ANOTHER TRANNY BASHING THREAD

[Skepdick]

And: why are you lyin' to Gary? Is lyin' a kind of harm?

2nd time now. It was a metaphor that went over your head.

But if you want me to spell it out for you... it is you who keeps insinuating that trannies have "mental health" issues. And mental health patients that can't be "healed" or "managed" get put in places that we don't really call prisons but... you know. Words.

[henry quirk]

Mannie asked for your definition: you don't have one.

If you did: you'd have foisted it up.

And: why are you tellin' Gary lies?

[Skepdick]

Mannie asked for your definition: you don't have one.

Mannie doesn't have a definition for "clear definition" either!!!!

If you did: you'd have foisted it up.

If he did he would've foisted it up also!

Instead, he's making me shoot in the dark. He's setting me up for failure. Intuitionally or ignorantly.

And: why are you tellin' Gary lies?

Because I am a liar (is that true or false)?

[henry quirk]

And: why are you lyin' to Gary? Is lyin' a kind of harm?

2nd time now. It was a metaphor that went over your head.

But if you want me to spell it out for you... it is you who keeps insinuating that trannies have "mental health" issues. And mental health patients that can't be "healed" or "managed" get put in places that we don't really call prisons but... you know. Words.

No, it was a lie. I insinuate nuthin', I flat out say trannys are nutso, and, no, it doesn't follow that mentally disordered folks go to the bin.

Bottomline: you're a liar, and you're too gutless to just fess up when caught.

You owe me an apology, heartfelt and chockablock with contrition.

I ain't holdin' my breath.

wiggle some more for me

[Skepdick]

No, it was a lie. I insinuate nuthin', I flat out say trannys are nutso, and, no, it doesn't follow that mentally disordered folks go to the bin.

Oh. OK. It doesn't follow? Well, my bad!

I agree with you. They are nuts!!! They are batshit crazy. Hallelujah!

Do you agree with me that (now that we've correctly classified them) we should do nothing about their nutsyness? We should just observe it and ignore it.

[henry quirk]

Mannie doesn't have a definition for "clear definition" either!!!!

wiggle


If he did he would've foisted it up also!

wiggle


I can't aim a non-existent target!

wiggle

I am a liar

yep

[Skepdick]

I am a liar

yep

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Language is broken, Harry!!!

[Immanuel Can]

My principle may be defensible, or it may not be defensible

Then there are only two possibilities: it's inherently not defensible, or that though it's your principle, you can't defend it.

Either way, I'm talking to the wrong guy.

[Skepdick]

Mannie doesn't have a definition for "clear definition" either!!!!

wiggle


If he did he would've foisted it up also!

wiggle


I can't aim a non-existent target!

wiggle

Silly, Harry!

Knowingly playing a losing game is about as irrational as it gets!

[Skepdick]

Then there are only two possibilities: it's inherently not defensible, or that though it's your principle, you can't defend it.

More nonsense. On the basis of what principle do you assert that a principle requires defending?

Either way, I'm talking to the wrong guy.

That's EXACTLY why I gave you the Google link. Had you paid attention...

[henry quirk]

Do you agree with me that (now that we've correctly classified them) we should do nothing about their nutsyness? We should just observe it and ignore it.

That's been (part of) my position from the start, which you'd know if you could stop preening and parading for five friggin' minutes.

#

Well, my bad!

Piss poor apology...best I'm likely to get from someone like you, I expect.

[henry quirk]

I am a liar

yep

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox

Language is broken, Harry!!!

wiggle

[henry quirk]

Mannie doesn't have a definition for "clear definition" either!!!!

wiggle


If he did he would've foisted it up also!

wiggle


I can't aim a non-existent target!

wiggle

Silly, Harry!

Knowingly playing a losing game is about as irrational as it gets!

But your peacock ego just won't let you.

so sad, too bad

[Skepdick]

That's been (part of) my position from the start, which you'd know if you could stop preening and parading for five friggin' minutes.

Harry,

I know it's part of your position - the sarcasm went over your head. That's why I am raking you over the coals. Your observe-and-point-demeaning-fingers" is precisely why your position is harmful.

Do you think labelling people or behaviour as "insane" has different effects/consequences to labelling the same people/behaviour as "sane"; or perhaps - even not labelling them at all?

Do you think drawing the distinction and attention to a particular group's "insanity" has any harmful side-effects to that particular group at social scale?
Do you think labeling that group as insane contributes to "othering" them from society?

There exists a choice:
* A society in which trannies are people, accepted as normal part of every day life - nobody bats an eyelid. It's such normal part of existence that we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
* A society in which trannies are insane, nutjobs who don't get to decide how to gender themselves. It's so outrageous for trannies to demand a new gender that we start 10+ threads on Philosophy forums to debate the issue.

It is clear which choice is better for the trannies and which choice is the harmful to them.

You are making the harmful one.

[Skepdick]

Knowingly playing a losing game is about as irrational as it gets!

But your peacock ego just won't let you.

Obviously, Harry! That's precisely the point of an ego! Self-preservation. NO HARM.

If your ego lets you play rigged games your ego is stupid.