by Alien4420 » June 12th, 2011, 3:35 pm
I will reiterate: I am not planning to take hormones again. However, if I did, the risk would be little higher than it would be if I saw a physician, and, er, the "sex therapist" I'd have to see before taking a medication I first took when I was 15.
The risk of being offed by counterfeit estrogen is laughably low, particularly when compared to the substantial risk of deep vein thrombosis.
In fact, far more people die because they're unable to afford the bloated price of American drugs than die because they get counterfeit medicine from an overseas pharmacy. But more to the point, if you were genuinely concerned about the possibility that some unknowing transsexual would be harmed through self-medication, you would ask yourself about the benefits of a system that forces so many transsexuals to go the DIY route -- often with untested herbal remedies of questionable safety, or, lacking medical knowledge, in forms and doses that increase risk, or underlying conditions that make hormone therapy unusually hazardous.
It is the system here that is sick, not the offshore drugs, with their trivial incremental risk.
By the way, you speak of facts, and yet you yourself present none. Your own arguments consist only of unfounded generalities, e.g., maybe you saw an inadequate therapist. I did not set out to write a footnoted paper, but to post a reply to a forum, and it's hard not to conclude that you've chosen to attack my discussion technique, rather than the actual facts, for the sam reason you use so many ad hominems -- to deflect attention from the fact that you have no effective counterarguments.
That being said, what really astounds me is that you yourself have argued in the same generalities. The hypocrisy astounds.
You descend then into ad hominems and logical fallacies of the sort that a shyster uses to convince a not-very-bright jury, the kind that's been culled with peremptory challenges to have a sixth grade education and an average IQ of 85.
Do you seriously think that the folks here are naive enough to be convinced by "I highly doubt anyone here really cares about your life story?"
Ad hominems are for the simple. So are unfounded accusations -- not generalities or undocumented claims, as some of mine and some of yours were here, but completely baseless ones, ones that neither you nor I could possibly know, such as "nobody here really cares." Maybe folks do, maybe they don't. I don't know. More to the point, neither do you.
But, of course, the whole thing is a deflection, a red herring, and you sink even lower. You seek to wound. You use suggestion in a simpleminded shyster way. You use hyperbole, a lie if there ever was one, believing that by exaggerating the few facts I've given about my personal experience into "my entire life" you can convince the jury that I've done something bad, when in fact all I did was mention some facts that call into question some kind of establishment -- widely reviled in the transsexual community -- that you apparently wish to protect.
And you do that all for no other reason than to distract attention from the facts I've presented here, namely, MY OWN FUCKING EXPERIENCE AND MY OWN FUCKING LIFE. Because you have no real argument against that. You can't contradict it. All you can do is convince the good ladies and gentlemen of Fuckyourcousinville that my experience -- anecdotal, but damning nonetheless -- is of no interest, and a waste of time. It's an appalling performance, and one that does not speak highly of your character.
Oh, and what about "obviously very confused about what a therapist does"? Uh, right, yeah, sure, obviously, your evidence of that is? Oops. Note the "obviously." I can see the earnest moron-jurors nodding in assent at your remarkably silly accusation, because you said "obviously." "Gawrsh, if that thar fancy city slicker lawyer says that thar confunction is obvious, ah better say that thar confunction is obvious too."
The simple confused such tricks with evidence. The educated see them as evidence too -- evidence of disingenuity in argument. "Ladies and gentlemen, this fellow, who is seeking visiting rights with his children, is *obviously* a pedophile and a child-beating drunk (knowing look) (knowing nods)."
Uh, right.
Oh, I almost forgot all the stuff about fried chicken and politicians. Uh, OK, lots that has to do with sex therapy. Oh, and confusion, cynicism, and paranoia! I almost forgot, because you've stuffed so many insults into your little pillow of a post that it's hard to keep them straight.
OK, so we've established that I'm confused, cynical, and paranoid. Time to call off the argument, right? Because er it's off topic. Oh, wait, that's not it, it's because nobody's interested. Oh, wait, no, that's not it either. You're calling off the argument because you have none. None of that fancy dan evidence you accuse me of not having, none of the understanding that might allow you to present a cogent argument, whether factual or a matter of opinion. To present some kind of expertise -- you do have that, right? -- that might convince me, or others, of your position.
It goes with the ad hominems. "You're a doody and you lost so bad I'm *not* going to argue with you anymore."
In the words of the immortal Pickwick, you, sir, are a humbug.