Greg Abbott Declares War On Gender Nonconformity

[Jarhyn]

I haven't defined any other word in that sentence either

The only word that bears definition, as it is the one you hinge a moral rule on, is "inappropriate".

It is the only vaguely used word there.

not suitable or proper in the circumstances

By what measure? What exact aspect makes it "inappropriate"? What shape of the situation MAKES it unsuitable?

Try not to use arguments from authority or ad populum here. Tell us, what do you think gives rise to it's "inappropriateness"?

Yes, and the question was addressed to ZiprHead.

And I'm telling you both why it's a bad question loaded with a vaguely defined word. You can complain about that as much as you like.

So until you define inappropriateness, and I have full faith and confidence you know what I mean by that, I'm guessing you're just going to get your shitty rhetoric thrown back along with some salt for your cheese crackers, and WHINE.

 

[Metaphor]

The only word that bears definition, as it is the one you hinge a moral rule on, is "inappropriate".

It is the only vaguely used word there.

I will blindly accept your rules for the discourse I have with ZiprHead.*

By what measure? What exact aspect makes it "inappropriate"? What shape of the situation MAKES it unsuitable?

Try not to use arguments from authority or ad populum here. Tell us, what do you think gives rise to it's "inappropriateness"?

Good god. I am not going to play infinite regress with you.

And I'm telling you both why it's a bad question loaded with a vaguely defined word. You can complain about that as much as you like.

So until you define inappropriateness, and I have full faith and confidence you know what I mean by that, I'm guessing you're just going to get your shitty rhetoric thrown back along with some salt for your cheese crackers, and WHINE.

You are not ZiprHead's keeper, nor mine, and you do not get to define the rules of engagement for us.

Bye now.

*The underlined statement is a counterfactual statement.

 

[Jarhyn]

Good god. I am not going to play infinite regress with you

Oh, I'm only asking for a couple levels of abstraction. You can either do that much or you can be shown that you are trying to leverage a vague word into discussion.

You can either explain how you think it is inappropriate and why, without engaging in fallacies, or you can admit that you are making an invalid Appeal to "Traditional Purity".

Remember that the Appeal to Traditional Purity was used as an excuse to castrate gay men, who are often still castrated in Iran and ironically enough then forced to live as women, which is an absolutely horrid thing to force on someone. So think very long and hard what it is you think lives at the source of this inappropriateness you claim and look at both edges of that sword before you decide to swing it, because one of those edges is on the "handle".

 

[Metaphor]

Oh, I'm only asking for a couple levels of abstraction. You can either do that much or you can be shown that you are trying to leverage a vague word into discussion.

You can either explain how you think it is inappropriate and why, without engaging in fallacies, or you can admit that you are making an invalid Appeal to "Traditional Purity".

Remember that the Appeal to Traditional Purity was used as an excuse to castrate gay men.

I asked ZiprHead a question. I will explain why I think the incident was inappropriate after ZiprHead explains whether he thinks it was inappropriate, and why.

I will not be explaining anything to you or for you.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, I'm only asking for a couple levels of abstraction. You can either do that much or you can be shown that you are trying to leverage a vague word into discussion.

You can either explain how you think it is inappropriate and why, without engaging in fallacies, or you can admit that you are making an invalid Appeal to "Traditional Purity".

Remember that the Appeal to Traditional Purity was used as an excuse to castrate gay men.

I asked ZiprHead a question. I will explain why I think the incident was inappropriate after ZiprHead explains whether he thinks it was inappropriate, and why.

I will not be explaining anything to you or for you.

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule? There must be reasons, in a rationalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

Give us your moral rule of which inappropriateness here reflects or admit you are just waving sin and vagueness at trans people to demonize them.

ZiprHead said quite clearly that they have no problem with a trans woman being a camp councilor, I assume under the expectations of any woman councilor. That you do not accept ZiprHead's answer is not his nor my problem.

He answered your loaded question with an unloaded answer.

 

[Metaphor]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is it appropriate for adult males trans women to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls, as per the incident described?

FTFY

No, you didn't. All trans women are adult males: that's what makes them trans. But, you are wrong to call the people in the incident trans women. The male counselors who slept in the cabin used 'they/them' pronouns and are described in the article as 'non-binary'. So they are not trans women.

Do you think it is appropriate for adult males to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls? Your answer can be as nuanced as you want. For example, you may wish to say 'depends on their gender identity'.

So they could be gay men.

Well, yes, they could be gay men. Let's say they are, if that will help you partly answer the question.

Is it appropriate for gay men to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls?

Do you want me to agree that gay men tend to molest year 5 girls?

 

[ZiprHead]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

 

[Metaphor]

Is it appropriate for adult males trans women to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls, as per the incident described?

FTFY

No, you didn't. All trans women are adult males: that's what makes them trans. But, you are wrong to call the people in the incident trans women. The male counselors who slept in the cabin used 'they/them' pronouns and are described in the article as 'non-binary'. So they are not trans women.

Do you think it is appropriate for adult males to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls? Your answer can be as nuanced as you want. For example, you may wish to say 'depends on their gender identity'.

So they could be gay men.

Well, yes, they could be gay men. Let's say they are, if that will help you partly answer the question.

Is it appropriate for gay men to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls?

Do you want me to agree that gay men tend to molest year 5 girls?

No, that is not the question I asked. I am asking you a pretty straightforward question. I will repeat it.

Is it inappropriate for adult gay men to sleep in the same cabin as year 5 girls, per the incident described at the science camp?

 

[Metaphor]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

Really? Don't you have your own understanding of the word 'appropriate' from which to draw? You must have had some idea of what you meant when you said the situation was 'as appropriate' as another situation that you named.

But, I can provide a definition of inappropriate which I already provided earlier.

inappropriate
/ɪnəˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
not suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And a definition of appropriate:

appropriate
/əˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
suitable or proper in the circumstances.

 

[Jarhyn]

Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

No, your discussion is with me. It's in the thread I posted, so either it is with me and the whole forum or you are off topic.

I haven't proposed any [moral rule]

So you admit to using a vagary to load your question! That it is undefined and appeal to emotion?

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

Really? Don't you have your own understanding of the word 'appropriate' from which to draw? You must have had some idea of what you meant when you said the situation was 'as appropriate' as another situation that you named.

But, I can provide a definition of inappropriate which I already provided earlier.

inappropriate
/ɪnəˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
not suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And a definition of appropriate:

appropriate
/əˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And as per what I keep pointing out

I haven't proposed any [moral rule]

This is what you need to provide. Provide your moral rule or your question is loaded. Keep exploding: what are the circumstances; what makes them improper.

Moral judgement requires moral rules laid bare, especially in the face of vagary.

 

[Metaphor]

No, your discussion is with me. It's in the thread I posted, so either it is with me and the whole forum or you are off topic.

Incorrect.

So you admit to using a vagary to load your question! That it is undefined and appeal to emotion?

No.

This is what you need to provide. Provide your moral rule or your question is loaded. Keep exploding: what are the circumstances; what makes them improper.

Moral judgement requires moral rules laid bare, especially in the face of vagary.

I do not need to provide anything to you. I am not interested in your opinions or your demands.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, your discussion is with me. It's in the thread I posted, so either it is with me and the whole forum or you are off topic.

Incorrect.

So you admit to using a vagary to load your question! That it is undefined and appeal to emotion?

No.

This is what you need to provide. Provide your moral rule or your question is loaded. Keep exploding: what are the circumstances; what makes them improper.

Moral judgement requires moral rules laid bare, especially in the face of vagary.

I do not need to provide anything to you. I am not interested in your opinions or your demands.

Well, you need to provide it if you want to have a sensible rational conversation about it. If all you wish to do is shit on the floor and pretend like vagaries that reflect cheap versions of still-cheap religious notions of "sin" have any value here, then you have nothing to contribute to the topic.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, you need to provide it if you want to have a sensible rational conversation about it.

I might do, but not with you. I'm sorry you feel entitled to my attention but you are not entitled to it.

I am not interested in explaining to you my reasoning behind finding the situation appropriate or inappropriate, nor do I care whether you find it appropriate or inappropriate, or your reasoning (or rationalising) behind you finding it that way, nor indeed any of your opinions or judgments at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

Really? Don't you have your own understanding of the word 'appropriate' from which to draw? You must have had some idea of what you meant when you said the situation was 'as appropriate' as another situation that you named.

But, I can provide a definition of inappropriate which I already provided earlier.

inappropriate
/ɪnəˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
not suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And a definition of appropriate:

appropriate
/əˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
suitable or proper in the circumstances.

