If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom?
Are you saying transsexual men will have to demonstrate that their penis and testicles no longer function before using a women's bathroom?
Just what are you afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything. I just correctly identified who started this bathroom legalization nonsense. I already told you about the common sense "rule" that's been in effect as a matter of reality, and the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, money, and political energy. Pretty much what Blair White says -- a passing trans who's actually sane and not the kind of entitled authoritarian that you find on the "progressive" left.
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read.
Yes, that's the nature of public debate and discussion. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt in such matters.
By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people.
It depends. How much money is spent as a percentage of all drug research spending? You have to allocate your resources sensibly, because resources are finite. That doesn't mean zero should go to less common diseases, but it's be stupid to use the equivalent of cancer-level research on a rare disease.
The amount of political capital being spent on trans issues is ridiculous, and it's precisely because the "progressive" left has achieved their goals and kept moving down the "oppressed" stack.
And transsexuality, at least in male-to-female transsexuals, also starts in the womb. So what's your point?
I'm talking about preventable birth defects. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying we should do genetic studies and cure transsexuals in the womb? Because I can't equate preventable birth defects due to a disease-carrying mosquito with not calling Bradley Manning "Chelsea".
"Virtue signaling?" Hardly.
So "Brave and Stunning" that South Park had to do a show on it.
You claimed that it was always done for laughs, and you were wrong.
I missed some cases in the current climate of virtual signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. But you didn't refute my point that you don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.
Do you even know any transsexuals personally?
Turns out that they are such a tiny minority that I don't.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
You sort of got it right. It's as I said in my last post: "But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills."
Progressives moved on from gay marriage to transsexuals. The North Carolina state law was in response to a city ordinance that "allows transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify".
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
I agree, but I don't agree with your definition of "harassment", and the general approach to "harassment" is to take the first step and ask the person you considering "harassing" you to stop contacting you. I'm not emailing transsexuals or confronting them in the street with their original name. I completely reject your goals to broaden the scope of "harassment".
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
Again, this "many". What percentage of men will date or marry a transsexual?
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont..
So fucking what? Google tells me there are 318.9 million people in the United States as of 2014. A tiny percentage of a very big number can still look big, but it would be absolutely foolish to waste an abundance of time/energy/money on such a small percentage.
That's way more than the number of people who have gotten zika, and look at how much fuss that's causing.
Zika is probably overblown too, but you are talking about birth defects here.
why the people who are so outraged don't say anything about transsexual men using men's bathrooms. Just more old-fashioned misogyny.
It's the opposite of misogyny. The concern is over sexual predators using women's bathrooms. And male-to-female is much more common than female-to-male, so it tends to get talked about more.
As for men dressing up as women always being for laughs, try watching Transparent.
Not for laughs, but for virtue signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. You don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.
If somebody said there name was "My Master", and insisted I call them that, would I be "rude" to refuse? I will never see Bradley Manning as a woman, and calling him "Chelsea" bothers me, so I don't.
Are you also going to say that transsexual women shouldn't use the women's washroom because that's a "special privilege"?
There's already a common sense "rule" around this that's been in play before transsexuals became the new oppressed class that needs to be saved by progressives and big government: If you can pass as female, use the female bathroom. If you can't, hold it and wait until you go home or use the men's, since you aren't fooling anybody anyways.
It's not even a question of "protected class." Go up to any woman and keep addressing her as a man, using male names and pronouns.
The difference there is that they are actually women, not a transsexual who was once a man and will never be a woman.
Everyone has the right not to be subject to your brand of harassment, whether they're transsexual or not.
There's no law against hurting somebody's feelings or insulting them, at least where I live, thankfully. I best you can be told to leave somebody alone if you keep giving unwanted contact.
Many men would, many men do.
That's not a percentage.
You would have been a riot in Shakespearean times, where all roles, including female, were played by male actors.
Old societies were repressive against women, so they made do with what was allowed. When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag.
Ah yes, the last refuge of the freetard libertarians.
Because it's so unimportant that people have freedom, we should just take it away for the feelings of the newest "oppressed" class.
For example, start making death threats, even to a third party.
I'm not making a death threat. There's no violence, at all, in what I'm saying.
Start sexually harassing someone with lewd comments.
I've covered this above. If somebody doesn't want personal contact, then don't contact them.
