Enjoy.

[RPGPundit]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.

Yes, but it is my theory that going to Yale actually makes people MORE disconnected from the real world.

[Zak S]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.

Defamation doesn't just mean someone making fun of you, Zak. Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.

I'm talking about misinformation, not "making fun".

And you don't have to prove your rep was worse in all cases.

Please don't lie about that.

[Zak S]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.

Yes, but it is my theory that going to Yale actually makes people MORE disconnected from the real world.

So long as you claim its a mere theory then its not important.

[GeekyBugle]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Nah, he's not autistic, he just has an extreme case of Dunning-Krueger combined with a god complex.

The cunt thinks himself too smart for the world, too perfect, the final arbiter of what's good and true. Like all his fellow leftard travelers.

No I just think that in a dispute between someone who can back up their position and someone who can swear a lot, the backing-up person gets to be considered right until better evidence comes along.

Hey, Cunty mcCunt, you haven't backed up ANY of your accusations against Brandon Morse.

It's funny how everybody else needs to expressly say IMO but you get a pass. Like I said you're too dumb to realize you're dumb and think yourself way smarter than you actually are.

Go crawl under a rock and fuck yourself you POS.

[RPGPundit]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Free speech doesn't cover defamation. Glad we agree.

So, for example, you just now making a false medical diagnosis in public would be an example of something not covered by free speech.

The real problem is, you all want to type the phrase "Free speech" a lot AND at least some of you want to celebrate the fact that some people you don't like got nailed for breaking laws that demonstrate the limits of free speech...

but....

admitting that this defamation law you're celebrating is literally one of the boundaries on free speech would make it hard to yell "free speech" a lot.

So you keep having to argue a contradiction.

Defamation doesn't just mean someone making fun of you, Zak. Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.

I'm talking about misinformation, not "making fun".

And you don't ave to prove your rep was worse in all cases.

Please don't lie about that.

Are you trying to seriously claim that you could successfully sue someone for using the word "autistic" as an insult against you in a court of law for "Defamation"?
Note: NOT using any kind of argument where you might be autistic, and claim it was some kind of discrimination or hate speech against you.

[RPGPundit]

Is/ought fallacy.

And--if you believed in unrestricted free speech then you wouldn't be celebrating when I successfully sued someone you don't like for spreading misinformation and pinning it to the top of the forum.

So now you're conflating libel with free speech while simultaneously saying it's criminal. Do you even realize how retarded you actually are? Going with Pundit, you're autistic.

Don't discount Yale.

I went to Yale at the same time the stupidest people I've ever met did, I have no illusions that you have to be smart to go there.

Yes, but it is my theory that going to Yale actually makes people MORE disconnected from the real world.

So long as you claim its a mere theory then its not important.

Well, the evidence does continue to mount...

[Brad]

Just gonna say:

1) This is fucking hilarious.
2) Zak is the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.
3) Pundit is the least hypocritical person of note on the internet.

[GeekyBugle]

Just gonna say:

1) This is fucking hilarious.
2) Zak is the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen.
3) Pundit is the least hypocritical person of note on the internet.

In before the cunt comes with some more special pleading that makes him not a lying, hypocritical & sanctimonious POS.

[Grognard GM]

Also, you have to be careful about defamation, because you need to prove harm, and that your public reputation was made worse.

Damn, guess he can't sue anyone ever again.

[Ghostmaker]

There have been cases where a person is adjudged to be 'defamation proof', in that their public reputation is so bad you can't actually defame them.

If you're curious, the domestic terrorist/drug dealer/leftist bootlick Brett Kimberlin was a good example of this.

[Mistwell]

I have my friends and relatives who are transgender...

Trans are a fraction of a percentage point of the population. Most Americans don't even have a single Trans friend or family member, by sheer statistical probability. How do you explain having multiples of both friends and family that are Trans?

If someone kept talking about how so many of their friends and family members had shaven heads, bright white sneakers, and matching jumpsuits, I'd suspect they were in a cult.

Stats are not spread evenly. For pretty much anything. Even for something 99%, you can fine zero for miles and miles and then a clump of that thing in an area. It's not some perfect spread.

I've known three trans people in my life on an "actually known" basis rather than merely met them once. One I've known since well before this became a trendy topic, having met her in the early-90s. One I grew up with them as one gender and then then transitioned to another in the past decade. The third I met in law school in the 90s. I guess you could say I know a fourth, but I don't have any idea how to classify them and I've known them since the 80s at Rocky Horror Picture Show and I had no idea how to classify them back then either (other than their sister was hot and we dated briefly).

None of these people are connected to each other beyond I think one met the Rocky Horror one, but I am pretty sure they're not friends or anything.

Does that make me part of a cult? No, it makes me part of a county which has a population of about 10 million people, making my county about as large as many nations, like Sweden.

I think I've mentioned I am fond of Casper, Wyoming, having visited there several times. I strongly suspect there isn't a single transgender person in that town though I could be wrong. If I grew up there and lived there still, I imagine I'd think like you do that it would be incredibly hard to know even one trans person, much less several. But grow up and live in a city like Los Angeles and your odds go drastically up. Just because there are so many people here the odds of knowing a member of any minority group go way up. Heck I know someone who is Zoroastrian by religion and there are surely a heck of a lot more trans people in the U.S. than Zoroastrians.

[Grognard GM]

But grow up and live in a city like Los Angeles and your odds go drastically up. Just because there are so many people here the odds of knowing a member of any minority group go way up. Heck I know someone who is Zoroastrian by religion and there are surely a heck of a lot more trans people in the U.S. than Zoroastrians.

But why do they go up?

People living in cities tend to know fewer people in any meaningful way than those in small towns, not more. Plenty of city people don't know the names of their immediate neighbors, whereas small town folks tend to know everyone.

So again we're back to something in cosmopolitan areas apparently mass producing rare types of people.

[Mistwell]

But grow up and live in a city like Los Angeles and your odds go drastically up. Just because there are so many people here the odds of knowing a member of any minority group go way up. Heck I know someone who is Zoroastrian by religion and there are surely a heck of a lot more trans people in the U.S. than Zoroastrians.

But why do they go up?

People living in cities tend to know fewer people in any meaningful way than those in small towns, not more. Plenty of city people don't know the names of their immediate neighbors, whereas small town folks tend to know everyone.

So again we're back to something in cosmopolitan areas apparently mass producing rare types of people.

Is that the case? I know my neighbors and I know a lot of people. I have no idea if I am representative though. If you go to a community event, like where you see school parents, or a religious event, or even a bar, you are more likely to run into someone from a minority group.

[jhkim]

I have my friends and relatives who are transgender...

Trans are a fraction of a percentage point of the population. Most Americans don't even have a single Trans friend or family member, by sheer statistical probability. How do you explain having multiples of both friends and family that are Trans?

If someone kept talking about how so many of their friends and family members had shaven heads, bright white sneakers, and matching jumpsuits, I'd suspect they were in a cult.

In a 2016 census analysis, about 3.8% of Americans identified as LGBT. Bisexual is the most common category, so gay/lesbian is likely around 1.5%, and 0.6% is transgender. However, those vary from state to state. The state with the lowest LGBT was North Dakota at 2.6% and Vermont was the highest at 5.3%. California where I live is 4.9% overall, but I think the percentage is a little higher in the SF Bay Area compared to California overall.

From my experience of different groups:

I have about ~80 or so extended family I know, of whom two are gay (counting my cousin's spouse) and one is transgender. That's roughly average for US, given that my family is spread out across the U.S. and South Korea.

In my church, we have about 200 members, and 2 are gay and 1 is transgender that I know of. That's a little under average for CA.

Of my in-person gaming groups, I've had probably around 100 people in different gaming circles over the past decades. Of those, I know 3 who are gay and 3 who are transgender. That's a little over average for CA, and over-representing transgender.

Of non-gaming, non-church personal friends, it's much harder to count. How wide does one cast the net? With rough numbers, if I cut at 100 people, then I guess there would be zero gay and one transgender among close-ish friends. That's under average for LGBT overall in CA, and again over-representing transgender.

---

There's low statistics here, but also I think it likely there's an effect from living in the SF Bay Area  and being in transgender-friendly social circles.

I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people. Even in a state like North Dakota (with 2.6% LGBT overall), then 300 people should include 8 LGBT people on average, among whom 1 is transgender.

[Grognard GM]

I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people.

No, you actually allegedly know an insane amount of people. You're quoting over DOUBLE Dunbar's Number as a guess for the average persons acquaintances.

Your use of 'know' is obviously so nebulous as to be useless. You're using 'know people' in the way most would say 'know of/have met in my life.'

As usual, your arguments are pure sophistry. "If you factor in every person you've ever spoken to in your life, you'll find you know tons of LGBT people!"