d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Another Transgender Terror Attack
Prev1262728293034Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 92,954
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Feb 14 2024 01:25pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ Feb 14 2024 01:12pm)
Given your legitimate curiosity, I'll give a legitimate answer. Firstly, it's not about avoiding a stigma of "mental health", but that it historically has been viewed as a mental illness and subsequently treated as such (a point that most people either want to ignore or are ignorant about), and it did not "work". A simplified explanation of "work" in the mental health field is the idea that the goal is an alleviation of symptoms and return to a statistically normalized baseline (ie. To go from depressed to not-depressed, psychotic to not-psychotic, etc.). The belief that most people have in this thread is that the experience of being transgender, or of having Gender Dysphoria, is a mental illness that needs mental health treatment-- but specifically in a way that would result in people being comfortable and identifying with their natal/assigned sex in exactly the same way that you and I do. They are unable, however, to explain the rationale for that other than "Well it just seems wrong", and they are unable to articulate what effective treatment would then look like that actually "works" from their perspective (ie. that the person would no longer experience dysphoria and identify with their natal/assigned sex). Again, we have tried approaching it from that perspective, and those forms of treatment did not "work" in the same way that approaches in which being gay was seen as a mental illness (and the goal was to make people straight) did not "work".

As a result, the field has two main ways it can go: Either we just haven't figured out the right way to treat it as a mental illness, or it is perhaps not a mental illness and should be understood in a different way via a different branch of medicine (ie. human development). The former has been tried many times without different results (and worse outcomes), so it is not simply because of a "woke invasion of the sciences" that explains why the latter is the path the field has chosen anymore than it was a "woke invasion of the sciences" that made being gay no longer designated as a mental illness. It also seems that people in this thread are of the opinion that the movement to move this out of the psychiatric literature and more into a human development literature is suggesting that "nothing is wrong", which is not the case. We have different fields of medicine for a reason, and just because we're saying that the way that this is "wrong" is not best understood as mental illness does not mean we're saying that therefore nothing is "wrong". There definitely is something "wrong", but this wrongness is better understood as a developmental incongruence that we don't fully understand yet but have enough research and information to securely arrive at this conclusion at this time. Just like we don't fully understand why some people are gay, but are secure in recognizing that being gay is not a mental illness.


ok i understand what you mean now in the distinction.

im still looking at a picture of two massively overlapped venn diagrams, in which trans people are overwhelmingly clinically depressed. we may need therapies well outside of the purview of a psychologist to treat those (hormonal treatments, gender reassignment surgery, a rom com style makeover montage, etc) but the underlying depression is still there. and what is the cause of that depression? well it seems to me that it is far more extensive than just the mind/body disconnect around sex and gender. Blaire White is the unicorn that can go about life without extensive therapy with a psychologist, the vast majority require that.

the math of that just adds up to me as "being trans isnt a mental illness, but the vast majority of trans people are mentally ill, and need treatment for mental illnesses that exist because they're trans". perhaps 100 years of growth in societal treatment of trans people will change that.
Member
Posts: 22,437
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 96.11
Feb 14 2024 01:32pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 14 2024 11:25am)
ok i understand what you mean now in the distinction.

im still looking at a picture of two massively overlapped venn diagrams, in which trans people are overwhelmingly clinically depressed. we may need therapies well outside of the purview of a psychologist to treat those (hormonal treatments, gender reassignment surgery, a rom com style makeover montage, etc) but the underlying depression is still there. and what is the cause of that depression? well it seems to me that it is far more extensive than just the mind/body disconnect around sex and gender. Blaire White is the unicorn that can go about life without extensive therapy with a psychologist, the vast majority require that.

the math of that just adds up to me as "being trans isnt a mental illness, but the vast majority of trans people are mentally ill, and need treatment for mental illnesses that exist because they're trans". perhaps 100 years of growth in societal treatment of trans people will change that.


Comorbidity does not suggest a causal relation, and there are many groups/communities that have elevated rates of mental illness. Blaire White recently did a video, literally 4 days ago, about "going to therapy" and met with David Sutcliffe (he's not a licensed therapist though). Just funny the coincidence.

I imagine that societal growth will go a long way in reducing incidence rates, but time and research will tell.
Member
Posts: 92,954
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Feb 14 2024 01:42pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ Feb 14 2024 01:32pm)
Comorbidity does not suggest a causal relation, and there are many groups/communities that have elevated rates of mental illness. Blaire White recently did a video, literally 4 days ago, about "going to therapy" and met with David Sutcliffe (he's not a licensed therapist though). Just funny the coincidence.

