Caitlyn Jenner

Can you link me to his channel? It seems interesting and id really like to read about it and learn more.

 

Sure thing. I found it riveting. He's got tonnes of free content out there on YouTube if you like his stuff.

 

I had saved that image that I posted like 3 days before I used it, I was really just looking for somewhere where I could put it. Also, I never mocked or name called of any kind.

 

I posted a funny gif and made a joke. If anyone needs to grow up its you. You take everything way too damn seriously and don't even stop to think about what you're saying. Stop trying to hide behind big fancy words to turn innocent jokes into a debate.

 

TLR -- 'It's just a prank, bro!'

 

Wait, how come I'm mentioned here? I don't have any posts on this thread. Are you implying that I am guilty of doing this elsewhere?

 

Debatheist doesn't portray his opponents as committing fallacies though, he uses logic, common sense and facts.

 

If you have any examples where I've been condescending, stubbornly closed-minded, or unfairly slimed the people I'm talking with? I'd love that. I'm always up for constructive criticism. All I ask is that you give me some examples so we can talk about it. I can't address snarky one-liners.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 2, 2016 ---

I mentioned anyone that "Liked" Kwag's post. In which he (albeit, for comedy) mocked his opponent as being unable to reproduce.

I really don't think this is the place for 'zingers'. If you post a comment explaining what you believe, in the 'Debates' section of the forum? You should expect not to be piled on by a bunch of people mocking you with a childish 'burn'. AFAIK this is 'Debates'. Not 'Memes'. Let's keep it civil and on topic.

 

Ahh, alright.

Well, firstly, I liked his post because I liked the first part of it, where he said, "He kids, did you know that being transgender is worse than vehicular manslaughter? Me neither!" I assume that you don't have a problem with this part, because you said a similar thing: "Rape, genocide, oppression? Nahhh. Chopping off your own *****. Now THAT is truly the worst thing you can do!"

Secondly, a debate doesn't mean that comedy can't be involved. It helps make a debate more fun and enjoyable to add in some jokes here and there; however, I do agree that anything that is a direct insult or 'burn' to someone else, such as this, should be left out of serious debates.

 

Shes a hypocritical asshole imo

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 2, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 2, 2016 ---

I forgot ass hole was a bad word

 

Ahhh the ol' Tu Quoque.

If I could take back that sarcastic remark, I would. The manner in which I made that point, I think it scores highly in terms of effectiveness. Could I have made that point without the snidey jab, as succinctly and effectively? I'm not sure. But I should have tried. Maintaining fairness in all conversations is something that I'm valuing more each day. Underhanded mockery (no matter how valid your point is) has little to no place in a discussion where we're trying to tackle tough, personal issues.

Jokes are fine. But at the expense of someone else? Eh, I don't think so. Now, if you're trying to win over your audience? I can understand that. One might argue that the 'net good' gained by changing more minds with humour is greater than the 'net bad' of mocking someone. Heck, they might not even care. In which case, knock yourselves out.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 3, 2016, Original Post Date: Apr 3, 2016 ---

By the way, I would just like to stress THIS bit:

"(This is a complaint of a problem I'm seeing too often on here. This thread just happens to be the straw that broke the camel's back for me.)"

 

It depends on what type of approach that you want to take. As long as you aren't throwing insults at someone else (which, as I said, is okay as a joke, but shouldn't be included if you want to seriously debate them), sarcastic comments are perfectly fine, but they do change the tone of the argument. Sarcastic comments definitely can make your point more effective, but yeah, at the same time, they can prevent the argument from having as much growth. As I've said, there's nothing wrong with using them, but if you want to have the most positive possible outcome, it is sometimes better to refrain from using any of them.

If it's 100% a joke, then it's not exactly at their expense, because it's not an *actual* insult. If you are actually insulting them (or are doing it in a way that they feel like you are), then yeah, the 'net good' could outweigh the 'net bad', but you'd need to have absolutely no doubts that your stance is the 'good' one for you to be justified doing that.

 

It depends on what type of approach that you want to take. As long as you aren't throwing insults at someone else (which, as I said, is okay as a joke, but shouldn't be included if you want to seriously debate them),

I don't think that's 'okay' though. You could get away with saying anything, if that were the case. Isn't your reasoning here not too dissimilar from the infectious dudebro response, whenever they act out-of-line?

"It's just a prank/joke, bro!"

I genuinely don't believe that you can come into a debate, make a joke at someone else's expense, and then defend yourself by saying that you 'wern't trying to take it seriously in the first place'. If you want to sh*tpost with non-serious and insulting (though, well intentioned) jokes, don't do it in the middle of a debate, right? Head over to www.reddit.com/r/roastme if you desire that. I understand that it was an off the cuff one-liner. But my priority is on ensuring productive and free discourse. Mockery doesn't aid that. Which is exactly why I've criticized myself for comments in which I have done so previously.

sarcastic comments are perfectly fine, but they do change the tone of the argument. Sarcastic comments definitely can make your point more effective, but yeah, at the same time, they can prevent the argument from having as much growth. As I've said, there's nothing wrong with using them, but if you want to have the most positive possible outcome, it is sometimes better to refrain from using any of them.

> Sarcastic comments... can prevent the argument from having as much growth. [There *is* a downside to their usage]

> sarcastic comments are perfectly fine,

> As I've said, there's nothing wrong with using them,

> if you want to have the most positive possible outcome, it is sometimes better to refrain from using any of them.

These statements seem to contradict one another. I don't know how else to politely recommend people to avoid using hyperbole, without being jumped on by @Fangdragon1998 for having a condescending attitude, but I'll do my best. Please can we avoid casual hyperbole when discussing issues? I'd appreciate it, man.

