Give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day.
Elect a man to fish for you, and all of a sudden fishing becomes some mystical function that only a few elite in society can perform, at great expense to the rest of society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
242 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 242 of 242I think part of my problem is not acknowledging the existence of “trans” people and the problems inherent with their situation. There are a multitude of worthwhile discussions that could be had around the topic. The biggest barriers to most of those are, 1 the insistence that there are no physical/biological differences between male/female and that making a couple of cosmetic changes transforms one into the other. 2 the notion that small children are able to make informed decisions about these sorts of things and parents who push children into irreversible decisions about their bodies 3 the notion that those in the military or incarcerated deserve to have these surgeries paid for by taxpayers.
I’m asking the question (which you didn’t answer), because you’ve got Biden (among others) advocating for exactly this.
The fact that you play this idiotic game suggests an answer to the question. Or, it suggests that you are ignorant of Biden’s views on the subject and ignorant regarding the phenomenon.
Just answer the question. Do you support Biden’s policies, or parents, who want to “transition” children?
That’s like 4/5 comments that have absolutely zero substance, I guess your admitted problems with memory caused you to forget all sorts of things. Answering questions, what’s been written/posted earlier, and lord knows what else.
Craig... " do you support Biden... "
Part of the problem of modern conservatism, Trump conservatism, is the continued use of vague and unsupported allegations. What specifically are you speaking of here? Asking that question with no context is not helpful.
So far as I know, Biden has come out strongly in defense of transgender folks, saying the people should not be abused or oppressed because they're transgender. Because, of course he has. That's the rational, human rights position to take.
He has not, so far as I know, offered a position on children medically transitioning, which is what I think you're suggesting.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN2772PM
So two thoughts. One, if you're going to make an accusation, you should make sure you have your facts straight. And two, you should reference whatever it is you're talking about when you're making vague allegations.
Craig... "the insistence that there are no physical/biological differences between male/female and that making a couple of cosmetic changes transforms one into the other."
1. Read closely and see if you can comprehend. No one is saying that there are no differences between male bodies and female bodies. That seems fairly straightforward and understandable. Are you having trouble understanding those words?
2. Science tells us that there are biological differences between genders and it's not as simple has, were they born with a penis or not? Again, this is what science is telling us. That seems fairly straightforward. Are you having trouble understanding it?
One of the problems with you is your inability to answer a question without bitching, moaning, and engaging in personal attacks.
It’s a simple question. I know it’s hard, just answer the question.
The idea that an 8-year-old child or a 10-year-old child decides, ‘You know I decided I want to be transgender. That’s what I think I’d like to be. It would make my life a lot easier.’ There should be zero discrimination.”
Biden seems quite clear that he believes that an 8-10 year old child should be allowed to decide to “transition”. Do you agree with Biden? Do you think that an 8 year old has the capacity to make an informed decision on a medical procedure of this magnitude? What other medical procedures are 8 year olds capable of informed consent to undergo?
Look, your intransigence just got you more questions to avoid. B
1. Yet you keep insisting that a “trans woman” and a biological woman are the exact 100% same thing.
2. Yes, I’ve been arguing this for roughly 150 comments or so. I’m sorry you’ve been so obsessed with your false characterizations of my position. But better late than never.
Just think how much idiocy happens because you won’t answer questions, mis represent others, and rely on logical fallacies.
That you read into people's words stuff that they did not say it's always been evident. This is more evidence of that. Biden literally said there should be no discrimination. He literally did not say children should medically transition.
What about that it's hard for you to understand. Is it the words? Are you having a hard time understanding The Words?
There should be no discrimination. They shouldn't be harmed. They shouldn't be mocked. They shouldn't be belittled like people like Craig and Marshal try to do because their gender identity. There should be no discrimination by bigots and haters like so many white conservative evangelicals. No discrimination.
"No discrimination" is NOT saying they should medically transition. Do you now understand the words involved or do you need more explanation?
Look, you're probably listening to a bunch of bigoted people make false accusations. You made a mistake. You believed what they were saying and you made a stupid dumbass mistake. No problem. People make dumbass mistakes all the time. Just admit it and move on.
