Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We *can* respect someone by respecting their wishes, but we don't *have to*.Here's a simple definition of respect that took me 5 seconds to Google: "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others"The "or" is all important because it means respecting wishes isn't necessary to respect someone, and thus you can respect someone by at least respecting their feelings or rights (which is what I've given many examples of).
The "or" in this sentence denotes that there are different ways you can respect someone. In certain contexts we have limited interactions with each other. A police officer for example who pulls someone over for speeding respects them by respecting their rights. Their wishes and/or feelings are irrelevant in that context.
You are trying to cherry pick which part of the definition you're going to regard, and then pretend that meets the definition. That's ridiculous. Respect unlike many other things is all encompassing. You can't respect me in one sense and disrespect me in another, the say you treated me with respect. That's not how the word works.
Moreover, you aren't even meeting the definition in *any* of the three senses your own definition lists. You clearly don't respect the trans community's wishes. You don't respect their rights by claiming that their mentally ill status warrants them being treated like children or schizophrenics, and you don't respect their feelings arguing over and over again that their feelings are out of touch with reality.
And not for nothing, find a trans person to read your arguments in this thread and ask them whether you are being respectful to them. You know damn well they would laugh at the idea of they weren't infuriated at the stuff you have to say about them. You would no doubt dismiss their response and then explain why their point of view is illigitimate - right before telling us that you're respecting them.
While I think your arguments are wrong they're at least mostly not ridiculous. This one absolutely is. I suggest you drop it.
It makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know.
You know what the trans community is asking you for.
Here's a question for you; if you don't know why someone attempted suicide, wouldn't you just ask them?I'd like to but I don't have that data.
My point exactly.
I don't know why you think a study has to be literally titled 'Why Do Transgender People Commit Suicide?' in order to take any data or points regarding transgender suicide from it.
You can take all the data points you want out of it, what you can't do is pretend that you have an answer to the question because other studies that looked at other things did not fill in the gaps to this one.
Setting that aside, in all seriousness, what is your profession? Do you work in the medical field? Do you have a background in any of this? I'm really curious as to why you think you know more about this stuff than the actual mental health experts (who conducted your own studies) who are all telling you you're wrong.
The solution to the issue of transgenderism is to treat their mental illness. To analogize your solution, you're attempting to give someone who wishes to self-harm themselves the knife in which to do it, in order to appease their "wish". That is HARMFUL. That is not how we should treat people with mental illnesses. We need to treat them with basic human respect whilst NOT appeasing the wishes generated by their mental illness.
I never addressed this because you didn't say anything.
"We should treat their mental illness" is a not a solution to anything. That's like me saying the solution to California wild fires is to put them out. The only thing you have put forward is to not give these people what they are asking for, which in most cases is just basic respect and human decency by acknowledging them for who they see themselves to be. But you want to tell them that's too much for you and they don't get that because according to you their feelings are the product of mental illness.
And then you wonder why they act out...
Equally problematic is that you've claimed it does fix transgender people sometimes, but you haven't posted a single study showing that
Because I've spent enough time arguing with you as it is. The studies are very easy to find so if you claim they're not out there I know you're full of shit. I'm just not about to waste hours upon hours going through them line by line with you.
It's funny because you complained earlier my study doesn't specifically test for reason as to why transgender people commit suicide, I show you a study that partially answers that question (i.e. my study addresses victimization and its affects on transgender people), and you totally ignore it.
Partially answers the question is not answering the question, especially when your argument there hinges on the lack of an answer. Same point I've been making for weeks now.
Sometimes I don't respond because there's nothing of value to respond to. Responding to every single point every single time just dilutes the conversation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Eh, nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them.
You're the idiot who will walk away thinking "that you was so nice to be concerned about my family"
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, duh, thats how democracy works. No one ever won the election by being honest.
Ah yes, the nuclear method. Great argument.
Sadly, the more aid you send to Ukraine, the longer the war will last. For example, if we didnt send any aid to Ukraine from the start, the war would be over by now.
Yes the war would have been over, Ukraine would officially be Russia, it's people would be living under a dictatorship, and the world would have one less democracy along with one more dictatorship. Exactly what no one wanted unless you prefer the world be run by nothing but dictators.
