I don't see how putting right wing bigots like this on here benefits anyone or advances our shared profession.
Your Logical Fallacy is: Ad HominemI’ve worked with more than a few LBGTQ partners. We’re all people and this Matt Walsh dude is kinda a malignant growth on the butt of humanity.
Ignoring the problem doesn't solve it. So far, this thread hasn't violated any of our forum rules and until it does it will remain.My point is that this forum is the wrong place for this type of post. Lots of other places on the internet for this. Moderators?
Why is an EMS forum the wrong place to discuss a relatively new topic that has important implications to EMS providers? Whether you are looking at the issue from a clinical or social context and regardless of how you feel about it personally, it is something that we all need to learn to navigate. It would probably help a lot to come to a common understanding of the relevant terminology, which we have yet to do and more than anything seems to be what the current debate is about.My point is that this forum is the wrong place for this type of post. Lots of other places on the internet for this. Moderators?
One aspect that as Emergency Medical Providers need to recognize in dealing with this class of Patients is that they suffer from a high percentage of mental illness, one being delusional.
Holding predisposition towards a patient population will inevitably result in treating patients with unnecessary bias. Thinking that a the majority of patient population is delusional is a terrible attribute for a medical provider to have and I would encourage you to take an introspective look at what sort of ways that can lead to substandard care.One aspect that as Emergency Medical Providers need to recognize in dealing with this class of Patients is that they suffer from a high percentage of mental illness, one being delusional.
If have a Pt who claims to be an Elephant and, wanted to prove he was an Elephant by showing me his trunk, was AO x3 with no obvious signs of physical distress would then taken to the ER for a Psych Eval due to his delusional behavior.
A Biological Man who claims to having the ability to become pregnant and/or, is having a miscarriage, is no different the Pt above, who claimed to be an Elephant and will be referred to the ER for a Psych Eval.
You have to remember that Mental Illness manifests itself in a mirad of ways and sometimes is a CALL FOR HELP.
Here's a LGBT Advocacy Group who cites a valid medical study showing such high incidence ratyes of mental illness in the LGBT Community.
Startling mental health statistics among LGBTQ+ are a wake-up call
I think carlos said it better than I could:I do not see how “Matt Walsh wrecks this dude who claims to be an EMT” shows how the OP is interested in having a legitimate discussion on the issue.
Your Logical Fallacy is: Ad Hominem
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.
You might not like Matt Walsh... you might consider him polarizing and bigoted... you might be right... is what he says wrong? If so, please explain how or why?In general, while polarizing and bigoted people can provide factual information, what is the point of using then as examples? They aren’t out there for the sole purpose of displaying factual information and leaving it at that. They want reactions, uproar, etc. Why must we sift through this instead of just having the discussion? This is not new ground, this guy did not come up with any new research or opinions.
Here is the problem... one side of the aisle will gladly debate the other side with facts supporting their case (and not bringing up facts that don't); the other side either refuses to listen to those facts, because they directly conflict with their opinions, or actively work to prevent anyone from speaking a perspective that they disagree with (see the recent Stanford Law incident, and how Riley Gaines was assaulted at San Francisco university after she was invited to speak, and anytime Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk are invited to speak at a college campus).In general if you want to have a discussion with people who may feel differently than you, bringing in a guy who many think is uh, uncool, is not going to improve the discussion.
Nothing. But in general appealing to someone with a history of making what I would deem to be prejudiced comments doesn’t bring much to this discussion.What specifically from that video was bigoted?
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced
It sounded like Walsh was being perfectly reasonable. It sounds like he gets called a bigot be cause it is a convenient ad hominem attack from people who are unreasonably attached to a belief and are prejudiced against those who hold other beliefs than their own.
We do agree that the OP's thread title is crap. "X wrecks Y" communicates a love of performative socially destructive identity politics being perpetuated by social media for people seeking their confirmation bias, even when the content doesn't match the title.