4 ms·

Good discussion is give and take. There should be no competition, even if someone decides to bring up sports as an example. Maybe if people tried to listen and

by loopz 5y ago

Good discussion is give and take. There should be no competition, even if someone decides to bring up sports as an example. Maybe if people tried to listen and understand more, they could ask followup questions and try to get what the other person had in mind, instead of trying to tear down opponents?

threatofrain 5y ago
In order to partake in give and take, you have to have something to give. When you pick up the microphone, that is your chance to make an offering of what you have to give. What we have here an offering of Joe Rogan debates. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" The response is "I think clinical suffering is bad?"
- Moodles 5y ago
  You ask me "what do you think of suffering?". I honestly have no clue what you expect as a response. Yeah, it's bad. I don't want people to suffer. What is your point? What has this got to do with what I was saying? And again, the only person who keeps bringing up Joe Rogan is you. What has this got to do with anything? Can we just focus on actual points being made here? My OP was about how impossible it is to have sensible debates about trans issues without being lambasted. Where is this thread going now? What direction are you taking it?
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument. By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect. Discussing trans elite sports warrants a broad biological and medical discussion on sex. The trans phenomena includes those who have received clinical classification under gender dysphoria to hormonal differences with sexual effects. You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports. You might look to the entire discussion stemming from the article to see if anything ever rises to this level of discussion.
    - Moodles 5y ago
      > I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument. The reason I mentioned combat sports is because it's literally the clearest example I can possibly think of where one can have objections to transgender women in women's spaces without having hate in their heart, and yet still one gets lambasted for bringing it up. So my overall point is about the lambasting, as the Economist article talks about. > By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect. My leading argument is: "the gender ideology community lambast people way too much. Here's an obvious example of something which they shouldn't lambast about but they do anyway.". I honestly don't know how I can be any clearer here. There is no hate. No hidden agenda. Just what I've actually said at face value multiple times. Please stop trying to read between the lines. > You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports. I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of?
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        This is an invitation to track the course of medical debate through the west. That's a very open platform from which to discuss transgenderism, its etiologies and its impacts. >> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" And surely you don't think we're the only conversation in town. Look at this entire post and see if there's anything which rises above the Joe Rogan level of debate. It won't. > I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of? I don't accuse you of hate. I accuse you using the topic trans elite sports as an intellectual point to push around.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > In order to partake in give and take, you have to have something to give. Are you going to start doing so, or are you just going to go on as you have so far?

by loopz 5y ago

threatofrain 5y ago

In order to partake in give and take, you have to have something to give. When you pick up the microphone, that is your chance to make an offering of what you have to give. What we have here an offering of Joe Rogan debates. > What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" The response is "I think clinical suffering is bad?"

Moodles 5y ago
You ask me "what do you think of suffering?". I honestly have no clue what you expect as a response. Yeah, it's bad. I don't want people to suffer. What is your point? What has this got to do with what I was saying? And again, the only person who keeps bringing up Joe Rogan is you. What has this got to do with anything? Can we just focus on actual points being made here? My OP was about how impossible it is to have sensible debates about trans issues without being lambasted. Where is this thread going now? What direction are you taking it?
- threatofrain 5y ago
  I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument. By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect. Discussing trans elite sports warrants a broad biological and medical discussion on sex. The trans phenomena includes those who have received clinical classification under gender dysphoria to hormonal differences with sexual effects. You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports. You might look to the entire discussion stemming from the article to see if anything ever rises to this level of discussion.
  - Moodles 5y ago
    > I'm mostly bothered by the focus on trans elite sports, because I find it to be a niche phenomena, and it suggests the curation of those who lead with such an argument. The reason I mentioned combat sports is because it's literally the clearest example I can possibly think of where one can have objections to transgender women in women's spaces without having hate in their heart, and yet still one gets lambasted for bringing it up. So my overall point is about the lambasting, as the Economist article talks about. > By tactical argument, I mean an argument you make which you don't think is your leading argument, but you make it anyway because you want to demonstrate an effect. My leading argument is: "the gender ideology community lambast people way too much. Here's an obvious example of something which they shouldn't lambast about but they do anyway.". I honestly don't know how I can be any clearer here. There is no hate. No hidden agenda. Just what I've actually said at face value multiple times. Please stop trying to read between the lines. > You keep wondering why I bring up Joe Rogan. It's because I don't think any discussion here will rise above the playground of arguments made by Joe Rogan, a major player on the conversation of trans elite sports. I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of?
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      This is an invitation to track the course of medical debate through the west. That's a very open platform from which to discuss transgenderism, its etiologies and its impacts. >> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?" And surely you don't think we're the only conversation in town. Look at this entire post and see if there's anything which rises above the Joe Rogan level of debate. It won't. > I find this ironic since you're the one bringing down the quality of discussion with all the red herrings. What do you actually want to discuss? Where am I going wrong and what do you want to convince me of? I don't accuse you of hate. I accuse you using the topic trans elite sports as an intellectual point to push around.
CRConrad 5y ago
> In order to partake in give and take, you have to have something to give. Are you going to start doing so, or are you just going to go on as you have so far?