Is that your position?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It was hearsay when I 'pounced' and it remains hearsay.
So is almost everything the right pretends to have on the "Biden crime family"
Just like the claim that Trump was withholding aid from Ukraine to pressure for a fake investigation.
We literally have the official notes of the call taken in real time
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The promise of ending war > the promise of extending war
This is overly simplistic garbage.
Promises are only worth as much as they are reliable. Trump is a serial liar, so his promises are worthless from the start.
Even if Trump was trustworthy, the promise he is making is cartoonishly stupid and unrealistic. The war is not going to end in one day because Trump sat these guys down and told them to knock it off. That's not how wars end in real life. Hell even most cartoons are more realistic than this.
The fact that these words are even coming out of Trump's mouth already demonstrates how absurdly unqualified he is to hold office, so we don't even need to know who he's running against to know he does not deserve anyone's vote.
No one is promising to extend the war. They're promising to aid Ukraine, which makes sense for anyone who likes the idea of letting the people choose their own government.
Everything about your argument here is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I actually did a “sanity check” regarding your two claims by having my wife read them, and she said, uncoached by me, “he’s contradicting himself.”
Then it appears neither of you two understand the difference between:
"Person X increased his favorability nationally"
and
"Person X increased his favorability among republicans"
The former is all inclusive. The latter is a specific carve out. It's very possible to appeal to a carved out segment of the population while failing to appeal to the population as a whole.
This isn't complicated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
When I questioned that, you shifted to acknowledging his increased popularity on a national scale
I specifically stated "among republicans", that is not the same thing as saying someone is more popular nationally.
This is basic English.
And if you needed further clarification on what I was saying, all you had to do was read two sentences later:
the coverage you're pointing to is national coverage so you can't pretend this discussion is confined to the political right.
Clearly, I am making the point that the political right does not = the country, which is what we're talking about when we start using the word "nationally".
Nevermind that Florida has been a swing state historically and recently became a red state because of DeSantis
Florida went red because the state went all in on Trumpism, which Desantis has built his entire political persona around. But Trumpism has proven toxic nationally. Florida is the only swing state in which Trump's presence has not been a liability so they are an outlier, hence my point that Desantis's popularity within the state is not indicative of how he will be perceived on a national level.
If you refuse to/cannot see your fallacy of self contradiction here, it is either bad faith on your part, or you’re hopelessly incoherent.
Start reading what I'm actually writing and this won't be a problem.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Its not Trumps fault americans are bunch of sheep who prefer lies over truth.
You mean like Americans who will hear Trump claim he'll end the war in one day and think "And thats why Trump should be president"?
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
rofl, it's always hearsay with Trump isn't it
Asserting that the answer to California's wildfire problems was a rake was done in front of cameras.
When he openly mused about using disinfectants to cure COVID, that was done in front of cameras.
When he explained to a crowd that clean coal is when they take coal out and scrub it clean, that was done in front of cameras.
Most of the stupid things Trump is known for was said right out in the open with no clue he said anything stupid. If you're going to try and pounce on something someone says do it for a real reason.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"I will end war in one day"And thats why Trump should be president. All others promise to extend war further.
Trump also said he was going to pay off the federal debt within 8 years.
Cartoonishly unrealistic promises are not indicative of someone qualified to be president, they prove the opposite. Your comment perfectly demonstrates why those country is so fucked. How anyone could look at someone so unserious, so buffoonish, so ignorant, etc. and think "yeah that guy should run our country" is beyond me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Let me help.
In the first post I pointed out that his favorability increased within his own state which is essentially, a red state. In the second part I explained that his favorability increased among the "red" party.
In case you haven't noticed, these are almost the exact same statements.
The part that you seem to be confused by is the distinction between being popular within you're own state and being popular nationally. See here's the thing, in a national race you can't just appeal to your own side, you have to appeal to those in the center and you have to at least not be repulsive enough to mobilize the opposition. Thus, running in a red state and running nationally are not the same.
Questions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We can respect transgender people by: not cutting the line in front of them, not touching them inappropriately, not taking their belongings without their permission etc. whilst also not appeasing their mental illness.