I know context isn’t your best friend, but Biden was literally responding to a parent who wanted to transition their child. Maybe you missed the TX case where the mom was fighting the dad because she wanted to “transition” their kid(s).
The amount of effort you’re going to in order to avoid simply stating that 8 year olds aren’t able to have informed consent to medical procedures would be amusing, if it didn’t conflict with your earlier “the least of these” bullshit.
Craig... "2. Yes, I’ve been arguing this for roughly 150 comments or so. I’m sorry you’ve been so obsessed with your false characterizations of my position."
You gave this answer in response to me saying that it's not as simple as were they born with a penis or not. So you agree with me and with science? Gender is NOT as simple as whether or not they were born with a penis?
I finally figured something out, much earlier in this thread I asked you whether or not the state had any role in regulating medical facilities. Safety standards, admitting relationship requirements, etc. You ignored that question among the multitude of others, and I realized that we’d circled back around to it. It’s the notion that some medical activities transcend things like safety requirements and informed consent.
It seems reasonable to suspect that you’re unwilling to commit on these things because it might lead somewhere you’re uncomfortable in going.
Of course, if you won’t answer the questions it’s all inference, which might explain...,
I finally figured something out, much earlier in this thread I asked you whether or not the state had any role in regulating medical facilities. Safety standards, admitting relationship requirements, etc. You ignored that question among the multitude of others, and I realized that we’d circled back around to it. It’s the notion that some medical activities transcend things like safety requirements and informed consent.
It seems reasonable to suspect that you’re unwilling to commit on these things because it might lead somewhere you’re uncomfortable in going.
Of course, if you won’t answer the questions it’s all inference, which might explain...,
Because I’ve been arguing that it’s not as simple as being born with a penis, you idiot. You’re the one who keeps bringing penises into the conversation.
Which raises the question. If a woman undergoes extensive surgery to fashion her vagina into something that resembles a penis, does it magically become (on a cellular level) a fully functioning penis, indistinguishable form the penis on a male?
If it’s not all about penises, why is surgical alteration necessary?
Between that and the conformity to gender stereotypes, it’s almost like you can’t escape the reality that sex and gender are binary.
FYI, if sex and gender are unrelated, then what scientific principle declares that “gender” is infallibly correct?
? You're not making sense.
I've stated what biologists are telling us... that gender is NOT as simple as, were they born with a penis. Do you agree?
I've NOT said that sex and gender are unrelated. Understand?
I've said that science tells us it's more fluid than that. Do you agree?
Beyond that, I'm not a scientist. I just recognize what scientists say. There's more to it than just two x's or an X and Y. Have you read what the scientists are saying about that? If not, go back and read the latest science on it.
Craig... "If a woman undergoes extensive surgery to fashion her vagina into something that resembles a penis, does it magically become (on a cellular level) a fully functioning penis, indistinguishable form the penis on a male?"
? Beats the hell out of me. It's not really any of my business so I've never asked or look into it. Why in the hell does it matter to you? What difference does it make?
Wow, impressive. You actually acknowledge one question out of many, then admit you’re ignorant.
You’re the one claiming that male’s become females and vice versa, I’m just trying to figure out what you mean. I know how much you like to bring penises into the discussion so I used that example, as opposed to others.
I could have asked about the skeletal system, but..
The lack of answeres just keeps growing.
You keep saying the I'm not answering questions, as if that's reality. You do know, I am answering your questions, right? Are you not understanding the words and that they have been answered?
No, I’m simply pointing out the reality that you’ve been avoiding multiple questions, for an extended period of time, in this thread alone. Seriously there are multiple questions just from today that you haven’t answered. Unless your claim of ignorance was a blanket answer to every question asked. If that’s the case, then why would I take anything you say seriously.
Unfortunately you simply repeating something doesn’t make it true.
I've answered more questions than you have and I have not missed any serious questions. If you're asking (again) that I answer (again) how I define woman, I've already done that and I was being generous because it's a stupid question. If you're asking why it's necessary to have surgery done to change from having female body parts to male body parts, it's because it doesn't happen by magic. Likewise for any other obtuse questions. If the answer is obvious, why ask it?
