Split Thread Issues around language and offense, with reference to transgenderism.

[Aepervius]

If you have the information that "defect" is an offensive term, you can't really claim that you didn't know that "defect" is an offensive term.

Whether it is offensive or not does not matter. All the study I have read, none classify disphoria (and gender disphoria) as being "normal", all the language point to it being abnormal behavior. DSM 5 change the term to gender discongruence but in the end it stays the same : this is not a normal behavior.

 

[cullennz]

Abnormality is probably a better term

 

[banquetbear]

You ask me to pay attention to the thread while now arguing that wareyin made a comment that had nothing to do with the post we was replying to?

...yep.

But apparently, what _I_ said elsewhere in this thread is relevant.

Yep.

No double standard there at all.

Correct again: no double standard there at all.

 

[Belz...]

...yep.

Yep.

Correct again: no double standard there at all.

That's insane. You are literally asking me to ignore what that poster said elsewhere while saying that what _I_ said elsewhere should not be ignored.

That IS a double standard. It's the exact opposite of rational thinking.

 

[banquetbear]

That's insane. You are literally asking me to ignore what that poster said elsewhere while saying that what _I_ said elsewhere should not be ignored.

That IS a double standard. It's the exact opposite of rational thinking.

...I think you've hijacked this thread enough with your strangely odd and petulant posts. It was pretty clear that wareyin was not referring to post 491 because post 491 did not contain any alleged rule 12 violations. Post 487 contained those posts. How is it possible for you to not realise that it was that post they were referring too?

Simple question: do you concede that the snippet I posted did attack the poster and not the post? Does it matter if that happened to be post 487 and not 491? Is it really that hard for you to admit that yes, you attacked the poster and not the contents of that post, several times over in one particular post?

And that you attacked the poster yet again in the very post you asked "How is it a rule 12 violation to say that your argument is ridiculous?" Do you remember what you said immediately after that? "Is there anything you ever understand in a discussion? I ask because, so far, you have understood nothing of what anyone has told you."

All you had to do was admit that I was right in the first place. Now you've taken this thread well off track. I'll leave you to it now because it seems like you need to get the last word in: so have at it.

 

[Belz...]

...I think you've hijacked this thread enough with your strangely odd and petulant posts.

I'm not the one who spent weeks telling people that they are using mean words.

It was pretty clear that wareyin was not referring to post 491 because post 491 did not contain any alleged rule 12 violations.

Yes, that's why I responded that it was, in fact, not a rule 12 violation. Your own response is that he was responding to another post, and I replied to you that he should take care of the beam in his eye, first.

Post 487 contained those posts. How is it possible for you to not realise that it was that post they were referring too?

Because I prefer to assume that people mean what they say rather than speculate about what they may mean. If he wanted to address another post, he should have done so and avoid any confusion.

Simple question: do you concede that the snippet I posted did attack the poster and not the post?

Sure.

Does it matter if that happened to be post 487 and not 491?

Yes, it does. If you're going to respond to a post, then you should address that post's content. Otherwise it gives the impression that they are doing that to avoid addressing the post they are actually responding to.

And that you attacked the poster yet again in the very post you asked "How is it a rule 12 violation to say that your argument is ridiculous?"

No, that is not an attack on the poster at all. It is an attack on their argument, calling it ridiculous. Are you now sayinng that attacking someone's argument is attacking the person too? I'm sure you're not.

"Is there anything you ever understand in a discussion? I ask because, so far, you have understood nothing of what anyone has told you."

That is a true statement that I made.