I imagine that societal growth will go a long way in reducing incidence rates, but time and research will tell.


kudos for still hatewatching that grifter's content, tbh i just tossed her out as a PARD tag.

causal is a tough bar to clear. like if you're trans and your parents abandon you, and that makes you depressed, is being trans causal? your parents being terrible is causal, likely. muddy waters.

trans people arent mentally ill, but most trans people are mentally ill because they're trans. this is the kind of smoke screenery that keeps me out of the conversation most times.
Member
Posts: 5,377
Joined: Feb 5 2022
Gold: 2,200.11
Feb 14 2024 01:43pm
Quote (SBD @ Feb 14 2024 01:53pm)
But that's not what the conversation was about nor what the commenters were talking about. We were talking about home self defence and wild-life defence when camping and run up on / hiking when someone jumped in with what if you're surprised by 30 wild hogs.

This is why context and actually reading a thread of conversation is important..


Ya I know you were talking bout whacking hogs but I decided to make my comment relevant as to why one would choose a rifle over a shotty, especially when dealing with intruders. Having a wide range of gun platforms is essential to self defense.
Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 14 2024 02:09pm)
most people cant hit a deer over 100 yards even with a scope. what fantasies are people drawing up here? now we need ARs to take out school shooters a football field away? .


It's easier to hit a target over a 100 yards away with an AR, as compared to a shotgun. You even said that you were a Crack shot, so In the event that it was only you defending a school, I'd hope you were straped with a rifle and hi cap mag.

If you can see a school shooter approaching, the correct weapon is a rifle. If it's already in the school then sure a shotgun would be good aswell. It's weird that yall got your Jimmies in a twist over people prefering ARs for self defense
Member
Posts: 28,988
Joined: Jun 20 2007
Gold: 34.51
Feb 14 2024 01:45pm
Quote (zorzin @ Feb 14 2024 12:43pm)
Ya I know you were talking bout whacking hogs but I decided to make my comment relevant as to why one would choose a rifle over a shotty, especially when dealing with intruders. Having a wide range of gun platforms is essential to self defense.

It's easier to hit a target over a 100 yards away with an AR, as compared to a shotgun. You even said that you were a Crack shot, so In the event that it was only you defending a school, I'd hope you were straped with a rifle and hi cap mag.

If you can see a school shooter approaching, the correct weapon is a rifle. If it's already in the school then sure a shotgun would be good aswell. It's weird that yall got your Jimmies in a twist over people prefering ARs for self defense


Absolutely not for the average home owner / individual. A shotgun is absolutely sufficient and will be the most effective. You're not shooting intruders at 100 yards as stated the average person can't remotely hit a tin can at 50 yards let one when in a threatened panic situation.

Same with wildlife. You're not shooting wildlife in self defense that's over 100 yards away. That's hunting not self defense. I'd never shoot a bear or wolf unless I was actively hunting it if it's at that range.

And if you're in the forces or a cop or some type of private enforcement that's different and non civilian use in which cases yes there is obvious use cases.

This post was edited by SBD on Feb 14 2024 01:48pm
Member
Posts: 92,954
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Feb 14 2024 02:00pm
Quote (zorzin @ Feb 14 2024 01:43pm)
Ya I know you were talking bout whacking hogs but I decided to make my comment relevant as to why one would choose a rifle over a shotty, especially when dealing with intruders. Having a wide range of gun platforms is essential to self defense.

It's easier to hit a target over a 100 yards away with an AR, as compared to a shotgun. You even said that you were a Crack shot, so In the event that it was only you defending a school, I'd hope you were straped with a rifle and hi cap mag.

If you can see a school shooter approaching, the correct weapon is a rifle. If it's already in the school then sure a shotgun would be good aswell. It's weird that yall got your Jimmies in a twist over people prefering ARs for self defense


what i find funny is if i say "you dont need a tricked out AR" i instantly get "shotguns and handguns dont work", as if ARs are the only rifles (let alone semiautomatic rifles) in existence.

its ironic given that NRA gun nuts always use this against leftists, "an AR is just a fancy looking semi automatic rifle". but then pretend if ARs are banned that they'll lose a whole category of effectiveness.

if the govt banned ARs you could still buy a semi automatic rifle that accepts the same capacity clip and rate of fire of any AR. ARs are just for looks, which is what ive always been saying. i never said handguns or shotguns are better at 100 yards, or any other nonsense.

i just laugh because 50% of the people who i know who own ARs are terrible shots. they'd be better off using a box of .22 at the range to get better, but they dont, they waste hundreds on boxes of 556
Member
Posts: 28,988
Joined: Jun 20 2007
Gold: 34.51
Feb 14 2024 02:17pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 14 2024 01:00pm)
what i find funny is if i say "you dont need a tricked out AR" i instantly get "shotguns and handguns dont work", as if ARs are the only rifles (let alone semiautomatic rifles) in existence.

its ironic given that NRA gun nuts always use this against leftists, "an AR is just a fancy looking semi automatic rifle". but then pretend if ARs are banned that they'll lose a whole category of effectiveness.

if the govt banned ARs you could still buy a semi automatic rifle that accepts the same capacity clip and rate of fire of any AR. ARs are just for looks, which is what ive always been saying. i never said handguns or shotguns are better at 100 yards, or any other nonsense.

i just laugh because 50% of the people who i know who own ARs are terrible shots. they'd be better off using a box of .22 at the range to get better, but they dont, they waste hundreds on boxes of 556


Canada was looking at banning most semi-autos under C21. Again it would have little to no impact on the average user, some hunters do use semi-autos up here but few and far between. Few still use the old SKS since its just a .308.

Almost every single person I know uses a bolt and every wild life guide has a bolt and a shorty pump with a buck or slug for the tent.

I don't honestly know how it would ever be enforced / the buyback program would even work.

We cant get a 45-70 round up here, they dont sell them, maybe that would be popular in a lever action for your quad, skidoo, tent but its not an option unless you ship in your own ammo which is a pain.

This post was edited by SBD on Feb 14 2024 02:21pm
Member
Posts: 92,954
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,299.94
Feb 14 2024 03:15pm
Quote (SBD @ Feb 14 2024 02:17pm)
Canada was looking at banning most semi-autos under C21. Again it would have little to no impact on the average user, some hunters do use semi-autos up here but few and far between. Few still use the old SKS since its just a .308.

Almost every single person I know uses a bolt and every wild life guide has a bolt and a shorty pump with a buck or slug for the tent.

I don't honestly know how it would ever be enforced / the buyback program would even work.

We cant get a 45-70 round up here, they dont sell them, maybe that would be popular in a lever action for your quad, skidoo, tent but its not an option unless you ship in your own ammo which is a pain.


i shot a henry 45-70 lever, it was fun but i dont have fears of bears near me so i dont see a use personally. if i ever go elk hunting i'll use my 300-winmag.

enforcement and buyback is why it will never happen here in my lifetime. all they can logically do is ban sale, manufacture, and resale. then wait for them all to rust or get confiscated for crimes and illegal sales. even thats unlikely.
Member
Posts: 5,377
Joined: Feb 5 2022
Gold: 2,200.11
Feb 14 2024 03:20pm
Quote (SBD @ Feb 14 2024 02:45pm)
Absolutely not for the average home owner / individual. A shotgun is absolutely sufficient and will be the most effective. You're not shooting intruders at 100 yards as stated the average person can't remotely hit a tin can at 50 yards let one when in a threatened


My overall point is that if a school shooters rocking an AR and I'm somehow in the school, I'd want an AR aswell. These are fantastic weapons that scare liberals because the media deems them "deadly assault rifles" AR is a brand.

With the massive amount of guns in the US its simply too easy for criminals to get these weapons. Most school shooters are using rifles (source: my ass) and if you're confronting said individual, you'll 100% want a deadly assault weapon aswell.
Member
Posts: 28,988
Joined: Jun 20 2007
Gold: 34.51
Feb 14 2024 03:21pm
Quote (thesnipa @ Feb 14 2024 02:15pm)
i shot a henry 45-70 lever, it was fun but i dont have fears of bears near me so i dont see a use personally. if i ever go elk hunting i'll use my 300-winmag.

enforcement and buyback is why it will never happen here in my lifetime. all they can logically do is ban sale, manufacture, and resale. then wait for them all to rust or get confiscated for crimes and illegal sales. even thats unlikely.


I just use a 30-06 and keep a shotgun for the tent.

My Browning X-Bolt Hell's Canyon has been a great rifle, I picked it up for less than $1,500 CAD at the time.

Enjoy it more than my Rugers.

This post was edited by SBD on Feb 14 2024 03:22pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1262728293034Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll