Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 159

Thread: Gay/Transgender

  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    False

    https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-s...ia-in-children
    One of the main sources I used.
    The American College of Pediatrics. I've covered them.

    American College of Pediatricts - anti-LGBT group. To repeat:

    "Did you read this headline and think I was accusing The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of opposing the LGBT community? That’s the problem. A small anti-LGBT group called the “American College of Pediatricians (ACP)” created a name that is easily confused with the AAP, the largest pediatrics organization in the country."

    and now I will add:

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly labeled the ACP as an anti-LGBT hate group that promotes false claims and misleading scientific reports."

    The ACP has favored the widely discredited practice of reparative therapy and has argued that gays are not good parents.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...nti-lgbt-group

    So no, it's not a valid professional scientific source.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Beyond that one, I was generally quoting portions of the other links that referenced actual studies.

    So your objection is completely unfounded.
    You made one large argument and it primarily linked invalid sources like the ACP. That's not to say that perhaps somewhere in there you didn't also link something valid but I'm taking your argument as a whole and as a whole it incorporates a lot of bad sources which invalidates the whole argument. If you want to take another stab at your argument and stick to just using valid support, then I will address that argument. But the one you presented is not valid.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Then it isn't an issue on the table then.
    There is nothing for me to counter or address, and my arguments stands until you want to actually address it.
    I did address your argument. You just didn't respond to it. So I will repeat it.

    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s).

    Until you address this challenge and provide support for your argument, it fails for lack of support. So no, it doesn't stand. It fails until you provide the support I challenged you to give.

    And to be clear, claims of prior support is not support. It's fine to take prior support and paste it in your next post but you can't just claim you did and tell me to go and look for it.

    So your argument does not stand. It fails for lack of support until support is given.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Anyway, respectfully, I have no further interest in discussing this topic with you.
    Thanks for your time.
    Sure. And feel free to reengage this debate if you want to take another stab at showing that transgenderism is a mental disorder. But for now, we'll leave it where it is.
    Last edited by mican333; November 2nd, 2017 at 05:45 PM.

  2. #62
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The American College of Pediatrics. I've covered them.

    American College of Pediatricts - anti-LGBT group. To repeat:

    "Did you read this headline and think I was accusing The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of opposing the LGBT community? That’s the problem. A small anti-LGBT group called the “American College of Pediatricians (ACP)” created a name that is easily confused with the AAP, the largest pediatrics organization in the country."

    and now I will add:

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly labeled the ACP as an anti-LGBT hate group that promotes false claims and misleading scientific reports."

    The ACP has favored the widely discredited practice of reparative therapy and has argued that gays are not good parents.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...nti-lgbt-group

    So no, it's not a valid professional scientific source.
    This does not make it an invalid source. Because it remains a PROFESSIONAL opinion. In this case a DR wrote the link, and again it was itself sourced further.
    So my argument stands and is supported by valid professional sources, either directly (per this example) or indirectly through the research papers being quoted in the few blogs credited for bringing it to my attention.

    What we have is Mican thinks it's not valid enough, so he is personally rejecting it. That is however not an actual rebuttal.


    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I did address your argument. You just didn't respond to it. So I will repeat it.

    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s).

    Until you address this challenge and provide support for your argument, it fails for lack of support. So no, it doesn't stand. It fails until you provide the support I challenged you to give.

    And to be clear, claims of prior support is not support. It's fine to take prior support and paste it in your next post but you can't just claim you did and tell me to go and look for it.

    So your argument does not stand. It fails for lack of support until support is given.
    So your position is to simply ignore my support and pretend it never happened? Interesting approach.

    Challenge
    Your claim is that I have not supported my argument.

    Support that I did not support my argument.
    See post 52.

    *continuing a claim without support after being challenged can be considered a rule violation*

    ---
    If your final word is simply to deny what has transpired in the thread, then you should be able to understand why I have no further interest in interacting with you on this topic.
    If you happen to say something relevant, I'll try to address it.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    This does not make it an invalid source. Because it remains a PROFESSIONAL opinion. In this case a DR wrote the link, and again it was itself sourced further.
    So my argument stands and is supported by valid professional sources, either directly (per this example) or indirectly through the research papers being quoted in the few blogs credited for bringing it to my attention.

