Person vs Issue

Post Reply New Topic

I wasn't speculating on his psychology, I was telling him he was wrong about the facts. HE IS WRONG about what being transgender is--that is not a personal attack at him, he is just demonstrably wrong. There is ample scientific research available to prove just how wrong he is. How is stating that a personal attack and not an attack on his argument that trans people shouldn't be allowed to use the appropriate change room for the gender they identify with? I really don't see how I broke the rule cited by telling him his argument is demonstrably false when it is demonstrably false.

That thread is not the appropriate place to have this discussion, but you can have it here.

You are free to tell him that he is wrong about this issue as often as you like.

That was not the content that I removed last night. You were speculating on his potential defects of character and motivation for expressing the views that you don't agree with. That is crossing into the person rather than the issue.

Please feel free to carrying on insisting that you point of view is correct and his is in error, just leave the personal element out, OK?

But when someone is wrong, and you show them with facts in an argument that they are wrong, and they just keep arguing their wrongness without acknowledging the facts you've put in front of them, how is it then wrong to question whether they are genuinely arguing to get informed or just arguing becuase they don't want to be informed but rather want to hate on transgender people? How long is he allowed to go on about how transgender people are rapists who want to oppress non-transgender people by forcing them to look at their genitals and that is ok for him to say over and over and not hate speech against transgender people?

If you think someone doesn't really hold an opinion but are just being provocative, by all means report them for trolling.

But you can't attack defects in a person's character or motivation just because someone disagrees with you and doesn't accept the claims that you have put forward as facts. You can assume whatever you like about those things, but you can't post about those assumptions if they are about the person rather than the idea.

He is not allowed to say this, which is why such language was removed from his post when it was flagged for moderation.

He is free to disagree with you and assert that trans women are actually male as long as he does not cast aspersions on the group. He is not free to equate the intrusion of such individuals into women's rooms with rape, regardless of how appropriate he believes that analogy to be.

In short:
He can't say hateful things about trans people. You can't attack his person, but you can disagree with his opinion as much as you like.

Does that help?

Not really. I think he is being intentionally obtuse and I don't understand why it is wrong to say that about his argument when his argument is obviously disingenuous. It is his argument, as presented, that is the problem. It's been controverted, obviously to anyone who can observe and acknowledge reality, and he keeps presenting as not controverted and just restating it. How can that be considered a genuine argument and why is it wrong to say I think his argument is disingenuous?

I have a hard time imagining why anyone would support Trump. It's hard for me to understand why people think that they are right when they are deeply prejudiced. But I know that some people really do support Trump and some people believe that their prejudices are somehow based in an underlying reality.

I think you genuinely don't understand how someone could not really believe that anyone is transgender as you understand that state of being, but some people do not believe in it. Just telling them that they are wrong doesn't somehow make them share your understanding or point of view.

I think you find it impossible to understand that he might genuinely believe the things he is saying and so ascribe various other motivations to him. Just leave it at proclaiming him wrong and you are fine. Calling him disingenuous, though, not fine. He seems not to be convinced by the arguments you believe controvert his argument. That's not an unusual situation when people disagree and it doesn't indicate that one side is being disingenuous.

We can prove the existence of transgender people and we understand a lot more about the physiology and neurology involved now too because of scientific/medical research, just like we can prove the existence of gravity and describe its attributes through scientific research. To argue against the existing science in regards to the real existence of transgender people is like arguing against the existence of the force of gravity. If one simply refuses to look at the science and inform oneself but still insists on having an argument, that is disingenuous and not honest argument. That's trying to insist on having a logical discussion but absolutely refusing to apply logic to one's own argument. It's ridiculous on its face, and calling it what it is is not a personal attack, it is an attack against the ridiculous obvious provable falseness of the argument.

Except you didn't, and don't, limit yourself to attacking positions as groundless or disingenuous after providing evidence that you believes proves them to be such, you speculate about what forms of bigotry and/or mental disorders must be at play in a person to make them think that way, and that is the problem that's being called attention to. The frequent comments about how racist/sexist/transphobic etc you think the board is also aren't likely to win you many friends.

There's nothing wrong or against the rules in poking holes in someone's argument, I don't even believe it's against the rules to point out that they're acting stubborn or partisan when clinging to a belief in the face of strong evidence that they can't credibly refute, the problem comes when you start accusing them of being deranged or arguing in bad faith simply because you can't believe someone would have a different opinion than you on a given subject. You might find it helpful to adopt the principle of charity as it applies to other people and their opinions, you'll be a nicer person for it, and have a better understanding of people to boot.

