Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think the polls and migration data are fabricated?
I think facts are a better indicator of reality than people’s perceptions, especially when issues such as crime in “liberal cities” is politicized in an era where facts themselves no longer matter.
I also live in NY, so I couldn’t care less what people claim in some poll.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then you had better work on your marketing as people are leaving the city citing it to be too expensive and too unsafe.
I had to read this a few times just to make sure you were really being serious.
Fox News and right wing media obsess over painting every city they can in any way tie to liberalism as dirty crime infested apocalyptic shit holes, and they run this message to the ground 24/7. So to hear someone who is at least sympathetic to right wing views claiming the left needs to work on its marketing is hilarious. If there’s a perception problem, people like you are the reason.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure people have a legitimate concern that overall violence will go up with less security , guns, and armed police.Ban-nuts don't seem to understand this. You can argue for more security and less guns, but many ban nuts seem to want less armed security.
These are two completely separate issues.
Reducing violence by increasing guns is just plain stupid. That’s still the case regardless of one’s position on the police.
Almost no one is calling for less police except for the far left which the right loves to obsess over no matter how small a contingent of the left it is. NYC, one of the most liberal places in the country elected a pro-police police officer as its mayor.
I have never heard a debate over armed security so I have idea what you are referencing. I can only assume you’re talking armed security within our schools which is another conversation. Those people (to which I consider myself to be a part of) are not arguing that it’s inherently bad to have police officers in school, but more so attacking the idea that adding an armed police force to our schools is not the direction we should be going in. If we’re talking about school shootings the only way to prevent such needless death is to stop the shooters from getting their hands on the tools they need to commit it. I’m personally ok with more officers as part of the solution, but to put that forward while making guns easier to access is absurd.
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.
This really is so stupid it’s ridiculous. NYC is one of the safest cities in the country, this narrative was completely invented by Fox News and the rest of the right wing propaganda echo chamber.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe if Marxist leftoids were not hell bent on reducing police and security, then people would listen a bit longer to the ban-nuts and trust them regarding violence, gun or no gun.
More guns = Less gun violence is still just as stupid regardless of whatever the political left is arguing, no matter how badly you are caricaturing it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
So as expected, you ignored the entire conversation regarding the early Trump lead to change the subject to “Biden didn’t win because no one would vote for him”, even though 7 million more Americans like myself did as opposed to those who voted for Trump.
Here’s the thing you don’t understand… even if “Biden lost because I don’t see how people would vote for him” was a legitimate argument (it’s obviously not), you still ignore the fact that the person you are so fervently against is a concoction invented by right wing media which the vast majority of the country does not consume.
You also, more importantly, ignore the fact that the overwhelming motivation for Biden voters was not to put Biden in office but to boot Trump out of it. I mean seriously, whatever you think about Trump’s performance you cannot pretend that he is not embodiment of what most people consider a terrible human being.
But this is your argument, which is to say you don’t have one. You just don’t like it.
And as far as 2000 Mules goes, this has to be the stupidest movie to ever hit theaters. Its central premise is that voter fraud was proven because cell phone data shows many people went near a drop box many times. You can’t be serious. The entire point of drop boxes is to make voting easier, so they’re placed in busy areas. Of course you are going to have people passing by them multiple times. The fact that this movie is being cited by such a large swath of the political right alleging voter fraud is as far as I am concerned proof that there is no evidence of voter fraud . If there was, you people wouldn’t be sitting here embarrassing yourselves like this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
My study doesn't conclude that victimization is the reason transgender people commit suicide/have suicidal thoughts.
Of course not, because as I’ve pointed out now half a dozen times already, there is nothing that would qualify as “the reason”. Suicide amongst the population is a complex subject and there are multiple factors at play for any and every category of people. Why do you continue to pretend this is not a fact?
Firstly, "common sense" is a tautology that I've already called out in this discussion.
It’s not a tautology because it’s not being offered as a logical argument. I refer to certain things like common sense as a way of saying that this conversation has been dumbed down to the point where I see no interest in arguing further. If you can’t figure out how telling people that they are delusional and mentally ill to the point where their own wishes regarding how they are addressed should not be respected - is the opposite of treating them with dignity and respect… then you’re on your own. You can argue that we are not acting in their best interests to do so, which you have tried to even though you have provided no alternative, but that is a separate issue.
Secondly, you need to give reasons as to why we should respect their gender identity. That's the burden of proof you need to fulfil, elsewise you haven't proven there are good reasons to respect their gender identity
It doesn’t have to be proven, that’s the point. The default position in any civilized society is that we treat others the way they wish to be treated until it comes at a cost to others or to themselves. So the burden is on you, not anyone else, to demonstrate the harm. All you have come up with is a half baked case that they are mentally ill without even defining what qualifies one as mentally ill in the first place or why your definition of mental illness is one that anyone should care about.
Your overcomplication is nonsense.
