UK - Train firm apologise for "ladies and gentlemen" announcement

[Belz...]

This defense is redundant; I already said accepted that your saying those things was non-serious.

And then you said I wanted to "distance myself" from it, as if I was being disingenuous.

No. Saying that a position is closed-minded, or reactionary, or potentially-bigoted is NOT the same thing as calling someone an idiot, get out of there.

When you don't want to understand what people tell you, you won't.

You, yourself, have just called the very same position LondonJohn was criticizing "all kinds of nonsense", which is certainly no less "condescending" than calling it closed-minded.

No it's not. Describing what someone says and labeling the person isn't the same thing. You should know that.

Of course you don't have to address everything that everyone says.

Good, then don't act as if my failing to do that is somehow telling.

 

[LondonJohn]

No. Saying that a position is closed-minded, or reactionary, or potentially-bigoted is NOT the same thing as calling someone an idiot, get out of there. That is reaching logic. You, yourself, have just called the very same position LondonJohn was criticizing "all kinds of nonsense", which is certainly no less "condescending" than calling it closed-minded.

Indeed. And Belz also appears to be forgetting the (very important) distinction between a) addressing an argument (or, here, an apparent belief system underpinning an argument), and b) addressing the arguer. That's neither a semantic nor sophistic distinction.

Hey-ho. Incidentally, the "condescending" label had become the go-to personal insult* to try to shut me down elsewhere in this parish, even though in all but an extremely low number of instances it was without any objective merit. So it's hardly a surprise to see it being wheeled out again in this thread...


* Since it's a personality descriptor, it is - by definition - a personal insult. But again, hey-ho.

 

[LondonJohn]

Person A: The SI unit for velocity is the foot-pound, and mass & weight are completely interchangeable since they're the same thing.

Person B (to person A): Your educative level is scientifically illiterate.

Person A (to anyone/everyone): WAAHHH! He labelled me! And in a condescending manner, to boot!

 

[Belz...]

Indeed. And Belz also appears to be forgetting the (very important) distinction between a) addressing an argument (or, here, an apparent belief system underpinning an argument), and b) addressing the arguer.

That's a very odd thing to say in the post RIGHT AFTER I make the distinction.

You didn't address the argument. You called POSTERS closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic.

 

[Belz...]

Person A: The SI unit for velocity is the foot-pound, and mass & weight are completely interchangeable since they're the same thing.

Person B (to person A): Your educative level is scientifically illiterate.

Person A (to anyone/everyone): WAAHHH! He labelled me! And in a condescending manner, to boot!

Person A: "The only people who would disagree with me are either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic.

Person B: "That's pretty condescending, labeling people like that."

Person A: "Woah, wait a minute! How is any of that labeling???? I don't understand words!!"

 

[The Atheist]

Nonbinary identity is just a subset of transgender identity. All nonbinary people have transgender identity.

Wrong and wronger, and that's by definition of the alphabet people themselves.

Maybe you could get off that very tall horse and look at this.

Intersex and agender starter for 10.

 

[Checkmite]

And then you said I wanted to "distance myself" from it, as if I was being disingenuous.

I don't agree with that interpretation of those words, but I'm sorry if that's how they sounded to you.

When you don't want to understand what people tell you, you won't.

And if you fail to articulate your ideas well enough, they also won't.

No it's not. Describing what someone says and labeling the person isn't the same thing. You should know that.

Being called out and presuming someone's referring to you in an exchange they're having with someone else also aren't the same thing.

Good, then don't act as if my failing to do that is somehow telling.

Context matters.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Wrong and wronger, and that's by definition of the alphabet people themselves.

Maybe you could get off that very tall horse and look at this.

Intersex and agender starter for 10.

which specific part are you referring to that supports your position because a cursory glance doesn't make it obvious

 

[Checkmite]

Person A: "The only people who would disagree with me are either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic.

Corrected paraphrase:

"The only people who would make this particular statement are either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic"

 

[LondonJohn]

Wrong and wronger, and that's by definition of the alphabet people themselves.

Maybe you could get off that very tall horse and look at this.

Intersex and agender starter for 10.

I can't access that website at the moment, because I'm on hospital wifi and it seems they block those sorts of activist websites.

But does it contain content in any respects similar to this wiki entry?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-binary_gender

Because if it does...... then it does nothing to diminish my original rebuttal. The original claim was that all nonbinary people are, by definition, agender (and that, as such, they shouldn't want to be referenced at all wrt any gendered groupings. I rebutted that this wasn't/isn't the case.


Oh and if Belz were looking for some genuine condescension within this thread (not to mention a pretty decent personal insult into the bargain), here would perhaps be an excellent place to start

 

[LondonJohn]

(I almost missed the artfully-inserted mocking of LGBTQIA+ people as "the alphabet people" - nice work!)

 

[LondonJohn]

Corrected paraphrase:

"The only people who would make this particular statement are either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic"

I can't be bothered to explain or argue this matter any more - I'm confident to the point of near certainty that it's a lost cause and a waste of keystrokes.....

 

[Belz...]

Being called out and presuming someone's referring to you in an exchange they're having with someone else also aren't the same thing.

I'm sorry, what are you arguing here? The fact of the matter is that John was refering to posters here when he called them that. That's what I was calling him on, regardless of whether I was part of that group.

 

[Belz...]

Corrected paraphrase:

"The only people who would make this particular statement are either closed-minded, reactionary, or flat-out transphobic"

Since he didn't make any logical connection between the two parts of that sentence, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm sorry, what are you arguing here? The fact of the matter is that John was refering to posters here when he called them that. That's what I was calling him on, regardless of whether I was part of that group.

You already stated that, in your opinion, NOBODY was part of that group.

Which of your truths would you like to pick as your real truth?

 

[LondonJohn]

(By the way, my username is "LondonJohn")

 

[Belz...]

You already stated that, in your opinion, NOBODY was part of that group.

Which of your truths would you like to pick as your real truth?

For pete's sake, you can't possibly be that dense.

That you were WRONG about your characterisation doesn't magically mean that you weren't targeting anyone with it.

(By the way, my username is "LondonJohn")

John for short.

 

[Checkmite]

I'm sorry, what are you arguing here? The fact of the matter is that John was refering to posters here when he called them that. That's what I was calling him on, regardless of whether I was part of that group.

Even though you described the very same ideas ostensibly held by those unnamed posters as "all kinds of nonsense", indeed to a degree that you have argued someone would naturally interpret them as a joke upon hearing them?

 

[Checkmite]

Since he didn't make any logical connection between the two parts of that sentence, it's a distinction without a difference.

Only because it needs to be to justify your remaining upset by the idea of someone, somewhere being described as "closed-minded".

 

[LondonJohn]

In passing, it truly is a bizarro world in which any given person can mock, belittle and invalidate nonbinary transgender identity....

.... and yet that person - or others on his/her behalf - can take super-umbrage at having his/her position explained as the work of either a closed-minded, reactionary or transphobic attitude.

(And I'd ask once again: what other reasonable explanations might there be if someone makes statements mocking, belittling and invalidating nonbinary transgender identity? I'd genuinely be open to suggestions, as I said before.)