NationStates

The V O I D wrote:

Carl Yastrzemski wrote:
I would love to see your sources for those statistics, because I'm willing to bet the money in my pocket against the money in your pocket that those statistics aren't true at all.

Hope you're ready to pay up. The Williams Institute published this report on hate crimes per 100,000 people in the US. Currently, anti-LGBT crimes combined trump even anti-Semitic and anti-Black crimes by a huge margin. To say they weren't equal at one time is false; perhaps they were equally bad at one time, but now it is much worse. In fact, anti-LGBT crimes are at the point where I think it is safe to say that blacks are no longer the most discriminated against minority, and therefor LGBT discrimination is now the top concern.

Uh, good sir, your stats are largely 2001-present, perhaps inclusive only back to 1995. When you provide tangible evidence to disprove that LGBT were targeted for murder/assault/rape at a higher level than blacks in or before the 1800s, I'll "pay up". Until then, you haven't proven anything.

Boineburg wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Your side"?

You aren't talking to a monolith. You don't get to lay blame on someone for something someone else said.

Context. I wasn't pitting the blame on anyone, I was explaining how bs his claim is about how people arguing against him keep bringing up a certain argument, when it reality they didn't. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't, but I don't know how else to word it.

You do realize that you could have actually quoted the person you were attacking then, instead of an unrelated player?

Wallenburg wrote:

Boineburg wrote:Context. I wasn't pitting the blame on anyone, I was explaining how bs his claim is about how people arguing against him keep bringing up a certain argument, when it reality they didn't. If that makes sense. It probably doesn't, but I don't know how else to word it.

You do realize that you could have actually quoted the person you were attacking then, instead of an unrelated player?

Said unrelated player is the person I'm attacking

Carl Yastrzemski wrote:

The V O I D wrote:
Hope you're ready to pay up. The Williams Institute published this report on hate crimes per 100,000 people in the US. Currently, anti-LGBT crimes combined trump even anti-Semitic and anti-Black crimes by a huge margin. To say they weren't equal at one time is false; perhaps they were equally bad at one time, but now it is much worse. In fact, anti-LGBT crimes are at the point where I think it is safe to say that blacks are no longer the most discriminated against minority, and therefor LGBT discrimination is now the top concern.

Uh, good sir, your stats are largely 2001-present, perhaps inclusive only back to 1995. When you provide tangible evidence to disprove that LGBT were targeted for murder/assault/rape at a higher level than blacks in or before the 1800s, I'll "pay up". Until then, you haven't proven anything.

If it's this bad now, not hard to imagine that it was roughly equal to the blacks back then. That's what I was saying. Hate crimes [or what would be considered hate crimes in the modern day] against both LGBTs and blacks were equal at one point, but now, at present, it is LGBTs who should be our immediate concern considering their position.

The V O I D wrote:

Carl Yastrzemski wrote:
Uh, good sir, your stats are largely 2001-present, perhaps inclusive only back to 1995. When you provide tangible evidence to disprove that LGBT were targeted for murder/assault/rape at a higher level than blacks in or before the 1800s, I'll "pay up". Until then, you haven't proven anything.

If it's this bad now, not hard to imagine that it was roughly equal to the blacks back then. That's what I was saying. Hate crimes [or what would be considered hate crimes in the modern day] against both LGBTs and blacks were equal at one point, but now, at present, it is LGBTs who should be our immediate concern considering their position.

That's speculative theorizing, not tangible proof.

Look, let's not lose sight of the importance of protecting minority populations (be it defined by race, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, et. al.). People who judge others by the group are 'pea-wits', to quote my favorite movie. No one deserves to be attacked simply on the basis of their identity, or any aspect thereof, and I don't think anyone here is arguing such a macabre point.

But in a civil society, when we start shedding logical truth, then the entire discourse goes up in flames. Have the LGBT community faced persecution and discrimination? Of course they have. That does not mean that the struggles of the LGBT community in the U.S. earns moral equivalency with the struggle faced by the black community in the U.S. That doesn't mean the LGBT should just give up and accept discrimination, either. It's simply truth. When we're offended by truth, we've lost.

The V O I D wrote:
If it's this bad now, not hard to imagine that it was roughly equal to the blacks back then. That's what I was saying. Hate crimes [or what would be considered hate crimes in the modern day] against both LGBTs and blacks were equal at one point, but now, at present, it is LGBTs who should be our immediate concern considering their position.

You said specifically that there was equality between the mistreatment of [acronym] and black people between the 1800s and 1900s and they were more likely to be murdered in the 1800s, a period where I'll remind you you could purchase a black person.
That is a hard to swallow argument and to be perfectly frank I find it upsetting.

What you're saying now is that at some point probably in the 90s hate crimes against [acronym] were more common than hate crimes against black people.
That is a different argument and this backpedalling you're doing is troublesome.

Des-Bal wrote:

Aphryss wrote:I suspect you didn't intend it that way, and I can't speak for all transgender people, but many of us consider "tranny/ies" to be very offensive; personally I'd say it's equivalent to calling a black person a nigger.

It's not at all equivalent. You can tell it's not equivalent because the more acceptable "trans" is differentiated by one phoneme. Nigger is so offensive that it's pretty hard to get close to without being offensive. You can argue that "Y" is a generally disrespectful suffix but no, tranny is not the same as nigger.

Seriously? It's not the same as nigger so people are just being sensitive?

Many do find it as offensive....

The Black Forrest wrote:
Seriously? It's not the same as nigger so people are just being sensitive?

Many do find it as offensive....

Point to where I said the underlined part.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Seriously? It's not the same as nigger so people are just being sensitive?

Many do find it as offensive....

Point to where I said the underlined part.

Des-Bal wrote:

Aphryss wrote:I suspect you didn't intend it that way, and I can't speak for all transgender people, but many of us consider "tranny/ies" to be very offensive; personally I'd say it's equivalent to calling a black person a nigger.

It's not at all equivalent. You can tell it's not equivalent because the more acceptable "trans" is differentiated by one phoneme. Nigger is so offensive that it's pretty hard to get close to without being offensive. You can argue that "Y" is a generally disrespectful suffix but no, tranny is not the same as nigger.

Reads like you're dismissing it as trivial there.

Gauthier wrote:
Reads like you're dismissing it as trivial there.

So I say "tranny is not the same as nigger"

and that reads "[tranny] is not the same as nigger SO PEOPLE ARE JUST BEING SENSITIVE?"


Interesting. In any case in the part that immediately precedes that I point out why the word is offensive.

I have not read through all 144 pages of responses, but I would just like to ask- how do we honestly know that homosexuality- and wanting to switch your gender- is not a mental disease? I understand that that may sound a bit "bigoted," but just think for a second. Homosexuality was considered a mental disease until the 1900s, when it began to be seriously discussed as not being a mental disease, notably by Sigmund Freud and Evelyn Hooker. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. However, a lot of pressure was put on by protesters inside the convention and outside it. In 1972, the convention was forced to stop because of the protests outside the building. When the vote was taken to take homosexuality off of the list of mental disorders, most of the psychiatrists at the convention either abstained for fear of the crowds or were voluntarily absent at the time. The final tally revealed that only 25% of the attendees actually voted. Can such a small group of people with so much pressure on them from a group accurately say what is still debated 40 years later? I say no. Truth is important, whether you believe that homosexuality is wrong or right, genetic or environmental, or should be legal or illegal. Everyone here from what I have read needs to stop appealing to emotion and name calling on both sides and use facts and logic to decide the argument.

Kaiserian Kingdom wrote:I have not read through all 144 pages of responses, but I would just like to ask- how do we honestly know that homosexuality- and wanting to switch your gender- is not a mental disease? I understand that that may sound a bit "bigoted," but just think for a second. Homosexuality was considered a mental disease until the 1900s, when it began to be seriously discussed as not being a mental disease, notably by Sigmund Freud and Evelyn Hooker. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. However, a lot of pressure was put on by protesters inside the convention and outside it. In 1972, the convention was forced to stop because of the protests outside the building. When the vote was taken to take homosexuality off of the list of mental disorders, most of the psychiatrists at the convention either abstained for fear of the crowds or were voluntarily absent at the time. The final tally revealed that only 25% of the attendees actually voted. Can such a small group of people with so much pressure on them from a group accurately say what is still debated 40 years later? I say no. Truth is important, whether you believe that homosexuality is wrong or right, genetic or environmental, or should be legal or illegal. Everyone here from what I have read needs to stop appealing to emotion and name calling on both sides and use facts and logic to decide the argument.

In the case of transgenderism the APA removed it as a disorder but went on to create a new disorder which amounts to feeling bad about being transgender. The only argument I have seen for why this was a good idea was a foreword in a publication that stressed the importance of balancing reducing the stigma on certain groups while assisting them in having access to medical treatment which frankly sounds like acknowledging the decision as being purely political but I digress.