    What we have is Mican thinks it's not valid enough, so he is personally rejecting it. That is however not an actual rebuttal.
    What we have is a link from a known anti-LGBT hate site. They may have incorporated a legitimate source in their argument but that does not mean that they used the information correctly. And when I say professional, I don't mean anyone who happens to have PHD but someone who is recognized by the professional medical establishment as a valid source.

    Again, if the hate group has forwarded some credible information that backs up your position, you should be able to find the same information on a credible site.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So your position is to simply ignore my support and pretend it never happened? Interesting approach.
    No, I sincerely think you've not provided any support. I think instead of supporting your argument, you've shifted the burden and sought to have me support that there isn't any alternatives to your argument instead of supporting your argument. Maybe I'm right about this and maybe I'm wrong. But either way, since I think you have yet to support your argument, I am challenging you to support it now and have been doing so for the two prior post.

    So again.

    Challenge to support a claim.SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s).




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Challenge
    Your claim is that I have not supported my argument.
    I did not claim that you did not support you argument. I believe that you didn't but I allow for the possibility that perhaps in one of your prior posts you did support your argument and I failed to recognize the support for what it is. So go ahead and prove my assumption wrong if you can and provide that support that I might have overlooked as you are challenged to do. I have to think that cutting and pasting said information from an earlier is not too much to ask and either way you are required do that or provide new support in the face of my challenge. Just saying that it already exists is not a valid response to my challenge.

    But either way, you have been challenged to support or retract your argument three times and if you can't or just choose not to, then your argument is retracted.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If your final word is simply to deny what has transpired in the thread, then you should be able to understand why I have no further interest in interacting with you on this topic.
    If you happen to say something relevant, I'll try to address it.
    I don't deny that you made certain arguments. I do deny that they equate support for the argument I challenged you to support. Again, I think you shifted the burden. I have no interested in actually arguing whether you did or did not shift - I'm just explaining why I think you haven't actually supported your argument and therefore why I'm offering the challenge. And if I'm wrong about what transpired and in a prior post, there is solid support for your argument that I failed to recognize and address, I imagine you would enjoy showing me how wrong I was by pasting that information in your next post.

    So just go ahead and do that if you can. What's stopping you? If you don't want to do that, I'm not interested in hearing your excuses for why you won't. Either way, you've been challenged to provide support so either paste it into your next post or provide new support.

    But really, I have no interest in hearing why you won't support your argument in the face of a challenge I've forwarded THREE TIMES.

    You can support your argument or you can let it fail for lack of support by not offering support. Either option is acceptable to me although I would prefer to see support.
    Last edited by mican333; November 3rd, 2017 at 08:59 AM.

  4. #64
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    What we have is a link from a known anti-LGBT hate site. They may have incorporated a legitimate source in their argument but that does not mean that they used the information correctly. And when I say professional, I don't mean anyone who happens to have PHD but someone who is recognized by the professional medical establishment as a valid source.

    Again, if the hate group has forwarded some credible information that backs up your position, you should be able to find the same information on a credible site.
    You have only shown that they are accused of being a hate group. I have no clue why we should be compelled to accept the accusation.
    It is simply name calling in an attempt to discredit a source.
    They are still medical professionals and thus qualified to be used as a source.
    That you do or do not like them is not relevant to it being "support".

    Further your standard for support is completely arbitrary, and you haven't shown or even attempted to show that my sources fail to meet the standard.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, I sincerely think you've not provided any support. I think instead of supporting your argument, you've shifted the burden and sought to have me support that there isn't any alternatives to your argument instead of supporting your argument. Maybe I'm right about this and maybe I'm wrong. But either way, since I think you have yet to support your argument, I am challenging you to support it now and have been doing so for the two prior post
    I direct you to post 52.
    My argument and support are clearly stated, and referenced.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I did not claim that you did not support you argument. I believe that you didn't but I allow for the possibility that perhaps in one of your prior posts you did support your argument and I failed to recognize the support for what it is. So go ahead and prove my assumption wrong if you can and provide that support that I might have overlooked as you are challenged to do. I have to think that cutting and pasting said information from an earlier is not too much to ask and either way you are required do that or provide new support in the face of my challenge. Just saying that it already exists is not a valid response to my challenge.

