@SatanLucy
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.
@RemyBrown
We make up stuff and then make up corresponding stuff, and generally not everyone is in agreement.
Therefore:
1. A social ideology and associated rules become established.
2. Which inevitably overlooks freedom of thought that does not necessarily correspond with contrived expectancies.
Wherein lies the hypocrisy?
A. So these days we have social ideologies that preclude unbridled freedom of public speech.
B. We have social ideologies that preclude unbridled freedom of public expression.
C. And I'm guessing that it won't be so long before we loose our unbridled freedom of private thought…WTF happens then?
I do things I believe are wrong, and I tell myself they are wrong. But I do them anyways
What would an example be?
An example is sleeping in. I don't want to sleep so late, but sometimes I do. I know it's better to be productive with my morning, and I tell myself I should be
-> I don't want to sleep so late, but sometimes I do.
You would only be a hypocrite if you wanted the government to prosecute people for sleeping in.
And GODFREY said, you shall not sleep in.
And Mary said, oh my good lord, I can here Joseph feeding the Ass.
And GODFREY grabbed his underpants and scarpered.
Never to be seen again.
Such is politics.
I'm a hypocrite because I do things I label as wrong but do them anyway. For example, sleeping when I know I should be awake. I don't have to involve the government. It can be personal
GODREY is Jesus' real Dad. GOD-F-REY GOT-A-WAY before Joseph was done feeding the hairy ass.
Alright, so then are you a policy hypocrite in any way?
I've decided (and this is very tough to say) that there is nothing immoral about being an ideological hypocrite.
Hypocrisy isn’t immoral, it just shows you to be an unserious person because where criticisms are valid and it doesn’t change your stance on either side, it means you don’t actually care about that which you purport to care about. The only question left is whether you are trying to convince your audience or yourself.
For example:
If you don't want to arrest the makers of this:
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/618DNn-65GL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg
But want to arrest the makers of generic child porn, then you're a hypocrite
Standards since then have changed considerably, accessibility to actual child porn being a major catalyst. Most people back then couldn’t really fathom the idea of an adult being sexually turned on by a photo like that, so we all just thought it was funny. Now we know better. But even setting that aside, actual child porn, where the intent is to put children on display for the sexual gratification of adults, is still orders of magnitude worse than a bad attempt at a funny picture. There’s nothing hypocritical there.
the left wants rehabilitation for rapists and murderers (unless the convict's name is Trump)
No idea where you are getting that from. To the extent there is any truth there, it’s that the left believes people can in fact be rehabilitated. Nothing about that idea though would apply to Trump because the first step to rehabilitation is admitting you were wrong, something Trump would never do.
Straight left wing men believe TWAW but wouldn't date them because they think it's gay (even if ideal in every other category).
Left wingers take a much more nuanced view on the question of what a woman is than their overly simplistic right wing counterparts. TWAW is a statement regarding the treatment of TW by society, that has nothing to do with what the person who supports that basic human right should or shouldn’t find sexually attractive.
How can you change someone's mind on an issue when they don't really care about hypocrisy? If you just can't change anyone's mind because people are so proud of their opinions as if it's a big part of their identity, then there is no point in debating on anything.
If your marker of success when engaging with people who disagree with you is to change their minds you’re setting yourself up for perpetual disappointment. People, particularly those who have strong opinions (like the kind of people you’d find spending their free time on a debate site) are very unlikely to change their minds about anything, especially within a relatively short conversation. I carry no expectation of that, I do it for the exercise in spotting logical fallacies and the opportunity to learn more about opposing viewpoints. If I’m right, the conversation validates my position further, giving me more confidence in what I believe. If I’m wrong, even better. Now I can rid myself of previously held false or fallacious positions and become more in tune with reality.
But to your initial question, if progress is what you want then engaging with hypocrites is pointless. Either be satisfied with putting it on display for others, or move on.
No; they say a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman.
Yeah, that’s what happens when you demand simple answers to complex questions - you get a simple answer that not only doesn’t address the issue, but one that also doesn’t represent the complexity of the viewpoint of those whom you demanded the overly simplistic answer from. Who knew?
If saying, "I don't agree with the statement, "A woman is anyone that identifies as a woman" " violates transgender human rights, then 60% of the country violates trans human rights according to Pew Research (and so do I). Buzzwords and buzz phrases like, "human rights" don't mean anything anymore.
No one is saying this. The national point of contention has nothing to do with your stated position on a phrase.
Saying you want to ban them from sports is saying TWAM which the left argues violates human rights (the % are roughly identical with sampling size being the difference).