If the point of the question is, "I don't understand why a person with boy body parts would want girl body parts... why do that?" The answer is, YOU DON'T NEED to understand, it's none of your damned business. What you need to do is just stay out of other people's private business and stop oppressing people who are causing you no harm.
And there's one of the questions you've ignored that is an important question... WHERE is the harm? What difference does it make to you if she was born with a penis? It's none of your damned business and it's not causing you any harm so just butt out and shut up.
You opted not to answer the question about why you're all wrapped up in penis questions and instead responded with this additional bit of misunderstanding/misinformation... "You’re the one claiming that male’s become females and vice versa"
No. I'm not. I'm the one pointing to the science of understanding gender and how it's not as simple as "Did they have a penis when they were born?"
Have you read the science I've pointed to?
Did you not understand? If so, why not ask what it is you don't understand about rather than just assuming you're right?
If you've read it, do you recognize that "biology" does not agree with you?
I've stated what biologists are telling us... that gender is NOT as simple as, were they born with a penis. Do you agree?
I've NOT said that sex and gender are unrelated. Understand?
I've said that science tells us it's more fluid than that. Do you agree?
More questions that have actually gone unanswered by you that are pertinent to the topic.
Craig... "Between that and the conformity to gender stereotypes, it’s almost like you can’t escape the reality that sex and gender are binary."
But you just agreed with me that it's not ALL about the presence of a penis or a vagina. Which is it, for you?
Do you understand that science/biology tells us it's not as simple as a first grade/binary understanding of gender?
Do you have something to dispute the conclusions of the multiple scientists/biologists I've pointed you to?
Dan,
Lots of crap from you to correct, rebuke and mock. Before I do, note that I've posted your comments to my blog. As I've explained, I'm not getting email alerts from you or Glenn when you seek to post on my blog. Thus, I have to check through Blogger to discover you made an attempt. I don't do that regularly and it hasn't become a habit as yet. Your comments are now posted and they're great fun.
Beginning with your comment from February 7, 2021 at 6:36 AM, it's clear your links do nothing to assert there are more than two sexes, while trying to imply such with their info regarding what they refer to as "disorders of sex development". This would be akin to being born with one arm. It is not evidence of non-male/non-female sexes. Thus, it does little to offer a reason to believe that a person whose body is male is actually female simply because he "self-identifies", nor that the rest of us are in any way obliged to indulge a person with identity disorders.
"So, stop saying science and biology "agree" with you."
Your two offerings don't support the notion science and biology in any way agree with you, though your choices always are framed in such a way regardless of how poorly it works for the purpose. Science and biology still affirm the existence of only two sexes, regardless of the existence of mutation, disorders and other anomalies. You want evidence? Pick up any grade school science book dealing with the issue and go from there.
"This is so ineptly stupid as to defy a response. WHITE NATIONALISTS, by definition, advocate policies and actions that cause harm to non-whites, as well as to their own sick souls."
So you so desperately need to believe. But what was your statement again? Here it is in your own words:
"You can't point to a single point of harm caused by lgbtq people being lgbtq."
Yet, you insist that a person merely being a racist is causing harm. In the meantime, I don't know that either Craig, myself or most people on our side (the righteous side) of the divide even make that argument. It's what they do, what they promote and actual policies and/or behavior they support that causes harm and is absolutely true in both cases...LGBT and racists.
So what we have here is you not merely moving the goal posts, but moving them all over the freakin' place as it suits you to do so, abandoning consistency in your position for the sake of furthering your immoral causes. I guess Craig's initial reaction to your above highlighted challenge was absolutely valid. You simply balked at him meeting it so successfully. And you inconsistent goalpost moving manifests again immediately with the following:
"Catch up to the real world, Marshal. White nationalism IS a set of beliefs that cause harm.
Being gay or a transgender person (or being black or brown, for that matter) is just who some people are."
The first bit refers to the belief system of racists. The second ignores the belief system of LGBT people. I oppose the belief system of both sets of people while at the same time acknowledging the humanity of both. It's not so much that they are, it's what they believe. I would wager Craig is equally logical and empathetic.