This is a really basic principal of science. Your referring to it as overcomplication is quite hilarious and clearly demonstrates the problem here.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
but what seems most likely? it seems most likely that impulsive people will occasionally murder others, when they otherwise wouldn't. the ability to just push a button and people die, makes a difference in whether or not people die sometimes, considering how impulsive people are.
More guns = Less gun violence
That is the central idea behind every gun nut’s arguments, which is of course absurd on its face. That’s why they give up. The exception would be those those who give up entirely on the idea that gun rights are about safety, but by that point they’ve pretty much conceded the debate.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
He was set to win, he has the numbers by a large margin the night of the election. But come morning a magical box(es) of votes for Biden appeared out of nowhere and put him over the top.
They weren’t magical. Anyone and everyone who was following politics in the months leading up to the election saw this coming. It was even named “blue shift” in the weeks heading up to November 8th.
Trump politicized the pandemic so everyone knew his voters were going to show up in person while Biden’s voters were overwhelmingly going to vote by mail. Because of this, republican state legislatures started passing laws making sure that mail in ballots were not allowed to even be processed until Election Day. The result of this was obvious, Trump friendly votes would be counted first resulting in Trump taking an early lead, then Biden friendly votes would be counted after, giving Trump grounds to claim it was rigged.
This was entirely planned out, and the entire point was to manipulate people like you they knew would fall for it. Clearly, they were right.
Here’s John Oliver explaining it before election night:
(Skip to the 15 min mark)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I remember that, it really is proof that the two sides are not the same. The most telling example of this is to look at the polls just before and after Election Day 2016 with regards to the economy. In November 2016 just over 70% of democrats said the economy was good vs about 15% of republicans. By Inauguration Day both parties sat on that question at about 65%. By January 2018 democrats were in the low 60’s, republicans were rating the economy over 90%.
There was no significant change during that time, the only thing that changed was who was president. Clearly there was some perceptional change on the left, but on the right it was just patently absurd.
This is Trump’s superpower. Reality is irrelevant, as long as he tells his voters everything is or was amazing, that becomes their reality and then they sit around wondering how anyone could want to go back to the Obama or Biden years when things weren’t as great as Trump’s concoction. It’s pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The most telling moment for me was when he unabashedly said it would have been wrong to use the debt ceiling as a negotiating tactic while he was president but it’s ok now that he’s not president.
It really demonstrates why this guy is a serious contender… because half the electorate literally believes that governing a country is a joke.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The reason the suicide rate in the Trans-community is so high, is because society is not tolerant enough for them, but also the reason that the Trans-population has rose up so quick is because they now feel like they can come out because society is more tolerant?Which is it?
These are not contradictory things.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I didn’t think you would answer
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Just calling it out ya know.
No, you were just ignoring the fact that your central point in this thread is complete nonsense by changing the subject.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
You’re fucking delusional!!!
Did Trump win the 2020 election (as in did he receive more legitimate legal votes in the states he needed to win the electoral college)? YES or NO?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
How many Democrats are voting for Trump after that Biden bait and switch?
There are always stupid people out there. If Ted Bundy was on the ballot, there are people out there who would vote for him.
Aside from being the worst kind of human being in every way a presidential candidate could possibly be, in Trump we’re talking about a man who is actively trying to take down American democracy after trying and failing the first time. The idea of even comparing him to any other candidate on the basis of some kind of policy failure is absolutely ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
This is where I have come to realize that the LGBTQ+ community not only has stopped promoting equality for all, but have started promoting in the changing of definitions, labels, and perceptions of reality. They claim, "our definitions are right and anyone who says otherwise are the crazy ones, because they are the ones who are not accepting reality for what it really is."
Reality is that which is.
Words are that which we as thinking agents use to talk about reality.
There is absolutely nothing about using different terminology to express ideas that requires one to change their perception of reality.
This is cartoonishly simple stuff. Why, despite all of the times this has been explained to you, do you still not get this? Why, do you still not understand that all words and their accompanying definitions were made up by people and can therefore be changed by people, making them inherently subjective?
What is so complicated about this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We discussed as to why suicide rates for transgender people were so high, you gave the alternative explanation of "victimization". You didn't give any data/evidence/studies to back this claim
That’s because the claim came from your own studies. You know this, I even quoted the passage.
We're both making positive cases that have burden of proof. I'm arguing that transgenderism is a mental illness. You're arguing that we should respect their gender identity
Agreed, and this is the whole problem here. What I’m arguing for is a matter of common sense and basic human decency, so asking me to provide studies to prove my point is absurd. I can’t “prove” to you that people benefit from compassion. If you haven’t figured that out yet you have very serious issues and there’s really nothing left for me to argue about you with on that nor would I really care to.
You on the other hand, are arguing for a medical classification for something the medical community doesn’t accept should be classified as you believe. That comes with a very steep burden, so putting yourself on some high horse because you provided studies and I didn’t is ridiculous.
