Well, for someone who claims to make a habit of ignoring me, Mr. Sandeen seems to have gone off the deep end...again. He has posted yet another diatribe in his ongoing attempt to take control of a situation he clearly is unhappy about.
He basically repeats the comment he made on my blog along with a photo of me he found online. That, of course, is a classic cyberbullying technique used in the hopes that someone might harass someone who prefers privacy. Oh well, no one said Mr. Sandeen has any sense of boundaries. Oh, and since I installed the "Live Traffic Feed" I have noticed the regular appearance of at least one person from San Diego. Hmm...do you think it might be someone waiting for the next post? Or to see if I responded to his comments.
After all, while he was "ignoring" me, he cyberstalked me by contacting my church, and my daughter. It is also rumored that he is the person responsible for the outrageous blackmailing of Susan of Enough Nonsense, which basically led to her stopping comments on transgender issues. Oh, and he seems to conveniently forget that I started this blog, in large part, because he made a lame excuse to ban me from posting on Pam's House Blend where he was known for his heavy handed censorship. That was one of the biggest influences in my decision to not censor this blog. It was only in response to a particular cyberstalker that I started the policy of moderating messages before allowing them to be posted.
Oh well, the fact is, I comment on transgender idiocy, and well, he is the lead idiot, so he can try all he wants. I don't comment for his benefit, but for the benefit of those who might want a less, well, idiotic point of view.
Oh well, let the fun continue....
Oh, and a thought that did occur to me... Mr. Sandeen has said a couple of things that led me to a theory. We all know he is on disability for mental issues (he claims bipolar disorder that started in the Navy) and we also know that he claims he was accused of being gay during his last years in the service. I suspect he started on hormones towards the end of his service. He was in San Diego, and right across the border in Mexico, hormones are pretty much over-the-counter drugs. That would have certainly lead some, based on appearance and stereotyping to suspect "gay" since he would have looked slightly feminized (he still pretty much is clearly a man) and it is well documented that while estrogen has a mood elevating effect for transsexuals, it can cause depression in normal (i.e. not transsexual) males. That sort of mood swing, which can be increased by a loss of testosterone, would very likely be viewed as "bipolar."
A competent therapist should catch this, but then a competent therapist would have never labeled Sandeen anything other than a crossdressing male with delusions of grandeur. Just a theory, but I bet Sandeen will be sputtering in denial. And let me add, I make no claim of being able to diagnose someone. I am just making an observation based on experience and study.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
17 comments:
(Comment part 1 of 2)
Oh boy! Post 153! Not creepy or obsessive at all that you've now written 153 posts tagged with my name!
Well, let's talk about your post.
Do you know what the straw man fallacy is, Jennifer? You claim to love logic, so you should know it, but let me just refresh your memory if you've forgotten.
"Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying."
How about what an abusive ad hominem argument is? Let's review that one too (if only for shits and giggles):
"Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself.
"...If the fallacious attack is on the arguer’s associates, or ability or background or personal character it may be called an Abusive Ad Hominem, although the attack on the arguer’s associates is more commonly called Guilt by Association."
Together they can be referred to as the Smear Tactic fallacy.
And, these two in tandem appear to apply to this section of your post:
"Oh, and a thought that did occur to me... Mr. Sandeen has said a couple of things that led me to a theory. We all know he is on disability for mental issues (he claims bipolar disorder that started in the Navy) and we also know that he claims he was accused of being gay during his last years in the service. I suspect he started on hormones towards the end of his service. He was in San Diego, and right across the border in Mexico, hormones are pretty much over-the-counter drugs. That would have certainly lead some, based on appearance and stereotyping to suspect 'gay' since he would have looked slightly feminized (he still pretty much is clearly a man) and it is well documented that while estrogen has a mood elevating effect for transsexuals, it can cause depression in normal (i.e. not transsexual) males. That sort of mood swing, which can be increased by a loss of testosterone, would very likely be viewed as 'bipolar.'