"There's no harm in being a person who is a person who happens to be gay, lesbian, black, brown, Asian or transgender. None and that you can't point to it (and you can't) is obvious."
Uh...nice touch mixing in race and nationality with LGBT people, you immoral perv. But we've pointed to the harm of being LGBT constantly and backed it up with research and studies. I've got multiple posts referring to it as well as likely hundreds of comments at your blog and those of others on the subject. You just dismiss them due to their inconvenience to your immoral support of them. (By the way, that harm is the result of acting on their urges and/or clinging to their "self-identities"...not simply "being".)
"EMBRACING white nationalist beliefs, on the other hand, is CHOOSING to embrace harmful behaviors, policies and attitudes. It's the embracing of sick policies, not "who they are."
It's who they are BECAUSE they embrace those beliefs, just as an LGBT person is who they are for the same embracing of beliefs. You can't have it both ways and pretend you're honest and honorable in your defense of the indefensible.
"As to your nonsense example...etc."
So you think it's nonsense that women and girls have been assaulted, abused and "oppressed" by predators. Nice. The point of the video was to remind you that the concerns of women to the immoral move to allow biological men into women's facilities puts them at great risk. It literally opens the door to such people, which is a far cry from men simply cross dressing for the purpose. It's a freakin' invitation and all they need to do is say they identify as women. How can anyone deny what they say about themselves? This is the problem you wish to spread about under the guise of compassion for the disordered. Where predators used to have to employ more stealth to succeed in their predation, they now have that aspect of their plans rendered unnecessary thanks to short-sighted and immoral morons like yourself.
But you don't care about the concerns of women and girls. They're to suck it up and hope for the best. Where's the "Listen to Women", Dan? We're supposed to talk to blacks and LGBT, but to hell with what women and girls feel and know. You're an asshole of the highest order.
"Look, hell, RIGHT NOW, straight CIS-men pose the greatest threat to boys being attacked and assaulted."
Citations, please. And not those put forth to protect homosexual men, who are those who pose the greatest threat to boys.
"And Marshal, you have NOT presented a single shred of "statistics and facts," and certainly not from any reputable sources."
"Reputable" isn't determined by whether or not it backs your vile positions. As such, I presented facts within the context of this discussion, and have done so repeatedly in past discussions, often from various law enforcement agencies. That you dismiss them and reject them without "reputable" counter sources is not my problem. But you keep lying about it. It's what you do.
"Good Lord. Against my better judgment, I started watching your sick, perverted hate propaganda in your link, Marshal. THE VERY FIRST example of a threat they presented was from a STRAIGHT WHITE CIS-GENDER MALE. The same appears to be true for the second "example," they gave."
What counts as "better judgement" for you is suspect as it always has been. But you might want to go beyond the first two cases cited until you get to the end and you'll find what you think is not present in the video.
More importantly is that this video is presented to provide cases that support opposition to absurd pro-"transgender" policy to allow biological men into women's facilities. It doesn't matter how many of the small segment of cases chosen for the video are made up of "cis" or "trans". The point is the free pass these evil policies provide for predators of either group. Sure, without them predators have gotten access. But now they have an open door and YOU think the concerns of women and girls are worthless against the whining of disordered people. You're evil, and every time you quote Christ it's like you're pissing on Him.
And then you go on about providing links. This video actually names the predators, which means you could easily find them if you actually gave a flying rat's ass about their victims, and the potential victims you make of all women and girls by supporting these vile policies.
And worse, you use this line of argumentation to pretend we're accusing all disordered people of being dangerous. That's just another lie from the son of the father of lies, Dan Trabue. By enabling the disordered rather than supporting real help for them, you put women and girls at greater risk...a group historically oppressed, you hypocritical bastard.
There's no shutting up the truth, you fascist. There's no moving us out of the way. We are those seeking to be the good men who WON'T "do nothing" so that evil like you can triumph.
That's all for now, Sparky. More later.
“ WHERE is the harm?
What harm did I ever claim there was? Although, I’ve offered a couple of problems1. The age issue, 2 The taxpayer funded issue.
“What difference does it make to you if she was born with a penis?”
If “she” was born with a penis, she’s not a she. She’s a surgically/hormonally altered he.
See, answering questions isn’t that hard, if you’d just give it a try.
Of course the reason it’s being discussed here is because it’s one of the diversions you’ve introduced to avoid answering questions.
This bizarre notion that a question is “unanswered” before I’ve had a chance to read it is certainly a new tactic.
That you demand that others answer your questions, while you don’t is such a selfish/childish attempt to somehow assert control where you have none, is quite strange.
Dan seems to think he's the only one of us with knowledge of studies into the disorder of transgenderism. He's enamored with those who insist findings justify pretending there are more than two sexes or genders, while at the same time disparaging those who oppose such justifications, as well as some of the studies themselves. Dan always has a ready answer for such opponents, but accepts as perfection and grace-embracing those who promote the agenda.
But the main problem Dan can't overcome is the fact that no "science" he's produced means anything more than defects, variation or mutation...none of which has any connection to a person "identifying" as the opposite sex (or any of the several dozen "genders" proponents of the agenda like to pretend there are). Indeed, I can't see that there's anything that even suggests that anyone who "identifies" as of the opposite sex really even believes it totally...if at all.
Later, I'll provide even more that rebuts Dan's cherished "experts". For now, I want to reiterate something that Dan overlooks in favor of demonizing those of us who oppose his support of the agenda. There's a stark difference between pointing out the disorder of the "transgender" and asserting such people "don't exist", or whatever their silly, baseless whine is. When kids are involved, I don't really give a flying rat's ass what the activists say about me. There's no justification for enabling a child who thinks he's of the opposite sex. It's evil and child abuse. As to adults, I'm not much more concerned with how they feel about my opposition if they're not considerate enough to engage like adults. To insist I must accept them as if they aren't disordered is to force me to lie along with them. They are NOT who they identify as being if that identity conflicts with reality...which is totally the case.
more later...
Dan,
Blogger ate both of your comments and my replies when I tried to publish.
I'll try to sum up this way.
Both of your comments/questions were simply more of your prejudices, ad hom, misrepresentations, appeals to authority, etc. Your usual stew of bullshit, seasoned with logical fallacies.
However, to answer the "question you asked".
I would respond to your hypothetical situation, the exact same way I respond to any situation where I interact with someone I disagree with. I always start out polite, respectful, and friendly to people I deal with regardless of who they are or what they believe. As the depth of the relationship changes, then so does my response to them. It's really not that hard.
Obviously, your question is steeped in your prejudices and preconceptions about those you disagree with and your inability to believe that we can interact with people we disagree with respectfully.
It's a stupid question, it's one more attempt to obfuscate the macro issues by using a micro hypothetical. Yet, I answered your damn question. Too bad you won't give me the same courtesy.
Marshal... "Dan can't overcome is the fact that no "science" he's produced means anything more than defects, variation or mutation..."
Being left-handed is not a defect or mutation. Having green eyes is not a defect or mutation. Being gender-fluid or homosexual or lesbian or transgender is not a defect or mutation. Your ignorance of science doesn't mean that you were right. Just that you're ignorant and wrong. The data is what the date is. And still, I'm the only one pointing to actual biologists and scientists to support my view, which is that I agree with biologists and scientists.
This appeal to science is interesting. Many scientists who embrace methodological naturalism (materialism) and any of the variations of Darwinian theory would argue that the very purpose of all species is to reproduce and ensure the continuation of one's genetic line. Since none of the behaviors or conditions Dan references confers ANY sort of evolutionary advantage to those who identify thus, one must wonder what the scientific worldview these anonymous "scientists" hold to.
"The central concept of natural selection is the evolutionary fitness of an organism.[110] Fitness is measured by an organism's ability to survive and reproduce, which determines the size of its genetic contribution to the next generation." Orr H. Allen
""Survival of the fittest"[1] is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations.""
Please explain how G, L, and T individuals will "leave the most copies of themselves in successive generations"?
What is the evolutionary benefit to G,L, or T?
Craig, you continue to appeal to a grade school misunderstanding of science and ask me to respond to your grade school misunderstanding. The correct response is... Your grade school misunderstanding is wrong.
Craig... "Since none of the behaviors or conditions Dan references confers ANY sort of evolutionary advantage to those who identify thus, one must wonder what the scientific worldview these anonymous "scientists" hold to."
You're going to have to be more specific. Point to some actual darwinian scientist and point to their argument that they are making that people with what might be considered differences that are not beneficial to reproduction or not valid or worthwhile or real people, that their existence should be fought against. Where is the evolutionary scientist who is saying that people with Down Syndrome, for instance, you may not be as successful the natural world are not valued people?
You do recognize that evolutionary scientists or not, as a rule, saying outliers or not worth having round in the human community, right? What an offensively stupid suggestion to make, if that's what you're saying.
What an absolute joke. Are you are you really so unaware of the tenets of evolution that you need more specific quotes?
I have to run, I'll answer your questions later. Although your "One to one" bullshit is clearly out the window before the metaphorical ink was dry.
"Being left-handed is not a defect or mutation. Having green eyes is not a defect or mutation."
But it is a variation, which is the third aspect I mentioned and which doesn't help your case to admit. A left-handed person is still a person. Eye color doesn't diminish a person's being a person. But a green eyed person insisting he has brown eyes has a mental problem. A man insisting he's a woman has a mental problem. Being LGBT is a mental problem because each of those is defect, not mere variation. The natural function of the body is ignored for the mental/emotional defect. No pro-LGBT science has disproved even this simplistic rendering of reality.
“ Where is the evolutionary scientist who is saying that people with Down Syndrome, for instance, you may not be as successful the natural world are not valued people?”
I have to point out that although you haven’t actually answered the questions, I’ll take a shot at yours. More quotes will probably have to wait until tomorrow though.
1. Are you really equating people with Downs Syndrome with l,g, and t people?
2. Evolution is incredibly amoral and utilitarian as the “nature is red in tooth and claw” quote makes clear. I’m sure that the scientists bragging about eliminating Down’s through abortion, promoting euthanasia, and other measures are basing their arguments on a materialistic/naturalistic/Darwinian/utilitarian worldview.
3. Down’s is not a choice.
4. “Fittest” for what?
“ You do recognize that evolutionary scientists or not, as a rule, saying outliers or not worth having round in the human community, right?”
No, they’re saying that any organism/species/individual that doesn’t contribute to the propagation of the species has no evolutionary value. You’re trying to impose a set of values on a worldview that’s inherently immoral.
Look I’ll get you plenty of quotes, I’ve done in before. The fact that you’re so unaware of what prominent supporters of evolution are saying is a little concerning.
I'm no scientist, but I'm generally aware of the tenets of Darwinism and evolutionary theories and based on what I know, you're full of s***. That is, you do not know of what you speak.
For one thing, Darwinism is not a science of human societies. One can be a evolutionary scientist and still believe in the value of human life, all human life. Did you know that?
Also, your lgbtq question makes no sense in light of Darwinism and evolution. That is, it's not like two gay guys are going to get married and have children and those children will receive the gay gene. It doesn't work that way. You know that, right?
In other words, like so much of what you say when you're speaking about science, it's not based on actual adult level science. But again, if you want to cite some actual scientist to support your point, do that and we can talk about the actual science involved.
But if you're just going to rely on your own understanding, your own understanding is lacking.
Art, I was going to point out the variation piece as well. None of those diminish one’s ability to move the species along.
It seems Dan is intent on conflating opposition to the LGBT agenda with some ludicrous desire to destroy each and every one of them. But then, that's typical of the leftist. Demonize when rational arguments are lacking.
As I pointed out, you’ve cited some magazine articles that don’t say what you think they say.
If you’ve actually answered the questions, it should be easy to do what I did, and match the answers directly with the questions. I guess it’s just easier to make unsupported claims, than to provide proof.
I might have deleted a comment where Dan claims, once again, that he's answering questions. The problem isn't the questions he's answered or responded to, it's all the questions he hasn't.
But it's quite a leap to promise to answer all the unanswered questions, to trying to repeat a fantasy.
Post a Comment