2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
90% of your participation in threads is just talking about how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is. Maybe try contributing some interesting posts and letting those posts speak for themselves.
I do find how loudly someone proclaims their intelligence is usually a pretty reliable indicator of it. Just not in the way they intended.
Careful, you might just turn me into a Stalinist (or whatever it is that you are)
Stalin was pretty bad. probably as bad as most Western leaders like Churchill. I could be convinced his badness was necessary but I havent really dug into it. so at this stage my Western indoctrination still wins out and I put Stalin in the not good category with the rest of the Western heroes like Churchill and Obama and Reagan and Trump and Bibi.
I do find how loudly someone proclaims their intelligence is usually a pretty reliable indicator of it. Just not in the way they intended.
True, it was especially funny when he tried to say you never admit you’re wrong and then wouldn’t admit he was wrong about you admitting you’re wrong multiple times throughout your posting history.
But you understand 90% of your posts are worthless and that’s being generous. The other 10% are so full of well-poisoning they end up being a net negative.
A well of confirmation bias and shaky assumptions is already poison; I'm just pointing it out to you. Give us a rational argument for how gender is decoupled from sex, without appealing to expert advice. I'm sure we'll be waiting until Jesus returns for your answer.
But hey, just label that question with another pejorative and you win the argument, right? Or you could pull out the Trump Card and jump right to "nazi." That one hasn't been overused at all.
True, it was especially funny when he tried to say you never admit you’re wrong and then wouldn’t admit he was wrong about you admitting you’re wrong multiple times throughout your posting history.
Bro, a man of his boundless intellect and bounded integrity doesn't have time to be sifting through 8 whole one-paragraph posts just to verify that he was wrong about something. And if he doesn't look at the evidence, that means he was right all along.
True, it was especially funny when he tried to say you never admit you’re wrong and then wouldn’t admit he was wrong about you admitting you’re wrong multiple times throughout your posting history.
But he meant he wouldn't admit he was objectively wrong about opinions, not facts.
You know, to be fair.
i appreciate you d2 but you've strawmanned tf out of this discussion by turning it into a "science/medicine always good" vs. "science/medicine always bad and wrong"
obviously the truth is heavily weighted to the former. but there are edge cases that only in hindsight become obviously wrong and could have been prevented to some degree if people asked more questions. you, gorgo, ecriture seem to take the position that such questions cannot or should not be asked without white coat.
you said only other experts should be able to ask the questions, but that's problematic because if a previously accepted "expert" takes a non-consensus view they're automatically relegated to "kook" status and lose their expert card.
as to what is different between open heart surgery and gender affirming care: open heart surgery has 75 years of practice and longterm evidence. it's also only undertaken in cases of life threatening conditions where there's essentially little to lose.
again, i'm not even arguing against gender affirming care. but trying to shut down conversations with "BUT DO YOU HAVE A MEDICAL DEGREE" is dumb and counterproductive in most any forum
A well of confirmation bias and shaky assumptions is already poison; I'm just pointing it out to you. Give us a rational argument for how gender is decoupled from sex, without appealing to expert advice. I'm sure we'll be waiting until Jesus returns for your answer.
But hey, just label that question with another pejorative label and you win the argument, right? Just jump right to "nazi;" that one hasn't been overused at all.
P1 Sex and gender are different in the case that they describe different things.
P2 Sex and gender describe different things.
C Sex and gender are different.
Stalin was pretty bad. probably as bad as most Western leaders like Churchill. I could be convinced his badness was necessary but I havent really dug into it. so at this stage my Western indoctrination still wins out and I put Stalin in the not good category with the rest of the Western heroes like Churchill and Obama and Reagan and Trump and Bibi.
I'll give it to you, at least you're consistent with your value judgements. I respect that greatly.
A well of confirmation bias and shaky assumptions is already poison; I'm just pointing it out to you. Give us a rational argument for how gender is decoupled from sex, without appealing to expert advice. I'm sure we'll be waiting until Jesus returns for your answer.
But hey, just label that question with another pejorative label and you win the argument, right? Just jump right to "nazi;" that one hasn't been overused at all.
Sure, you first though. Give us a rational argument for why the Earth orbits the sun without appealing to physics.
Doctors surely aren't infallible, and they often do not agree with each other. But for the vast majority of medical decisions, I would rather rely on my doctor's advice than on my own intuition or internet research.
In other words, I think about medicine in much the same way I think about plumbing or a million other things about which I have very limited knowledge.
well, so did the Tuskegee men for 40 years.
I ask questions so that I can try to understand what advice I am being given and why. And if I received medical advice that struck me as crazy, I surely would seek a second opinion. But that's about as far as I go. Do you approach personal medical decisions differently?
Oh, I don't know. It's not something I've given a ton of thought to, but it probably has to do with things that are interesting to me or grab my attention—for whatever reason—and intuition, noticing logical inconsistencies, biases, etc.
i appreciate you d2 but you've strawmanned tf out of this discussion by turning it into a "science/medicine always good" vs. "science/medicine always bad and wrong"
obviously the truth is heavily weighted to the former. but there are edge cases that only in hindsight become obviously wrong and could have been prevented to some degree if people asked more questions. you, gorgo, ecriture seem to take the position that such questions cannot or should not be asked without white coat.
you said only ot
I didn't take most of the positions you ascribe to me, but I generally agree with them moreso than not so no big deal. Slightly ironic that you do that in a post where you accuse me of strawmanning, though. With a very odd definition of strawmanning, might I add.
In any case, I didn't say that only experts should be allowed to question other experts. But nor do I think that any idiot who thinks he has a bright idea should feel entitled to question experts either. There's a line. No expert has time to field the same dumb questions from a never-ending stream of morons who refuse to listen or understand or ideologues who will never agree. As an apolitical example, any slightly well known math professor will tell you that the correspondence they receive from cranks claiming to have made some breakthrough or other is simply too voluminous to even read through.
Sure, you first though. Give us a rational argument for why the Earth orbits the sun without appealing to physics.
Sure. Because life on earth is dependent on the heat and light of the sun to flourish, it is far more likely the sun is the dominant factor in that binary relationship than the earth.
Your turn.
