|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 30, 2022 18:28:07 GMT
Hi Baron von lotsov Maybe it isn't that different. It's maybe just harder to achieve. Maybe. As I said perhaps trying to understand the issue is only possible if one is transgender. A bit like trying to get someone who is colour blind to explain what they see. I knew someone who was. It was some bloke who decided to become a woman. He still had a brain of a man though. He could discuss matters in a logical ordered way which is distinct to how a typical female would think. Female brains are better at seeing an overall picture/male brains are more detail orientated.
Anyway, one thing about this person was he was very fat. This might have had something to do with some hormone issue, I'm unsure as I'm not a medic, but even though he was in his 30s, one day he was working as normal, often attending the door on this arts venue, and he suddenly had a heart attack and died.I've wondered if this was ever caused ultimately by the kind of stuff done to these people to make them into women. There was no apparent reason for it, just like it happened all of a sudden without warning.
|
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 30, 2022 18:37:24 GMT
Hi Baron
I know 2. Not well but 1 in each direction. It's really hard not to judge as the one that moved male to female still looks pretty masculine and the other still looks quite feminine. It looks pretty unnatural (by my standards) but they're probably happier and seem to lead good lives.
BTW they use their new gender's changing rooms
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 31, 2022 19:47:06 GMT
Hi Bentley You're not very good at interpretation. When I said "try answering that one" it was a pithy address to myself, displaying the hopelessness of trying to come up with an answer. How can I put this in a way that he/she will understand? When you know full well they're just deflecting. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and fully explain what I meant The clip was saying that a kind of mass stupidity was worse than evil as the perpetrator of the mass stupidity can't recognise it in themselves whereas evil people know full well what they are doing. A German pastor watched mobs throwing stones through jew shops and publicly humiliating Jewish people on the street, all encouraged by the Nazis. He denounced this and got imprisoned. He then wrote materials from jail, wondering how his country of thinkers and artists could go down that dark road. He concluded that the mob displayed symptoms of mass stupidity. THEN came the salient point. The people guilty of this ignored any evidence or research that contradicted their beliefs. If it was irrefutable evidence, then they called it biased, wrongly framed or irrelevant. You pointed out to me that you didn't trust research on the grounds that it would inevitably be wrongly framed - exactly what those infected with mass stupidity say. Now I'm not saying you're guilty of this, I'm just drawing your attention to the parallel and asking you to look in the mirror. You don't even have to tell me if you think or don't think that you're guilty of it, just beware. Hi vinny I hope that you can see from above that I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone. It seems you are not very good at interpretation. I claimed your post was meaningless because it was meaningless. Maybe you should look into a mirror . You admitted there was a danger and you have spent the past umpteen posts trying undermine your claim. Stories about German pastors are just piffle designed to deviate . |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 21:32:59 GMT
Hi Bentley You're not very good at interpretation. When I said "try answering that one" it was a pithy address to myself, displaying the hopelessness of trying to come up with an answer. How can I put this in a way that he/she will understand? When you know full well they're just deflecting. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and fully explain what I meant The clip was saying that a kind of mass stupidity was worse than evil as the perpetrator of the mass stupidity can't recognise it in themselves whereas evil people know full well what they are doing. A German pastor watched mobs throwing stones through jew shops and publicly humiliating Jewish people on the street, all encouraged by the Nazis. He denounced this and got imprisoned. He then wrote materials from jail, wondering how his country of thinkers and artists could go down that dark road. He concluded that the mob displayed symptoms of mass stupidity. THEN came the salient point. The people guilty of this ignored any evidence or research that contradicted their beliefs. If it was irrefutable evidence, then they called it biased, wrongly framed or irrelevant. You pointed out to me that you didn't trust research on the grounds that it would inevitably be wrongly framed - exactly what those infected with mass stupidity say. Now I'm not saying you're guilty of this, I'm just drawing your attention to the parallel and asking you to look in the mirror. You don't even have to tell me if you think or don't think that you're guilty of it, just beware. Hi vinny I hope that you can see from above that I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone. It seems you are not very good at interpretation. I claimed your post was meaningless because it was meaningless. Maybe you should look into a mirror . You admitted there was a danger and you have spent the past umpteen posts trying undermine your claim. Stories about German pastors are just piffle designed to deviate . Hi Bentley You're going down a certain debate route, where you just repeat what you said already, without reference to any additional information or explanation from who you're debating with. Maybe my post was meaningless. But I attempted to explain it. You don't say what's wrong with the explanation and merely repeat your original point. Which I already knew. It doesn't matter how many times you tell me a certain post was meaningless, I already got that. What you have to do is tell me whether my explanation is still meaningless and why. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 31, 2022 21:40:34 GMT
