Trump...Beauty Pageants...Nudity...There's more

[Cozarkian]

The problem is that liberals are NOT wanting to allow men into women's restrooms/changing rooms. We are accepting of transgender WOMEN who want to use the facilities appropriate for their gender. These are women who while they may have been born male do not identify as men but as women. I'm not going to attack people who disagree, it is something that I can understand would be very difficult for many people to accept. However this is not the same as some pervert like Trump who just walks into women's dressing rooms, or even a TEEN dressing room, to look at naked women and underage girls.

You've skipped ahead by presenting an argument for why allowing transgender individuals to use the locker room of the gender with which they identify while still decrying Trump's behavior isn't hypocritical. My proposal was to reserve that question until after michael1980 defeated the claim that he is hypocritical by taking the simple step of admitting that Trump's entry into a teenage girl's locker room is at least as bad as that of a transgender teenage girl being permitted to use the women's locker room.

 

[zinfamous]

You've skipped ahead by presenting an argument for why allowing transgender individuals to use the locker room of the gender with which they identify while still decrying Trump's behavior isn't hypocritical. My proposal was to reserve that question until after michael1980 defeated the claim that he is hypocritical by taking the simple step of admitting that Trump's entry into a teenage girl's locker room is at least as bad as that of a transgender teenage girl being permitted to use the women's locker room.

You make the mistake of trying to extract a concession out of michal1980. he frequently defends his characteristic obtuseness by simply proclaiming that "everyone just calls me names because they don't listen!"

it is quite the opposite. michal1980 does not apply critical thought to anything. He is the dictionary definition, the picture in the encyclopedia, the red spot on the gas giant, if you will, of partisan hackery.

people call him names because he refuses to apply the simplest amount of thought to the possibility that certain (if not all) things he has been told and have always believed might actually not be true. There really is no other way to address him.

 

[Cozarkian]

You make the mistake of trying to extract a concession out of michal1980. he frequently defends his characteristic obtuseness by simply proclaiming that "everyone just calls me names because they don't listen!"

it is quite the opposite. michal1980 does not apply critical thought to anything. He is the dictionary definition, the picture in the encyclopedia, the red spot on the gas giant, if you will, of partisan hackery.

people call him names because he refuses to apply the simplest amount of thought to the possibility that certain (if not all) things he has been told and have always believed might actually not be true. There really is no other way to address him.

I don't think it is a mistake to give people an opportunity to defend against arguments simply because they chose not to in the past. You'll note that I didn't call him names and I posted in a way that demonstrates I actually listened to his argument. He can choose to ignore me, as he has so far, but he can't refuse to answer on grounds that I've been mean.

I try to reserve insults for bullies who sling them at me first.

 

[MixMasterTang]

.. he can't refuse to answer on grounds that I've been mean.

Actually he CAN refuse to answer you based on anything he wants (even if it is not true).

 

[thraashman]

I don't think it is a mistake to give people an opportunity to defend against arguments simply because they chose not to in the past. You'll note that I didn't call him names and I posted in a way that demonstrates I actually listened to his argument. He can choose to ignore me, as he has so far, but he can't refuse to answer on grounds that I've been mean.

I try to reserve insults for bullies who sling them at me first.

I ran out of patience for giving him any more chances some time ago. There's people on here that I ideologically disagree with that I can sometimes or even often have legitimate discussions with. Posters like michal1980 and blue_max have consistently refused to post at human level intelligence, class, and empathy so I simply cannot waste my time with them anymore. But, by all means, if you have more patience than I do, feel free.

 

[pauldun170]

The problem is that liberals are NOT wanting to allow men into women's restrooms/changing rooms.
We are accepting of transgender WOMEN who want to use the facilities appropriate for their gender. These are women who while they may have been born male do not identify as men but as women. I'm not going to attack people who disagree, it is something that I can understand would be very difficult for many people to accept. However this is not the same as some pervert like Trump who just walks into women's dressing rooms, or even a TEEN dressing room, to look at naked women and underage girls.

Past year or so has been about bathrooms.Not once have I heard any discussion about changing rooms.
There is no expectation of nudity in bathroom.
There is no expectation of having to greet people or being inspected by a people in the bathroom.
Public Bathrooms are design for the purpose dropping things off to be delivered to the sewage system.

