First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Post Reply Miss Gendering and Deadnaming.
77832 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:



Did you bother to read what hate speech is about? Now we are equating advocating genocide with getting someone's gender wrong?




Did you bother to read? Insults != advocating genocide. Insults (or perceived insults) based on race/sexual orientation will land you in prison in Canada, according to this tax payer funded anti free speech propaganda.
Here's a link to it:

http://unlearnracism.ca/

You have to click through a lot of bs to get to the parts that were screenshotted, but its there and it is clearly anti free speech propaganda threatening to imprison people for speaking their mind. There's even a bit about 'hate facts' in there, hilarious.




It's bullshit. government sponsered or not.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:



Did you bother to read what hate speech is about? Now we are equating advocating genocide with getting someone's gender wrong?




Did you bother to read? Insults != advocating genocide. Insults (or perceived insults) based on race/sexual orientation will land you in prison in Canada, according to this tax payer funded anti free speech propaganda.
Here's a link to it:

http://unlearnracism.ca/

You have to click through a lot of bs to get to the parts that were screenshotted, but its there and it is clearly anti free speech propaganda threatening to imprison people for speaking their mind. There's even a bit about 'hate facts' in there, hilarious.




Oh look, old Boxer is back to using his already refuted lies. Hilarious.
31531 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:but there is no crime for what you say.



Not according to anti free speech propaganda that was paid for by the Canadian government


Hate speech being a crime isn't anti-free speech though when it's within reason.

Free speech has never been without opposition and times where it doesn't apply.
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Oh look, old Boxer is back to using his already refuted lies. Hilarious.




Don't make me bring out the rest of the screenshots, bucko. You already got burned once trying to 'refute' this.
qwueri 
24462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Let's go ahead and take this one out of the ballpark:


...

These are all examples of arguments that have no objective standpoint. I can give you my opinion, you can give me your opinion. That's about it.

Mocking one of those standpoints is not a fallacy, unless you use it as a reason why it shouldn't be. So, I can call myself an attack helicopter all day, and you can refuse to acknowledge it, and it does, in fact, prove my point that one should not be held criminally liable for not complying to the delusions of another. However, I cannot use such mockery as my reason as to why I don't feel like a man is a woman. These are two completely different thoughts belonging to two completely different arguments.

...

Exactly. It is satirical, not an argument.

Also, unrelated to topic, but related to your example, I am pro "You do you.", so I wouldn't care.


You're severely underestimating satire if you think it's not used purely for entertainment purposes. Mocking the standpoints under the presumption of use of a fallacy through satire is still using that fallacy. That satire is used to mock the legitimacy of people you see as delusional would still means you're expressing a view on a subject, and also that you think something the subject is expressing is absurd. Hence why the "it's just a joke" defense usually doesn't fly when addressing a serious topic.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 10/6/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


I know you have problems with reading comprehension . . .


octorockandroll wrote:



Based on feelings, based on scientific proof, what's the difference?

-snip-

Holy shit. You are actually worse than I remember. No one is refuting that. I am, for the last time before I quit responding to you, offering why I find it an egregious display of disregard for respecting one's freedom of speech to impose a penalty for refusal to acknowledge someone's preferred pronoun.



So you claiming my position is based on "feeling" is not argumentative and is just you expressing frustration at something that has nothing to do with the thread? And furthermore, if I show that my position is not based on feeling then that is somehow indicative of a poor level of reading comprehension? Yeah, maybe its for the best that you stop responding, you realy only seem to be digging yourself an even deeper hole.
35702 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

papagolfwhiskey wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Mocking one of those standpoints is not a fallacy, unless you use it as a reason why it shouldn't be. So, I can call myself an attack helicopter all day, and you can refuse to acknowledge it, and it does, in fact, prove my point that one should not be held criminally liable for not complying to the delusions of another. However, I cannot use such mockery as my reason as to why I don't feel like a man is a woman. These are two completely different thoughts belonging to two completely different arguments.


We are going to have to agree to disagree as to weather or not a transgendered person is delusional. However you are free to believe what you like as long as you're not a self appointed potty policeman.

Oh, trust me. I don't think for one minute that one is deluded just for being transgender in and of itself. The delusion comes when you start to expect others to call you what you are not, and want to cry about it when they do not behave the way you want them to, and I am truly sorry that I have to say it in such a venomous way, but, through my time here, I have found it much easier and less stressful to use extreme examples and wordage then to explain nuance to several different people at once, especially when the original wordage would have had no ill intent whatsoever. Call it a limitation of speaking through a forum format through the sole use of text.


