Enjoy.

[Rob Necronomicon]

What I posted was what he stated on his own blog.

Ah, that sheds some light on the subject.

[Zak S]

I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

The members of the movement are--by definition--being accused of being dishonest about their intentions or being self-deceived. Morse cannot prove that--nobody can.

And false accusations are bad.

[Rob Necronomicon]

I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

And false accusations are bad.

Whut? I'm talking about where you said 'all people are under threat' (specifically in the context that you used it in). It's a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.

[Zak S]

I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

And false accusations are bad.

Whut? I'm talking about where you said 'all people are under threat' (specifically in the context that you used it in). It's a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.

1. Then read the rest of what I said, identify TWO false claims, since if Morse even made one false accusation he did something wrong. That's the morally meaningful thing here.

2. And its not a motte and bailey because that would require me to have 2 separate positions, a motte one and then a different bailey one. Which I do not have. I have but one position: all people are under threat. That Morse may have meant something different doesnt matter since-- see 1 above.

So:

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

[Brad]

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

Prove this isn't true; there's enough empirical evidence to substantiate this position, so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.

"No u" isn't proof against his claim.

[DocJones]

What I posted was what he stated on his own blog.

There's a whole host of misinformation on that blog post.

For example:

"...money for a company that would then give that money to an actively anti-semitic, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic person. "

So he accuses the person who won't play the trans game (a dubiously transphobic statement) of also being an anti-semite, racist, ableist, sexist, and homophobe.
Zak just made up a whole bunch of other shit about the person.
He needs to cancel himself for spreading misinformation and being overtly evil.

Paul Jaquays wrote Dark Tower.  Jennel had nothing to do with it.
Paul also wrote the Central Casting books which included tables of sexual disorders like transexualism, sadism and necrophilia.
Luckily Paul Jaquays has been canceled for being evil and misinformed. /s

[Rob Necronomicon]

I don't think parts of your logic hold up from a technical perspective (as I said earlier).

You think objectively incorrectly then.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

And false accusations are bad.

Whut? I'm talking about where you said 'all people are under threat' (specifically in the context that you used it in). It's a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.

1. Then read the rest of what I said, identify TWO false claims, since if Morse even made one false accusation he did something wrong. That's the morally meaningful thing here.

2. And its not a motte and bailey because that would require me to have 2 separate positions, a motte one and then a different bailey one. Which I do not have. I have but one position: all people are under threat. That Morse may have meant something different doesnt matter since-- see 1 above.

So:

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

I see... I'd forgotten about how having even a simple conversation with you was like pulling teeth.

So, I'll leave it here and to the more learned (and patient) people on this forum.

[Zak S]

so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.

Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

[GeekyBugle]

so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.

Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime. I'll have the popcorn ready for the moment someone finally takes the POS (Zak I mean) to court for his libelous slander and defamation.

furthermore, in his addled brain being wrong (something he hasn't proven about Morse) is a crime, and has (in his addled brain) revolutionized modern jurisprudence by removing intent as something to take into consideration, ergo manslaughter will be treated as first degree murder from now on.

Don't bother answering me Zak, I'm just documenting your idiocy for posterity.

[Zak S]

Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

[GeekyBugle]

Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

But you did you fucking lying POS.

so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.

Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

[Zak S]

Saved for posterity, Zak is making an accusation that Morse committed a crime.

I didn't say he committed a crime.

(Even the defamation I sued over is breaking the law (its a civil offense) but not a crime (a criminal offense) in many jurisdictions.)

Rather I simply said Morse did something morally wrong.

But you did you fucking lying POS.

so the even though it's not a scientifically valid claim, anecdotally someone could easily arrive at this conclusion if they perused Twitter or other social media platforms.

Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

Ah, I see

Well then I apologize -- I meant that as a figure of speech not as a legal diagnosis.

Thank you for pointing out the miscommunication there! That was helpful!

What I meant was:

His reason for doing bad things was either stupidity or dishonesty.

Again: happy for the opportunity to clear that up for you.

[DocJones]

Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

So Albert Einstein committed a whole series of crimes by spreading misinformation about the origins of the universe?

You're a joke.

[Zak S]

Is someone honestly comes to a scientifically invalid conclusion and tells someone their scientifically invalid conclusion, they are still spreading misinformation.

Intent doesn't matter.

Whether his crime is stupidity or dishonesty doesn't matter--people shouldn't be helping him spread misinformation.

So Albert Einstein committed a whole series of crimes by spreading misinformation about the origins of the universe?

You're a joke.

If that misinformation was harmful to real humans then it should not have been spread.

To my knowledge, that claim (that stuff Einstein might've got wrong was harmful) has not been made.

[jhkim]

Regarding the argument with Zak,

But if you look at the statistics, however, one could say this (inspector) Morse is wrong. Trans folks ARE more likely to be targeted.

If he describes the Trans movement as purely based on 'narcissism' then he's clearly off in 'la la' land as that makes no sense whatsoever. I presume this is just an attack on the moment itself, as opposed to actually being in any way factual.

Unless someone can prove the accusation that the trans rights movement is "based on narcissism" then that's a false accusation made by Brandon Morse against members of that movement.

Zak, people can genuinely differ over assertions of fact. As far as I've seen, you always claim to be right, and say that it's a moral failing of other people when they're stupid and wrong.

I approach things that I might be wrong about the facts. I have my friends and relatives who are transgender, and I've casually read up on various studies - but I don't consider myself an expert on transgender psychology. Plus, even on the things I'm an expert in, I sometimes get wrong. It's embarrassing, but as a physics PhD I still sometimes screw up in helping my stepson on his high school math homework.

I don't think it's a moral failing to be wrong. I'm wrong about things, myself, and I understand when other people are wrong.

I like my transgender friends and relatives, but there are also transgender people that I consider assholes or worse. I knew a transgender couple who died as a murder/suicide. I don't think I'm particularly qualified to generalize about all transgender people - but then, I wouldn't assume that other people are either. The best we can do is share our experiences and studies.

I'm not endorsing anything that Zak says, and find his style of argument wacko. However, if the question is threat to transgender people, there are studies like this:
...
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

BY whom?

This is like the hidden domestic violence incidence for lesbians.

WHO is victimizing the trannies? Other trannies.

LOL, it's worst than I thought, the data is from a survey of about 240K people, it's not based on ACTUAL crime statistics but in people saying they were victimized.

What source do you base on? Are there studies showing that transgender people are responsible for excessive violence? From the studies I have seen, transgender people commit violent crime and suicide at similar rates as their assigned birth sex. So transgender women can be violent, but no moreso than non-transgender men.

In other words, this suggests transgender people are just people. They aren't angels, but they also aren't demons.

For victimization, the data source is the NCVS - which was established in 1972 under Richard Nixon because looking at only at cases successfully investigated and prosecuted by the police produced a biased view of crime rates. Local police departments are motivated to under-report their crime rates, so a national randomized and anonymous survey has been considered an important check on local police. Looking at only convicted/proven crimes can result in a massive undercounting of how much crime actually occurs. Think of things like car break-ins or shoplifting, not to mention rape and assault.

EDITED TO ADD: As I said, I don't consider myself an expert in transgender psychology. If you have other information sources about transgender violence rates, I'd be interested to read them.