I don't see how that effects this particular issue though, presuming transgenderism is a mental illness how would does the discussion of the North Carolina bill change?

Kaiserian Kingdom wrote:I have not read through all 144 pages of responses, but I would just like to ask- how do we honestly know that homosexuality- and wanting to switch your gender- is not a mental disease? I understand that that may sound a bit "bigoted," but just think for a second. Homosexuality was considered a mental disease until the 1900s, when it began to be seriously discussed as not being a mental disease, notably by Sigmund Freud and Evelyn Hooker. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. However, a lot of pressure was put on by protesters inside the convention and outside it. In 1972, the convention was forced to stop because of the protests outside the building. When the vote was taken to take homosexuality off of the list of mental disorders, most of the psychiatrists at the convention either abstained for fear of the crowds or were voluntarily absent at the time. The final tally revealed that only 25% of the attendees actually voted. Can such a small group of people with so much pressure on them from a group accurately say what is still debated 40 years later? I say no. Truth is important, whether you believe that homosexuality is wrong or right, genetic or environmental, or should be legal or illegal. Everyone here from what I have read needs to stop appealing to emotion and name calling on both sides and use facts and logic to decide the argument.

Well, for one thing, mental disorders/illnesses are inherently harmful to the individual. All LGBTs function as normal humans, the only difference is they have an alternative sexuality or gender identity, which harms not themselves or anyone else. The only harm being created for them or being done to them is by anti-LGBT laws, people who are anti-LGBT, and people who deny the fact that there is no choice.

Kaiserian Kingdom wrote:I have not read through all 144 pages of responses, but I would just like to ask- how do we honestly know that homosexuality- and wanting to switch your gender- is not a mental disease? I understand that that may sound a bit "bigoted," but just think for a second. Homosexuality was considered a mental disease until the 1900s, when it began to be seriously discussed as not being a mental disease, notably by Sigmund Freud and Evelyn Hooker. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973. However, a lot of pressure was put on by protesters inside the convention and outside it. In 1972, the convention was forced to stop because of the protests outside the building. When the vote was taken to take homosexuality off of the list of mental disorders, most of the psychiatrists at the convention either abstained for fear of the crowds or were voluntarily absent at the time. The final tally revealed that only 25% of the attendees actually voted. Can such a small group of people with so much pressure on them from a group accurately say what is still debated 40 years later? I say no. Truth is important, whether you believe that homosexuality is wrong or right, genetic or environmental, or should be legal or illegal. Everyone here from what I have read needs to stop appealing to emotion and name calling on both sides and use facts and logic to decide the argument.

The science about homosexuality is that it is natural, and there is no harm associated with other than bigots discriminating against gays. Homosexuality is likely a mix of genetic and environmental factors in the womb, and one thing that is clear is that it is not a choice to be gay.

Gender dysphoria is similar. The main difference is that there is suffering inherent to having gender dysphoria, it really sucks to not identify with your biological sex, even without being bullied and taunted and ostracized because of it. It's also not a choice, and there is a biological, medical aspect to it. In other words, it's real. It also is not a delusion, as there is no false belief held by people with gender dysphoria. The only action or policy that has any benefit to trans people is to let them transition openly, with acceptance and without being judged for who they are, those are the simple facts born out by the data.

Kaiserian Kingdom wrote:I have not read through all 144 pages of responses, but I would just like to ask- how do we honestly know that homosexuality- and wanting to switch your gender- is not a mental disease?

Very easily, in fact.

Between 1948 and 1990, homoxesuality was classed as ICD 302.0 in the International Classification of Diseases.

But, starting in May 1990, homosexuality is no longer a disease.

As such, and this being May, we know that:
* Any homosexuals currently less than 26 years old, or more than 67 years old, are and have always been mentally healthy.
* Any homosexuals currently between 26 and 67 years old may have been diseased for some time of their life, but are mentally healthy now.

hmmm? What the heck is wrong with the way it was? Maybe everyone needs a lesson in proper manners. Last time in history weird garbage like this happened was in BABYLON!?!? Yeah I said it, and not afraid to go there. Moral principles dictate regardless no matter what.... Don't like religion, well too bad! God has moral authority over this disgusting pursuit that "So Called New World" is forcing down everyones throats.... I suggest never use public restrooms... EVER!

