All about Serafina (Split)

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:28 am

Edit:
Furthermore, a time-limited (last 24 hours) multi-engine search for the possible words that could appear in that thread (this forums name, my name, zucker, treatment, trans, transsexuality, transwoman, wife, equal, female, woman, pedophile and more) did not give any fitting results.
Really?, because when i type Kenneth Zuckers name, transexuality and words like that into google i get lots of results, some to wiki ect but others to a variety of sites that also have links to others sites or discussions.

I tried it with "kenneth zucker" and "transexuality" in a search and after checking about 20 pages i did not find a link to this site and we have been talking about him and it a lot.

That is only possible if that forum is exempt from a google-search, in which case you would have already said so and you would not have found it in the first place.
Extending the timespan changed nothing about that either.

Really, this looks more and more like a lie. It's just not possible to find that mysterious forum, even tough it should.
And if there is no evidence for something, it's normally reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist.
Actually id say that when somebody goes to so much effort, fails to find what they want and concludes its somebody elses fault it is reasonable to conclude they need help, you really are a deranged, obsessive nut job aint ya?.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:39 am

Really?, because when i type Kenneth Zuckers name, transexuality and words like that into google i get lots of results, some to wiki ect but others to a variety of sites that also have links to others sites or discussions.

I tried it with "kenneth zucker" and "transexuality" in a search and after checking about 20 pages i did not find a link to this site and we have been talking about him and it a lot.
In other words, you do not know how to limit your searches.
I explicitly looked for entries within the last 48 hours (and that was yesterday), yet i did not find anything.
Actually id say that when somebody goes to so much effort, fails to find what they want and concludes its somebody elses fault it is reasonable to conclude they need help, you really are a deranged, obsessive nut job aint ya?.
So you think that if you look for something and you can't find it, it is unreasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist?
Because i found nothing to back up your words, i can only assume that they are not true.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:44 am

In other words, you do not know how to limit your searches.
I explicitly looked for entries within the last 48 hours (and that was yesterday), yet i did not find anything.
Really?, you said you limited it to 24 hours in your last post.
So you think that if you look for something and you can't find it, it is unreasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist/
Yes its totally unreasonable.

Because i found nothing to back up your words, i can only assume that they are not true.
Fine by me its hardly your first self serving delusion.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:51 am

Really?, you said you limited it to 24 hours in your last post.
I later extended it to 48 hours to include eventual time zone conflicts. And i also said so:
"Extending the timespan changed nothing about that either."
Yes its totally unreasonable.
Oo...kay?
If there is no evidence for something, assuming that it DOES exist is unreasonable. By definition, since it is not based on reason.
Fine by me its hardly your first self serving delusion.
Oh, i am genuinely interested in your supposed thread. Mostly because i assume that you are just pretending to be tolerant there, but also because i am always interested in other peoples opinions.

Also, you have yet to date a defintion of the word "delusion". Because your usage of the words repedeately fulfills neither of it's basic three criteria.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:06 am

Oo...kay?
If there is no evidence for something, assuming that it DOES exist is unreasonable. By definition, since it is not based on reason.
Well then this thread does not exist because i just did a few time limit searches (from 24 hours upto 1 week) for words we certainly used over and over and it never popped up.

It did when i put the forum name in as well though.
Also, you have yet to date a defintion of the word "delusion". Because your usage of the words repedeately fulfills neither of it's basic three criteria.
Actually a lot of your beliefs are false, certainly fanciful and you use deception constantly. It could also be pathalogical as their are some strong indicators you suffer from Persecutory delusion.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:15 am

Well then this thread does not exist because i just did a few time limit searches (from 24 hours upto 1 week) for words we certainly used over and over and it never popped up.

It did when i put the forum name in as well though.
So you can't use Google. What a shock.
But it really isn't that hard. It took me about 60 seconds. Yet no search term i have used showed anything in regard to your supposed thread. Regardless of the settings i used.

Either way, you have provided zero evidence for your claim.
Actually a lot of your beliefs are false, certainly fanciful and you use deception constantly. It could also be pathalogical as their are some strong indicators you suffer from Persecutory delusion.
Wohoo, you are capable of using Wikipedia. Applause.
And another attempt at internet psychology.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:30 pm

Serafina wrote:
Well then this thread does not exist because i just did a few time limit searches (from 24 hours upto 1 week) for words we certainly used over and over and it never popped up.

It did when i put the forum name in as well though.
So you can't use Google. What a shock.
But it really isn't that hard. It took me about 60 seconds. Yet no search term i have used showed anything in regard to your supposed thread. Regardless of the settings i used.
Well i did say that putting the forum name in did give results and a search for 'serafina "starfleetjedi.net"' is extreemly specific.

Interestingly enough though in order to see the results for 'serafina "starfleetjedi.net"' you need to set the time for "all" because "Past 24 hours", "Past week" and "Past month" give no results and "past year" only shows a single result from SDN and a unrelated one from SFJ.

