Waco1947 and Satan - "Did God really say...."Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:Please explain Matt 19:5. Back in the day, "Red Letter Christians" celebrated a sub-Scripture of just Jesus' words, so please give us the exegesis for this saying of Jesus. Nah, this post is about gender identity. Bring your Bible to the table and show me Jesus' comments on the subject.Waco1947 said:I have addressed this idiocy about the Scripture many times.Mothra said:Your error is believing that it is somehow loving to abandon God's commands and precepts.Waco1947 said:I got it from Jesus' love commandment. "You love the Lord God with all your heart" So I am asking about your heart "is it in tune with the love commandment?"Jack Bauer said:Which **** list did you get that BS from - Buzzfeed or Vox??Waco1947 said:
Aw the bigotry indeed, what about your heart?
Show me a passage in which gender identity was ever a problem to Jesus.
P, yes, "Women may not teach men." but Jesus . . .NO.
Calvin Klein: Budweiser, hold my beer!
37,257 Views |
449 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by whiterock
That is the summary of the Fall. Man wanting to determine good and evil vs. G-d. The story of Scripture from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 is about Man wanting to be G-d.
1. He wasn't asked.Harrison Bergeron said:Why? Why did he not discuss a husband divorcing his husband?Waco1947 said:Full context Mt 19 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"Harrison Bergeron said:So you are going to ignore? Maybe read Matt 19:5 and would love your thoughts.Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:Please explain Matt 19:5. Back in the day, "Red Letter Christians" celebrated a sub-Scripture of just Jesus' words, so please give us the exegesis for this saying of Jesus. Nah, this post is about gender identity. Bring your Bible to the table and show me Jesus' comments on the subject.Waco1947 said:I have addressed this idiocy about the Scripture many times.Mothra said:Your error is believing that it is somehow loving to abandon God's commands and precepts.Waco1947 said:I got it from Jesus' love commandment. "You love the Lord God with all your heart" So I am asking about your heart "is it in tune with the love commandment?"Jack Bauer said:Which **** list did you get that BS from - Buzzfeed or Vox??Waco1947 said:
Aw the bigotry indeed, what about your heart?
Show me a passage in which gender identity was ever a problem to Jesus.
P, yes, "Women may not teach men." but Jesus . . .NO.
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Clearly Jesus is addressing divorce not sexuality.
The question is asked with reference to heterosexual marriage "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" therefore Jesus responds in kind about heterosexual marriage.
2. Gay marriage didn't happen, so the question would have been ridiculous.
3. Jesus' thoughts on the matter are not authoritative for public policy decisions made by a secular government.
As a sidenote, are we going to ban from school libraries all the books that mention divorce? Odd that you would pick a passage that condemns the conduct of hundreds of millions of heterosexual Christians to prove that trans genderism/homosexuality is a sin. The main takeaway I get is that we are all sinners and the Christian right has a real problem with the whole speck/log issue.
At the core of revelations is the concept of deceit. That's actually what the anti Christ is. It's not black and white like "hey you should support evil". It's more like "what you think of as evil is actually good".Harrison Bergeron said:
That is the summary of the Fall. Man wanting to determine good and evil vs. G-d. The story of Scripture from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22 is about Man wanting to be G-d.
What's really pushing the leftist nonsense and trans stuff is ESG/DEI financial racketeering which started up back in the late 2000's.
It's a mechanism where they've created a "moral purity" system that by default is anti Christian. Any system that seeks to work like ESG has to oppose normality by default and normal is a Judeo-Christian society. They're trying to normalize and enlist people into accepting what's abnormal, not because the creators buy into it, but because people buying into it builds their ability to racketeer. It's deceit.
1. That assumes that Jesus' teachings was limited to responding to questions.Frank Galvin said:1. He wasn't asked.Harrison Bergeron said:Why? Why did he not discuss a husband divorcing his husband?Waco1947 said:Full context Mt 19 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"Harrison Bergeron said:So you are going to ignore? Maybe read Matt 19:5 and would love your thoughts.Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:Please explain Matt 19:5. Back in the day, "Red Letter Christians" celebrated a sub-Scripture of just Jesus' words, so please give us the exegesis for this saying of Jesus. Nah, this post is about gender identity. Bring your Bible to the table and show me Jesus' comments on the subject.Waco1947 said:I have addressed this idiocy about the Scripture many times.Mothra said:Your error is believing that it is somehow loving to abandon God's commands and precepts.Waco1947 said:I got it from Jesus' love commandment. "You love the Lord God with all your heart" So I am asking about your heart "is it in tune with the love commandment?"Jack Bauer said:Which **** list did you get that BS from - Buzzfeed or Vox??Waco1947 said:
Aw the bigotry indeed, what about your heart?
