But when you lead with Joe Rogan, I'd have to ask, is Joe Rogan the best you have?
I think clinical suffering is bad? I have not mentioned Joe Rogan. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.
I've seen this pattern before. At best it's someone so committed to a position that they are determined to do battle rather than actually have a conversation. At worst it's someone arguing in bad faith.
Or, I suppose, most charitably, it's someone who lost the thread of the conversation and replied to the wrong person.
Maybe if people tried to listen and understand more, they could ask followup questions and try to get what the other person had in mind, instead of trying to tear down opponents?
When you pick up the microphone, that is your chance to make an offering of what you have to give. What we have here an offering of Joe Rogan debates.
> What do you have to say about the primary phenomena of clinical suffering? Its etiologies and its course in medical debate across the west? That is a discussion which hits squarely on "What is trans?"
The response is "I think clinical suffering is bad?"
And again, the only person who keeps bringing up Joe Rogan is you. What has this got to do with anything? Can we just focus on actual points being made here?
My OP was about how impossible it is to have sensible debates about trans issues without being lambasted. Where is this thread going now? What direction are you taking it?
Are you going to start doing so, or are you just going to go on as you have so far?
Am I mistaken here?