You don't know what respect means. Every single one of your examples are things to not do. Treating someone with respect is a description of positive actions, you don't treat someone respectfully by not doing certain things. Again, the most basic element of respect is to have regard for their wishes. What you're advocating for is the literal opposite of that.
It is amazing that despite repeating this to you numerous times, you still don't get how brazenly disrespectful your entire argument is towards the trans community. To make your case you are actually comparing them to 4 year olds and schizophrenics while claiming you are all for treating them with respect. That's absurd.
Once again, we treat children and the mentally ill with compassion, that is a very different thing than respect. This is basic human English. Please learn the difference, you have Google right at your finger tips.
When we read multiple studies and compile facts, we can start to cross-reference them in meaningful ways in order to build an argument (which is what I've done). Yes, that sometimes means the study doesn't literally say, 'this is what the study tested for and concluded'.
The studies are looking at why trans people commit suicide. Your entire argument on this point is that we don't know why because the conventional explanations don't account for it. I've been explaining that they don't account for it because they weren't set up to address mental illness.
Here's a question for you; if you don't know why someone attempted suicide, wouldn't you just ask them?
It's called begging the question because you don't yet agree with me that transgenderism is a mental illness. It would be logical first to get you to agree with me that transgenderism is a mental illness, and then go from there.
I've addressed this multiple times already.
You are entirely hung up on a word. There are all kinds of mental illnesses out there, so telling me someone is mentally ill is meaningless. If you want to assess how someone should be treated you need to know the type, extent, severity, safety risks, etc. of said illness and treat them accordingly. You don't treat them based on the connotations of a word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Desantis's favorability has climbed within his own state (a state that voted pretty comfortably for Trump) but the coverage you're pointing to is national, so they're not the same.There's no question Desantis has dramatically improved his national profile among republicans…“Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.”youtu.be/wwIFMCKlVK8
Seriously??? What part do you not understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
To say that one instance of the FBI helping Trump regardless of magnitude of impact digresses from the entire point that 95% of the time the FBI has helped Democrats.
The fact that the FBI's actions have largely helped democrats is not a reflection of the FBI, it's a reflection of the republican party and it's base. You need to learn to look inward.
You talk about Trump-Russia as if it's the FBI's fault half the country or more suspects Trump of being some kind of witting or unwitteng agent of the Kremlin. That's nonsense. First of all, the special council was appointed under a Trump DOJ lead by a Trump apologist and opened by a hand picked Trump apointee. The fact that it occurred at all has nothing to do with the FBI.
Second, the reason it was necessary as well as the reason it picked up so much steam politically is because of the Trump campaign's very public and yet inexplicable associations with Russians and allignment with Russia's goals that were entirely unique in American politics.
And then there's Trump himself, who constantly fawns over Putin calling him a great strong leader, cowers to him on the world stage as he takes Putin's side over that of US intelligence, weakens the US's relationship with all of its allies that Russia wants to break up especially by threatening to pull the US out of NATO, and let's not forget the time Trump arranged a secret meeting with Putin with no American in the room except a translator whose notes Trump confiscated and destroyed and to which Trump has never revealed what was said.
To not be suspicious at the very least of Trump's relationship to Putin and Russia is beyond naivety, that's intentional.
But then the FBI investigates Trump/Russia and people like yourself pretend it's indicative of some kind of ill intent by an organization obviously in the pocket of democrats. That's just ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
There's no question Desantis has dramatically improved his national profile among republicans, but this conversation started because you argued that the media coverage of him doesn't reflect reality. As I already mentioned, the coverage you're pointing to is national coverage so you can't pretend this discussion is confined to the political right. There's no question the coverage of him has mostly been biased against his views, that doesn't mean it's not reflective of reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So everyone already knew before that point.How did everyone know?
How much common sense do you guys need explained to you?
It started when Desantis was asked whether he would rule out challenging Trump for the nomination and he refused to do so starting a very public (although mostly one way) feud with Trump. Politicians who plan to run for president do not share those ambitions until the time is right and normally downplay it instead. Desantis hadn't even gotten himself reelected as governor yet, so that is about as clear of an announcement you're going to get that he plans to run.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So non-committal = committal
No genius, being uncommitted to serving out the full term of the job you are literally in the middle of applying for = having a clear eye on another job.