If it's 100% a joke, then it's not exactly at their expense, because it's not an *actual* insult.

I feel as if we're getting off-track here, and I don't want to spend hours debating what constitutes a 'joke' or an 'insult'.

Intentional or no, the comment was insulting. It added nothing to the conversation at all, bar a jab at someone else to make others laugh. I don't think we shouldn't gang-up on people and make fun of them. Even if it's light-hearted... *when* we're in the 'debates' section of the forum. Plus, it could easily stop others from contributing with controversial views, if they know that they'll be publicly mocked for voicing an unpopular opinion.

 

You still haven't responded to me. Don't quote me here unless you do it there first, please. Thank you.

 

So, your objection is that the jokes were made in a debate, and not just with insulting jokes? Correct me if I'm wrong, but your stance is basically that insulting jokes/mockery are not acceptable to use in debates because they don't aid in productivity and they can harm the opposite party, preventing them from wanting to be part of the conversation and/or from being open to changing their stance, right?

My point was just that jokes like this are okay if both parties fully realize that they are only jokes and don't take actual offense to them. If that's the case, then no harm comes from it, right? If that's not the case, and the jokes actually do harm the opposing party, then sure, I'd agree with you that they shouldn't have been made in those circumstances.

Actually, after thinking about it more, I would like to concede that I was incorrect in my claim that insulting jokes are fine in debates. While I still believe that as long as both parties fully realize that it's a joke and don't take offense, it's okay, but there's no way to know that they will. In this specific situation, even if MasterOfToast (The person that received the insult) realized that it was a joke and didn't take offense to it (which I don't know for sure), there's no way to tell that everybody else who read it brushed it off as a joke as well. Perhaps someone read it and was pushed away from commenting here at all. I was incorrectly only thinking about the person dishing out the insult and the person receiving it, but now taking into consideration that jokes like this can affect anyone who reads them, I suppose that it probably isn't justifiable to use them in debates.

My apologies, perhaps I didn't explain this part clearly enough; what I meant doesn't contradict.

Anyway, what I meant was simply that sarcastic comments aren't wrong (By saying "fine," I still meant "not wrong"). If you make a sarcastic comment, that doesn't put you in the wrong; however, sarcastic comments can prevent the discussion from being as beneficial on both sides (So yes, there can be a downside), but that doesn't make them wrong. I would say that using sarcastic comments is often inadvisable and something that can prohibit productivity, but it's not wrong.

Agreed.

 

His DNA states he is a male. He is biologically a male... Just because he says he is one thing it doesn't make him another. Despite having his sex organ removed and having the opposite one implanted it doesn't change that fact. Even with hormone therapy it just masks his true biological identity. Like I said, I'm all for what makes the man happy... He can identify himself as a woman, act like one, etc.. I won't judge him negatively for it but it doesn't make him a female.

It's like saying Michael Jackson isn't African American because he is white. He may appear white but that doesn't make him white.

 

I am a robot.

 

@Kazarkas 2 -- His DNA states he is a male.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but gender isn't encoded in DNA, as far as I'm aware. Why do you think that it is? Enlighten me!

He is biologically a male... Just because he says he is one thing it doesn't make him another. Despite having his sex organ removed and having the opposite one implanted it doesn't change that fact.

But for all intents and purposes, they are a female. You know the saying, right? "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck? It's probably a duck." Same goes here.

Even with hormone therapy it just masks his true biological identity.

I think we need to disabuse some notions here, because I feel like, from the language that you're using? You're hypothesising, for the most part. Please allow me to give you my background.

It's been a while, but I studied AS Psychology back in school at the age of 17. It's kind of a pseudo-qualification. Something you'd put down on a CV, but it won't mean an awful lot.

In this class, we studied a few real-life cases of gender identity. Along with the biology of males and females. We learned that women have different brains to men. That the different in sex is not just cultural.

What was even more insightful, was the fact that we ALL start as females in the womb. If we get that boost of male hormones? We turn into a boy. Otherwise, we remain as female. That's why men have nipples. It's why (SENSITIVITY ALERT FOR YOUNGER AUDIENCES) women have a clitoris. It's an undeveloped *****. The similarities continue. I could go on.

Point being, we're all women! Well, not *really*. But you get my gist. Also, I think you're making a larger distinction between male/female than there *actually* is. The jury is still out whether transexual men are born with a female brain. In science, this still remains a mystery. So until the jury is *in*, I have to speak out of pure ignorance. Maybe transexual women have a male brain. I don't know. I can't make any claims of certainty until I know what the science says.

Like I said, I'm all for what makes the man happy... He can identify himself as a woman, act like one, etc.. I won't judge him negatively for it but it doesn't make him a female.

As asked previously -- What does?

It's like saying Michael Jackson isn't African American because he is white. He may appear white but that doesn't make him white.

Nooooo, it's not at all like that. If you would have used "Black" instead of "African American", you'd be pretty much spot-on.

What if a white man had surgery to make his skin look black? Would you still call him a white man? I wouldn't. On official documents? Sure, they might be white. But in their day to day living, they want to be called 'a black man'. They look black, so I'll oblige them.

Heck, you do this with your friends all the time, no doubt. Someone might be called, "Anthony" on ALL of their official documents. Their name, their *real* name? It's definitely Anthony. But if they self-identify as 'Tony', you just go with it, right? It's the same kind of thing here.

 

The question should really be "Should gender be decided by genetics or personal belief?". If you ask me, I believe thhat you can say whatever gener you want to be, but if you're genetically a male or female, you are that gender.