Society producing a neurosurgeon isn't useful to someone who can't afford to be treated by a neurosurgeon.
Nor is it useful to someone whose circumstances lead them to die of some more pedestrian cause before they ever need someone as specialized as a neurosurgeon.
Someone who can't afford it can still collect money for it, or society can decide to pay. They can also try to earn more money. And more neurosurgeons bring the price down.
So? Acting like Musk is making a point on behalf of LGBT people is so incredibly disingenuous it speaks to your character as a liar no different from Musk himself. There's a world where it's possible that could be what he meant, but it's not the one we are living in! Look around.
> Then what was your point? Do tell... it's of no consequence that something could be true. We are here determining what is true.
Look, learn to read FFS. This is a subthread where parent claims Musk is anti-LGBT based on the flag in the picture. Which has to be `(anyone who disapproves flag -> anti-LGBT) and (Musk is anyone) -> Musk is anti-LGBT`. And I am proving this sentence false from `(any LGBT is pro-LGBT) and (there's at least one L who is LGBT and who disaprroves the flag)` which contradicts the above statement rendering the argument invalid, specifically `anyone who disapproves flag -> anti-LGBT` part. Therefore the picture does not show Musk is anti-LGBT, at least not via the flag reasoning.
I have no problem reading. The assertion wasn't that Elon Musk is anti-LGBT because of that single tweet. It was that single tweet was another example of him being LGBT. The irony that you miss this while telling me to "learn to read FFS" is not lost on me and once again speaks to your lack of credibility in being a reasonable person about this. You cannot seriously suggest that Musk is engaging in criticism of the flag from a pro-LGBT stance because he's objectively not pro-LGBT. He posted the other day that his pronouns are "prosecute fauci" he's not an LGBT ally. Sorry to break it to you. But this is the state of things today. Read the fucking news or something, give me a break from your disingenuous BS.
I responded to the specific claim. You are talking about something entirely different, generalizing a lot, and equating individual policy preferences with giant groups of people.
The claim I responded to was a BS. The way you argue is a BS. If "the fucking news" are doing the same, then they are also BS, and I'd rather read sources recommended by people who actually understand what's written rather than read what they want to see between the lines.
No I didn't, and I disagree. Are you joking? The image, literally, captures every conservative grievance regarding the culture wars of late. And you think it's more likely that those needles don't represent the multiple covid vaccines that were hugely controversial amongst this same crowd? You are entirely not credible. You are making ridiculous and unreasonable posts all over this thread, trying to say that these things which obviously indicate what they do, must mean something else.
> And you think it's more likely that those needles don't represent the multiple covid vaccines that were hugely controversial amongst this same crowd?
Are you saying the drugs issue is not a "conservative grievance regarding the culture wars of late"?
This goes directly against "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. "
"Needle drugs" aren't a "conservative grievance regarding the culture war" and certainly nowhere near comparable to vaccines, which the image obviously reflects (the three boosters, then the fourth) and they also aren't intravenous...
I didn't stick with an easier plausible interpretation. Both of your interpretations are clear nonsense and you are not credible because you keep making completely baseless, specious arguments. If you find that offensive, stop making these kinds of arguments.
> "Needle drugs" aren't a "conservative grievance regarding the culture war" and certainly nowhere near comparable to vaccines, which the image obviously reflects (the three boosters, then the fourth) and they also aren't intravenous..
Just for you I googled up the top conservative reddit, and scanned it for topics until I hit vaccines or drugs, and drugs came up first.
The image speaks for itself. The needles are in the exact places where the vaccines go, which is also exactly where you don't put intravenous drugs. Either you are ignorant or foolish.
For what it's worth, I didn't know what statements were being referred to, and I like to keep up with tech news. There are probably a lot of others in the same boat too - definitely more then there are trolls feigning ignorance about him.
It's probably best to assume good faith from the commenter, especially when their username is "transcoderx"!
Since when is pointing to an individual's comments who is gay and criticising them (the person or the comments) "anti-LGBT"? I'd like to see the reasoning for that one. I thought it's because Roth brings up children in questionable comments, an awful lot. YMMV.
The next link's headline is "Elon Musk should apologize for mocking gender pronouns, says group that gave Tesla top LGBTQ-friendly rating" - why? Freedom of speech includes freedom to mock. Anyone wanting, nay, demanding their own pronouns is eminently mockable, trans or not.
Next link's headline is "Elon Musk's Twitter Reinstates Anti-Trans Activists on Same Weekend as Club Q Attacked". Aside from that being a shameless guilt-by-association fallacy, the policy changed after Musk asked the question "Should Twitter offer a general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam?"
Portraying a general amnesty as something targeted seems a tad misleading.
Next headline: “Not content with reactivating accounts that spewed anti-trans content, Musk’s Twitter has now banned a group that organizes to protect people at LGBTQ events from far-right violence.”
I had to do a bit of digging with this one. The banned group, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club, claim they were suspended for two tweets (from the link you gave):
> The reason given for its account suspension, an Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club contributor told The New Republic, was that it had violated Twitter rules against “hateful conduct,” with two tweets cited: a reply to the official account of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Mugging at gun point,” reads the reply to an unspecified CBP post) and another post with what seems like a retort to the perpetual conservative nonjoke about pronouns, “Every queer a riflethem.”
I don't understand why that would lead to suspension.
It turns out that they are part of Antifa and were involved in targeting a conservative activist[1][2]. Perhaps it is linked to tweets like the following by its leader? [3]
> For legal reasons, this is a direct threat. Enjoy your kneecaps while you've got them.
I can't tell. This tweet[4] from Musk in response to another thread by Ngo says:
> That is a disturbing story and very concerning that Twitter took no action, despite clear violation of ToS. Report in this thread for now.
So it seems possible that it may have been because those tweets were seen as threatening somehow, or for other violations that were previously, I'm tempted to write condoned but shall we say, overlooked?
* He critizised that Yoel advocated for Kids using dating platforms in his PhD thesis. It's a misrepresentation IMO, but the reasoning behind his criticism is not LGBT specific.
* This is about mocking pronouns, not about LGBT people. “I absolutely support trans, but all these pronouns are an esthetic nightmare.” - EM
* He reinstated a lot of accounts that didn't violate the law (free speech). Vice cherry picked some examples that were
originally banned for "anti LGBT" tweets.
* Activist account was banned for "hateful conduct". I don't know the context here, but that classification seems reasonable.
* He did delete the pelosi tweet, presumably once he realized it was false.
* The last one is about anti LGBT behavior by employees at Tesla, not by EM himself.
> The risk of bias in this research seems rather high. Of the form of "our believes are correct and everybody who disagrees is underinformed".
It's not circular reasoning like this. They asked a bunch of middle-school science level questions in related fields.
The interesting bit isn't that people who disagrees are misinformed. It's that they assess they will do better on the test, and bet more that they will do better, than people who don't.
