All about Serafina (Split)

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA

Post by The Dude » Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:54 pm

Hey Serafina; check your PM's.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:36 pm

Serafina wrote:
Significant brain development takes place prior to birth. Abnormal development could be one of the causes of transsexuality.
Note that the latter doesn't necessarily mean that the brain is fully female. Indeed, that would be unlikely since development continues after birth, especially if we include your previous findings.
You know that even if that study does say transsexuals got less testosterone due to a defect it would also mean that,

1. If the above is correct and it is a defect it could and likely will be treated and the required chemicals suplimented in the womb as medical knowledge develops.

2. Also if it is mearly a lack of testosterone in early development it could also be suplimented before or after birth or perhaps even at a older age.

3. Does the "defect" appear in the brains of JUST transgenders or in homosexuals ect as well and if so would that not mean transitioning is mearly a lifestyle choice.

Essentially, if a transsexuals brain was identical to that of a woman, one could expect to find phantom limb syndrome after GRS.
While it is a interesting concept i would consider that very dubious as conclusive material even if it had been tested witch it has not.

Phantom limb is phantom limb and has nothing to do with sexuality, we know from stroke patients that neural pathways reform so they can use limbs paralized from the stroke. To claim that neural pathways would not develop over the many years the individual was the proud owner of a Knob would be dishonest i think.
Generally, i do not think that it is fair to dismiss pre-birth development as a cause for transsexuality out of hand. There are several conflicting studies, taking one over the other without reason is just not fair.
I am not dismissing later studies (even though the subjects were also taking hormones prior to the testing) however i do consider the first one debunked due to its limitations and incorrect results.
Your study merely showed that further development can take place in adults,


and indicates that the brains of transwomen (transmen) are still different from biological women (men).
It does show that the hormones do cause the effect the earlier study claimed they did not,

That particular study does not show that the brains of transmen/women are any differant than men/women (respectivly) in the first place, however your later study may.


A good test group should really include known members of the hetrosexual and gay community AND transexuals who have not taken ANY hormone treatment.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:50 pm

Serafina wrote: Actually yes, it does just that.
If the signals of testosterone are weaker, then the effects will also be weaker.
They react differently to hormones.
Perhaps i suppose it depends on the hormone but regardless that is mearly a lesser normal effect rather than a opposite effect.

But if you have consistent reports between different age groups and social groups, taken by people who are trained to analyze for such consistency, there is a pattern you have to explain.
You can't dismiss a pattern based on a few errors in it.
I would not dismis a pattern because of a few minor errors in fact as you pointed out yourself personalities vary so i would expect a greater LACK of consistancy. And that brings us back to ppl saying what they want the establishment to hear rather than being completly honest, the varety you talk about should to a certain extent lack consistancy.

Edit:
Some extra evidence, tough it's a bit exotic

Yet more evidence for pre-birth differences between transsexuals and non-transsexuals.
The data shows an association between dermatoglyphics and sexual orientation, not transsexualism per se and dermatoglyphics.

PS: I will likely not reply until tomorrow afternoon (14 hours or so) as i am now going to bed and have a meeting with a supplier in the morning, i just thought id tell you so you do not wait around for my next post :).

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:11 pm

1. If the above is correct and it is a defect it could and likely will be treated and the required chemicals suplimented in the womb as medical knowledge develops.

2. Also if it is mearly a lack of testosterone in early development it could also be suplimented before or after birth or perhaps even at a older age.

3. Does the "defect" appear in the brains of JUST transgenders or in homosexuals ect as well and if so would that not mean transitioning is mearly a lifestyle choice.
How does the third point follow AT ALL?
If the "defect" has occurred, you have to life with it. Since gender identity can not be changed, the body has to be.
Besides, homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice", sexual orientation is hardwired just like gender identity.

What's wrong with the first two points? Are you assuming that i would be opposed to such a treatment?
If there is an easy way to prevent transsexuality from occurring, then there is nothing wrong with using it. That does not apply to adults, since we are talking not about development but about changing already established things in this case.
While it is a interesting concept i would consider that very dubious as conclusive material even if it had been tested witch it has not.

