Love Me for Who I Am
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 871
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Is it? Cause that thing is already permeating the culture, down to the preschools. "Gender non confirming" (or whatever the fuck) person that has a penchant for sketching serial killers indoctrinating little children may make for a funny skit, but it's a terrible reality to live in.
Wow, you're genuinely evil. Doesn't matter though, let's sacrifice someone's offspring on the altar of progress. For better tomorrow!
(individual "proofs", and one legislative initiative from California - or did it pass already? - are so damn easily googleable, that one cannot think that you pretend to be oblivious.
Google "mirror neurons" with "child development" and acknowledge that you're a moral scumbag.
Thanks for that slip.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2018
- Messages
- 26
@mikegnesium Ah, there was no tagged notification so I was not aware that someone had gone to all the effort to continue to prove what I had described earlier. Honestly, mikegnesium, the arguments of Biblical Flat Earthers are more understandable than what you've managed to come up with, because at the very least they have the "decency" to rely on axioms in their primary arguments. Their appeals to faith are ultimately meaningless in the face of empirical evidence, but at least they are willing to admit that the entire basis of what they argue is ultimately little more than just that: faith.
Your ilk however? You don't even have the self-confidence or the level of introspection needed to admit that the very basis of your position is little more than ignorance, bigotry, or both. No, you envision yourself a "woke" crusader doing what you can fight against the moral and/or social degeneracy you feel is being forced through by a twisted minority. Being so enlightened against the modern "agenda", as you are, you can't merely just use an axiom to defend your case, can you? No, because from your use of psychological terms you at best have only a vague understanding of, I can tell that you understand the real world doesn't work that way. You need actual, empirical, testable proof to justify your position because in your heart of hearts you know that while you're correct and it's everybody else who is either at best mislead or at worst malicious, you still need to prove it. So what'll you do? You'll work backwards, starting from the conclusion and finding whatever you can to justify that conclusion while ignoring everything that works against it. Much like antivaxxers, you'll find that the sciences of biology and psychology have moved past the limited understandings they had in the 80s and 90s. Researchers today have exponentially more information and tools to study the human body and mind than they did during the 20th century. They have greater insight than they could have ever had before. And they don't agree with you. I bet you might be thinking that this is a weakness of my position; after all, if science can change so readily in a relatively short term how can we trust what their findings say NOW? The fun thing is, I don't even have to go to the effort of explaining why this is the case: because doing so is so obvious that even you admit it by using the terminology they came up with: because we expect that they are the best equipped to understand what they're talking about in this area of specialization.
As intelligent as I'm sure you think you are, you can probably spot the problem here. You simultaneously need something concrete to back up what you're saying, but the people in the best position to provide you what you need actively disagree with you. So where do you go from here? This is where the tricks start. You'll use the veneer of authority and academics to shroud your arguments while actively ignoring how loudly those authorities and academics are arguing against you. You'll cherry-pick studies that suit your position, those studies entirely consisting of ones that are outdated, lack peer-review/are backed by highly biased special interest groups, or don't actually say what you think they say (a common mistake by both the media and the public at large). You'll scour the internet for anecdotes that also don't actually prove anything but which you'll present without context in a desperate attempt to field identifiable evidence of your claims. You'll make up or misconstrue data to fit your agenda (it seems fitting to call you out as having an agenda, given your disingenuous arguments that fly in the face of rationality). You'll co-opt academic terminology and findings in your statements to disguise your elementary school-level logic. In essence, you'll do the bare minimum to have a semblance of authoritative weight because otherwise you know the public at large will refuse to take you seriously (because obviously they're your intended audience as the zealots that agree with you will continue to do so regardless of reality or fact). Like a child, moody teenager, or conspiracy theorist, you'll parrot the words and conclusions of people that know better than you and twist them to fit your own myopic perspective. It's pathetic and very revealing of how you choose to view the world around you.