That's not interesting, it's common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Let's review the basics here.
You continue to argue that you are all for treating trans individuals with respect while also claiming that their wishes regarding how they are addressed should be disregarded on the basis that we consider them mentally ill. I've never heard such an obvious contradiction defended so vehemently.
You claim you are actually advocating for respectful treatment and that we just disagree on what that looks like, yet not only is treating others how they wish to be treated literally the most basic form of respect that there is, but you admittedly have not even a proposal for how we help them solve the problem you claim to have identified. Just ignore their wishes, that's literally all you got. That's by definition, the opposite of respect.
You continue to claim that trans people are mentally ill by citing studies that did not even attempt to ascertain the answer to that question.
You continue to pretend that victimization is the only alternative explanation I have offered for high suicide rates as well as the behaviors you have identified. (Here's your reminder...)
The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.
You continue to pretend you're not presenting one huge argument from ignorance by showing various behaviors you claim are indicative of mental illness, showing studies that fail to account for the full gap between cisgender and transgender behaviours, and claiming that since we don't know what else it could be it must be mental illness.
You define mentally ill as being disconnected from reality and defend this characterization towards the trans community by arguing that they believe something untrue - that surgery will help them feel better about themselves. In order for this to qualify as a legitimate argument you need to argue not only that this conclusion is untrue, but that it is so obviously untrue that believing it indicates a severe disconnect from reality. You haven't even demonstrated the first part.
There are mixed findings on whether surgery is a legitimate solution because there are mixed results. For some it works, for others it doesn't. That alone disqualifies your argument. You cannot judge one individual by the mistaken judgement of another. Not only are you trying to do this but you are applying you're judgement with one large brush to paint the entire community all at the same time. That is absurd.
And let me repeat again... You spent all these weeks arguing your position without so much as even a suggestion as to what we do to solve the problem you pretend to be so concerned about for their sake.
If you have anything new or think I'm running away from a point you've made I'll be happy to address, but other than that we're going in circles here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
He was asked on the debate stage whether he would commit to serving out his full term governor if reelected, he wouldn't even answer the question. So everyone already knew before that point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You’re just talking past what I’m saying at this point. How could media possibly view him as presidential material when all their coverage of him is negative? Are you getting what I’m saying yet, or is it beyond your mode of operation?
It appears to be beyond yours.
I have no issue answering any question you have for me, except when you seem to be intent on not recognizing the context in which this conversation is taking place.
Again, I never suggested nor implied that any media organization was actually objective. What I was addressing earlier was the difference between objectivity and neutrality and gave a metric by which we can judge whether any individual or organization qualifies as one or the other. And the reason why I brought up the distinction in the first place was to address your sarcastic insinuation that someone who always falls in line with one side of a political spectrum should automatically be regarded as non-objective, a problematic position because it gives unwarranted credence in the event that one side had gone off the rails which is what I believe to be the case with today's political right.
So going back to your question here, you're pointing out that Desantis's favorability has skyrocketed while his media coverage is almost exclusively negative - and you bring this up seemingly to demonstrate a disconnect between mainstream coverage and reality. But that is extremely flawed. Desantis's favorability has climbed within his own state (a state that voted pretty comfortably for Trump) but the coverage you're pointing to is national, so they're not the same.
If Desantis wants to win nationally he's going to need to appeal to a national audience, yet we have no reason to believe his policies will do so. As one example Desantis has pretty much built his campaign on going to war against wokness, yet 56% of Americans polled said they view wokness positively vs 39% negatively. You can't expect much positive coverage when you are clearly in the minority on the central issue of your candidacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
FBI exonerating Hillary Clinton objectively hurt Donald Trump. The point here is that the Trump-Russia investigation was started off of nothing — something we’ve been saying for years now. This fact. You can argue Hillary lost because of Comey. I’d argue she lost because she didn’t campaign in WI, MI, and PA. She was out of touch with voters.
I didn't argue she lost because of Comey, I argued that the decision to tell Congress days before the election that he was reopening the investigation into Clinton objectively hurt the Clinton campaign, because it did. Your insinuation that it somehow helped her is ridiculous. You may not remember this, but there was a time before Trump where an FBI investigation into a politician hurt their poll numbers, not helped it.
The polling data shows what common sense already concludes, that Clinton's poll numbers sank right after Comey's letter to Congress. For the last 10 or so days of the election this was pretty much what everyone was talking about. You don't just erase the impact of that by coming out at the end and saying "nevermind", and to the extent she gained anything after that it was only a portion of what she lost because of it.
Tempting as it may be to get into a whole thing about the Russia investigation and why that was absolutely not based in nothing, that's irrelevant here. You are using 2016 as a example show that the FBI is somehow in the pocket of the democratic party. Even if the Trump investigation was entirely done out of bias against him, that still does more to prove my point than yours because they did not tell anyone about it till after the election.
What is the point of starting an investigation for political reasons if you're not going to use it for politics? Meanwhile there was absolutely no rule or precedent that the FBI tell Congress about the reopening of that investigation and they did anyway. That's not an organization trying to help Trump win, the logic pretzel one must contort themselves within to believe that is insane.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You didn’t assert that such is virtually impossible in practice or anything similar.
Because the only thing I was talking about at that point in the conversation was the metrics by which we judge whether any individual or organization is objective.
So, when the majority of media exclusively posits stories which show DeSantis as undeserving of trust and confidence, and he gets re-elected in a landslide, that is not reflecting the reality of how he is perceived by his constituents.
Because that isn't the angle which his actions have been covered through. You may not have been talking about him running for president but everyone else has been. It's why the question of whether he planned to serve a full term as governor came up in the debates with Charlie Christ and why he came prepared with a stock answer. It's been obvious from the start, there's a reason we've been talking about the governor of FL for the past 3 years and not the governor of AL.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
No, he doesn't. You know that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Trump's own DOJ investigated the FBI's handling of the Clinton email scandal and concluded that Comey's decision not to prosecute was consistent with precedent and not effected by bias.
What was not consistent with precedent was for the FBI to make news just days before the election telling the country they were reopening an investigation into Clinton despite having no evidence that anything new or damning would be uncovered (to which there wasn't). And once again, all of this while concealing from the American people that Trump was under investigation for far, far more consequential actions.
But yet here we are. Somehow you managed to turn a situation where the FBI's misjudgements objectively hurt Clinton and thereby helped Trump get elected into an example of how the FBI is in the pocket of the democratic party. The disregard for reality and political hackery is quite impressive
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Because of a combination of biological factors.Voice pitch.Body shape.Limb length.Women tend to have an hourglass shape that is always definable no matter how obese or skinny the woman is.Men tend to have a V shape.Here is a list of physical differences in males and females:Skull in males are largerMales shoulders are wider & higher. Female shoulders hold an angleThe female thorax is narrowerThe male torsos are shorterMales have longer armsThe oblique slant of femur is more pronounced in female.Male legs are longer.
Ok, so if you look at an individual and you recognize each of their physical traits as listed above are consistent with a woman, would you then identify this individual as a woman?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The polls only shifted then because his base deemed the indictment to be unlawful. Even some democrats came out and said things like this.
The decisions of a prosecutor, faulty or not, do not make a man more qualified for office than he was before. The only prominent left wing figures claiming the indictment is unlawful are arguing so based on a technicality of whether NYS can charge Trump with a federal crime. Regardless, my point still stands. The fact that there is a legitimate debate over whether Trump should be prosecuted is an absurd thing for a presidential candidate to gain support over.
Also, lets not forget the January 6th tapes, that proved the FBI had a role in January 6th
Nonsense. Please provide the evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
That is your problem right there— you seem to believe (in your biased judgment) that there exist media outlets which are objective.
I never suggested any such thing. I was addressing your sarcastic insinuation that anyone (including media outlets) who have landed heavily on either side of the political spectrum should be immediately written off as non-objective.
As for calling balls and strikes, I’m talking about the majority of media implying that a player (DeSantis in this case) is constantly swinging and missing, while that player goes on to hit a grand slam… in reality.
