Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Transgender issues IV (excised from "In other news") Transgender issues IV (excised from "In other news")

12-18-2022 , 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 57 On Red
No. Studies purporting to show high rates of suicidal ideation come from lobby groups and are basically made up. An often-quoted one in the UK, claiming a 48% rate of suicidal ideation, was run by a lobby group and relied on a self-selected sample of just 27 people. That is a junk statistic by any measure. There is no well-founded indication of any increased suicidality associated with gender dysphoria if you control for co-morbid conditions, except during and shortly after 'transition', which does appear to increase the actual suicide rate. And the Tavistock's own study, which they were reluctant to publish, showed that 'puberty blockers' (powerful late-stage cancer drugs, never tested or approved for use as 'puberty blockers' at the age of natural puberty) do not appear to improve mental-health outcomes.

As everybody knows, trans-activists have to scream 'bigot' at anyone who isn't in their cult because they have no other argument but attempting to taboo unbelievers.
Don't play ukes game.

He, uke has made the strong case that no harm is done by words if you cannot show causative data that shows specifically that the words are what caused the abuse.

I accept uke's requirement so do not let him apply a double standard here because if words do not cause harm, they are not hateful, they are not wrong to say. And that is uke's position so do not let him backtrack.
12-18-2022 , 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
^^ video restricted in canada
Try this one it's in the same ballpark

12-18-2022 , 02:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Notice everyone the one thing uke has not done, is provide any data to justify his claims. Odd.


Once again uke i ask, if indeed you maintain it is a thing...

Cuepee
uke, you consistently draw lines in this thread about the types of hateful rhetoric coming out of the right (Politicians, other) and the escalation of violence towards LGBTQ+ people.


Can you provide the data that shows specifically that rhetoric is what leads to the escalations or can we agree you have been painting a false narrative that you truly do not believe?
Well, I linked to both a study and then an article summarizing a bunch of studies. Have you read them yet?

I also asked for the specific quote you want me to justify. Have you found it yet?
12-18-2022 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
He, uke has made the strong case that no harm is done by words if you cannot show causative data that shows specifically that the words are what caused the abuse..
I didn't make this claim. This whole CORRELATION VS CAUSATION bit from you is rather sophomoric, not to mention a figment of your imagination.
12-18-2022 , 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Well, I linked to both a study and then an article summarizing a bunch of studies. Have you read them yet?

I also asked for the specific quote you want me to justify. Have you found it yet?
No one cares about your GAMES uke. And they are all games.

I have asked you to excerpt SPECIFICALLY any 'DATA' that shows the causal relationship between 'saying words' and 'worse outcomes for trans people' and you refuse. Saying you 'linked to a study' is not the same as providing the proof you require of me and i am asking of you.

But it is an easy game to play as here is an article mentioning many studies you can find links to for the proof you are asking of me. See, i provided a LINK, so we are are equal now.


It is so 'ODD' you won't just provide the DATA and yet you demand data from me. Hmmmm???
12-18-2022 , 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
I didn't make this claim. This whole CORRELATION VS CAUSATION bit from you is rather sophomoric, not to mention a figment of your imagination.
Both you and ganstaman are playing the same game and it is the same game the far right plays.

If we have a person spewing all sorts of hateful stuff about trans people uke and ganstaman have no issue, ZERO, in saying that such language causes harm to the community.


The person on the far right digs in saying 'PROVE it causes harm. Give me conclusive data that specifically ties the 'words said' to any bad outcome.

That person on the right hand waves away any correlative studies presented as NOT PROOF, because even if you believe the correlative data is indicative it almost never reaches a threshold of 'FACT' or 'PROOF' and thus those with an agenda can had wave it all away. There is also a question of 'who is motivated to do the study or collect the data, as not all topic generate study if no financial incentive is there to do it'. So that is the second game the far right troll would play. There are lots of valid topics that can be discussed even if no one has paid to do studies, even if the far right troll pretends otherwise.

uke and ganstaman play that game, mirroring it EXACTLY, as many on the left do when they want to hand wave away topics they do not like. The demand for DATA, where there is no one motivated to do studies or aggregate it. They ask for DATA that proves a position where even they could not explain what such data would look like or exist.

It is pure trolling gamesmanship people on both sides play to derail arguments they do not like.
12-18-2022 , 04:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
No one cares about your GAMES uke. And they are all games.

I have asked you to excerpt SPECIFICALLY any 'DATA' that shows the causal relationship between 'saying words' and 'worse outcomes for trans people' and you refuse. Saying you 'linked to a study' is not the same as providing the proof you require of me and i am asking of you.

