No, this does not follow. There are other possibilities. For example, he might believe that gay people should be executed in a specific way, or by "society" (ie; executed by the state).
That falls under "people who are in a position to do it."
But that, again, is a belief about murder and/or capital punishment, not homosexuality. That is "I believe the state executes people for heinous crimes, and homosexuality should be one of those crimes."
But he doesn't believe THAT either. Nor would he ever be caught dead advocating for such a thing. That, again, is the moving goalpost of tenable beliefs; when that belief encounters the test of reality (e.g. he is given an opportunity to advocate for death penalties for homosexuals and fails to do so) then he either backpedals to a more realistic belief, or he handwaves the contradiction with bullshit.
The fact of the matter is, even the most conservative Christians do not really believe homosexuals deserve to die. They THINK they believe it, but that imaginary moral imperative is not part of the real world in which they actually inhabit in their day-to-day lives. It is part of a fantasy world of theological "What if..." and "In a perfect world..." scenarios that they know, on some level, will never be real.
To use your own analogy: you believe that your neighbor should take out your garbage on a regular basis and recycle his cans and bottles. This MIGHT be a genuine belief, except you know good and damn well your neighbor is never going to come to your house and take out your garbage, that you could never convince him to do it, that asking him to do it would get you punched in the face, and that at the end of the day it's easier to just do it yourself while whining that your neighbor ought to do it himself.
Just because you can
imagine something doesn't mean you really believe in it.
Right. That's not a belief about the recycling or getting rid of garbage. It's a belief about people whose job it is to DO that.
No, it's really me just not wanting to do it and justifying that after the fact.
Right. You don't REALLY believe you should be taking out your neighbor's garbage, you're just SAYING you believe it for rhetorical purposes and then claiming your belief only APPEARS to be un-genuine for reasons X, Y and Z but it really and truly is a genuine belief.
That, my friend, is called "bullshit."
Nothing. Just that I'm lazy and non-commital.
Right. You don't think it SHOULD happen, you just think it would be nice if it DID happen.
That is called "fantasizing." As with bullshit, it is
not the same thing as belief.
He DOESN'T believe it. He is bullshitting. If he actually believed it, he'd be lobbying for a legislative action to make it happen.
Why? Personally, I actually genuinely believe that climate change is a problem we should address. But I haven't spent a second in my life lobbying for legislative action on it.
Therefore your actions indicate your actual beliefs: climate change is a problem,
but not a problem worthy of your time.
Which is fine. I also believe climate change is a problem and something should be done about it. I don't believe that anything I could do would make a difference, however, nor would it be a productive use of my time, because I don't REALLY believe the effects of climate change are going to be bad enough to make it worth the (admittedly futile) effort. Yes, I've been TOLD the effects would be bad enough to make it worth it; yes I am AWARE that people other than me will suffer far greater than me as a consequence. Yes, I'm comfortable with the fact that I don't actually care enough about those people to really take the issue seriously.
Giving lip-service to something you are expected to support -- saying what you expect people want to hear -- is NOT the same thing as holding a genuine belief. You, like most people, do not believe climate change is a BIG ENOUGH problem to warrant your actually spending time on it. A person can CLAIM to believe all kinds of things, but your beliefs are reflected in how you live, not how imagine yourself living.
No, that's what happens when that belief is sincerely held by a large enough number of people in a society.
Correction: that's what happens when a belief is sincerely held by a large enough people in a
government. Society wouldn't actually need to approve of the passing of such a law; on the other hand, a massive social backlash AGAINST that law would reflect the beliefs of the majority of that society. So, too, would the LACK of a backlash if the majority of people quietly went along with it.
It's not an unreasonable conclusion to draw regarding his stances... but it *is* unreasonable to assert it as the only possible conclusion.
In context? Assuming, of course, that he is not a psychopath:
He is raised in a western society. He knows a western society will never tolerate the passage of such a law. He knows that his COMMUNITY will never tolerate the passage of such a law. He knows, on some level, that even his listeners would not stand idly by and tolerate that kind of behavior, despite the fact that many of them CLAIM they would. So while a mass machinegunning of homosexuals in the middle of Time's Square may be something he daydreams about, it is not something he actually wants to make happen. He's an asshole, not a monster.
But I concede, you are correct: it is possible that he IS, in fact, a psychopath and he genuinely believes this, and he actually WOULD try to make it happen if he had the opportunity. In that case, I am simply giving him too much credit. But even in that case, the true test of his beliefs is what he DOES, not what he SAYS.
