Danica Roem

[laughing dog]

Actually, no. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that when he called me a little bitch, none was not making an empirical observation.

You are wrong. It is not beyond my reasonable doubt. Or are you claiming omniscience?

I assess that it's unreasonable of none's part to insult me. Obviously, my assessment does not make it so. I make the assessment because it's so.

Ah the religious doctrine of infallibility. I am beginning the think that none's empirical observation is valid.

 

[sharon45]

Being transgender isn’t the whole of her identity, the extent of her purpose or the crux of her mission.

More obvious thoughts.

The obstacles in her life are particular, but the hell of rush hour is universal. And her job as a lawmaker is to attend to the nitty-gritty that has an immediate, measurable impact on all of her constituents. When circumstances warrant it, she can be every bit as boring as the next politician.

That is not necessarily boring, it is simply about policy.

This approach wouldn’t be praiseworthy if Roem seemed in any way to be hiding a part of herself or ashamed of it. But that’s not the case at all.

None of this is anywhere near praiseworthy or contemptible until it at least goes enough past the mere talk stage.

She clearly stated her belief that insurance should cover hormone therapy and other treatments that transgender people seek.

Private or public insurance?

She just as clearly communicated her affinity with society’s underdogs.

Uh, you mean some of society’s underdogs.

Then she swerved, ceaselessly, to the problem of inadequate teacher pay

For what?

the importance of Medicaid expansion

Again, meaning what?

and Route 28, Route 28, Route 28.

So, just all talk, and in triplicate even.

Traffic knows no color, creed or gender. It gave her both a mantra and a metaphor.

Yet an incorrect one of both.

 

[KeepTalking]

Given the tone this thread has taken recently, with regard to insults being thrown about, I thought I would pop in as a neutral party (neutral in the sense that I have not participated in this thread previously), and offer some observations. This thread started out on civil terms, with most participants dispassionately discussing their takes on the topic of Danica Roem, and transgender identity in general. The turning point for the thread seems to have occurred on page 6, when one poster characterized the arguments of the other side as looking like religion. On a forum such as this, which is composed mostly of freethinkers and/or atheists, making a claim that another poster's argument as amounting to a religious one can be seen as insulting. So, to me, this was the first instance of an insult being thrown out, and it occurred in post #53:

If someone claims to be Imago Dei, or be Born Again in Jesus, etc., I'm not buying it. It's not about deciding for themselves. It's about whether their claims about themselves are true or false. They are false. I don't see any good evidence that Roem is a woman. She might be, but I reckon it's more probable that he's a man, on the basis of the available evidence. At any rate, if Roem is a woman, it's certainly not because Roem so decided. It's not a matter of personal choice whether you fall into a category picked by a word (well, except to the extent the word tracks personal choices; in this case, it surely does not).

You are factually incorrect - people can and do choose their gender.  Sex_reassignment_surgery is an example.

But your contributions in this thread have piqued my curiosity - do you feel the need to have proof of everyone's gender?

First, no, you are incorrect. A person does not become a man or a woman by means of surgical alterations. If I were to be surgically modified and my sexual organs were made to somewhat resemble a vagina, I would be a man with surgically altered sexual organs, but still a man. In order to become a woman, I would have to undergo a transformation that is far beyond currect technology. I do not know whether future technology will make it possible.

Second, it's not a "need". But of course, like all humans, I do classify objects in the world in different manners. One category is classifying people as men or women. Nearly everyone falls into one such category (there are some exceptions, like intersex people with minds that also have both female and male categories; maybe some others, like Roem. Or maybe not). In nearly all cases, I do have sufficient evidence. In fact, by looking at a person's face, in nearly all cases, I can tell whether that's a female or a male human, and also whether that's a woman or a man.
But no, I don't feel any need to have evidence. There are a few people that I look at, and I don't know whether he's a man or she is a woman. I usually do not care, and keep going. But when someone makes a claim that a person is a woman, and I see no good evidence of that, that piques my curiosity, especially where there is a demand to agree with the claim or at least refrain to contest it, on pain of moral condemnation. It looks like a religion/ideology.

