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

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:33 pm

Kor has charged up his super combo bar. That's what happened.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:42 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:It would be absurd to reject an invitation to ASVS. Over there, it's open-slander! :)

Imagine the numerous quotes which could be picked out of context and pasted all over anti-fundie websites!

Woaaahh!!!

*collapses* x_x
To be fair, I don't think your quote suffered much from being taken "out of context." It sounded pretty "grumpy old man" here, and it sounded "grumpy old reactionary" there (rather than necessarily fundie, strictly speaking).

Actually, that exchange was a major missed opportunity for Serafina to display depth of knowledge on topic and score easy points:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:We often hear about men going women more than the other way round, and generally, there's a phantasm about the sexual power of feminine curves that expresses itself. In general, trannies really seem to dress up in a way as to exhibit their rearranged plastic. They don't seem to aim for a true casual style of dressing. That's, at least, from the impression I get for everything I've seen and heard about them. There is not even a form of discretion. It has to show off, somehow.
[url=http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/dsm_iv.html]DSM-IV[/url] (which sets the diagnostic standard in the US) on transsexuality wrote:This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (Criteria B).
Or, in other words, the diagnostic standard for transsexuality says there really needs to be something else; a desire for the sexual power of femininity is not alone sufficient for diagnosis. I expect that the German counterpart to the DSM-IV probably says something quite similar.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:46 pm

Bigotry?, do you mean concern considering certain undeniable FACTS?.

Have i shown that at least some MTF transgenders have been known to lie to get the MTF operations?.

Yes.
Yes, bigotry.
Because you treat all transwomen equal based on a very few.
That's exactly like people who point to black people who are criminals or gay people who have molested a child and then demand that all black or gay people are seen as potential danger. Or be locked away. Or something like that.

This is a baseless generalization. You must either assume that the majority of transwomen are lying, or that they all ought to be treated based on the few that do.
Both is, in my eyes, bigotry.
Did i say all (like your rather rancid AND deseased brain seemed to interpret it as and then use it in a attack) NO.
You NEVER limited it to a few transwomen. You always spoke in broad terms, of transwomen in general.
Look at your last masterpiece:
I am not objecting to anything but a mutilated male having the right to undress in front of or have my female family member undress in front of each other without their knowledge.
Where does it say that that only applies to a few? Where does it say that those are the exceptions? Where does it say that you are not concerned about transwomen in general?

Besides, even IF a few people go as far as having SRS (which assumes incompetent psychologists) - what danger is there to your family? There is nothing optical to offend them - can they read minds? Or do you assume that that person is going to harm them in some other way? Show me ONE example where that happened.

You simply assume that there would be a danger - based on what?
The only explanation i currently have is bigotry, since such behavior is often typical for bigots.


Oh, and JMS:
I am now talking about whether he is a bigot or not, whether his statements are bigoted or not. You can call that an ad hominem if you want to - but i am NOT calling him a bigot directly.
The debate would go on if Kor actually presented the evidence i challenged him to provide - so far, i am trying to get it out of him.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:52 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It would be absurd to reject an invitation to ASVS. Over there, it's open-slander! :)

Imagine the numerous quotes which could be picked out of context and pasted all over anti-fundie websites!

Woaaahh!!!

*collapses* x_x
To be fair, I don't think your quote suffered much from being taken "out of context." It sounded pretty "grumpy old man" here, and it sounded "grumpy old reactionary" there (rather than necessarily fundie, strictly speaking).

Actually, that exchange was a major missed opportunity for Serafina to display depth of knowledge on topic and score easy points:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:We often hear about men going women more than the other way round, and generally, there's a phantasm about the sexual power of feminine curves that expresses itself. In general, trannies really seem to dress up in a way as to exhibit their rearranged plastic. They don't seem to aim for a true casual style of dressing. That's, at least, from the impression I get for everything I've seen and heard about them. There is not even a form of discretion. It has to show off, somehow.
[url=http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/dsm_iv.html]DSM-IV[/url] (which sets the diagnostic standard in the US) on transsexuality wrote:This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (Criteria B).
Or, in other words, the diagnostic standard for transsexuality says there really needs to be something else; a desire for the sexual power of femininity is not alone sufficient for diagnosis. I expect that the German counterpart to the DSM-IV probably says something quite similar.
She did correct me, and it was an uneducated made up opinion from what I saw and knew (and the trans I did see in my life, for real, never tried to dress casually, that's the point), and was openly presented as such. There was certainly nothing fundie about it since it largely stemmed from ignorance and my total lack of time spent on reading any article or paper about what makes a trans.
And Serafina's point, which was actually made, was totally acknowledged from there by me, and I immediately revised my opinion in the post following that.
(Boo-yah self-revisionism !)
The context is that this piece has nothing to do on a fundie website, but surely it's with that kind of behaviour that I am really encouraged to say things that would hurt her just for the sake of it.
Precisely another demonstration of your "I told you so" pattern.