    But either way, you have been challenged to support or retract your argument three times and if you can't or just choose not to, then your argument is retracted.
    Your simply trolling and spaming this thread with needless repetition of a challenge already answered.
    That you refuse to see, is not a failing on my part to offer argumentation and support.
    It is also completely unnecessary for me to copy and paste a post I already offered. It's pretty disrespectful of you to not be bothered to actually go back and reference it, it probably means you didn't even bother reading it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if I'm wrong about what transpired and in a prior post, there is solid support for your argument that I failed to recognize and address, I imagine you would enjoy showing me how wrong I was by pasting that information in your next post.
    Meh, referring you back to post 52 repeatedly isn't all that fulfilling.
    While it is quite embarrassing for you, to have a mod trolling threads is quite unbecoming.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So just go ahead and do that if you can. What's stopping you? If you don't want to do that, I'm not interested in hearing your excuses for why you won't. Either way, you've been challenged to provide support so either paste it into your next post or provide new support.

    But really, I have no interest in hearing why you won't support your argument in the face of a challenge I've forwarded THREE TIMES.

    You can support your argument or you can let it fail for lack of support by not offering support. Either option is acceptable to me although I would prefer to see support.
    I challenge you to support that I have not offered support. (that is at least twice)

    Your simply repeating an already answered challenge. Post 52 was the support in answer to your original challenge. (post 32 or something).

    So your response of ignoring offered support and repeating a challenge that has already been met is just you trolling threads.
    It is not you engaging in debate.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You have only shown that they are accused of being a hate group. I have no clue why we should be compelled to accept the accusation.
    It is simply name calling in an attempt to discredit a source.
    They are still medical professionals and thus qualified to be used as a source.
    That you do or do not like them is not relevant to it being "support".
    I've supported that they are not a valid medical association and will do again - in part, to show you that's not so hard to copy and paste prior support.

    "Did you read this headline and think I was accusing The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) of opposing the LGBT community? That’s the problem. A small anti-LGBT group called the “American College of Pediatricians (ACP)” created a name that is easily confused with the AAP, the largest pediatrics organization in the country."

    and now I will add:

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center has repeatedly labeled the ACP as an anti-LGBT hate group that promotes false claims and misleading scientific reports."

    The ACP has favored the widely discredited practice of reparative therapy and has argued that gays are not good parents.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...nti-lgbt-group



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Further your standard for support is completely arbitrary, and you haven't shown or even attempted to show that my sources fail to meet the standard.
    The standard is people/groups that are recognized as unbiased professional experts in their chosen field by the professional establishment of their field.

    When psychology today says a group is a "small anti-LGBT group" who goes against common professional standards (such as promoting conversion therapy), they have failed to meet that criteria

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I direct you to post 52.
    My argument and support are clearly stated, and referenced.
    I checked that post and it is huge and I see nothing in there that supports what I challenged you to support. So what in there is your support? Am I suppose to sift through it? Of course not.

    In fact, according to ODN rules I should not be expected to click a link to find support. Linkwarz rules: "Other posters should not need to actually click on the link to read your support. The link is primarily for verification purposes and to allow the reader access to further details on the topic - the relevant material you want to use from it should be contained in your post itself."

    So not only do I personally find it unreasonable to expect me to go over such a huge post find supposed support, it's arguably against the rules for you to even ask me to do. I'm not going to make a big issue of you asking but if you want to use something from that post, you WILL have to copy and paste it into a future post.

    So again, for the FOUTH TIME
    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s).



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your simply trolling and spaming this thread with needless repetition of a challenge already answered.
    No, I'm not. I sincerely do not think you've offered valid support and therefore am asking you for such support.

    Whether you support your own argument in the face of my challenge is up to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I challenge you to support that I have not offered support. (that is at least twice)
    I do not claim that you have not offered support. I'm open to the notion that somewhere in post 52 or perhaps in another post you've offered support and I just didn't see it for what it was. Or maybe you offered something that you think it support but really isn't so that's why I failed to recognize it as such. Either way, I am not claiming that you did not offer prior support and therefore have no burden to support such a claim.

    And if anyone is spamming this thread, it's you. It's obvious at this point that the debate will not move forward if you don't offer support for your argument in a future thread. If I were obliged by the rules to accept you mentioning a prior post as support, then the ball would be in my court. But I sincerely do not see any such support nor am I inclined to put more work into trying to find such a thing when you can, with much less effort, cut and past it into a post

    And really, you don't have to offer further support if you don't want. But until you do, you have failed to support your argument in the face of my challenge and therefore your argument fails for that reason.

    Continuing to complain about me not looking for your support instead of offering the support that you've been challenged to offer will not move the debate forward and therefor is spam.