Now, lets get down to you. If you treat a transsexual at work the same way you have said you would treat Manning, even if it's only limited to not using their legal name, you can be fired for cause.
Fine with me. Unlike you, I believe companies should be able to hire or fire people for whatever reason they want. Many states in the US have "at will" employment, though of course there are those "protected classes" in federal laws.
And there are many more transsexuals out there than you seem to think.
It's actually been estimated at less than 1% of the population. You probably interact with many more for obvious reasons, giving you a distorted view.
That's the dumbest thing about this, all this energy and drama being spent on such a tiny minority. But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills.
You're the one throwing the legal book at me, hypocrite. I'm not telling anybody else what they can or cannot call Bradley Manning.
try to prove yourself as being better than others
No, I just insist on not following the herd or being pressured into following the herd.
you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals
True enough, as I'm sure most men do when they're not being politically correct. What percentage of men do you think would date or marry a transsexual?
You also have a fear of castration (many men do, you're not that special), and transsexuals are a problem for you.
Castration is especially repulsive, yes, but guys dressing up as women is also repulsive.
When you say others are delusional, you're projecting big-time. "Most of the world is wrong, it's only a special minority like me that see the truth."
*shrug* Lots of people follow stupid ideas. Most of the world is religious, too. That's not going to sway me.
And no, it's not "fucked up authoritarian bullshit" - it's enforcing people's right to live free of harassment, sexual or otherwise from people like you.
Ah, yes, "harassment", the new tool of the authoritarian left.
Despite what you want to believe, nobody gets a free pass interfering with another's fundamental constitutional rights.
Like my constitutional rights to free speech? Thanks, I'm glad you're so concerned.
You're not special enough to get a free pass.
I guess I'm not a "protected class" with special privileges.
Better be careful - the law in the US is catching up. Eventually it might make it into the 1990s.
Doesn't make a difference, since that's just a handle, not your name.
On the Internet, nobody knows your a dog. Online realms are not the same as physical space.
You're a hypocrite to demand that Chelsea Manning be identified by her first and last birth names, but you don't apply the same rule to yourself.
Nope, you're just trying to equate to different realms while ignoring the difference. If Bradley Manning logged in to Slashdot as BarbaraHudson, and I didn't know who was behind the handle, then I'd refer to the handle as BarbaraHudson.
That her name is Chelsea is not a delusion, it's a documented fact.
It's a legal fact. I can continue to use the old name because "Chelsea" is not a woman and never will be, and I became familiar with the person as Bradley, not "Chelsea".
BTW, here you would find yourself before judge for refusing to use a transsexual's new name, for sexual discrimination and possibly also sexual harassment; discrimination because you are harassing someone based on their birth sex, for the same reason.
Good thing I don't live where "here" is, because that's fucked up authoritarian bullshit.
I've never been known as any other name on Slashdot, so there is no other name to call me. I didn't change my handle, identify as a unicorn, and then expect everybody else to abide by my wishes when addressing me. Bradley Manning, on the other hand, achieved national recognition as a male under the name Bradley. If you want to go along with the delusion that Bradley is now a female and call him Chelsea, that's fine for you, but I'm not going to go along with it.
If my $100 (or however much) can buy me a cake, anybody's $100 should be able to buy one.
It still can. Just buy it from another baker who will gladly take your money.
That you (well, the bakery owner) care so much on how a cake will be used is actually YOU being politically correct, being one getting offended.
Yeah, not ME, the BAKER, and I'm not voting for the baker to hold office.
The ones being less Libertarian here are the bakery owner and supporters, not the gay couple.
No, the gay couple was offended that somebody wouldn't bake them a cake, and instead of doing the Libertarian thing and buying their cake elsewhere, they FORCED the baker to make it for them using the power of the government. You don't understand Libertarianism.
Just be happy you're still getting those, and 3rd party plugins for the rest of the stuff they fuck up that can't be changed through config. I would have abandoned Firefox a long time ago if it weren't for that.
Actually, a true Libertarian would object to the concept of "illegal immigrant" too, and would insist that people have the right to do what they want, rather than give the government more and more power.
I am not a "true" Libertarian. Neither is Gary Johnson. I have a Libertarian bent. I believe we have a national right to control our borders that we should enforce, just like every other nation.