It's the dozen-odd studies combined that make the case, not individual studies analyzed in isolation.
100 invalid arguments doesn’t add up to one valid point.
The numbers from the can simply be looked at and we can draw numerical conclusions from that.
Numerical data is only as useful as the controls and methods used to obtain it. Once again, not one of your studies were even set up to explore the question of whether transgenderism is a mental illness, so no controls were put in place capture any data that would confirm or deny that hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It's not integral to the argument you're making here, but just shows that you don't have anything to back the claim you're making.
It’s not my claim we’re discussing here, it’s yours. I never came on here claiming transgender people are not mentally ill, I am refuting your claim that they are as insufficient. You need to understand how the burden of proof works.
(2) Transgender people who self-report not experiencing discrimination still have these elevated risks of suicide Suicidality-Transgender-Sep-2019.pdf (ucla.edu)(3) Suicidal transgender people also typically don't cite bullying as a reason for their attempts at suicide
Once again, you’re searching for the one drop that’s going to fill up the whole bucket, then arguing that if none of them accomplished it it’s proof there’s no water.
No one thing is going to account for the entire gap between trans and cisgender suicide rates so your whole framing on this is way off. You also disregard the basic fact that one does not need to personally experience something in order to be impacted by it. Would you be afraid of getting mugged if you found yourself in the wrong neighborhood at the wrong time? Most people would, you don’t have to have ever been mugged to feel that way.
If you want to prove transgenderism is a mental illness you need certain controls in place to ensure your results are definitive. None of your studies have done this because that’s not even the topic they are studying. This is why nearly every single one you’ve cited ends with a disclaimer saying “more research is needed”.
Do I really need to explain to you why anecdotal evidence and "common sense" doesn't cut it compared to studies?
No, you need to explain how studies that aren’t studying the topic you’re asserting, who don’t agree with your conclusions, and who haven’t ruled out all alternative explanations proves your explanation to be the correct one.
So, the left-wing solutions to transgenderism, at least in those regards, doesn't help the transgender condition in any significant way.
And yet you aren’t pretending to have nor are even seeking a solution to this problem, so your attack on “left wing solutions” (an absurd term here) rings quite hollow, especially as you sit here arguing these people are mentally ill and their own decisions regarding their own identity should be disregarded, because that’s really going to help people recover from suicidal thoughts…
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
America is becoming increasingly tribal
Agreed, and it’s ridiculous arguments like ‘well it happened in a county that voted for Biden so that explains it’ which feeds into it.
the illegal immigration is making a bad problem much worse.
Right. Last month it was about the fact that the shooter was trans. Now it’s about the fact that they’re illegal. Everything except the one common thread; easy access to assault style weapons.
That Texas is seeing an uptick in violence, and not just simple gun violence is expected as it is ground zero.
Illegal immigrants are the least likely group in our society to commit crimes. Try again.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Allen voted for Biden btw.49.38% for Biden.Explains a lot.
What about all the mass shootings that happens in red cities/towns? What explains those?
Let me guess... Many of them happened in a blue state? And what about the ones that happen in red cities/towns and a red state? Well many of those happened while a democrat was president. And if not well the other ones happened while we had a blue house of reps, or a blue Senate, or a blue state legislature, or blue judges...
As long as there is some blue somewhere, you can explain any shooting, any crime, anything. Cause you know... Logic. N stuff.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Dude has posted hundreds of times. He's mildly entertaining. He posted more than once
I was talking about Bud Light...
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Exactly the kind of intelligent conversation you are known for.
I'm going to disappear how, clearly your incredible logic was just too much for me to wrap my little head around...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
So now Ii am a liar?
Just stop.
Alleging something that isn't true isn't necessarily lying, and I didn't even go as far as saying it wasn't true.
I have to question your intelligence though if you even need to Google what is extremely obvious about his target demographic
You sure are taking quite a bit out of a single Instagram post...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Why aren't you boycotting the company, even after you were informed that they market alcohol to minors?
Because (1) I'm not yet convinced that they are marketing to minors, that's just something you said. And (2) because honestly I really don't care. I'd be willing to bet every beer brand is just as guilty of whatever you're claiming they did, and if anything I'd rather keep buying Bud Light just to do my part to offset the latest right wing cavalcade of bigotry against the LGBTQ community.
I am talking about. His internal belief system. It would match yours, given that you both are liberals right?
Seriously? You asked me whether I agreed with his approach to handling disagreements with various members on this site. That has absolutely nothing to do with my liberalism.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Superfluous nonsense.
In other words, it was too much thought for you to handle so instead of responding to the very conversation you asked for you're just going to pretend repeating the same refuted garbage is a legitimate argument. Got it.
Lol 😂 it’s so easy to goad you.
So I'm the guy who's alway running away from intimidatingly intelligent conversation, yet is so easy to get a response out of. Ok bruh.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
So, this 76% shows your "alternative" isn't correct.