Now, this was not directed at any single poster, but it did put those who were arguing against Angra Mainyu on the defensive by labeling their position as a religious one. As one might expect, the very next post leveled that same accusation against the argument Agra Mainyu was putting forth. A couple more posts were exchanged about religious arguments, without actually referring to a specific poster as acting in a religious manner, until post #69, in which Angru Mainyu once again stepped up to the plate to make that connection with regard to laughing dog:

It is religion to dispute reality and insist of metaphysical explanations.

Do you think that if I were to undergo sex reassignment surgery, I would then become a woman?
Do you think that people with male sexual organs who have not undergone such surgery but claim to be women, are not women?

I don't think about these cases at all. Frankly, I do not care about other people's plumbing at all.

No, I'm not denying any medical or legal facts, obviously. I'm talking about whether they can actually choose to be a different gender, and succeed in bringing about that change....

Since the medical and legal facts say they have changed their gender, you are engaging in a dogmatic religious argument. I find dogmatic religious arguments rather pointless because the holders of such views are so narrow minded that they are unable to accept that reality extends beyond their narrow imagination or thought.

Why do you behave like that?

Things started to heat up after that, with more direct insults about religious thinking being leveled against specific posters, and it wasn't long until post #75 was made:

Before the next round begins, I would like to stress a point:

When I first posted in this thread, I was not fighting. I was asking for evidence supporting the claim that Danica Roem is a woman. I got plenty of accusations coming my way, but not a single reasonable argument in support of the claim. It would still be epistemically irrational on my part to believe that Danica Roem is a woman.

From there Angra Mainyu began to play the role of the persecuted poster very well. Many of Angra Mainyu's posts since then have referred to others doing nothing but slighting Angra Mainyu, while Angra Mainyu claims to have been on the best behavior, and to have presented the best arguments that no one can refute, so they have to insult him. This eventually manifested into a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which Angra Mainyu actually was insulted.

I would like to submit that the record shows that Angra Mainyu made the first indirect insult in post #53, and the first direct insult in post #69. I therefor find it astonishing that Angra Mainyu now claims the moral high ground, and the status of a persecuted poster in this thread.

Perhaps a lesson can be learned here about reaping what one sows.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You need to go back further. AM started a somewhat scholarly analysis and was met with attempts to shame and insult.

It went downhill almost immediately after AM posted his disagreement that trans women are women because they say so, which was the full extend of the "great arguments" made at that point.

Because Angra's ego is tied to his/her sense of normalcy that was beat into his/her head since he/she was old enough to talk, and it would crumble to dust if he/she had to concede that normalcy is entirely subjective and that former preconceptions might have been false?

That was a pretty light personal attack, more of a strawman really, but it got much worse from there, mostly at the hands of laughing dog (not unexpected) and Ravensky (a little more surprising - and she was called out on her uneven standing as a mod for it as well).

And now we have derailed a derail of a derail. This thread has transitioned multiple times. Good thematic fit that.

 

[KeepTalking]

You need to go back further. AM started a somewhat scholarly analysis and was met with attempts to shame and insult.

It went downhill almost immediately after AM posted his disagreement that trans women are women because they say so, which was the full extend of the "great arguments" made at that point.

Because Angra's ego is tied to his/her sense of normalcy that was beat into his/her head since he/she was old enough to talk, and it would crumble to dust if he/she had to concede that normalcy is entirely subjective and that former preconceptions might have been false?

That was a pretty light personal attack, more of a strawman really,

Good point, I missed that in my review, as it was not a direct reply to AM's post, but rather a response to another poster.

but it got much worse from there, mostly at the hands of laughing dog (not unexpected) and Ravensky (a little more surprising - and she was called out on her uneven standing as a mod for it as well).

That did not happen until after AM characterized their posts as religious. I would also like to point out that the calling out of Ravensky came from Bomb#20, who has made it something of a habit to follow her around and cast aspersions at her actions (or non-actions) as a moderator.

