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.
qwueri 
25330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

It doesn't. It just presents the reality of the situation in an extreme manner, albeit typically sarcastically so.

Advocating that legalizing gay marriage would lead to bestiality is an example of the fallacious slippery slope argument.


So 'identifying as an attack helicopter' isn't the result of sliding past the point of humans identifying a relationship between humans into humans identifying a relationship between humans and objects/animals?
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

Online_ wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:
I personally don't get it. What's so hard about calling people what they want to be called? Isn't that just common courtesy?


People don't like being forced to do things they don't want to.


But they aren't being forced. The information she provided on the bill was very clear.
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Online_ wrote:


papagolfwhiskey wrote:
I personally don't get it. What's so hard about calling people what they want to be called? Isn't that just common courtesy?


People don't like being forced to do things they don't want to.


But they aren't being forced. The information she provided on the bill was very clear.


I didn't quote the bill.

On the subject of the bill, I think it's fine since it's just "federal government and businesses within federal jurisdiction".
35958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

qwueri wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

It doesn't. It just presents the reality of the situation in an extreme manner, albeit typically sarcastically so.

Advocating that legalizing gay marriage would lead to bestiality is an example of the fallacious slippery slope argument.


So 'identifying as an attack helicopter' isn't the result of sliding past the point of humans identifying a relationship between humans into humans identifying a relationship between humans and objects/animals?

No. It isn't an implied futuristic negative outcome based on unforeseen consequential events.

It is, quite simply as you put it, a retort, and, as I expanded upon, generally done in a satirical manner:

Person 1: "Yah, I identify as neither male or female, so call me Zi!"

Person 2: "Yah, well, I identify as a roller coaster! So call me The Goliath!".
19441 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17
In a crowd, I only see people or a person, not gender, political affiliation, race, or religion. That is one reason I enjoy Anime and this Forum.
12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 9/28/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


qwueri wrote:


XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

It doesn't. It just presents the reality of the situation in an extreme manner, albeit typically sarcastically so.

Advocating that legalizing gay marriage would lead to bestiality is an example of the fallacious slippery slope argument.


So 'identifying as an attack helicopter' isn't the result of sliding past the point of humans identifying a relationship between humans into humans identifying a relationship between humans and objects/animals?

No. It isn't an implied futuristic negative outcome based on unforeseen consequential events.

It is, quite simply as you put it, a retort:

Person 1: "Yah, I identify as neither male nor female, so call me Zi!"

Person 2: "Yah, well, I identify as a roller coaster! So call me The Goliath!".




Oh yeah, your example of people identifying as people contrasted with people identifying as amusement park rides toootally refutes what I said about you comparing people who identify as people with people who identify as inanimate objects.

10/10 refutation

35958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Oh yeah, your example of people identifying as people contrasted with people identifying as amusement park rides toootally refutes what I said about you comparing people who identify as people with people who identify as inanimate objects.

10/10 refutation



What? You're a trip lmao.

The entire reason I have posted in this thread was to present why there is dissent on one side of the issue.

I'm not going to sit here and try to refute your worldview based on feelings, so that may or may not be the reason that what I am posting doesn't sound argumentative.

But, hilariously so, as usual, you prove me right literally the very next time you post.


I know you have problems with reading comprehension, so I included the above example just for you.

12147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Oh yeah, your example of people identifying as people contrasted with people identifying as amusement park rides toootally refutes what I said about you comparing people who identify as people with people who identify as inanimate objects.

10/10 refutation



What? You're a trip lmao.

The entire reason I have posted in this thread was to present why there is dissent on one side of the issue.

I'm not going to sit here and try to refute your worldview based on feelings,




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

And don't worry, I'll give you a freebie and ignore the fact that you just claimed not to be arguing as a defence for your arguments being shit. Aren't I generous?
qwueri 
25330 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

XxDarkSasuxX wrote:

No. It isn't an implied futuristic negative outcome based on unforeseen consequential events.

It is, quite simply as you put it, a retort, and, as I expanded upon, generally done in a satirical manner:

Person 1: "Yah, I identify as neither male nor female, so call me Zi!"

Person 2: "Yah, well, I identify as a roller coaster! So call me The Goliath!".



So there's no trace of a futuristic negative with the 'attack helicopter' retort whenever it's brought up in conversations about addressing people by their preferred gender, allowing them into the bathroom they feel most safe using, or how they're legally recognized?

I know sarcasm is often used to avoid outright stating intent, but that doesn't divorce the rhetorical method from the reason derision is expressed. In the case of Person 2, stating "Yah well I want to marry my car!" would be expressing the same view that Person 1's desire (be it marrying a same sex partner or identifying as nonbinary) is absurd and is akin to a nonhuman relationship.
15188 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 10/9/17
Marty: Doc, i think the flux capacitor is broken! we're supposed to arrive in 2017, but some responses here are clearly from 2011-2012!
Dr Brown: No, Marty. even in 2017 people are still stuck on gender pronoun issues.
Marty: great Scott
Dr Brown: if you think that's shocking, you should see who we've elected for President. on second thought, don't.
35958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17
oops
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17

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
77844 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / F / Toronto
Offline
Posted 7/3/17 , edited 7/3/17


Rujikin wrote:

I identify as a king and my preferred pronoun is "Your Highness". As a king I need extensive lands and a vast wealth to be able to feel "normal".



Also why would you want to hire the mentally ill? You have to constantly worry about being harassed or sued for micro aggressions or saying the wrong word. Just imagine if anorexics had special rights so they could sue anyone that calls them skinny while they self identify as fat.


Okay Your Highness, I'll bite. You're a King. Sorry about the money thing. All my disposable income and spare time are tied up arranging for surgeries, hormone therapies, hair removal etc. Just like me, you'll have to arrange for your normal needs yourself.

There. was that hard?

also who are you calling mentally ill?


Ashliet wrote:

So if I want to be a known as a toaster then I can be a toaster?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM

Lets just go ahead and called everyone Number 1 because god forbid someone gets offended.
Ugh the Remilia's of the world.


Well toaster, I hope you're joking about this otherwise I'd suggest that you are using the slippery slope fallacy. Again what's so hard about calling people by the names they give to call them?


Jamming777 wrote:

In a crowd, I only see people or a person, not gender, political affiliation, race, or religion. That is one reason I enjoy Anime and this Forum.


I'm quoting you because CR doesn't have a 'like' button. Good to see you around.


namealreadytaken wrote:

Marty: Doc, i think the flux capacitor is broken! we're supposed to arrive in 2017, but some responses here are clearly from 2011-2012!
Dr Brown: No, Marty. even in 2017 people are still stuck on gender pronoun issues.
Marty: great Scott
Dr Brown: if you think that's shocking, you should see who we've elected for President. on second thought, don't.


LOL fortunately, not my president. I have a prime minister and he's a different problem. Fond of tweets and selfies too though so I guess there's a point of connection. Anyhow. LOL



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.

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

Edited for some minor grammar and spelling errors on my part.
77844 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:but there is no crime for what you say.



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


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


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

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.

Here's a screenshot where it was linked from a government website
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.