  6. #66
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I've supported that they are not a valid medical association and will do again - in part, to show you that's not so hard to copy and paste prior support.
    Already responded to this point. surely you don't expect me to quote my last post?
    Further, that does not mean I have not supported my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    The standard is people/groups that are recognized as unbiased professional experts in their chosen field by the professional establishment of their field.

    When psychology today says a group is a "small anti-LGBT group" who goes against common professional standards (such as promoting conversion therapy), they have failed to meet that criteria
    Who says? The "southern poverty law center"? Why are they relevant? Are they the arbiters of who is and who isn't a hate group?
    Do they have to issue formal acceptance of accreditation?
    I don't think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I checked that post and it is huge and I see nothing in there that supports what I challenged you to support. So what in there is your support? Am I suppose to sift through it? Of course not.

    In fact, according to ODN rules I should not be expected to click a link to find support. Linkwarz rules: "Other posters should not need to actually click on the link to read your support. The link is primarily for verification purposes and to allow the reader access to further details on the topic - the relevant material you want to use from it should be contained in your post itself."
    In post 52 you will find my claims, and the link to support for each. You are not required to click on a link away from ODN, you are however required to read ODN posts, and you are responsible for being aware of what has been said in the thread you are participating in.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    No, I'm not. I sincerely do not think you've offered valid support and therefore am asking you for such support.

    Whether you support your own argument in the face of my challenge is up to you.
    I'm not interested in if you think it is "valid", I have offered professional references in relevant fields. That makes it valid, regardless of if you like it or not, or if you would really prefer some other reference.
    Your claim that my argument is unsupported is vacuous.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But until you do, you have failed to support your argument in the face of my challenge and therefore your argument fails for that reason.

    Continuing to complain about me not looking for your support instead of offering the support that you've been challenged to offer will not move the debate forward and therefor is spam.
    I have extensively supported my position in post 52.
    As your objection so far to that support has been that it isn't valid in your eyes, and I have addressed that. It stands as supported until you offer a valid rebuttal.

    Your failure to answer a direct challenge and continue to make the claim that I have not supported my position, is unwarranted, and evidently false. Your ability to continually repeat the claim for several pages does not magically erase my post 52 where I supported my position. Continued claiming that I have not supported my position, is nothing short of trolling.

    If you have a direct question regarding how something linked supports a point, I will be happy to answer it. But as yet you have not quoted anything from my post 52 in relation to how it supports my claims, only dismissing the sources as a group, based on your personal distaste for them.
    Your simply not engaging in this debate mican, your trolling.


    -
    If you truly don't understand something, then you should be asking questions about it, not making claims. It is not the case that my position is unsupported until Mican accepts the support, which sums up your "objection" for the past 2 pages. You are free ,of course, to stick your head in the sand for another 2 pages if you like. Instead of that, let me take a moment to teach you some proper debate etiquette, because if you keep doing what you have been doing, your going to keep getting what you have been getting.

    First, when a person takes the time to support their position with quoted links, if you don't like those links or have some objection to them, you should probably explore that aspect with the person (IE engage in a few round of exchange) before you go and claim that their position has not been supported. In the case where a person offers a "Huge" post with lots of links and support and you start to feel overwhelmed and confused, instead of throwing them all out under some pretense of "argument as a whole", maybe you should invest as much time into the rebuttal as your opponent invested into the crafting of the position. Otherwise you will find yourself outmatched and you won't be equipped to respond intelligently. Finally, if you think the support they offered does not support the point they are linked too, you should address those specifically, instead of sweeping claims of non support. As it stands, I have crafted an as you say "huge" post riddled with linked support, only to face an opponent unwilling to engage on anyone of them specifically and instead sweeps them all out the door with a highly contended claim. I will continue to contend with that claim, and when asked for support refer you back to the "huge" post where I offered my support. I am simply not equipped with a coherent or astute enough challenge to clarify or even improve my argument in response to it. Finally, if your just here for the ride of challenging a person to support something they have already supported, I have a hard time believing that is very fun for you, if it were then you would be the definition of a troll. Substituting the challenge button for actual debating. I think your better than a troll, and have simply fallen into an unhelpful debate habit. I hope this helps, (fingers crossed).

