Total posts: 2,768
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I honestly don’t have the time or energy any more to invest any time, I vote here and there when I get time; but with a 5 and 2 year old there’s not a lot of spare time.
Created:
You
Oh nevermind, you can just gaslight.Stop projecting.
Also you
you're the fucking nobodyYou are one of the scummiest kind of Internet bully I have come acrosswhy you were such an inactive, useless memberyou will get the genuine idiots here to just vote for you.Not sure he has the sense of humour he thinks he does, just circle jerkers patting each other on the back as they doyou are like a fucking leechdriven by your drivel-supporting upvoting enablers for the pathological issue you have as you say.You say the dumbest stuffand to you having absolutely fuck all to contribute to the website's forums than dragging me down, you pathetic cretin.another derailing by champion bullThe one playing dumb is you.If it were up to me you'd be punished for how you have spoken to me.I worry for the intellect of those voting Yay that think it's in a direction of freedom over tyranny.I don't care what trolling your site persona needs to dish out but leave my name out your fucking mouth, ty.You are nothing but a bully who clearly lacked discipline to give him manners.you are essentially the single strangest derailer I have ever seen on the InternetLMAO who the fuck do you think you are to threaten meI feel you and GP would drag this out and trollyou removed my ability to and are too fucking braindead to realise it in front of your eyes.get you to tell them how utterly vile they are being is beyond disgusting.Are you supposed to have one while typing your shitposts? See, 100% of what you post here is shitposting and trollingMy apologies she should have let the slavers and rapists thrive in Africa just to make cunts happy.this is just a bullshit callout thread where you pretend to carewanna step into the arena with me? you're gonna be crying to your reflection afterwards.They are as earned as your presidency win was, you campaignless clown.clearly there is an intellectual deficit at play.You are the shitposter, it isn't a pot-kettle scenario, ty.No, it is safe to assume anything you type is garbage wasting the memory space of this website.Of course there are many benefits to keeping us in the dark when you are a clown doing nothing.You are trying to reason with idiots. Yes, straight up dunces. They formed Wylted's core voting base and will remain that way.Everything with you revolves around absolutist bullcrap.You are a lot less funny than you think you are. You are a lot cuter with popcorn shutting you up.No, you'll just be looked at as a scumbag and rightly so.You will lose, you will suffer and you will know deep down that you are eating the shit you tried to talk.You embody cringe
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Shame on you for being a bad influence on me, Ramshutu.Although I don’t even know you and you don’t know me.
RM had a picture of 50Cent as a profile picture. Then I had a picture of a dollar coin - took him like two months to realize.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
RationalMadman was bullying Mps1213 and TWS1405_2.The bullying got so bad that Mps stopped coming on the site as frequently. Could you ask RM to stop?
I merely have my opinions I have no actual power.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Do you think the cops may be just a bit more responsible for that than the mob?
So you have a building with important members of the federal government inside.
The mob breaks down external barriers blocking people from entering and climb over. They break windows and climb in, they assault a number of police officers with various implements in and outside. The mob encroach on a room that still has members of the federal government in it being evacuated. They are behind two doors - a group of protesters break a window on one, and one climbs through - with one door, and a couple of police officers the only individuals standing between the mob and the House of Representatives.
Yes - the mob bears the bulk of the responsibility for this.
Created:
Posted in:
It may or may not prove the protest was mostly peaceful, but it definitely proved the committee had a singular agenda and it definitely proved censorship, intentional or not as they claim..
How, exactly?
I mean it’s not like we didn’t know there were moments and locations at which there wasn’t any violence and things weren’t particularly tense - just as we know there were multiple moments at which there were.
The only affect these videos have isn’t to change how we see the broader set events as they were portrayed by the committee, at all - but more to give people who are desperately seeking reasons to believe the committee is unfair or unreasonable, some tentative evidence that you can use to support it (provided they don’t think about it too hard)
Created:
Most of our interactions can be summarized thusly:
Me: *says something to someone else*
RM: RAMSHUTU IS A SCUM BULLY, HE GASLIGHTS AND EATS BABIES
RM: you’re a horrible person.
RM: your disgusting, horrible abusive bully.
