What Happened to Katie?

[NAOS]

Whatever man. Keep on going after me without having any stance or opinion of your own.

I'll bet you that you can guess my stance on this fear-mongering ********. Correction: I'll bet you can guess a version of my stance on this, and then continue to put forward your unaltered position in the face of it.

 

[Stoked]

How so? See you just throw out an attack at me without explanation.

The only group of people I have had a negative stance against in this whole thread is perverted straight male molesters and predators.

I have said nothing bad about transgenders.

My stance has been that if you allow humans with penises into women's bathrooms then you might get more than transgenders going into them.

And I might even be wrong about that. We were having a discussion.
We were not simply attacking each other naos style. I would love to hear your opinion on this issue and why you have the opinion you do, rather than simple attacks on others.
I doubt you will change though.

I await your next attack.

Many people, increasing number, have no interest in an open and honest discussion free of snide comments or personal attacks. Generally speaking

 

[NAOS]

I think you are reading to far into his comments.

I think many peoples objections, and what I am getting from Fish, to these new laws/changes is that it gives creeps, not transgendered, easier access to women's restrooms. I can understand that argument. But I do not think it is sufficient reason to oppose these changes. There are already laws in place that would handle that.

you understand that argument because of the paranoid consistency of its logic. You don't understand it from the standpoint of evidence. Your pattern as a poster has usually been to ignore that distinction.

 

[NAOS]

How so? See you just throw out an attack at me without explanation.

The only group of people I have had a negative stance against in this whole thread is perverted straight male molesters and predators.

I have said nothing bad about transgenders.

My stance has been that if you allow humans with penises into women's bathrooms then you might get more than transgenders going into them.

And I might even be wrong about that. We were having a discussion.
We were not simply attacking each other naos style. I would love to hear your opinion on this issue and why you have the opinion you do, rather than simple attacks on others.
I doubt you will change though.

I await your next attack.

The fact that you continue to disregard the real distinction between sex (zigote production), sexual expression (i.e. genitals), and gender means that you are in fact bigoted. And your fear-mongering on the pervert issue is just an excuse for not extending rights.

 

[Stoked]

you understand that argument because of the paranoid consistency of its logic. You don't understand it from the standpoint of evidence. Your pattern as a poster has usually been to ignore that distinction.

I don't ignore it. I actually listen to people and try to understand where they are coming from and why. The reason I disagree, with this stance, is evidence and history as I don't see it justified.

Much better than a pattern of acting like a jerk, mocking others and assigning them their positions and reason as you see it. Something you have excelled at in this discussion.

 

[fishonjazz]

The fact that you continue to disregard the real distinction between sex (zigote production), sexual expression (i.e. genitals), and gender means that you are in fact bigoted. And your fear-mongering on the pervert issue is just an excuse for not extending rights.

You think you know me but you don't.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'll bet you that you can guess my stance on this fear-mongering ********. Correction: I'll bet you can guess a version of my stance on this, and then continue to put forward your unaltered position in the face of it.

I wouldn't do that. I would let you speak for yourself.

 

[fishonjazz]

I think you are reading to far into his comments.

I think many peoples objections, and what I am getting from Fish, to these new laws/changes is that it gives creeps, not transgendered, easier access to women's restrooms. I can understand that argument. But I do not think it is sufficient reason to oppose these changes. There are already laws in place that would handle that.

This. I don't have a problem with transgender people or any group of people for that matter. I was simply offering concerns of a change to a law. Hell im not even necessarily against allowing transgenders who identify as women into women's restrooms. Im simply voicing possible concerns. Those concerns might not even be valid. I have no idea and don't claim to know everything. Just trying to be involved in a discussion.
Naos hates that I guess.

 

[NAOS]

Using a fear-mongering position (it's fear-mongering because it fails on evidence and application) as the rationale in this case is functionally identical to bigotry. I don't pretend to know "what's going on in your heart" (blush). I see the consequences of your position. And I dislike it.

 

[fishonjazz]

Using a fear-mongering position (it's fear-mongering because it fails on evidence and application) as the rationale in this case is functionally identical to bigotry. I don't pretend to know "what's going on in your heart" (blush). I see the consequences of your position. And I dislike it.

I looked up the definition of bigot and it says someone who treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. I don't think I have ever done that.

Also a person who is devoted to his or her own opinions. Another way of saying close minded I think. I change my mind quite often and change my opinions often based on hearing the other side of a story. In fact I can often be to much of a "fence sitter" and often don't take a stand because I can see both sides of a discussion equally.

Definitely not a bigot apparently. Good try at diagnosing me but you are wrong in this case.

I think that when it comes to transgenders I'm more ignorant. I don't know any transgenders and don't know much about them. I certainly have tolerance of them and no hatred of them though.