"A competent therapist should catch this, but then a competent therapist would have never labeled Sandeen anything other than a crossdressing male with delusions of grandeur. Just a theory, but I bet Sandeen will be sputtering in denial. And let me add, I make no claim of being able to diagnose someone. I am just making an observation based on experience and study."
(comment part 2 of 2)
It's two, two, two fallacies in one! (Kind of like an old Certs commercial!) Straw man in dreaming up a false scenario and arguing it, and abusive ad hominem in how you're attacking my character in your pulled-from-thin-air theory.
And there's a third fallacy found in that section as well called Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. It's described this way:
"Latin for 'with this, therefore because of this.' This is a false cause fallacy that doesn’t depend on time order (as does the post hoc fallacy), but on any other chance correlation of the supposed cause being in the presence of the supposed effect.
Example:
- Gypsies live near our low-yield cornfields. So, gypsies are causing the low yield. -"
Your theory about my bipolar condition and hormones pretty much fits exactly the format of the "gypsy" example given for the Cum Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc falacy: Autumn has claimed to be bipolar, lived near Mexico and must have accessed hormones there. So Autumn, had bipolar symptoms due to the mood swings hormones can cause.
For someone who claims to love logic, Jennifer, you sure do seem to love logical fallacies too.
And Jennifer, when you're supposing I'm unhappy about this situation of you writing now 153 blog entries about me -- supposing my "feewlings" are hurt -- you just don't have a clue. Jeez, it's another straw man supposition with a full-on, built-up argument based on a false supposition. Too bad you've apparently never embraced the message of I Samuel 16:7b:
"God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart."
Seriously Jennifer, you're just getting what you give -- which is a lot of attention -- except I'm giving it to you without the flamebait.
And really, Jennifer, how upset are you when you write your blog posts about others? I'm as upset as you get, no doubt, when people write about me -- which is just not very upset. And when I'm writing about you...well, you get the picture -- I'm not angry or upset. I'm paying attention to you so you can waste more of your time focusing on me instead of other things, including legislation, that may impact other trans people.
I'm not angry. What can you do to me? But as a Californian, you can do damage to trans people in our state if you ever begin focusing your energy outside of a handful of bloggers with significant internet presence and begin focusing on state legislation.
So repeating myself, I'm not kidding at all when I say I want more of your attention. And as I keep saying, Jennifer, as long as your focus is on me I'm actually happy -- you'll stay as ineffectual as ever.
So, keep me happy. Just keep the attention coming.
Yes, I know what a "straw man" argument is. Like you calling me a "slactivist." That is a clasdic straw srgument. I merely postulated a hypothesis. Your obfuscative reaction hints at its veracity. My srgument is baded on logical deductve reasoning. Yours is absurdEric HayashiEric Hayashi. BTW, cutting and pasting stuff you have no understanding of is not logic. It is, however, hilarious.
Now, let's give you some homework.
You have in these two commuted a classic fallacy, albeit one of the lamer ones. Name it. In Latin, of course. I've even given you a hint.
Really? You want me to do research at your command?
Pfft. I'll just wait until you spell out what you think the fallacies are I'm engaging in. It'll take more of your time that way to write it all out and won't waste as much of mine....or give you the impression I'm yours to command.
And hey, I've got my LGBT Weekly article to finish, and that's more important to me than wasting time doing research at your...request? demand?
Enh, who cares which it is.
I'll be interested in reading what you think the logical fallacies are when you get around to writing up what you think those might be.
Wow, talk about dense...
Am I really going to have to flag stuff as ?
What makes you such a buffoon is that you have no idea what buffoon you actually are. You have no understanding of the subject and it shows. I totally mock you and it goes over your head. I almost feel sorry for you, but dogoneit, you are just so pompous.
Can't say I didn't try. I guess some prefer looking foolish over self-improvement.
Yeap, Mr "Autumn" Sandeen is as dense as they come. It's very typical of Male Transgender kooks/extremist.