Phantom limb is phantom limb and has nothing to do with sexuality, we know from stroke patients that neural pathways reform so they can use limbs paralized from the stroke. To claim that neural pathways would not develop over the many years the individual was the proud owner of a Knob would be dishonest i think.
No, it would be quite simple:
If the brain of a transwomanl would work like that of a man, there would be a good choice that after the operation, phantom limb syndrome for the penis would occur (it would appear like it is there even if it isn't), likewise for the breasts (which are surgically removed) or transmen. Both occurs with non-transsexuals and similar operations (due to accidents, breast cancer etc.)
Since this is not the case, one can draw the conclusion that the brain is wired differently.
I am not dismissing later studies (even though the subjects were also taking hormones prior to the testing) however i do consider the first one debunked due to its limitations and incorrect results.
Actually, the study itself was not wrong, at best the conclusions.
If you do not have a proper control group, that does not mean that your data from the test group is wrong - it merely means that you can draw wrong conclusions.
It does show that the hormones do cause the effect the earlier study claimed they did not,

That particular study does not show that the brains of transmen/women are any differant than men/women (respectivly) in the first place, however your later study may.
Yes, but as you said - not showing something doesn't mean it's not there.
It simply means that you might not have looked for it.

Indeed, some of the evidence i posted suggests (and a single study on something as complex as this can never do more) that there is such a difference, even tough it may not be as big as i originally claimed it to be.
A good test group should really include known members of the hetrosexual and gay community AND transexuals who have not taken ANY hormone treatment.
Well, incidentally, the fingerprint-test i edited into my last post includes a large group including all of those and supports my conclusion.


Perhaps i suppose it depends on the hormone but regardless that is mearly a lesser normal effect rather than a opposite effect.
Why would it have to be opposite? I dropped that claim, i misread your post, i said so.
But since a female brain is the baseline development (it occurs due to lack of stimuli that says otherwise), it might well be that the brain of a transwoman did not develop as much as it was supposed to be due to the lowered receptor activity. Hence, it is different from a normal male brain and more female than it.
I would not dismis a pattern because of a few minor errors in fact as you pointed out yourself personalities vary so i would expect a greater LACK of consistancy. And that brings us back to ppl saying what they want the establishment to hear rather than being completly honest, the varety you talk about should to a certain extent lack consistancy.
You are ignoring my point.
Transsexual children report certain kind of feelings, and they hardly have reason to lie (since there are no medical procedures necessary before puberty anyway).
And we have the exact same kind of feelings in adult transsexuals - and they have been reported and documented decades before children were studied in such regards, so you can't claim that adult transsexuals are copying them.
That's a distinctive pattern. And since the feeling is based on the same thing (not living as ones gender), a great similarity is to be expected (as an example, grief undergoes pretty much the same stages for every healthy human being as well).
The data shows an association between dermatoglyphics and sexual orientation, not transsexualism per se and dermatoglyphics.
Quite.
But it shows (and says) that transsexuals differ from non-transsexuals.
Homosexual male and female transsexuals combined differed from male and female controls combined.
Now, that can mean one of two things, or both:
-there are procentually more homosexual transsexuals than homosexual non-transsexuals (confirmed by other studies, therefore true).
-Transsexuals have a difference in their fingerprint pattern.

Too bad i do not have access to the whole study. But the former is indeed more likely.

Now, how does that support my conclusion then?
Well, quite simple - since we have strong evidence that sexual orientation is developed prior to birth, and there are more homosexual transsexuals (either way round - if you say that a transwoman is still male and an attaction to females is therefore normal, those that are attracted to men would be homosexual) - then something must happen to transsexuals prior to birth.
I grant that this is not really obvious, i should have been more precise. Sorry for that.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:51 pm

Yeah well now that you're here, how about you and Kor get that SW debate rolling?

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Mon Jul 05, 2010 9:59 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Yeah well now that you're here, how about you and Kor get that SW debate rolling?
If Kor actually gives the theory i demanded, then yes, propaby.
Else, there is hardly a point, since one can not debate without something to debate about.

However, i mostly joined to beat down WILGA (which refused to debate) and to otherwise discuss this issue - i don't care about SWvsST that much after all.

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by The Dude » Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:04 pm

Praeothmin wrote:
Serafina wrote:There is no harm done to society, but there IS great harm to transsexuals if society doesn't permit it.
I don't think society has the right to "permit" or "deny" anything of that nature.
You feel you are a woman, then live as a woman.
It's your right as a human being to live anyway that you deem right, as long as it is not detrimental to others.
And in your case, it clearly isn't...
But you have to understand that not all around you will accept that, no matter how justified you feel about it.
Getting worked up over the opinion of someone you don't even know in RL, whom you'll probably never meet and who has no importance in your life isn't worth it, IMO...

This still doesn't mean that insults are more acceptable in constructive debates, or that the word "retard" is more acceptable then the word "trannie"...
I dunno man, I'd be pretty pissed if I was a transsexual and someone was basically arguing for the right to be a shithead to me. Now this is the net and all that but still.