What I don't understand is why you have to be an ass about your belief's? What possible harm does calling someone by the name and pronouns they give you do to you?

It doesn't and that is not what I am here for. I came to the topic, read your example, and, through the use of an example, indirectly stated why people are jumping the gun while simultaneously presenting my own stance in which I believe that people shouldn't be charged for an issue that, at the very most, can be degenerated to calling someone else a name they didn't like.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Oh look, old Boxer is back to using his already refuted lies. Hilarious.




Don't make me bring out the rest of the screenshots, bucko. You already got burned once trying to 'refute' this.


Go right ahead, by all means. I could use a good laugh today.

And in case anyone interested in facts is interested, no you cannot go to jail for insulting someone in Canada. The closest thing to such a limitation on free speech begins only when you are advocating violence against another person. Other than that, there's nothing stopping you from being an asshole.
35702 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

qwueri wrote:

You're severely underestimating satire if you think it's not used purely for entertainment purposes. Mocking the standpoints under the presumption of use of a fallacy through satire is still using that fallacy. That satire is used to mock the legitimacy of people you see as delusional would still means you're expressing a view on a subject, and also that you think something the subject is expressing is absurd. Hence why the "it's just a joke" defense usually doesn't fly when addressing a serious topic.

I am trying to give you a chance here. Slow down. Re-read what I posted before.

It is an appeal to emotion to use that mockery in an argument whereas you are debating whether or not someone with gender dysphoria is what they say they are.

And, sure, some people use that example for such an argument. I have not done so here, and, just because the argument is fallacious in that case, it does not mean it is fallacious to use it in a different fashion in a different argument. A la nuance.
77832 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:
Oh, trust me. I don't think for one minute that one is deluded just for being transgender in and of itself. The delusion comes when you start to expect others to call you what you are not, and want to cry about it when they do not behave the way you want them to, and I am truly sorry that I have to say it in such a venomous way, but, through my time here, I have found it much easier and less stressful to use extreme examples and wordage then to explain nuance to several different people at once, especially when the original wordage would have had no ill intent whatsoever. Call it a limitation of speaking through a forum format through the sole use of text.


What I don't understand is why you have to be an ass about your belief's? What possible harm does calling someone by the name and pronouns they give you do to you?

It doesn't and that is not what I am here for. I came to the topic, read your example, and, through the use of an example, indirectly stated why people are jumping the gun while simultaneously presenting my own stance in which I believe that people shouldn't be charged for an issue that, at the very most, can be degenerated to calling someone else a name they didn't like.


So is that a yes on weather you take it upon yourself to police bathrooms to make sure only OEM people use them?
Also, Let me ask you this. How do you address/refer to people you believe/know are transgendered?


Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:



Go right ahead, by all means. I could use a good laugh todau.


Fair enough, if you can't laugh at yourself, what can you laugh at? Saves a lot of arguing ITT about its legitimacy anyway
Added in ones that have already been posted for context:






And the coup d'etat, screenshot of Canadian government website linking their anti free speech propaganda


So, its not a 'refuted lie' as you said ITT or a 'bullshit right wing comic' like you said back in March. It's some godawful, state funded propaganda aimed at kids.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:



Go right ahead, by all means. I could use a good laugh todau.


Fair enough, if you can't laugh at yourself, what can you laugh at? Saves a lot of arguing ITT about its legitimacy anyway
Added in ones that have already been posted for context:






And the coup d'etat, screenshot of Canadian government website linking their anti free speech propaganda


So, its not a 'refuted lie' as you said ITT or a 'bullshit right wing comic' like you said back in March. It's some godawful, state funded propaganda aimed at kids.


Sure I was wrong about the source but you pretending its "anti free speech propaganda" as well as the claim that you go to jail for just being racist in Canada is still a lie. Nice try though. Good for a laugh, like I said.
12477 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17
First world problems yo.
35702 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

So is that a yes on weather you take it upon yourself to police bathrooms to make sure only OEM people use them?

Waste of time on something I'm not too invested in caring about.

My stance on the issue is, and always has been, that bathrooms in this age shouldn't be segregated based on sex, anyway.


Also, Let me ask you this. How do you address/refer to people you believe/know are transgendered?

I don't refer to them with third-person pronouns at all. When referencing that person I have used their name, and when speaking directly to them I use the second-person.

This is out of respect and compromise for them. I have only met one male transgender before, and he didn't even seem to notice, or, if he did, said nothing.

The reason I will use their preferred name is that, typically, they have legalized it, so it is, indeed, their name.
12477 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17
I've never met a transgender. Dont think theres many of them in Australia. And i haven't been to Thailand.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.