Discuss with just facts?

submitted by loveSloaneDebate King from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (29 children)

It is not a fact that TW are women and TM are men.

I disagree

My definition (it’s not even mine, it’s the actual definition) doesn’t have men being lesbians, it’s literally saying this is impossible. It doesn’t have women attracted to men being lesbians.

Trans men are men and trans women are women by my definition. Your definition isn’t any more factual. This is a semantic disagreement not a factual one.

  1. Again it’s not a factual question, but a semantic one. You can shout your definition as correct but that doesn’t make it more factual than one.

  2. What claims? It’s common knowledge that trans people are marginalized. We don’t interact with police unless absolutely necessary and many of us are forced into sexual work. Thats common knowledge. It doesn’t need studies because we all know it.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

You can disagree if you want but the whole premise of the post is to make only fact based arguments and you haven’t done that so your disagreement won’t be taken seriously until/unless you back it with fact lol. There are people who vehemently disagree that the earth is round, even they can explain why they think it, even if we can disprove their reasoning. It’s odd to me that you try to act like the definitions most people use aren’t valid and accurate. When you yourself have said in the past that you don’t even have a clear alternative definition. I don’t think this is a good post for you, you argue from a place of everything but fact. “My” definitions are literally factual, there’s no way around that truth.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

You aren’t making fact based arguments either. We are as always just arguing over definitions. Your definition isn’t more factual than mine. They’re both just definitions.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Lmao my definitions are literally fact based. Words have meanings. You want to change the meaning or reinterpret them, that doesn’t mean your meanings are accurate. I’m not gonna waste time arguing with someone who can’t follow the premise of the post. I’d rather discuss with people who understand what the word “fact” means and intend to respond to the post with facts. So, I guess that means we’re done here.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

No they aren’t. You are arguing that your definition of women is more factual than mine because it fits your definition better. That’s not how definitions work. No one is disputing chromosome or physical realities. We are disagreeing about categorization.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

I don’t have a definition. I’m using the actual definition that humans have been using since humans invented language and definitions. Lmao this is pointless. It sucks that you’re the only qt that replied to this post because we all know you don’t deal with fact. You can keep saying my definition isn’t fact but the truth is almost 100% of the human population uses the same definitions as I do. You are placing so much weight on a definition that you can’t even offer. You can’t define woman or man or male or female. We’ve asked you to several times ans you never have done it. You honestly do me so many favors. Every time you comment you make me realize things that I hadn’t even gotten to myself yet. You’re one of the best tools in my arsenal lol. You always help me see more truth in what I’m saying, based on your responses. Right now, you’ve proven to me that qt cannot make a single fact based argument, and that a lot of transwomen think they should be an exception to every rule, because- well I guess just because they say so lol. Thank you! We make a great team.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

“The actual definition”. That’s not how definitions work. We disagree between 2 accepted definitions and no physical facts. Yours isn’t more “factual” because there’s no disagreement on facts. This is a language dispute.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Yours isn’t factual at all so it’s odd that you’d even go there but, okay buddy, okay.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

My definition is exactly as factual as yours. There’s no difference in the factual basis for determination on either. We aren’t disputing facts, we are disagreeing about how definitions should interpret understood facts. That’s my point.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Okay sure thing 😂😂😂😂

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I think they're getting to upset to engage anymore

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You preferring your definitions over thiers isn't a fact based argument either.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It’s not my definition. It’s the actual definition that’s been used since definitions exist. It’s silly to act like humans haven’t had a clear definition for women and men since they discovered the differences between women and men. Woman definitively means adult female human. Provide an alternative definition that makes sense or stop trying to act like this definition isn’t factual.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No defintions are natural, all involve artificially cutting off a piece of the universe from it's greater whole for the purpose of human convenience. So no, there aren't "actual definitions", just definitions. And it is self-centered to act as though this isn't the case

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is such bullshit lol. We may as well say language has no meaning. This is desperate as fuck lol

Eta- I’m the one who’s self centered for accepting the meaning of a word that has existed for centuries or longer? Not the people who want to change the meaning just because they are upset it doesn’t apply to them?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is such bullshit lol.

I'm sorry you feel that way, it's historically a well established philosophical position.

We may as well say language has no meaning.

Language is like Life. Both only have the meaning we give to it ourselves.

I’m the one who’s self centered for accepting the meaning of a word that has existed for centuries or longer?

People whom insist that their subjective experience is more valid than others do tend to be a little self centered yes

[–]loveSloaneDebate King[S] 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

😂😂😂

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also what's with the fake laughing. Are you attempting to mock me or something? Because again I thought you wanted to take emotions out of this conversations?