This is such a niche issue the political right is obsessed with. I, as a lefty have never taken the position trans women should be allowed to play in woman’s sports and I don’t know anyone on the left in real life that ever gave this much if any thought til it became a political talking point on every right wing network and podcast. So no, you don’t get to pretend like every lefty thinks the same on this issue.
The reality is, the right focuses heavily on this one issue not because any of them really think this matters, but because this is the one subtopic where the right is in the majority, so they have to keep the conversation here while ignoring every other aspect of trans rights. The goal is to pretend the sports issue is representative of the greater issue. It’s not, no matter how many clicks it generates.
Fine. But for me, it's pointless because I already know of the opposing side's viewpoints and you probably do as well. It's like a 1st grader learning about 2+2=4 when they learned it last year; it's pointless.
Quite arrogant of you to presume you already fully understand opposing viewpoints, but you’re entitled to that.
If you think it’s all pointless regardless then why are you here?
Has this ever happened with you in the years that you have debated?
I joined DDO as a theist and left an atheist, so yeah.
->Yeah, that’s what happens when you demand simple answers to complex questions
How is it a complex question? This sounds like a dodge.
-> No one is saying this.
Then what does it mean to be against trans rights then?
-> I, as a lefty have never taken the position trans women should be allowed to play in woman’s sports and I don’t know anyone on the left in real life that ever gave this much if any thought til it became a political talking point on every right wing network and podcast.
Alright; so things changed. What is your current position then on this?
->The reality is, the right focuses heavily on this one issue not because any of them really think this matters, but because this is the one subtopic where the right is in the majority, so they have to keep the conversation here while ignoring every other aspect of trans rights.
What other subtopics exist? There are others where the right is in the majority (prisons).
->The goal is to pretend the sports issue is representative of the greater issue.
Then what issue is representative of the greater issue?
->Quite arrogant of you to presume you already fully understand opposing viewpoints, but you’re entitled to that.
I am arrogant; I'll own that.
->If you think it’s all pointless regardless then why are you here?
Because I think arguing is fun. Pointless fun.
->I joined DDO as a theist and left an atheist, so yeah.
Alright; so you started out left wing and then become more left wing? Alright. I meant have you (by yourself, not with the party at large) went from having a left wing stance to a right wing stance on an issue? I used to be hardcore conservative, but that's changed.
I'm a hyper-crite. its like a hypocrite but instead of bearing false witness against my self i gather the 7 chaos emeralds and turn into my final super form and save the day from dr eggman
wish me luck gamers im going all out
-FakeMcDonalds
How is it a complex question?
Because there’s more to the question of what a woman is than their genitals. How do you define a woman?
Then what does it mean to be against trans rights then?
It’s broad generalization that includes taking positions against treating trans people as the gender they identify with. It can include many different things, like refusing to acknowledge their preferred gender or name, forcing them to use bathrooms that don’t align with their physical status, banning them from the military, passing laws requiring that people like them are not allowed to be talked about in schools, stuff like that.
Alright; so things changed. What is your current position then on this?
I didn’t say anything changed here, I was referring to the fact that of all trans issues out there on the left, this is perhaps the least agreed upon and least thought about so it’s disingenuous to focus your portrayal of the left on this niche subtopic.
I generally agree that trans women should not be allowed to play in women’s sports. There are however cases where it’s debatable depending on the demands of the sport and the actions taken to ensure fairness, but I couldn’t go into any further detail because I just don’t care enough about this topic to research it any further. I leave that to the experts who deal with it.
Then what issue is representative of the greater issue?
The ones I named above. Issues that actually affect the well being and fundamental human dignity of the people who experience gender dysphoria. Anti-trans activists love retreating to the sports issue because it’s probably the only prominent example where the anti-trans position can be defended without relying on bigotry.
Alright; so you started out left wing and then become more left wing? Alright. I meant have you (by yourself, not with the party at large) went from having a left wing stance to a right wing stance on an issue? I used to be hardcore conservative, but that's changed.
Losing my faith because of argument is a pretty big example of open mindedness, not sure what more you need to recognize your initial assumption was wrong.
I can’t think of any specific examples where I changed my position from a left wing stance to a right wing, my evolution started on the right, albeit briefly. I started off in politics identifying with the Republican Party and rooting for John McCain. After watching the debates I switched to Obama. He just made more sense to me. I spent the next few months switching back and forth from Fox News to MSNBC. I settled on the latter, the former was just too much nonsense and propaganda for me.