RM: he’s a pathetic disgrace.
Me: You should try eating babies, you look like you need the extra iron.
RM: STOP BULLYING ME!
Created:
Ramshutu preaching against bullying members is like Genghis Khan preaching against violence and oppression.
Haven't you blocked 90% of people on this website because you think they’ve harassed you in some way?
But you’re right, I have constantly bad mouthed you at every opportunity, threatened to doxx you, made repeated accusations about me being someone else to everyone in public and private, accused you of lying, cheating and being deliberately dishonest against me in all your debate votes. Oh wait, no, wrong war around.
If there is some problem with the way you feel you’re being treated on this website, the source of that problem is located somewhere between your chair and keyboard.
Created:
Posted in:
False, already debunked this elsewhere.
No, no it hasn’t.
This is a typical strategy of the mislead, and the wrong. Minimal reply, alluding to something and then trying to shift the rhetorical burden.
There is no debunk of the horizon, merely three non-explanations that are neither explained nor defended.
1.) “It’s perspective”
No attempt to explain wtf that actually means, merely a handwaving statement meant to seem like it’s explaining without actually explaining. No diagrams, no maths, nothing.
2.) “ships can be zoomed back in”
Except they can’t. It’s impossible. If the sea is in between the observer and the ship - no amount of zoom will change that. Moreover all example videos shown are merely taking a ship from being imperceptibly small to being seen - no zooming video has or will ever take a ship that has some large portion obscured to having no portion obscured.
3.) “it’s refraction”
Another meaningless handwaving explanation, that violates all demonstrable properties of refraction in the atmosphere, again proposes no model or images to justify how a horizon can appear at all - much less everywhere, all the time, ubiquitously in all weather conditions…
So no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Absolutely, despite all those videos of people breaking windows, throwing fire extinguishers at the police, and hitting them with flag poles, squashing the police in doors, breaking and climbing barricades and being pepper sprayed, and being shot when climbing through a broken window; a handful of videos showing people not doing that totally proves that all these people were totally peaceful and clearly didn’t know they weren’t allowed in the Capitol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Skipper_Sr
I find flat earth interesting, as a collection of beliefs that allows the independent minded to understand how the human brain can be completely co-opted and convinced to believe absolute nonsense.
Understanding the process by which someone can believe in and defend flat earth is an excellent way of understanding and preventing your own intellectual errors.
Frankly the existence of a horizon - on its own - demonstrably obliterates flat earth.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
I’m sure you’ll agree that you and I don’t exactly have the best of history; I thunderously oppose most of why you post.
If you got banned for calling someone a c**t, who called you a c**t first, or some insults in a heated discussion, I’m likely to be one of the first to line up to defend you.
The whole purpose is this site, is to argue with each other, it can often gets a bit heated as it always does when someone is wrong and just won’t listen. The new CoC is trying to reflect that - try not to be a dick; and make it about the arguments. It’s as much about setting the desired tone as much as listening the behaviour that will not be tolerated to any degree; whilst leaving the mods enough wiggle room to be able to deal with site disruption and actual abuse in whatever form it ends up taking.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Could I also suggest:
Doxxing (the posting of personal information of others without their consent) and impersonation (pretending to be someone else) are strictly prohibited on DebateArt.com. This includes impersonating the site owner, moderators, or other users.
Be modified to
Doxxing and threats of Doxxing (the posting of personal information of others without their consent) and impersonation (pretending to be someone else) are strictly prohibited on DebateArt.com. This includes impersonating the site owner, moderators, or other users.
Simply on the grounds that the threat often means either implying some personal data is available, which in itself can be pretty scary, or makes other people think such personal data reveals bad information about someone.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I’ve been (the only) patreon supporter of Dart for the last 2 years. I’m going to see if I can up my subscription amount for the next couple of months
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
We do not permit trolling
Define trolling.
This is such an open ended definition that it’s open to abuse.
While there a number of people I would consider disruptive trolls; I would never suggest couching things in such vague and subjective terms.
One day, one admin could ban GreyParrot, roosevelt, Best Korea or Wylted - the next it you could use it to justify a ban on Oromagi or 3ru7al
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I worked for a company that developers base station test equipment (chances are good that if you had anything to do with base stations - you’d know the company.)