But it is an easy game to play as here is an article mentioning many studies you can find links to for the proof you are asking of me. See, i provided a LINK, so we are are equal now.


It is so 'ODD' you won't just provide the DATA and yet you demand data from me. Hmmmm???
This "whataboutism" game you are playing is just....sad? I quoted a specific claim of yours in the obesity thread. You've yet to provide any justification or evidence of ANY form for that. Instead what your "game" seems to be is to come over to the trans thread and just do a WHATABOUTISM here. The problem though is you've done your WHATABOUTISM very poorly. While I quoted a precise statement of yours, you have failed to quote me. While I made no such demands of "causal" and "proof" despite the social science discipline, while I did not. I actually cited a number of relevant papers to things I actually believe (as opposed to your fabrications), you've cited nothing. It's just a bad whataboutism.

If you are interested in reading some of the quoted papers and having a good faith discussion about how best to frame the relationship between transphobic remarks and suicides, say, that could be very interesting. Unfortunately, it seems you haven't read or learned anything and instead are once again using trans issues as some wedge in your made up internet battles.

Now, I've said my piece. I'm sure you will respond with yours. But my suggestion at this point is that we just agree to disagree. Are you willing?
12-18-2022 , 05:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Both you and ganstaman are playing the same game and it is the same game the far right plays.
Not following the discussion so no one should take this as a comment on the validity of any arguments, but all sides are allowed to make bad and facetious arguments.
12-19-2022 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Not following the discussion so no one should take this as a comment on the validity of any arguments, but all sides are allowed to make bad and facetious arguments.
Sure they are 'allowed' to but it makes for toxic forum dynamics and uke and ganstaman will now enjoy getting them back.
12-19-2022 , 07:05 PM
Dude spending his free time on the internet telling everyone they are wrong, stupid or liars for not agreeing with him is worried about the toxic forum dynamics.

A walking, talking Carlin meme,
12-19-2022 , 07:38 PM
best comprehension about this topic,
from a detransitioned navy seal.

"watch CNN AND FOX!"


12-19-2022 , 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
But my suggestion at this point is that we just agree to disagree. Are you willing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Sure they are 'allowed' to but it makes for toxic forum dynamics and uke and ganstaman will now enjoy getting them back.
I take it that you are not willing to agree to disagree?
12-19-2022 , 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by washoe
best comprehension about this topic
Indeed. No one brings nuance to a complicated topic better than Tucker Carlson.
12-19-2022 , 08:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
Indeed. No one brings nuance to a complicated topic better than Tucker Carlson.
Tucker just let the guy talk without interjecting. Guy's like a ex-navy seal ex-trans Keanu Reeves, but he did a good job.
12-19-2022 , 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Tucker just let the guy talk without interjecting. Guy's like a ex-navy seal ex-trans Keanu Reeves, but he did a good job.

Doesn't matter as it's Fox for many on the lefties . Monteroy will accuse you of posting an edited post that's not real
12-19-2022 , 09:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozen
Doesn't matter as it's Fox for many on the lefties . Monteroy will accuse you of posting an edited post that's not real
Personally, I'm not going to watch anything on Tucker Carlson after his bosses stated in court that the show is for entertainment purposes only and the viewers should know that it's not representing the truth. That ex-Navy Seal guy certainly could be for real, but he also could just be an actor with a completely made up story, since the show is just fictional entertainment, according to the network that carries it. It certainly shouldn't be cited as an example of anything non-fictional.
12-20-2022 , 01:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
Personally, I'm not going to watch anything on Tucker Carlson after his bosses stated in court that the show is for entertainment purposes only and the viewers should know that it's not representing the truth. That ex-Navy Seal guy certainly could be for real, but he also could just be an actor with a completely made up story, since the show is just fictional entertainment, according to the network that carries it. It certainly shouldn't be cited as an example of anything non-fictional.
I think that you are slightly misrepresenting Fox News' defense of Tucker Carlson.

