NBA Cancels 2017 All-Star Game In North Carolina Over Anti-LGBT Law

LaylaWindu said:

The thread proves you got caught posting a lie and your strawman didn't work. Nothing you post will change that.

Click to expand...

nope no lie I asked you to even post the lie and you can't even do that. the only thing you can do is distort and lie about what people say.
so post the lie in actual my quotes and what I lied about. if you can't do it then you have no argument.

this is about the 4th time I have asked you to post it and you have failed so far the previous 3 times. so I will count this one has a failure as well.

ludin said:

nope no lie I asked you to even post the lie and you can't even do that. the only thing you can do is distort and lie about what people say.
so post the lie in actual my quotes and what I lied about. if you can't do it then you have no argument.

this is about the 4th time I have asked you to post it and you have failed so far the previous 3 times. so I will count this one has a failure as well.

Click to expand...

The thread proves you got caught posting a lie and your strawman didn't work. Nothing you post will change that.

ludin said:

you don't refute anything. you claim your opinion as fact and think you when.
when shown actual proof from actual real scientists you simply deny it with again your opinion.

sorry but your opinion is not fact no matter how much you claim it to be.

so really you have refuted nothing but your own opinion in a logical fallacy.

I will go with the real scientists that say otherwise.

Click to expand...

I've easily refuted everything you say. You post no information from "real" scientists. Only debunked ones, or like in your link earlier in this thread, information that doesn't apply to the topic. As I've told you, you are an excellent example of someone who's agenda prevents them from learning anything about the topic in question.

ludin said:

again because is say so isn't an argument it is a fallacy.
the study stand was published in a Peer reviewed Journal.

your opinion on the other hand has never been peer reviewed or published.
so I win.

my peer reviewed published facts vs your opinion. hmmm

Click to expand...

And it doesn't apply to the issue because of WHAT it studied. It studied the wrong information. There IS NO correlation with brain size because the differentiation doesn't affect overall brain size. It doesn't matter whether the information is right or wrong: IT DOESN'T APPLY. Your agenda is so rigid you are unable to see this.

CaptainCourtesy said:

And it doesn't apply to the issue because of WHAT it studied. It studied the wrong information. There IS NO correlation with brain size because the differentiation doesn't affect overall brain size. It doesn't matter whether the information is right or wrong: IT DOESN'T APPLY. Your agenda is so rigid you are unable to see this.

Click to expand...

Again you say so isn't an argument. if it was a flawed studied then it would not have passed the peer review process.
Basically what you are saying is that you know more than the people that did the peer review and
you have shown 0 authority in this matter.

Yes we know that your agenda is rigid that is why you deny deny deny every study that doesn't agree with you even though it has passed peer review processes.
that is pretty myopic and rigid view if you ask me.

The fact is if they were born female then their brains should show some form of feminization it does not.
of course you miss the facts of what they stated in an attempt to strawman their argument.

I read it and knows exactly what they concluded that is why you can only concentrate on a single sentence
and you ignore everything else. this is also known as a cherry picking fallacy.

ludin said:

all this is I don't like the results because they don't agree with me.
sorry proved the study is flawed? you can't because I say it is flawed is not an argument.
you do not have the authority to claim that the study is flawed. if you think you do provided your PHD in neuro science.

Click to expand...

The results have absolutely nothing to do with what has been legitimately hypothesized as an actual cause or observance of gender incongruence with sex.

You are the one rejecting actual research that does relate to the discussion in favor of making up your own crap based on research that is irrelevant.

ludin said:

Again you say so isn't an argument. if it was a flawed studied then it would not have passed the peer review process.

Click to expand...

You STILL don't understand. The study wasn't flawed. What it demonstrated was accurate. But the conclusion was IRRELEVANT because what it found is not a marker for transsexuality. It would be like saying a study found no evidence of diabetes in the brain... when the evidence for diabetes is in the pancreas. The study is valid... there is no evidence of a marker for diabetes in the brain. And it's also irrelevant because that's not where the marker is. Are you understanding, YET?

Basically what you are saying is that you know more than the people that did the peer review and
you have shown 0 authority in this matter.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I DO have authority on the matter. That is not in question. But secondly, I am not saying that I know more than the people who studied the issue or who did peer review on the research. The research was valid. It was also irrelevant because it didn't study the area of the brain where sex characteristics are located.

Yes we know that your agenda is rigid that is why you deny deny deny every study that doesn't agree with you even though it has passed peer review processes.
that is pretty myopic and rigid view if you ask me.

Click to expand...

You have proven over and over that your agenda prevents you from understanding pretty much anything on this issue... and believing in anything that supports your position no matter how invalid it is.

The fact is if they were born female then their brains should show some form of feminization it does not.
of course you miss the facts of what they stated in an attempt to strawman their argument.

Click to expand...

This is what I mean by how your agenda prevents you from understanding the issue. What you just said above is NOT what the study you presented showed. Either your agenda has caused you to be blind to this, or you have no idea how to read research.

I read it and knows exactly what they concluded that is why you can only concentrate on a single sentence
and you ignore everything else. this is also known as a cherry picking fallacy.

Click to expand...

Their conclusion was in that sentence. And that conclusion was irrelevant. You don't understand the research or you don't want to understand the research. Let me know which so I know whether to teach you or remind you of how your agenda is dictating your comprehension.