You didn't read my previous post. I am not up to date on the latest words, but I'm fine with a person being able to change their gender. I am just blown away by the defectiveness of your reasoning process though. Speaking of which.
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.
I don't think so. GP is simply making intentionally over the top comparisons to show a potential timeline of how this could go. The obvious absurdity of the comparison is not "transphobic" (whatever thst vague term means), and could have been any over the top comparison, they simply picked a topical one.
If this were slashdot, I'd be giving it a funny/insightful.
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.