How can someone be pro-trans and also support oppressing anti-vaxxers at a legal level?

Author: RationalMadman
Liberals
RM
hypocrisy
trans rights
Vaccination

Posts

Total: 56
Topic's author
#1
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
If you support blackmailing anti-vaxxers to let their children be vaccinated if not they themselves and support repercussions for their delusion running against scientific 'fact' then what about the 'fact' biologically of an individual being male or female?

People who say it's gender and not biological sex are inherently lying unless they are talking of queers instead of trans people. Transwomen take oestrogen and even may cut off their penis all to mimic the sex, not the behavioural gender, that is female and womanly and vice versa with transmen and testosterone and/or other androgens (testosterone isn't the only masculine hormone for mammals, just the most known one).

If you support blackmailing people to believe in vaccination regardless of their feelings and need for freedom to be what they are and raise their children with said delusions (according to you, it's delusions anyway) then how can you support transgender pronouns leading to hate crime fines and career-ruining repercussions just the same? These are opposite examples of tyranny, right? One is for science, the other completely ignores science.

If you wish to turn this around on anti-vaxxers, the difference is not all anti-vaxxers support banning the right of one to act like a sissy man or butch woman whatsoever, it is the blackmailing of them using certain pronouns and ignoring the fact of one's biological sex they have issue with. They also believe scientifically that there is reason to be against vaccination, even if their science is flawed they believe it's scientific.
#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
If A then B.

Sort of like saying that a vegan cant believe in GOD.

Sort of conflating.

I think.
#3
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Liberals pretty much showed that abortion rights are not about bodily autonomy when they wanted vaccine mandates. I don't understand fully the hypocrisy op is stating but the bodily autonomy arguments have been exposed as a bullshit argument meant to appeal to libertarian minded people. It's clearly about eugenics and none will say it out loud because eugenics is not popular. 

They know it is typically blacks and low IQ whites getting abortions.
#4
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
So now its A then C.

So why not A then B then C.

And therefore everyone is a hypocrite except everyone who isn't a hypocrite.
#5
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
If you say you care about bodily auto omy in one argument and under other scenarios with less extreme consequences than murdering babies, you say you do not agree with bodily autonomy than it's extremely obvious you aren't presenting your real arguments and being intellectually honest.

So here is both their arguments as it pertains to bodily autonomy so you can see the hypocrisy.

A1

P1- bodily auto omy is more important than preservation of human life.

P2- pro life mandates save lives but at the expense of bodily autonomy

C1- abortions should be legal

Now here is their argument as it pertains to bodily autonomy and vaccine mandates

P1- bodily auto omy is less important than preservation of human life.

P2- vaccine mandates save lives but at the expense of bodily autonomy

C1- vaccine mandates should be implemented

Do you not see it as hypocritical to consistently push both of these arguments?

The reason both arguments survive in the same exact people is because they are in fact lying about their true premises, unless you have a better reason why forwarding both arguments would not cause cognitive dissonance.
Topic's author
#6
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
 I don't understand fully the hypocrisy op is stating
The position of 'Liberal' voters on trans rights tends to be to force those that are scientifically literate to cave in to the demands of the passionately delusional that need their delusion upheld for their emotional wellbeing.

This position is totally flipped around when they support traumatising anti-vaxxers due to what the scientific data says.
#7
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,612
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
trans rights

Always baffles me, this one. What are they?
#8
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
It's less about lying about the true premise and more that the arguments for and against abortion/vaccine mandates via bodily autonomy are simply more nuanced than the simplistic syllogisms you presented.

For example, have you considered the moral considerations given to the unborn Vs those currently living in society and compared the degree in which they might be harmed?
#9
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@dustryder
It's less about lying about the true premise and more that the arguments for and against abortion/vaccine mandates via bodily autonomy are simply more nuanced than the simplistic syllogisms you presented

I am on the YouTube comments a lot. That's about as nuanced as I have seen them get. Either bodily autonomy is more important than human life or human life is more important. If you tell me that it is a balancing act then you need to tell me where to draw the line precisely. 


For example, have you considered the moral considerations given to the unborn Vs those currently living in society and compared the degree in which they might be harmed?