You really seem stuck on the idea that open mindedness requires that one has to actually change their positions. I don’t buy that. Sure it’s a good way to demonstrate it, but OM requires only that one be willing.
The test of OM is whether one bases their positions on logic and reason, demonstrated by whether they can match their convictions with thought-through in depth explanations for why they believe what they believe, and whether they are consistent in their reasoning. If one is careful in forming their positions, there would rarely be a case where they would need to change their mind.
Alright, so then are you a policy hypocrite in any way?
if I follow a policy for when I wake up and go to bed
My copy and paste feature is broken for some reason, so all quotes are paraphrased.
->How do you define a woman?
I have a definition, but it's not approved by the trans lobby (defined as Samantha Lux), so I took it down (and I don't want to post it because I don't want to help out Samantha when she's kind of an asshole.). She blocked me because I said the word, "Mutual" and referenced a study. There's a reason she has 700k subs and on her X account, she usually gets 10 comments; she's very quick to block people. I don't help people like that out if they lead a movement.
->Being anti trans rights means being against treating trans people like the gender they identify with.
So then I guess virtually everyone is against trans rights to at least some extent. If someone then identifies as a woman and that's all that it takes to become a woman (with no hormone requirements), then they can compete with the cis women with no hormone requirements.
->refusing to use their chosen gender
Pew Research said that 60% believe gender can't be different from sex (86% for GOP; 38% for DEM) and this exact % is against TW competing with ciswomen in sports (same along party lines) minus room for error. So if you ask, "Should TW be allowed to compete with cis women in sports if enough effort for transitioning takes place?" anyone that answers no would also answer no for if TW are women and vice versa (60% of the US population in 2017 according to Pew, and it's grown to 79% in 2025 according to Ipsos).
->I generally think TW should not be allowed to compete with ciswomen in women's sports
What exceptions would you make? Because if you think a woman is anyone that identifies as a woman, then TW should be allowed to compete with ciswomen solely by identifying as women.
-> I will leave it to the experts
Who are the experts? The head of the DoH? That's RFK. The head of the CDC? That is somebody selected by Trump, who will make policies in accordance with the president's goals (as ANY CDC head would make because their funding comes from the POTUS). If the POTUS is neutral on something, then the private sector provides the funding for the CDC head to collect for results in the favor of private companies. 100% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them. It's the golden truth; whoever has the gold makes the truth.
->gender
If one thinks TWAM, then they kindof have to either call a TW a man or lie about their opinions.
->name
Name changes usually are complied with as they would for if someone changed their name from John to Jack.
->bathrooms
Make all bathrooms gender neutral for practicality pourposes; less lines.
->military
Every country worldwide should spend $0 annually on the military budget; this means no more troops.
->Christianity -> atheism
This is because atheism is left-coded and so are you. A lukewarm Christian that's right coded is more open to evangelism than to atheism.
->right wing because of McCain
It's very easy to change your mind before Trump; many did. It's a lot harder during the Trump era because he polarizes virtually everybody. You were probably very young during McCain's time (I'm guessing teenage or 20s).
You don't force that policy legally on others; so it's not a policy, it's a goal.
If someone then identifies as a woman and that's all that it takes to become a woman…
No one is saying this. Have you paid attention to anything I’ve written?
What exceptions would you make?
Exceptions that ensure TW do not have an unfair competitive advantage.
Who are the experts?
An expert is someone who has spent a significant amount of time devoted to studying or implementing a particular field, and has demonstrated knowledge or abilities within that field that far exceed the average observer.
JFK does not qualify. Not only has he not put in the time in any real sense (peddling internet conspiracy theories doesn’t qualify), but he has also shown himself to be a kook on these issues.
If one thinks TWAM, then they kindof have to either call a TW a man or lie about their opinions.
This makes no sense.
Every country worldwide should spend $0 annually on the military budget; this means no more troops.
Setting aside the absurdity of this proposal, it’s irrelevant to this discussion. If you believe America should have troops, but no trans troops, you’re discriminating against trans people. Not complicated.
That was the point I was making earlier among the many examples I listed, offering alternative ways to deal with the issue doesn’t change the point.
It's very easy to change your mind before Trump; many did. It's a lot harder during the Trump era because he polarizes virtually everybody.
Again, irrelevant. We’re talking about open mindedness and I gave you very specific criteria on what it is and how it’s tested? Did you have any thoughts on that?
I would be very unlikely to change my mind about Trump because I know what my values are and Trump is the antithesis of pretty much all of them. Even setting aside values, to get me to move significantly in Trump’s direction you would have to convince me that a man who shows himself to be a complete and total narcissistic childish petulant imbecile is actually a brilliant strategic caring thinker, so at best the man is a complete and total fraud.