We had antennas set up testing out some whacky 5g beamforming tech at something crazy like 30W on the main floor. Huge open plan office - with the entire R&D department being irradiated without any issue.
If there were any health risks of 5g we’d all be dead right now.
Incidently -we were also on the glide path of a local airport, whilst I was working on avionics test systems for ILS - so added incentive to get the implementation correct.
Created:
I’m waiting for my roast battle too
Created:
Posted in:
Let us hear your excuses Ramshutu, for why you were such an inactive, useless member if the website the past 3 years.
Its part of my illuminati contract with Barney, David and Wylted.
Let us hear the excuse for why the only way you know how to interact here is to tear others down while pretending you are exposing them fir doing it.
You are a fine, humorous, emotionally well rounded individual with a fully functional brain, who is not at all pathologically sensitive to criticism
See, I too can say things that are untrue. It’s not everyone just you.
Entertain us. Good boy. Say something funny. Do not try to say something smart or worthwhile, you have 1 purpose here.
Awesome let’s do it, let’s do a roast battle for the ages. (I’ll settle for half roast battle - half “old-man-shouts-at-cloud.)
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah but on another website, you will get the genuine idiots here to just vote for you.You could say that I am a tomato and so red and they would just vote you.It is fucking stupid.Also you have been gone for like 3 fucking years, what is there to diss you werent even around to give me much ammo to diss or use.
And here come all the excuses!
Created:
Posted in:
Your comebacks are so cringe man, try that on any other website and you'll be laughed out the room, only here that cringe shit works because you have guys so absent of wit cheering each other on.
Challenge accepted.
I challenge you to a roast battle.
Created:
Posted in:
It’s not physically possible to pat someone on the back whilst simultaneously being in a circle jerk.
Maybe if you reached backward with one, and pat the person in front of you - it could work.
Perhaps if you’re in an Albanian steering wheel, which is kinda similar but you don’t have to reach quite as far, it could also work there too.
Created:
Posted in:
One of the only debates Ramshutu lost here was trying to outwit me in a rap battle. Not sure he has the sense of humour he thinks he does, just circle jerkers patting each other on the back as they do you know what to the idea of humiliating me.
It’s not physically possible to pat someone on the back whilst simultaneously being in a circle jerk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It is odd that people found this to be an issue.I find that this helps the site by encouraging people to stay here. It makes the site more attractive to new users.
*person*
Created:
Posted in:
You're like a vine and I'm a tree, you are like a fucking leech and I am the body you suck the blood out of.
Why not a pinworm?
The fact you think you are 'winning' is a delusion
What makes you think I think I’m winning? Arguing on the internet is like playing Jenga. There are no winners - only losers.
driven by your drivel-supporting upvoting enablers for the pathological issue you have as you say.
I will add people liking posts to the ever expanding list of things that mortally aggrieve you.
I don't need satire, I just tell you how it is.
How’s that working out for you?
I would suggest you try out satire, but as a complaint letter written by a committee of German actuaries has a better grasp of humour, perhaps not.
Created:
Posted in:
You say the dumbest stuff to make digs at me and some utter imbeciles upvote it.
Actually, what I do is take what you say, and use humour to point out why it’s ridiculous. Specifically satire. I also got a little remark at Oromagi too!
But the reason mainly is that you spent the first few days after the election repeatedly talking about me; and the two things you must know about me is that a.) I’m pathologically addicted to getting the last word and b.) every time someone talks about me online I touch myself.
Created:
Posted in:
and to you having absolutely fuck all to contribute to the website's forums than dragging me down, you pathetic cretin.
Are you sure it’s a good idea to attack me like this with the next election a mere 360 days away?
Created:
Posted in:
Idk if it's an intellect issue or something but you guys act as if it would have been sensible and wise of me to have made a thread tearing deep into Wylted's past destroying his reputation unprovoked when he was running on a clown candidacy without any platform.That's just ridiculous as fuck and could easily have lost me the election. You are crazy to even suggest it.
