Page 6 of 7 [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

17 Feb 2019, 9:48 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
The article didn't claim those words don't have dictionary definitions, but that the term "logic" in philosophical terms is hard to define and has many subclassifications, which the article talks about. Your reading comprehension seems shallow, or maybe you just skimmed the article without actually reading the content of it?


I did read and skim it. It has so many holes and is very long. It's basically a rant which makes little to no sense at all. I gave it a chance, in my opinion it's illogical crap. 'Illogical' meaning, it makes absurd assertions.


I see, so what you're saying is that it was over your head. Thanks for clarifying.


No, it's not over my head. Is it over your head?



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

17 Feb 2019, 10:02 pm

Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
The article didn't claim those words don't have dictionary definitions, but that the term "logic" in philosophical terms is hard to define and has many subclassifications, which the article talks about. Your reading comprehension seems shallow, or maybe you just skimmed the article without actually reading the content of it?


I did read and skim it. It has so many holes and is very long. It's basically a rant which makes little to no sense at all. I gave it a chance, in my opinion it's illogical crap. 'Illogical' meaning, it makes absurd assertions.


I see, so what you're saying is that it was over your head. Thanks for clarifying.


No, it's not over my head. Is it over your head?


You say it's illogical in your opinion, but you don't give any examples of how or about what it is illogical, you don't refute any actual points asserted in the article, you just say "I don't like it" and think that is a sufficient argument against something. That's what makes me believe the content of the article was over your head, or you would have addressed the points asserted in the content. You just get the impression it's making someone you like (Shapiro) look bad, so you decide not to consider anything it says. That is arguing from emotion, not logic.

And saying it's too long to answer (it's not THAT long of an article) is just an intellectually lazy cop-out.



Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

17 Feb 2019, 10:05 pm

karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
The article didn't claim those words don't have dictionary definitions, but that the term "logic" in philosophical terms is hard to define and has many subclassifications, which the article talks about. Your reading comprehension seems shallow, or maybe you just skimmed the article without actually reading the content of it?


I did read and skim it. It has so many holes and is very long. It's basically a rant which makes little to no sense at all. I gave it a chance, in my opinion it's illogical crap. 'Illogical' meaning, it makes absurd assertions.


I see, so what you're saying is that it was over your head. Thanks for clarifying.


No, it's not over my head. Is it over your head?


You say it's illogical in your opinion, but you don't give any examples of how or about what it is illogical, you don't refute any actual points asserted in the article, you just say "I don't like it" and think that is a sufficient argument against something. That's what makes me believe the content of the article was over your head, or you would have addressed the points asserted in the content. You just get the impression it's making someone you like (Shapiro) look bad, so you decide not to consider anything it says. That is arguing from emotion, not logic.

And saying it's too long to answer (it's not THAT long of an article) is just an intellectually lazy cop-out.


Actually, I laid it out pretty simply, I'm sorry if you don't understand, I can't make it any easier to decipher.



karathraceandherspecialdestiny
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Jan 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,857

17 Feb 2019, 10:07 pm

Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
The article didn't claim those words don't have dictionary definitions, but that the term "logic" in philosophical terms is hard to define and has many subclassifications, which the article talks about. Your reading comprehension seems shallow, or maybe you just skimmed the article without actually reading the content of it?


I did read and skim it. It has so many holes and is very long. It's basically a rant which makes little to no sense at all. I gave it a chance, in my opinion it's illogical crap. 'Illogical' meaning, it makes absurd assertions.


I see, so what you're saying is that it was over your head. Thanks for clarifying.


No, it's not over my head. Is it over your head?


You say it's illogical in your opinion, but you don't give any examples of how or about what it is illogical, you don't refute any actual points asserted in the article, you just say "I don't like it" and think that is a sufficient argument against something. That's what makes me believe the content of the article was over your head, or you would have addressed the points asserted in the content. You just get the impression it's making someone you like (Shapiro) look bad, so you decide not to consider anything it says. That is arguing from emotion, not logic.

