@SatanLucy
For sure.
Though as far as we are able to know, collective data assessments that come to a conclusion, are as reliable as they can be under the circumstances.
For sure.
Though as far as we are able to know, collective data assessments that come to a conclusion, are as reliable as they can be under the circumstances.
Though as far as we are able to know, collective data assessments that come to a conclusion, are as reliable as they can be under the circumstances.
So no reliable proof.
I was agreeing in principle, therefore under such precepts proof is irrelevant
Should people be pressured to put on a performance to make others feel better?
The fact that you think referring to someone by their preferred pronoun is a performance tells us everything we need to know.
If I told you my name was Julian, but I go by "Julz", are you putting on a performance by calling me Julz?
No, of course not, that's ridiculous. Referring to someone in accordance with how they wish to be referred to isn't a performance, it's a common courtesy. The only thing that might require a performance is doing so while holding back your hatred and disgust of that individual.
That's clearly why you think it's a performance.
And if your hatred and disgust isn't already obvious by that point, the fact that you feel the need to continue putting you're energy into making this nonsensical argument only further displays the level of disgust and hatred you have here which is undergerdding your position. Instead of just respecting these people and moving on, you have to sit here creating thread after thread about it. It's just sad.
If refusing to put on a performance makes 82% of the population hateful, then 82% of the population is hateful.
If 82% of the population thinks treating trans people with the same kennel of respect we'd give anyone else requires a performance, then yes, they would be hateful.
You were trying to change the subject to healthcare.
So you have no reading comprehension and/or are just not a serious person. Got it.
If a majority do not support, then a majority cannot really be regarded as bigots...Maybe, they are in fact correct and the minority are talking bollocks. (No pun intended)
Who knows?...We would need to ask GOD for a supreme ruling.
But I think that GOD is currently in the FooFoo Galaxy establishing protolife on Planet Wheeeeeeeeee.
Though I'm guessing that GOD would say whatever...If it's evolved, it's evolved.
Names and pronouns are different.
Yeah, feels that way when you are a bigot. When you're not a bigot, it doesn't make a difference. Julian/Julz, he/she... It's just words.
That tells you what you need to know about 82% of the population according to Ipsos.
I seriously doubt you are accurately representing their survey, but it doesn't matter. If 82% feel the same way then yes, 82% are hateful bigots.
I don't know why you keep repeating this number or talking about majorities. Maybe you need that because it makes you feel better to think you're not alone in your bigotry. Which would then big the question as to why you continue to hold these positions of you feel the need to justify them to yourself. Don't know, you sound like you have a lot of internal issues to work out.
If all non-leftists aren't serious to you
No, you can stop there. I don't lay that charge on anyone based on their political views, I lay that charge at those who pretend they don't understand what I'm saying in order to avoid having to address it the way you just did.
The majority of every race doesn't support trans rights defined as, "do you think the TW are real women?"
Almost no one at all agrees with that, including myself. That's what happens when your views are not rationally defendable, you have to make up your own opposition so you can attack something no one is saying. I hope that makes you feel better though.
There is nothing wrong with conceding an issue to the right; it's happened before (believe women; vaccine mandates, etc). When the left conceded these issues
Yeah, I'd really love to talk to Mr. Left to find out why he conceded these issues. Especially since no such concession ever happened.
As usual, you can won the debate so you strawman the opposition. "Believe women" is a slogan uttered by a small sememe of the left that didn't think their slogan through. No serious person actually thinks what you and every other right winger pretends it means - that we're supposed to shut down or critical thinking faculties and blindly accept whatever these women say.
Vaccine mandates weren't conceded by the left, they (the COVID ones) were always intended to be a temporary solution to a global pandemic. And to the extent some on the left now say they went to far, that's hardly a concession, that's more like hindsight which is always 20/20. The mandates were a precaution, and if you know what that word means you'd know that the likelihood of it going to far isn't a mistake, that's the intention.
Because majorities are harder to assilimiante than minorities.
Argumentum ad populum is a formal logical fallacy for a reason.
Might brings the benefits of being right.
Then that demonstrates that you don't care about actually being right, only being in power. So what is the point of debating me on any of this? And why push back when I tell you that you're unserious? This is the quintessential embodiment of what that phrase means.
If you get angry at a majority, then you become irrelevant.