Frankly I'm curious as to when JMSpock intends to discipline WILGA or if he intends to just let all this slide. Looks pretty bad when you say you want a forum where all are welcome and one of your members gets to be an asshole without repercussion.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:37 pm

As i said repeatedly:
Just replace "transsexual" with "black", "jewish", "female", "gay" or anything like that.
Then take some of the arguments that have been made here - that it is unreasonable to except acceptance from society, that people are right to use derogatory terms towards that group, that an extra social class should be created for that group etc.
And then you should see why a member of that group gets worked up.


By the way, as i said all the time:
Why you insult someone matters.
As an extreme example, some people use insults on each other in a friendly way.
Then we have the pretty common insults that just don't actually fit - say, someone in sports makes a terrible blunder and you call him a retard.
But we also have situations where someone is insulted just for being a member of one of the above mentioned groups. That's worse - because that's not just an insult, it's discrimination.

I insult people for behaving stupid - and i draw the line there. And i see no reason why anyone should have the right to cross that line.


Either way - i don't actually want to lead the debate i have with Kor right now into that direction.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA

Post by Khas » Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:38 pm

Am I the only one sensing that a Category 5 Shitstorm is brewing here?

The Dude
Jedi Knight
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA

Post by The Dude » Mon Jul 05, 2010 10:41 pm

Nah, nothing will become of any of this. If anything a month from now everything will be back to normal.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Transsexuality and Rights - challenge to WILGA

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:22 am

That's so typical for you: I explain why I do not accept your challenge and instead of dealing with these reasons, you enumerate other possible reasons and explain why these cannot be sufficient to not accept your challenge. Where is there the logic?

For dummies:
I believe that you would not insult me on this board and in this debate.
I believe that you would not use your staccato sentences in this debate.
I believe that I would be able to find scientific evidence - although, seeing as you have studied that topic already for a long time, I simply would not look for scientific evidence. I have no chance to get a better understanding of the topic in less than 10 days than you have gotten in years. And contrary to other people, I do not have the time to spend my whole time to study that more or less irrelevant topic. Because you are the one with the claim, I would simply demand that you prove your position. And because I believe that transsexualism is not a lifestyle choice and that there are pathological causes for transsexualism, most of medicinal studies would be irrelevant anyway. The question simply is, what a woman is at all, if a transwoman is a woman and should be treated as a woman or if a transwoman is a man with a female gender and should be treated as a man (with a female gender). Medicinal studies who are proving that transwoman have a brain with a few female characteristics do not help here.
And, if you would have read what I wrote, you would know that I do not claim to be right. I simply say that you have not convinced me of anything. That's hardly surprising seeing that you have made no real arguments until now.



See, even here, where you are trying to challenge me, you do nothing to deserve any respect.

You are distorting what I have said and then you deny it in view of the clear proof of your fatuity.

Yes, I complained about your debating style. But that's not what you have accused me to have said. You accused me of taking your debating style as a reason for not accepting your challenge. After I wrote: » I’d be more than delighted to read for a change instead of two, three staccato sentences from you a coherent essay which provides evidence for facts and draws comprehensible conclusions concerning transsexuals and their treatment from these facts; an essay that is not written assuming that non-transsexuals are as familiar with that topic as transsexuals. « you replied: » Your claim that i would merely post point-by-point sentences is baseless, as i clearly said that i would make the opening argument, which can not have such a structure. It would have been a clear, cited, evidenced argument. Evidently, you are either unable to recognize that implication or afraid of it. «

And I did not compare you with a murderer. Your complain that I could have said » like every human being « is baseless seeing that this is exactly what I have said. I wrote: » I do not want to give you the impression that I may respect you beyond the basic respect each human being, even murderers, child molesters or politicians are getting from me. « That even does not indicate that I compare you with murderers, child molesters or politicians. The clause it there to make the nature of this basic respect clear. Even such people are entitled to this basic respect. You are entitled to this respect too. But not more until you deserve it.


And your insightful analyses of what Kant has said is not really a masterstroke. But seeing that you have not analysed it at all, that is not really surprising. Let's see how one can reformulate that article that even you may see how it is apllicable to debates: » No party shall, during a debate, permit such acts of hostility which would make a mutual agreement or further debates impossible: such are the employment of insults, libel, lies, and intentional use of fallacies. «

The question is not, how you would behave yourself here in this debate, but what would happen afterwards. You would claim victory in any case, go back to SDN and insult me again. It's totally irrelevant what I'm saying. And therefore I do not see how anything good could come out of such a debate.

