Insanity

Your equating transgender with pedophilia? A pedophile by default has urges driving him to abuse children., What evidence do you present that trans have similar urges?

They were 'expert's' appointed by the church with an agenda in mind. If they were experts in the field of astronomy they could have, if they wished reviewed his work, done their own set of observations and measurements and got the same answers he did. They didn't try.

So Dunning Kruger it is then.

 

Obviously not. You're welcome.

Your paraphrasing is most charitably described as incompetent. It's not about "urges", it's about the toxic atmosphere that the mentally deranged carry with them everywhere they go.

So the agenda of these psychologist frauds must be considered benign because they weren't appointed by the Church. Got that about right, haven't I?

Didn't matter, because they were authority figures, and thus believable ipso facto by the gullible. Of course a good deal less gullibility is required to buy into Geocentrism than to believe any man who thinks he's a woman is competent to rear a child.

Certainly such a pronouncement is one way of maintaining your delusion.

 

So what do you means then?

Have you done any reading/study, I mean any at all on sex offenders and pedophilia. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to young/adults/children/infants. A transsexual could, repeat could fall into this category but the fact that someone is trans does NOT mean they are by default pedophiles. There is zero evidence to support any such contention. Secondly there is zero evidence to show that all trans are by default deranged. Evidence shows there can be/is a higher than background level of mental illness in the trans population but a deranged person cannot function in normal society while deranged. A person suffering from a episode of metal illness can be diagnosed but that diagnosis ceases when they are capable of functioning in normal society. Deranged individuals are by default medicated and hospitalized in the Western Word.

Please try to stay focused on one point at a time. I was addressing Galileo's trial. How we go from that to a suggesting that the involvement or not of a trans individual in the Catholic church effects their physiological status???

One more time - just for you. I never said trans as a group would, by default make competent parents. What I said was there was little or no evidence either way on the topic. In any event the question is not whether trans as a group would be good parents. Individuals are parents not groups. Divide all parents into just about any kind of group you want, most will be good parents, some in that same group will not. Could be all church goers, all alcoholics, all whatever, some will make the grade some wont.

So while you can argue that trans as parents will face certain unique issues/hurdles. What you can't do - because you have no evidence is argue that all of them will stumble at those hurdles.

But hey, what do trivial things like facts or evidence matter, you know what you know right? (based ion your posts on this forum on just about any topic apparently.) And what you know is always right - who needs facts. So go head Dunning-Kruger you little heart out.

That's right - the person saying he likes to acquire evidence and facts before reaching a conclusion is the deluded one.

 

As if your every response had any other purpose but to obscure what I mean.

Stop the presses.

Wonderful. What the hell that has to do with anything I said, no one will ever know.

On the contrary, it's self-evidently true.

So the way you figure it, politicians are not part of normal society. Right?

Request denied.

Seeing I never suggested any such thing, the question is even more idiotic than usual.

True to form, you've done a wonderful job of refuting an assertion I never came within lightyears of making.

So the way you figure it, most pedophiles will be good parents. Right?

The hurdles faced by such "parents" are hardly the issue. What matters is the hurdles faced by children under their tutelage, which only the diabolically inclined would wish on any child.

WRT the issue at hand, anyone who needs to acquire either is incompetent to discuss it intelligently.

 

Saying something is 'self- evident ' is a very convenient way for someone to actually avoid ever having to prove their point. Its ‘self-evident’for example that the sun rises in the East every morning. If, no matter how absurdly you were pressed on this point I’m sure you could provide evidence to confirm this. So let’s assume for the moment in this case it’s not self-evident. Enunciate you argument.

So ALL politicians are (in your view) demented? All trans are demented. All’ Democtats? A;ll – insert group you disagree with are demented?

Then what were you suggesting?

Taking the argument to the absurd but OK. You do realise don’t you that it is a matter of record that there are ‘contact’ child sexual offenders who never abuse their own children and ‘present’ as entirely normal parents right up to the time they are arrested. The same applies to serial killers as well. All perfectly ‘normal’ parents right up to the instant they are not.

And no, this doesn’t mean I think pedophiles should be allowed to raise children. It means that like it or not virtually whatever ‘group’ you place someone in there will be parents who outwardly 'make the grade' as parents and some that don’t. How many parents are there out there who on paper at least should have all the odds stacked in their favor i.e. education, money, their own upbringing, positions in the local community etc and who instead turn out to be terrible parents.

They are one in the same thing. What you think a child’s learning difficulties aren’t a hurdle/burden for their parents to confront? You think a parents drug addiction isn’t a burden placed on the child? You have a family (I assume). Are you honestly saying that the burdens born by any one member of your aren’t a burden shared by all of you, at least in part?

 

Not to someone determined to believe otherwise, I couldn't.

To hell with that. You assume whatever you damn well please, and I'll proceed on the basis that a spade is indeed a spade. Enjoy.

Is that a reasonable inference from what I said? Obviously not, but it does serve your unwaveringly obfuscatory purpose.

I'm not about to sit here translating plain English into plain English.

I didn't do that, you did. All I did was expose the absurdity.

Which is of no moment whatever, obviously.

No doubt they are, by some definition of the term that's intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

Doesn't matter, obviously, as while competence can reasonably be expected of a parent, it can't be expected of a child.

The question is retarded to the point of insolence. You're welcome.

