Pardon me but WTF are you even talking about. This is a Disney thread and we are discussing the Parental Rights Bill that Disney is trying to burn. You seem to be conveniently rewriting your stance as you see fit.
2 Likes
Nah, Iāve been consistent. Read my first post to this one if you want. I saw nothing to have outrage about in the Shapiro/Disney clip in the first post from the Disney staff.
Thanks for making your position clear.
1 Like
I think this is turning into an argument where tails1 is just dancing around the fact that heās a liberal shill.
Itās literally become the kid on the schoolbus whose finger is 1/4" from your face and saying āIām not touching youā
Itās also facts over feelings, according to him. Meanwhile, he believes in a version of god which some would argue is no different than believing in fairy tales or greek myths. Itās literally a form of insanity to believe you are not the same gender as your biological sex yet believing in a talking bush or serpent is not.
1 Like
Yeah somebody recently likened me to said ākidā. I wonāt go that far but heās certainly not making himself coherent. It defeats the purpose of even having a discussion when one party flips their position every opportunity that doesnāt go his/her/their/itās way.
1 Like
I donāt think he is a shill.
In fact, I believe that the word āshillā should not be a part of a good rhetorical toolbox. It implies that the person is sharing his or her thoughts in the discussion due to some motivation other than a good-intentioned exchange of ideas. Itās been used in this way since the internet started. It is extremely weak rhetoric.
Calling someone a āshillā is the assumption of bad faith without any evidence of bad faith, which I believe is problematic no matter who does it.
1 Like
I havenāt danced around anything, Iāve been clear and consistent throughout. When I donāt understand your legal framework I ask a question.
Read all my posts in this thread, I havenāt moved stance. Or attacked people, except Shapiro and his wap rant. That was weird, cāmon we can all agree on that?
Youāve complained about ad hominems but quick to chuck them out.
Not once, show me where I flipped and Iāll clarify.
I agree, but also have yet to see tails1 say anything that Iāve been able to interpret as āgood faithā so 
So continue to assume good faith and argue from a position where you assume that this person has good intentions but misguided ideas about how to achieve the outcomes they have in mind.
3 Likes
Which version doesnt fit the description āsome would argue is no different than believing in fairy tales or greek myths?ā Does believing in God nullify any argument in that case?
3 Likes
I havenāt attacked anyone present in this thread, but i did challenge the merits of your āscientificā blog post based on the author.
Your stance is:
Which is fine. Like i said earlier, Iām glad you live in the UK. frankly i couldnāt care less if you donāt see this as an issue - but i do. Iām not trying to convince you that itās a problem and you wonāt change my mind, which is why i had stopped responding to you.
The bastion of masculinity that is the UK (/s/) can keep spewing out limp wristed dudes at historically unprecedented rates and it affects me none.
1 Like
Iāll answer your question if you answer mine.
No, I donāt think that was weird for Shapiro. Iām a conservative atheist, but heās a conservative Orthodox Jew. His response to that was entirely in-line with what you should expect from a young Orthodox Jew. Back in the 1990ās, reaching this kind of understanding while holding disagreement was what we called ātoleranceā.
Iām sure the list of things that ruffle Shapiroās feathers and is worthy of commentary is a lot longer than mine, but I still find his perspective as a young conservative to be well thought-out and worth listening to.
Iāve now answered your question, so I hope you will exchange the courtesy.
I give up. Certainly not worth the time.
Iāll give it a go but I canāt see where your quote of yourself came from? Did I miss it, is there more context?
I donāt mean context as in 200+ replies just was it an answer to me or flip, for example that I missed.
Edit: just realised you can press on the quote. Give me a min
Thatās totally cool and thoughtful of you to explain, and exactly why it is important to assume good faith.
Hereās the complete question I would like to hear your answer to. The pretense I am starting with is that we now have statistically unlikely rates of gender dysphoria among our children that have seemingly sprung up in the last decade or so. If you really want to be pedantic I can dig up all of the supporting evidence for this, or you can assume good faith on my part.
The bolded part is the question I would like to hear you answer.
2 Likes
I think my question was tongue in cheek and easier to answer. Much easier. But I had a go at answering yours. I assumed good faith but Iām interested in stats, and itās not an area I know much about, so I went and found some. Found this:
But it aināt great so I looked for UK gov stats but theyāve only started asking about trans recently so no info on how representation has changed. So, I donāt know? I canāt tell if the numbers are higher or people feel more comfortable being identified that way, or if people do identify they now get a platform rather than shunned.
That Williams institute method involved cold calling someone and asking if they where trans. I honestly canāt tell if that works effectively at all or for different age groups. It gave rates of 0.3% and 0.8% depending on state. Hawaii was the highest.
As shaky as I think cold calling is and asking sensitive issues the 2011 gates study looks shakier. It looked at 2 or 3 States and extrapolated out.
So I looked at stonewall.Org.uk, their answer about current numbers is āwe donāt know?ā
So I canāt answer why as I donāt know exactly what. No studies even went below age 18 either.
I appreciate you taking a stab at the question I posed. I suppose my straightforward question was a little less tongue-in-cheek than yours was, which I agree is not fair at all.
Perhaps this is just another unfortunate confluence of real-life bad outcomes coincidentally merging with leftist policy priorities being implemented. Contrary to my retrograde conservative thinking, there may be no need to revisit the leftist policy priorities at this moment, not when the bad outcomes can be explained away with the right set of mental gymnastics.
Edit: I donāt mean to come across as dismissive of your arguments, but it seems as though youāre making a non-argument. Youāre not denying that my basic claim is true, but youāre just declaring that you have no idea why my claim might be true. Which is fine.
This is a question worth asking and Iāll keep asking it.
4 Likes
1 Like