Show me a passage in which gender identity was ever a problem to Jesus.
P, yes, "Women may not teach men." but Jesus . . .NO.
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Clearly Jesus is addressing divorce not sexuality.
The question is asked with reference to heterosexual marriage "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" therefore Jesus responds in kind about heterosexual marriage.
2. Gay marriage didn't happen, so the question would have been ridiculous.
3. Jesus' thoughts on the matter are not authoritative for public policy decisions made by a secular government.
As a sidenote, are we going to ban from school libraries all the books that mention divorce? Odd that you would pick a passage that condemns the conduct of hundreds of millions of heterosexual Christians to prove that trans genderism/homosexuality is a sin. The main takeaway I get is that we are all sinners and the Christian right has a real problem with the whole speck/log issue.
2. Jesus entire ministry was a radical reforming not only G-d's relationship with Israel but also G-d's relationship with Humanity. So if G-d's plan was always to equate male-male love / marriage with male-female love / marriage and the former is equally accepted in celebrated in G-d's eyes, then it is reasonable to think Jesus would have reinterpreted marriage vs. ANE understanding as he reinterpreted the entire Hebrew Bible
3. Okay. The context was sin.
I am not sure what the last bloviation means. Maybe it was not obvious we were discussing gay month and not divorce. I think the log you miss that is painfully obvious is when there is a Divorce Pride Month or Greed Pride Month or Lust Pride month, etc., you likely would see a similar response. But the continued distraction and whataboutism when logic fails continues to entertain.
Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually and morally wrong side of this.
Waco1947 said:I define by the words of "12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month" Bigotry is written all over that postHarrison Bergeron said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
So you can't define the bigoted terms you use to slander anyone with a diverse opinion?
One man's "bigotry" is another man's comedy. Who are you to label?
D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe it was ignorance, maybe it was stupidity, maybe it was intentional, but you ignored the simple quetions presented, so I will ask again:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I do not always agree with you, but I respect your opions and points as almost always well thought out. Genuinely curious:Porteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Porteroso said:
There is certainly a lot of unwarranted outrage over ads like this. Personally it's a little disgusting, it bewilders me, and I will probably avoid Calvin Klein products from now on, but some of you take it far beyond that. I also think this woman mutilated her body, but I can't be certain that he/she/they isn't happy. This is adults exercising freedoms. Not an opportunity to trash people.
It is easy for disgust to turn into hate, and that leads to problems. It sort of justifies the trans lifestyle in these people's minds. In some weird way. I think it's good to talk of the harm mutilating one's body can bring, but we can do that while still respecting these human beings. Someone trying to change genders doesn't need hate, they need help.
The standard for acceptable protest/boycott actions is up to and including what you would do but not beyond. Got it.
I just hold the above opinion, that the extreme outrage and hate are unwarranted and bad. Is it ok for me to have this opinion, or maybe does my opinion hurt you in some way?
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
There is extreme outrage over these sorts of societal issues from both sides. People tweet and twit about them like it is the end of America. I know it is just an act from many of them, but it is often an extreme response in my opinion.
To 2, I do not know of political hate towards too many groups at all, from either political party. I don't think I mentioned politics, I'm talking about this as a societal issue.
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
I thought you wanted a real answer. Do you not have a dictionary in your house?
In fairness, people, including you, tend to have definitions that may not entirely match Mr. Webster's.
An example? I don't recall making up alternative definitions of words. Surely you have something in mind? I hope it's "zealot."
The dictionary definition of a word does not always capture the nuances that individuals and groups apply to them. For example, you seem to think that "extreme outrage" involves angry posts on Twitter while others think "extreme outrage" is better exemplified by burning the house down. In fairness, there's nothing wrong with asking you to clarify what you mean by particular terms.
Are you saying the general conservative societal response to transgendered people is limited to tweets? Straw something or other.
Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe it was ignorance, maybe it was stupidity, maybe it was intentional, but you ignored the simple quetions presented, so I will ask again:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I do not always agree with you, but I respect your opions and points as almost always well thought out. Genuinely curious:Porteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Porteroso said:
There is certainly a lot of unwarranted outrage over ads like this. Personally it's a little disgusting, it bewilders me, and I will probably avoid Calvin Klein products from now on, but some of you take it far beyond that. I also think this woman mutilated her body, but I can't be certain that he/she/they isn't happy. This is adults exercising freedoms. Not an opportunity to trash people.
It is easy for disgust to turn into hate, and that leads to problems. It sort of justifies the trans lifestyle in these people's minds. In some weird way. I think it's good to talk of the harm mutilating one's body can bring, but we can do that while still respecting these human beings. Someone trying to change genders doesn't need hate, they need help.