(You meaning imaginary person...not actually you)
If you see naked people in the what you believe to be a bathroom, I believe you have made a wrong turn.
The argument against unisex bathrooms is usually based on movie logic.
That all men are perverted rapist who will use any enclosed space to impregnate the precious white women.
Its a shitty controversy that gets people pissed off so I can understand why some people want to wash their hands of the whole thing.

To walk into a dressing room,
The expectation is to see some skin.

Disclaimer: This post was hashed out because I wanted to use the "Its a shitty controversy...." line. Now that I've reviewed the post I'm a little disappointed in it.
My apologies

 

[Cozarkian]

Past year or so has been about bathrooms.Not once have I heard any discussion about changing rooms.

Just barely over a year:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...est-transgender-using-wrong-bathroom.2444985/
http://fox2now.com/2015/08/31/prote...nder-students-right-to-use-girls-locker-room/

However, generally a fair point that there are differences between locker rooms and bathrooms with potential policy implications.

 

[agent00f]

Rather revealing that you would ignorantly use the word transexual for an argument that is typically applied to transgender individuals. Also revealing that you rely upon false analogies for ad hominem attacks instead of even attempting to make an actual rationale argument that addresses the topic of discussion.

The topic here is your diversionary tactic to classify a whole group of people as trump-level depraved when it's not looking so hot for your side. Ad hom would be attacking me instead of addressing that. This is what straightforward rational arguments look like.

 

[pauldun170]

Just barely over a year:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...est-transgender-using-wrong-bathroom.2444985/
http://fox2now.com/2015/08/31/prote...nder-students-right-to-use-girls-locker-room/

However, generally a fair point that there are differences between locker rooms and bathrooms with potential policy implications.

Reading that story makes feel old and out of touch.
Maybe I mentally blocked it out.

Sounds to me that schools across the country are going to require increased funding to handle facility redesigns.
Or not...
I don't really care.
I just don't want to wait in line behind 80 women just to use the bathroom.
Women's bathrooms are frickin ridiculous.
Urinals for the win.

If I owned a beauty pageant...I'd probably have to work on my small talk.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't think it is a mistake to give people an opportunity to defend against arguments simply because they chose not to in the past. You'll note that I didn't call him names and I posted in a way that demonstrates I actually listened to his argument. He can choose to ignore me, as he has so far, but he can't refuse to answer on grounds that I've been mean.

I try to reserve insults for bullies who sling them at me first.

fair enough. He'll get around to it eventually. This is how we have learned to deal with him.

 

[Cozarkian]

Let's look at your posts sentence by sentence.

Rather revealing you think of transexuals that way.

This is an ad hominem, as you are simply attempting to discredit my argument by suggesting I am a bad person that thinks of transexuals in "that way" without any attempt to address the facts or analysis of my post.

Do you have similar thoughts about blacks as criminals or mexican as rapists?

Here we have a second ad hominem that seeks to assign an even worse level of character to me by falsely analogizing between the views you claim I hold regarding transexuals and prejudicial views regarding blacks and mexicans and then attributing them to me through a rhetorical question.

The topic here is your diversionary tactic to classify a whole group of people as trump-level depraved when it's not looking so hot for your side.

Here you unilaterally declare a change in topic (also known as a diversion), by falsely accusing me of attempting to divert from the topic by yet again falsely attributing to me opinions I don't hold for alleged allegiances I don't have.

Ad hom would be attacking me instead of addressing that.

I did point out your ignorance, yes, but I don't think it qualifies as an ad hominem, because I'm not using it as a rebuttal in lieu of attacking the substance of your argument because you haven't provided any substantive arguments.

This is what straightforward rational arguments look like.

I see straightforward rational arguments in my posts and the posts of some of the other people I've held discussions with, but certainly not in yours.

 

[agent00f]

Let's look at your posts sentence by sentence.

This is an ad hominem, as you are simply attempting to discredit my argument by suggesting I am a bad person that thinks of transexuals in "that way" without any attempt to address the facts or analysis of my post.

What it reveals is the thought process (you know, rationale) of people desperate to divert attention away from trump to bathroom policy.

Here we have a second ad hominem that seeks to assign an even worse level of character to me by falsely analogizing between the views you claim I hold regarding transexuals and prejudicial views regarding blacks and mexicans and then attributing them to me through a rhetorical question.

It then compares this specific instance of that process to similar applications by the same crowd, so that the same arguments relevant there might be succinctly applied here.