No, it doesn't. You continue to pretend that one single explanation must account for the entire variance, otherwise we can chuck it away. That's nonsense. Cisgender people commit suicide too, so we're talking about accounting for the difference between two, and there are likely a multitude of factors why. Even if mental illness is part of it, that still wouldn't explain all of it. These aren't all or nothing propositions.
Also, I've been allowing you to mischaracterize what I said for a while now so let's finally take a moment to address it; I never claimed "victimization" was the cause, I said trans people are the most ostracized in our society (whether they are actually the most ostracized - the part you decided to focus on - is irrelevant to my point).
Being ostracized comes in many different forms, not just "victimization" (however they are even defining it). It also means being made fun of, being talked about, being targeted, etc. This thread alone is just another example of it. Imagine living in a society where half go so far to not accept you for who you are that they cite studies where they don't even agree with is authors but use its data anyway to argue that you're mentally ill. Imagine your own family and especially your parents don't accept you for who you are to the point where they disown you. Shit, under those circumstances I might kill myself too or at the very least act out, so I guess I'm mentally ill as well.
Show me where your studies account for all of this.
When people use analogies, they never use things that are the same. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a point in an analogy.
I'm not refuting your argument on the basis that it doesn't line up perfectly, I'm refuting it on the basis that not one element of these two "conditions" are analogous to each other.
If you want to argue that "transgenderism" is a mental illness on the basis that it leads to increased suicides, bullying, etc. that's fine. We can agree or disagree on those merits but comparing any of this to schizophrenia is deeply flawed. We don't treat schizophrenics the way we do because someone called their condition a mental illness, we treat them the way we do because that's what their condition demands. Stick to arguing the condition, not the classification.
You have ZERO explanation for these extremely elevated rates of detrimental outcomes.
Complete nonsense. I've given you explanations that are quite frankly common sense, you reject them outright because I haven't produced a study showing them to you.
So since common sense is apparently invalid in this conversation let me provide the exact same thing I've been saying in the form of a study:
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.
Now you can go on and study the various factors at play here and stop pretending I've produced nothing.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Act tough, but you ALWAYS, and I mean you ALWAYS go “silent hill” when someone proves you wrong.Sort of like I just did on the difference between a forum and a debate section; how names of sites and even restaurants do not mean SHIT!
What stupid post.
You didn't prove me wrong on a damn thing. Even Adreamofliberty whom I've gotten into very tenuous discussions with and for which seem to have no common ground with chimed in to agree with me.
When I talk about rules of debate I'm not talking about points for spelling and grammar. I'm talking about basic concepts which intelligible and productive discission are founded upon. What separates this site from most is an implicit commitment to honoring those basic concepts, but then idiots like yourself comes along and spam the forums with video links that you expect everyone to watch and then debate... Oh I mean "discuss" with you. As if people come to this site to sit around watching YouTube videos. It's just stupid.
And as far as your "names don't mean shit" argument, that's just another ridiculous point that you somehow think was intelligent or a clever gotcha. If I look hard enough I can find a Chinese restaurant selling hotdogs, or an Italian restaurant selling sushi. These are just anecdotes, and the fact that you found one anecdote that almost defeats my point (it doesn't, I wasn't talking about a burger/pizza concoction, I was talking about an actual slice of pizza) doesn't mean that the word "burger" in "Burger King" is meaningless.
If you walk into a place with the word burger literally in their name that tells you what they specialize in and what they care most about. It tells you who they are targeting and marketing to. If you walk into a place with burger in their name you know that if they can do one thing right, it's make a burger. And if you instead order a piece of chicken and it's not great, that's on you for ordering chicken in a burger joint. The name does matter. So pretending that the word "debate" in "debateart.com" is meaningless is also... Just plain stupid.
So no, I didn't "go silent" because you proved me wrong. I went silent because this conversation proved to be below my already low standards for the level of intelligence needed in order to engage. If this site had more intelligent right wing people seeking actual productive conversation I wouldn't spend nearly as much time as I do interacting with you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am just informing you there are a ton of good reasons to boycott that company
But the people who actually are boycotting the company are not doing so for this reason, so this has nothing to do with the conversation.
Do you agree with his repeated sexist remarks about Kaitlyn his classiest remarks to me and his general dislike of teachers directed at GP?
No, and I've told him that he could find a much better way to disagree with people.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Here Shapiro rips that Stewart interview apart.
This is a link to Facebook.
One absolutely has nothing to do with the other, AND as Shapiro points out with actual fact based truths and statistics in the DEBUNKING of the gun control garbage, all of Stewarts retorts were “pure garbage.” That they were.
Since your link wouldn't play, would you care to offer your own critiques that you would be willing to defend yourself, or do I just have to keep searching for Ben Shapiro's arguments?