And yes, I'm a grumpy old man and I like feminine curves.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:59 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It would be absurd to reject an invitation to ASVS. Over there, it's open-slander! :)

Imagine the numerous quotes which could be picked out of context and pasted all over anti-fundie websites!

Woaaahh!!!

*collapses* x_x
To be fair, I don't think your quote suffered much from being taken "out of context." It sounded pretty "grumpy old man" here, and it sounded "grumpy old reactionary" there (rather than necessarily fundie, strictly speaking).

Actually, that exchange was a major missed opportunity for Serafina to display depth of knowledge on topic and score easy points:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:We often hear about men going women more than the other way round, and generally, there's a phantasm about the sexual power of feminine curves that expresses itself. In general, trannies really seem to dress up in a way as to exhibit their rearranged plastic. They don't seem to aim for a true casual style of dressing. That's, at least, from the impression I get for everything I've seen and heard about them. There is not even a form of discretion. It has to show off, somehow.
[url=http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/dsm_iv.html]DSM-IV[/url] (which sets the diagnostic standard in the US) on transsexuality wrote:This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (Criteria B).
Or, in other words, the diagnostic standard for transsexuality says there really needs to be something else; a desire for the sexual power of femininity is not alone sufficient for diagnosis. I expect that the German counterpart to the DSM-IV probably says something quite similar.
I doubt that would have swayed his opinion - after all, he could stil claim that it is always PART of it, even if more is required.

@Oraghan:
She did correct me, and it was an uneducated made up opinion from what I saw and knew (and the trans I did see in my life, for real, never tried to dress casually, that's the point), and was openly presented as such.
Yours was. It was either based on no actual knowledge, a google image search or just perception bias.
You can actually consider me educated on that matter, since i know about three dozen transwomen (not all of them in person, those where that is the case i only saw them once or twice mostly). That should be enough to say that your statement was simply WRONG.
At least you admit it now:
There was certainly nothing fundie about it since it largely stemmed from ignorance and my total lack of time spent on reading any article or paper about what makes a trans.

Still, a good example for how some people over here seem to work.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:05 pm

I am not calling all transwomen anything i am pointing out a issue of concern, nor am i or have i advocated a treatment towards transgenders other than mearly accurate identification.

A gay man is not ashamen to be called a gay why should a transwoman be ashamed to be called a "trans".
You have done more than that, you have demanded that they are identified as men.
Which IS the case for a lot of bigots once they know someone is trans. There is a REASON why transsexual people do not necessarily want their status to be public knowledge - yet you want to force that.

Besides, woman is also a true description. Transwoman might be slightly more accurate, but then you also have to call your wife a ciswoman since that is ALSO more accurate.

Where does it say that it applies to all?.
By default, when talking about a group, the lack of a statement to the contrary say so.
When i am talking about dogs and make no exception, i am obviously referring to all dogs.
When i am talking about the British, i am obviously mean all or a majority of the British.
When i am talking about transwomen, i am obviously referring to all or a majority of them.
Oh and as you are continuing to call me a bigot you will now be refered to as "MR mentally disturbed freak" as you are obviously going to twist what i say into something it is not il give you a hand and enjoy myself while doing so.
Uuh, scaary.
This debate is about transgenders not bigotry.
Yes it is. I am showing that your view of transsexual people (not all transgenders, that is not the actual issue) is wrong by showing that it is bigoted (and hence based on prejudice and wrong information).

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Tue Jul 13, 2010 7:29 pm

Woman is the default that applies to my wife, but i have no issue with cis being used on her or me, after all i nor her are ashamed of our history or status and require to hide amoung others.

It is not acceptance without that is your problem it is accepting yourself and having the corage to face down the small minded idiots who do not accept you, you lack the courage and fortitude of the black, feminine, gay and all the other minorities that stood proud and fought and suffered to be recognised for ALL of who they are.

DAMN blacks in the USA were tortured, murdered, burned at the stake and god knows what else over the years in their fight and you?, you are so fucking weak and pathetic you wanna hide from a few looks and glances?.

You damn well should be ashamed, but not of your gender history or accuracy but of your pitiful cowardace.
And this is not a pointless ad hominem how exactly?
Oh, i suppose it is.

Also, you are ignoring that transwomen have both the right and often reason to not make their status public. Indeed, making their status public is often just unnecessary work - who profits from it? Often, no one.
And why should you declare something that is entirely pointless or even unimportant to declare?