You feel that people seeing you attacking someone would have lost you the election - and yet feel you spending the last 4 years in this site systematically attacking people you don’t like did would not have lost you the election?
You launching into a tirade of attacks on Wylted - would be considered equally to the pope being Catholic, bears sh*tting in the woods and Oromagi responding to people with a sea of bullet points
Created:
Posted in:
The tortoise didn't run. He let me think it was going to be a cakewalk so I was like why run as fast as I can and tire myself out, and perhaps injure myself.- The hare.
Created:
Posted in:
The winners are:
(All voters) $50 Mikal
(Wylted voters) $25 GreyParrot
Selection done by random selection (screenshots in discord)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Want me to make a new thread or post it on the other one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I can select the winner if you want (I won’t include my own name - of yours)
Created:
Posted in:
if I am getting fucked that is not being cucked, fool.
Nothing goes over your head. Your reflexes are too fast. You will catch it.
Also, idk what you even mean by that percentage, you're a lurker that watches and can't even notice how little I post about that.
So first I was a lurker that follows everything you do; and now I’m a lurker who has no idea what you do?
Created:
Posted in:
watching me all year long having my way with DART,
That seems an odd statement - given that you spend 90% of your posts complaining at how DART is f***ing you.
Created:
Posted in:
As expected as you going on your yearlong hiatus any day now.
If I live in your head rent free like this, do I ever truly leave?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
If people knew you were a person that would act how you have post-election, Wylted would have won a landslide
Are you really trying to suggest - with a straight face - that this behaviour from this person is in any way, shape or form unexpected?
Really?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Somehow, I very strongly suspect that RM would not be questioning my, or Vaarks vote had I voted for him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
We had a task board involving a few regular contributors and the mods (like 3 years ago? Very early on); that started out being a place where issues and problems could be discussed, and talk about various problems. It deteriorated into a venue for a certain someone to air his personal grievances about moderator decisions, Bsh, and David.
Created:
Posted in:
I vote wylted I’ve seen first hand what RM does when given the smallest amount of authority; having seen some of his craziness when we had a task board.
I don’t think either of them will really generate any tangible improvement to the site; but I’m aware that Wylted has actually been trying to actively drum up external interest for increased traffic at various points this year; so it’s really a least overall harm scenario.
Created:
-->
@Avery
I still don't find your overall case of hardcore skepticism and sky-high bar setting to be reasonable.
What “hardcore skepticism” and “sky-high bar” are you talking about? None of the examples I have given qualify as either of those things. Not even close.
I’ve called you out three times for this nonsense already lol.
If I have an objection that could be boiled to a single sentence, it’s not “skeptism”, it’s that “peoples opinions are influenced by a huge multitude of economic, social and politicial factors and influences that can introduce skew and bias into responses - it’s utterly nonsensical to assume for literally no reason that all these sources either don’t exist, or cancel out in some magical way that you won’t explain - such that somehow for some reason all individuals base their responses on exactly the same measure of reality as everyone else.”
This isn’t “skepticism” this is pointing out that your assumptions are dumb.
There are certainly limitations to the poll, of which you've covered, but they're not debilitating enough to render the poll results as merely an expression of perceptions.
The poll is, by its very definition - an opinion poll - it’s results, unambiguously and entirely - by definition - are merely expressions of perception.
The argument is about what broad conclusions can be drawn about the actual state of reality based solely upon what people say they believe about that reality.
There answer is almost nothing.
The poll needs a few reasonable assumptions and a unique interpretation of the results in order to be made valid.
The assumptions are completely and comprehensively unreasonable; wildly so. I have listed out the exact specifics of why they are clearly and unambiguously unreasonable.
You keep ignoring them!
I think I could defend this poll against you in this debate, and thereby show it has more value than merely collecting "perceptions".
I have a tendency of disappearing for multiple weeks at a time - I have taken almost a week to reply to some of the more trivial objections - At a time where I have a generally lower workload - which does not lend itself well to having a debate without potential forfeits.
Saying that, if you’re unable to actually acknowledge any of the deficits in your argument here; it’s unlikely you’ll be able to do so in a debate either.
