|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 18, 2023 19:38:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 19:38:17 GMT
Yes, but an opinion has to be based on something. It is the Dunning-Kruger effect if you think you know better than trained professionals. Of course, your remark about adding to the suicide rate also comes within the Dunning-Kruger effect. Your remark that you 'should prevent' me from pointing out that it is the Dunning-Kruger effect because I am not a medical professional simply makes no sense. A medical qualification is not required in that situation. Now you’re just talking nonsense, because not all medical professionals agree with this nonsense, some very qualified psychiatrists disagree very openly with what is being taught in some schools, so no, it’s not what you say at all. I mean, I’ve not checked his videos but I’m fairly certain if I did, Jordan Peterson would call any claims incredulous and so if the medical community doesn’t agree, maybe it’s you who should reassess their certainty on this matter because while the past ten years might have been people threatened into silence over this topic, it seems the world is waking up and refuting a lot of this nonsense. If it is permitted by the law, it can safely be assumed that the consensus of medical opinion is behind it. When you second guess a body of medical professionals, having no more understanding of the issue than the ordinary lay man, you demonstrate the Dunning Kruger effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 19:39:59 GMT
As I said, the consensus of medical opinion must be behind it if it is permitted by law. There are many doctors who disagree with many medical procedures. You could point to many areas of medicine where there is some divergence of medical opinion. But a procedure won't be permitted where there is wholesale divergence, as that would take the action outside the realms of the reasonable doctor, and therefore into the area of medical negligence. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 18, 2023 19:41:22 GMT
Now you’re just talking nonsense, because not all medical professionals agree with this nonsense, some very qualified psychiatrists disagree very openly with what is being taught in some schools, so no, it’s not what you say at all. I mean, I’ve not checked his videos but I’m fairly certain if I did, Jordan Peterson would call any claims incredulous and so if the medical community doesn’t agree, maybe it’s you who should reassess their certainty on this matter because while the past ten years might have been people threatened into silence over this topic, it seems the world is waking up and refuting a lot of this nonsense. If it is permitted by the law, it can safely be assumed that the consensus of medical opinion is behind it. When you second guess a body of medical professionals, having no more understanding of the issue than the ordinary lay man, you demonstrate the Dunning Kruger effect. 50 years ago, medical professionals thought giving people labotomies was a good idea and would cure all kinds of things, including homosexuality. Were they right? absolutely not. Today, medical professionals think cutting someone's cock off is going to somehow make them happier, despite evidence to the contrary and suicide rates rising in transgender people. Are they right? absolutely not. Still, you defend genital mutilation all you like, but you're just making yourself sound stupid without any argument to defend it besides 'arguments of authority', which are flawed. In a few years, when people start seeing sense rather than trying to make a quick buck from destroying the lives of these poor people, i suspect it's you who will be eating their words. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 18, 2023 19:44:20 GMT
As I said, the consensus of medical opinion must be behind it if it is permitted by law. There are many doctors who disagree with many medical procedures. You could point to many areas of medicine where there is some divergence of medical opinion. But a procedure won't be permitted where there is wholesale divergence, as that would take the action outside the realms of the reasonable doctor, and therefore into the area of medical negligence. If something is law, it neither necessitates it's a good idea, or it's correct. I'm pretty sure everyone can think of many things which have been done by governments in the past which was not just wrong, but horrific. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 18, 2023 19:45:05 GMT
I gave up long back commenting on this thread, it didn't take long for me to realise the thread title was just a goad, feed the troll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 19:47:12 GMT