And saying it's too long to answer (it's not THAT long of an article) is just an intellectually lazy cop-out.


Actually, I laid it out pretty simply, I'm sorry if you don't understand, I can't make it any easier to decipher.


:roll: OK, whatever you say buddy.



Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

17 Feb 2019, 10:08 pm

word :wink:



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,770
Location: USA

17 Feb 2019, 10:15 pm

Crimadella wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
There is no greater freedom than the right to self-identify, so, people who are pro-trans (favor the right to self-identify) have the ultimate right-wing, Libertarian, pro-freedom, pro-individuality stance.

People who are anti-trans are pro-government control, like less freedom, like when government limits your rights.

So, Shapiro's "logic" is probably a contradictory mess as he appears to fancy himself a "right wing conservative".



? He isn't anti-trans, he has only stated that thousands of times. His opinion differs from mine, I would respectfully call a trans either him or her, which ever they prefer. Now get into how weird people are becoming with gender play, if someone identifies as a martian...no, i'm not going to refer to them as a martian. I point that out because someone actually did get plastic surgery to make themselves look like a martian and claims they identify as a martian. Where do we draw the line on 'just plain crazy'. Like the 55 year old man who identifies as a 6 year old girl.

Ben Shapiro, simply says he will not call a bio-male a female or vice versa. That is because they, in reality are a bio-male. The logic is pure, maybe a little disrespectful, in no way is it illogical. Consult a biologist if you disagree.

Then he doesn't respect a person's most sacred freedom -- the right to self-identify.

It's in complete contradiction to "Individualism", the struggle of the individual for liberation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

Ben Shapiro: 'I'm A Radical Individualist'
https://www.dailywire.com/news/11699/sh ... nk-berrien

Easy to see his contradiction.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

17 Feb 2019, 10:28 pm

It's not a contradiction, he isn't removing anyone's ability to 'self-identify'. You can identify as what ever you wish, that does not mean someone has to identify you as you identify yourself.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,770
Location: USA

17 Feb 2019, 10:58 pm

Crimadella wrote:
It's not a contradiction, he isn't removing anyone's ability to 'self-identify'. You can identify as what ever you wish, that does not mean someone has to identify you as you identify yourself.

You're missing something.

He calls himself a "radical individualist".

So, you would think he would support, and appreciate "individualism".

"Individualism thus involves "the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

When LGBTQI people assert an identity, he refuses to recognize it.

So, he's not an individualist; he's a phony

See, me, I would be OK with an old man claiming to really be Santa Claus.
Image


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 23,618
Location: Pacific Northwest

18 Feb 2019, 1:11 am

Crimadella wrote:
AspE wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
Exactly what I have come to learn as instinctual signaling.

That's just cultural. In some tribes, the men wear colorful makeup and the women ask them out. The naturalistic fallacy may apply here, not everything that seems natural is healthy. Desire for sugar, fat, and alcohol for instance.



Nothing is just cultural. We are a biological evolving species, never at any point do we escape evolution. You are simply pointing out different aspects of evolution and signaling within other cultures.


League_gril,

All I'm saying is something as impacting as this can have on society should have proper research so we do not potentially cause more harm than good. It's certainly a wiser approach than just leaping in throwing caution to the wind. Yes, puberty can be difficult, does that mean we should stop it? Do you wish you were put on puberty blockers? At this day in age, you simply being uncomfortable with puberty can land you on puberty blockers "at age 9". If so, imagine how more of an outcast you may have felt being 18 with no breasts. To point something out, they are putting children on puberty blockers as young as 9 years old and trans activists are even making a fuss saying they should be started at younger ages.

Trans activists are attempting to squash science and study, attacking any scientist who dares to research things they disagree with. So no, we shouldn't just be listening to our leaders...aka the government. The leaders in science are scientists, not activists. They try to ruin scientists lives from producing information they disagree with, this is actually very popular practice in Canada.

It seems like most are missing the point entirely. So let me break it down to a simple question...

Should we study this issue, or throw caution to the wind and accept whatever result comes with it?



I actually would have wanted puberty blockers to slow down my puberty and I hated having large breasts. They're ugly and they covered my whole chest and I am so glad when breast feeding made them smaller. I got pretty skinny so I am happy now with my body.

But like I say, doctors would not have given me them at age 12. They only give it to small children who are far too young for puberty. 9 is considered normal, 8 is considered normal for breast development. Girls have been entering puberty sooner. I started at 9 and it was with breasts development but they didn't get into a growth spurt until 6th grade where they grew 3 cups. They went from A cup all the way to a D cup and then I was a double D in junior high. Now I am a C cup or a D cup for 32 band size. C cup for 34 band size.


_________________
I have a quilt of labels. I had a language disorder and a speech disorder. Then communication disorder NOS. My other diagnoses have been Language Processing disorder, dyspraxia, SPD, OCD, ADD, Asperger’s, anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder, anorexia nervosa. My mom’s labels of me are: eating disorder, anorexia, social anxiety, PTSD, just being sensitive and having the victim complex when I was a kid. And of course she says I’m normal and says the only thing I had as a child was language. Huh? I must have been a shitty person then and maybe a difficult child I was who had to be labeled because of incompetent school staff and mean kids who didn’t accept differences and because I was trying to be “normal.” :/

My blog: https://mynoneabdlthoughts.wordpress.com/


Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

18 Feb 2019, 8:05 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
It's not a contradiction, he isn't removing anyone's ability to 'self-identify'. You can identify as what ever you wish, that does not mean someone has to identify you as you identify yourself.

You're missing something.

He calls himself a "radical individualist".

So, you would think he would support, and appreciate "individualism".

"Individualism thus involves "the right of the individual to freedom and self-realization".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism

When LGBTQI people assert an identity, he refuses to recognize it.

So, he's not an individualist; he's a phony

See, me, I would be OK with an old man claiming to really be Santa Claus.
Image


Sorry, to me The santa claus argument is ridiculous, says he is santa claus, must be santa claus(???)

Please explain to me, I'm really not interested in this topic, I don't care to read 'Individualism'. Is it an enforced law in the US? As far as I know, no it isn't. I've heard gender laws may have been passed in 'New York', which I consider insanity, it's like the start of us migrating towards socialist laws thus converting our country into a socialist society where freedom of speech is restricted.(Like Canada) The irony being people are migrating here to escape socialism.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,299

18 Feb 2019, 9:00 am

I don't think free speech restrictions have any place in Democratic Socialism. The Constitution still applies even though we have existing socialist institutions like Social Security.

Trump just suggested prosecuting SNL for making fun of him.



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,894

18 Feb 2019, 10:57 am

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-ta ... 60626.html
Myths About Transition Regrets
What the studies actually say.



https://www.thechronicle-online.com/new ... ec5f509c38
Canada’s family doctors are getting new guidance on how to manage the burgeoning number of teens identifying as transgender.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,231
Location: Adelaide, Australia

20 Feb 2019, 9:32 am

Why do so many political debates end up being about penis size?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 61,655
Location: Queens, NYC

20 Feb 2019, 9:48 am

It's not the meat, it's the motion.



Crimadella
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,644
Location: Warner Robins, Ga

20 Feb 2019, 10:28 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Why do so many political debates end up being about penis size?



Maybe I'm drawing conclusions but I would assume if you polled straight men, gay men and trans-women who desired to keep their pens and asked them do they wish their pens was smaller you would have the overwhelming majority say 'no'. Many tactics have been explore to increase pens size, I know of no adults exploring the option to reduce pens size.

On the insurance statement made earlier by someone else....
Insurance companies do not care about people also, they care about profit. Take the example with chronic pain patients, physical therapy, the safest and most effective way to reduce pain is generally not covered by insurance.