Dremovia wrote::meh: hmmm? What the heck is wrong with the way it was? Maybe everyone needs a lesson in proper manners. Last time in history weird garbage like this happened was in BABYLON!?!? Yeah I said it, and not afraid to go there. Moral principles dictate regardless no matter what.... Don't like religion, well too bad! God has moral authority over this disgusting pursuit that "So Called New World" is forcing down everyones throats.... I suggest never use public restrooms... EVER!

I like that you put "So Called New World" in quotes because it is effectively putting New World in double quotes and I can't remember the last time anyone said "new world" without referring to monkeys.

Dremovia wrote::meh: hmmm? What the heck is wrong with the way it was? Maybe everyone needs a lesson in proper manners. Last time in history weird garbage like this happened was in BABYLON!?!? Yeah I said it, and not afraid to go there. Moral principles dictate regardless no matter what.... Don't like religion, well too bad! God has moral authority over this disgusting pursuit that "So Called New World" is forcing down everyones throats.... I suggest never use public restrooms... EVER!

Incorrect.
Many cultures have had LGBT people and practices for thousands of year. Celtics, Hawaiians, Persians, Greeks, Native Americans, Ancient chinese.
Only religion made it a crime.

And Do not use one God as a moral Compass, when the same God was willing to slaughter every first born egyptian males, stone to death women who have sex before marriage, and lists 10 commandments which rape is not even in there.

Furthermore:
http://americannewsx.com/politics/child ... 20Bathroom

Celritannia wrote:

Dremovia wrote::meh: hmmm? What the heck is wrong with the way it was? Maybe everyone needs a lesson in proper manners. Last time in history weird garbage like this happened was in BABYLON!?!? Yeah I said it, and not afraid to go there. Moral principles dictate regardless no matter what.... Don't like religion, well too bad! God has moral authority over this disgusting pursuit that "So Called New World" is forcing down everyones throats.... I suggest never use public restrooms... EVER!

Incorrect.
Many cultures have had LGBT people in their culture. Celtica, Hawaiians, Persians, Greeks, Native Americans, Ancient chinese.
Only religion made it a crime.

And Do not use one God as a moral Compass, when the same God was willing to slaughter every first born egyption, stone to death women, and lists 10 commandments which rape is not even in there.

Furthermore:
http://americannewsx.com/politics/child ... 20Bathroom

When God doesn't take a direct hand in things it's rather easy for ancient douchebags with agendas to use God as an excuse for anything.

Gauthier wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
Incorrect.
Many cultures have had LGBT people in their culture. Celtica, Hawaiians, Persians, Greeks, Native Americans, Ancient chinese.
Only religion made it a crime.

And Do not use one God as a moral Compass, when the same God was willing to slaughter every first born egyption, stone to death women, and lists 10 commandments which rape is not even in there.

Furthermore:
http://americannewsx.com/politics/child ... 20Bathroom

When God doesn't take a direct hand in things it's rather easy for ancient douchebags with agendas to use God as an excuse for anything.

True, but even then, ancient cultures that predate this Judeo-Christian religion had great liberal practices and freedom. Only when religion expanded did it become "illegal" and "immoral".

Had to pout those in quotations.

Celritannia wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
When God doesn't take a direct hand in things it's rather easy for ancient douchebags with agendas to use God as an excuse for anything.

True, but even then, ancient cultures that predate this Judeo-Christian religion had great liberal practices and freedom. Only when religion expanded did it become illegal and immoral.

Orwellian reversal. What was acceptable or even encouraged under the old system is now bad and evil.

Gauthier wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
True, but even then, ancient cultures that predate this Judeo-Christian religion had great liberal practices and freedom. Only when religion expanded did it become illegal and immoral.

Orwellian reversal. What was acceptable or even encouraged under the old system is now bad and evil.

Depends on the culture and civilisation.
In fact, LGBT practices in ancient cultures (even up to the 1800s before the christianisation of Hawaii), was natural. Only fear from an authority that makes something illegal and immoral does it become the norm.

Someone mentioned that assigned bathrooms did not existed until recently, this is a brilliant example. Until someone decided to make male and female separations, no one probably cared. Until you point something out, people will probably take no notice.

Gauthier wrote:When God doesn't take a direct hand in things ...

Wouldn't it be a bit... pedophilic, if he did take direct hand in the sexual matters of his creations?

Scandinavian Nations wrote:

Gauthier wrote:When God doesn't take a direct hand in things ...

Wouldn't it be a bit... pedophilic, if he did take direct hand in the sexual matters of his creations?

He does have a foreskin collection, God isn't exactly a sexually pure being.

Funny things, the foreskins. Always make you wonder if using a few for a broth would make you a cannibal.