Bigoted viewpoints can be discussed by attributing them to the people who make these statements and not to the posters themselves and by putting their statements into an appropriate context. Example:
Question: The political doctrine of Antifelinism believes that all kittens should be eradicated. How do prominent antifelinists propose to do this?
A bad answer:
Antifelinists believe that kitten are evil because [this article] says that kittens pray to satan and [this article] PROVES kitten did 9/11 and [this statistic] clearly shows that kitten population correlates with catnip smuggling. Also kittens scratch and bite and I hate them. Our stupid politicians should make the eradication of all felidae a top priority and their inaction on the kitten threat shows they are TRAITORS!!! Fido 2020!
A good answer:
Answer: Fido from the moderately pro-dog and anti-cat party suggested that kittens should be encouraged to get sterilized in [this interview]. His statement was heavily criticized by various cat rights groups. He later claimed in [this interview] that he was quoted out of context.
According to [this article] Brutus from the radical anti-felinist front wrote in his manifesto (which I am not going to link because it contains hate speech) that all kittens should be killed on sight. Note that the anti-felinist front is considered a terrorist organization by the EU.