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:00 pm

Serafina wrote:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:It would be absurd to reject an invitation to ASVS. Over there, it's open-slander! :)

Imagine the numerous quotes which could be picked out of context and pasted all over anti-fundie websites!

Woaaahh!!!

*collapses* x_x
To be fair, I don't think your quote suffered much from being taken "out of context." It sounded pretty "grumpy old man" here, and it sounded "grumpy old reactionary" there (rather than necessarily fundie, strictly speaking).

Actually, that exchange was a major missed opportunity for Serafina to display depth of knowledge on topic and score easy points:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:We often hear about men going women more than the other way round, and generally, there's a phantasm about the sexual power of feminine curves that expresses itself. In general, trannies really seem to dress up in a way as to exhibit their rearranged plastic. They don't seem to aim for a true casual style of dressing. That's, at least, from the impression I get for everything I've seen and heard about them. There is not even a form of discretion. It has to show off, somehow.
[url=http://www.genderpsychology.org/transsexual/dsm_iv.html]DSM-IV[/url] (which sets the diagnostic standard in the US) on transsexuality wrote:This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex (Criteria B).
Or, in other words, the diagnostic standard for transsexuality says there really needs to be something else; a desire for the sexual power of femininity is not alone sufficient for diagnosis. I expect that the German counterpart to the DSM-IV probably says something quite similar.
I doubt that would have swayed his opinion - after all, he could stil claim that it is always PART of it, even if more is required.
And why would I do that? Why are you extrapolating on what I would have done and what I really did is clearly visible, and yet for some reason you deny it?
Somehow it seems you have trouble reading some simple sentences. I immediately admitted my opinion was wrong. I started reading more. At the moment I made the comment, I had not any intent of going any deeper into this discussion.
@Oraghan:
She did correct me, and it was an uneducated made up opinion from what I saw and knew (and the trans I did see in my life, for real, never tried to dress casually, that's the point), and was openly presented as such.
Yours was. It was either based on no actual knowledge, a google image search or just perception bias.
Lack of knowledge. No need to look for anything else.
You can actually consider me educated on that matter, since i know about three dozen transwomen (not all of them in person, those where that is the case i only saw them once or twice mostly). That should be enough to say that your statement was simply WRONG.
And I admitted being wrong. What the hell is wrong with you?
What's the point of returning to that?
At least you admit it now:
Reread the thread.
There was certainly nothing fundie about it since it largely stemmed from ignorance and my total lack of time spent on reading any article or paper about what makes a trans.
Still, a good example for how some people over here seem to work.
And this absolutely stupid, cheap and terribly ignorant commentary is going to help how?

Don't you think your flame baiting is getting a little bit too obvious?
Really, I insist. Try ASVS and give us a break.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Tyralak » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:06 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote: And I admitted being wrong. What the hell is wrong with you?
What's the point of returning to that?
She reminds me of Timothy Jones. He would argue with you when you were AGREEING with him.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:17 pm

Tyralak wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And I admitted being wrong. What the hell is wrong with you?
What's the point of returning to that?
She reminds me of Timothy Jones. He would argue with you when you were AGREEING with him.
No he wouldn't.

User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Tyralak » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:24 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Tyralak wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And I admitted being wrong. What the hell is wrong with you?
What's the point of returning to that?
She reminds me of Timothy Jones. He would argue with you when you were AGREEING with him.
No he wouldn't.
Yes he would.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:41 pm

Tyralak wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Tyralak wrote:She reminds me of Timothy Jones. He would argue with you when you were AGREEING with him.
No he wouldn't.
Yes he would.
Certainly not.

User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Tyralak » Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:49 pm

Clearly he did.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5839
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Jul 13, 2010 11:11 pm

You were LUCKY to be versus debating in a shoebox! We Versus debated for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank.
-Mike

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Wed Jul 14, 2010 12:58 pm

Serafina wrote:
Now, why are you attempting to determine whether or not the people you are arguing with are, in fact, bigots?