->If someone then identifies as a woman and that's all that it takes to become a woman…
No one is saying this. Have you paid attention to anything I’ve written?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_chIcrf7DU. She's a politician with power; she's not fringe.
->Exceptions that ensure TW do not have an unfair competitive advantage.
What exceptions are those?
->An expert is someone who has spent a significant amount of time devoted to studying or implementing a particular field
Drug dealers know more about running a business than business professors. That's how useless degrees are (especially because Chat GPT just does the work for you at this point).
->If you believe America should have troops, but no trans troops, you’re discriminating against trans people. Not complicated.
I agree; if I wanted a military, then I would be fine with trans people being in it because of freedom. But I'm anti military; war is mass murder.
->If one thinks TWAM, then they kindof have to either call a TW a man or lie about their opinions.
This makes no sense.
Then what else are they supposed to do? Stay silent on the trans issue? That's societal censorship.
->We’re talking about open mindedness and I gave you very specific criteria on what it is and how it’s tested
So then essentially, open minded people operate on "facts" and logic whereas close minded people don't? If so, then that is a standard that I accept. I put, "facts" in quotes because facts don't care about your or my feelings, but they care about the feelings of the people who fund the CDC because the CDC produces the facts.
100% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them. Because of this, I don't trust the CDC. I don't care about facts; I care about logic; they are different.
->I would be very unlikely to change my mind about Trump because I know what my values are and Trump is the antithesis of pretty much all of them.
By, "very unlikely", you mean, "virtually 0% chance within the next year". It's not immoral to say that, but be honest. I have maybe a 10% chance of liking Trump in a year from now. I don't like him now and I hated him in 2024. I agree on annexing Canada, but I hate his racism and calling Haitians pet eaters.
But we are both anti Trump.
She's a politician with power; she's not fringe.
Don't have enough service to watch at the moment, don't care to anyway. I wasn't being literal when I said "no one", that should have been obvious. Regardless, I was speaking for myself and how I didn't say anything like that. Engage with my actual points.
What exceptions are those?
Exceptions that would give an unfair advantage.
If that feels like we just went around in a circle is cause we did. I already told you I couldn't go any further into detail cause I've never cared enough about this subject to read any further. We have people working all over the country running these sports programs and doctor's they're deferring to. Ask them.
Drug dealers know more about running a business than business professors. That's how useless degrees are
Drug dealing is a business, so of course someone who does something for a living will know a lot about it. It's a pretty vague to the point of meaninglessness to claim drug dealers know more about it than a business professor. More about what exactly? What data are you using to assess what each group knows in order to compare them? And How is this relevant to our conversation?
I agree; if I wanted a military, then I would be fine with trans people being in it because of freedom. But I'm anti military; war is mass murder.
This is just stupid. You asked me for examples of being against transgender rights so I provided the example of banning them from the military. Your personal preference for having no military at all has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, it just comes off as a desperate and childish attempt to win the argument for the sake of it.
Then what else are they supposed to do? Stay silent on the trans issue? That's societal censorship.
Having an opinion and respecting others rights are two entirely different things.
So then essentially, open minded people operate on "facts" and logic whereas close minded people don't?
As it's been said, you cannot reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
I don't care about facts; I care about logic; they are different.
Logic alone cannot reach a conclusion. It's only as good as the facts (aka premises) you're starting with.
By, "very unlikely", you mean, "virtually 0% chance within the next year".
Yes, but where you're wrong is to conflate that with closemindedness. I am unlikely to change my mind because I've given the subject a tremendous amount of thought to the point where there is almost nothing relevant about him you could tell me that I don't already know.
My conclusions are based on facts and logic, and so long as I'm being thorough and careful, neither of those will change, thus my opinions wouldn't either. That's what it looks like when one embraces critical thinking. The point of slowing things down and doing it right is to make sure you don't have to do things over again, the same exact thing applies to building a world view.
You don't force that policy legally on others; so it's not a policy, it's a goal.
I can have personal policies for my life alone
That is still his choice.
->I can have personal policies for my life alone
But you don't force that on others, so it's not hypocritical; it's just not living up to your goals.
My body is like a system which is like a community, so if I tell my system to not do something because it's wrong but then I do it anyway, that is hypocrisy.
Your cells are your property. If you become POTUS, then your citizens aren't your property. You can have your property do things that you yourself wouldn't do (ex: create electricity).