    On a personal note, you probably have about another day or so before I forget stuff. So by then I won't be able to answer any legitimate challenges without reminders. Which means you will have to start quoting me when you feel you want to challenge something you say I said.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Already responded to this point. surely you don't expect me to quote my last post?
    Further, that does not mean I have not supported my argument.
    It means that I've supported that APC is not a valid source of support.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Who says? The "southern poverty law center"? Why are they relevant? Are they the arbiters of who is and who isn't a hate group?
    Do they have to issue formal acceptance of accreditation?
    I don't think so.
    My link was from Psychology Today



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In post 52 you will find my claims, and the link to support for each. You are not required to click on a link away from ODN, you are however required to read ODN posts, and you are responsible for being aware of what has been said in the thread you are participating in.
    I've read the post and I've found nothing that looks to me like valid support for your claim.





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm not interested in if you think it is "valid", I have offered professional references in relevant fields. That makes it valid, regardless of if you like it or not, or if you would really prefer some other reference.
    Your claim that my argument is unsupported is vacuous.
    Many of your sources are from biased non-professional sources and therefore are not valid. If you want to say the intermixed with them are valid sources, that may be the case. But you have not specific which points of your are supported by valid sources.

    Likewise you have not shown me which points you made support your position.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have extensively supported my position in post 52.
    As your objection so far to that support has been that it isn't valid in your eyes, and I have addressed that.
    My objection is not the issue. The issue is that I am challenging you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s). I don't have to rebut any support of yours until you offer it. Now you have been challenged four times and I'm going make the challenge a fifth time.

    Challenge to support a claim.SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s)

    And the rules regarding your obligation when challenged is very clear.

    "When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim."

    You have so far refused to do either. Telling me support exist somewhere else on the thread but not offering the pertinent piece of support is not offering support. Telling me that I should go look for the support is not offering such support. In fact, such behavior looks like trolling to me but then since I can't read your mind I would not rude enough to accuse you of it - maybe you could likewise show me such respect.

    And frankly, I don't care about all of your complaining and false accusations about me not being convinced that post 52 has the support that you claim it does.

    You have been challenged to support a position. You can either provide support or it fails for lack of support. Complaining to me about me being supposedly unreasonable for just disagreeing with you is a waste of both of our time.

    Quite simply, support or retract. Take your pick.

  8. #68
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    It means that I've supported that APC is not a valid source of support.
    And I responded, if you disagree then we are simply at an impasse.
    Having both supported our claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My link was from Psychology Today
    Psychology today is not the one that called them a "hate group", and they did not say they were not licensed, or that their license was revoked.

    Which means they are still accredited professionals in a relevant field
    Which means they are a valid source for me to quote. Which I did in supporting my argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    I've read the post and I've found nothing that looks to me like valid support for your claim.
    That is because you do not see the sources as valid, see above. You are incorrect. (see above)

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Many of your sources are from biased non-professional sources and therefore are not valid.
    I have addressed your support to this incorrect claim. See above. They are in fact licensed, which makes them a valid source. That they are name called "hate group" by "the Southern Poverty Law Center" does not revoke that license, and thus they are not "discredited".
    As to your claim that they are "biased" I see no reason to accept this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    My objection is not the issue. The issue is that I am challenging you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s). I don't have to rebut any support of yours until you offer it. Now you have been challenged four times and I'm going make the challenge a fifth time.
    You can find my argument and it's support in post 52.
    As long as your reasoning for not finding "support" in that post is based in your rejection of the links for the reasons discussed above.
    You are simply incorrect that I have not supported my argument. Evidenced by the extensive reference list in post 52. and disapproval of your false claim that it is not accredited sources in post 60.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    You have been challenged to support a position. You can either provide support or it fails for lack of support. Complaining to me about me being supposedly unreasonable for just disagreeing with you is a waste of both of our time.
    Support given in post 52.
    As long as your reasoning for not finding "support" in that post is based in your rejection of the links for the reasons discussed above.
    You are simply incorrect that I have not supported my argument. Evidenced by the extensive reference list in post 52.


    Your objection needs to raise above the level of you rejecting a forwarded argument, and then leaning on the challenge button, and move to engaging in the argument that was offered.
    Otherwise you are correct that you are wasting everyone time by spamming up this thread.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  9. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    I think a judgement from an "objective" source is in order. Not that I am a "super-moderator" or anything........In the absence of that (at the moment)...

    I believe Apok said (to paraphrase) "concentrate on the argument, not the source, the latter is an ad hom".