Created:
-->
@coal
Your response is essentially name calling and telling me how wrong I am and refusing to clarify - behaviour that I’m sure would totally go down well in a professional environment…
The replies thus far seem to be generating pretty typical anti-transgender-treatment riffs off your anti-transgender-treatment conclusion; it doesn’t seem anyone has nit-picked or analyzed anything you said in any depth. But anyhoo …
Given that you’ve offered no clarification and you’re now stamping your feet about how unreasonable I’m being over four or so paragraphs ; yet omit the simple and humiliating proof that would send me packing that would take, say, 2 sentences
The replies thus far seem to be generating pretty typical anti-transgender-treatment riffs off your anti-transgender-treatment conclusion; it doesn’t seem anyone has nit-picked or analyzed anything you said in any depth. But anyhoo …
Given that you’ve offered no clarification and you’re now stamping your feet about how unreasonable I’m being over four or so paragraphs ; yet omit the simple and humiliating proof that would send me packing that would take, say, 2 sentences
Let me walk you through my obviously poor comprehension. Perhaps you can see yourself clear to correct me where my interpretation of what you said is incorrect. I will hold your hand, metaphorically speaking.
So I’m thinking given the title, that you’re trying to show or argue that gender affirming care is a “snare” and a “delusion”. Not an unreasonable assumption, right?
I also make the horrifying stretch of an assumption that this is with a view to suggesting we shouldn’t perform gender affirming care. Because, after 12 paragraphs seemingly against it, and then comparing it to the Nazis - kinda makes sense, to conclude you’re against it, right?
You start initially about self reinforcing instrumentalities - ok - then you state that psychology is one of those hierarchies - ok. You then go 6 paragraphs talking about mistreatment of homosexuals, chemical castration, treatment of deviants, etc, and how you’d be forced etc based on standards of psychology at the time. Ok.
You then say:
So I’m thinking given the title, that you’re trying to show or argue that gender affirming care is a “snare” and a “delusion”. Not an unreasonable assumption, right?
I also make the horrifying stretch of an assumption that this is with a view to suggesting we shouldn’t perform gender affirming care. Because, after 12 paragraphs seemingly against it, and then comparing it to the Nazis - kinda makes sense, to conclude you’re against it, right?
You start initially about self reinforcing instrumentalities - ok - then you state that psychology is one of those hierarchies - ok. You then go 6 paragraphs talking about mistreatment of homosexuals, chemical castration, treatment of deviants, etc, and how you’d be forced etc based on standards of psychology at the time. Ok.
You then say:
However, the field of psychiatry was not done sexually mutilating children with chemicals and butchery under the snare and delusion of "therapy." Nothing has actually changed, in substance or practice. Only how the field of psychiatry tells the world at large to conceptualize what it is doing. So-called "trans" issues are now in vogue and allegedly "gender affirming care" has taken the place of both chemically and surgically mutilating children. But with new branding, new messaging and new politics.
This is the only point you really make about transgender care - the topic of the thread. I characterized this as:
Strongly implying that it’s some weird attempt by physicians to maintain the same sort of “oppression” or treatment tactics they used for homosexuals against transgender ; or at least pseudoscience.
Don’t know about you, but that seems an absolute straight up, bang on interpretation of what you said, right?
Then you follow it on with 3 bullet points that explicitly state they do the same thing.
So here’s me, reading four paragraphs of you explicitly arguing that trans and homosexual therapy are effectively the same thing - that one is the extension of the other: and I concluded that you think they’re essentially the same thing and one is an extension of the other. Fuck me, right?
You continue this line of thought in the remaining two paragraphs.
The only things you have said up to this point - is that treatment of homosexuals was pseudo-science (implied via Foucault admittedly)- and that the treatment regimen for transgender care are kinda (but not really - actually) similar. So, I have assumed your reasoning - in this thread - for thinking transgender care is a snare and delusion is because of its similarity to past homosexual treatment - because it’s literally the only point you actually seem to have actually made; how unreasonable of me; what a dick!
I mean - I could assume that elements of the final two paragraph statement and following on examples where you make accusations about children being able to “opt in” to the in group - that all seems to be built on top of the implications of the preceding two points, rather than something inherently separate.