It seems you are not very good at interpretation. I claimed your post was meaningless because it was meaningless. Maybe you should look into a mirror . You admitted there was a danger and you have spent the past umpteen posts trying undermine your claim. Stories about German pastors are just piffle designed to deviate . Hi Bentley You're going down a certain debate route, where you just repeat what you said already, without reference to any additional information or explanation from who you're debating with. Maybe my post was meaningless. But I attempted to explain it. You don't say what's wrong with the explanation and merely repeat your original point. Which I already knew. It doesn't matter how many times you tell me a certain post was meaningless, I already got that. What you have to do is tell me whether my explanation is still meaningless and why. I can’t really take this further . When confronted with piffle and then being asked to explain how the piffle is piffle then how can you explain how the piffle is piffle ? Its rather like the small child asking ‘ why ?’ . |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 21:53:42 GMT
Hi Bentley You're going down a certain debate route, where you just repeat what you said already, without reference to any additional information or explanation from who you're debating with. Maybe my post was meaningless. But I attempted to explain it. You don't say what's wrong with the explanation and merely repeat your original point. Which I already knew. It doesn't matter how many times you tell me a certain post was meaningless, I already got that. What you have to do is tell me whether my explanation is still meaningless and why. I can’t really take this further . When confronted with piffle and then being asked to explain how the piffle is piffle then how can you explain how the piffle is piffle ? Its rather like the small child asking ‘ why ?’ . Hi Bentley Piffle is piffle, but is the explanation of the piffle, still piffle? It might be, but you haven't said why. So drilling down. I presented all sorts of data, including the statistics about how some men misuse transgender legislation to abuse women. I also presented data about how the new legislation won't increase that. OK? So you hooked on to the data about how many men misuse the legislation. The rest you dismissed. Why? why not dismiss it all? Including the one bit of data that perhaps supports your case? Why is it not ALL untrustworthy? In your obfuscation, you did not answer my question. If a post I made was meaningless, what is wrong with the explanation? Be specific if you choose to answer, one answer to one question at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 31, 2022 21:56:40 GMT
I can’t really take this further . When confronted with piffle and then being asked to explain how the piffle is piffle then how can you explain how the piffle is piffle ? Its rather like the small child asking ‘ why ?’ . Hi Bentley Piffle is piffle, but is the explanation of the piffle, still piffle? It might be, but you haven't said why. So drilling down. I presented all sorts of data, including the statistics about how some men misuse transgender legislation to abuse women. I also presented data about how the new legislation won't increase that. OK? So you hooked on to the data about how many men misuse the legislation. The rest you dismissed. Why? why not dismiss it all? Including the one bit of data that perhaps supports your case? Why is it not ALL untrustworthy? In your obfuscation, you did not answer my question. If a post I made was meaningless, what is wrong with the explanation? Be specific if you choose to answer, one answer to one question at a time. What exactly did you post that I claimed was piffle and what evidence do you have that it wasn’t piffle ? |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Dec 31, 2022 23:49:39 GMT
Hi Bentley
I believe we're done. You can't debate, just shout. You, not me, introduced the word piffle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 1, 2023 1:17:57 GMT
Hi Bentley I believe we're done. You can't debate, just shout. You, not me, introduced the word piffle. I agree we can’t debate . You post piffle and endlessly ask me why your piffle is piffle . The problem lies with you . Claim that you have researched a subject . Proffer a premise . When flaws in your premise are pointed out obfuscate for a few posts . Ask for the flaws ( that have already been pointed out) to be explained. Ignore it when you have been told they have already been pointed out . Obfuscate a bit more , maybe introduce some story about something that doesn’t support your claim but it takes the narrative away from your original claim. Ask again for the flaws in your argument to be explained or hopefully pick up on something to divert again from your flawed argument . Claim the other poster is not able to debate , doesn’t understand your point etc etc with as much useless verbiage as you can muster . When the other poster points out your piffle , ask them to explain how your piffle is piffle . Repeat . Its the Willy waving debate method . You haven’t mastered it yet . |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 1, 2023 2:06:37 GMT
Hi Bentley
Maybe I'll stick to my vow that I'll give up on you. We'll see. ...in the meantime, let's break this down.
1. The only person who's produced any data or research on this subject is me. Right?
2. Part of the data was a statistic that over 8 years, in England and Wales, there were 6 cases where a man had taken advantage of existing transgender legislation to gain access to womens prisons and abuse women, right?
3. Another part of the data that I produced was that in countries that had enacted similar legislation to what scotland has just enacted, there was no evidence that this legislation had increased the incidence of such abuse as I produced in (2) above. Right?
4. You latched on to (2) and agreed that this showed a problem. Right?
5.You dismissed the data in (3) because you don't trust research. Right?
So why is the data in (2) trustworthy and the data in (3) not?
If you don't trust research then it must all be wrong. Or if you do, then it must all be right.
You can't possibly be so unfocused that you only consider data to be correct if it agrees with your current belief set?