Whether his actions should be considered a hit and miss depends on the desired end result. If pissing off the libs or appeasing his base is the goal then yes, he has hit many grand slams. But he is clearly running for president, so by every metric so far when compared to that goal his actions the evidence clearly shows he is striking out.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It doesn’t matter whether they watch Fox News, the fact that half the country is enveloped in this apocalyptic rampant crime narrative shapes the entire media landscape around this subject. John Oliver did a good bit on crime reporting a few weeks back, in part pointing out how every year as crime goes down people’s perception of crime being a major problem goes up.
But again, if we look at actual statistics we find that NY is one of the safest big cities in the country, so I don’t know what other insight you could possibly think is more valuable than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
You mean the time that the FBI sealed Trump’s election victory by telling the entire country that Clinton was under federal investigation while concealing that Trump was also under federal investigation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
A biological adult human female.We have gone over this.
Yes, because you continue to rehash the same threads over and over again.
I know I’ve asked you this many times over but just don’t recall ever getting a clear answer… setting aside the already precarious nature of trying to provide a fool proof definition of what a biological female is, how have you ever in your life determined that any given person you run into meets your definition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
You haven't given us a reason to respect people's wishes by default. It's just logically incorrect.
Then this is where a great deal of the issue lies.
This really is most of the most basic rules of living in a civilized society. Either we respect other people’s wishes as our default or we do not respect other people’s wishes until we are given a reason to do so. This means that every stranger you come across must demonstrate to you why you need to respect their wishes in order for you to do so. That’s an absurd ideal for a way by which society functions.
You are however entitled to your own opinions. If that’s the society you think we should live in that’s up to you.
Mental illness is basically a neurological condition that causes a person to see a false distortion of the world/self.
Then not only have you failed to demonstrate this, you haven’t even argued it.
There is nothing about a man claiming that they see themselves as a woman in a man’s body and wanting the world to see them as a woman that stems from a distorted view of reality. Gender dysphoria is a feeling, not a claim about reality. Transgender people are not telling you that they meet your definition of the gender they want to be identified as, they’re telling you they meet theirs, which tends to have nothing to do with the genitals they were born with or whatever biological marker anti-trans activists want to appeal to.
Spouting random reasons doesn't make for valid argument. You need evidence to support your claims.
My claim is that you haven’t met your burden of proof. I don’t understand why this is so complicated for you.
I did not come here claiming trans people are not mentally ill, my claim was that we should treat them with respect and also that your claim that they are mentally ill is unfounded. That’s what we’ve been arguing for the past few weeks.
In unsurprising fashion, you try to save face by taking my pushback against your claims and painting them as if I were claiming the opposite. That’s not how logic works.
So back to my point on this, spouting perfectly reasonable alternative explanations that may be contributing to the high suicide rate and pointing out that none of your studies go into any depth to rule them out absolutely does refute your case, because your case literally hinges on the notion that there are no other factors thereby leaving mental illness as the only thing that could fill the remaining gap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The only trait of a media outlet which qualifies it as objective is adherence to reality itself, not some contrived notion that they’re not supposed to call balls and strikes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
He agreed with oromagi's definition, I think.
If all he wanted was a dictionary definition he could have googled it himself. What he clearly wanted based on his history on this subject and title to this thread is to “own the libs” no doubt by trying to paint us an unable to define the term in a way that isn’t 100% fool proof, so I’d like to hear his.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
To which point are you referring? I’ve spent the past two posts addressing the point you decided to focus on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Lol even Jake Tapper thought the Durham Report was catastrophic for Dems. It’s what we’ve known this entire time. There was not basis to open the Trump-Russia investigation
Setting aside what the report actually unveiled, why is a report on the activity of the FBI catastrophic for the democrats? Since when in MAGA world did “the FBI” = “the Democratic Party”?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I want the definition of the word woman.
What’s yours?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So that’s your issue, that I didn’t use your exact verbiage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Desantis is dangerous to the democratic party, and if republicans can get their act together, I think we have a good shot for Desantis as a candidate.