 

Not much point in continuing this then is there? By temperament, training and profession whenever practicable I tend to make decisions formed on facts and figures. You go appear to go with your gut and in any case when challenged to provide such on any statement you make you either;

- refuse to answer;
- deny having said it;
- insult the person asking the question;
- segue completely off topic.

Most of the posters of this forum, whether you agree with them or not will usually back up their positions/arguments when asked. Not you. I can only guess at the reason - lack of character, anger issues, social isolation who knows? Either way get some help.

 

I need help like Winston Smith needed "help"; and there isn't a doubt in my mind that if you had the power, you'd give me the same sort of "help" he got from O'Brien.

 

Is that being a little bit paranoid? Someone disagrees with your so obviously by default they must want to control your thoughts and beliefs. Really? Your not exactly undermining my 'get help' comment are you?

But just to assure you no, I have no interest whatsoever in Orwellian mind control and even if I did what leads you to think I would want to use it on you?

We disagree on points of argument OK? That's all - we disagree. Why do you automatically contra-pose disagreement with hostility/desire to harm? I don't. My objections as stated above are your apparent reluctance/refusal to justify your position when questioned and your habit of putting down and insulting people who do. That does not automatically mean I wish you harm, anymore than I assume, were we to meet face to face you would automatically seek to do me harm. In fact I would hope the opposite was true.

But, if that is the way you think and people who oppose your views are automatically 'the enemy' then again - get help.

 

Yep just like the demand for illegal drugs insures supply .

 

Yes the inbreeding is the problem.

We may see something similar pop up as we manipulate genes for specific traits . Your genius may alsialso be mentally ill or a genius psychopath!

 

China and India have a far worse problem than 'designer babies'. They both have cultural imperatives that value male offspring over female. The gender imbalance in both countries has only become worse as prenatal gender section screening has become cheaper/more available.

Add the one child policy (now abandoned - way too late BTW) and China at least is facing a demographic train wreck. By 2030 25% of their population is going to be over the age of 60 while only 5% will be 20 to 25 and the stats for ages under that aren't any better.

 

Obviously not.

Disagreeing is one thing; incessant projection and dissembling, quite another.

Yes you do. You want me to believe something more insane than 2+2=5.

 

Sorry been away working.

No, yguy I don't want you to 'believe' anything. What I want you to do is simply and clearly state the reasons why you hold the beliefs you do while at the same time providing justifications/facts in support of those beliefs.

This is supposed to be a forum where you can debate different points of view. But you consistently refuse to do this. You state what you believe is true, then if anyone questions your position you either insult them, avoid answering their questions or segue off topic.

Even on this topic where I have stated you may be at least partly correct, you still won't engage in debate, just putdowns or segues into accusations of 'mind control' or whatever.

So for Gods sake will you just once, pick a topic, any topic, state what your position is and then set out clearly and unambiguously why you have taken that position, quoting facts and figures if you have them supporting your position.

That's my beef, it's not what you believe but rather your refusal to debate that belief.

 

Dunno who the hell you think you're kidding.

No, what you want is for me to partake of the confusion which has become to your psyche as water to a fish.

 

So you either won't or can't justify your beliefs, won't or can't muster facts to support them and won't or can't defend them via open debate. If that's your position why are you even on this forum anyway? Oh and again with the insults, how unexpected - yawn.

 

It isn't, obviously.

To stand as a contrast to advocates of insanity like yourself. You're welcome.

Actually, thanks to forum rules, you've been treated with less opprobrium than is merited by your conduct.

 

Then point to an example of a recent post where we have been debating an issue where you DID marshal facts and arguments to support you point of view. Go ahead I'm waiting.

Referencing this particular thread I am NOT an 'advocate' for trans gender parenthood. Find any post from me where I said transgenders would by default make good parents. What I have said was that (a) the number of such families is so small that as yet we don't have good data and (B) as a group transgender parents may or may not successfully raise children depending on other variables other than their gender or lack thereof. I haven't even at any stage said you were completely wrong. If that position is 'insanity' as you call it then I am guilty as charged. Of course that also means most other people of this forum are also insane which puts you in a very small minority i.e. by default only those who agree with you are 'sane'. And that says more about you than it does about me.

I can only assume your comment means that if it was up to you I would not be allowed to express my views/opinions on this forum. Let me note for the record I do NOT for an instant hold that same opinion about your beliefs. For all that it matters I fully support your right and the right of every other forum member to express their views appropriately. In fact if someone were to suggest you should not be allowed to post I would and I was aware of this I would argue as strongly as I could in your favor. Yet for some reason I doubt you would do the same if the situation was reversed.

One more time. My objection is to the manner in which you argue for your beliefs (i.e. without mustering facts/arguments to support them when asked) and the way you treat people who disagree with them, not your beliefs in and of themselves.

 

lol

Congratulations.

That would indicate that your reading comprehension is irremediably abominable.

Evidently the distinction between beliefs and conduct somehow eludes you - or, more likely, you conveniently elude it.

 

Oh well, silly me. I was hoping for an open, honest strait forward reply. Looks like I'll just have to accept cowardly instead. I am curious about one thing though, were you beaten with a thesaurus as a child?

 

Praise by faint damnation hardly bespeaks humility. Just sayin'.

You were hoping I'd break the rules, you mean.

Bad try.

 

So you were beaten with a thesaurus. That clears that up then.

 

I’ve learned a lot about insanity just from treading thru this thread. Thank you all for clarifying heh heh

 

At the end of the day we're all a little bit mad. Or completely insane - if you have the audacity to disagree with yguy.