I don't care about being relevant, I care about being right. As in actually right. As in, in accordance with facts and logic. And by facts, I mean that which is in accordance with reality. Not my reality or your reality, actual reality. The one reality that we all share regardless of what we think or feel about it. That's my value, if yours is different then admit it loud and clear.
Well, why would someone be conservative to begin with? It's because the right wing opinions the left believes are bigoted (transphobia, homophobia, Zionism, anti-abortion, anti-poor person, etc). People who are non-leftists have a reason for identifying like that.
Conservatism and bigotry are two entirely different things. I think you would benefit by looking up the definition of a bigot and educate yourself on what it means.
By the left's standards, America is a nation of fascists
Again, fascism has an actual definition. It's not about standards, it's about facts and logic. If you vote for a fascist because he's a fascist, then you're a fascist by definition. If you vote for someone despite the recognition of their fascist tendencies, then you are supporting a fascist.
Half the country voted for that. That, by definition, means that half the country supported fascism. That's a fact, and it doesn't care how you feel about it.
Mr. Left is 100 million people or so. You are in a hive mind and don't realize it.
It was a sarcastic remark pointing out the silliness of your generalization.
That aside, it always amuses me to hear people who cannot offer any rational refutation of my arguments tell me I'm the one not thinking for myself.
A hindsight mistake = A concession.
This is where reading comprehension helps. I went on to explain what that meant, naturally you just clipped the part that sounded good to you and moved on.
When you get in a car do you put on a seatbelt? And if so, but you don't crash, does that make your seatbelt decision a "mistake"? No, of course not that's ridiculous.
When we were in the middle of COVID we had to work with the information we had available to us at that time, given our lack of tested information it was more than reasonable to go further than what was probably necessary to protect public health. So looking back at it 5 years later and saying "we probably went further than we needed to" isn't a concession, it's reaffirming that we did what we did as a precaution. If you still don't understand this point than Google the definition of "precaution".
Also, did you really post that snippet of the me too surveys as some sort of gotcha? Did you even read what I wrote?
Most people on all sides know deep down there is something off mentally with transgender and transvestites.
Even supporters wanted desperately to think the Kirk shooter was not a trans ally, as it would then prove that Kirk was accurate with his final words.
“Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?”
Kirk: “Too many.”
Now it is too many plus one. This is why everyone deep down knows what's really in that barrel.
Over the last ten years, only five out of 5,729 mass shootings in the U.S. involved transgender perpetrators, representing approximately 0.087% of all incidents.
Nobody sane or decent supports your screams of laughter over this. Sicko. Everyone paying attention knows there's a recent and growing problem with the current trans fad coupled with violent rhetoric. It didn't suddenly just start 10 years ago.
That doesn't win people over. Change your strategy.
I'm not trying to win people over. We're on a debate site, not running a political action committee.
What makes you so certain that you're correct as opposed to me?
My level of certainty comes from the time I've taken to study epistemology and critical thinking, frequenting sites such as this one being a big part of that journey. If there were better arguments against my position I'm sure I would find them on a place like this, that's why I come here.
I guess then trans people meet this then. They are unreasonably attached to their belief and they are predijuiced towards members of MAGA based on their membership of that group.
Wow, even after quoting the definition you still don't know what the word means or how to apply it.
The belief one (the bigot) is unreasonably or obstinately attached to it's the belief about the person or group in question. You don't get to label trans people as bigots because they hold an obstinate belief about themselves.
Being a fascist is no longer a bad thing is the point because anyone with one right wing and authoritarian opinion qualifies as a facsist.
Not even sure why I'm continuing this conversation, this is incredibly stupid.
No one said, argued, or suggested that all it takes to qualify as a fascist is one authoritarian opinion. Now you're just making shit up to avoid the argument.
It's not that; it's that your side always...
Yeah you can stop there. I am not "the left", I'm an individual with my own opinions and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks. So if you're going to accuse me of not thinking for myself then you need to come with evidence of me parroting talking points I don't understand or flip flipping on my positions based on what someone else says/does. If you can't do that then you have nothing but mindless and rehearsed retorts which makes talking to you a huge waste of time.
Bro just compared a seatbelt to a lockdown.
No genius, I provided an analogy. Do you understand what an analogy is? Do you understand how it differs from a comparison?
You debate people to change their minds.
No, that's why you debate people. Changing people's minds is nice, but that's far from the only reason. I do it for the intellectual exercise and to test my own positions. The world is an insane place, I debate to see if I can find that it's more sane than I think but most of the time that's not the case. A man can keep trying though.
