• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Split Thread] Trans ideology causes school shootings

It COULD be malpractice, don't get me wrong. But I see no reason to assume something to be the case, just because the opposite isn't there in the article.
 
The story in toto is "patient reported disturbing thoughts to their therapist, therapist broke confidentiality and patient now criminalized. By the way it was another one of those tranny freaks."

I.mean we could take the story as reported or handwave it away, but to me that's outrageous.
 
That's still assuming that some parts in that conversation with the therapist were actually missing, just because the article doesn't quote them. Which is textbook argument from ignorance.

Plus, we have a patient who had been in "regular treatment" with that therapist for a while. Unless that therapist is completely incompetent, they would probably have a better idea than either of us of what the dude's mental state is.
 
HansMustermann said:
That's still assuming that some parts in that conversation with the therapist were actually missing, just because the article doesn't quote them. Which is textbook argument from ignorance.
Click to expand...

The hell it is. My argument is from the facts as presented. Any other assumes facts not in evidence.

Plus, we have a patient who had been in "regular treatment" with that therapist for a while. Unless that therapist is completely incompetent, they would probably have a better idea than either of us of what the dude's mental state is.
Click to expand...

Which is +/- what's being reported, or that the therapist has reason to believe this patient was actially credibly and imminently preparing to act.

If that were the case, I would e pect police to have mentioned the weapon and other elements showing actial credibility and imminence.
 
Ya I get that. Assumes facts not in evidence that are actually contrary to reporting. And that's what I've been trying to tell you.

How many other stories do you just rewrite because you don't like how the reporting sounds? Do you deny election results too, Lol?
 
Actually having a gun is a red herring too, since Iowa is one of the states where you can just go buy a gun without a permit or anything. It doesn't even require a background check. There is a 3 day waiting period for getting a permit, but that's useless, because after 2021 you can explicitly go buy a gun without a permit.

Even the age is no problem, since anyone 18 or older can legally buy a long gun. It's only handguns that are 21+. So the dude wouldn't even need to get a fake driver's license first or anything.

Essentially the dude could in any day just go to Walmart at 9 AM, get an AR-15 or a pump action shotgun, and still make it back to the school's cafeteria for that 11 AM plan. There is no buffer to say yeah, he'll probably be here for his next therapy session before he actually gets a gun.

Which also brings us to: why would the police even feel a need to mention that? It's Iowa not California. They think it's a person's constitutional right to go buy and carry guns if they so wish. Why would they even mention that someone actually has a gun, like it's something bad. Can you even imagine the butthurt reaction of their NRA-loving citizens if the police could even be construed as implying that someone was a threat because they had a gun?
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Ya I get that. Assumes facts not in evidence that are actually contrary to reporting. And that's what I've been trying to tell you.

How many other stories do you just rewrite because you don't like how the reporting sounds? Do you deny election results too, Lol?
Click to expand...

No. It's you who assume that if a short article didn't actually mention the contrary, you can make stuff up about what happened or didn't happen there. As I was saying, it's textbook argument from ignorance.

Or to put it simpler: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
Last edited:
Call it however you wish, I don't mind. But come back when your conjecture is supported by evidence, not by lack of evidence.
 
And I'll welcome you back when you've got more than "well I guess they forgot to mention all the important stuff that would make it an entirely different narrative".

Eta: Iowa just had a trans person shoot up a school earlier this year, so the narrative seems to be a public assurance of "we aren't letting these weirdos get a foot in the door".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom