Kaitlyn

He is pitching the teen tent over his nose now.

Lol some of them are teen-sized. 

A teen sized polar bear?

Women who weight 142 lbs are NOT “teen sized”

You really want to sniff mine, too. You keep mentioning my "fat ass", so you're clearly thinking about what underwear fits around it.

Underwear? More like a tent

They are so easily sheeped lol.

I’m surprised you didn’t die from Covid.

So everything you are told by professionals in their field requires a study?

Lol, how could any educated person make a statement like that after it was conclusively proven even from radical leftist media that Fauci lied to millions of Americans for years and withheld evidence about a drug he was paid to promote.

I’m not interested in your fat ass

This is literally just an opinion.

So everything you are told by professionals in their field requires a study?

Ooh, laundry sniffer wants your real name.

Great appeal to authority

You ask for studies.

You accept bogus studies from your third rate country 

Then when a leading clinic contradicts your insane beliefs you cry logical fallacy.

Why do you sniff people's laundry

People? What people? Give me a name. Someone who doesn’t have a big fat ass with small breasts like yourself.

What 's your opinion on the Tavistock closure?

“Cleveland Clinic was at the forefront of modern medicine when it was first organized as a multi-specialty group practice in 1921. From a small outpatient clinic, it has grown to become the world’s first integrated international health system. With more than 65,000 caregivers worldwide, Cleveland Clinic has almost 6 million patient visits per year, at more than 200 locations”

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/21963-transgender-ensuring-mental-health

“Being transgender (or trans, for short) isn't a mental health disorder. If you’re transgender, it means that you have a different gender identity than the one you were assigned at birth. (Gender identity is defined as the personal sense of one’s own gender.) The desire to convey your gender in the way you feel most authentic is a normal aspect of human expression”

For all the dummies out there like Fat ass Kaitlyn and SubTeach.

In a debate, both sides should present evidence and arguments to support their positions, regardless of initial claims. While one side may have the burden of proof to establish their initial claim, it doesn't absolve the other side from providing evidence and logical reasoning to counter or challenge that claim.

A productive debate should involve the presentation of pertinent evidence, practical reasoning, and persuasive arguments from both sides. It is through this exchange of ideas backed with solid evidence that the strengths and weaknesses of each position can be evaluated.

Although the burden of proof typically lies with the party making a positive claim or assertion, when challenging a claim, it is much more effective to present counterarguments supported by evidence rather than solely relying on dismissing the opposing side's argument without substantiation.

So, again, it makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know. So, your universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes' fails to make sense.

[Dropped by Double_R]

I've been through this same point with you at least half a dozen times. You know damn well what the trans community's wishes are, so it's bad enough that you're really sitting here pretending after all these weeks to not understand that, but to pretend you don't understand basic human nature is humiliating. Just stop.

Therefore, your insistence on "respect" being solely about "wishes" got blown out by the word "or" from my definition of respect: "due regard for the feelings, wishes, or rights of others".

And you even you seem to agree with this because you're now starting to refer to other aspects of respect.

This is what happens when you skim through looking for gotchas as opposed to reading what others actually wrote. Let's look at part of that first example again:

"yet not only is treating others how they wish to be treated literally the most basic form of respect that there is..."

The bold and especially the underlined already tell you that this isn't the only form. If it were, I wouldn't be calling it the most basic form because "most" means by definition that there are others.

I've rebuilt the context you deleted to show that you originally claimed that I don't respect their (transgender people's) rights.

I then gave an example of me respecting their rights.

I've already explained to you that that's not how respect works. Respecting someone 50% of the time and disrespecting them the other 50% does not qualify as "treating them with respect". So listing off ways that you are respecting someone does not negate the ways in which you are disrespecting them.

This is like arguing that you're not cheating on your spouse because sometimes you don't.

You're not being reasonable when you claim a researched, scientific point I've made is absurd

I'm not calling the "researched scientific point" absurd, I'm talking about trying to connect a researched scientific point to something that has nothing to do with science.

Science tells us what is, not what should.

Do we need to respect people who claim they can fly because they did so in a dream?

I don't understand what is so difficult about this to you.

"Fly" has an actual definition. It is an empirical action that we can judge other actions against to see whether they have this capability. Something or someone either can fly or they can't. That's objective.

When a man tells you they are born in the wrong body, that is not a disputable claim. Wrong is subjective, and is determined by the individual. You cannot tell someone else whether they were born in the right or wrong body, only they can decide how they feel about that for themselves.

These two things are not remotely the same. Do you understand that?

Don't start with this virtue-signaling nonsense.

You're quite a toxic person for enabling mentally ill people to harm themselves with irreversible gender reassignment surgery and self-described gender identities that don't fit reality at all.

