stuck to them when they are outside.
Allegedly people have no agency, and no responsibility for the deliberate harm that they cause by trying to force such appalling “opinions” into public discourse and even into law to force everyone else to participate in the abuse for which they advocate, because “religion”.
One wonders how those defending this square this circle, that apparently nobody “religious” is responsible for their actions, yet many of these same people (like the London protesters and the Farage rioters last year) allegedly are concerned about other people using their religion as an excuse to be abusive to women and girls… I suppose whether it’s acceptable to abuse girls must depend on which religion you’re using to “justify” the abuse?
It is really hard to imagine the mental gymnastics involved here. It’s similar to simultaneously claiming that this man was a champion of free speech while he advocated to remove the right for women to have any freedom of speech at all even within their own homes because they should be forced to be “subordinate to men”.
Quite clearly, it is impossible to have any kind of rational discussion with people determined to insist that this is all entirely reasonable and logically consistent and a perfectly acceptable “moral position”. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so dangerous, particularly for our daughters.