    I don't see how the source of support matters (even if they are found to be distasteful) if the point is valid (assuming MT's sources are "accredited professionals", as I have not checked to confirm whether they are or not). That the sources have an agenda, says little to their truth value.

    Mican's agenda includes defending abortion and homosexuality at "any intellectual" cost.
    Cowboy's agenda includes defending Clinton's reputation at "any intellectual" cost.

    But you both still can make very great points even though you have an agenda
    (I have an agenda too I guess)
    Last edited by Belthazor; November 3rd, 2017 at 08:34 PM.

  10. #70
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Cowboy's agenda includes defending Clinton's reputation at "any intellectual" cost.
    Support that I have any stated agenda comparable to ACP. {challenge thingy}
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #71
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Support that I have any stated agenda comparable to ACP. {challenge thingy}
    I think his point is that no one is neutral.
    Neutrality is a myth.
    Basically, we all have presupposition and biases, and those make us not neutral by definition.

    Here is a video on the myth of neutrality if your interested on the topic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKDF0TbfxQ
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  12. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  13. #72
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Support that I have any stated agenda comparable to ACP. {challenge thingy}
    My apologies, I did not mean to infer you have posted a formal platform on that subject
    (I was unaware that the ACP had commented on the Clinton's at all...)

    ---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think his point is that no one is neutral.
    Neutrality is a myth.
    Basically, we all have presupposition and biases, and those make us not neutral by definition.

    Here is a video on the myth of neutrality if your interested on the topic.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWKDF0TbfxQ
    Definitely this was one point I was trying to make with that post!!

    (there were a couple more as well however...)

  14. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    My apologies, I did not mean to infer you have posted a formal platform on that subject
    (I was unaware that the ACP had commented on the Clinton's at all...)[COLOR="Silver"]
    I have no such stated platform on any subject. I suggest you check ACP's "about us" page for a good example of one, however.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  15. #74
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your objection needs to raise above the level of you rejecting a forwarded argument, and then leaning on the challenge button, and move to engaging in the argument that was offered.
    Because you say so? I don't see that in any of the ODN rules. However I do see the rules saying what one must do when they are challenged to support or retract a claim.

    When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim.

    That's it. You have the option of supporting or retracting your claim. You have done neither.

    Telling me to go somewhere else and go look for your already-given support is not offering support. And if the post you were referring to had pretty much one clear point that seems to be an attempt to support your argument, I would probably just do it - I'd copy and paste it into my reply and then respond to it. But of course the post you are referring to is very large and has multiple points and I don't think any of them provides the support so I don't know which point I'm suppose to respond to. And of course it would be much easier for you to go find it and paste it into your next post than it would be for me to do that since you know exactly what you are referring to and I don't. So your request is not reasonable so I feel no obligation to do it to be helpful. And more importantly, I have absolutely no obligation under ODN rules to do that.

    However you do have an obligation to provide support for when your argument when challenged and you have failed to that. Therefore, since you maintain that your argument stands, it looks like you are in violation of ODN's support or retract law.

    So again,

    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s)

    And to give you a heads up, if you respond but don't offer support for your argument (and more complaining about how I'm suppose to go find the support myself is a guaranteed waste of time on your part), my next response will likely be little more (or nothing more) than a repeat of the challenge.

    And btw, I did respond to every point in post 52 - it's in post 53.



    ---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    don't see how the source of support matters (even if they are found to be distasteful) if the point is valid (assuming MT's sources are "accredited professionals", as I have not checked to confirm whether they are or not). That the sources have an agenda, says little to their truth value.
    Actually, some sources agenda is truth. For example, the agenda of a scientist is to learn the truth about the natural world and likewise professional scientists and scientific organizations can generally be trust as a source of objective facts about science.

    And other organizations/people have different agendas than learning and forwarding objective truths. Religious groups forward religion. Anti-gay groups forward anti-gay sentiments and likewise pro-gay groups forward pro-gay sentiments and therefore neither of these groups should be trusted when it comes to getting the objective truth about gay issues. Instead you trust what the medical and scientific experts, who are concerned with unbiased objective reality, say about these issues.

    So I hold that when it comes to supporting one's argument regarding something related to science, the only valid sources of support are professional scientific groups or those individuals that are generally accepted by such groups as valid sources of support.

    If we have no standards at all, then who's to say that we shouldn't be able to support arguments with our own say-so? I mean, yeah we all have our own agendas and might not know a lot about the topic we are debating but if we likewise allow external links that come from people who have their own agendas and limited knowledge, then there really is no reason that we shouldn't be able to self-support and then we really can just go back to "nu-uh" and "huh-huh".