Well something big is going to have to change because he’s lost a lot of ground lately. Oddly enough the shift in the polls to Trump’s favor came right after Trump got indicted, which says quite a bit about his base.
Perhaps once the real indictments come down for trying to overturn the election in Georgia and his role January 6th people will realize he really is a criminal who is completely unfit for the Oval Office, but knowing the Trump base that will probably cement his nomination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
You are the one whose general implication is that objectivity, logic, and reason causes one to be left leaning, while misinformation, cherry picking, and personal bias leads one to be right leaning.Yep… that’s objective alright…
Objectivity and neutrality are not the same thing. I don’t aspire nor pretend to be the latter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I am talking about entirely negative coverage from mainstream outlets
Why do you good always act like the outlets which you have dubbed “main stream” are the only places people have to get their news from?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only person using the word shithole here is you.
So this wasn’t you?…
Maybe most people do not want to be like New Yorkers that accept a high level of violence with low guns and low security. Crazy and violent people strut around New York and that is the norm for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Regarding DeSantis, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a political leader get such entirely negative press yet win re-election by 19%.
Does Fox News, OANN, News Max, and talk radio not qualify to you as press coverage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Only when covid started did unemployment rise. Nothing to do with Trump. Certain jobs had to be closed to prevent covid spread.
Sounds like you’re saying that just because it happened while Trump was president doesn’t mean Trump deserves the credit/blame, so instead we have to judge by looking at their actions and how they impacted the economy… correct?
If so tell me, what do you credit for the fact that the economy under Trump continued the same upward trajectory until COVID hit that it was already on when he got elected?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
@YouFound_Lxam
The problem for Democrats is that in 2020, there was hope Biden would be a decent leader. Now, that possibility is beyond hope.
4 years of today’s fact free right wing propaganda would pose a problem for any democratic candidate, so we don’t entirely disagree there.
Personally, I have mixed feelings on it. On one hand I want Trump to win the nomination because I don’t believe he is electable in a general election. He already lost in 2020, he is even less favorable among the younger generations that grew of voting age since 2016, there’s that whole thing about him trying to subvert our democracy on January 6th, and also because I think the political landscape is different here. In 2016 he was just a shiny object to many, he could never be that again now that we’ve been there and done that, also everyone underestimated the gullibility and tolerance for absurdity of the electorate in 2016. We won’t be making that mistake again.
On the other hand, if he’s the nominee anything can happen. One October surprise and were truly fucked.
The other problem here is that the leading alternative is Ron Desantis. While I do not share the opinion of many on the left that Desantis would be worse than Trump because he’s more competent, I have grown more concerned about how dangerous he is overall to the point where I don’t think he’s that far off.
So at this point, if it were Desantis and Trump I would root for Trump because I believe Desantis would have a much greater chance of winning in the general. If Desantis was no longer the leading challenger I would root for any republican regardless of how likely I thought they were to win because no one else in the field comes close to Trump - the risk just wouldn’t be worth it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Perhaps you really believed that you would present an argument to support it. You won’t because you don’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
The correct neutral position is to not be sure if they're mentally ill. The non-neutral position would be to assume they are not mentally ill.
You aren’t paying attention, at all.
You are now talking about the neutral position with regards to what we believe. My statement which you have yet to address is in regards to the default position on how we treat people.
Actions and beliefs are not the same thing. You can be neutral when it comes to whether you believe someone is worthy of your respect, you can’t be neutral when it comes to whether you treat them with respect.
You have given yourself a burden by declaring that we should respect transgender wishes to become the opposite biological sex.
No, I declared that we should respect people’s wishes until one can reasonably conclude that doing so would come at a cost to themselves or others. If you seriously want to argue that premise you are more than welcome to explain why we should not. I’d love to hear it.
Once that very basic premise is accepted and you claim we should not do so for the transgender community, you have necessarily given yourself that burden.
The question now becomes: does mental illness cause with transgender suicides to any degree?
No, the question we haven’t yet gotten to is: what is mental illness and what qualities about it make it worthy of concern in this context?
I’ve asked you half a dozen times already to define it and explain why it matters, curiously you continue to ignore it, I suspect because you have no idea how to define it in any way that aligns with your evidence and your point.