Now; whilst you wholly object that I’m not engaging on any substance - not that it’s even really clear what your central thesis is from the original post; if you paid attention, I’m largely making two key points:
Firstly - you appear to agree that homosexuals are not deviants, and treating their condition as some sort of deviancy is wrong. I mean - why else are you railing against DSM-II and treatment of homosexuals in the first 6 paragraphs of your post, if this is not part of your point?
If not automatically treating homosexuals as if they are deviants - is the right thing to do; which is not a stretch to believe is your point. Then you’re providing some basis for the argument that perhaps it’s not completely unreasonable to also not treat the transgender as deviants either.
If transgender care was electroshock treatment, or telling everyone with that disorder that there was something wrong with them and to commit them until they agree that they are their biological sex - comparing to homosexuality would be an excellent argument - that would be a “snare” and a “delusion” - if I use the terms charitably. Obviously that’s not your argument
So the issue is, that psychiatry treated homosexuality as deviancy that needs to be cured, and doesn’t any longer - and psychiatry now no longer treats transgenderism as some form of deviancy that needs to be cured; but instead care to help with their quality of life - so all should be right in the world. But as you appear to be against transgender care itself - that could either be because you think the treatment is invalid - or what they’re being treated for is invalid.
If it’s the former - that you think being transgender is not deviancy - the primary reason you’ve given thus far is that the treatment is similar to that given to homosexuals in the past. If you think the latter - then you’re suggesting transgender is deviancy: I mean, after all - what other reason would there be not to provide affirming care unless what is being affirmed is invalid?
I don’t know which you’re doing, it’s not clear - the argument itself is not particularly well reasoned, or laid out; and leaves open a bunch of ambiguity in precisely what you’re trying to argue or say.
I would lean towards the latter given the things you’ve actually said, but rather than, you know, assume this is what you meant : I presented the logical conclusions to be drawn from what you said, and asked if this was the correct interpretation of what you were arguing or whether you wanted to clarify.
So after asking for clarification to deal with the first- I even assume the best possible case argument from what you actually said in the second - that you merely object to the treatment; which led to my second point - assuming transgender is actually a thing - what would treatment or valid affirmatory care actually look like?
So perhaps there’s more to your belief than what you said; perhaps you didn’t quite mean what you literally explicitly said; perhaps you missed out a key part of the logic - perhaps I’ve interpreted something you said incorrectly; I listed out how I came to that conclusion twice, and once in detail, and it doesn’t seem a particularly unreasonable inference. Or perhaps your argument as presented boils down to something that isn’t actually all that reasonable.
So perhaps instead of unending bad faith screeds and name calling; you can perhaps clarify what have I said that’s wrong, and why?
If not the overlap to treatment of homosexuals ; what other reason do you feel you’ve explained in any detail why affirming care is a “snare” or “delusion”? I can’t see one other than the choice of wording such as “mutiliation” to argue that the care is bad. We could talk about that instead - that would be fine - but that if that’s the actual issue you really have - that care is mutilation its own - than the entire OP is kinda irrelevant. The whole purpose of bringing up homosexuals at all is an irrelevant side track - you can just look at the treatment and say “this is bad”.
Then you follow it on with 3 bullet points that explicitly state they do the same thing.
So here’s me, reading four paragraphs of you explicitly arguing that trans and homosexual therapy are effectively the same thing - that one is the extension of the other: and I concluded that you think they’re essentially the same thing and one is an extension of the other. Fuck me, right?
You continue this line of thought in the remaining two paragraphs.
The only things you have said up to this point - is that treatment of homosexuals was pseudo-science (implied via Foucault admittedly)- and that the treatment regimen for transgender care are kinda (but not really - actually) similar. So, I have assumed your reasoning - in this thread - for thinking transgender care is a snare and delusion is because of its similarity to past homosexual treatment - because it’s literally the only point you actually seem to have actually made; how unreasonable of me; what a dick!
I mean - I could assume that elements of the final two paragraph statement and following on examples where you make accusations about children being able to “opt in” to the in group - that all seems to be built on top of the implications of the preceding two points, rather than something inherently separate.
