vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pmIf you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:04 pmYes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:07 pm
I'm sure sculptor can take it. Who said we all have to get along? Anyone who thinks they can 'get along' with everyone is deluded and probably just a really annoying person. You make some amazingly insightful comments, but you are constantly backpeddling and going along with whoever last spoke to you. And you don't exactly 'get along' with everyone yourself. A bit of honesty with a sprinkling of self-awareness goes a long way...
And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
JK Rowling vs. History
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
-
- Posts: 8342
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
You may be right about getting along having no effect on wars. Or it could be that the person we ostracize today might be the instigator of some atrocity tomorrow. Or perhaps getting along will defeat the attempts of leaders to demonize other people, making us believe that it's OK to hate them.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pmIf you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:04 pmYes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:07 pm
I'm sure sculptor can take it. Who said we all have to get along? Anyone who thinks they can 'get along' with everyone is deluded and probably just a really annoying person. You make some amazingly insightful comments, but you are constantly backpeddling and going along with whoever last spoke to you. And you don't exactly 'get along' with everyone yourself. A bit of honesty with a sprinkling of self-awareness goes a long way...
And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
But I mostly just feel bad watching Sculptor get picked on. Yes, he picks on people too and he's probably capable of handling it but it probably just feeds his animosity and negativity on the forum and solves nothing. And it just lends more to his cause, where he can say that LGBTQ people are nothing but victims in society. I mean, I still think gender dysphoria is probably not the sign of the healthiest most well-adjusted individual but we all have our faults and as long as a person's issue doesn't significantly harm others, then if they want to just be themselves, there's not much any of the rest of us can do. We can't force people who've committed no crime to be one way or the other.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
He's not 'picked on'. He's an arsehole.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:19 amYou may be right about getting along having no effect on wars. Or it could be that the person we ostracize today might be the instigator of some atrocity tomorrow. Or perhaps getting along will defeat the attempts of leaders to demonize other people, making us believe that it's OK to hate them.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pmIf you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:04 pm
Yes. You have valid points. I just don't like to see people ganged up on. Now, I know that the same happens to more social conservative people as well but I think if we don't want to be ganged up on we should treat others the same. In the end, no one should be ostracized. Yes, some need help and can't continue on their trajectories but I think it helps to care for the welfare of others, even if they may not be in a place where they can care for us.
And you are right, I lash out too sometimes with people I have a hard time getting along with. And it's wrong of me to do so. Obviously I need to work on myself as well. But I think in the end we humans are in a precarious position with respect to the amount of global destruction that can be wrought by us. Therefore, I think getting along is an imperative. It certainly can't hurt.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
But I mostly just feel bad watching Sculptor get picked on. Yes, he picks on people too and he's probably capable of handling it but it probably just feeds his animosity and negativity on the forum and solves nothing. And it just lends more to his cause, where he can say that LGBTQ people are nothing but victims in society. I mean, I still think gender dysphoria is probably not the sign of the healthiest most well-adjusted individual but we all have our faults and as long as a person's issue doesn't significantly harm others, then if they want to just be themselves, there's not much any of the rest of us can do. We can't force people who've committed no crime to be one way or the other.
-
- Posts: 8342
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Professional Underdog Pound
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
He's kind of a jerk sometimes to me too, I'll admit, but I kind of feel like he probably can't help it. Heck, maybe I annoy him. However, on the plus side, (like you) he seems fairly down to earth and realistic, albeit coming from a different political angle. He doesn't seem to spam weird stuff (at least not that I've seen), which makes him less annoying to me.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 4:01 amHe's not 'picked on'. He's an arsehole.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:19 amYou may be right about getting along having no effect on wars. Or it could be that the person we ostracize today might be the instigator of some atrocity tomorrow. Or perhaps getting along will defeat the attempts of leaders to demonize other people, making us believe that it's OK to hate them.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:58 pm
If you are talking about wars, then they are nothing to do with people 'getting along'. They are to do with power and money and political propaganda. Forcing people to be 'nice' to each other in that sickly, self-serving 'woke' way is shallow, hypocritical bullshit and intellectually oppressive.
And I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the virtue-signalling wokism that is poisoning the planet. Sculptor and Mick are prime examples. Nasty pieces of work who don't get along with anyone but contantly throw around the B and R words and pretend to care about any particular 'group' that it's fashionable to pretend to care about at any given time (as long as it has virtue-signalling value)
But I mostly just feel bad watching Sculptor get picked on. Yes, he picks on people too and he's probably capable of handling it but it probably just feeds his animosity and negativity on the forum and solves nothing. And it just lends more to his cause, where he can say that LGBTQ people are nothing but victims in society. I mean, I still think gender dysphoria is probably not the sign of the healthiest most well-adjusted individual but we all have our faults and as long as a person's issue doesn't significantly harm others, then if they want to just be themselves, there's not much any of the rest of us can do. We can't force people who've committed no crime to be one way or the other.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Hmmm, any reason (other than rank dishonesty) why you have switched from a claim about suicide rates to a claim about suicide ideation? They are not the same thing, and your original claim looks even more dodgy now you seem to be backing away from it. I think it's a lie made up by the anti-trans camp, and I think it is important that you accept responsibility for propagating one of their lies.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:06 amI think you'll find the rate of suicidal ideation among "trans" types is about 43% before transtion, and actually marginally higher after transition.mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:35 pmI think you'll find that that is a lie made up by the anti-trans camp.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:51 pm The suicide rate before and after "transition" is statistically identical
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Well, you there are several terms used -- suicide attempts, suicide ideation, achieved suicide, self-harm...all relevant, and depending on which you take, the numbers go even higher, potentially.mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:24 pm I think it's a lie made up by the anti-trans camp, and I think it is important that you accept responsibility for propagating one of their lies.