And now we have derailed a derail of a derail.

Yep, but no one is paying any attention to the repeated calls to stop derailing, so why not.

This thread has transitioned multiple times. Good thematic fit that.

LOL, I see what you did there.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Nah, still it strikes me that you're adopting a stance here that you don't usually even examine with other people.

Either you haven't read my posts carefully, or you're being epistemically irrational in that assessemnt. Either way, it's false. This is not promising, but I'll do my best.

it doesn't have to be decisive. it's a good working assumption, though, unless and until you have other information, then the question becomes what you do what that information. If it changes your previous assessment, then why does it?

Normally, we have a number of different ways of classifying objects around us in the categories of our language. If we look at a person from a distance, and they are dressed with, say, a dress, we would say "probable a woman". But if we look closer, it might be it's a man dressed like that because he's going to a costume party, so we will update intuitively and say "man", etc.

I would think it was pretty clear. A close examination of their DNA, their plumbing, is not available to me. THESE things are available to me with all the people around me. So that's what my assessments would be based upon.

I see. But that does not help the leftist position, because some of the males(females) claiming to be women(men) look clearly like a man(woman), as did - and does, but let's say did - Jenner when he made such claims. Moreover, sometimes you do have knowledge of their plumbing, either because they make it explicitly or implicitly clear in the context of their transgender claims, or it can be assessed by other means (obviously, Jenner had a penis, since he had sex with women and they became pregnant). Also, obviously, he is and was no hermaphrodite. And so on.

That's a separate issue. I was asking if you did not know about Roem's status. So you bring up someone with a completely different situation?

Because in your claims in your previous post - which included accusations against me -, you posited a standard that I'm testing, to try to convince you that you're mistaken, so that perhaps you withdraw your negative judgment, or at least if you choose to insist, to show readers that you're mistaken and not being rational.

First, because you are accusing me (without good reasons), so I'm explaining to you my take on these matters.
Second, because it seems to be the same leftist ideology behind involved in the public condemnations involving those cases.

Nah, still it strikes me that you're adopting a stance here that you don't usually even examine with other people.

Either you haven't read my posts carefully, or you're being epistemically irrational in that assessemnt. Either way, it's false. This is not promising, but I'll do my best.

it doesn't have to be decisive. it's a good working assumption, though, unless and until you have other information, then the question becomes what you do what that information. If it changes your previous assessment, then why does it?

Normally, we have a number of different ways of classifying objects around us in the categories of our language. If we look at a person from a distance, and they are dressed with, say, a dress, we would say "probable a woman". But if we look closer, it might be it's a man dressed like that because he's going to a costume party, so we will update intuitively and say "man", etc.

I would think it was pretty clear. A close examination of their DNA, their plumbing, is not available to me. THESE things are available to me with all the people around me. So that's what my assessments would be based upon.

I see. But that does not help the leftist position, because some of the males(females) claiming to be women(men) look clearly like a man(woman), as did - and does, but let's say did - Jenner when he made such claims. Moreover, sometimes you do have knowledge of their plumbing, either because they make it explicitly or implicitly clear in the context of their transgender claims, or it can be assessed by other means (obviously, Jenner had a penis, since he had sex with women and they became pregnant). Also, obviously, he is and was no hermaphrodite. And so on.

That's a separate issue. I was asking if you did not know about Roem's status. So you bring up someone with a completely different situation?

It's not "completely" different. In fact, it has relevant similarities, because in your claims in your previous post - which included accusations against me -, you posited a standard that I'm testing (i.e, a standard for determining whether a person is a man or a woman) , to try to convince you that you're mistaken, so that perhaps you withdraw your negative judgment, or at least if you choose to insist, to show readers that you're mistaken and not being rational.
The case of Jenner when he first came out is just one example. My defense is meant to involve other pieces of evidence. But it's hard to defend myself if you're unwilling to entertain my questions in that context. You just say:

This would be why I think it's an affectation.