Gary Johnson may not have made the best articulation of the issue, but he's sticking to his principles.
No, he made it clear he's sticking to politically correct bullshit, as it was offending hispanics that was his main concern. This is from the same "Libertarian" who thinks you should force Christian bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, and Jewish bakers should be force to make Nazi cakes. Does that sound Libertarian to you?
I was going to vote Johnson until he made it clear that he's a politically correct Democrat in Libertarian clothing, getting into a hissy fit because an interviewer used the term "illegal immigrant". I never did like his goofball expressions, but I was willing to vote 3rd party, but fuck it.
But more to the point lots of white judges are members of ethnic professional groups, no one accuses them of being racist, so only making it an issue when it's a Mexican judge in a group for Mexican judges is racist.
What white judges are members of white advocacy groups? Why is it so outrageous that a judge who is part of a Latino advocacy group would have a conflict of interest in ruling on a political candidate with outspoken and controversial views on Latino immigration?
Honestly, the judge should have recused himself if he had any integrity. Though if he had any integrity, he probably wouldn't be a part of that organization.
Doesn't look as satisfying for the spectators I guess. Remember the entire idea of the death penalty is not justice, but revenge and thus the feeling of satisfacting in the audience watching.
No, that's bullshit. Current society cannot tolerate violent deaths, which is why they stopped hanging, shooting, the electric chair, and the gas chamber, and instead went to injections that knock the condemned unconscious and then poison them.
Thunderf00t is trolling Musk fans, in order to stir up the comments.
That's baseless speculation on your part.
randomly lays into Musk for a supposed design flaw that was fixed "before we were born"
It wasn't "random", it was a tangent, and he told you exactly why: "This is one of the things that bugs me about people who gush over Elon Musk," and later, "For those who are like, 'Rah, rah, rah, Musk can do anything," uh, no."
Firstly, Falcon 9 was designed by a team of highly-educated engineers, not just Musk.
The Musk fanboys give him the credit whenever SpaceX does something cool, and he's responding to them. He doesn't claim Musk has designed the system or is even critical of Musk personally.
Secondly, his idea of the point of failure is just speculation
A quite reasoned speculation based on facts and analysis, which you or nobody else seems to refute.
Thirdly, he ignores the value of the innovation that Space X has achieved in regard to cooling the fuels, as if it's a worthless endeavour
He explicitly mentions a benefit in the video when he talks about it: "a trick to make it more dense, which means they didn't take up so much space, so your tanks don't need to be as big. It's a sort of weight-saving thing for the rocket".
he doesn't seem to realise that there's a trade-off between innovation and risk
He does. He's just trying to temper the enthusiasm of the fanboys. Part of this is probably related to the videos he did on the Hyperloop.
Each point was referred to - not the same as addressed.
Word games. There was plenty for you to respond/address yourself, as can be seen by your reply when you were called out on your name calling without any counter-argument.
I responded to point out that you don't have an argument.
That was you. Also, I'm not the person who originally responded to you, so if that person wants to take up the argument it's up to them, not me. The bottom line for me is extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone no longer has a functioning penis and testicles, what harm is there in letting them use the women't washroom?
Are you saying transsexual men will have to demonstrate that their penis and testicles no longer function before using a women's bathroom?
Just what are you afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything. I just correctly identified who started this bathroom legalization nonsense. I already told you about the common sense "rule" that's been in effect as a matter of reality, and the whole thing is a gigantic waste of time, money, and political energy. Pretty much what Blair White says -- a passing trans who's actually sane and not the kind of entitled authoritarian that you find on the "progressive" left.
You are posting in a public forum which transsexuals read.
Yes, that's the nature of public debate and discussion. You don't have a right not to have your feelings hurt in such matters.
By your thinking, the government shouldn't be spending money subsidizing the development and distribution of orphan drugs. Orphan drugs, in the US, are those developed for conditions that affect less than 200,000 people.
It depends. How much money is spent as a percentage of all drug research spending? You have to allocate your resources sensibly, because resources are finite. That doesn't mean zero should go to less common diseases, but it's be stupid to use the equivalent of cancer-level research on a rare disease.
The amount of political capital being spent on trans issues is ridiculous, and it's precisely because the "progressive" left has achieved their goals and kept moving down the "oppressed" stack.
And transsexuality, at least in male-to-female transsexuals, also starts in the womb. So what's your point?