Even your link above is set to "all" and shows the same results i get...although in german, but if i click on "Past 24 hours", "Past week" and "Past month" in your link it shows nothing and "past year" only shows a single result from SDN and a unrelated one from SFJ.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:34 pm

Regardless of how you spin it, the fact remains:
It is impossible to verify your claim. You have presented zero evidence for it.
Thus, without evidence, the reasonable choice is to disbelief it.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:22 pm

Serafina wrote:Regardless of how you spin it,

Well i would hardly call a oddity we both get with the limited time search "spin" but its understandable you would want to see it as such.
The fact remains:
It is impossible to verify your claim.
Well i would not say impossable just very difficult due to the funky time search issue.
You have presented zero evidence for it.
True enough, and im certainly not going to help you locate it so you can ruin the discussion.
Thus, without evidence, the reasonable choice is to disbelief it.
Fine by me.

Im happy that i have learned about this time search thing on google even if it seems to be a bit funky right now.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:47 pm

Wow...how did you manage to split that up like that? I am sure i could post something snippy here, but why bother?
Well i would hardly call a oddity we both get with the limited time search "spin" but its understandable you would want to see it as such.
It's not my problem if you can't use Google.
Besides, you are ignoring my point: No evidence, no gain.
Well i would not say impossable just very difficult due to the funky time search issue.
Since yesterday, i have been running an automated search tool. Just a simple tool that checks forum codes for timestamps.
And it found nothing within the last 48 hours that matches the thread you describe.
True enough, and im certainly not going to help you locate it so you can ruin the discussion.
Then you are just dishonest. Not only did i say that i would not join the discussion, but claiming something without evidence is also dishonest.
Fine by me.

Im happy that i have learned about this time search thing on google even if it seems to be a bit funky right now.
I will take this as an admittance that you have no idea how search tools work. Hence, your inability to find anything is hardly surprising.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:54 pm

Oh geez, please lock that shit before we get to page 40.
Plu-eez. People? JMS? ... God?
Hello!!

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Thu Aug 12, 2010 2:53 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Oh geez, please lock that shit before we get to page 40.
Plu-eez. People? JMS? ... God?
Hello!!
Agreed.

User avatar
Who is like God arbour
Starship Captain
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Transreality

Post by Who is like God arbour » Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:11 pm

Mr. Oragahn, Kor_Dahar_Master:
  • Why shall that thread be locked?

    You do not have to read or participate in that thread.

    I mean, the last pages were only bickering between Kor_Dahar_Master and Serafina.

    If Kor_Dahar_Master now does not want to continue that debate, it will end anyway if the next posts of Serafina are ignored.

    And then the thread can stay open for others who want to tell their opinion.

    Maybe not now but later.

    Maybe a newbie will find this thread in the future and wants to tell his opinion.

    Necromancy is not forbidden here and the newbie does not have to start a new thread - in which all already in this thread provided arguments are exchanged again.

    Insofar I see no reason to lock that thread.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:16 pm

WILGA wrote:Mr. Oragahn, Kor_Dahar_Master:

Why shall that thread be locked?
Because one side isn't interested in an actual debate and that this train wreck hasn't gone anywhere for several pages, really?
It was half a joke.
You do not have to read or participate in that thread.
Oh, no problem. I'll let you enjoy another exchange with Serafina.

I mean, the last pages were only bickering between Kor_Dahar_Master and Serafina.

If Kor_Dahar_Master now does not want to continue that debate, it will end anyway if the next posts of Serafina are ignored.

And then the thread can stay open for others who want to tell their opinion.[/quote]

And be harassed as long as it's 100% what the other ... person ... wants to read?
Maybe not now but later.
Maybe a newbie will find this thread in the future and wants to tell his opinion.
Necromancy is not forbidden here and the newbie does not have to start a new thread - in which all already in this thread provided arguments are exchanged again.
Insofar I see no reason to lock that thread.
Of course, you can go down that road.
I decided to ignore it myself, but I'm surely seeing this thread being of no interest to anyone anymore. As you said, bot Ser and Kor use it to vent. And since I think I'd rather see a thread closed than members banned again since they can't really restrain themselves on this damned topic, the lock sounds like a good option.
You may say it's rare at SFJN, but multi-bans and a near 40 page long mud fight are equally rare, so I don't see a problem. I won't cry, and I doubt any newbie will find any interest in that thread.
And eventually if there's something solid to add, something constructive, it will have to be weighed by JMS just to be sure it's not just a reboot of the same shit storm.
I don't think anyone here has anything meaningful to add here that we could even care about. Hell, no offense, but even the long writings about German law and grammar bored people and JMS was quite politely open about it.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sun Aug 15, 2010 11:08 am

I can see that Kor and Serafina have not been kind to each other, but seem to have chosen to take themselves off for vacation. Which is good, because I'm tired of issuing bans. Perhaps they are done with their discussion.

At the risk of stirring the issue back up, I will issue another reply while waiting, primarily on the topic of how to argue effectively. If I have not missed it, I think WILGA promised me another post in our discussion on the topic.
Serafina wrote:And it still is.
And thus is precisely not a strawman. Case closed.
And if you could kindly explain to me how their appeal to authority is valid to start with, i will be amazed.
Validity is one thing; relevance and efficaciousness is another. In the case of appeals to authority, it is an age-old question: What role does expertise have in us knowing things?

Start here if you like - or you can take my word for the fact that invoking an expert is effective in argument. Even if experts are not necessarily correct, they are likely to be correct, which means that in order to argue effectively, you must address the expert with one or more of three possible lines of attack.
  • Attack the expertise of the expert; say they are not an authority. This is the method you chose, and it was a poor choice here.
  • Produce contrary experts. This will usually be the start of a long argument. You've claimed this repeatedly but have tended not to actually back this up.
  • Address the argument of the expert. Here, this is what you should have done. Zucker's claims of a high "cure" rate are hokey salesmanship at best, rather than scientifically rigorous conclusions.
I actually expected that other could make that connection as well.
Never expect that the people you're talking to now will make several loose connections in order to tie in what you posted a hundred posts ago to what you're posting now and fill in your arguments for you.
Either way, the "precisely female brain in a precisely male body" is a strawman you swallowed whole from our little trio here.
Actually, it is something I called you out on earlier. You said that transsexuality was as simple as having a female brain in a male body. I pointed out that it was a rather more complex picture than that.

It is not a strawman; it comes straight from what you have posted in the past, and what you seem to be inclined to returned to whenever given slack.
That is NOT required, since many elements of male or female brains have been shown to be completely irrelevant to gender identity.
An interesting claim, but have you at any point backed that claim up, or are you piggy-backing this on what I brought up earlier regarding the sexually indeterminate nature of many brains and the presence of numerous feminine brains in cis-men and numerous masculine brains in cis-women?
Yes. I have pointed that out - and Kor is ignoring it. As he always does if evidence contradicts his prejudice.
Perhaps he ignored it because you didn't cite a single one of those studies or a single source. You just claimed it to be true and left it at that.
There are, because Zuckers method is not used anywhere in Europe to my knowledge.
Is that supposed to convince Kor of anything? He doesn't think you're good at finding these things, and doesn't seem to think that Europe is superior to the US, either, both facts that would be necessary for this argument to work.
That is a case study
The case study I linked to is precisely the level and type of evidence you yourself have seen fit to supply as to the invariant nature of gender.
And it's not exactly long-term either. Even if we assume that he treated 17-year olds, his average adult subject is only 25 years old. Given the younger age of his patients, the actual number will be closer to 18-20.
Given that transsexuality is often only expressed at ages of 30+ or 40+ because these people grew up in repressive, gender-restrictive environments very similar to Zuckers "treatment",
Is it because of that? Blanchard disputes that. Blanchard sees there being two primary populations of male-to-female transsexuals, one class marked by childhood GID and presenting in early 20s, one class not and presenting later in life - and it's Blanchard's model that Zucker is working in, with his patients belonging apparently to the former category. 8 years is unquestionably long term. There does remain a question of whether or not it is long enough of a term, but Zucker's 1995 follow-up is certainly long term. Importantly, Green's study (with its near total lack of adult transsexuals) was carried out over a much longer term. It was not, unfortunately, substantially different in size.

Which brings us back to the problem of needing to either cite experts to defeat experts or address the experts' arguments directly. In the case of Zucker's studies, comparison with other studies, such as the one coming out of the clinic in the Netherlands from one of his frequent co-authors, shows that the tie between childhood GID and adult transsexualism is weak. It is unclear how weak; none of the studies have been large enough to express anything with great confidence.

But perhaps I should make a constructive suggestion. It has been some 15 years since Zucker's 1995 follow-up. Those young adults are now middle aged. If you e-mail Zucker, or perhaps his secretary, or perhaps the center itself, very politely inquiring about the center's long-term success, you might be able to acquire some data, learn what obscure publications it might be located in, or discover the reason for its lack.
Bravo, JMS. Another strawman, you are doing the same thing as Kor again - mixing up GID and TS without making any distinction.
As far as those working under APA guidelines are concerned, the diagnosis of transsexualism was entirely replaced by the diagnosis of GID with the transition from DSM-III to DSM-IV.

When Zucker says someone qualifies under a diagnosis of GID, and you say that transsexualism is psychologically inherent and invariant, Zucker's diagnosis of GID is him saying that someone appears to be transsexual as you have defined the term.

Understand? It is not a strawman, but a simple translation. The diagnostic criteria for GID include strength and persistence; GID does not mean "transsexual lite." In American psychiatric jargon, GID is the diagnosis for transsexualism.
I don't give a damn about Kors opinion.
Which would explain why you cannot argue worth one. In order to argue effectively, you should at least seem to be trying to convince your opponent.

Post Reply