And there it is, the research tactic of the criminally ignorant. "Google it and see for yourself." Reduce the topic as much as you can to level the playing the field against people who know more than you. An excellent double play, because then you throw the term mirror neurons at me as if that gives you any sort of extra credence or as if that's some holy grail find that aligns with your thinking. You simultaneously imply that anyone can see what you're saying with a simple internet search while keeping your authoritative veil with psychological jargon. Funnily enough, I don't have to Google it and trot out the half-understood or poorly communicated information (most often written by a nonprofessional) a single page internet article can give me. You could have at the very least directed me to Google Scholar. I can directly access the studies those articles are based on, thank you very much, and hundreds more besides. Media tends to hype important findings such as mirror neurons far more than is actually appropriate. Reading the breadth of studies, you'll find that researchers today still have no consensus on the scope of the effects of mirror neurons on human cognition aside from the fact that they do exist and probably have some some interaction with learned behavior. That interaction can be as simple as easing the process of emulating motor movements to more complex interactions involving the ability to predict behavior or empathize with another person. The point is, we don't completely know, and even the most ardent professional proponent of mirror neurons as an influence on human development would laugh you out of the room should you greet them with a definitive and simplistic causal link between mirror neurons and something so sociocognitively complex as gender. Look, there's no one here you need to impress, so there's no need to bring up terms you don't really know. Next time, just stick with arguing that children emulate what they see and that thus by portraying transgender identity they may be influenced to be themselves transgender or to mentally harm themselves by questioning their gender identity. It's no less wrong and overly simplified, but it's less intellectually bankrupt.
By the way, is the use of the term "theory" supposed to be some sort of gotcha? Are you actually kidding me? Do you understand what scientific theory is? Or how science works in general? Merely engaging your tired and nonsensical appeals to authority is meriting you more respect than you deserve, but this intended jab alone shows just how little you actually know outside of common buzzwords like "mirror neurons". Call back to your middle school education and get back to me when you remember what a scientific theory is.
You:
The acceptance itself is being referred to as consistent with modern psychology, thus the singular "is" would be more appropriate than the plural "are". See where you made your mistake? I can hazard a guess since you laid it all out so clearly. You saw the plural noun"identities" and assumed that is what the following sentence was referring to. That would explain your attempted correction of my grammar, and upon a reexamination of the sentences I hope you come to understand why your correction makes no grammatical sense given to what I was actually referring to. It's one thing to be nitpicky, since nitpicking is the fallback of someone with little else to offer. It's another thing entirely to be nitpicky and wrong. But if you must, I'm sure there are actual grammar mistakes somewhere in my posts. Go crazy, for all the meaning it has, which is to say none.
At the end of the day, you'll be contented with your incomprehensible halfhearted attempts to portray your arguments as better than they are using trumped-up authoritative language, and not admit that, much like an antivaxxer (which I'd hope you'd deride as misinformed at best and dangerous at worst), your arguments are primarily based on emotion, not logic or facts. For antivaxxers, that emotion is fear, for you and all like you, that emotion is hatred.
Also, as someone who in their profile judges people based on the language they use, could you tell me how I should view you? Considering that you'd use the term offspring instead of children. If I were to judge people based on what terminology comes to their mind as they think/speak/type, I think I'd find something a little off about that.
Your ilk however? You don't even have the self-confidence or the level of introspection needed to admit that the very basis of your position is little more than ignorance, bigotry, or both. No, you envision yourself a "woke" crusader doing what you can fight against the moral and/or social degeneracy you feel is being forced through by a twisted minority. Being so enlightened against the modern "agenda", as you are, you can't merely just use an axiom to defend your case, can you? No, because from your use of psychological terms you at best have only a vague understanding of, I can tell that you understand the real world doesn't work that way. You need actual, empirical, testable proof to justify your position because in your heart of hearts you know that while you're correct and it's everybody else who is either at best mislead or at worst malicious, you still need to prove it. So what'll you do? You'll work backwards, starting from the conclusion and finding whatever you can to justify that conclusion while ignoring everything that works against it. Much like antivaxxers, you'll find that the sciences of biology and psychology have moved past the limited understandings they had in the 80s and 90s. Researchers today have exponentially more information and tools to study the human body and mind than they did during the 20th century. They have greater insight than they could have ever had before. And they don't agree with you. I bet you might be thinking that this is a weakness of my position; after all, if science can change so readily in a relatively short term how can we trust what their findings say NOW? The fun thing is, I don't even have to go to the effort of explaining why this is the case: because doing so is so obvious that even you admit it by using the terminology they came up with: because we expect that they are the best equipped to understand what they're talking about in this area of specialization.
As intelligent as I'm sure you think you are, you can probably spot the problem here. You simultaneously need something concrete to back up what you're saying, but the people in the best position to provide you what you need actively disagree with you. So where do you go from here? This is where the tricks start. You'll use the veneer of authority and academics to shroud your arguments while actively ignoring how loudly those authorities and academics are arguing against you. You'll cherry-pick studies that suit your position, those studies entirely consisting of ones that are outdated, lack peer-review/are backed by highly biased special interest groups, or don't actually say what you think they say (a common mistake by both the media and the public at large). You'll scour the internet for anecdotes that also don't actually prove anything but which you'll present without context in a desperate attempt to field identifiable evidence of your claims. You'll make up or misconstrue data to fit your agenda (it seems fitting to call you out as having an agenda, given your disingenuous arguments that fly in the face of rationality). You'll co-opt academic terminology and findings in your statements to disguise your elementary school-level logic. In essence, you'll do the bare minimum to have a semblance of authoritative weight because otherwise you know the public at large will refuse to take you seriously (because obviously they're your intended audience as the zealots that agree with you will continue to do so regardless of reality or fact). Like a child, moody teenager, or conspiracy theorist, you'll parrot the words and conclusions of people that know better than you and twist them to fit your own myopic perspective. It's pathetic and very revealing of how you choose to view the world around you.
And there it is, the research tactic of the criminally ignorant. "Google it and see for yourself." Reduce the topic as much as you can to level the playing the field against people who know more than you. An excellent double play, because then you throw the term mirror neurons at me as if that gives you any sort of extra credence or as if that's some holy grail find that aligns with your thinking. You simultaneously imply that anyone can see what you're saying with a simple internet search while keeping your authoritative veil with psychological jargon. Funnily enough, I don't have to Google it and trot out the half-understood or poorly communicated information (most often written by a nonprofessional) a single page internet article can give me. You could have at the very least directed me to Google Scholar. I can directly access the studies those articles are based on, thank you very much, and hundreds more besides. Media tends to hype important findings such as mirror neurons far more than is actually appropriate. Reading the breadth of studies, you'll find that researchers today still have no consensus on the scope of the effects of mirror neurons on human cognition aside from the fact that they do exist and probably have some some interaction with learned behavior. That interaction can be as simple as easing the process of emulating motor movements to more complex interactions involving the ability to predict behavior or empathize with another person. The point is, we don't completely know, and even the most ardent professional proponent of mirror neurons as an influence on human development would laugh you out of the room should you greet them with a definitive and simplistic causal link between mirror neurons and something so sociocognitively complex as gender. Look, there's no one here you need to impress, so there's no need to bring up terms you don't really know. Next time, just stick with arguing that children emulate what they see and that thus by portraying transgender identity they may be influenced to be themselves transgender or to mentally harm themselves by questioning their gender identity. It's no less wrong and overly simplified, but it's less intellectually bankrupt.
By the way, is the use of the term "theory" supposed to be some sort of gotcha? Are you actually kidding me? Do you understand what scientific theory is? Or how science works in general? Merely engaging your tired and nonsensical appeals to authority is meriting you more respect than you deserve, but this intended jab alone shows just how little you actually know outside of common buzzwords like "mirror neurons". Call back to your middle school education and get back to me when you remember what a scientific theory is.
You:
You really shouldn't go correcting people unless you're absolutely sure about what you're talking about.
"Are" would not be the correct word to use here, as that would be referring to a plural noun or multiple nouns. However, I'm clearly talking in the singular sense here,"is" referring to the acceptance (singular) in the clause "argument saying that such depictions can help normalize acceptance of non-binary gender identities". Let's link the two sentence together to show what I mean! The combined sentence would be
Do note that the comma in this combined sentence should be replaced by a semicolon if actually written out, and that the "but that" would have to change into "which" rather than just be erased, but for consistency's sake I left those "mistakes" there as we're looking at another part of the sentence
The acceptance itself is being referred to as consistent with modern psychology, thus the singular "is" would be more appropriate than the plural "are". See where you made your mistake? I can hazard a guess since you laid it all out so clearly. You saw the plural noun"identities" and assumed that is what the following sentence was referring to. That would explain your attempted correction of my grammar, and upon a reexamination of the sentences I hope you come to understand why your correction makes no grammatical sense given to what I was actually referring to. It's one thing to be nitpicky, since nitpicking is the fallback of someone with little else to offer. It's another thing entirely to be nitpicky and wrong. But if you must, I'm sure there are actual grammar mistakes somewhere in my posts. Go crazy, for all the meaning it has, which is to say none.
At the end of the day, you'll be contented with your incomprehensible halfhearted attempts to portray your arguments as better than they are using trumped-up authoritative language, and not admit that, much like an antivaxxer (which I'd hope you'd deride as misinformed at best and dangerous at worst), your arguments are primarily based on emotion, not logic or facts. For antivaxxers, that emotion is fear, for you and all like you, that emotion is hatred.
Also, as someone who in their profile judges people based on the language they use, could you tell me how I should view you? Considering that you'd use the term offspring instead of children. If I were to judge people based on what terminology comes to their mind as they think/speak/type, I think I'd find something a little off about that.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Hope you had your fun writing that pamphlet, cause I stopped reading after the quoted sentence - I'm tired of uninspired, boring insults that can't be conceivably based on anything else than projection - for whatever reason, your "ilk's" collective programming cannot venture anywhere else than straight to "bigotry" when it comes to generalizations, and treat that assumed evaluation as fuel and-or starting point for following "arguments". That thirst for moral superiority and outshining everyone else when it comes to being compassionate gets old really quickly - betcha there's the word "hate" thrown in there somewhere, but I'm not going to read it and check for context.
Then there's the added bonus of you having the audacity to bash people operating on "axioms" in the preceding paragraph (amazing self-awareness), and associating one group with the other, which is cheap rhetoric 101. Good job.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2018
- Messages
- 26
@mikegnesium Of course you stopped reading after that point, because right there is the excuse you need to disengage without actually defending your points. So quick to the insults yourself, but hardly the instant someone responds in kind you needle up and cry foul at the unfairness and audacity of it all. The world would be so much simpler if you could call others "moral scumbags", spout out your tripe conspiracy theories about the "altar of progress", and and then expect the retort to respond as if you had opened with an entirely rational and respectful statement. I find it incredibly telling that you lash out against the "thirst for moral superiority", while parroting how above everything you are, standing on your soapbox proselytizing about your delusions and mistruths about how society is wrong and how the experts are wrong and why doesn't anyone just understand that you are just thinking about the children!
But this is another one of your tactics, of course. Accuse the opposition of everything you yourself are guilty of when they engage you with the same level respect you offer them as a deflection from actually putting in the effort to try (and fail) at a proper rebuttal. It's a little amusing to see that you have all the pieces needed to see that this is the case, as you even talk about projection! Talk about irony. As I said before, however, I fear you lack the introspection necessary to take that next step; and even if you did I doubt you have the sense of decency or cognitive consistency to admit you have any fault at all.
As for your axiom bit, yeah I didn't actually expect you to address that. My mistake, considering you're probably just as educated on axioms as you are on mirror neurons so of course you'd rush to that as another gotcha (relying on gotchas to pick apart an opponent is not exactly sound strategy, you'll find) rather than address anything I said. Read what was written again, actually apply some context to the statement, and see that I am not criticizing axioms on the whole; they're rather helpful for societal values and philosophy, after all. The problem of relying on axioms in empirical debates such as whether the world is round or flat is that axioms asserting the world is flat are inherently unfalsifiable and therefore nonprovable, while the opposing argument that the world is a globe based on empirical evidence is falsifiable and therefore provable. And the state and treatment of transgender issues is, of course, an empirical debate. You agree, don't you? Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have pulled something like mirror neurons out of the blue in attempt to justify your position. However, I'm willing to be flexible. I'll give you the opportunity to backtrack and start moralizing at me if you'd want to continue on that track instead, and I won't even call you a hypocrite if you do it.
Like with any of the topics you've chosen to discuss, you display an at best bare minimum understanding on how debates actually work. This is hopefully enough to understand that I'll be taking your nonresponse as a concession, if only a concession that you have nothing of actual substance to offer beyond insults and whining. Next time, if you get anything out of this, I do implore that you spend more than 10 minutes on an academic topic like mirror neurons before bringing it up to serve as a point; you might just embarrass yourself less that way.
Edit: Representation begets discourse, discourse begets constructive thinking, constructive thinking begets understanding (hopefully). Existence is not propaganda, pretending people don't exist is not reality. Which is why there's nothing in inherently wrong with either the concept of this series nor the topics addressed in recent shows such as Zombie Land Saga.
But this is another one of your tactics, of course. Accuse the opposition of everything you yourself are guilty of when they engage you with the same level respect you offer them as a deflection from actually putting in the effort to try (and fail) at a proper rebuttal. It's a little amusing to see that you have all the pieces needed to see that this is the case, as you even talk about projection! Talk about irony. As I said before, however, I fear you lack the introspection necessary to take that next step; and even if you did I doubt you have the sense of decency or cognitive consistency to admit you have any fault at all.
As for your axiom bit, yeah I didn't actually expect you to address that. My mistake, considering you're probably just as educated on axioms as you are on mirror neurons so of course you'd rush to that as another gotcha (relying on gotchas to pick apart an opponent is not exactly sound strategy, you'll find) rather than address anything I said. Read what was written again, actually apply some context to the statement, and see that I am not criticizing axioms on the whole; they're rather helpful for societal values and philosophy, after all. The problem of relying on axioms in empirical debates such as whether the world is round or flat is that axioms asserting the world is flat are inherently unfalsifiable and therefore nonprovable, while the opposing argument that the world is a globe based on empirical evidence is falsifiable and therefore provable. And the state and treatment of transgender issues is, of course, an empirical debate. You agree, don't you? Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't have pulled something like mirror neurons out of the blue in attempt to justify your position. However, I'm willing to be flexible. I'll give you the opportunity to backtrack and start moralizing at me if you'd want to continue on that track instead, and I won't even call you a hypocrite if you do it.
Like with any of the topics you've chosen to discuss, you display an at best bare minimum understanding on how debates actually work. This is hopefully enough to understand that I'll be taking your nonresponse as a concession, if only a concession that you have nothing of actual substance to offer beyond insults and whining. Next time, if you get anything out of this, I do implore that you spend more than 10 minutes on an academic topic like mirror neurons before bringing it up to serve as a point; you might just embarrass yourself less that way.
Edit: Representation begets discourse, discourse begets constructive thinking, constructive thinking begets understanding (hopefully). Existence is not propaganda, pretending people don't exist is not reality. Which is why there's nothing in inherently wrong with either the concept of this series nor the topics addressed in recent shows such as Zombie Land Saga.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Too long, didn't read. Sorry cupcake, you lost my interest when you spouted the tired b-word.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Ah, again with the lack of self awareness. From assuming superiority at starting point, lampshading own shortcomings by preemptive, lazy invocation of a tired insult, through an inability to properly accurately address what little has been provided, to a condescending "keep your delusions" at the end. "It's been done", so embarrassingly many times by now, but that didn't stop you from repeating the pattern.
At the end of the day you're yet another sperg imagining themselves to be the next Sam Harris though, but hey, whatever is the fantasy you cling to get through life is no one's business but yours.
At the end of the day you're yet another sperg imagining themselves to be the next Sam Harris though, but hey, whatever is the fantasy you cling to get through life is no one's business but yours.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2018
- Messages
- 26
I do believe you quite rightly ended the conversation when you admitted you failed to read anything more than a few lines in my last two posts. As I said, little more to offer than insults and whining.
I’d love to continue the pointed sniping back and forth, but you’ve long abandoned discussing anything of even slight relevance to the manga in favor of continuing personal attacks. If you’d like, you can direct your next self assured stream of nonsense to my messenger box.
I’d love to continue the pointed sniping back and forth, but you’ve long abandoned discussing anything of even slight relevance to the manga in favor of continuing personal attacks. If you’d like, you can direct your next self assured stream of nonsense to my messenger box.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Hah, again - astounding lack of critical self-evaluation.
You're too boring for me to start doing something like that. There's really nothing to say to a person that defaults to bigotry in opening lines to their "argument". But congratulations, you've completed the script - you can brag about it in your head now. Who else would listen?
@stargazer @mikegnesium I'm going to be honest. I reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally tried to figure out what happened and whose side you both are on. But somewhere I lost track. So can you simplify which position you both took and why?
Group Leader
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2018
- Messages
- 323
@Alciel I have mike blocked but if his posts are anything like what they were before, and from reading the other's, mike is probably on the side of irrational feelings and blind hate (that is, hating trans people) while stargazer is in the side of facts and science and research (that is, supporting trans people). Just to simplify it to its most basic level.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Me, Me, Me, Me, Me, MEEEEE!!! MOAR MEEEEEE!
You're still a narcissistic dullard with binary worldview, what else is new?
(chuckled at that one)
Yes, you've proven times and times that you and your "allies" are incredibly simple units, with only most basic programming provided.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 2,179
Mike never takes a position because he's above it all and just comes to shit on anyone who actually holds opinions or cares about anything.
Just put him on ignore and confine him to the dumpster where he belongs.
Like literally look at anything he posts, there is no substance, opinion, idea or tangible point to anything. It's just smarmy shitposting. It's literally just vape smoke in textual form.
Just put him on ignore and confine him to the dumpster where he belongs.
Like literally look at anything he posts, there is no substance, opinion, idea or tangible point to anything. It's just smarmy shitposting. It's literally just vape smoke in textual form.
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2018
- Messages
- 1,258
Ah, the eye mangina script has executed itself, again.
Well, if you say so. You're a man of strong, well developed opinions that aren't blatant examples of lazy thinking after all.