The standard for acceptable protest/boycott actions is up to and including what you would do but not beyond. Got it.
I just hold the above opinion, that the extreme outrage and hate are unwarranted and bad. Is it ok for me to have this opinion, or maybe does my opinion hurt you in some way?
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
There is extreme outrage over these sorts of societal issues from both sides. People tweet and twit about them like it is the end of America. I know it is just an act from many of them, but it is often an extreme response in my opinion.
To 2, I do not know of political hate towards too many groups at all, from either political party. I don't think I mentioned politics, I'm talking about this as a societal issue.
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
I thought you wanted a real answer. Do you not have a dictionary in your house?
In fairness, people, including you, tend to have definitions that may not entirely match Mr. Webster's.
An example? I don't recall making up alternative definitions of words. Surely you have something in mind? I hope it's "zealot."
The dictionary definition of a word does not always capture the nuances that individuals and groups apply to them. For example, you seem to think that "extreme outrage" involves angry posts on Twitter while others think "extreme outrage" is better exemplified by burning the house down. In fairness, there's nothing wrong with asking you to clarify what you mean by particular terms.
Are you saying the general conservative societal response to transgendered people is limited to tweets? Straw something or other.
I haven't analyzed the "general conservative response to transgendered people," or as they are perhaps more appropriately described, people who suffer from gender dysphoria.
You were complaining about social media.
That aside, it still remains fair to ask you what you mean by particular terms.
That would be a moderately accurate statement. There are so few trannies (.5% or so) that one rarely actually encounters them in day to day life. The primary exposure the ordinary person gets is, indeed, via media of one form or the other, in no small part because elite culture romanticizes the phenomenon. The newer exposure is on social media directly from trannies themselves, because they believe their lifestyle has become normalized and so they flaunt their wares, so to speak. Ordinary people might grumble quietly about that to themselves or within small groups of close friends, but there really isn't much public outrage, in the classical sense, until we start seeing education establishments exposing kids to it as the natural order of things. Even then, the public conservative pushback is limited primarily to activists (to the quiet relief of a far larger number of people.) The explosion of public outrage happens spontaneously when corporate America starts pandering to it. It's one thing to go fight city hall. That takes time and effort. But buying a different brand of product is as easy as drawing a dollar bill out of one's pocket.Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe it was ignorance, maybe it was stupidity, maybe it was intentional, but you ignored the simple quetions presented, so I will ask again:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I do not always agree with you, but I respect your opions and points as almost always well thought out. Genuinely curious:Porteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Porteroso said:
There is certainly a lot of unwarranted outrage over ads like this. Personally it's a little disgusting, it bewilders me, and I will probably avoid Calvin Klein products from now on, but some of you take it far beyond that. I also think this woman mutilated her body, but I can't be certain that he/she/they isn't happy. This is adults exercising freedoms. Not an opportunity to trash people.
It is easy for disgust to turn into hate, and that leads to problems. It sort of justifies the trans lifestyle in these people's minds. In some weird way. I think it's good to talk of the harm mutilating one's body can bring, but we can do that while still respecting these human beings. Someone trying to change genders doesn't need hate, they need help.
The standard for acceptable protest/boycott actions is up to and including what you would do but not beyond. Got it.
I just hold the above opinion, that the extreme outrage and hate are unwarranted and bad. Is it ok for me to have this opinion, or maybe does my opinion hurt you in some way?
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
There is extreme outrage over these sorts of societal issues from both sides. People tweet and twit about them like it is the end of America. I know it is just an act from many of them, but it is often an extreme response in my opinion.
To 2, I do not know of political hate towards too many groups at all, from either political party. I don't think I mentioned politics, I'm talking about this as a societal issue.
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
I thought you wanted a real answer. Do you not have a dictionary in your house?
In fairness, people, including you, tend to have definitions that may not entirely match Mr. Webster's.
An example? I don't recall making up alternative definitions of words. Surely you have something in mind? I hope it's "zealot."
The dictionary definition of a word does not always capture the nuances that individuals and groups apply to them. For example, you seem to think that "extreme outrage" involves angry posts on Twitter while others think "extreme outrage" is better exemplified by burning the house down. In fairness, there's nothing wrong with asking you to clarify what you mean by particular terms.
Are you saying the general conservative societal response to transgendered people is limited to tweets? Straw something or other.
that's the normal progression of things. The left embraces something crazy in the name of "inclusion." The ordinary person typically shrugs & says "well, that's crazy, but hey, it's a free country, so whatever...." But the left doesn't just want space to be. It wants to own the stage. So it starts gaslighting and kafkatrapping and finally organizing cancellation of anyone who dares question the "something." Then the ordinary person correctly realizes there is not just a cost to speaking out, but actual risk: accidentally making a truthful statement about the something...family divisions, friendship loss, job consequences or loss....so the seething starts. Then, finally, the "something" perceives lack of public pushback as a signal they've won the argument, and steps out in the shoes of hegemony to demand not just compliance but enthusiastic participation. The silent majority finally stands up & said "I don't think so, Tim," prompting the left to run around holding its panties in the air railing about all the -ism and -phobery going on.