And even if something good could come out of it, you are not in a position to challenge me. Because, as I have explained, such a position would demand that I respect you more than I respect any other human-being, that your opinion is important to me. But it is not. You can think of me what you want. I'm convinced that it is irrelevant what I'm saying, you will not change your opinion of me anyway. And that's okay. Do think of me what you want. I do not care.



P.S. You still haven't answered my last post in the thread » All about Serafina (Split) «

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Who is like God arbour » Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:17 am

That's really funny: I argued that transwomen, who have a male sex, are to be treated as men are treated.

Men where never discriminated - at least not in Western societies.

And what is Serafina saying: That I want a treatment of transwoman like typical groups of people who are or were discriminated.
      • Black people - Apartheid, Racism, Slavery
        Jews - Antisemitism, Racism, Religious persecution, Shoa, genocide
        Women - Sexism
        Gays - Heterosexism and homophobia
Although I argued that the language may adopt to accommodate third genders (and/or transsexuals), that accordingly terms and grammar genders may develop in the language with time, I never argued that transsexuals should be dicrimminated in any way.

Even if a third social class is created for transgenders, does this not mean that they have to be discriminated. I mean, I do not discriminate black people, Jews, women or gays either.

All I argued is that a transwoman is not a woman and a transman is not a man. They can wish what they want, that will not change these facts.

And only if a transwoman is determined to be not a man (with female gender) and if he is obviously not a woman, he has to be something else. That is the conclusion to which Serafina forces me.

I prefer to treat him as a man with female gender as I treat e.g. a homosexual man as a man with a homosexual orientation or a male transvestite as a man with an affinity for cross-dressing.

In 99 per cent of all circumstances such trivialities as gender, sexual preferences and affinities are totally irrelevant in my handling of people.

I have no problem if a man wears woman-clothes and acts as a woman. It is his choice (or maybe in the case of transsexuals it is not). That does not mean that I look down on him or think of him less.

But that does not make him a woman. And a bug in the brain, the existence of a few female characteristics in the brain, does not make him a woman either. Even if the whole brain would be a typical female brain does this not make him a woman. He stays a man, albeit a man with a female brain.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:33 am

WILGA wrote:That's really funny: I argued that transwomen, who have a male sex, are to be treated as men are treated.

Men where never discriminated - at least not in Western societies.
That's not what you said, and you know it.
Maybe, if the transsexuals in Western societies are beginning to be a little bit more open-minded, they would see that this is not the necessary conclusion. They would consider the possibility of being something that is neither a woman nor a man but something else.
......
In South Asia there are such terms already: For example in India there are people who are called hijra. These are physiological males who adopt feminine gender identity, women's clothing and other feminine gender roles – or with other words, they are what we would call transwoman.
In other words:
You think transwomen are to be treated as neither men nor women. You list the hijra as an example - but you conveniently forget that they have next to no legal rights.

Transwomen do not feel like they belong to a third gender. They do not WANT to be a third gender.
Indeed, i would wager that the hijra also do not feel like a third gender, but are merely the result of people like you: They want to be women, but society forbids seeing them as women. Else, they have to settle for the next-best thing.


Even if a third social class is created for transgenders, does this not mean that they have to be discriminated. I mean, I do not discriminate black people, Jews, women or gays either.
So black people, Jews etc. are a different social class from you? How lovely /sarcasm
Consider this:
Men have certain rights and are treated in a certain way, and women different ones.
Those do not have to be legal rights, although in some cases they are (you listed examples like facilities and sports earlier yourself).
Since that is the case - if you create a third social class for transsexuals, whose rights would they have? Most likely neither, since that is how society works.
All I argued is that a transwoman is not a woman and a transman is not a man. They can wish what they want, that will not change these facts.
And i argued that their self-identity is female (transwomen) or male (transmen).
There are a multitude of arguments for this:
-people do not define their own gender identity by their genitalia
-there is scientific evidence that gender identity is settled before birth
-there is scientific evidence that transsexuals are born with their sex-opposite gender identity
-there is strong scientific evidence that transsexuals who are not allowed to live according to their gender suffer greatly.

You ignored all of this, and rely solely on
-outdated biological definitions of sex
-dubious grammatical definitions.
And only if a transwoman is determined to be not a man (with female gender) and if he is obviously not a woman, he has to be something else. That is the conclusion to which Serafina forces me.
You determine this by deliberately limited data.
In other words, you do not want to open your eyes.
I prefer to treat him as a man with female gender as I treat e.g. a homosexual man as a man with a homosexual orientation or a male transvestite as a man with an affinity for cross-dressing.
See, here is the thing:
You do not treat me like you treat a biological woman with a female gender.
In other words, you discriminate against me due to my biology.

Furthermore, as i said - transsexuals suffer if they are not allowed to live according to their gender.
The german supreme court decided that, in order to do that, they have to be addressed according to their gender.
Medical professionals agree with this conclusion - in order to be happy, a transsexual has to be able to live according to their gender.

You ignore this. Essentially, you are willing to let people suffer to fit your small-minded (based only on partial evidence) definition, personal prejudice (since you never interacted with transsexuals) and linguistics preferences.

If your point of view was the standard, it would cause transsexuals to suffer.
It is therefore morally wrong, even evil.
But that does not make him a woman. And a bug in the brain, the existence of a few female characteristics in the brain, does not make him a woman either. Even if the whole brain would be a typical female brain does this not make him a woman. He stays a man, albeit a man with a female brain.
The brain is the seat of ones personality.
You choose to ignore the most important part of ones identity and focus on less important parts.

You now openly admitted that there is no way to convince you that a transwoman has the right to be treated as a woman.
At the beginning of this discussion, you said that you would be content with a legal decision. I gave you such decisions, albeit it does not yet apply to me (tough the case is filed and on the way).
You then went on to challenge the legal decisions and claimed that it is wrong to do so based on grammar :roll:
Since that does not work out, you now cling to a few biological facts, ignoring all others.
You therefore discriminate based on ones biology.

You completely ignore that this would be morally wrong, that a societies issue have to be resolved based on morals and that everyone has the right to be treated moral.
You deny that right to transsexuals.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:41 am

Oh, and since i overlooked the post WILGA made before:
That's really funny: I argued that transwomen, who have a male sex, are to be treated as men are treated.

Men where never discriminated - at least not in Western societies.
Hence, the difference is quite small. Big deal. We still know that it is a barrier that can not be crossed by nurture.
It is also known that in a transwoman the brain is not a typical male brain, that there are female characteristics too.
And what tells you that these differences are not the ones that are the most important ones for ones identity?
Nothing - science is not that knowledgeable yet.
The question now is what a pathologist would say to the brain of a transwoman.
No, it's not. The question is whether these differences account for gender identity, which is not yet decided either way.

It's as simple as that:
An individual with female gender identity has the right to be treated according to it, and vice versa.
Simply because not doing so causes them to suffer.
Right now, science points in a direction that suggests that transwomen are born with a female gender identity. Differences in brain structures are an obvious candidate for a cause, and science suggests that such differences exist.
Hence, a transwoman is a woman by birth, and has to be treated as such.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: All about Serafina (Split)

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:57 am

The Dude wrote:
Praeothmin wrote:
Serafina wrote:There is no harm done to society, but there IS great harm to transsexuals if society doesn't permit it.
I don't think society has the right to "permit" or "deny" anything of that nature.
You feel you are a woman, then live as a woman.
It's your right as a human being to live anyway that you deem right, as long as it is not detrimental to others.
And in your case, it clearly isn't...
But you have to understand that not all around you will accept that, no matter how justified you feel about it.
Getting worked up over the opinion of someone you don't even know in RL, whom you'll probably never meet and who has no importance in your life isn't worth it, IMO...


This still doesn't mean that insults are more acceptable in constructive debates, or that the word "retard" is more acceptable then the word "trannie"...
I dunno man, I'd be pretty pissed if I was a transsexual and someone was basically arguing for the right to be a shithead to me. Now this is the net and all that but still.
What would a regulation that applied to belief be, if enforced? We're talking about 1984-style thought police now.

I'm not entirely joking here. We can regulate harassment in the workplace and regulate discrimination.

We can say that you aren't permitted to treat your female co-workers and employees like sex objects. We can't say you aren't permitted to believe that women are anything but sex objects, or "accept" that. We can say you aren't permitted to refuse service to black people, but we can't force you to think that black people are just as human as white people, or even to go make friends with black people.
Frankly I'm curious as to when JMSpock intends to discipline WILGA or if he intends to just let all this slide. Looks pretty bad when you say you want a forum where all are welcome and one of your members gets to be an asshole without repercussion.
If by "being an asshole" you mean "disagreeing with a real or imagined social consensus," he's allowed to do that. He's required to be polite while doing so, but he could be trying to convince us that there is a Zionist conspiracy to rule the world with a hundred-armed Vishnu-like government for all that the rules are concerned.

You get the point? As long as he neither crosses the line into what is likely to be legally construed as hate speech, and maintains the forms of basic courtesy, he can express dislike, distaste, and disagreement.

Post Reply