But you don't believe me...go look for yourself.
Here's the center for suicide prevention, which we can be reasonably sure is not motivated by being "anti trans." Check the graphic on the first page, for a glimse. Then go looking around at what other sites say, just to satisfy yourself.
https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/tra ... e-suicide/
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:06 amI think you'll find the rate of suicidal ideation among "trans" types is about 43% before transtion, and actually marginally higher after transition.
suicidal ideation among "trans" types is about 43% before transition
This is possible but meaningless without the context of a control. Is suicidal ideation among the cisgendered population much less than 43%? Do you know? Are the anti-trans campaigners that you get your information from interested in making that all-important comparison? No, I thought not.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2749860/
marginally higher after transition [than before]
Citation please (I'll wait) ...
Last edited by mickthinks on Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Thanks, I checked that earlier and it says "a completed medical transition was shown to greatly reduce rates of suicidal ideation and attempts" so quite why you are holding it up to support your contrary claim I have no idea.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 2:47 pmHere's the center for suicide prevention, which we can be reasonably sure is not motivated by being "anti trans." Check the graphic on the first page, for a glimse. Then go looking around at what other sites say, just to satisfy yourself. https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/tra ... e-suicide/
Actually that last is not really true. I do have an idea—I think you may be an arrogant, lazy, bigotted tosser who can't read, but I could be wrong.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
Yes. It's much lower.mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:25 pm Is suicidal ideation among the cisgendered population much less than 43%?
The only people group who have a comparable rate of sucidal ideation/attempts/self harm, etc. were Jewish people during the Holocaust, actually. And interestingly, one of the lowest rates of suicide is among males in traditionally marginalized communities like the straight, black demographic, at a mere 7.2%. So we can judge that it isn't "discrimination" that's causing it. It's just that body dysmorphic types tend to be mentally ill and self-destructive.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0016885
West News: "A study from professors at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, for example, found that 46 percent of transgender men and 42 percent of transgender women in the study had attempted suicide.
Is this due to discrimination? The study does show high levels of discrimination against transgender people. But it also shows that the suicide rate among transgender women who say people identify them as transgender regularly is 45 percent. How about those who are able to pass for the gender to which they claim membership? Their suicide rate is still 40 percent . How about the suicide rate among those transgender individuals who have had hormone treatment? It’s 45 percent. Surgery doesn’t militate against suicide either."
But you won't believe me whatever I say. So go and check it for yourself. It's the sources most sympathetic to transing that post the highest statistics on suicide rates.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Can can't.
No, I think you pretty much nailed it.mickthinks wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 3:32 pmActually that last is not really true. I do have an idea—I think you may be an arrogant, lazy, bigotted tosser who can't read, but I could be wrong.
-
- Posts: 1524
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
- Location: Augsburg
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
It's also what people say when asked to justify something which is self-evident. You are right, it isn't an arguement, but here's the thing: it only works when everyone can see for themselves that the claim in question is self-evident and there is no need for non-existent doubts to be argued away, and that the questioning is a disingenuous attempt to keep pressing a non-existent case.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:06 amThat's what people say when they have no argument.mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jul 21, 2021 10:35 pmGiven that it is self-evident that gender is different from race, species, etc. ...
It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.
So, as the one denying a self-evident claim, the burden lies with you to prove your "Rachel Dolezal" and "rhodedendron" herrings aren't really as red as they appear.
lol You can't, can you?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22528
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
No such thing, Sam.
It isn't at all evident that it's a difference that makes any difference in this particular case.
It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.
They're all "transing." How come you'll let men play women, but won't let Rachel Dolezal claim blackness? More particularly, in the case of "transablism," how come you'll be fine with a person severing one kind of "digit," but not with him severing a different "member"?
So the burden of proof's on you to show that there IS an essential difference, one capable of rationalizing the one case, but excluding the others.
But I already sense you'll have nothing.
The "self-evident" cry is a dead giveaway.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: JK Rowling vs. History
It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 7:01 pmNo such thing, Sam.It isn't at all evident that it's a difference that makes any difference in this particular case.
It is self-evident that gender is different from race and species.
They're all "transing." How come you'll let men play women, but won't let Rachel Dolezal claim blackness? More particularly, in the case of "transablism," how come you'll be fine with a person severing one kind of "digit," but not with him severing a different "member"?
So the burden of proof's on you to show that there IS an essential difference, one capable of rationalizing the one case, but excluding the others.
But I already sense you'll have nothing.
The "self-evident" cry is a dead giveaway.
I can't see how it matters.
Can a man become a woman?
No, he cannot.
Can a white woman become a black woman?
No, she cannot.
Can a human become a chimpanzee?
No, he cannot.
transablism: of all the trans states, this is the only one that holds true.
A sighted man can indeed become a blind man...have spoon, will scoop.