Now; whilst you wholly object that I’m not engaging on any substance - not that it’s even really clear what your central thesis is from the original post; if you paid attention, I’m largely making two key points:
Firstly - you appear to agree that homosexuals are not deviants, and treating their condition as some sort of deviancy is wrong. I mean - why else are you railing against DSM-II and treatment of homosexuals in the first 6 paragraphs of your post, if this is not part of your point?
If not automatically treating homosexuals as if they are deviants - is the right thing to do; which is not a stretch to believe is your point. Then you’re providing some basis for the argument that perhaps it’s not completely unreasonable to also not treat the transgender as deviants either.
If transgender care was electroshock treatment, or telling everyone with that disorder that there was something wrong with them and to commit them until they agree that they are their biological sex - comparing to homosexuality would be an excellent argument - that would be a “snare” and a “delusion” - if I use the terms charitably. Obviously that’s not your argument
So the issue is, that psychiatry treated homosexuality as deviancy that needs to be cured, and doesn’t any longer - and psychiatry now no longer treats transgenderism as some form of deviancy that needs to be cured; but instead care to help with their quality of life - so all should be right in the world. But as you appear to be against transgender care itself - that could either be because you think the treatment is invalid - or what they’re being treated for is invalid.
If it’s the former - that you think being transgender is not deviancy - the primary reason you’ve given thus far is that the treatment is similar to that given to homosexuals in the past. If you think the latter - then you’re suggesting transgender is deviancy: I mean, after all - what other reason would there be not to provide affirming care unless what is being affirmed is invalid?
I don’t know which you’re doing, it’s not clear - the argument itself is not particularly well reasoned, or laid out; and leaves open a bunch of ambiguity in precisely what you’re trying to argue or say.
I would lean towards the latter given the things you’ve actually said, but rather than, you know, assume this is what you meant : I presented the logical conclusions to be drawn from what you said, and asked if this was the correct interpretation of what you were arguing or whether you wanted to clarify.
So after asking for clarification to deal with the first- I even assume the best possible case argument from what you actually said in the second - that you merely object to the treatment; which led to my second point - assuming transgender is actually a thing - what would treatment or valid affirmatory care actually look like?
So perhaps there’s more to your belief than what you said; perhaps you didn’t quite mean what you literally explicitly said; perhaps you missed out a key part of the logic - perhaps I’ve interpreted something you said incorrectly; I listed out how I came to that conclusion twice, and once in detail, and it doesn’t seem a particularly unreasonable inference. Or perhaps your argument as presented boils down to something that isn’t actually all that reasonable.
So perhaps instead of unending bad faith screeds and name calling; you can perhaps clarify what have I said that’s wrong, and why?
If not the overlap to treatment of homosexuals ; what other reason do you feel you’ve explained in any detail why affirming care is a “snare” or “delusion”? I can’t see one other than the choice of wording such as “mutiliation” to argue that the care is bad. We could talk about that instead - that would be fine - but that if that’s the actual issue you really have - that care is mutilation its own - than the entire OP is kinda irrelevant. The whole purpose of bringing up homosexuals at all is an irrelevant side track - you can just look at the treatment and say “this is bad”.
I mean - I’m also assuming you’re not merely suggesting that if an action is invalid in one circumstance it’s invalid in all others - IE: because hormones were used to chemically castrate male adults against their will, that it’s use in transgender children in specific situations is just as bad despite being done with different impacts for different reasons in different circumstances - because that would be a silly argument.
But that all leads me back to my first reply - what would the correct care be assuming that transgenderism actually exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
So let’s ignore the Gish Gallup for a moment - there are multiple duplicate entries here referring to the same thing.
FBI UCR stats for 2020 indicate approximately 6600 “hate crimes” based upon race or sexual orientation.
The most comprehensive list you provided of 178 examples of hate crime hoaxes, 10 occurred in 2020.
This works out as a hoax rate of 0.15%. Presumably this could easily be higher as not all hoaxes are listed.
Arguments by anecdote often try and refer to specific instances in order to present them as an overwhelming norm, whereas in context that maybe much rarer compared to other less convenient examples.