Here you unilaterally declare a change in topic (also known as a diversion), by falsely accusing me of attempting to divert from the topic by yet again falsely attributing to me opinions I don't hold for alleged allegiances I don't have.

You keep saying that, which makes for pretty good motivation to demonstrate otherwise.

I did point out your ignorance, yes, but I don't think it qualifies as an ad hominem, because I'm not using it as a rebuttal in lieu of attacking the substance of your argument because you haven't provided any substantive arguments.

Just because you can't see the argument doesn't mean it don't exist. Consider how trivial it was to point it out more explicitly for slower readers just above.

I see straightforward rational arguments in my posts and the posts of some of the other people I've held discussions with, but certainly not in yours.

That appears to be because you're not really any good at rationality.

 

[Cozarkian]

What it reveals is the thought process (you know, rationale) of people desperate to divert attention away from trump to bathroom policy.

Go back and take a closer look. You will find I posted to encourage michael1980 not to divert to other topics and to address the topic on-hand by outright stating that Trump's behavior was unacceptable. Then, when thraashman started posting about bathroom policy, I made a post directing the thread back to obtaining michael1980s conclusion about Trump's behavior.

In other words, my posts do the exact opposite of what you claim.

If you want to ask actual questions that relate to the topic of this thread or tangential matters that have been raised in this thread can be addressed without derailing the thread, go ahead, but at this point, I'm going to ask you politely to stop with the accusations regarding my intent and opinions and suggest you ask about them if you are interested.

 

[agent00f]

Go back and take a closer look. You will find I posted to encourage michael1980 not to divert to other topics and to address the topic on-hand by outright stating that Trump's behavior was unacceptable. Then, when thraashman started posting about bathroom policy, I made a post directing the thread back to obtaining michael1980s conclusion about Trump's behavior.

In other words, my posts do the exact opposite of what you claim.

If you want to ask actual questions that relate to the topic of this thread or tangential matters that have been raised in this thread can be addressed without derailing the thread, go ahead, but at this point, I'm going to ask you politely to stop with the accusations regarding my intent and opinions and suggest you ask about them if you are interested.

In case it's still unclear, michael1980 isn't in the habit of making any sort of coherent argument. People are simply pointing out his instinctive reaction to get angry when he thinks liberals might be doing something untoward, and deflecting when the conservative is literally doing it. It's not a good idea to keep insisting you're good at rational thinking when you continue to miss that rather blatant hypocrisy.

 

[nakedfrog]

And yet Hillary is struggling in the polls. Why isn't she up by 50 points. Maybe the liberals should be pissed that they sat idly by while news of the rigged primary came out. Followed by Bernie supporters bending over and taking it. I think Bernie would have had this in the bag.

Probably because even if Jesus Christ himself manifested and said that Trump was literally the ACTUAL Anti-Christ, you and michal1980 and others would still vote for him.

 

[Ns1]

Probably because even if Jesus Christ himself manifested and said that Trump was literally the ACTUAL Anti-Christ, you and michal1980 and others would still vote for him.

because the antichrist is better than hillary.

 

[nakedfrog]

because the antichrist is better than hillary.

You've got a point, Anti-Christ shows up, then it's Judgment day and all the good Christians get raptured...

 

[Cozarkian]

In case it's still unclear, michael1980 isn't in the habit of making any sort of coherent argument. People are simply pointing out his instinctive reaction to get angry when he thinks liberals might be doing something untoward, and deflecting when the conservative is literally doing it. It's not a good idea to keep insisting you're good at rational thinking when you continue to miss that rather blatant hypocrisy.

See post #53 (and #54 because it was funny) and the last sentence of #55.

 

[agent00f]

See post #53 (and #54 because it was funny) and the last sentence of #55.

Proposing that jesus might miraculously cure simpletons of their affliction is not a very rational argument.

 

[Cozarkian]

Proposing that jesus might miraculously cure simpletons of their affliction is not a very rational argument.

I didn't do that. I wasn't making an argument at all. I am simply patient enough and enjoy the discussion here enough that I felt it was worthwhile for me to address michael1980 to see if I could persuade him to make an express statement. Whether I expect my attempt to succeed is irrelevant, because the enjoyment from the effort was reward enough.

It's also at least as rationale as the comments others, including yourself have made toward him. You had no possible better expectation from your own post than I did from mine. At least mine doesn't feed into his hand of claiming that liberals just insult him and don't listen, regardless of how weak that argument is, it still makes more sense to circumvent the argument if you are going to bother having any sort of discussion with him. Actually, never mind on that last point - as it appears if you don't insult him he just leaves and the discussion ends.

 

[agent00f]

I didn't do that. I wasn't making an argument at all. I am simply patient enough and enjoy the discussion here enough that I felt it was worthwhile for me to address michael1980 to see if I could persuade him to make an express statement. Whether I expect my attempt to succeed is irrelevant, because the enjoyment from the effort was reward enough.

It's also at least as rationale as the comments others, including yourself have made toward him. You had no possible better expectation from your own post than I did from mine. At least mine doesn't feed into his hand of claiming that liberals just insult him and don't listen, regardless of how weak that argument is, it still makes more sense to circumvent the argument if you are going to bother having any sort of discussion with him. Actually, never mind on that last point - as it appears if you don't insult him he just leaves and the discussion ends.

That projection of your own argument onto him was rather opaque at best.

And just to clarify the matter, nobody really aspires to be a co-moron.

 

[Cozarkian]

That projection of your own argument onto him was rather opaque at best

Gosh, I wish had been projecting my arguments onto him so I could accept that compliment (fyi - the insult for a failed attempt is transparent at best), but sadly, I wasn't.

And just to clarify the matter, nobody really aspires to be a co-moron.

An interminable, pointless, tedious discussion with agent00f trying to educate agent00f despite its futility? Yes, I suppose that does apply, I apologize to anyone other reader that has suffered as a result of my continuing to respond to you.

Or were you referring to post #25 - in which you attempted to triumph over michael1980?

 

[agent00f]

Gosh, I wish had been projecting my arguments onto him so I could accept that compliment (fyi - the insult for a failed attempt is transparent at best), but sadly, I wasn't.

That must be why you were making the same argument in the other thread where he wasn't posting. Denial of the obvious isn't going to work for you any better than it does for trump.

An interminable, pointless, tedious discussion with agent00f trying to educate agent00f despite its futility? Yes, I suppose that does apply, I apologize to anyone other reader that has suffered as a result of my continuing to respond to you.

Or were you referring to post #25 - in which you attempted to triumph over michael1980?

I'd expect you believe you've been demonstrating rational smarts. The operative word here is "discussing", which I'm sure you'll have problems distinguishing from "mocking".

 

[Cozarkian]

That must be why you were making the same argument in the other thread where he wasn't posting. Denial of the obvious isn't going to work for you any better than it does for trump.

I know you think that, but that's because you were unable to grasp the distinction between advocating in favor of a position and making derivative arguments based upon the understanding of a position that has been used by others, as well as displaying the inability to identifying the narrow focus of a topic of discussion.

I'd expect you believe you've been demonstrating rational smarts. The operative word here is "discussing", which I'm sure you'll have problems distinguishing from "mocking".

Mocking is a form of seeking triumph. There really is no way around it, either you were a co-moron when you made post #25 in response to michael1980, or you have been a co-moron in your lengthy discussions with me, or I have been a co-moron in my lengthy discussions with you or some combination of the above.

I'm willing to admit I've been a co-moron in my discussion with you, do you think that title should belong instead to you?

And as I already made my apologies in my prior post - this will be my last on this line of discussion.

 

[agent00f]

I know you think that, but that's because you were unable to grasp the distinction between advocating in favor of a position and making derivative arguments based upon the understanding of a position that has been used by others, as well as displaying the inability to identifying the narrow focus of a topic of discussion.

Making a big words salad doesn't change the reality that you're the one making the argument, then tried to get your dumb buddy here to agree to it as well.

Mocking is a form of seeking triumph. There really is no way around it, either you were a co-moron when you made post #25 in response to michael1980, or you have been a co-moron in your lengthy discussions with me, or I have been a co-moron in my lengthy discussions with you or some combination of the above.

I'm willing to admit I've been a co-moron in my discussion with you, do you think that title should belong instead to you?

And as I already made my apologies in my prior post - this will be my last on this line of discussion.

I don't think you're a moron as much as you might try to prove me wrong.

Btw, now that you know the operative context was discussion, it's not much more of a stretch to grasp that it means triumph through discussion.