In order to make the argumentum ad hominem that they have no credibility, that you may convince a third party audience not to listen to them.
Yes, that's what i am doing.
It is precisely what you are attempting to do - which is precisely argumentum ad hominem.
However, i am still showing that their arguments are wrong.
No, fallacies don't actually "show" things. Argumentum ad hominem is barely even suggestive - pretty crazy people can make highly sophisticated and correct logical arguments, such as showing that the Poincare conjecture is true.
Yes, i have.
Not only do you admit precisely that argumentum ad hominem is your goal, but that it is intrinsically, with respect to the larger argument, a circular argumentum ad hominem, since you are claiming that it is sufficient that they disagree with you about the original material argument to be bigots.
They have also presented no evidence to the contrary
What, precisely, have I told you about how your extensive use of strawmen has destroyed any trust regarding your claims regarding the content of others' arguments?
Besides, are you telling me that this is not bigoted?
I'm not telling you that it's not bigoted. I'm telling you that you aren't arguing well or even effectively.
My argument does not work that way.
Yes, it does. It works precisely that way, and you have even admitted - above - to all the necessary pieces to demonstrate again that my analysis of the nature of your argument is correct.
First, i determine that transwomen are women
In the past, you made some arguments regarding this.

As matters have progressed, you have - proceeding precisely along with my prediction that the ad hominem fork of the argument typically dominates - stopped doing so, and concentrated entirely on slinging mud.
Then i try to explain that - and when they are not listening and still cling to their prejudice, then they are bigots.
Which is precisely the argumentum ad hominem which I have described as being more than a little circular.
So, let me get your rules straight:
You do not have to provide evidence when challenged to do so,
No. And be glad; I believe I already mentioned that if I had rules about arguing well, you would have suffered consequences as a result of those rules.
but you can not use harsh words.
Not quite. It's discouraged. There is no individual word for which usage is banned on this board.
You can lie as much as you want,
Not quite, actually. In some cases, the fact that you are lying is a cornerstone to a successful allegation of trolling, for example. As stated in the rules:

Act in good faith. Trolling, dishonesty, and other forms of insincere behavior may be penalized at our discretion.

For the most part, I will not be able to know when you are simply lying about something. However, if you're clearly just aiming to provoke a reaction, that's trolling. An occasional mistake or misunderstanding I can forgive; however, a consistent pattern of claiming that someone is saying something that they are not saying, and impugning their character as a consequence, really is trolling. I haven't been trying to enforce that rule too closely, since it's very difficult to prove that someone is being dishonest, but if we can see a consistent pattern, it's worth commenting on.

When I see something like this pair of comments, both made in reply to the same quotation:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:She did correct me, and it was an uneducated made up opinion from what I saw and knew (and the trans I did see in my life, for real, never tried to dress casually, that's the point), and was openly presented as such. There was certainly nothing fundie about it since it largely stemmed from ignorance and my total lack of time spent on reading any article or paper about what makes a trans.
And Serafina's point, which was actually made, was totally acknowledged from there by me, and I immediately revised my opinion in the post following that.
Serafina wrote:I doubt that would have swayed his opinion - after all, he could stil claim that it is always PART of it, even if more is required.
I cannot help but wonder if you're simply trying to provoke a reaction with your judgements of his character. You constantly make broad sweeping judgements about people based on anything they say - or even what seems to be nothing at all - and it's a consistent pattern.
You can run away from a debate in order to insult someone, but you can not insult someone.

Again, as a reminder, i asked you on your oppinion on Kor jumping over board and on his need to provide evidence. You seem to be more concerned with words than with such things. If not, please answer the questions.
And I told you that if you wished simply to pursue your argumentum ad hominem, that you should join him on ASVS. You apparently have not listened, as is evidenced by some of the posts following this one that I have chosen to reply to. I will, therefore, repeat this statement, with slightly modified formatting; while it should have served as an adequate warning last time, perhaps some additional emphases will help you understand it.
I, earlier wrote:No. If you keep it up here, you're going to wind up with another temporary ban. This one will be longer.

Look. I'm perfectly happy to have a lengthy detailed discussion on transsexuality here. However, I'm not at all interested in watching a mudslinging contest. If what you want to do is try to make the argument that Kor is a bigot, take it somewhere else. Take the argumenta ad hominem and any strawmen you still have stuck in your baggage - I'm not interested in carrying out an inspection - with you.
I don't regulate what people do on other boards. It's none of my business. I have enough to keep track of here. I do regulate what people do on this one. You want to tell Kor what you think about him? Take it to ASVS. You could even take it back to SDN and turn it back into a cross-site mudslinging contest, ASVS-SDN.

Tyralak has offered his site as a platform for angry mudslinging; I have not offered my site as a platform for angry mudslinging. It's really quite simple.
I tell you what:
You challenge Kor, since he is obviously here right now.
Kor doesn't want a debate with me. He wants a fight with you. And you want a mudslinging contest, not a civil debate.

W.I.L.G.A., on the other hand, wants a civil debate, as do I, which makes those two pairings perfect matches.

Since SFJ is intended as a platform for civil debate and ASVS is supposed to be a great place to have vicious fights, the venues for those two events are also obvious.

Post Reply