    No, obviously if we are going to let outsiders overrule what we personally think, those outsiders must be credible unbiased experts.
    I

  16. #75
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So I hold that when it comes to supporting one's argument regarding something related to science, the only valid sources of support are professional scientific groups or those individuals that are generally accepted by such groups as valid sources of support.
    Nonsense.
    Just because an organization has an agenda doesn't mean they will lie or are ignorant of the subject matter. So Christian sites will undoubtedly try to promote the things that agree with their position. And they will try to mitigate things that don't agree with their position. We all do that. Kinda the definition of bias.

    If the "the Flat Earth Society" claimed the moon was a sphere (citing "accredited professional's in the field" as MT stated his sources are) should we dismiss the claim without examining it because clearly they have an agenda about the earth being flat?

    Put another way, MT says his sources are "accredited professionals in the field", if they are not, it should be easy enough for you to show they are not (which would be quite embarrassing for him I would think). Rather than just say a site that quoted these individuals makes the information invalid.

    To me you appear to just being stubborn as you have really not given a sound reason to not even give a cursory read to the evidence offered, only rejected it out of hand because you don't like the bias of websites quoting these sources.
    (even if these sites were lying, the most believable lies contain truth on purpose!).

    So, to further the discussion, you should not attack "the website" who is repeating information (obviously biased that they are), attack THE information and THE "accredited professional" making the claim.

    (maybe I should be a "super-moderator" cause I make an awesome diplomat I'm thinkin

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If you are going to claim that science did not inform the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders, you will need to support that.

    I did claim it, and will support it (again since I did have relevant sources attached, but in no way cited them adequately to support my contention), shortly, but think I will wait for you and MT to resolve your current issue first.
    Last edited by Belthazor; November 4th, 2017 at 09:32 PM.

  17. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    28
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Nonsense.
    Just because an organization has an agenda doesn't mean they will lie or are ignorant of the subject matter. So Christian sites will undoubtedly try to promote the things that agree with their position

    If the "the Flat Earth Society" claimed the moon was round (citing "accredited professional's in the field" as MT stated his sources are) should we dismiss the claim without examining it because clearly they have an agenda?

    Put another way, MT says his sources are "accredited professionals in the field", if they are not, it should be easy enough for you to show they are not (which would be quite embarrassing for him I would think). Rather than just say a site that quoted these individuals makes the information invalid.

    To me you appear to just being stubborn as you have really not given a sound reason to not even give a cursory read to the evidence offered, only rejected it out of hand because you don't like the bias of websites quoting these sources.
    (even if these sites were lying, the most believable lies contain truth on purpose!).

    So, to further the discussion, you should not attack "the website" who is repeating information (obviously biased that they are), attack THE information and THE "accredited professional" making the claim.

    (maybe I should be a "super-moderator" cause I make an awesome diplomat I'm thinkin

    ---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------




    I did claim it, and will support it (again since I did have relevant sources attached, but in no way cited them adequately to support my contention), shortly, but think I will wait for you and MT to resolve your current issue first.
    My notifications cut out and I just checked... wow! I didnít expect this much response on one thread.
    A divided minority will always beat a divided majority.

  18. #77
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Because you say so?
    You should have quoted the whole thing.
    Context matters.
    Quote Originally Posted by MT post 68
    Your objection needs to raise above the level of you rejecting a forwarded argument, and then leaning on the challenge button, and move to engaging in the argument that was offered.
    Otherwise you are correct that you are wasting everyone time by spamming up this thread.
    Emphasis mine.
    So your response makes little sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim.

    That's it. You have the option of supporting or retracting your claim. You have done neither.
    Absolutely. That is why I responded to your challenge back in post 40ish with post 52.
    Your claim that I have done neither is evidenced as false. That you repeat it does not make it true or reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Telling me to go somewhere else and go look for your already-given support is not offering support.
    If that support were not on ODN, and in the same thread, I would agree.
    However, it is totally appropriate to direct you to the post that directly deals with the challenge. copy and pasting the whole post again is pointless, and in no way required.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And if the post you were referring to had pretty much one clear point that seems to be an attempt to support your argument, I would probably just do it - I'd copy and paste it into my reply and then respond to it. But of course the post you are referring to is very large and has multiple points and I don't think any of them provides the support so I don't know which point I'm suppose to respond to. And of course it would be much easier for you to go find it and paste it into your next post than it would be for me to do that since you know exactly what you are referring to and I don't. So your request is not reasonable so I feel no obligation to do it to be helpful. And more importantly, I have absolutely no obligation under ODN rules to do that.
    That sounds more like a you problem. I can't make you read.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    However you do have an obligation to provide support for when your argument when challenged and you have failed to that. Therefore, since you maintain that your argument stands, it looks like you are in violation of ODN's support or retract law.