If it is permitted by the law, it can safely be assumed that the consensus of medical opinion is behind it. When you second guess a body of medical professionals, having no more understanding of the issue than the ordinary lay man, you demonstrate the Dunning Kruger effect. 50 years ago, medical professionals thought giving people labotomies was a good idea and would cure all kinds of things, including homosexuality. Were they right? absolutely not. Today, medical professionals think cutting someone's cock off is going to somehow make them happier, despite evidence to the contrary and suicide rates rising in transgender people. Are they right? absolutely not. Still, you defend genital mutilation all you like, but you're just making yourself look stupid, and in a few years, when people start seeing sense rather than trying to make a quick buck from destroying the lives of these poor people, i suspect it's you who will be eating their words. You're absolutely correct when you make the point about lobotomies. That was an improper procedure. But it is still more reasonable to put faith in medical professionals than non professionals (like Jordan Peterson (?) and you). Your belief that you know better is still a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If, in a couple of years time, it is demonstrated that the procedure was ill-judged, it will still be more reasonable to assume that medical professionals know more about their area of practice than a layman. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 19:48:10 GMT
As I said, the consensus of medical opinion must be behind it if it is permitted by law. There are many doctors who disagree with many medical procedures. You could point to many areas of medicine where there is some divergence of medical opinion. But a procedure won't be permitted where there is wholesale divergence, as that would take the action outside the realms of the reasonable doctor, and therefore into the area of medical negligence. If something is law, it neither necessitates it's a good idea, or it's correct. I'm pretty sure everyone can think of many things which have been done by governments in the past which was not just wrong, but horrific. If it passes the tort reasonableness test, it means that it is a reasonable thing to do in the light of current medical knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 18, 2023 19:51:34 GMT
How can a clinic psychiatrist be unqualified to talk on the subject of people's mental health? now you're just being silly.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that genital mutilation is actually helping the number of suicides by trans people?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 18, 2023 19:54:37 GMT
If something is law, it neither necessitates it's a good idea, or it's correct. I'm pretty sure everyone can think of many things which have been done by governments in the past which was not just wrong, but horrific. If it passes the tort reasonableness test, it means that it is a reasonable thing to do in the light of current medical knowledge. Lol. Stop it. That's not how science works. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 19:56:44 GMT
If it passes the tort reasonableness test, it means that it is a reasonable thing to do in the light of current medical knowledge. Lol. Stop it. That's not how science works. LOL! It's how the law works. If what the NHS is doing were unreasonable, they would be open to an action in tort. The law will judge reasonableness by reference to current medical knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Jun 18, 2023 20:00:01 GMT
Well, now you're switching goalposts from science to law and like I said, law, or more correctly legislation has a very poor history of getting things right.
It was legal to do lobotomies, it was legal to have slaves in much of the world, and it was legal to segregate people, or discriminate on gender and/or religion.
None of this plays into your argument of 'authority' and it's exactly why it's a bad idea to appeal to it.
I mean, rewind time 50 years, and you'd be sat here arguing in favor of lobotomies right? because back then, it was legal? and back then, i'd have told you that your same argument is complete nonsense.
Just like it is now.
Do you have any long-term studies or data that show cutting the cocks of teenagers actually helps anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 18, 2023 20:03:39 GMT
Lol. Stop it. That's not how science works. LOL! It's how the law works. If what the NHS is doing were unreasonable, they would be open to an action in tort. The law will judge reasonableness by reference to current medical knowledge. LOL! the NHS is run by the loony lefties so what do you expect, they'll go along with any freak of nature or woke snowflake cause as long as it gives the a 'X LABOUR' at the ballot box, Tony Blair made sure the NHS was going to flat-line, and flat-line it has ........... CHEERS Tony and CHEERS the Labour party. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jun 18, 2023 20:05:35 GMT
Anyway, surprised the troll is still managing to pull it off on this thread ... tatty bye.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jun 18, 2023 20:05:44 GMT
Well, now you're switching goalposts from science to law and like I said, law, or more correctly legislation has a very poor history of getting things right. It was legal to do lobotomies, it was legal to have slaves in much of the world, and it was legal to segregate people, or discriminate on gender and/or religion. None of this plays into your argument of 'authority' and it's exactly why it's a bad idea to appeal to it. I mean, rewind time 50 years, and you'd be sat here arguing in favor of lobotomies right? because back then, it was legal? and back then, i'd have told you that your same argument is complete nonsense. Just like it is now. Do you have any long-term studies or data that show cutting the cocks of teenagers actually helps anyone? Yes. Lobotomies were wrong. So was the diagnosis of insanity for gay people. Medicine has made its fair share of mistakes as it has developed. BUT it is still more reasonable to trust the opinion of medical experts rather than a layperson like you or Jordan whateverhisnameis. |
|
