471922 pts ยท July 7, 2013
This has already been to the front page. Getting it there again will just change the number below:
My 3X5 notecard containing every definition from Real Analysis 1. https://imgur.com/MW6NwgB.jpg
Nope. The last line of the books is "All was well." and it's the same scene as the movie.
He looks like if Ross killed Rachel.
This is like in the Dukes of Hazzard movie where the do the sustained drift around the roundabout.
We're done here, dude. You can't keep consistent, and you can't make a comment without committing some kind of blatant logical fallacy to further a narrative of bigotry. There's literally no point in feeding the troll. People block you because your comments are literally DARVO abuse.
No, your strawman was literally going from me saying "Here's the level of the 'problem' we're dealing with" and you JAQing off with "SO THE NUMBER IS ZERO?"You know this. You're doing it on purpose. This is why people block you.
The fact is that literally all you've done is whine and commit logical fallacies. You didn't "make direct observations" you literally put words in my mouth. You get blocked by people because you're transparently being disingenuous, and when someone won't have the decency to speak in good faith, there's no reason to continue a conversation with them. The problem remains... you. Also, calling someone "unhinged" as they become frustrated with your inability to be coherent is similarly disingenuous.
So now you're gonna try a Motte and Bailey where you retreat from this being a rampant problem to "Well thats just one organization"? Could you please go a SINGLE comment without making a logical fallacy? You know what? I don't really even give a shit anymore. I'm gonna go do something productive since you've demonstrated that adhering to a bigot narrative is more important than staying logically consistent. Have the day you deserve.
No, I'm literally not because it torpedoes your entire point. Even if you could muster up one or two 1st places, we're still talking about FEWER than 10 athletes, most of which aren't coming in 1st.
And you can't seem to cite any of them, you just seem to know that they exist because vibes. You're making bad arguments.
So yeah, 10 is an OVERSTATEMENT.
As I've said before, NCAA specifically states that there are FEWER than 10 known trans athletes out of 510,000.
" because not every trans woman who competes in a sport is completely dominant?"No, my argument is that you're transparently full of shit because fully NONE of them are dominant, and in your posterchild case, the trans woman didn't even come in bronze. For you to have an actual argument, you'd need to show consistent cases where trans women were outperforming cis women, which you cannot do, and you know it.
"Is your argument that there are no issues worth discussing " Strawman.
That's not a strawman. You're claiming that it's unfair. The only way it's unfair is if trans women are consistently blasting away their competition. Oh, and I never said complete takeover, so there's you literally crying strawman on your own strawman.
Again... that's literally the same thing as "Bigots made her famous because a 5th place loser was all they could find."
If it were factually incorrect, you'd have come out of the gate with a fucking example instead of trying to pigeonhole it into swimming. Instead, the NCAA specifically states that there are fewer than 10 openly trans athletes out of 510,000.
Translation " I'm going going to flatly assert that I'm in the majority, without even realizing that even if I wasn't full of shit, it would still be an argumentum ad populum."The majority could give a flying fuck if you get wound up over trans women barely making the cut in sports.
Since you're clearly out of your depth, here's a visual aid: https://imgur.com/uyDdQk4.jpg
"I don't think this discussion is for you, champ." Hey superchief, you're literally whining about the sanctity of womens' sports on a post about how a trans woman was beaten by 4 cis women, and then putting words in my mouth to make a point that fits your narrative. Then when you get called on it, you deflect. Fully every point you've tried to make here is completely and utterly without merit. So maybe YOU should steer clear of this discussion.
No, I literally said "This applies to like 10 people" and then you went on to say "So you think this is the only time this happened?" in literally the next reply. THAT's the strawman. But you know that, and you're deflecting. As for clarifying the claim, The NCAA specifically states that out of 510,000 athletes, fewer than 10 are known to be openly transgender. You literally ARE making strawmen all over the place.
You've actually completely skipped over stating WHY it's unfair. If trans women are tying for 5th, then what exactly is the threat to womens sports? You MIGHT have a point if they were coming in first by a wide margin, but the fact is that they AREN'T. Therefore... there's nothing unfair about their competition.
Again, completely relevant because you're pretending that trans women are somehow a threat to womens sports, when they can't even place top 3, thereby proving that they're middling at best in the rare cases that they DO compete. You WANT it to be irrelevant because it renders your entire narrative toothless and transparently about bigotry.