I'm talking about preventable birth defects. I'm not quite sure what your point is. Are you saying we should do genetic studies and cure transsexuals in the womb? Because I can't equate preventable birth defects due to a disease-carrying mosquito with not calling Bradley Manning "Chelsea".
"Virtue signaling?" Hardly.
So "Brave and Stunning" that South Park had to do a show on it.
You claimed that it was always done for laughs, and you were wrong.
I missed some cases in the current climate of virtual signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. But you didn't refute my point that you don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.
Do you even know any transsexuals personally?
Turns out that they are such a tiny minority that I don't.
Until recently, there were no laws against transsexuals using the women's bathrooms. This is a post-2000 phenomena. It's speculated that this is in reaction to gays and lesbians gaining the right to marry - people are now looking for a new target.
You sort of got it right. It's as I said in my last post: "But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills."
Progressives moved on from gay marriage to transsexuals. The North Carolina state law was in response to a city ordinance that "allows transgender people to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender with which they identify".
WRT harassment, legally it makes no difference if the person was born female or became female. The same rules apply to both in the eyes of the law. Harassment is harassment, and not protected speech.
I agree, but I don't agree with your definition of "harassment", and the general approach to "harassment" is to take the first step and ask the person you considering "harassing" you to stop contacting you. I'm not emailing transsexuals or confronting them in the street with their original name. I completely reject your goals to broaden the scope of "harassment".
As for the percentage of men who would date or marry a transsexual, many do without even knowing it. The reason the percentage isn't higher is because of a lack of supply to meet the demand.
Again, this "many". What percentage of men will date or marry a transsexual?
So sure, it's a small number, but in real terms that's still 315,000 in each category, or 630,000. That's more than the total population of Las Vegas, and way more than Pittsburgh or Boston, or the population of Wyoming.or Vermont..
So fucking what? Google tells me there are 318.9 million people in the United States as of 2014. A tiny percentage of a very big number can still look big, but it would be absolutely foolish to waste an abundance of time/energy/money on such a small percentage.
That's way more than the number of people who have gotten zika, and look at how much fuss that's causing.
Zika is probably overblown too, but you are talking about birth defects here.
why the people who are so outraged don't say anything about transsexual men using men's bathrooms. Just more old-fashioned misogyny.
It's the opposite of misogyny. The concern is over sexual predators using women's bathrooms. And male-to-female is much more common than female-to-male, so it tends to get talked about more.
As for men dressing up as women always being for laughs, try watching Transparent.
Not for laughs, but for virtue signaling, "progressivism", and drama of the cause du jour. You don't see men taking women's roles in an average Hollywood movie or show.
If somebody said there name was "My Master", and insisted I call them that, would I be "rude" to refuse? I will never see Bradley Manning as a woman, and calling him "Chelsea" bothers me, so I don't.
Are you also going to say that transsexual women shouldn't use the women's washroom because that's a "special privilege"?
There's already a common sense "rule" around this that's been in play before transsexuals became the new oppressed class that needs to be saved by progressives and big government: If you can pass as female, use the female bathroom. If you can't, hold it and wait until you go home or use the men's, since you aren't fooling anybody anyways.
It's not even a question of "protected class." Go up to any woman and keep addressing her as a man, using male names and pronouns.
The difference there is that they are actually women, not a transsexual who was once a man and will never be a woman.
Everyone has the right not to be subject to your brand of harassment, whether they're transsexual or not.
There's no law against hurting somebody's feelings or insulting them, at least where I live, thankfully. I best you can be told to leave somebody alone if you keep giving unwanted contact.
Many men would, many men do.
That's not a percentage.
You would have been a riot in Shakespearean times, where all roles, including female, were played by male actors.
Old societies were repressive against women, so they made do with what was allowed. When men dress up as women in Hollywood movies, it's for a gag.
Ah yes, the last refuge of the freetard libertarians.
Because it's so unimportant that people have freedom, we should just take it away for the feelings of the newest "oppressed" class.
For example, start making death threats, even to a third party.
I'm not making a death threat. There's no violence, at all, in what I'm saying.
Start sexually harassing someone with lewd comments.
I've covered this above. If somebody doesn't want personal contact, then don't contact them.