You come off as very intolerant of a lot of people though and seem very hateful. Idk if that is just your internet persona or if you are like that in real life. I wish that you were not so hateful and so quick to attack other posters and their opinions.

 

[NAOS]

functionally equivalent to bigotry with respect to the law.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sigh. naos is totally bigoted towards me for some reason.

 

[NAOS]

oh sigh. that must be it.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I looked up the definition of bigot and it says someone who treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance. I don't think I have ever done that.

Also a person who is devoted to his or her own opinions. Another way of saying close minded I think. I change my mind quite often and change my opinions often based on hearing the other side of a story. In fact I can often be to much of a "fence sitter" and often don't take a stand because I can see both sides of a discussion equally.

Definitely not a bigot apparently. Good try at diagnosing me but you are wrong in this case.

I think that when it comes to transgenders I'm more ignorant. I don't know any transgenders and don't know much about them. I certainly have tolerance of them and no hatred of them though.

You come off as very intolerant of a lot of people though and seem very hateful. Idk if that is just your internet persona or if you are like that in real life. I wish that you were not so hateful and so quick to attack other posters and their opinions.

The unfortunate thing here is while your stance (if it's what you hold) isn't rooted in transphobia unfortunately in its consequences your stance enables transphobia. THat's the distinction here.


Let be come up with an analogy. The same argument could be made about banning Muslim immigration. Trump would say "I don't hate Muslims! I have tons of Muslim friends (and he does). I'm just worried about Muslims coming in from the Middle East and bombing us".

And that's a valid fear. However, and unfortunately, a policy banning an entire race from entering a country sets the stage for incredible amounts of racism. And that's only assuming it would work, despite the fact that it's so easy for terrorists to lie about their religion. SO that's how a policy can become bigoted even if the person voting for it isn't necessarily coming from a stance of bigotry. And unfortunately, if you support policies that are bigoted, that makes you no better than an actual bigot. I hope this makes sense.

And I think this will be very easily clarified as transgender people mingle more with other populations in North America, providing regular people with the opportunity to hear their stances.

 

[NAOS]

Are Muslims a race?

 

[Stoked]

oh sigh. that must be it.

Well it is functionally equivalent.

 

[Stoked]

The unfortunate thing here is while your stance (if it's what you hold) isn't rooted in transphobia unfortunately in its consequences your stance enables transphobia. THat's the distinction here.


Let be come up with an analogy. The same argument could be made about banning Muslim immigration. Trump would say "I don't hate Muslims! I have tons of Muslim friends (and he does). I'm just worried about Muslims coming in from the Middle East and bombing us".

And that's a valid fear. However, and unfortunately, a policy banning an entire race from entering a country sets the stage for incredible amounts of racism. And that's only assuming it would work, despite the fact that it's so easy for terrorists to lie about their religion. SO that's how a policy can become bigoted even if the person voting for it isn't necessarily coming from a stance of bigotry. And unfortunately, if you support policies that are bigoted, that makes you no better than an actual bigot. I hope this makes sense.

And I think this will be very easily clarified as transgender people mingle more with other populations in North America, providing regular people with the opportunity to hear their stances.

Nicely put.

It would religious bigotry and not racism though. But that's a nuance as the result is the same.

ALso I think it does make him better than a bigot as he is much more relatable and approachable, more open minded.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I'll let someone else be the recipient of NAOS's Sam Harris regurgitations.

 

[NAOS]

Well it is functionally equivalent.

not even close. As a term, bigotry doesn't make sense unless there's some reference (implied or otherwise) to a class of people. Since there's none of that here, bigotry doesn't apply in any respect.

 

[fishonjazz]

The unfortunate thing here is while your stance (if it's what you hold) isn't rooted in transphobia unfortunately in its consequences your stance enables transphobia. THat's the distinction here.


Let be come up with an analogy. The same argument could be made about banning Muslim immigration. Trump would say "I don't hate Muslims! I have tons of Muslim friends (and he does). I'm just worried about Muslims coming in from the Middle East and bombing us".

And that's a valid fear. However, and unfortunately, a policy banning an entire race from entering a country sets the stage for incredible amounts of racism. And that's only assuming it would work, despite the fact that it's so easy for terrorists to lie about their religion. SO that's how a policy can become bigoted even if the person voting for it isn't necessarily coming from a stance of bigotry. And unfortunately, if you support policies that are bigoted, that makes you no better than an actual bigot. I hope this makes sense.

And I think this will be very easily clarified as transgender people mingle more with other populations in North America, providing regular people with the opportunity to hear their stances.

Good post and good analogy.

I don't want women with penises to be banned from going into women's bathrooms. That has never been my argument. It would be horrible for them to have to go into a men's bathroom. That would really suck for them.