On the trans issue, if there is a bad argument, then you refute it, if there is a good argument, then you label it as transphobic.
If I'm labeling it transphobic, that's because it's transphobic. And if I'm giving it that label, I will explain why, in painstaking detail I think that is. What's disingenuous is for you to pretend that I just label it and move on. There are many things you can say about me, including many false things. Much of it I can just brush off as closemindedness, but to suggest I don't make myself clear and show you exactly how I got from A to Z is beyond closeminded, that's just stupid.
That's how you interpret that definition.
No, that's how English interprets the definition. It isn't just that the words make that unequivocally clear, it's also common sense in how you apply such a term. If you don't know that it's no wonder you believe the silly things you do.
That's why I don't care about official definitions for scary but legal terms; you can interpret definitions however you want too for your selective purpose.
Yes, that's why understanding English as well as epistemology comes in. You're absolutely right that people can interpret things in any way they want, we still to this day have flat earthers. The question is whether you care about reality, and if you do what are the best methods to attain an understanding of it.
You don't have to care about it, you can just decide that it's whatever you want it to be and "interpret" it that way. I don't see what the point of that is not to each his own.
If a bigot is defined as "Bigot: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief"
It's not. That was only the first part of the definition and that specific part was clearly not referring to "any" belief, but rather the belief towards the individual/group in question. There was more, but apparently this is where you stopped reading.
That's cap; there have been plenty that believe that but don't realize it.
They will say
My god dude, I'm talking about no one *within our conversation*. This was a characterization you made about my position, I'm telling you it's a bullshit strawman.
Everything you say I will think you are being a left wing parroted and you (in your mind) will be genuinely convinced that your beliefs are really yours. The brainwashed don't see themselves as brainwashed.
Well thank you for admitting that you are stubbornly closeminded and therefore incapable of changing your mind.
Now that that part is settled, you really should ask yourself which one of us is actually more susceptible to being manipulated (aka brainwashed). The person who believes in and studies epistemology (something you have clearly never done) or the person comes into a conversation already decided on the outcome.
You won't change the minds of right wingers.
Not why I'm here. This is more about watching the cognitive dissonance in action. The side stepping, the strawmanning, the denial of basic facts and logic, the walls you all build around yourselves to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths (you're brainwashed!)... The efforts to hold onto those opinions is fascinating and enlightening. It teaches me more and more about the world I live in, and it's scary, but I'd rather see it for what it actually is.
Then do a sudoku or something.
Awe, I really am getting to you aren't I?
Don't blame the messanger kid, look inward.
Alright; so lets then forum debate, "Is transphobia good?" where I take the "yes" position and you take the "no" position.
You mean a formal debate? Not interested, especially a topic like that. Whether it's good or not depends on your values. If you are cool with being hateful and intolerant towards people who are different than you, then it's fine. Otherwise it's not. There, topic resolved.
I've studied epistemology. Quiz me for proof.
Yeah, you just proved my point.
First of all, quiz you how, by asking you questions you can just Google or ChatGPT?
That aside, epistemology isn't something you memorize and take a quiz over, it's something you develop a deep understanding of and what guides you in your everyday process of forming and testing your own beliefs. The fact that you think you can prove you've studied it by offering a few answers to a few questions, even without assistance, strongly suggests you have little to no understanding of it.
What makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong instead of vice versa?
My confidence on any given subject comes from two places; first is my approach towards telling what is true in the first place. That is my core value, well before politics even comes into play. I am the type of person who cannot function if I have any doubts about my stance, whether at work or any other situation where the actual truth is paramount to achieving desired results. So everything about the way I operate begins with a desire to understand what's true over what's convenient, and I've done the work to refine that process.
The second is consistently reinforced affirmation. If my position is wrong, someone would be able to show me how or why. They wouldn't need to deflect, falsely equivocate, or make things up. But that's what I consistently run into.
That's not to say I'm always right, that's just what I experience when it comes to issues I confidently think I'm right about, and that's why.
And why are you so passionate about a minority position that doesn't impact you?
I'm not. You're the one who keeps bringing it up, I'm just here looking around for things to respond too, and there you always go.