Yes. The unborn would have a life expectancy of about 80 years vs the remaining life expectancy of 5 years for the people who died of COVID. 

267k people died of COVID in the United States in 2022. 1.5 million people died from abortions. It's not just number of lives killed either we have to look at remaining life expectancy. 5 for the people who died of COVID but let's say 10 to be safe. That is 2.7 million lost years. With abortions life expectancy is 80 years it is 120 million years lost to abortion. In 2022. 

The one argument you can make is that the lives of children are less valuable than senior citizens in hospice, but I don't think most people would admit to believing that.
#10
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
So as a democratic American it would therefore be hypocritical for one to hold differing opinions about a democratically elected government and a democratically unelected opposition party. Because partisanship would be founded on a lie about ones claim to support democracy.

Because basically, you are saying that it is hypocritical to have varying opinions about related issues. Or in respect of the case in point, loosely related issues.

Sort of upholding the right to freedom of speech and expression, whilst denigrating the right to freedom of speech and expression.
#11
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
So as a democratic American it would therefore be hypocritical for one to hold differing opinions about a democratically elected government and a democratically unelected opposition party. Because partisanship would be founded on a lie about ones claim to support democracy.
Not body would conclude that from my post. Not sure what you are getting at.

Because basically, you are saying that it is hypocritical to have varying opinions about related issues. Or in respect of the case in point, loosely related issues.

Not what I am saying. I am saying it is intellectually dishonest to hold opposite premises for two different arguments or at least an internal contradiction that should be resolved.

Sort of upholding the right to freedom of speech and expression, whilst denigrating the right to freedom of speech and expression.

That would be hypocritical to a certain extent (though not necessarily) but it wouldn't be a contradictory premise using two different arguments, like we are talking about here. 

Why do I say not necessarily here. Because what people personally do often goes against what policy positions they hold, which is fine as long as they can stop doing those things once they successfully outlaw them.
#12
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I am saying it is intellectually dishonest to hold two opposite premises for two different arguments.
Hmmmmm. Doesn't really make sense.

Because we always hold different opinions about different arguments.


So, as I questioned previously, is it therefore intellectually dishonest  to partake in a democratic process and not support the democratic result of that process.

Because supporting the process infers that one supports the outcome...A premise in other words.


I could ask the same about religious beliefs.

If we regard Christian belief  as the basis of a premise that infers ones support for the Abrahamic GOD, then would it be intellectually dishonest to not also support Islam.

I'm guessing that in both instances, you would reserve the intellectual right to disagree.
#13
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Hmmmmm. Doesn't really make sense.

Because we always hold different opinions about different arguments
Are you really this dimwitted?

You can't conclude the sky is blue for one argument and then turn around and claim it is green for another. 

Because supporting the process infers that one supports the outcome...A premise in other words.
This is way off topic and no supporting the process would not necessarily mean supporting the outcome. That also wouldn't necessarily mean your premises for supporting one and not supporting the other matched. 

 we regard Christian belief as the basis of a premise that infers ones support for the Abrahamic GOD, then would it be intellectually dishonest to not also support Islam.
How would your premises for being a Jew mean that you have to accept Islam which has different claims about God? (Seemingly anyway)

#14
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Exactly my point.

We can and do have differing opinions about separate issues, even if separate issues might have commonality.

It would be a tad dictatorial to propose otherwise.




#15
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
Bodily autonomy...sure does get thrown around a lot. What everyone is missing is the very personal, moral and legal right to personal liberty. 

Personal liberty (legal definition): "the right a person has to behave as they like, subject only to interference for appropriate government reasons (such as the protection of other citizens' liberties)." 

"Liberty is the right of a person to do as they please, assuming their actions do not violate any laws or infringe on the rights of others. What is personal liberty? Personal liberty's definition is the right of individuals to be free of arbitrary restraint or bondage. In short, personal liberty allows people to live as they choose without interference from others unless it is for a good, legally-established reason."