But if my very defense is not only not addressed but considered evidence of "an affectation", I can only speak for readers.

And, again, I was asking how it would affect you if you didn't have that information. But you're resisting a straightforward answer.

It probably wouldn't. And if some stranger becomes a Pentecostal and believes he speaks in tongues (and makes sense), that almost certainly won't affect me, either. But I'm not going to buy the claim, and if they choose to spread their relgion/ideology, I might choose to challenge his belief (or I might not; plenty of religions/ideologies to pick from).

If Roem did not tell you that she used to be a man, what difference would it make to you?

First, as I explained in the previous exchange, you're making an assertion in conflict with standard transgender claims, which hold that Roem was never a man, but a woman all along.

Well, you are the one insisting on referring to Roem as 'he' in all cases. So this is not YOUR standard claim, and you adamantly reject standard transgender claims. So this would be another strawman you're tilting at. Throwing up a defense that you don't agree with, another affectation.

No, that is a completely improper conclusion to reach. Of course, as I have made abundantly clear, I disagree with transgender claims.
But you are saying otherwise. You claim that you believe a person's claim about their own gender. But then, you go on to make statements that contradict transgender usual claims about their own gender, particularly the claim that they've been that gender all along.
The proper conclusion for you to reach is that your beliefs on the matter appear to be in conflict with each other. My hope (but at this point, I grant it's a faint hope) is that you would change them in a way that would lead to you withdraw the unwarranted and false accusation against me (even if the accusation is unwarranted, I might get lucky with the change, if there is a change in your stance). But instead of reaching the rational conclusion from my examples, you actually persist in your previous beliefs, and moreover, you consider that part of my reply to be evidence in support of another claim against me.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

For all Angra's ranting about typical word usage, he accepted the alleged non-standard word usage of "she," which is because this situation was non-standard...just like Danica's situation is non-standard. What makes Angra the arbiter of when to apply non-standard usage in non-standard situations or to proclaim that only allegedly standard usage is appropriate? Well, the answer is...........no one cares. Yes, no one cares to be in a debate about semantic quibbling. Linguistics is descriptive, not prescriptive, but yet Angra has contradicted his prescriptions by accepting the word "she" twice and responded in the affirmative. This is the second time he lost his silly debate on semantic quibbling he seems to want so much, if anyone is counting.

First, not challenging the word every time it's used is not a contradiction. But sure, I sometimes mix up (not just in transgender cases) the pronouns "he" and "she". It happens. But a mistake on my part does not invalidate any of my points.
Second, and more importantly, I did not make a claim that the use of "she" was always improper. I said that I was going with "he" because I reckon it's likely that Roem is a man. But there are reasons to say "she" in some cases, e.g., to avoid an unnecessary confrontation.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually, no. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that when he called me a little bitch, none was not making an empirical observation.

You are wrong. It is not beyond my reasonable doubt. Or are you claiming omniscience?

First, of course it's beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, of course I'm not remotely claiming omniscience. I'm pointing out it's beyond a reasonable doubt. There are plenty of things that we can tell are beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, that humans evolved from monkeys. That you are not an AI. And that none was not making an empirical observation when none called me a "little bitch"; none was merely calling me names.

I assess that it's unreasonable of none's part to insult me. Obviously, my assessment does not make it so. I make the assessment because it's so.

Ah the religious doctrine of infallibility. I am beginning the think that none's empirical observation is valid.

Your accusation that I'm claiming or otherwise suggesting I'm infallible is unjust. Your belief that you are correct is false, epistemically unwarranted, and in fact it is epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that it was unreasonable on none's part to insult me. And of course, I'm not infallible, but I can clearly see that you're wrong, as I (and nearly everyone) can see many things that are beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That did not happen until after AM characterized their posts as religious. I would also like to point out that the calling out of Ravensky came from Bomb#20, who has made it something of a habit to follow her around and cast aspersions at her actions (or non-actions) as a moderator.