What does it say about America were such fake crimes are tolerated and given a free pass (e.g., Jussie Smollett, Crystal Magnum, so on and so forth) to those who commit them?
You think Jussie Smollet got a free pass?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
JFC! Why is it so difficult to do the math on the years of slavery. 1619 to 1965 is 264 years of slavery, NOT 300.
Apparently it is; as 1619 to 1965 us 346 years, and 1619 to 1865 is 246…
But sure; only 10 generations of slavery in the US, followed by 4 generations of apartheid, a generation and a half of racially targeted policy as opposed to 12 generations of slavery. 4 of apartheid, 1.5 racially impactful policy.
Those 2 generations make all the difference.
The reason why they whine about racism insensately is because they take their freedom for granted and thrive off the victimhood mentality.
Projection side; and this could blow your mind, perhaps 10 generations of slavery, 4 generations of apartheid, 1.5 of racist policies; and the institutions that have sprung up around all of them; has created a system that still is not balanced, and in the land of the free, where everyone should be equal - people want to correct it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I know at least one person that can defeat Barney; https://youtu.be/2D-ZO2rGcSA
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Nope, just kidding. But how come none of Trumps’s lawyers are telling the judge overseeing the case that the FBI planted evidence?Remember, that was one of the original explanations given for these documents being found in Trump’s possession. That’s a pretty big accusation to throw around and then completely drop. Kinda shows what a liar Trump is and how stupid his supporters are
Lawyers must do all they can do fight and serve the best interests of their client - but they are not permitted to knowingly lie to the bench:
This is why a bunch of Trump lawyers during the election are currently under threat of disbarment.
It also appear to be why when the Special Master requested an affidavit specifying the documents they believe to be declassified - they made a bunch of excuses.
Created:
-->
@coal
You're way off.
What did I get wrong; that seems to be your objection .
That homosexuals were treated one way - and that transgender have kinda similar treatments (but not really). Strongly implying that it’s some weird attempt by physicians to maintain the same sort of “oppression” or treatment tactics they used for homosexuals against transgender ; or at least pseudoscience.
The implication is that if the treatment of homosexuality in DSM-II was pseudoscientific and unfairly trying to “cure” homosexuality while they should be left to be who they want to be - then we shouldn’t facilitate care that helps the transgender be who they want to be?
By all means - please help me make sense of this, it is not clear to me what you’re overarching point was in the first 3/4 of your post if this wasn’t what you meant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Of the surviving 11 million Africans brought across the Atlantic, only an estimated 335k were brought to North America whereas the remaining 10.7 million were taken to the Caribbean and South America. Yet to this very day, no one the world over ever hears about racism against blacks except against those blacks in America. Sure, there is some racism in other places, but it pales in comparison to the racism claimed in America against blacks.
If only there was some reason those woke liberals can find as to why a country that was in large part a white racist ethnostate with a 300 year history of slavery, and 100 year history of overt Apardheid and ethnoterrorism; and is now the cultural driver of western thought talks more about racism than other places…
Created:
-->
@coal
I’m trying to disentangle the point you’re making. It’s kinda weird and conspiratorial.
From what I can gather; you’re suggesting it was outrageous that doctors and psychologists didn’t treat homosexuals as if it was part of the natural spectrum of human existence and instead tried a bunch of therapies to try and cure their deviance.
Because of this, you seem to be suggesting that doctors and psychologists shouldn’t treat or be accepting of transgender people as if it was part of the natural spectrum of human existence because apparently there is some vague overlap in some of the treatments and medication; even though the medications are given to a different set of people for different reasons to do different things?
Assuming for a moment that it’s possible for a human brain to develop with an internal structure that mismatches with biological gender - in a way that’s slightly different than for Homosexuality; what would the right treatment plan be for those who suffer from this condition to live full and happy lives?
Created:
Posted in:
No Democrat should be allowed to speak until they condemn Marxism.
You mean condemn the position that economic elites end up wielding their power in a way that works against the interest of the little people; and that they invariably end up with so much power that revolution is the only option to remove these economic oligarchs, and put in place a more equitable system where your hard work let’s you become successful….
Isn’t that your position?
Created: