“I stood in the White House and told the president of the United States, I’d see him in court. Well we did see him in court, and we won."

[MotoToTheMax]

Not necessarily, no, but attacking Christianity is.

No. Saying someone has a mental illness is not attacking them. Good grief.

Can you explain the difference between contempt and attacking with regard to this topic? Mental illness is a serious topic.

 

[RileyG]

Can you explain the difference between contempt and attacking with regard to this topic? Mental illness is a serious topic.

They’re essentially the same. But we are now getting far off topic.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

It’s ridiculous that just because I’m speaking out against transgendered ideology, others thinks I’m “attacking” individuals. I’m not.

Well, you are doing that. That's the honest answer. Which is fine. It's not against the rules. You can do that. Took some teeth pulling but it's against the rules to flip this around because it's considered attacking. Ergo, this statement's idea:

No. Saying someone has a mental illness is not attacking them. Good grief.

...is incorrect.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Are you suggesting that Christians are suffering from mental illness because they believe in God? Or are you saying that trans ideology is a religion comparable to Christianity, so showing contempt for the trans religion is on par with contempt towards Christians? Pick one.

Wish I could answer, but alas, it's against the rules. Sorry man.‍

 

[RileyG]

Well, you are doing that. That's the honest answer. Which is fine. It's not against the rules. You can do that. Took some teeth pulling but it's against the rules to flip this around because it's considered attacking. Ergo, this statement's idea:

...is incorrect.

No. There is no attack. Period.

Speaking out against an ideology which I consider to be harmful isn't attacking anyone. Really.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Wish I could answer, but alas, it's against the rules. Sorry man.‍

Yeah. I think this is a no win argument for you.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

No. There is no attack. Period.

Speaking out against an ideology which I consider to be harmful isn't attacking anyone. Really.

So it's not an attack if I say someone who believes in Mormonism has a mental illness? I'm just speaking out against an ideology which I consider harmful.

Right?

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Yeah. I think this is a no win argument for you.

Since it can't even be discussed it's kind of weird to present a verdict there, but you do you. I get there's perks to having house rules to your advantage. At least you own it. (I probably would too.)

 

[Vambram]

The question is why is allowing two trans kids to play in Maine any of your (or Trump's) business?

Safety and fairness for biological girls are very important to me.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

So it's not an attack if I say someone who believes in Mormonism has a mental illness? I'm just speaking out against an ideology which I consider harmful.

Right?

Listen, I understand the point you are trying to make. But you are making a clear categorical fallacy. Unless of course, you regard trans ideology as a religion and that showing contempt for trans ideology is just as wrong as showing contempt for Christianity.

 

[RileyG]

So it's not an attack if I say someone who believes in Mormonism has a mental illness? I'm just speaking out against an ideology which I consider harmful.

Right?

Religion and gender ideology are not comparable. That's the difference.

 

[RileyG]

Safety and fairness for biological girls are very important to me.

Yes. Protect biological girls. I don't want them to be harmed or have males invade their privacy. Period.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The question is why is allowing two trans kids to play in Maine any of your (or Trump's) business?

I find that statement no different than saying, "Why is child abuse any of your (or Trump's) business?"

 

[RileyG]

I find that statement no different than saying, "Why is child abuse any of your (or Trump's) business?"

Amen. I think it's very credible to compare the two.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Since it can't even be discussed it's kind of weird to present a verdict there, but you do you. I get there's perks to having house rules to your advantage. At least you own it. (I probably would too.)

Because you claim you cannot answer the question, you have answered the question. Because only one option is not against the forum rules.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Listen, I understand the point you are trying to make. But you are making a clear categorical fallacy. Unless of course, you regard trans ideology as a religion and that showing contempt for trans ideology is just as wrong as showing contempt for Christianity.

It'd be nice to have the conversation. I think it would be interesting and fruitful. But we can't. Or should I say I cant.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

It'd be nice to have the conversation. I think it would be interesting and fruitful. But we can't. Or should I say I cant.

You know, there are athiest forums that you can go to and have these discussions. I am actually on one.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Because you claim you cannot answer the question, you have answered the question. Because only one option is not against the forum rules.

I didn't answer the question. I'm not convinced they're directly the same, but to have the conversation means the ability to arrive at a conclusion I'm not allowed to state.

Also, the main point really is the double standard. "I'm not attacking them saying statement X. But if statement X is said to me then I'm being attacked." The meat of that topic is against the rules apparently.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Religion and gender ideology are not comparable. That's the difference.

And it's against the rules to talk about it as if they were. Got it. Clear as frosted glass.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I didn't answer the question. I'm not convinced they're directly the same, but to have the conversation means the ability to arrive at a conclusion I'm not allowed to state.

Also, the main point really is the double standard. "I'm not attacking them saying statement X. But if statement X is said to me then I'm being attacked." The meat of that topic is against the rules apparently.

Okay. In that case, I think it would be best to move away from this line of questioning and get back to the topic.