Further, you're not doing yourself any favors trying to have your opponent silenced, that only makes it look like you're afraid of what he might say, that perhaps you fear your case isn't as strong as you'd like to believe, and so can't tolerate the presence of dissent, lest someone be convinced that you're wrong. Trust me, that's not a good look for someone who's trying to argue that their beliefs are inarguable facts. Try persuading people, and not by bludgeoning them with articles about how horrible and wrong they are backed up by threats of labeling them bigoted pariahs; that's called coercion, and again, doesn't speak to the strength of your arguments. Given your apparent sociopolitical outlook, you should know better than most the power of language, and how words can be weapons, but much like their real steel counterpoints, weaponized words can force some people into doing what you want, but aren't very good at actually changing minds. For that, you need to present a convincing argument yourself, not simply silence those who oppose you.

I truly believe some people do not understand transgender even if given the information so to me that isn't being transphobic because there is a difference between ignorance and transphobia. Transphobia is done with intent and ignorance is just someone not understanding.

To expect someone to understand is like expecting someone to understand how to do algebra after explaining it to them. Not everyone understands it just like how not everyone understands transgender. Some may find it easy to understand just like how some find it easy to understand how to do algebra.

There are people out there who argue against evolution or global warming even though there has been scientific proof and people still choose to believe that god created this planet and other things even though science doesn't support it. There will be people out there that will disapprove science. I don't know why. I do believe that some people just do not have the intelligence to understand and there are lot of people out there that lack intelligence but are still above the mentally ret*d range. And I think it has to do with pride because people don't want to admit they are wrong so they keep on believing what they want even though they are capable of understanding despite having the intelligence to understand. Something may be concrete for us but not concrete for others to understand. My ex believed algebra was concrete, for me it's abstract because I was never able to learn it so my school gave up teaching it to me. The rules kept changing in it so it was all inconsistent but yet I have met aspies who can't do simple math problems even though it's very concrete because the rules about it stay the same. They couldn't do five plus five equals ten because it was all numbers and not visual. But yet I was also very visual and I still could do addiction and subtraction so......it was all counting and I used my fingers and yet some aspies can't grasp that.

I don't want to be friends with racists and sexists and bigots, though. Why should I try to be friends with people that I don't share basic values with? I can't participate in behaviour that I know harms people (discrimination and bigotry do real harm to real people) and I can't condone such behaviour by associating with people who do without calling them on it when they say harmful things. I don't see why it is wrong, when someone says something that is transphobic and anti-science and against observable reality, to inform them that what they said was transphobic and anti-science and harms real people (transgender people). I have yet to see a rational argument as to why it is wrong for me to say this.

I guess since the thread in question was locked and I was not answered in this thread, that means that no one can explain to me why what I said (that his argument was disingenuous) was wrong and have given up, but I still need to accept that I was wrong without explanation. Interesting.

you are being given plenty of explanation.

Really--so if someone were to legitimately try to argue that gravity doesn't exist despite all the evidence that can be layed in front of them to prove the existence and many properties of the force of gravity, we are not supposed to say "I think you are arguing disingenuously by not acknowledging the plethora of evidence before you of the existence of gravity," because that is somehow personal and not about the argument the person is presenting (which consists of simply refusing to acknowledge the evidence in any way shape or form and yet claiming to have an informed opinion while simultaneously claiming not to understand the issue being discussed at all). No one here has explained this sufficiently, why calling the argument disingenuous is not ok when the argument itself is obviously not a genuine attempt to engage with the evidence presented by the other side of the argument because the argument presented does not acknowledge the evidence clearly presented by the other side of the argument at all.

No you can't conclude any such thing. For people to take a few hours away to do other things on Christmas is not necessarily an admission of defeat.

What you can conclude is that the thread was locked to prevent anymore personal combat between you and RoadRatt.

What was wrong with what what you said, (which was a lot more than that his argument was disingenous) has been explained to you very clearly in several different ways. That you don't understand that is not the fault of those who have explained it to you.

I could conclude, using your own logic, that you must be being disingenuous. It's been clearly explained to you, yet you persist in claiming not to see it.

I won't do that with you, and I don't know if you will ever see this from outside of you narrow focus on your being right and his being wrong, as you see it. But that doesn't really matter. What does matter is that you understand that personal attacks are against the rules.

If you insist on addressing the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, there will be consequences.

I really don't understand how calling his argument, not himself, disingenuous, is a personal attack. I don't see how that is logical at all, and none of the explanations provided have made any sense to me logically. I am not attacking him personally, I am attacking his argument which is unfounded and not based in reality or evidence.

No.

Let's be perfectly clear about this: You attacked him.

You did not call his argument disingenuous, which would have been fine, but rather called him disingenuous (and other things besides) for using the argument.

Had you restricted your comment to the argument, there would have been no problem.

What you have done in making your case here is to downplay what you actually said and claim that the very clear, very personal nature of your posted words was more or less equivalent to an acceptable argument against an idea. But those are not equivalent. As has been stated clearly in the rules, attacking the argument is fine, attacking the person is not.