(Yesterday at 5:59 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:09 am)Belacqua Wrote: The OP believes that the recent increase in trans therapy, including both chemical and surgical interventions, is scientific hubris.

Another view, that requires no interpretations, is that he created a crass facile comparison in order to troll. though of course byond what was posted I can't claim to know what that poster believes, that would be rather silly.

I do have a question though, while you're... sorry I do apologise, while @RantingManchester is decrying scientific hubris, here are some figures from the US dept of Justice that the FBI have compiled on hate crimes for 2022:

"LGBTQI+ Targeted Crimes: Incidents targeting gay men reached 1,075, while anti-lesbian incidents numbered 622. Both categories recorded their highest totals in the past five years and increased by more than 10% since 2021. A significant increase of nearly 40% was observed in reported anti-transgender incidents (totaling 338) compared to 2021."

CITATION

More hubris?

Crime is bad.

(Yesterday at 6:26 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:41 am)Sheldon Wrote: For me that red line will always be cruel bigotry, even if it does incur the disdain of the self appointed intellectual conscience of the forum. Can you see Texas from that high horse?

I'm on the other side of the world from Texas.

It was obviously meant metaphorically, not literally. 

Quote:Some people are stricter than we are concerning their epistemology. They think that we should only believe in those things for which there is objective evidence, and that subjective testimony is not good enough to be persuasive. 

Since I made no claims about the truth of anything, one wonders where you think this none too subtle straw man is going? I made a moral judgment about a post, and morality is ultimately subjective. Since all moral claims ultimately rest on subjective opinion,  not objective truth, though I am happy to listen to any arguments against this notion. 

Nor did I endorse any purely subjective testimony. Strike two...

Quote:So they don't accept the subjective testimony of people who say that their gender is different from what (until recently) was taken to be objectively indicative of maleness or femaleness. 

Again I endorsed no such claims as true or false, and I don't care that the subjective morals of others are content to indulge bigotry and prejudice, I hold a different, though equally subjective, moral view. 

Quote:Objective evidence would include things like chromosomes or anatomy, or other observable, empirical evidence. For our more accepting attitude, subjective testimony is sufficient.

Then they're using a false equivalence fallacy, that wrongly equates gender as being the same as biological sex. they ought really to grasp basic understanding of the topic before commenting, and none of this changes the fact that the OP was trolling, and showed zero interest in honestly debating the topic.

(Yesterday at 6:26 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:59 am)Sheldon Wrote: Another view, that requires no interpretations, is that he created a crass facile comparison in order to troll. though of course byond what was posted I can't claim to know what that poster believes, that would be rather silly.

I do have a question though, while you're... sorry I do apologise, while @RantingManchester is decrying scientific hubris, here are some figures from the US dept of Justice that the FBI have compiled on hate crimes for 2022:

"LGBTQI+ Targeted Crimes: Incidents targeting gay men reached 1,075, while anti-lesbian incidents numbered 622. Both categories recorded their highest totals in the past five years and increased by more than 10% since 2021. A significant increase of nearly 40% was observed in reported anti-transgender incidents (totaling 338) compared to 2021."

CITATION

More hubris?

Crime is bad.

Not necessarily of course, since laws are objective, while morality is subjective. Is this the deep analytical dive into the topic, that you think the thread author was poised to unleash? If one accepts your premise, then one assumes one might also view hate speech that demonises people in such a way as the thread OP, so that it might try and justify such hatred and persecution, and lead to such criminality, is also bad? 

Only you seem to have patted the author on the back, and apologise on behalf of those objecting to that very bigotry?

(November 19, 2024 at 6:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(November 18, 2024 at 11:17 pm)RantingManchester Wrote: A guy trying to play God for fame (Money)
Makes something hideous, the public dont like it. Monster goes on a rampage. Monster wants sympathy, monster kills girl. Mob kills monster.

I say thats a interesting morale of the story.

On this forum we absolutely support all transgender rights. Suggesting that there may be problems involved, and comparing the issue to Frankenstein's monster indicates that you will not be a part of the in-group here. 

This means that it's OK to mock you, insult you, and correct your spelling (where posters in good standing make spelling errors all the time). No one will discuss the real issues with you though. 

