[flagged]
Ok more seriously, are you saying that chips and plastic being a human is the same thing as a man being able to transition into a woman? I thought I would be able to make you transhumanists finally realize how absurd the whole brain uploading thing was by taking it to the most extreme politically, but apparently I was not able to and perhaps they will be enormously successful with this movement and we'll all be replaced by robots and anyone who speaks out against it will be banned from social media.
I'm not claiming that these things are related, YOU are.
There is absolutely no way that you just accidentally reinvented all the language surrounding to trans civil rights issues in your example, you absolutely co-opted it, which makes wonder how you think trans people and "uploaded people" are related.
It's hard to see anything other than that you purposefully connected them since you think that changing your gender is as inhuman and bad as you think uploading yourself is. Again, really hard to not read this as blatantly transphobic unless you really did accidentally reinvent all the trans culture war terminology. This is why you were flagged btw
I could have replaced uploaded person in the above with "my purely imaginary friends" and maybe you would get where I'm trying to go with this? I am trying to think of something more absurd than that, but I am out of ideas.
Like my purely imaginary friends should have the right to vote and thus I should get 10000 votes because I have 10000 imaginary friends and if you don't let me, you're an imaginophobe! My purely imaginary friends all have to go to the bathroom and thus the bathroom must remain empty for their privacy during the whole day while all 10,000 go to the bathroom!
You would tell me I am out of my mind and that's absurd, and you'd be right. My purely imaginary friends don't exist and have no rights you'd say. I of course would call you an imaginophobe and get you banned from social media. However, you might think that my purely imaginary friends are being discriminated in the same way that trans people are being discriminated against and thus it's a totally valid claim I have because you are reasoning by analogy. Gee, this sounds similar to that other argument I believe, so it must be true!
There is a point at which a concept is absurd and just because it analogizes with a previous civil rights battle does not mean that it's valid because the underlying premise is false. Just cause it's like the previous civil rights battle doesn't mean it's the same thing.
I'm "conflating the two" because you are explicitly co-opting a huge amount of language from "trans debate"
For example, if you do a Nazi salute, people will think you're a Nazi, it doesn't matter if it's really the "pro-natural salute". You are explicitly using all the language of a culture war that is already going on, so why wouldn't I think that it is related to that culture war?
That you are confused by this argument means that you will accept anything as long as it has the right form and presentation. Nazis were anti-smoking. That I am anti-smoking does not mean I'm a Nazi, but you could make that argument with your reasoning because it has a similar form and presentation. The advocate of robots rights will say that opposition to it has a similar form and presentation as the opposition to trans rights in the past. Thus, will you support robot rights, because not doing so is similar in form, like your nazi salute analogy to opposing trans rights? This is the weakness in arguing by analogy.
Using the term “robot” instead of "non-biological person" is even more concerning to me. Are you anti robots? It’s difficult to read this as anything other than an indirect attack on robot persons. I can only assume you are a hateful awful person because you refuse to recognize that robots are people. Denying that robots are people is similar to all the racists who denied that all races are equal. /s <--- That tag means the last paragraph was sarcastic reducto ad absurdium because you are really hard to get a point across to.
Besides, you want to figure out what my political beliefs are in another area to decide if you should be pro or anti-robot. This is how the modern world works. Nobody examines the argument, they just want to know what your other beliefs are before they decide to agree.
I recently had a discussion about the California propositions with people who I consider highly intelligent. Disappointingly, They did not care to read and discuss the actual propositions, they only wanted to know who was supporting or more importantly, who was AGAINST the propositions and funding the propositions and that's the only thing that mattered. Nobody can come to their own understanding of a matter, they had to rely on authority or analogizing it often very poorly with something else.
If this were slashdot, I'd be giving it a funny/insightful.