First, that's B20 often calls out people who engage in unwarranted, unjust attacks against others, but there is no "following her around", and in any case, his replies are proper. You're attacking him for no good reason. You should not.
Second, their position is religious/ideological, as I've been arguing. Whether we call it "religion" or "ideology", there is the same sort of in-group/out-group mentality, strong commitment to epistemically irrational beliefs, condemnations of dissenters for what they believe and for all sorts of other things there is no good reason to suspect they believe but are unjustly accused of believing anyway, etc.
Third, even if I were in error, that does not warrant making false, unwarranted claims about me.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

This thread started out on civil terms, with most participants dispassionately discussing their takes on the topic of Danica Roem, and transgender identity in general. The turning point for the thread seems to have occurred on page 6, when one poster characterized the arguments of the other side as looking like religion.

That is false. That was not the beginning of the problem. If you're talking about this post, that happened well after the unfair accusations, false and unwarranted attributions of belief, unwarranted accusations, etc., had already begun. And, in fact, the assessment that it looked lke a religion/ideology was correct, and proper on the basis of the available information.

For example:
(the first one is directed at NMN, not at me, though it hits a zillion others as "collateral damage" so to speak.)


https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=473316&viewfull=1#post473316

Things were so much easier when it was received wisdom that there were two, only two and precisely two human genders. But it turns out that that assessment is simplistic, unrepresentative of humanity, and fundamentally wrong.

Rather like when Pluto was declared not to be a planet, a lot of the simpler folks are certain that 'easier' meant 'better', and that we can simply choose not to change; But those folks are wrong on all counts. The facts haven't changed at all; Pluto never should have been considered a planet, and trans-gender people never should have been considered to have the gender indicated by examining their genitalia at birth (and if necessary, modifying them to fit one of the two predetermined categories). We were wrong in the past, and choosing to remain wrong once new facts come to light is just fucking stupid.

You should stop doing it; it only indicates to others that you are a slow learner, who would rather cling to his old errors than be polite to the other people of all genders that you share the planet with.

You can correct your error, or be wrong; There are (perhaps ironically) only these two possibilities for you at this stage in human history.

You are not a victim. Go away.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474029&viewfull=1#post474029

Yes, they have meaning and so when it says MEN on the bathroom door, children should go in the other bathroom that says WOMEN. Also, people who are not GENTLEMEN or LADIES need to go outside.

Wow, society is discriminatory when one is a literalist.

Make sure you keep going on and on about semantics.

This one misrepresents my position entirely, presents me in a very bad light that has no basis on the previous exchange, and so on.


https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474034&viewfull=1#post474034
In this one, it's implied (for no good reason) that I'm being irrational.

Because Angra's ego is tied to his/her sense of normalcy that was beat into his/her head since he/she was old enough to talk, and it would crumble to dust if he/she had to concede that normalcy is entirely subjective and that former
preconceptions might have been false?

(I see you've already been told about this one).

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474049&viewfull=1#post474049

Who are you to decide that binary gender constructs are the "proper" way to do it? Clearly, it isn't. People do exist and have always existed that do not fit into your pre-conceived notion of only two genders. That tells me that it is your notion of words that is in error... not the people themselves.

That just completely misconstrues what I was saying, and includes an implicit condemnation (i.e., "Who are you to say...?", even if not as strong as it would become later.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474056&viewfull=1#post474056 (this one is pretty much all misrepresentation and unfounded accusation).


https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?12315-Danica-Roem&p=474078&viewfull=1#post474078

As for the thread topic, there are no restrictions or conditions for gender or sex in the US for running for office. The argument about whether Danica Roem calls herself a woman is merely the typical reaction of people who think they get to decide for others.

Things started to heat up after that, with more direct insults about religious thinking being leveled against specific posters, and it wasn't long until post #75 was made:

Actually, that was a proper characterization of their behavior.

