Reaching Out to the Right

[Watcher]

like

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

First, looking at your statistical source, your math is way wrong. They said they found a rate of 2.1 surgeries per 100,000 minors aged 15 to 17. The total number of children of that age in the study group was 3,835,726. Divide that total by 100,000 to get how many 100,000s are in that population. You get 38.35726. Now multiply by the rate per 100,000, which is 2.1. You get about 81 surgeries. 81, not 500,000. That's your crisis.

And if you want me to be sweetly considerate of your desire to throw callous cruel denegration at these 81 minors, well, you're going to have a long wait.

You've been had, man. They made a moral panic out of about nothing, and you signed on. There is no threat to the children here, there's just a tiny minority of special cases being used to whip people like you up.

I see what I did wrong - I used "22 827 194 minors who were insured" then used the 2.1 per 100,000 for the whole lot AND THEN divided by 100 not 100,000 :/ Once again, my apologies, and I am relieved.

I stand corrected. However I haven't been 'had' - I don't understand why 'we' collectively must say it's OK to encourage and /or sign off on these lifestyles.

And 'callous cruel denegration' - lol. Although after some thought surgical flesh costume is a more accurate description I believe.

No comment on the other points (perhaps the right isn't the only one using this issue to throw shade).

If all cultures are equally good, why aren't we accepting of Sharia law? The blood libel? Polygamy? How about the current Chinese practice of money over anything (state sponsored intellectual property theft, cheating any way you can)? Child marriages?

And not one comment on equality of outcome.

Here's another one - when there were more boys than girls graduating college it was considered a marker of gender inequality. Now however girls are far more likely to graduate college than boys. What does that mean?

Pete

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I see what I did wrong - I used "22 827 194 minors who were insured" then used the 2.1 per 100,000 for the whole lot AND THEN divided by 100 not 100,000 :/ Once again, my apologies, and I am relieved.

I stand corrected. However I haven't been 'had' - I don't understand why 'we' collectively must say it's OK to encourage and /or sign off on these lifestyles.

And 'callous cruel denegration' - lol. Although after some thought surgical flesh costume is a more accurate description I believe.

No comment on the other points (perhaps the right isn't the only one using this issue to throw shade).

If all cultures are equally good, why aren't we accepting of Sharia law? The blood libel? Polygamy? How about the current Chinese practice of money over anything (state sponsored intellectual property theft, cheating any way you can)? Child marriages?

And not one comment on equality of outcome.

Here's another one - when there were more boys than girls graduating college it was considered a marker of gender inequality. Now however girls are far more likely to graduate college than boys. What does that mean?

Pete

You are not required to to "encourage or sign off" on lifestyles. You are required to not be shitty to people because of a lifestyle that bugs you. So you don't get to exclude them from public accommodations available to others, such as school activities or military roles. How you feel is your business; what you say and what you do affects others and is eligible for comment, and in some cases correction.

Kindly excuse me for not taking your other 'points' extremely seriously when you are throwing your 'amusing' hate speech around. I know of no way to instill empathy in someone who lacks it, so I won't try to make you 'get' why the meat costume thing is an awful thing to say. But I fully suspect you know you are being outrageous, and that is in fact the point.

'Equality of outcome' and 'all cultures equally good' are mere straw men in this argument. No such positions were mentioned by me, nor are they necessary to my main position, which is don't be a jerk to others for no good reason.

[Oasis]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I see what I did wrong - I used "22 827 194 minors who were insured" then used the 2.1 per 100,000 for the whole lot AND THEN divided by 100 not 100,000 :/ Once again, my apologies, and I am relieved.

I stand corrected. However I haven't been 'had' - I don't understand why 'we' collectively must say it's OK to encourage and /or sign off on these lifestyles.

And 'callous cruel denegration' - lol. Although after some thought surgical flesh costume is a more accurate description I believe.

No comment on the other points (perhaps the right isn't the only one using this issue to throw shade).

If all cultures are equally good, why aren't we accepting of Sharia law? The blood libel? Polygamy? How about the current Chinese practice of money over anything (state sponsored intellectual property theft, cheating any way you can)? Child marriages?

And not one comment on equality of outcome.

Here's another one - when there were more boys than girls graduating college it was considered a marker of gender inequality. Now however girls are far more likely to graduate college than boys. What does that mean?

Pete

It's none of your business.

[piece-itpete]

Now I'm really hearing BS. Youall think you've got an out to dodge all other points.

I didn't - I came back and had the conversation. There is vilifying here for sure. I don't have empathy because I don't agree with you lol

I hope you enjoy the Orange One - you helped elect him!

Pete

[Human]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

I don't understand why 'we' collectively must say it's OK to encourage and /or sign off on these lifestyles.

It's not a lifestyle, Pete. It's a terrible spot that people find themselves in and they are looking for a way out.

Try this experiment: You wake up in the morning, look in the mirror and see a woman. You feel like a man, but look like a woman. What would you do?

[donquixote99]

Here's the logical argument:
1. A person with empathy and compassion would understand that making fun of gender reassignment by calling it a 'meat costume' is nasty and hurtful to someone who has or wants reassignment, and would not want to do that.
2. You don't get it.
3.You lack empathy, or possibly you have it but lack compassion.

And my own empathy and compassion are tested here, to the point that I don't have any interest in hashing out the usual affirmative action complaints with you. It's not 'seeking an out--' you surely can't have any doubt of my ability to argue issues when I wish to. However, your idea that you have some entitlement to my debate effort, on your terms, is rejected.

[donquixote99]

BTW, Pete, vilifying is name-calling. Criticizing for cause is not vilifying.

[barbara]

Understanding the life choices of a trans individual is not necessary to be accepting of those life choices.

[Noogies]

Originally Posted by barbara

Understanding the life choices of a trans individual is not necessary to be accepting of those life choices.

As is so often the case, the obverse is also true.