So, how was that pizza you ordered from Burger King!!! lol
Your link was to a pizza burger genius.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
That's it, just an instagram post, you've got to be kidding me.
This is really or politics now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I never said it was about marketing beer to minors, but perhaps it should be. Would you agree it's a pretty disgusting thing to do?
Sure, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this so why don't we just stick to the actual subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You can get offended that right wingers are boycotting the beer,
I'm not, I'm fascinated by how nakedly bigoted these people are while pretending they're not bigots.
but leftists should be opposed to budlight attempting to market their alcohol to minors
Oh, so this is all about Bud Light's marketing to minors.
And you gathered all this from an Instagram post commemorating a trans activist.
Somehow I doubt that all the people out there refusing to drink Bud light would make the same argument. But you are free to believe whatever you want.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
CNN gun control advocate gets SMOKED in interview!
Since we're just posting videos...
Created:
Posted in:
"The controversy started with a single commemorative can of beer, one which wasn't even for sale. The can wasn't featured in a 30-second Super Bowl commercial, a billboard on the highway, or a glossy magazine spread, but in an Instagram post.
The post is a video from Mulvaney, a performer and influencer who had posted about Bud Light previously as a brand partner. This specific post, however, showcased a customized Bud Light can the brand sent her as a gift to mark a milestone in her transition. The video went viral, with some supporting Mulvaney and the company, and others responding with anti-trans reactions and calls for a Bud Light boycott."
Imagine being so bigoted that a simple recognition of a trans influencer on a social media post would drive you to boycott a brand and bask in glory over the fact that it's sales are seeing a significant drop as a result.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It wasn't a strawman, it's called reductio ad absurdumSo its not just strawman, but also an appeal to emotions!
Did you even bother to Google reductio ad absurdum? No, of course you didn't.
I have proven over and over that "not punishing gays = increase in suicides".
No, you've claimed it over and over again. You haven't once provided any data to back it up. You've also demonstrated that you don't even know how to prove it because you don't understand how to demonstrate a casual connection in the first place.
No way to resolve questions about morality not included in said pronouncements =/= no moral standard.
Genius, that's literally the entire point of a moral standard.
You can't be this stupid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Names don’t mean shit.
Right, so the next time I see a Burger King I'll just go in and order a pizza
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
So, we do need another explanation for the 76% who aren't committing suicide and having suicidal thoughts due to victimization.
Not having an explanation for something simply means we don't have an explanation. The problem is that you do have another explanation - mental illness, hence my point about argument from ignorance and the burden of proof.
I get that you posted this point in response to my point about about victimization being the explanation, but that was just an example of me offering an alternative, not an attempt to cite a full study of the underlying issues. You're the one trying to accomplish that.
You're attempting to contest something that isn't contestable.
You didn't hear a word I said, or maybe are just pretending you didn't. 76% respondents said what exactly? Do you know? No, because all you're doing is relying on the characterization of what they said by the people who actually talked to them.
Like I pointed out earlier, numbers are not always that simple. In one Harvard survey amongst self professed politically engaged individuals, 56% of respondents approved of the Affordable Care Act. Only 33% approved of Obamacare. How you ask a question matters.
So again, this doesn't mean we chuck the numbers out the window, but it does (or at least should) raise a red flag to those who draw conclusions from any study that contradict the conclusions of the people who conducted them.
I didn't call them the same. I argued that they were the same in some regard. That's what an analogy is.
In my previous post I went through why these two things are not the same. You responded with:
Both transgender people and schizophrenics are humans who have mental illness -- that's apples to apples.
You then went on to declare that we could treat them with dignity without pandering to their mental illness. So yes, you absolutely did just call them both mental illnesses and them declare them the same in that regard (apples to apples).
To reiterate my point, again, schizophrenia is where an individual contains multiple personalities, while trans people are just telling you that the one person you see is in fact who they are. These are not the same, not even close.
Schizophrenics often seek help (or at least one of their personalities do), so there is an internal conflict between actions taken by the body and the desires of the person within it. That conflict needs to be resolved and the patient cannot do it by themselves.
Schizophrenics almost always do not wish to be schizophrenic, trans people do want to transition.
Whether one is harmful to others is case by case, we wouldn't treat either that way unless they showed this trait individually. I think we can leave that there since we have disagreements on this.
There is nothing about these two conditions that are analogous to each other. You can call them both mental illnesses, but calling something a mental illness is not the same as demonstrating why your characterization matters in any meaningful way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
PS. This is the FORUM section.It is NOT the “DEBATE” section.
It's a debate site genius. It's literally in the name.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Okay, so your fallacy of choice is a strawman fallacy.
It wasn't a strawman, it's called reductio ad absurdum (latin for reduced to absurdity). I would explain to you what that is but you clearly do not have the bandwidth to understand this. Please google it and educate yourself, then read my argument again so you can finally understand why not doing something cannot be the cause for something else.
How could I possibly cherry pick every country on Earth?
You have yet to prove your claim so this statement is meaningless. If you're going to keep claiming all of the countries that punish gays have lower suicide rates, provide the data.
You are the one making this claim so the burden is in you to prove it.
Except to the moral discussion about them. "Harm = wrong" does not explain why "harm = wrong", or why "harm = wrong" > "harm = right". It just leads us in circles.
I explained this in detail already, why is this so difficult for you?
It doesn't lead us in circles. The argument isn't nor was it ever that the standard for morality must be justified. If you were paying attention, I already explained that the standard itself is the starting point so it will always be subjective.
You can have moral standard without basic concepts.
No, you can't. Without basic concepts at the core of your morality you don't have a moral standard, all you have are a set of moral pronouncements with no basis and no way to resolve any question about morality not included in said pronouncements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The issue is your laziness to review the material provided by others
I review material presented to me all the time, provided that the person presenting it is willing to make the argument themselves and is only using the material as support. That's how debating works. Calling me lazy because I'm not willing to review material that you aren't even willing to explain and defend is just stupid. I'm here to interact with people, not read/watch other people's nonsense. If I want to argue with a YouTube video I'll go watch my own.
So no. Not going to waste my time anymore.
Great, then we all agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Unlike you I’m not lazy.
Yeah, I'm sure lazy is exactly what most people who argue with me are thinking when they read the tiny effortless posts I'm known for in this site...
I never see you demands the cliff notes from greyparrot or others when they post links to videos to start a discussion with. Now why could that be!
Because GP and others like him aren't really trying to debate their links, it's more of a take it or leave it attitude. You are the opposite, you expect people to put time and effort into watching/reading your links that you weren't even willing to put into the post in the first place. If you want others to take you seriously you need to first demonstrate that they should. That's common sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Your logic is: "not an action = cant cause anything".Wrong.
Ok, let's try a very basic lesson in logic.
Your argument is that "not punishing gays results in higher suicide rates". So let's strip this of it's basic contents to examine the logic of it;
X = punishing gays
Y = increased suicides
Your logic is therefore: Not X results in Y
The problem here is that anything other than "punishing gays" fits into not X. Kittens are not X, therefore kittens cause higher suicide rates. Kareoke is not X, therefore kareoke causes increased suicide rates.
The reason for this error is because you do not understand the difference between "if you fail to do X, Y will result" and "not X is fundamentally the cause for Y"
This does not rule out the argument that punishing the gays decreases suicide rates, but what this shows is that when I assessed the argument you were making as boiling down to "being gay leads to higher suicides" I was absolutely right and remarkably you call me a liar while admitting that you do in fact believe this. The absurdity of your posts couldn't be more blatant.
You want me to demonstrate how accepting homosexuality causes suicides? Literally look at any country that accepts homosexuality. Is it a coincidence that countries who dont punish homosexuality have much higher suicide rates than countries who do?
It could very well be. Or it could also be the case that there are a multitude of factors, like development for example, that tie many of these results together and you are just cherry picking the ones that suit your worldview. And since you're the one making the claim, YES, you need to demonstrate how it's not any of those. This is another example of how basic logic and critical thinking works, it's called the burden of proof. Look it up.
Both are stupid as separate ideas, but when you combine them then they are really stupid.For example, being fair implies false idea of equality between men and women. Thats why the societies that want to be fair often give women too much rights.
Serious question; why is it wrong to give women "too much rights"?
Not harming each other is bad too, since most people misunderstand it. For example, gays are harming our society.
What's wrong with gays harming our society?
So when you say that your standard is "we should not harm each other" you are in fact saying "we should not harm each other because we should not harm each other".
Yes, because when we talk about a moral standard we are talking about the basic concepts that morality is founded upon.
If harm is the standard morality is based on, then when we talk about moral issues we are talking about the harm as a general subject. Why is it wrong to steal? Because it's harmful to the person whose things were stolen. Why is it wrong to hit someone? Because it's harmful to the person who got hit.
Basic concepts can form a basis for morality because they can be applied to any moral discussion.
Explain how "being gay" applies to the question of whether it's wrong to steal, or to hit someone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Do you read books?Do you read news articles online?Do you watch news sources on television or online?If you answer yea to any of those questions then you can sit through 12 min of a news source laying out the case.
Or... You could just make your own arguments instead of telling everyone "go argue with my YouTube video".
If you're too lazy to do that then you have no business calling out anyone else for being too lazy to sit through your video.
And for what it's worth I did try, but it was just painfully childish and stupid to the point I wasn't wasting any more of my time in it. The visuals of a cracked out Hunter Biden and cartoonish depiction of him hanging around Joe's back alone make it unmistakably clear how unserious this segment was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
The large majority of transgender people are not committing suicide, thinking about suicide or feeling bad due to victimization -- you need another explanation for the 76%.
Actually I don't. This is a classic argument from ignorance fallacy. It is not my responsibility to come up with alternative explanations for why they commit suicide, it is your responsibility as the person making this claim to demonstrate that their "mental illness" is the culprit.
Cite the part of the study saying this, because I just looked again and it says this:
"Evidence demonstrated high prevalence of victimisation (36%) and mental health difficulties (39%) within these populations. Our review shows that these experiences were respectively 3.74 times and 2.67 times higher among young LGBTQ+ people than their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts."
At the end of the day, the arguments I'm making are either right or wrong.
Actually, let's be a bit more precise; the arguments you're making are either valid or invalid. That matters in how we go about assessing this because validity is merely the result of the conclusion following from the premises, but that's meaningless when it's the premises that I'm challenging you on in the first place.
Again, the point I brought up here is that the authors who actually conducted the studies are in a much better position to explain the take away because they understand the full extent of what methods and controls were used to get to their results.
So either you fully understand the controls and methods or you don't. Which is it? If I were to challenge you on any random study you cited and ask you about them would you, without having to cheat, be able to explain it?
Both transgender people and schizophrenics are humans who have mental illness -- that's apples to apples.
Taking two entirely different things and calling them the same doesn't make them the same.
I already explained the fundamental difference between these two things and why it matters here. Do you have a response to that, or are you just going to pretend I didn't explain it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Your argument is essentially that gay people commit suicide at a higher rate, therefore being gay causes suicide.No, omg.... I didnt say that being gay causes suicides(it does, but I didnt say it).I said that "not punishing gays" causes suicides.
First of all, I didn't say that's what you said, I specifically pointed out that this is what your argument amounts to (to which you are agreeing). That's what "essentially" means. Please look it up if this is not your first language.
More importantly, "not punishing gays" is not an action, it's literally the opposite of an action, so you cannot attribute that as a cause for anything. This is logic 101.
So why does Afghanistan have less suicides than USA? It is because accepting homosexuality causes more suicides. All the countries that accept homosexuality have more suicides than countries who dont accept it. Get it?
I get that you don't have the slightest clue how to demonstrate causation, and as a result are the walking poster child example of a correlation causation fallacy.
Suicide rates and what contributes to them is a massively complex topic on the scale you're talking about. The idea that you can point to any one factor and pretend that explains the entire issue is breathtakingly absurd. Please explain how you excluded every other possible factor that may be contributing to whatever statistic you are alleging to be the case. I'll wait.
So you think fairness and the minimization of harm is a stupid standard for morality.Yes. It is stupid.
And yet you have no alternative to offer.
Just out of curiosity, which of these ideas is stupid? That we should be fair to each other, or that we should not harm one another?
It seems that you misunderstood your own question.You asked:"What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?"So you asked about what is my moral standard.I answered: "That being gay is wrong".It is obvious that the standard "gay being wrong" conflicts with "being gay".However, you lied and claimed that I said: "Gay being wrong conflicts with being gay because being gay conflicts with gay being wrong".
In all seriousness, you can't really be this stupid.
"Being gay is wrong" is not a moral standard. You are assessing one being gay as wrong, Im asking you how you got to that point. So when you say that your standard is "being gay is wrong" you are in fact saying "it's wrong because it's wrong". That's logic 101.
This is called a tautology, which you clearly never googled so I'll educate you; a tautology is a statement that is self-affirming due to its own construct. Think of "it is what it is". The reason we point them out is to point out that the speaker (in this case, you) are saying something pretending to have meaning but is entirely meaningless.
I don't care that you think being gay is wrong, I care why. Do you have an answer? Yes or no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Debate the facts, not the source.
Perhaps you could summarize the facts were supposed to be debating? Could not sit through 12 full minutes of this, it was pretty much a long rant about how hunter is a deadbeat dad and Joe doesn't know where he is.
By all means, layouts the case...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Wrong. Repeated correlation is a causation when cause cannot be related to anything else.
No, that's not how logic works.
Causation has to be demonstrated. Repeated results can at best demonstrate a casual connection between two things, that doesn't tell us which is actually causing the other or whether there is another factor at play causing it.
Your argument is essentially that gay people commit suicide at a higher rate, therefore being gay causes suicide. You're completely disregarding the fact that gay people are largely ostracized within our society and that ostracized groups are far more likely to commit suicide. So you have a clear candidate for a casual connection you are just ignoring.
Do you understand the difference between a feeling and an action?Lets see. Which one of those is taking dick in the ass?
That would be an action genius.
Do you have an actual thought on the subject of whether one can choose to feel differently towards sex, or does just pretending to be childishly stupid qualify to you as an argument?
Wrong. Societies that accept gays have high suicide rate. Societies that punish homosexuality have low suicide rate. Do you get it now dummy? Accepting gays causes suicides, because homosexuality is a disease that spreads when accepted.
Provide the data.
