Trump: No Transgenders In The Military!

[Mountain Man]

Only a few days ago you suspected I knew nothing about logical fallacies because I refered to that fallacy. And now you refer to it yourself. So I guess you admit you were wrong?

You originally asked:



Now you claim "Whether there is a fundamental difference between men and animals is beside the point." So if I cannot answer that psychologically speaking there is a huge and principal difference between wanting to become another gender and wanting to become another species, then your idea that the two situations are comparable seems rather circular, don't you think? And remember Mr. Mountain Man, even if two different situations have one thing in common it certainly does not follow that they are comparable in every other respect.

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems you're conceding the debate.

[lilpixieofterror]

Apparently you've missed the point Lilpix, and now you'll go off on your usual ridiculous tangent. Have fun. Oh Btw, where is that beer? c'mon, lets hustle!

I got the point just fine Jimmy in how you believe nonsense about your political opponents. Sorry, but I gave an example of liberal sexism towards anyone that doesn't think and believe like them and even how many of your side will eat their own ( I.E. Ivanka Trump). Sorry that you don't get that or like my example. Want another?

[Charles]

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems you're conceding the debate.

That is a misreading. I make you aware that I already answered your original question. And that now it seems you narrow the field of answering so that relevant aspects must be left out.

[Mountain Man]

That is a misreading. I make you aware that I already answered your original question. And that now it seems you narrow the field of answering so that relevant aspects must be left out.

You said, "I cannot answer that psychologically speaking there is a huge and principal difference between wanting to become another gender and wanting to become another species," and that "even if two different situations have one thing in common it certainly does not follow that they are comparable in every other respect," which sure sounds like you agree that both cases share a common trait in that a man who thinks he should have been a woman, and a man who thinks he should have been a dog, are both at odds with the clear facts of reality, which is a mental disorder. That you think one form of this particular mental disorder is somehow more ethically acceptable than the other does not change the fact that both men are, in fact, mentally ill.

[JimL]

I got the point just fine Jimmy in how you believe nonsense about your political opponents. Sorry, but I gave an example of liberal sexism towards anyone that doesn't think and believe like them and even how many of your side will eat their own ( I.E. Ivanka Trump). Sorry that you don't get that or like my example. Want another?

No, I'm good thanks.

[Charles]

You said, "I cannot answer that psychologically speaking there is a huge and principal difference between wanting to become another gender and wanting to become another species," and that "even if two different situations have one thing in common it certainly does not follow that they are comparable in every other respect," which sure sounds like you agree that both cases share a common trait in that a man who thinks he should have been a woman, and a man who thinks he should have been a dog, are both at odds with the clear facts of reality, which is a mental disorder. That you think one form of this particular mental disorder is somehow more ethically acceptable than the other does not change the fact that both men are, in fact, mentally ill.

In the first quote you skip "So if". By doing so you change the point. It is manipulating.

Second. The last point maintains that even if there is one point in which there is a similarity that does nothing to change the fact that the two situations can hardly be compared.

So, no, manipulation will not fix this for you Mr. Mountain Man.

[Jedidiah]

Dr. McHugh's views do not appear to be shared by any significant number of psychiatrists in the western world. I guess when nobody currently in the field agrees with you, you get reduced to relying on a single overly opinioned ex-doctor. Kinda like your climate-change denial

That just goes to show that most psychiatrist opinions today are not worth much. Dr. McHugh on the other hand knows his stuff. The truth is not a matter of popularity.

[Jedidiah]

In the case of transgenders that is because they are mentally ill.

[Jedidiah]

I got the point just fine Jimmy in how you believe nonsense about your political opponents. Sorry, but I gave an example of liberal sexism towards anyone that doesn't think and believe like them and even how many of your side will eat their own ( I.E. Ivanka Trump). Sorry that you don't get that or like my example. Want another?

These liberals will believe anything as long as it is politically correct.

[Jedidiah]

In the first quote you skip "So if". By doing so you change the point. It is manipulating.

Second. The last point maintains that even if there is one point in which there is a similarity that does nothing to change the fact that the two situations can hardly be compared.

So, no, manipulation will not fix this for you Mr. Mountain Man.

Charles, your argument does not begin to address the point. It is a pure diversion.

[Charles]

Charles, your argument does not begin to address the point. It is a pure diversion.

Because? (and I hope you find it fair that I point to the fact that he leaves out an important part in the quote in order to change the meaning?)

[Mountain Man]

In the first quote you skip "So if". By doing so you change the point. It is manipulating.

Second. The last point maintains that even if there is one point in which there is a similarity that does nothing to change the fact that the two situations can hardly be compared.

So, no, manipulation will not fix this for you Mr. Mountain Man.

No manipulation intended. I took the "So if" to be rhetorical, as in "Even if I can't answer your question, it doesn't mean your argument is correct," which sure seemed to me that you were admitting that you didn't have an answer, or at least you didn't have an answer that couldn't be thrown back in your face. If you think you can demonstrate "that psychologically speaking there is a huge and principal difference between wanting to become another gender and wanting to become another species", then go ahead and demonstrate it. Baldly asserting that it is somehow more dignified for a man to want to become a woman than it is for a man to want become a dog is not a valid rebuttal. Certainly the man who wants to become a dog would not agree with you and might even be insulted by your reasoning... hmmm, didn't you castigate me earlier for taking a position that transgender people might find insulting? It will be interesting to see if you can extricate yourself from this dilemma without falling face-first into a double-standard.

As for the second quote, that's a straw man on your part, because I don't need them to be "comparable in every other respect", I only need them to be comparable in one respect for my argument to stand.

[Charles]

No manipulation intended. I took the "So if" to be rhetorical, as in "Even if I can't answer your question, it doesn't mean your argument is correct," which sure seemed to me that you were admitting that you didn't have an answer, or at least you didn't have an answer that couldn't be thrown back in your face. If you think you can demonstrate "that psychologically speaking there is a huge and principal difference between wanting to become another gender and wanting to become another species", then go ahead and demonstrate it. Baldly asserting that it is somehow more dignified for a man to want to become a woman than it is for a man to want become a dog is not a valid rebuttal. Certainly the man who wants to become a dog would not agree with you and might even be insulted by your reasoning... hmmm, didn't you castigate me earlier for taking a position that transgender people might find insulting? It will be interesting to see if you can extricate yourself from this dilemma without falling face-first into a double-standard.

As for the second quote, that's a straw man on your part, because I don't need them to be "comparable in every other respect", I only need them to be comparable in one respect for my argument to stand.

If you do not think being human is dignified to a higher degree than being a dog, then we disagree. That is what I hold and continue to hold. I guess when it all comes down, you actually agree?

How does it help you if they compare in one respect? That does not mean that there is not a huge or principial difference psycologically anyway. And that was what you asked for. You compare to a militant islamist in being religious. But apart from that you do not compare at all. So what is the point, even if they compare in that single point?

[Mountain Man]

If you do not think being human is dignified to a higher degree than being a dog, then we disagree. That is what I hold and continue to hold. I guess when it all comes down, you actually agree?

How does it help you if they compare in one respect? That does not mean that there is not a huge or principial difference psycologically anyway. And that was what you asked for. You compare to a militant islamist in being religious. But apart from that you do not compare at all. So what is the point, even if they compare in that single point?

Does the success of your argument depend on someone else agreeing with it? In that case, a man who thinks he was born the wrong species and wishes to become a dog would not agree with you, so your argument fails.

How does it help me if they compare in one respect? Because that one respect is the entire point of my argument: a man who, despite all evidence to the contrary, thinks he should have been born a woman is in conflict with reality; similarly, a man who, despite all evidence to the contrary, thinks he should have been born a lizard is in conflict with reality. You can't just arbitrarily declare that one man's delusion is more ethical or dignified than the other and think you've settled the dilemma.

At this point I'm just repeating myself, so unless this will probably be my last post on the matter.

[Charles]

Does the success of your argument depend on someone else agreeing with it? In that case, a man who thinks he was born the wrong species and wishes to become a dog would not agree with you, so your argument fails.

How does it help me if they compare in one respect? Because that one respect is the entire point of my argument: a man who, despite all evidence to the contrary, thinks he should have been born a woman is in conflict with reality; similarly, a man who, despite all evidence to the contrary, thinks he should have been born a lizard is in conflict with reality. You can't just arbitrarily declare that one man's delusion is more ethical or dignified than the other and think you've settled the dilemma.

At this point I'm just repeating myself, so unless this will probably be my last post on the matter.

No, the succes is not dependent on you to agree. I just seriously wondered how a Christian can fail to see the difference in this case when in other cases it is so fundamental in their thought.

You claim I am in a dilemma. I don't see one. I consistently go for human over animal, so where is the dilemma?

If they share being in contrast with reality, then why does it folllow that none of the tremendeous other differences are relevant? How do you justify that claim?

I do not hold that trans is a mental ilness btw.

I would say if two people both have a delusion and the first person thinks he must play music very loud at night to keep goast away due to his delusion while the other thinks he must to kill due to his delusion, then the last one is far worse of. But you seem to hold I cannot "arbitrarily" think so when they are both delusional? Or does that only go in the particular case? If so then why?