Hmm. I think a good way to pay attention to you might be to write a piece a week on you -- calling it something like the Jennifer U***** Watch.
I'm kinda liking this idea. I could highlight your frequent use of logical fallacies to make your points, especially your frequent "go to" fallacy of ad hominem argumentation -- especially the sub-fallacy of that one called abusive ad hominem.
I mean, even in your latest comment -- a thread comment in response to my previous one -- you call me a "buffoon." You just can't seem to control your ad hominem attacks...your name calling.
And then of course, I can couch those Jennifer U**** Watch posts in terms of Biblical scriptures that bring into question how you live out your Christian faith. You know, since you're a lay leader at your Welcoming church.
Such as, questioning how you square being a Christian in a leadership role in your welcoming congregation while misgendering trans women and engaging in name calling?
I mean, calling me a buffoon doesn't seem to square very well with I Corinthians 13:4 (Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant) and Proverbs 24:9b ([T]he scoffer is an abomination to men.).
I mean seriously, if there is a word in the scriptures that applies to your behavior it's "scoffing." You sow strife with abandon and joy, and your primary tools for sowing that strife are name-calling and throwing out flamebait. If that isn't scoffing I don't know what is.
Yeah, a weekly blog entry called the Jennifer U***** Watch seems like a good idea. You'll receive the attention you appear to me to really desire, and since you can't seem to leave most commentary about you alone it'll keep you busy and ineffectual in responding to that attention.
And, all in community can see your fallacious behavior in response to someone who won't engage with you in name-calling in response to your name-calling.
You've got my attention. I hope you appreciate it. And, I want your attention -- I'll be giving you a significant amount of attention in a manner similar to what you give me. You know, the quantity of attention that 153 blog posts that tag me demonstrate.
Sounds great. You get further exposed as the controlling man you are, as wellas further establishing yourself as a cyberbully and a stalker, and my traffic increases which will give even more an alternative view.
And no, I have NEVER misgendered you, as you are not a woman, and are certainly not a female. I have seen videos of your mincing and flouncing impersonation of your mysogynistic fantasy of womanhood. Seriously insulting in the extreme.
As to my faith, I answer to God, not you.
I would bet good money you have few, if any, actual women friends. I would pity you if you were not such a pompous fool.
Try reading Proverbs 26:4-5. You are a fool and I treat you as a fool.
(Comment part 1 of 2)
Ah. Scripture for scripture.
Well, Matthew 5:22b states:
"[W]hoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
(Whoops, you called me a fool! Fiery hell for you!)
And Matthew 7:15-20:
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits."
Seriously, my friend, I know your by your fruit, and your fruit is self-righteousness, anger, hate, and bitterness. And too, when you lash out, you sow strife with -- by your own admission -- personal entertainment often being your intent.
I'll let Proverbs 6:12-14 describe you:
A worthless person, a wicked man,
Is the one who walks with a perverse mouth,
Who winks with his eyes, who signals with his feet,
Who points with his fingers;
Who with perversity in his heart continually devises evil,
Who spreads strife.
Jennifer, you spread strife with intent.
It's painfully clear you don't understand what love is, as described in 1 Corinthians 13:4: you don't understand the message of 1 John 4:7&8:
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love."
You don't know Christian love.
(Comment part 2 of 2)
You don't live the faith described by Romans 12:16b-21
"Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. 'But if your enemy is hungry, feed him, and if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.' Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
You believe yourself wise in the sense you believe you are the arbiter of which transsexual is female and which are not; you make no attempt to be at peace with all men.
And hey, you've functionally declared yourself a judge equal to God, in that judging of who is and who isn't female. Oh, how the lesson of Romans 2:1-6 is lost to you:
"Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds."
In terms of Christian faith, dear Jennifer, we all know you by your fruit. You think lightly of the riches of God's kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God should lead you to repentance.
Sowing strife, succumbing to bitterness and anger, calling others names to include "fool," judging others as if you were God's equal -- if you are an example of how people in your church behave regarding Christian faith, and if you are a best example of what Christians in general are like, then I don't know why anyone would want to be a Christian or attend your church.
I'd love to hear your explanation of how you believe you live your Christian faith in how you behave online. I'd especially like to read why you, when you judge whether your peer transsexual women are female are not, are not behaving as if you are God's equal.
There is also a Biblical injunction against casting pearls before swine. So you will just have accept I am not going to engage in a religious debate with you.
Oh, and I pointed out not only yours, and Mr. William's, logical fallacies long before you discovered the the term, I created a tag for it. Of course I just newd to remember, you are quite deranged.
Well, I'll take that as you can't defend your behavior in terms of scripture or faith. I'll take it then that know you sin with your online behavior, and you do so without repentance.
I guess your poor practice of your Christian faith is your Achilles heel. I guess that's good to know.
As for the fallacy thing...really? I think my referencing of logical fallacies can be documented as going back to 2006 and 2007 -- 2006 being the year before your blog was constituted.
Check the dates -- check the author -- of these examples from when I wrote for the Ex-Gay Watch:
Exgay Stephen Bennett Appeals for Foley Media Attention
Alan Chambers: Transgender Issues Subject Matters Expert?
Statements of Conversion: Student ‘Trans’-formed By Christ
NARTH’s Rosik Comments On Apotemnophilia And GLBT Civil Rights
The Scientific Problem With Sex Dichotomies
I believe the name of the fallacy that your statement "I pointed out not only yours, and Mr. William's, logical fallacies long before you discovered the term" embodies is Suppressed Evidence.
As always, please keep your attention on me. I hope I'm still keeping you both busy and ineffectual.
You can claim whatever you want. I stand by my statement. I and no, you don't get control things here.
It is obvious that you have no skills in critical thinking. You regularly engage in blatant logical fallacies, while falsely accusing others.
For example, it is not a straw man argument if true, and it is based on logic and evidence...even if you don't like it. The same holds true for what you choose to call as hominems. They are not, if true and relevant to the discussion.
On the other hand, your carrying on about how you are keeping me from engaging in non-existent and imaginary activism is an extremely law straw argument.
And there is another you seem unaware you engage in, which I mentioned yesterday and which you have repeated again. And that is just one of many. Seriously, dude....take an actual course in forensics. You would learn to stop doing stupid things like the examples here, or you would flunk.
You're really not as clever as you think.
I'm clever enough that I'm keeping you busy focusing on me as I've said I want you to do. I'm clever enough to realize that you, in your need for attention, really don't have the capability of ignoring my comments -- you absolutely need to respond to me.
I mean, I'm being horribly transparent in my motivations for engaging you, and you, even knowing what my motivations are, can't seem to walk away and not waste your time engaging me.
You say I'm not controlling you, but damned if you're not doing exactly what I want you to do -- which is focusing on me so that you remain busy and ineffectual.
Frankly, I find it incredible that it's so easy to get you to waste even more time than you previously were wasting focusing on me.
It just shows how MANLY Mr "Autumn" Sandeen is showing. He's showing his true Male upbringing, male behavior and male mentality. He clearly is an example of why Men like Mr "Autumn" Sandeen should have been locked up in some mental institution. It boggles my mind how the US Navy let someone with a mental illness in. An FBI background check would have found his sexual fetish and banned him from joining the military.
2.11: Sense of change in relation to gender, subtype 2: "A feeling as if being of the opposite sex or a confusion
of ones own sex."
http://www.nss.nl.no/getfile.php/NLSH_bilde%20og%20filarkiv/Pulsen/Kunnskapsbygging/Tekstfiler/EASE.pdf
I'm just gonna leave this here. Note the use of the term "as if."
It seems like Mr "Autumn" Sandeen is trying to play Victim here again and trying to portray his SOB story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/autumn-sandeen-transgender-veteran_n_3806087.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices
Post a Comment