Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

It's intentional confusing used by those who want to equate religion and science. It's also why they use terms like evolution-"ist." It makes it seem as if somehow it's just another form of religion. Those who believe in the creation myth refer to themselves as creationist, thus labeling other as evolutionist just makes them seem the same. Science to them is no different than any other religion. And as with other religions, those religions that are not their own are just spreading lies.

 

[Maxperson]

It's a trick of religious groups that want to discredit science, so it is lowered to the level of religion. It's not that these people want religion to operate like science, it's that they want to make you believe that science operates the way religion does. Part of this ruse is seen when people argue that evolution or the big bang is "just a theory." They do it to make you think that these scientific theories are just like any other theory. You have a theory on who Jon Snow's mother is? That theory is equal to the theory of evolution. It disregards the rigorous process that a scientific theory goes through. So you'll end up getting arguments that science is the same as religion.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I have no interest in discrediting science, and I'm not saying that science operates like religion does. In fact, I specifically said they operate differently. I'm also only talking about a specific subsection of science, not the entire bundle.

The Big Bang isn't anywhere close to being know as fact. Science put that theory forth and it currently matches what we can observe, but that doesn't make it true. All of the testing we can muster can't prove that the theory is correct. If you believe that theory is true, you are taking it on faith.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I'm not doing anything of the sort.

I haven't said you did such a thing. I said it was a trick of religious groups. You are an individual, not a group. Any similarity to what I have pointed out, and what you are saying/doing is strictly coincidental.

 

[Maxperson]

I haven't said you did such a thing. I said it was a trick of religious groups. You are an individual, not a group. Any similarity to what I have pointed out, and what you are saying/doing is strictly coincidental.

Fair enough. You mentioned it right after I brought it up, so it was unclear if you were lumping me in with them or not.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Fair enough. You mentioned it right after I brought it up, so it was unclear if you were lumping me in with them or not.

Max, how long have we known each other? 4+ years, right? You know I wouldn't do something like that to you.

 

[Cor Azer]

Because I clarified how I would truly run my business in a later post and wasn't quite that way. I thought it was you I answered it to.

Tangentially, perhaps.

I guess I'm not entirely sure why you'd ever have posted the bit about "not calling back names like that" if, as you say, you never put personal ahead of business.

If the resume is sloppy, then the name doesn't matter.
If the resume isn't sloppy, then the name still doesn't matter. Or at least, it shouldn't.

As for your belief-in-science screed, others have addressed how incorrect you are, although only you could say if it was intentional or not.

 

[Cor Azer]

Except, you know, the law would allow a predator to wear a dress and lurk in women's bathrooms. Unlikely, but also not unreasonable fear of true transvestites. That you disagree that it would be a problem worth not passing the law seems to be akin to your disagreement with how resumes are treated -- there's no evidence seemingly for either direction, so neither case is proved or disproved. You can't just insist that things must remain murky in one instance and then demand that they're obviously your way in another. No evidence is no evidence, right?

As others have said, no, no this anti-discrimination law would not in any way aid predators.
1. Current laws already address predatory behaviour.
2. Predators already show they don't care about laws
3. If they do want a "pretext" to be in there, it's easier to pose as a janitor

And yes, it is a completely unreasonable fear. It is transphobia, pure and simple. There has not been a single case of a transgender person using bathroom or locker room anti-discrimination laws in the US to commit or attempt predatory behaviour. There is plenty of evidence of transgender woman being assaulted in men's washrooms.

We. Just. Want. To. Pee.

You are, in fact, statistically more likely to encounter a Republican congressman engaging in nefarious deeds in a bathroom than a transgender person. Should we ban all Republican congressmen from using public bathrooms?

Also, as an aside, "transvestite" is an archaic, and at least mildly offensive, term. If the person has a gender identity different than assigned at birth, they're transgender. If they're simply wearing clothes from a different gender without an associated different gender identity, they're a crossdresser.

 

[Cor Azer]

The only long-term study of transgender outcomes concluded that “Male to Female” transsexuals retain male-pattern criminality, including crimes against women.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

Presumably, even though not all transvestites transition into becoming transsexuals, that observed pattern would remain roughly true.

Be careful of conflating crossdressers and transgender people - while there may be superficial similarities, the motivations behind the two can and do vary considerably.

That said, skimming that paper doesn't really show much about the types of crimes, beyond the categories of "crime" and "violent crime".

Admittedly, this is pure hypothesis on my part, but given that transgender people often can be and are evicted or fired simply for being transgender (you know, what HERO was trying to prevent), many do find themselves resorting to sex work, which is criminalized in most regions of the world.

And while I admit this part is a result of my heavy bias, I would also hypothesize that that same lack of anti-discrimination protections gives rise to transgender people being convicted on flimsier evidence than might suffice for cisgender people.

 

[Maxperson]

As for your belief-in-science screed, others have addressed how incorrect you are, although only you could say if it was intentional or not.

Right, because no one believes that the big bang happened. It's hypocrisy for people to slam religions for believing religious things based on observations, but support themselves for believing things based on observations.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Be careful of conflating crossdressers and transgender people - while there may be superficial similarities, the motivations behind the two can and do vary considerably.

That's why I added the "presumably" caveat.

That said, skimming that paper doesn't really show much about the types of crimes, beyond the categories of "crime" and "violent crime".

After defining crimes they looked at:

Any criminal conviction during follow-up was counted; specifically, violent crime was defined as homicide and attempted homicide, aggravated assault and assault, robbery, threatening behaviour, harassment, arson, or any sexual offense.

They looked at their data and came to the conclusion:

This suggests that the sex reassignment procedure neither increased nor decreased the risk for criminal offending in male-to-females.