Also in this case, you're ignoring the fact that I said "Like 10", at which point you went on to say "So are you saying this dOeSn'T hApPeN aT aLl?" That's the direct thing I was referring to in this particular point. You constructed a strawman about something I'd literally already talked about. It's blatant, and that's how everyone can see you're just running narrative.
COMPLETELY RELEVANT. The fact that she was beaten by 4 cis women literally proves that trans women are not dominating womens' sports, and thus not a threat to it. Yes. That's EXACTLY what you're ignoring because it torpedoes your entire fucking narrative.
The fact is that she wouldn't be famous at all if she hadn't tied for 5th with a trans woman, and then capitalized on culture war bigotry. She'd be another chick who's marginally good at swimming who peaked in college. If she hadn't tickled your bigot fancy, she wouldn't be getting $25k to speak to a room full of bigots who ignore the fact that a trans woman was beaten by 4 cis women.
"You can use terms like 'shit on' but the reality is she's saying this is unfair and shouldn't be happening."I'm using the term "Shit on" because it's being used as a culture war wedge issue, and you know it. That's why you keep completely ignoring the fact that the people you're speaking out against aren't dominating womens sports. She's whining that it's unfair because that's what gets her paid, because she knows that even if she got her 5th place trophy, that's where she would have peaked.
" And since the vocal pushback against it is or had been relatively light she became the defacto mouthpiece." She became the defacto mouthpiece because they couldn't find a situation where a trans woman actually came in first by a wide margin. Every single example you guys have is of a trans athlete not even making Bronze.
"She wouldn't be famous if a very small percentage of the population decided a very short time ago decided this was a hill they would be fine dying on." I agree... that small percentage of the population is YOU and the people you're shilling for.
3) A full 2/3 of your rebuttal is constructing a strawman that was addressed before you even brought it up. You're running a script. As I said before, there's like 10 people out of 320 million that this applies to, and not a single one is taking home 1st place. That ALONE proves that your entire point about the sanctity of women's sports is bullshit, because even if we choose to ignore the miniscule scale, the trans athletes are STILL not even making Bronze, IE, not a threat to womens sports.
My 3X5 notecard containing every definition from Real Analysis 1. https://imgur.com/MW6NwgB.jpg
Nope. The last line of the books is "All was well." and it's the same scene as the movie.
He looks like if Ross killed Rachel.
This is like in the Dukes of Hazzard movie where the do the sustained drift around the roundabout.
We're done here, dude. You can't keep consistent, and you can't make a comment without committing some kind of blatant logical fallacy to further a narrative of bigotry. There's literally no point in feeding the troll. People block you because your comments are literally DARVO abuse.
No, your strawman was literally going from me saying "Here's the level of the 'problem' we're dealing with" and you JAQing off with "SO THE NUMBER IS ZERO?"
You know this. You're doing it on purpose. This is why people block you.
The fact is that literally all you've done is whine and commit logical fallacies. You didn't "make direct observations" you literally put words in my mouth. You get blocked by people because you're transparently being disingenuous, and when someone won't have the decency to speak in good faith, there's no reason to continue a conversation with them. The problem remains... you. Also, calling someone "unhinged" as they become frustrated with your inability to be coherent is similarly disingenuous.
So now you're gonna try a Motte and Bailey where you retreat from this being a rampant problem to "Well thats just one organization"? Could you please go a SINGLE comment without making a logical fallacy? You know what? I don't really even give a shit anymore. I'm gonna go do something productive since you've demonstrated that adhering to a bigot narrative is more important than staying logically consistent. Have the day you deserve.
No, I'm literally not because it torpedoes your entire point. Even if you could muster up one or two 1st places, we're still talking about FEWER than 10 athletes, most of which aren't coming in 1st.
And you can't seem to cite any of them, you just seem to know that they exist because vibes. You're making bad arguments.
So yeah, 10 is an OVERSTATEMENT.
As I've said before, NCAA specifically states that there are FEWER than 10 known trans athletes out of 510,000.
" because not every trans woman who competes in a sport is completely dominant?"
No, my argument is that you're transparently full of shit because fully NONE of them are dominant, and in your posterchild case, the trans woman didn't even come in bronze. For you to have an actual argument, you'd need to show consistent cases where trans women were outperforming cis women, which you cannot do, and you know it.