You're the type of person to hand a suicidal person a gun as you say, 'I respect your wish for you to kill yourself', without even considering if they're mentally ill, if they've thought it through, if they're having a panic attack etc.

This stance you have on enabling mental illness doesn't make you a good person at all.

How amusing it is to watch someone repackage their bigotry as selfless virtue, while pretending everyone else is terrible.

Explain to us how preventing a suicidal person from getting hold a gun to blow themselves away is "bigotry".

You can't.

Nor would I try to because I've never said anything remotely resembling this. But it was a nice strawman.

This reassignment surgery is what you've argued for several times, so don't make your argument to be 'acknowledge them for who they identify as' when you're doing A LOT more (harm) than that.

These are completely different things.

I believe everyone should have the right to do what they wish with their own body. Cause you know, freedom. Something the political right used to pretend to care about.

That has nothing to with you or anything I'm advocating for with regards to how we should treat trans people.

The fact is that haven't provided the studies to make your points

Because my point is that you haven't met your burden of proof.

You're reframing your laziness and ineptitude as a virtue

You can call an unwillingness to sit here and go study by study, line by line with you for hours and hours on end laziness of that makes you feel better. Fact still remains that you haven't even connected the most basic dots your entire argument is sitting upon. This reminds me of arguing with theists trying to use the bible to prove that god exists and then calling me lazy because I'm unwilling to go passage by passage with them.

The existence of humans as a part of a progressive universe may or may not be necessary.

Though as far as we are able to know, we are the only intelligent species that can manipulate matter  in a way that surpasses non-interventional development.

This may or may not be necessary, but we must assume the alternatives even if we don't personally run with one of them.

I believe neither alternative, but just accept that one is correct and the other isn't.

Hey Know one has kill themselves with an atomic bomb have they. ? 

You wouldn't.

See even thats funny to think about. 

Someones always hiding in a bunker somewhere. "Factor" kicks in. 

so it's defs true.

is that the cool kids talk in your country, lol

Maybe someday you can catch a husband who makes 400k a year but there aren’t a lot of wealthy guys looking to marry a racist.

At least he isn't laundry sniffing and larping for attention.

Again -  so stupid. Whose laundry would I supposedly be sniffing?

I got a 100k pay raise in January

Nope, neither party has evidence.

Bullshit. Trump tried to steal the 2020 election. He also cheated in 2016 with hush money payments that his lawyer went to jail for.

He colluded with the Russians. He said on television there is nothing wrong with getting help from foreign governments or foreigners. His team met with several Russians in Trump Tower seeking help with his election 

On TV he said Russia if you are listening please find Hillary’s missing emails. 

He tried to both bribe and coerce the Ukraine President to help with his reelection 

Several republican voters were convicted of voting twice for Trump

A Republican Congressman’s election in North Carolina was thrown out for cheating 

Hey Do ya reckon us ummmm,  modern day Humans could become extinct if we tried  ? 

 

I doubt 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.

No, no. That's not what you argued.

You argued that we should respect people's wishes.

That argument isn't limited to transgender people who we already know we want to transition. That argument extends to *all* people and *all* wishes.

So, again, it makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know. So, your universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes' fails to make sense.

[Dropped by Double_R]

Your insistence on "respect" being solely about "wishes" got blown out by the word "or".

That was never my argument

You don't respect their rights by claiming that their mentally ill status warrants them being treated like children or schizophrenics,

Transgender people should be allowed to vote. Transgender people should be allowed to defend themselves before a court of law, if prosecuted for a crime. 

That's respect for their rights.

So as long as I can cherry pick a few rights to allow you the privilege of enjoying, I can take away any other right I want and still claim I'm respecting your rights. Is that correct?

I've already demonstrated that their feelings of 'being in the wrong biological sex body' doesn't fit the science, so this is an established fact that you didn't push back against at all (wisely so, imo).

I don't recall where or how you made this point, but I probably wouldn't have responded to it because it's absurd. Science does not address feelings, and gender dysphoria is not about disputable biological facts. You are woefully ignorant on what this conversation is even about, which by this point you have no excuse to be.

Don't start with this virtue-signaling nonsense.

You're quite a toxic person for enabling mentally ill people to harm themselves with irreversible gender reassignment surgery and self-described gender identities that don't fit reality at all.

You're the type of person to hand a suicidal person a gun as you say, 'I respect your wish for you to kill yourself', without even considering if they're mentally ill, if they've thought it through, if they're having a panic attack etc.

This stance you have on enabling mental illness doesn't make you a good person at all.

How amusing it is to watch someone repackage their bigotry as selfless virtue, while pretending everyone else is terrible.

So, again, it makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know. So, your universal principle of 'respect other people's wishes' fails to make sense.

Do you ever leave your mom's basement?

I'm being a bit tounge and check here

I said you were enabling transgender people to self-harm themselves.

It's staggering that you don't think this is an important point.

I don't think it's important because it's just plain stupid. Literally the only thing I've suggested we should all do is acknowledge them for who they identify as. That's it. That's not enabling them to self harm.

The solution to the California wild fires is not to put them out. The solution is to respect their wishes to burn.

Concession noted

If I were arguing for points I would engage and spend hours upon hours with you going through these studies line by line to show you why you don't know what you're talking about. I'm just not interested and wouldn't have the time of I was. I'm just not as obsessed with this topic as you are.

The point I am making is:

Whether or not humans do or don't agree is perhaps irrelevant.

Though I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Humans can or cannot agree with universal necessity"

I'm suggesting that necessity exceeds human validation.

So as an advanced intellectual species we may have loosely concluded that human suffering is not such a good thing.

Even so we still have the ability to turn a blind eye, when human necessity dictates.

As for the relativity of everything.

To suggest that everything isn't relative is a tad ridiculous.

Perhaps you hold the notion that as a human you are separate to everything.

I would suggest that human importance resides within the very fragile and tenuous bubble of human importance.

"Existence isn't necessary".

Is a sweeping statement.

Existence of what?

Can you prove that the existence of a progressive universe is unnecessary.

Fanchick still trying to sniff your laundry?

That's all I used to have to worry about, but it looks like fanchick does a little more than sniff nowadays.

I might have to buy new clothes...

because your ass keeps getting bigger and bigger?

Fanchick still trying to sniff your laundry?

Maybe the definition meant you needed to respect all three but not all at the same time but each one as they become known.

1) Show us a definition of "or" consistent with your implication

2) Show us that definition of "respect" was meant with your usage of "or"

If you can't do both, then you don't have an argument.

[Still dropped by IWantRooseveltAgain]

To think that “or” means you can choose one but not the others is ridiculous.

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

Respect unlike many other things is all encompassing.

So if I said women shouldn’t have the right to vote I’m still being respectful to women as long as I respect their wishes.

Yes, you are respecting women. You could say that, specifically, you are not respecting women in regards to voting, but you'd still be respecting women because you fulfilled one of the "or" conditions (i.e. rights). That's consistent with the definition of "respect" that I gave.

[Dropped by IWantRooseveltAgain]

Maybe the definition meant you needed to respect all three but not all at the same time but each one as they become known.

1) Show us a definition of "or" consistent with your implication

2) Show us that definition of "respect" was meant with your usage of "or"

If you can't do both, then you don't have an argument.

[Dropped by IWantRooseveltAgain]

@Kaitlyn it continues to make my day when I see people resisting the intellectual cancer that is appealing to authority.

The novelty of antinatalism, therefore, lies not in the feelings and ideas it expresses but in its more recent philosophical expansion (as in the work of David Benatar) and its growth as a movement.

If you accept existence, then everything is relative.

Pleasure pain and the innate, for starters.

[...]

I would suggest that we are driven to procreate, and that existence and suffering are ethically necessary for a reason.

The reason being, material evolution.

It does matter if consent can't be given because no free will exists to give it vs unable to get consent due to inability to communicate (like knocking on a door and no one answers so you assume you can repaint the house).

Consent is morally relevant on the principle of liberty. Liberty is morally relevant because of the universal value of self-determination in volitional intelligence.

No intelligence, no liberty, no consent. For instance it doesn't matter if a tree can't consent to being climbed. There is no discerning will to contradict.

So you are operating under an incorrect theory that "consent" is fundamentally some kind of bandaid to make potential harm due to an interaction acceptable. It acts that way under the right circumstances but that is not why it matters or exists.

Ya processed food and frozen dinners costs more than fresh meat and vegetables. Only in your alternative reality world SubTeach 

There’s a reason this guy is nothing more than a middle aged substitute teacher who lives all alone.

Sucks to be a substitute teacher who lives all alone.

Rednecks need to stop killing themselves.

And philosophically narrow, which seems contradictory to philosophy.

So how would you presume to gain consent.

As I suggested, consent occurs at conception.

And ethics are made up stuff, and are certainly not logically valid within the context of naturalism.....or are they.

In fact one would perhaps argue that everything that occurs within a universe  is logical and natural and therefore not fallacious.

And therefore also relative.

And a definite "No" there, which must be indicative of something.

Would you care to elaborate?

Humans can agree intersubjectively on things, even if no one is the same.

An interestingly worded statement, which I think that I agree with.

Which I think that I agree with.

Actually, does this statement concur with your interestingly worded statement?

You haven't shown this at all.

It's been showing itself for 300000 years or more.

And as far as I am aware disassembly follows death.

In which humanity might be significant.

Though material development does seem sequential and purposeful with or without a MANGOD.......Doesn't it?

Nonetheless, consent came to mean a female saying yes.

Was the egg hers to give up for fertilization?

So, bringing people into existence would be effectively gambling a person's wellbeing without the person's consent

There is no person before existence, and without a person there is no applicable concept of consent.

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.

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.

It makes no sense to have respect for things you don't even know.

You know what the trans community is asking you for.

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.

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.

We know work is a negative because people want to reach the end goal of work, not be stuck in a state of work.

This is a non-sequitur. Your premise that people only do work to reach an end goal is true, but your conclusion is false. The anticipation of and active progress towards an end goal creates a positive affect, not a negative one.

You may find the completion of mathematics problems to be positive (which they are), but they are always proceeded by the negative feelings of not having them complete -- it's zero sum.

Using this example, yes, I want to solve the problem, but I enjoy the process of solving, just as I am happy once it is done. In fact, I am happier when I have a difficult problem to work on then when I don't.

Do you enjoy it more when you are hungry? Do you enjoy it more when you are full?

Clearly, starving people feel far better when eating than someone who is full who is eating.

Therefore, the positive affect is built out of the negative affect that proceeded it.

Everything here is true, but it does not follow that the positive affect cannot be any greater than the negative affect.

Also, your dinner still comes at the price of work to get/make it, so there is that negative affect involved, too.

While I acknowledge that many people are not satisfied with their job, many enjoy their work.

If dissatisfaction were the ideal state, then no one would be trying to escape it.

I never said that it was an ideal state, but trying to escape it is likely one of the fastest routes to a miserable life, whereas if you are able to find joy in striving towards the next goal, it is possible to live a happy life.

Yes, work can produce positive affect, but it's built out of negative affect. You need the negative affect to escape in order for work to become satisfying.

I'm not sure what you mean by the negative affect "escaping."

This is quite silly when we could simply blast people with dopamine hits that don't require the negative affect from dissatisfaction beforehand.

How practical would that be? Speaking from experience: When you regularly receive an excessive amount of dopamine, you will begin to feel demotivated when it comes to actual work. Soon enough, all of that work begins to make you miserable. You wind up with three options: Continue to be miserable, stop doing the work and let your life collapse around you, or give up the dopamine hits. I chose the third option, and today I am a very a happy person.

All that an argument requires is two organic units that process data marginally differently.

Slight variations of electro-chemical brain activity, relative to the same stimulus but from a more or less dissimilar data base.

Are you saying that the consent framework is flawed because people cannot consent to be born, which inevitably results in us placing other people in the position of imposed suffering that they never consented to, therefore making it logically impossible not to use other people's bodies without consent?

Awkward, most awkward.

Species survival negates ethics.

Perhaps something greater decides.

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).

It doesn’t exclude wishes.

So is respecting someone’s rights necessary to being a respected person? By your “logic” the answer can only be no.

Organizing surprises takes planning and work, both of which generate negative affect in humans.

That's an assumption that isn't always true. For example, they may feel excited about surprising their friend as they work and plan. There are many situation in which work can be enjoyed, most notably, when you are passionate about something. I am passionate about math. When I do math, I feel experience a positive affect from working on it, and a positive affect from finding a solution. No need for any sort of negative affect.

If the negative affect is minimal, then the positive affect is also minimal. 

That's simply false. In my example, by the time a eat dinner, my hunger is minimal to the point of being unnoticeable, but I still enjoy my dinner to a very noticeable extent.

However, the issue with the human condition is that we're designed to be motivated, not satisfied, so once our basic needs are met, we quickly begin to ask again 'what next?'

...and being able to live a happy life despite that is a sign of good mental health, not delusion. Working hard may ironically be one of the best ways in which one can constantly experience a positive affect with relatively low negative affect. This is because not only does the result of one's labors generate a positive affect, but so does the work itself. In this way, the fact that we are never satisfied is a blessing, as it is what allows us to generate more positive affects for ourselves.

And being devoid of ambition, and striving not toward accomplishment, she drew satisfaction from the work in itself.

I felt like that was worth commenting on. It would appear that Kate Chopin also understands that work itself can generate positive affect.

people must recognize that animals, plants, and the ecosystems that sustain them have intrinsic value

 Again, the most basic element of respect is to have regard for their wishes. 

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.

 Here's a question for you; if you don't know why someone attempted suicide, wouldn't you just ask them?

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. 

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.

[dropped by Double_R]

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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

These are actually all variables that are rolled into the term 'victimization' (wherein transgender people are victim of various harms).

I've already addressed your study here: The transgenderism debate (debateart.com)

[dropped by Double_R]

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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

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.

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.