If you reply, please be specific and number your answers 1, 2, 3, 4 etc
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 2, 2023 21:22:11 GMT
Hi Bentley Maybe I'll stick to my vow that I'll give up on you. We'll see. ...in the meantime, let's break this down. 1. The only person who's produced any data or research on this subject is me. Right? 2. Part of the data was a statistic that over 8 years, in England and Wales, there were 6 cases where a man had taken advantage of existing transgender legislation to gain access to womens prisons and abuse women, right? 3. Another part of the data that I produced was that in countries that had enacted similar legislation to what scotland has just enacted, there was no evidence that this legislation had increased the incidence of such abuse as I produced in (2) above. Right? 4. You latched on to (2) and agreed that this showed a problem. Right? 5.You dismissed the data in (3) because you don't trust research. Right? So why is the data in (2) trustworthy and the data in (3) not? If you don't trust research then it must all be wrong. Or if you do, then it must all be right. You can't possibly be so unfocused that you only consider data to be correct if it agrees with your current belief set? If you reply, please be specific and number your answers 1, 2, 3, 4 etc It’s already been broken down , your point addressed and all using your research. You didn’t like it so you obfuscated and posted verbiage and piffle . |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 2, 2023 22:23:40 GMT
Hi Bentley Maybe I'll stick to my vow that I'll give up on you. We'll see. ...in the meantime, let's break this down. 1. The only person who's produced any data or research on this subject is me. Right? 2. Part of the data was a statistic that over 8 years, in England and Wales, there were 6 cases where a man had taken advantage of existing transgender legislation to gain access to womens prisons and abuse women, right? 3. Another part of the data that I produced was that in countries that had enacted similar legislation to what scotland has just enacted, there was no evidence that this legislation had increased the incidence of such abuse as I produced in (2) above. Right? 4. You latched on to (2) and agreed that this showed a problem. Right? 5.You dismissed the data in (3) because you don't trust research. Right? So why is the data in (2) trustworthy and the data in (3) not? If you don't trust research then it must all be wrong. Or if you do, then it must all be right. You can't possibly be so unfocused that you only consider data to be correct if it agrees with your current belief set? If you reply, please be specific and number your answers 1, 2, 3, 4 etc It’s already been broken down , your point addressed and all using your research. You didn’t like it so you obfuscated and posted verbiage and piffle . Hi Bentley No you used one part of my research that suited your point of view . The rest you labelled as innacurate, biased or wrongly constructed. Answer my points. 1 , 2, 3 etc. Otherwise you're obfuscating. I don't like or dislike your posts. I just think you claim things that aren't true. If you want to do that then fine. Carry on. Just don't expect me to agree with you. I'd probably love you as a person, however. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 2, 2023 22:29:08 GMT
It’s already been broken down , your point addressed and all using your research. You didn’t like it so you obfuscated and posted verbiage and piffle . Hi Bentley No you used one part of my research that suited your point of view . The rest you labelled as innacurate, biased or wrongly constructed. Answer my points. 1 , 2, 3 etc. Otherwise you're obfuscating. I don't like or dislike your posts. I just think you claim things that aren't true. If you want to do that then fine. Carry on. Just don't expect me to agree with you. I'd probably love you as a person, however. I used a significant part of your research that supported my view . That seemed to be the point that you evaded and obfuscated. |
|
|
|
Post by research0it on Jan 2, 2023 22:54:50 GMT
Hi Bentley No you used one part of my research that suited your point of view . The rest you labelled as innacurate, biased or wrongly constructed. Answer my points. 1 , 2, 3 etc. Otherwise you're obfuscating. I don't like or dislike your posts. I just think you claim things that aren't true. If you want to do that then fine. Carry on. Just don't expect me to agree with you. I'd probably love you as a person, however. I used a significant part of your research that supported my view . That seemed to be the point that you evaded and obfuscated. I fully acknowledge the role that this particular piece of data played. I also acknowledge that it goes SOME WAY to supporting the view that you stated. But the rest of my data indicated that there was a far worse problem and that, in fact the problem that this data highlighted would not get worse with the change in legislation. So 3 bits of data, one of which acknowledged the problem you highlighted, but the other 2 contradicted it. Note - acknowledged, did not put in any context relative to what difference the legislation may make. Now if you respond to this in your usual way, then I will leave you with the last word. The use of the word "significant" is entirely your own opinion |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 2, 2023 23:04:32 GMT
I used a significant part of your research that supported my view . That seemed to be the point that you evaded and obfuscated. I fully acknowledge the role that this particular piece of data played. I also acknowledge that it goes SOME WAY to supporting the view that you stated. But the rest of my data indicated that there was a far worse problem and that, in fact the problem that this data highlighted would not get worse with the change in legislation. So 3 bits of data, one of which acknowledged the problem you highlighted, but the other 2 contradicted it. Note - acknowledged, did not put in any context relative to what difference the legislation may make. Now if you respond to this in your usual way, then I will leave you with the last word. The use of the word "significant" is entirely your own opinion I have already explained it to you . |
|