There are still red lines, and some people's professed orientations are considered too odd. For example if someone claims to have a romantic relationship with an inanimate object, it's OK to mock such orientations. So if you pick on someone like that you could still be part of the in-group.

Good luck to you.

Have you considered that a lobotomy might be right for you?

(Yesterday at 12:59 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(November 19, 2024 at 6:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote: On this forum we absolutely support all transgender rights. Suggesting that there may be problems involved, and comparing the issue to Frankenstein's monster indicates that you will not be a part of the in-group here. 

This means that it's OK to mock you, insult you, and correct your spelling (where posters in good standing make spelling errors all the time). No one will discuss the real issues with you though. 

There are still red lines, and some people's professed orientations are considered too odd. For example if someone claims to have a romantic relationship with an inanimate object, it's OK to mock such orientations. So if you pick on someone like that you could still be part of the in-group.

Good luck to you.

Have you considered that a lobotomy might be right for you?

It wasn't, obviously.

(November 18, 2024 at 11:17 pm)RantingManchester Wrote: A guy trying to play God for fame (Money)
Makes something hideous, the public dont like it. Monster goes on a rampage. Monster wants sympathy, monster kills girl. Mob kills monster.

I say thats a interesting morale of the story.

Yay, transphobia, a subset of homophobia!

[/s]

(November 18, 2024 at 11:24 pm)RantingManchester Wrote:

(November 18, 2024 at 11:20 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: Troll alert!

But with the divide with Trump people and... well whatever ESG DEI China Democrats in USA supports. It is kind of a telling story?
Fabrics of society falls apart and what one gets is a clown nose.

Outside that i am quitting politics in 2025 either way, to become a family man.

Let me guess, you're one of those idiots who think Calvin Robinson would make the perfect Archbishop of Canterbury, except he's too you-know.

(Yesterday at 2:45 pm)Pat Mustard Wrote:

(November 18, 2024 at 11:24 pm)RantingManchester Wrote: But with the divide with Trump people and... well whatever ESG DEI China Democrats in USA supports. It is kind of a telling story?
Fabrics of society falls apart and what one gets is a clown nose.

Outside that i am quitting politics in 2025 either way, to become a family man.

Let me guess, you're one of those idiots who think Calvin Robinson would make the perfect Archbishop of Canterbury, except he's too you-know.

Calvin Robinson would make an outstanding speed hump.

Boru

It's interesting to see the self-proclaimed intellectual of the forum show up on the regular to insult the only audience he has.

(Yesterday at 5:09 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(Yesterday at 3:06 am)Paleophyte Wrote: Waiting for Bel to show me where the OP brought up any issue, real or imaginary, in any coherent sense. Won't hold my breath.

It doesn't seem obscure or difficult to me. If I'm not clear you can just ask a question. 

It was the OP that failed to make any useful point by way of incoherence. You failed to make any useful point by way of jumping straight to pointless negative attack.

Quote:Though other interpretations are possible, the standard view of the Frankenstein myth is that a scientist does something just because he can, but then sees that the consequences are bad.

One of several messages that you can take from Frankenstein. The other main one is that Frankenstein's monster is created monstrous in form only, and only becomes truly monstrous through the callous, uncaring neglect and cruelty shown to him by his creator. This leads to a very different narrative in this thread. Sadly, the OP was tossed word salad, so we can't know which it was, if either. Regardless, comparing trans individuals to a fictional monstrosity that goes on a murderous rampage is thunderingly stoopid regardless of the intent. Lovely of you to chew us all out for not siding with that sort of bigotry.

Quote:For the record, I am not against people transitioning if they are making sound informed decisions. People should be free to choose.

Let me guess, you have black friends.

(Yesterday at 6:26 am)Belacqua Wrote: Some people are stricter than we are concerning their epistemology. They think that we should only believe in those things for which there is objective evidence, and that subjective testimony is not good enough to be persuasive. So they don't accept the subjective testimony of people who say that their gender is different from what (until recently) was taken to be objectively indicative of maleness or femaleness. Objective evidence would include things like chromosomes or anatomy, or other observable, empirical evidence. For our more accepting attitude, subjective testimony is sufficient.

The objective evidence conclusively demonstrates that human identity is more complex than the set of chromosomes that you're born with.