From there Angra Mainyu began to play the role of the persecuted poster very well. Many of Angra Mainyu's posts since then have referred to others doing nothing but slighting Angra Mainyu, while Angra Mainyu claims to have been on the best behavior, and to have presented the best arguments that no one can refute, so they have to insult him. This eventually manifested into a self-fulfilling prophecy, in which Angra Mainyu actually was insulted.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the exchange, of my claims and my behavior. You're making false, disparaging claims about B20 and about me. You should not.

I would like to submit that the record shows that Angra Mainyu made the first indirect insult in post #53, and the first direct insult in post #69. I therefor find it astonishing that Angra Mainyu now claims the moral high ground, and the status of a persecuted poster in this thread.

I didn't insult anyone. I defended myself, and my characterization of the religious/ideological stances of others as religious/ideological is correct, and not an insult.

Perhaps a lesson can be learned here about reaping what one sows.

No, but one can learn how religious/ideological adherent band together to condemn dissenters.

 

[none]

can you believe this is happening on the internet, oh noes
the threat to humanity aside this is a battle of knowledge epistemology, com'on folks

 

[laughing dog]

First, of course it's beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I pointed out, it is not beyond my reasonable doubt. So, you are claiming it is beyond your reasonable doubt. Furthermore, you are brooking no dissent. Which is an implicit claim of omniscience and infallibility. Which is a very religious argument.

Your accusation that I'm claiming or otherwise suggesting I'm infallible is unjust. Your belief that you are correct is false, epistemically unwarranted, and in fact it is epistemically irrational on your part to fail to realize that it was unreasonable on none's part to insult me.

There you go again.
You wrote "Obviously, my assessment does not make it so. I make the assessment because it's so." But there is no way for you know it is SO. You believe it is true, but you cannot know that is unreasonable for someone to insult you. It is empistically warranted for you to act as if your belief/opinion of the validity of a claim makes that claim true only in the case where you are infallible.
You claim you know you are not infallible, but you also refuse to admit you may be wrong about this. So what is someone to conclude? A reasonable conclusion is that you are making a religious argument.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That was unwise of me to take Angra off ignore. Back to ignore.


"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." -- attributed to someone very smart

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As I pointed out, it is not beyond my reasonable doubt. So, you are claiming it is beyond your reasonable doubt. Furthermore, you are brooking no dissent. Which is an implicit claim of omniscience and infallibility. Which is a very religious argument.

No, that's not remotely what's going on. It's beyond a reasonable doubt that when he called me a little bitch, none was not making an empirical observation. And the claim "you are brooking no dissent" is a loaded term, quite out of place. What's happening is that none decided to engage in name-calling against me, not in observations about small female dogs or whatever. There is obviously, very, very obviously no implicit claim of omniscient or infallibility. We can tell that many things are beyond a reasonable doubt. This is one of them. If you fail to see it, it doesn't change the facts. And if I want to show that to other readers, as long as they're being rational, all I need to do is point out that they can make the assessment by themselves by reading the exchange.

There you go again.
You wrote "Obviously, my assessment does not make it so. I make the assessment because it's so." But there is no way for you know it is SO. You believe it is true, but you cannot know that is unreasonable for someone to insult you. It is empistically warranted for you to act as if your belief/opinion of the validity of a claim makes that claim true only in the case where you are infallible.
You claim you know you are not infallible, but you also refuse to admit you may be wrong about this. So what is someone to conclude? A reasonable conclusion is that you are making a religious argument.

Of course I can know. I can read the exchange, and make a proper assessment. And of course I do know, since I've read the exchange, and made a proper assessment. It should be obvious to you that you are defending an unreasonable position. But it is not obvious to you, because you're being unreasonable. And you believe you're correct, so you keep it up.

 

[laughing dog]

No, that's not remotely what's going on. It's beyond a reasonable doubt that when he called me a little bitch, none was not making an empirical observation. And the claim "you are brooking no dissent" is a loaded term, quite out of place. What's happening is that none decided to engage in name-calling against me, not in observations about small female dogs or whatever. There is obviously, very, very obviously no implicit claim of omniscient or infallibility. We can tell that many things are beyond a reasonable doubt. This is one of them. If you fail to see it, it doesn't change the facts. And if I want to show that to other readers, as long as they're being rational, all I need to do is point out that they can make the assessment by themselves by reading the exchange.