You can keep making big sentences with big words, but that 24% will never get close to 100%.
I’m sorry if those big words are too complex for you, but they’re a part of having discussions around complex topics. If you don’t have the bandwidth to engage in it that’s not my problem.
Once again, you’re the one who is claiming the 76% gap here is filled with mental illness. But “I don’t see what else it could be…” is a logical fallacy. You don’t prove your case with logical fallacies. For someone who pretends to be so superior in logic this is really basic stuff.
I’ve already provided reasons to help fill some of that gap which some of your studies agreed with. Your studies didn’t study them in any depth because that wasn’t the point of them, so your exclusion of them is entirely baseless.
I’ve also explained to you that we’re not trying to fill the entire gap as people do commit suicide regardless of their gender orientation. You continue to pretend otherwise.
The more I interact with you the more I believe you just are getting all these studies from some anti trans website providing you with all the arguments and sources that you are just regurgitating. There’s no way that someone who has done all this work to amass and comb through all of this information could be so ignorant of the basics of scientific study.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Specifically, do you think Fox is part of a grand conspiracy causing Democrats in New York to want to move out of New York? Or is a much more believable reason is at play here, that those Democrats have authentic negative personal experiences that are reflected in the polls and migration data.What do you think Occam's Razor suggests?
Even in your best attempt to argue in good faith you still can’t help but to caricature everything I just said. I never claimed or implied in any way that there is some grand conspiracy. Fox “News” is an entertainment business, and unfortunately fear and disgust sells. They’re just giving their audience what it wants.
People are always going to have negative personal experiences, what matters is the context we put them into. If I get mugged I might think it was a freak once in a lifetime kind of thing, if I turn on the news and all it talks about are how muggings are out of control and everyone’s at risk I’m going to see it very differently. So when news networks run these stories on a 24/7 loop and have become financially invested in convincing its audience that we now live in a permanent state of carnage that’s going to have an impact on how people look at their own experiences.
But setting that aside, you keep pretending this is all about crime and terrible leadership. That’s nonsense. By far the biggest reason people are leaving is the high price of real estate which is the exact opposite of your narrative. If NY was the shithole you pretend it to be people wouldn’t be willing to pay so much to live here.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You just described every politician for the past 50 years with that list of traits.
Every politician exhibits some form of each of these traits because every human being exhibits some form of each of these traits. Every politician for example has told a lie, that is not the same thing as being a pathological liar. Equating those two things is complete nonsense. But that’s exactly what makes Trump so incredibly dangerous and destructive; when you buy into a cult you sacrifice any sense you have of right vs wrong or basic human standards. So suddenly anyone who is found to be ignorant of any little thing you can imagine is equal to the guy who thinks clean coal is when they take it out and scrub it with a brush.
But that’s fine, not like I was expecting you to pick one of these traits to dive deeper into because you know full well no one compares to Trump on any of these.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
People have been brainwashed by the legacy media to hate Trump, a man that was once loved before he became POTUS, but hated ever since because of what the left and the media told you think, feel and believe. You people are the gullible ones.
The idea that a media narrative is needed to see what an unbelievably terrible human being Donald Trump is laughably absurd. He’s the most transparently moronic president we’ve ever had and that becomes more and more obvious every single time he opens his mouth, even this many years in. The media didn’t create that, all they needed was to hit the record button.
In Trump we have a man who is a:
- Pathological liar
- Ignoramus
- Petulant
- Childish
- Vile
- Racist
- Narcissist
- Conspiracy theorist
- Idiot
Every single one of these traits are in the extreme. So you can either;
A) Concede that your claims are ridiculous
B) Argue that these traits are perfectly fine to have in a President of the United States
C) Argue that these traits do not accurately describe Trump
If (C), then pick ONE of the above traits and claim Trump is not that in the extreme. I’ll give you plenty of examples and we’ll see which one of us is really being brainwashed.
I’ll wait.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
as ridiculous and just as unserious as Jussie Smollet claiming Chicago is "MAGA Country!"
Follow the thread, my comment about the narrative being made up was in response to your claim about NY being some crime infested shithole
Created: