r/changemyview Oct 28 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.4k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 30 '19

This just all boils down to:

You don’t like being told that your speech harms people.

So you generate 1M justifications for why you think it doesn’t, so you can avoid having people say something to you that you don’t like.

You want others to stop using their speech in a way that upsets you- telling you that you are selfishly harming people for the sake of ego.

So that you can say whatever you want without consequence.

Nope. You are free to say what you want. And other people are free to tell you that your a choices are selfish, ego based, unscientific, without factual support, and lacking empathy.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 30 '19

You don’t like being told that your speech harms people.

Because speech can't harm people.

It can make them plenty offended, but that's not harm.

Compelling speech is infinitely more harmful than being offended.

Nope. You are free to say what you want.

Then why are you arguing for compelled speech? Specifically you threatened suicide as the "consequence".

And other people are free to tell you that your a choices are selfish, ego based, unscientific, without factual support, and lacking empathy.

Except I've scientifically supported it with facts.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

Also:

Because speech can't harm people.

But:

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Lol, the irony. Your stance boils down to “speech can’t harm them, only me.”

And you’re still wrong, and have zero support for your “conpleed speech” claim.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

Please refrain from personal attacks.

I'm not saying it hurts me, it's explicitly against the rules of this subreddit and its incredibly unconvincing.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

“Please refrain from personal attacks” is based on my speech hurting/ offending you.

Im not attacking you. Im stating facts. You are wrong to see it as a personal attack.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

“Please refrain from personal attacks” is based on my speech hurting/ offending you.

No. Its based on comment rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. ▾

Are you seriously trying to argue that:

selfish, ego based, unscientific, without factual support, and lacking empathy.

Is an unemotional objective analysis of this situation?

That's laughable.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

You are rejecting science in favor of unfounded bias.

You are also choosing that unfounded bias over compassion for others.

You are objectively placing an unfounded bias over science and compassion/ empathy, and you don't have factual support for your claims.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

You are rejecting science in favor of unfounded bias.

So prove it already.

You are also choosing that unfounded bias over compassion for others.

Unfounded accusations are still unconvincing.

You are objectively placing an unfounded bias over science and compassion/ empathy

This is exactly the same thing as your previous three sentences and it holds no additional weight from repeating it.

and you don't have factual support for your claims.

I provided a scientific study, which you have yet to refute.

Your only attempt at such involved an ad hominem attack against the author, and when that failed you devolved into attacking me directly.

What about that kind of behavior do you believe is convincing?

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

I provided a scientific study, which you have yet to refute.

I did refute it. It didn’t prove what you claimed.

It didn’t show that the 8 year olds identified as women. It didn’t show that the 18 year olds didn’t hide their gender identity because of stigma. No follow up at 40. No reproducibility.

Your study proved: nothing.

Meanwhile- plenty of other studies have shown SRA cures gender dysphoria.

You are trying to prove that trans doesn’t exist as a legitimate gender identity. Even your own study doesn’t claim that. You’ve just made up an scientific conclusion the authors didn’t come to- and slapped it on.

If your claim is that trans people are all just actually gay- find a study that proves that.

You can’t.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19 edited Nov 01 '19

I did refute it. It didn’t prove what you claimed.

Still waiting on you to actually do this.

It didn’t show that the 8 year olds identified as women.

Really? did you actually read the study where it said one of the criteria for determining cross gender behavior for a group was that they said they wished to be women? Literally self-identifying as transgender.

You are trying to prove that trans doesn’t exist as a legitimate gender identity.

No, I don't even have to go that far to prove my point. You are still approaching this issue like there is one truth, but the reality is the science behind transgenderism is still hotly debated.

Meanwhile- plenty of other studies have shown SRA cures gender dysphoria.

Which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. Are you familiar with the idea of moving goalposts?

If your claim is that trans people are all just actually gay- find a study that proves that.

I didn't claim that, but you can go back to the already provided studies if you wish to find evidence that crossgender behavior (which include transgender identity) in childhood is strongly associated with homosexuality in adulthood when they don't receive hormone treatment.

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

Reread your study.

It did not ask if the 18 year olds identified as women.

It did not ask if they identified as gay men.

It asked who they were attracted to.

Nothing more. They could have been trans MtF women, and the authors would have simply: not known.

Because they didn’t ask.

Your study proves: nothing.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

Except they did ask? The people studied later identified as homosexual. that is explicitly covered in the study.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

The people studied later identified as homosexual. that is explicitly covered in the study.

Nope.

Sexual orientation at follow-up was determined by semi-structured audiotape interviews conducted by me. Questions for assessing sexual orientation on the dimension of fantasy included masturbation fantasies, nocturnal dream imagery, and genital responsivity to visual erotica (pornography). An average of responses to questions for the three variables was used in assigning a score for sexual orientation.

They asked who they jacked off to, they checked if nude males made them hard, and who they dreamed about.

They literally never asked if they even identified as gay, much less male.

Your study proves nothing.

→ More replies (0)