No. It is most likely that it was meant as an insult, but it is not beyond my reasonable doubt that it was. So, you cannot claim it is beyond a reasonable doubt as a general standard. It may be beyond your reasonable doubt, but that is not what you claim. In essence, you are claiming that your standard for reasonable doubt is the correct one which implies you are omniscient and infallible. But since you insist that yo

Of course I can know. I can read the exchange, and make a proper assessment.

That is an empirical question. And this thread is replete with evidence that indicates you overestimate your ability.

And of course I do know, since I've read the exchange, and made a proper assessment. It should be obvious to you that you are defending an unreasonable position. But it is not obvious to you, because you're being unreasonable. And you believe you're correct, so you keep it up.

It should be obvious to you that you are acting as if you are infallible. But it is not obvious to you because of unreasonable tacit belief that you are infallible. So you keep reproducing your backfiring defense which only reinforces that you are being unreasonable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No. It is most likely that it was meant as an insult, but it is not beyond my reasonable doubt that it was. So, you cannot claim it is beyond a reasonable doubt as a general standard. It may be beyond your reasonable doubt, but that is not what you claim. In essence, you are claiming that your standard for reasonable doubt is the correct one which implies you are omniscient and infallible. But since you insist that yo

That is an empirical question. And this thread is replete with evidence that indicates you overestimate your ability.

And of course I do know, since I've read the exchange, and made a proper assessment. It should be obvious to you that you are defending an unreasonable position. But it is not obvious to you, because you're being unreasonable. And you believe you're correct, so you keep it up.

It should be obvious to you that you are acting as if you are infallible. But it is not obvious to you because of unreasonable tacit belief that you are infallible. So you keep reproducing your backfiring defense which only reinforces that you are being unreasonable.

 

[laughing dog]

You know what is even more ironic than content-free non-argument. It is that you want people to accept your position on your say so, but you are unwilling to accept Danica Roem's position that she is a woman on her say so. I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy .

 

[LordKiran]

You know what is even more ironic than content-free non-argument. It is that you want people to accept your position on your say so, but you are unwilling to accept Danica Roem's position that she is a woman on her say so. I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy .

The last one.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You know what is even more ironic than content-free non-argument. It is that you want people to accept your position on your say so, but you are unwilling to accept Danica Roem's position that she is a woman on her say so. I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy .

No, that is a gross misrepresentation of what's happening. I do not want anyone to accept that none was not making an empirical observation when he called me a little bitch but was instead calling me names on my say so. Rather, I want them to make that assessment (well, those who have read the exchange) because it's the epistemically rational assessment to make after reading the exchange.
Now, if someone else - someone who hasn't read the thread - asks me, then I would want them to assign a high probability on my say so only if they're sufficiently familiar with my posting history to make it rational on their part to make that assessment.

 

[laughing dog]

You know what is even more ironic than content-free non-argument. It is that you want people to accept your position on your say so, but you are unwilling to accept Danica Roem's position that she is a woman on her say so. I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy .

No, that is a gross misrepresentation of what's happening...

Nope.

I do not want anyone to accept that none was not making an empirical observation when he called me a little bitch but was instead calling me names on my say so. Rather, I want them to make that assessment (well, those who have read the exchange) because it's the epistemically rational assessment to make after reading the exchange.
Now, if someone else - someone who hasn't read the thread - asks me, then I would want them to assign a high probability on my say so only if they're sufficiently familiar with my posting history to make it rational on their part to make that assessment.

Here you go again - you are implicitly assuming that your standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "an epistemically rational assessment" is THE STANDARD for everyone for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "an epistemically rational assessment". Since you admit you are neither omniscient nor infallible, you are tacitly asking people to accept your claims because you say so. My observation that " I don't know which is more pathetic - your position, the religious defense of your position or your hypocrisy ." is epistemically warranted.