Now, lets get down to you. If you treat a transsexual at work the same way you have said you would treat Manning, even if it's only limited to not using their legal name, you can be fired for cause.
Fine with me. Unlike you, I believe companies should be able to hire or fire people for whatever reason they want. Many states in the US have "at will" employment, though of course there are those "protected classes" in federal laws.
And there are many more transsexuals out there than you seem to think.
It's actually been estimated at less than 1% of the population. You probably interact with many more for obvious reasons, giving you a distorted view.
That's the dumbest thing about this, all this energy and drama being spent on such a tiny minority. But that's the nature of "progressivism", as the big problems are tackled you start making mountains out of molehills.
From Amazon with free shipping it's always going to get to you at the end of the range.
Years ago I used to get items within a week. That's a big part of what initially turned me on to Amazon, its fast shipping.
even though you have fantasies of power
You're the one throwing the legal book at me, hypocrite. I'm not telling anybody else what they can or cannot call Bradley Manning.
try to prove yourself as being better than others
No, I just insist on not following the herd or being pressured into following the herd.
you have a gut revulsion to all transsexuals
True enough, as I'm sure most men do when they're not being politically correct. What percentage of men do you think would date or marry a transsexual?
You also have a fear of castration (many men do, you're not that special), and transsexuals are a problem for you.
Castration is especially repulsive, yes, but guys dressing up as women is also repulsive.
When you say others are delusional, you're projecting big-time. "Most of the world is wrong, it's only a special minority like me that see the truth."
*shrug* Lots of people follow stupid ideas. Most of the world is religious, too. That's not going to sway me.
And no, it's not "fucked up authoritarian bullshit" - it's enforcing people's right to live free of harassment, sexual or otherwise from people like you.
Ah, yes, "harassment", the new tool of the authoritarian left.
Despite what you want to believe, nobody gets a free pass interfering with another's fundamental constitutional rights.
Like my constitutional rights to free speech? Thanks, I'm glad you're so concerned.
You're not special enough to get a free pass.
I guess I'm not a "protected class" with special privileges.
Better be careful - the law in the US is catching up. Eventually it might make it into the 1990s.
Fuck off.
Doesn't make a difference, since that's just a handle, not your name.
On the Internet, nobody knows your a dog. Online realms are not the same as physical space.
You're a hypocrite to demand that Chelsea Manning be identified by her first and last birth names, but you don't apply the same rule to yourself.
Nope, you're just trying to equate to different realms while ignoring the difference. If Bradley Manning logged in to Slashdot as BarbaraHudson, and I didn't know who was behind the handle, then I'd refer to the handle as BarbaraHudson.
That her name is Chelsea is not a delusion, it's a documented fact.
It's a legal fact. I can continue to use the old name because "Chelsea" is not a woman and never will be, and I became familiar with the person as Bradley, not "Chelsea".
BTW, here you would find yourself before judge for refusing to use a transsexual's new name, for sexual discrimination and possibly also sexual harassment; discrimination because you are harassing someone based on their birth sex, for the same reason.
Good thing I don't live where "here" is, because that's fucked up authoritarian bullshit.
I've never been known as any other name on Slashdot, so there is no other name to call me. I didn't change my handle, identify as a unicorn, and then expect everybody else to abide by my wishes when addressing me. Bradley Manning, on the other hand, achieved national recognition as a male under the name Bradley. If you want to go along with the delusion that Bradley is now a female and call him Chelsea, that's fine for you, but I'm not going to go along with it.
If my $100 (or however much) can buy me a cake, anybody's $100 should be able to buy one.
It still can. Just buy it from another baker who will gladly take your money.
That you (well, the bakery owner) care so much on how a cake will be used is actually YOU being politically correct, being one getting offended.
Yeah, not ME, the BAKER, and I'm not voting for the baker to hold office.
The ones being less Libertarian here are the bakery owner and supporters, not the gay couple.
No, the gay couple was offended that somebody wouldn't bake them a cake, and instead of doing the Libertarian thing and buying their cake elsewhere, they FORCED the baker to make it for them using the power of the government. You don't understand Libertarianism.
Just be happy you're still getting those, and 3rd party plugins for the rest of the stuff they fuck up that can't be changed through config. I would have abandoned Firefox a long time ago if it weren't for that.
I'm not a bible thumper. I just don't want to participate in other people's delusions, even if everybody around me is doing it.
Actually, a true Libertarian would object to the concept of "illegal immigrant" too, and would insist that people have the right to do what they want, rather than give the government more and more power.
I am not a "true" Libertarian. Neither is Gary Johnson. I have a Libertarian bent. I believe we have a national right to control our borders that we should enforce, just like every other nation.
Gary Johnson may not have made the best articulation of the issue, but he's sticking to his principles.
No, he made it clear he's sticking to politically correct bullshit, as it was offending hispanics that was his main concern. This is from the same "Libertarian" who thinks you should force Christian bakers to make cakes for gay weddings, and Jewish bakers should be force to make Nazi cakes. Does that sound Libertarian to you?
He'll always be Bradley to me.
Posting AC to preserve Moderations.
Nice job.
I was going to vote Johnson until he made it clear that he's a politically correct Democrat in Libertarian clothing, getting into a hissy fit because an interviewer used the term "illegal immigrant". I never did like his goofball expressions, but I was willing to vote 3rd party, but fuck it.
But more to the point lots of white judges are members of ethnic professional groups, no one accuses them of being racist, so only making it an issue when it's a Mexican judge in a group for Mexican judges is racist.
What white judges are members of white advocacy groups? Why is it so outrageous that a judge who is part of a Latino advocacy group would have a conflict of interest in ruling on a political candidate with outspoken and controversial views on Latino immigration?
Honestly, the judge should have recused himself if he had any integrity. Though if he had any integrity, he probably wouldn't be a part of that organization.
I'm going to go with Occam's Razor and just assume the guy was a dumbass with a big mouth who got a kick out of what he was doing.
All those things can be useful to a colony, not just for the return trip, which was the point under discussion.
They at least want the appearance of a painless death. As for your nitrogen suggestion, it's coming into play.
Doesn't look as satisfying for the spectators I guess. Remember the entire idea of the death penalty is not justice, but revenge and thus the feeling of satisfacting in the audience watching.
No, that's bullshit. Current society cannot tolerate violent deaths, which is why they stopped hanging, shooting, the electric chair, and the gas chamber, and instead went to injections that knock the condemned unconscious and then poison them.
Might get away with BeOS
Security by obscurity. Nobody bothers looking for exploits in unused operating systems.
Thunderf00t is trolling Musk fans, in order to stir up the comments.
That's baseless speculation on your part.
randomly lays into Musk for a supposed design flaw that was fixed "before we were born"
It wasn't "random", it was a tangent, and he told you exactly why: "This is one of the things that bugs me about people who gush over Elon Musk," and later, "For those who are like, 'Rah, rah, rah, Musk can do anything," uh, no."
Firstly, Falcon 9 was designed by a team of highly-educated engineers, not just Musk.
The Musk fanboys give him the credit whenever SpaceX does something cool, and he's responding to them. He doesn't claim Musk has designed the system or is even critical of Musk personally.
Secondly, his idea of the point of failure is just speculation
A quite reasoned speculation based on facts and analysis, which you or nobody else seems to refute.
Thirdly, he ignores the value of the innovation that Space X has achieved in regard to cooling the fuels, as if it's a worthless endeavour
He explicitly mentions a benefit in the video when he talks about it: "a trick to make it more dense, which means they didn't take up so much space, so your tanks don't need to be as big. It's a sort of weight-saving thing for the rocket".
he doesn't seem to realise that there's a trade-off between innovation and risk
He does. He's just trying to temper the enthusiasm of the fanboys. Part of this is probably related to the videos he did on the Hyperloop.
Umm, Gates didn't develop BASIC
I said for personal computers. I didn't claim he invented BASIC.
Gates and Allen just produced one clone among many.
They wrote the first BASIC for the start of the personal computer industry. First-mover advantage is real.
Each point was referred to - not the same as addressed.
Word games. There was plenty for you to respond/address yourself, as can be seen by your reply when you were called out on your name calling without any counter-argument.
I responded to point out that you don't have an argument.
That was you. Also, I'm not the person who originally responded to you, so if that person wants to take up the argument it's up to them, not me. The bottom line for me is extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
If you're going to demonstrate that my points are nonsense, address them rather than asking questions which draw attention away from the issues
They were addressed. That you chose to call shill instead of respond with an argument is on you. Responding to the argument now doesn't change that.