What I am passionate about when it comes to this topic is the way that right wingers pretend the left is obsessed with these things when it's you guys constantly putting this in the forefront of American politics. 2024 proved not only the absurd extent of this but also it's effectiveness. That really makes me feel sad for this country. Other countries look at us like we're idiots, and they're not wrong.
but come up with better arguments
Why? You haven't responded to them or came up with any of your own.
so if you try and convince a person of color like me that TWAW
Already started to you that this is not my position, nor is this the position of the overwhelming majority of trans activists. It's yet another caricature you guys invented.
Then do a sudoku or something.
Awe, I really am getting to you aren't I?
Don't blame the messanger kid, look inward.
Alright; so lets then forum debate, "Is transphobia good?" where I take the "yes" position and you take the "no" position.
You mean a formal debate? Not interested, especially a topic like that. Whether it's good or not depends on your values. If you are cool with being hateful and intolerant towards people who are different than you, then it's fine. Otherwise it's not. There, topic resolved.
I've studied epistemology. Quiz me for proof.
Yeah, you just proved my point.
First of all, quiz you how, by asking you questions you can just Google or ChatGPT?
That aside, epistemology isn't something you memorize and take a quiz over, it's something you develop a deep understanding of and what guides you in your everyday process of forming and testing your own beliefs. The fact that you think you can prove you've studied it by offering a few answers to a few questions, even without assistance, strongly suggests you have little to no understanding of it.
What makes you so sure that you're right and everyone else is wrong instead of vice versa?
My confidence on any given subject comes from two places; first is my approach towards telling what is true in the first place. That is my core value, well before politics even comes into play. I am the type of person who cannot function if I have any doubts about my stance, whether at work or any other situation where the actual truth is paramount to achieving desired results. So everything about the way I operate begins with a desire to understand what's true over what's convenient, and I've done the work to refine that process.
The second is consistently reinforced affirmation. If my position is wrong, someone would be able to show me how or why. They wouldn't need to deflect, falsely equivocate, or make things up. But that's what I consistently run into.
That's not to say I'm always right, that's just what I experience when it comes to issues I confidently think I'm right about, and that's why.
And why are you so passionate about a minority position that doesn't impact you?
I'm not. You're the one who keeps bringing it up, I'm just here looking around for things to respond too, and there you always go.
What I am passionate about when it comes to this topic is the way that right wingers pretend the left is obsessed with these things when it's you guys constantly putting this in the forefront of American politics. 2024 proved not only the absurd extent of this but also it's effectiveness. That really makes me feel sad for this country. Other countries look at us like we're idiots, and they're not wrong.
but come up with better arguments
Why? You haven't responded to them or came up with any of your own.
so if you try and convince a person of color like me that TWAW
Already started to you that this is not my position, nor is this the position of the overwhelming majority of trans activists. It's yet another caricature you guys invented.
Scientific research throughout the last decade has demonstrated that being transgender can have a lot to do with the health of the brain and the rest of the nervous system.
If someone tells you, "If Y chromosome, then male, else female", then how do you respond to someone who believes the CDC and all medical entities will say what they get paid to say (so they don't trust medical organizations)?
Read this over like 5 times, I have no idea what you're asking me. Please rephrase.
I'll break this up into two parts, the first "if Y chromosome...", I would say ok cool definition, too bad nature isn't always so clean and neat since there are plenty of people born with a chromosome typically of one sex while holding many biological markers of the other sex. So good for you to settle on one simple definition, but too bad it's meaningless when it comes to settling the public debate around trans people.
The second part about someone believing medical entities hissy day whatever they get paid to say, well that person is clearly a conspiracy theorist and therefore requires a much deeper conversation.
But when the left does things that upset normies, then they lose states like these to DeSantis and Vance.
No, it's when the right claims that the left is doing these things that people listen to the propaganda and go vote republican.
if you don't believe that TWAW, then you think TW are men then, correct?
No, I think TW are TW, as does nearly every TW on the planet. Have you ever heard a TW say "I'm a TW"? Why do you think they would say that if they thought they were a woman (by your definition)?
Does the person have a Y chromosome? If yes, then the right says they are a male. Else, the right says they're female.
Google Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome
What is a woman? If you can't define what a woman is, then just claim that TW are men
How about you define it since this is your topic. Your first attempt failed ^^^, so try again.
Is a TW a man, woman, or somebody else?
TW = TW. Not that complicated.
You continue to try and place everything into two neat buckets as if there are no other options. You know who disagrees with you? Nature. See first point ^^^