Their defense in court was that there is an important distinction between 'factual reporting' and 'editorializing'. Their argument (as I recall it) was basically that Tucker Carlson Tonite is an opinion/entertainment program, and not a news-reporting program. The argument was that Carlson's statements about rigged voting machines was an opinion, not a statement of fact.
12-20-2022 , 01:42 AM
Opinions not facts? In before Carlin meme.
12-20-2022 , 02:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Opinions not facts? In before Carlin meme.
Oops...I thought I was posting in an excised thread that had been excised from this thread before this thread had been excised from whatever thread this thread came from. (Or something like that.)
12-20-2022 , 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckbox Inc
Tucker just let the guy talk without interjecting. Guy's like a ex-navy seal ex-trans Keanu Reeves, but he did a good job.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lozen
Doesn't matter as it's Fox for many on the lefties . Monteroy will accuse you of posting an edited post that's not real
I can't speak to others' feelings about the video, but for me, it wasn't that washoe posted the video, it's how he presented it, as "best comprehension about this topic". No, it's just one data point, and the reason FurrowBrow let him talk was because it was a data point that fits with FurrowBrow's messaging. I mean, I guess someone could surprise me by posting a video of FurrowBrow interviewing other guests with very different perspectives that challenge his beliefs, but that seems pretty unlikely. And to be clear, this isn't an "only Fox news/right wing news is biased" take, just one pointing out that it's ridiculous to come in one day and drop a FurrowBrow video that's focused on one narrow issue that's a small part of a huge topic, while presenting it as "best comprehension about this topic".
12-20-2022 , 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
Personally, I'm not going to watch anything on Tucker Carlson after his bosses stated in court that the show is for entertainment purposes only and the viewers should know that it's not representing the truth. That ex-Navy Seal guy certainly could be for real, but he also could just be an actor with a completely made up story, since the show is just fictional entertainment, according to the network that carries it. It certainly shouldn't be cited as an example of anything non-fictional.
Do you have the same view towards Rachel Maddow as a similar ruling was made there Not News ?

Personally I am hard pressed to watch either but if either has an interesting guest Ill watch
12-20-2022 , 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortstacker
I think that you are slightly misrepresenting Fox News' defense of Tucker Carlson.

Their defense in court was that there is an important distinction between 'factual reporting' and 'editorializing'. Their argument (as I recall it) was basically that Tucker Carlson Tonite is an opinion/entertainment program, and not a news-reporting program. The argument was that Carlson's statements about rigged voting machines was an opinion, not a statement of fact.
I believe the actual Fox defense, that the judge agreed with, was that it wasnt just that Tucker was stating an opinion, it was that he was so clearly just making stuff up with no relation to facts that no reasonable person would believe anything Tucker said was an actual fact.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye
12-20-2022 , 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozen
Do you have the same view towards Rachel Maddow as a similar ruling was made there Not News ?

Personally I am hard pressed to watch either but if either has an interesting guest Ill watch
I have not seen any similar claim by MSNBC, but if you have link I'd be happy to check it out. I've never watched more than a few seconds of her show though.
12-20-2022 , 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
I believe the actual Fox defense, that the judge agreed with, was that it wasnt just that Tucker was stating an opinion, it was that he was so clearly just making stuff up with no relation to facts that no reasonable person would believe anything Tucker said was an actual fact.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/91774...ay-fox-s-lawye
Good article. Thanks for sharing it.

I was unaware that prior to the Carlson case, Rachel Maddow's lawyers had used a similar strategy to protect her from a lawsuit.
12-20-2022 , 02:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
I take it that you are not willing to agree to disagree?
nah, i just counter your trolling with trolling back.

And make no mistake, you can think my posting is toxic, never-ending, annoying, wrong, etc but what i do not do is troll unless i am replying to someone trolling.

In my unending arguments i am putting forth my good faith positions in all their voluminous might (like or not) for those who want to examine, challenge and debate them, or ignore them. No one can say, honestly, that I do not put out and defend my positions, while challenging others to do same.

You, uke, troll any argument you feel you cannot win or make a point as you are doing with this 'agree to disagree' nonsense.

You goal is to take a legit issue I call you on all the time, citing examples, of you making that mistake, and bury it under this trolling as if I and everyone does the mistake you do.

A perfect example of the type of mistake you make constantly is the one jjjou made when he 'read an article' and became so convinced it was the source for my prior stated position that he was telling me i was wrong and he was right, that it was the source and i plagiarized it. that is not a topic we can just agree to disagree over as I KNOW FOR FACT and am not going to suddenly have a revelation as he puts forth his position to convince me I was the one wrong. We do not just agree to disagree on that as he is WRONG. when i call you out, you too are WRONG.

When i offer others regularly to agree to disagree it is because it is the only appropriate thing to do, as those are discussions where neither person CAN BE wrong as it is just their opinions in those areas.

You will NEVER understand the distinction and thus keep tripping over and making the mistake and i will continue to call you on it, and you will continue to troll with things that do not apply. But I am ok with all of it because when you troll, I am good filling this forum up troll reply posts to make everyone else's experience here more miserable. If that is what you want, I'm your Huckleberry.

      
m