I'll have whatever you're smoking. Yes most reports tend to be 'swung' though I will say rejected on certain grounds - this is the modern 'debating' style. Personal attacks rather than critical analysis.
Most but not all, and particular in the discussion you where having with
@AuroraSaab the fact that you couldn't held up anymore that the discussed topic was peer reviewed was kind of the point.
It;s by the way not a moderns debating style, it's as old as the city of Rome. More modern is calling a discussion ''toxic'' trying to sway the direction of a discussion with emotional blackmail and all that funstuff
As
@Unkraut alluded to with his reference to climate change. My observation is that people like Greta say 'listen to the scientists'. She does not claim to be a scientist, but she speaks to so many.
No she screams a lot and if you can't stand the heat don't play with fire, i mean it's only expected that she would be an target of anyone. And there is something else, the movements she defends have a very loose interpretation of ''listen to the scientist'' there is no science behind the ''millions of climate deaths'' for example.
There are a great many specialist climate scientists investigating climate science. Yet we see a movement that has developed that attempt to balance the views of a TV personality biologist with the findings of the collective voice of modern climate scientists in order to reject their findings. That isn't balance.
And a great deal of them also stopped wanting to repressent the IPCC because they don't feel comfortable with their findings. and a great deal of the ones that are affiliated with the IPCC make a great deal of money out of it because of said affiliation. still i'm not saying it's all nonsense, i'm just saying we should be upfront about things like this.
And not only known how to ask disfficult question when the person being questioned is Nigel Farage, but also then it is Ms Thurberg or anyone else. that seems to be a other problem these days.
I linked one person to a recent review of peer reviewed studies within a date range into the issues of trans people in sport. I gave no commentary on it other than 'it may be helpful' - no doctrine, no dogma, no opinion, no claim that only this is correct.
it wasn't really about that link, and you known that, just because you went back and forth for 5 pages doesn't mean only your last response is important.
You even managed to rant against me after I recused myself on the basis of lack of knowledge.
your interpretation off course far from the thurth
If you want to carefully consider what the review has to say and be critical of it be my guest. My guess is that you imagined that I would only post a document if it supported points I had made. You got that wrong.
Only it doesn't fit with your imagination and bias against me, and you've made a bit of a chump of yourself.
So you first
assume what you think
i would think how you would respond, and than based on that how
youthink i would expect you to respond, say that
i got it wrong.
I can tell you in German, Dutch, and English, that's not how this works. I don't have a bias against you, what's next you gonna think i'm Rothshild/illuminati etc? How about admitting you're wrong for once?
It was me that questioned that "fact", introduced here by yourself. As proof, I point you towards the map of the flat earth and the UN flag.
Again that was not really the point, there is more than enough peer-reviewed research that shows the earth isn't flat.
The second "scientific point" raised by yourself was that water is wet. Science has shown that to be untrue. However, when pointed out to you, you chose to ignore what science has said.
You known that is a bit if nit-picking right?
Do you by chance mean the Tavistock Clinic?
I can understand that you claim English is a second language, but to get an institutions name wrong requires more than that. It can also lead to the wrong party being blamed.
Again nit-picking, if there would be 28 institutes with almost the same name who are just as well-known you might have had a point, but there isn't so don't pretend it's confusing when everybody knowns where we talking about.
The fact you have a burner account attracting DMs and reports suggests to me that you're stirring sh*t up. I didn't mention left or right or sides.
I only really recognise left and right in terms of economic policy. It doesn't mean much to me otherwise.
I starter burner accounts a long time ago because not everybody plays fair, give lots of insight, if you think i'm stirring things up that's your democratic right. I in fact wasn't/aren't given the abuse/dm's reports etc. i receive now already, don't think accounts live long if it's a bit more extreme position.
The case of the Tavistock Clinic is complex and often misrepresented. What the main criticism of the conclusion was that the clinic was too under-resourced to provide the best care and ensure the best outcomes. There are various allegations against individuals which are arguable. I don't think it arguable that the resources needed to be guaranteed for a clinic like the Tavistock with terrible consequences if it was being allowed to fail. Other than the resources being inadequate, so was the monitoring.
That's exactly what the court says with a bit more words. why it is misrepresented according to you? the person that sued them was judged to be receiving the wrong kind of help, afterwards she felt like she didn't need help she has received, which included so medicines to adjust her typical gender attributes.
You've not been clear whether you are talking about puberty blockers or cross sex hormones; and anyway as I have said I'm not an endo so you are going to have to accept my declared recuse and lack of comment.
that's merely a technicality, in this case it was mainly about a special clinic for poeple with gender related issued that by the court gets told they are not doing a good job, that is the main issue, these are heavy medicine like others already pointed out with often irriversible damage so if someone gets enrolled into that process they got to be sure it's actually needed.
The science seems far from settled. No comment as I lack that knowledge - even though you claim I'm bulls'itting. I must not mention my niece either for fear of another round of aggression about that.
i think it's very brave to share that story about you niece, and also credit to you and all that, but i then see you or anyone else doing the same for that matter whether it's deliberate or not use that as some kind of emotional higher ground if someone disagrees with you i will call you out for it.
You can hold any belief you like, but thinking that holds preponderance over the views of mine or others I view as a mistake, especially as some of what you have supposed to be my views have proved imaginary.
i never said or claimed that, so i don't really see a point here.