I take it that you find gay men sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls to be inappropriate. Why?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, you need to provide it if you want to have a sensible rational conversation about it.

I might do, but not with you. I'm sorry you feel entitled to my attention but you are not entitled to it.

I am not interested in explaining to you my reasoning behind finding the situation appropriate or inappropriate, nor do I care whether you find it appropriate or inappropriate, or your reasoning (or rationalising) behind you finding it that way, nor indeed any of your opinions or judgments at all.

Then you merely make yourself look foolish. I can very well assume it is because you know that I will press you to answer things you find inconvenient, and so you believe you can escape addressing those things by escaping addressing me.

You cannot.

NOBODY* here in this thread is about to let you slink away from your vagary of "inappropriateness".

*At least nobody who agrees with your slant of rhetoric

 

[Metaphor]

Then you are not here to discuss what you claim you are here to discuss.

You have explained many times that you did not understand something in my posts.

I am not here even claiming that much. I am claiming that you are trying to use a vague term, in base rhetoric. And you are.

We all know full well "inappropriate" carries with it a moral judgement. What you have not done is put forward the moral rule that you think ought render that judgement behind the question.

I have explained, more than once, that I will discuss with ZiprHead whether he thinks the incident is appropriate or inappropriate and why. Whilst I think the incident is inappropriate, I will not explain to you my reasons for that judgment, because my discussion with ZiprHead is with him and not you.

How can ZiprHead be expected to blindly accept your moral rule?

I haven't proposed any, so there is nothing for him to accept or reject. I am asking him whether he thinks it is appropriate or inappropriate.

There must be reasons, in a ratoonalist's worldview, for a moral rule to exist; else it is merely religion and sin hiding in yet another shitty vagary.

My conversation is not with you but with ZiprHead, should he choose to answer my question. So far he has decided not to, for reasons I can speculate about but cannot be entirely sure of.

One thing I am sure of is that my question was not directed at you and your answer to the question is of no interest to me, except perhaps to further confirm my assessment of your moral reasoning.

Okay, let me say this. I can't answer the question without knowing what you mean by appropriate.

Really? Don't you have your own understanding of the word 'appropriate' from which to draw? You must have had some idea of what you meant when you said the situation was 'as appropriate' as another situation that you named.

But, I can provide a definition of inappropriate which I already provided earlier.

inappropriate
/ɪnəˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
not suitable or proper in the circumstances.

And a definition of appropriate:

appropriate
/əˈprəʊprɪət/
adjective
suitable or proper in the circumstances.

I take it that you find gay men sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls to be inappropriate. Why?

I already said I found the more general situation inappropriate (adult males), so it follows that I would also find particular instances of it (gay adult males) inappropriate.

Now, do you find it inappropriate? Why or why not?

(By the way, you can answer the first question without providing your reasoning, if for some reason you are 'testing' me and want me to provide my reasons first, which I will do if you answer the first question and promise to give me your own reasoning as well).

 

[Metaphor]

Then you merely make yourself look foolish. I can very well assume it is because you know that I will press you to answer things you find inconvenient, and so you believe you can escape addressing those things by escaping addressing me.

You cannot.

NOBODY* here in this thread is about to let you slink away from your vagary of "inappropriateness".

*At least nobody who agrees with your slant of rhetoric

Have a nice day, Jarhyn.

 

[Jarhyn]

Then you merely make yourself look foolish. I can very well assume it is because you know that I will press you to answer things you find inconvenient, and so you believe you can escape addressing those things by escaping addressing me.

You cannot.

NOBODY* here in this thread is about to let you slink away from your vagary of "inappropriateness".

*At least nobody who agrees with your slant of rhetoric

Have a nice day, Jarhyn.

I am having a rather nice day, thanks. Now if you could get down to answering this:

I take it that you find gay men sleeping in the same cabin as year 5 girls to be inappropriate. Why?

You only answered that you find the "more general case" inappropriate. You did not answer WHY.

To get any answer this you will need to provide a moral rule.

No amount of rhetorical "pretty please frog, I will not sting you on the water" will engender that trust of the frog who saw what happened to the last guy.

 

[Metaphor]

I am having a rather nice day, thanks. Now if you could get down to answering this:

No means no, Jarhyn. Learn about consent.