- 15 Mar 2019 02:14
#14993948
So you are saying that we should assume that transphobes are right, and that all trans people are actually delusional or stupid and deceiving themselves.
This is not only transphobic, but obviously suffers from the fallacy that your conclusion is also an acceptable premise in your argument.
Yes, you could imagine another unverifiable musing about the nefarious motives of those lying gay people, but who cares?
Actually, you are. You have spent serval posts stretching the defintion of “scam” more and more while still not making an actual argument.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...
Verv wrote:This is all kind of interesting because now we are bouncing around between whether or not we are meeting the dictionary definitions of words.
But let's say that someone is thinking of scam in the Merriam-Webster way:
Let's say that we are saying that it is deceptive because gender (male & female) is such a basic truth that anyone who is not accepting it is deceiving themselves. This isn't a beautiful usage of "deceive," but it is still a usage that is seen.
So you are saying that we should assume that transphobes are right, and that all trans people are actually delusional or stupid and deceiving themselves.
This is not only transphobic, but obviously suffers from the fallacy that your conclusion is also an acceptable premise in your argument.
You could also say that plenty of people within the LGBTQ movement are superficially invested in the narrative that gender is purely a construct and thus uncritically accept the claims of non-binary people because they are more excited about the prospect of 'dismantling the patriarchy,' by hook or by crook. So, in a sense, it could be seen as somehow fraudulent because it is a collection of sloppy, DECEITFUL, TRICKY means (thank you, Merriam-Wesbter)...
Yes, you could imagine another unverifiable musing about the nefarious motives of those lying gay people, but who cares?
... This is also kind of interesting because the article itself uses the word sham and not scam. Yet, of course, users here have been using the word scam as well.
But I would say this, POD:
For a guy who really hated people talking about intent and the in's and out's of what categories of crime were committed by James Fields, you sure are interested in extremely precise & exacting use of words in this thread.
Actually, you are. You have spent serval posts stretching the defintion of “scam” more and more while still not making an actual argument.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...