"Is your argument that there are no issues worth discussing " Strawman.
That's not a strawman. You're claiming that it's unfair. The only way it's unfair is if trans women are consistently blasting away their competition. Oh, and I never said complete takeover, so there's you literally crying strawman on your own strawman.
Again... that's literally the same thing as "Bigots made her famous because a 5th place loser was all they could find."
If it were factually incorrect, you'd have come out of the gate with a fucking example instead of trying to pigeonhole it into swimming. Instead, the NCAA specifically states that there are fewer than 10 openly trans athletes out of 510,000.
Translation " I'm going going to flatly assert that I'm in the majority, without even realizing that even if I wasn't full of shit, it would still be an argumentum ad populum."
The majority could give a flying fuck if you get wound up over trans women barely making the cut in sports.
Since you're clearly out of your depth, here's a visual aid: https://imgur.com/uyDdQk4.jpg
"I don't think this discussion is for you, champ." Hey superchief, you're literally whining about the sanctity of womens' sports on a post about how a trans woman was beaten by 4 cis women, and then putting words in my mouth to make a point that fits your narrative. Then when you get called on it, you deflect. Fully every point you've tried to make here is completely and utterly without merit. So maybe YOU should steer clear of this discussion.
No, I literally said "This applies to like 10 people" and then you went on to say "So you think this is the only time this happened?" in literally the next reply. THAT's the strawman. But you know that, and you're deflecting. As for clarifying the claim, The NCAA specifically states that out of 510,000 athletes, fewer than 10 are known to be openly transgender. You literally ARE making strawmen all over the place.
You've actually completely skipped over stating WHY it's unfair. If trans women are tying for 5th, then what exactly is the threat to womens sports? You MIGHT have a point if they were coming in first by a wide margin, but the fact is that they AREN'T. Therefore... there's nothing unfair about their competition.
Again, completely relevant because you're pretending that trans women are somehow a threat to womens sports, when they can't even place top 3, thereby proving that they're middling at best in the rare cases that they DO compete. You WANT it to be irrelevant because it renders your entire narrative toothless and transparently about bigotry.
Also in this case, you're ignoring the fact that I said "Like 10", at which point you went on to say "So are you saying this dOeSn'T hApPeN aT aLl?" That's the direct thing I was referring to in this particular point. You constructed a strawman about something I'd literally already talked about. It's blatant, and that's how everyone can see you're just running narrative.
COMPLETELY RELEVANT. The fact that she was beaten by 4 cis women literally proves that trans women are not dominating womens' sports, and thus not a threat to it. Yes. That's EXACTLY what you're ignoring because it torpedoes your entire fucking narrative.
The fact is that she wouldn't be famous at all if she hadn't tied for 5th with a trans woman, and then capitalized on culture war bigotry. She'd be another chick who's marginally good at swimming who peaked in college. If she hadn't tickled your bigot fancy, she wouldn't be getting $25k to speak to a room full of bigots who ignore the fact that a trans woman was beaten by 4 cis women.
"You can use terms like 'shit on' but the reality is she's saying this is unfair and shouldn't be happening."
I'm using the term "Shit on" because it's being used as a culture war wedge issue, and you know it. That's why you keep completely ignoring the fact that the people you're speaking out against aren't dominating womens sports. She's whining that it's unfair because that's what gets her paid, because she knows that even if she got her 5th place trophy, that's where she would have peaked.
" And since the vocal pushback against it is or had been relatively light she became the defacto mouthpiece." She became the defacto mouthpiece because they couldn't find a situation where a trans woman actually came in first by a wide margin. Every single example you guys have is of a trans athlete not even making Bronze.
"She wouldn't be famous if a very small percentage of the population decided a very short time ago decided this was a hill they would be fine dying on." I agree... that small percentage of the population is YOU and the people you're shilling for.
3) A full 2/3 of your rebuttal is constructing a strawman that was addressed before you even brought it up. You're running a script. As I said before, there's like 10 people out of 320 million that this applies to, and not a single one is taking home 1st place. That ALONE proves that your entire point about the sanctity of women's sports is bullshit, because even if we choose to ignore the miniscule scale, the trans athletes are STILL not even making Bronze, IE, not a threat to womens sports.