    So again,

    Challenge to support a claim. SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the higher suicide rate is primarily due to a mental disorder as opposed to some other reason(s)
    Lets try some of your own reasoning.
    Your point fails as you have not challenged me.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And to give you a heads up, if you respond but don't offer support for your argument (and more complaining about how I'm suppose to go find the support myself is a guaranteed waste of time on your part), my next response will likely be little more (or nothing more) than a repeat of the challenge.

    And btw, I did respond to every point in post 52 - it's in post 53.
    yes, 53 is where you rejected my support as valid, and my response has not been rebutted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Actually, some sources agenda is truth. For example, the agenda of a scientist is to learn the truth about the natural world and likewise professional scientists and scientific organizations can generally be trust as a source of objective facts about science.
    HAHAHAHA!

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And other organizations/people have different agendas than learning and forwarding objective truths. Religious groups forward religion. Anti-gay groups forward anti-gay sentiments and likewise pro-gay groups forward pro-gay sentiments and therefore neither of these groups should be trusted when it comes to getting the objective truth about gay issues. Instead you trust what the medical and scientific experts, who are concerned with unbiased objective reality, say about these issues.
    As though "christian" were some valid basis for claiming bias. Being a christian does is not a disqualifying trait any more than being an atheist.
    This is what is wrong with your post 53. It's laughable that we should all accept such a standard. It is really just an ideological blinder for yourself so that you don't or can't see any other viewpoint. That has been on full display in this thread for sure.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So I hold that when it comes to supporting one's argument regarding something related to science, the only valid sources of support are professional scientific groups or those individuals that are generally accepted by such groups as valid sources of support.
    That simply isn't true. A credible source is valid. All professionals in relevant fields are "valid". They may or may not be "correct". Valid =/= correct. It just means that one is not engaging in a fallacy with their appeal to an authority. The correctness is what is debated.
    you seem more interested in complaining about your own idea of validity.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  19. Likes evensaul liked this post
  20. #78
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Absolutely. That is why I responded to your challenge back in post 40ish with post 52.
    Your claim that I have done neither is evidenced as false. That you repeat it does not make it true or reasonable.
    Again, the rules:

    When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim.

    Do you know what "offering" means? It means to give something. It means that you are to present what I've challenged you to present. Telling me to go look for it somewhere does not qualify as offering. Saying that you offered it in the past (and basically just asking me to take your word for it) does not qualify either.

    As an analogy, there's a difference between offering treasure and giving someone a treasure map to go find the treasure (and then telling them it's their fault when they come back empty handed). Likewise saying that you already gave them treasure (which they cannot find) is not offering treasure. So you have not offered support.

    So by refusing to offer support as challenged, you are in violation of ODN rules (unless you are retracting your argument).
    Last edited by mican333; November 5th, 2017 at 12:37 PM.

  21. #79
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,243
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, the rules:

    When challenged to support a claim there are two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim.

    Do you know what "offering" means? It means to give something. It means that you are to present what I've challenged you to present. Telling me to go look for it somewhere does not qualify as offering. Saying that you offered it in the past (and basically just asking me to take your word for it) does not qualify either.

    As an analogy, there's a difference between offering treasure and giving someone a treasure map to go find the treasure. Likewise saying that you already gave them treasure is not offering treasure. So you have not offered support.

    So by refusing to offer support as challenged, you are in violation of ODN rules (unless you are retracting your argument).
    When you claim that I did not offer support, my obligation is to show that I have, pointing you to the post where the support was offered is my evidence that I supported my claim.
    By any reasonable measure I have fulfilled my obligations.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  22. #80
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gay/Transgender

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    When you claim that I did not offer support, my obligation is to show that I have
    And when I challenge you to offer support (which is different than me claiming that you did not offer support) your obligation , per the rules, is to:

    offer relevant support or retract the claim.

    So take your pick. Offer support or retract your claim.

 

 
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •