You Are Now Less Dumb -
How to Conquer Mob Mentality, How to Buy Happiness, and All the Other Ways to Outsmart Yourself
|
Friday, 20 May 2016
quote [ A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters... ]
Because intellectual honesty means acknowledging opposing arguments.
Yes, I'm throwing our resident troll a bone here. Not that I agree with numbers' beliefs, to be clear, but because of the above reason.
Interestingly, I haven't heard anyone on either side reference this case when talking about the NC law, even though (or perhaps because) it predates this whole debate by several years. One bad apple etc., but we can't claim this "never happens" because it clearly did at least once.
|
1234 said @ 4:29pm GMT on 22nd May
I don’t see the coherence of your argument, perhaps because it isn’t there. You write, “She isn't really six years old” a point we agree on, but then, obviously, Mr. Wolscht “isn’t really” a woman either. At least Mr. Wolscht was, at one point, a six-year-old child – He was never, and never will be, a woman. So it would seem that respecting his “identity” begins with the least incredible part of it – His being a child.
You seem entirely comfortable having the state confer womanhood on Mr. Wolscht – not “gender hood”, but treating him as a legal female, which is a total and utter fiction – why not throw in childhood – how is that a greater affront to logic?
I am in compete agreement with you that this is in no way different from the millions of people who believe they're born again children of God – except in one seminal respect, the state doesn’t demand we recognize the existence of God, but increasingly it’s asking us to acknowledge the nonsense that Mr. Wolscht is female. That is every bit as disconcerting, in fact more so. That Mr. Wolscht is a woman is demonstrably male. As for the God thing, that’s a trickier proof.
1234 said @ 4:31pm GMT on 22nd May
I don’t see the coherence of your argument, perhaps because it isn’t there. You write, “She isn't really six years old” a point we agree on, but then, obviously, Mr. Wolscht “isn’t really” a woman either. At least Mr. Wolscht was, at one point, a six-year-old child – He was never, and never will be, a woman. So it would seem that respecting his “identity” begins with the least incredible part of it – His being a child.
You seem entirely comfortable having the state confer womanhood on Mr. Wolscht – not “gender hood”, but treating him as a legal female, which is a total and utter fiction – why not throw in childhood – how is that a greater affront to logic?
I am in compete agreement with you that this is in no way different from the millions of people who believe they're born again children of God – except in one seminal respect, the state doesn’t demand we recognize the existence of God, but increasingly it’s asking us to acknowledge the nonsense that Mr. Wolscht is female. That is every bit as disconcerting, in fact more so. The notion that Mr. Wolscht is a woman is demonstrably false. As for the God thing, that’s a trickier proof.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
1234 said @ 4:29pm GMT on 22nd May [Score:-1]
I don’t see the coherence of your argument, perhaps because it isn’t there. You write, “She isn't really six years old” a point we agree on, but then, obviously, Mr. Wolscht “isn’t really” a woman either. At least Mr. Wolscht was, at one point, a six-year-old child – He was never, and never will be, a woman. So it would seem that respecting his “identity” begins with the least incredible part of it – His being a child.
You seem entirely comfortable having the state confer womanhood on Mr. Wolscht – not “gender hood”, but treating him as a legal female, which is a total and utter fiction – why not throw in childhood – how is that a greater affront to logic?
I am in compete agreement with you that this is in no way different from the millions of people who believe they're born again children of God – except in one seminal respect, the state doesn’t demand we recognize the existence of God, but increasingly it’s asking us to acknowledge the nonsense that Mr. Wolscht is female. That is every bit as disconcerting, in fact more so. The notion that Mr. Wolscht is a woman is demonstrably false. As for the God thing, that’s a trickier proof.