But once that standard is chosen and accepted, whether something is moral compared to that standard is objective.So if my standard is that gay is wrong, then thats objective? Well, you sure like hurting yourself here. Subjective standard compared to something only makes the comparison objective, not the standard.
Yes, that's literally what I just explained.
Your opinion for morality is combination of reducing harm and increasing fairness.Its just your opinion. No one has to agree with you, dummy. No one has to accept your stupid standard.
So you think fairness and the minimization of harm is a stupid standard for morality. Ok. I'm very interested in what you think the standard for morality should be. Go on...
*Grabbing my popcorn*
What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?That being gay is wrong, obviously.I dont even know why you bother.
lol I'm sure many people reading this nonsense don't either.
So being gay is wrong according to your standard of morality because your standard for morality is that being gay is wrong.
And you thought of this all by yourself?
Please Google "tautology".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kaitlyn
In other words, this "largely ostracized" group doesn't appear to be killing itself because of the ostracization -- this contradicts your argument.
Except that as I have already pointed out to you, your own source disagrees...
Victimisation and mental health were key risk factors across the dimension self-harm and suicide identified through all analyses.
We're not talking about medical advice which I don't know a whole lot about, wherein I have to trust others because I don't understand much. We're talking about the highly politicized topic of transgenderism and the fact that I think the narrative from the "experts" doesn't fit the data.
If you know anything about how data works you know it can be interpreted many different ways based on many different factors. Think of a poll where 80% of respondents answer a certain way, but then they ask the same question differently and suddenly it's a 50/50 split. You need to understand the full extent of the experiment to understand the take away.
This doesn't mean we should blindly trust the conclusions of the experiments authors, but unless you have a complete understanding of what questions were asked and what methods of control were established, you're in a pretty weak position to claim you understand the data better than they do, and based on your ignorance of what the authors were even concluding, I have no reason to believe you've done any of that. And even if you did, that might be worse, because seriously, do you really have nothing better to do with yourself?
It's possible to treat schizophrenics with dignity without appeasing their impulses that extend from mental disorder. Therefore, it should be possible to treat transgender people with dignity without appeasing their impulses that extend from mental disorder.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
"Transgenderism" is where a person says "this is who I am". Schizophrenia is where one person creates two or more "different people" within their own mind.
Treating a schizophrenic with dignity would mean embracing each personality as a legitimate person. The parallel to that with transgender people use to do just that which you are vehemently arguing against.
We treat schizophrenia as a serious condition because those suffering from it are either a danger to themselves or others, or because the patient does not wish to continue being subjected to their condition.
None of this applies to transgendered people. There is no evidence they are a danger to others any more than the average person regardless of how much manufactured nonsense the political right concocts, and they clearly do not wish to be treated.
I don't believe this for a second lol. You got caught out and are trying the whole 'my argument was intentionally bad'.
What stupid response.
I just explained what I was talking about from start to finish. What part of that was difficult to understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That's why we have a first amendment.
But no, it doesn't surprise me at all. In fact I'd say your latest post, particularly your willingness to accept something as fact uncritically because it comports with your cynical worldview which I have sincere doubts anything in your personal life has ever aligned with, demonstrates perfectly why you hold the extreme beliefs you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Sexual attraction is a physiological reaction. It's not a choiceTaking dick in the ass is a choice, dummy.
Do you understand the difference between a feeling and an action?
Can you provide a single argument to support the notion that being gay is wrong?Yes. Gays decrease birth rates, increase suicides and mental illnesses in every country that makes a mistake and accepts them. There is no society that benefited from accepting gays.
There is nothing morally wrong about decreased birthrates.
Correlation is not causation. There is nothing inherent about being gay that causes someone to commit suicide. What does objectively cause suicide rates to increase is when individuals live in a society that does not accept them for who they are.
It never ceases to amaze me listening to right wingers ostracize the gay community and then point to things like increased suicide rates among them as justification why. If you actually cared about that you would stop being the asshole who makes these people feel like they should.
Plus, I dont need to support the notion that being gay is wrong, because my opinion remains valid for the reason that "wrong" is always an opinion, not a fact. So either gay is wrong, either nothing is. So if you say that morality is a matter of an opinion, then gay is wrong. If you say it is not a matter of an opinion, then please explain why gay isnt wrong without using an opinion.
So eating peanut butter is morally wrong, and you can't tell me I'm wrong because that's my opinion which can't be wrong.
Great argument there.
All morality is ultimately subjective because morality can only be assessed by comparing thoughts or actions against a moral standard, which will always be subjectively chosen.
But once that standard is chosen and accepted, whether something is moral compared to that standard is objective.
My standard for morality is combination of reducing harm and increasing fairness. That which comports with those two ideals is moral. That which conflicts with them is morally wrong.
What is your moral standard for which being gay conflicts?
I already beaten your friends. I dont see why you volunteer to be my next punching bag.
Dunning-Kruger at its best.
Created: