1) yeh but the issues was the differences in the hypotheticals
Oh so you won't answer what ifs but you want me to address semantic arguments?
But is not twitter now publishing it's own fact checks?
Ah but there's the issue do we take the APA argument when that's referring to terms not if the situations are true.Hence why fact checking can be complicated. Doesn't mean we don't need it.
I don't care about that, I'm going by what the APA says. One person does not make science, science is made by groups who test a hypothesis and ensure there is no evidence against it and that it can become a theory.
Answers to your questions about transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression
Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people whose gender identity (sense of themselves as male or female) or gender expression differs from socially constructed norms associated with their birth sex. This includes androgynous, bigendered and gender queer people, who tend to see...www.apa.org
It's their self defined identity rather than a statement of fact. So for example you can self define yourself as as something but it doesn't mean it is true.APA said:
I don't think there's a "safe" way to handle it at all. If you disagree, that's fine. I just see it as too dangerous of a power to ever be used by anyone, for any reason.
No, I want you to stop being obtuse and organize your arguments.
Full truth, I don't even remember what the question was and don't care enough to go back and look for it.
That you keep suggesting Twitter is creating facts whole cloth instead of just displaying the correct information that is available is one of the problems with your question.
Then you should probably stop trying to push this argument, since all you're doing is repeating yourself when anyone disagrees with you.
There are some topics that are harder, but it still kinda comes down to the majority of expert opinion or fact verifying. Its why we have sites like snopes and politifact.
I could say the same of you as you're trying to avoid taking a position to allow you to always argue against one.
Funny to see you outright admit you don't really care enough about the argument to just look back a small amount.That says so much with so little
No they're choosing what facts to display.
You mean repeat my calls for them to actually give an answer rather than in your case strawmen and semantics?
ah like the WHO saying Coronavirus can't spread from person to person? Ignoring the data from Taiwan about spread?
Really? Is that what I'm doing? Please, do go on.
People would probably be more inclined to engage with you if you made better arguments.
The "experts" said it! It must be true! Also, North Korea has developed a vaccine for the virus, so say their government-funded experts! Censor everybody who disagrees with these "facts", for the good of all mankind!
Seems like it.
You mean easier arguments to debunk or more convenient ones I assume. Or just to engage with the strawmen positions they'd prefer to be arguing against rather than the actual ones I take.
That's bullshit and fake information that you are spreading, I know the story you are talking about and you are just lying.
If you want me to be completely frank? I have a few suspicions about the motivation and direction of your arguments, but I don't want to presume. So I'm trying to get you to say this shit without leading questions and other rhetorical decorations. If you don't want to, just say so and we can move on.
No, I mean better arguments as in more coherent. Also, this does not help your credibility:
So is the Financial times lying?
www.ft.com
www.businessinsider.com
Welcome to the evolving world of what is real.
The question you apparently chose not to actually ask lol.
Oh having trouble following them are you? I thought they were fairly coherent.
The current condition is one where there's only a check to the people opposing the bullies, by making opposition to the political positions used to bully a bannable offense. (say for example, someone's bullying someone for misgendering someone, well, you can't have people defend that person, cause then you're defending misgendering and you'll get banned too, by removing the checks and balances you unleash the second combatant in the fight who up to that point wasn't allowed to fully participate, which will dampen the effect of the other person)
Ok so in that sense the twitter is the megaphone. Does the megaphone company come and break your megaphone if they disagree with what you broadcast?
That still doesn't say what you said it does, it says pretty much what I said.
No, Worgen is right. The tweet only says that Chinese authorities claim that "there's no clear evidence". "There's no evidence that it can" is not the same thing as saying "it can't". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, the word "preliminary" implies that the situation will continue to be monitored and updated.
Not a Trump Sycophant I'm just fed up of people so delusional they think Trump is Super Hitler because MSNBC said so and are bitter because it was #Herturn still
What question am I supposed to have asked that would have made your obtuse shuffling from leading question or talking point to the next come together?
Yes. Because you wrote them. I didn't. And because you're leaving out a shit load of stuff, as an outsider looking in, I am coming to the conclusion that you're just making this up as you go. You've made your contempt for expertise and objective truth quite apparent.