A pregnancy is not [a] person with all the rights, privileges and equal protection of the laws bestowed upon actual persons upon their birth. The pregnant girl/woman is [a] person. A pregnancy is not. It's even codified into law, the definition of what [a] person, human being, child and individual shall be understood to mean. 

  • (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
  • (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
  • (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
  • (Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)
Facts do not care about anyone's feelings. 

Pregnant girls/women have all the personal liberty to do as they choose with their body and what is occurring to it or within it. A pregnancy has no legal standing/rights. 



#16
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
We can and do have differing opinions about separate issues, even if separate issues might have commonality.

No this is not about separate issues having commonality where different opinions can be due to nuance. Reread my posts again. You lack some reading comprehension, and I don't say that to be mean. I just want you to know so you can work on comprehension akills

Topic's author
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TWS1405_2
Facts do not care about anyone's feelings. 
The entire law was based solely on what people feel is right and wrong... Lol...
#18
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@RationalMadman
Uh, no. That cited law is based on reality, as it provides fact based  definitions for contextual clarity of the terms given to be applied throughout other statutory laws. Feelings have nothing to do with demarcating objective reality vs subjective non-legal opinions. 
#19
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
actually you are both wrong, the constitution is based on a deistic/christian religion of God's views of right and wrong (john locke explains deism)
and the laws as moral or immoral, logical or emotional all have to adhere to its precepts in some way.

visa ve, God determines right and wrong.

but lately the constituion is being bypassed and ignored. so you could both be right with some of them.
#20
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Yes, I see what you mean.

I have no idea what comprehension akills are.

Only joking.


But the sky can be a variety of colours relative to atmospheric conditions.

And abortion is one thing and vaccine mandates are another.

And Pro-Trans is yet another fairly recent addition to the subject list.

And if we do not necessarily see eye to eye on everything,

That's not to be unexpected.
#21
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@RationalMadman
You don’t like vaccine mandates and you think transgenderism is fake.  I have no issues with either of these positions and I agree with one of them.  But you might want to change your party affiliation to other instead of progressive.  The progressives disagree with you on both of these.
#22
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
Who is blackmailing anti-vaxxers? 
Topic's author
#23
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
I am progressive. I know other progressives that agree with me. Cheers.
Topic's author
#24
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
The government Blackmailed corporations to blackmail their employees for starters. There is also the case of other vaccines than covid where it has for a long time been forced.
#25
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
Hey you provided a legal definition that can and does contradict scientific and general dictionaries. Yay. Just like african americans were considered 2/3 of a person & not being considered human at all. Wooh!
#26
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,164
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@RationalMadman
How can someone be pro-trans and also support oppressing anti-vaxxers at a legal level? That's easy, selective hypocrisy. Its your body and your choice until they say it isn't.
#27
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
Science doesn’t always get it right, and the cited law doesn’t contradict any measure or level of science. 

Also, comparing that cited law to born blacks is a false equivalency fallacy. 

All your 2/3 (actually it was 3/5) slave example only serves to prove how equally infallible the laws, policies can be as science. 

You (dis)proved nothing. 
#28
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
You assert an opinion . yay

The cited law can contradict biology as it does allow open interpretation as to what is a person or human prior to birth. Thats not science. Science is a tested observational thing. Not subjective. 

#29
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
-->
@<<<TWS1405_2>>>
You assert an opinion . yay
No, that's what you're doing. 

The cited law can contradict biology as it does allow open interpretation as to what is a person or human prior to birth. Thats not science. Science is a tested observational thing. Not subjective. 
But the cited law doesn't contradict human biology/physiology/psychology; and it most certainly does not give room for interpretation. It is crystal clear (precise) in its definitions for statutorily purposes. 

Science can be subjective.

"Kuhn stated, and I agree, that there is absolutely no way to make science completely objective. This is because individual scientists hold their own opinions and beliefs about their practices. This holds true not only for scientific debate between paradigms, but also between individuals who claim to support one particular paradigm; simply because two scientists support one paradigm does not mean they support it for the same reasons or in the same manner."


#30
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
I acknowleedge my opinion  you should do same . 

Science can be subjective but cited law is objectively precise  & related to science? This is not an opinion? 

Cited law excludes all humans before birth. Do you agree?