Reality is, one can usually assume anyone using the words "tolerance" or "inclusivity" or "diversity" to be making the case for exactly the opposite - conform or incur consequences. In virtually all cases, it is the left doing the bullying of everyone else, self-righteously presuming that it does so to overcome the latent fascism of everyone who does not feel the same way.
Two great posts. There is a lot of pearl clutching on the left about mythical conspiracy theories where so-called trans people are harmed ... much like black people who are not allowed to vote, never can produce a specific example of an actual trans person harmed by some mythical conservative bogeyman.
whiterock said:That would be a moderately accurate statement. There are so few trannies (.5% or so) that one rarely actually encounters them in day to day life. The primary exposure the ordinary person gets is, indeed, via media of one form or the other, in no small part because elite culture romanticizes the phenomenon. The newer exposure is directly from trannies themselves, because they believe their lifestyle has become normalized and so they flaunt their wares, so to speak. Ordinary people might grumble quietly about that to themselves or within small groups of close friends, but there really isn't much public outrage, in the classical sense, until we start seeing education establishments exposing kids to it as the natural order of things. Even then, the public conservative pushback is limited primarily to activists (to the quiet relief of a far larger number of people.) The explosion of public outrage happens spontaneously when corporate America starts pandering to it. It's one thing to go fight city hall. That takes time and effort. But buying a different brand of product is as easy as drawing a dollar bill out of one's pocket.Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:D. C. Bear said:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:Maybe it was ignorance, maybe it was stupidity, maybe it was intentional, but you ignored the simple quetions presented, so I will ask again:Porteroso said:Harrison Bergeron said:I do not always agree with you, but I respect your opions and points as almost always well thought out. Genuinely curious:Porteroso said:LIB,MR BEARS said:Porteroso said:
There is certainly a lot of unwarranted outrage over ads like this. Personally it's a little disgusting, it bewilders me, and I will probably avoid Calvin Klein products from now on, but some of you take it far beyond that. I also think this woman mutilated her body, but I can't be certain that he/she/they isn't happy. This is adults exercising freedoms. Not an opportunity to trash people.
It is easy for disgust to turn into hate, and that leads to problems. It sort of justifies the trans lifestyle in these people's minds. In some weird way. I think it's good to talk of the harm mutilating one's body can bring, but we can do that while still respecting these human beings. Someone trying to change genders doesn't need hate, they need help.
The standard for acceptable protest/boycott actions is up to and including what you would do but not beyond. Got it.
I just hold the above opinion, that the extreme outrage and hate are unwarranted and bad. Is it ok for me to have this opinion, or maybe does my opinion hurt you in some way?
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
There is extreme outrage over these sorts of societal issues from both sides. People tweet and twit about them like it is the end of America. I know it is just an act from many of them, but it is often an extreme response in my opinion.
To 2, I do not know of political hate towards too many groups at all, from either political party. I don't think I mentioned politics, I'm talking about this as a societal issue.
1. What is the defintion of "extreme outrage?" For example, I would easily define "extreme outrage" as the burning, looting, and murdering of 2020 - $4B and at least 14 murders in response to disinformation felt "extreme." Are all boycotts "extreme?" What makes a boycott "extreme?" I feel like wanting to groom and sexualize children is "extreme" and opposing it is a logical and moral response to protest conversastion therapy and pedophilia.
2. What is the defintion of "hate?" Do you have an example of hate directed at a trans person / community related to politics? For example, I would define the trans group that mocks Chritianity, Jesus, and Catholicism as an anti-Christian hate group (the group that was invited to the Dodgers gay celebration). Do you have similar examples of mainstream organizations celebrating groups that similar mock gays?
I thought you wanted a real answer. Do you not have a dictionary in your house?
In fairness, people, including you, tend to have definitions that may not entirely match Mr. Webster's.
An example? I don't recall making up alternative definitions of words. Surely you have something in mind? I hope it's "zealot."
The dictionary definition of a word does not always capture the nuances that individuals and groups apply to them. For example, you seem to think that "extreme outrage" involves angry posts on Twitter while others think "extreme outrage" is better exemplified by burning the house down. In fairness, there's nothing wrong with asking you to clarify what you mean by particular terms.
Are you saying the general conservative societal response to transgendered people is limited to tweets? Straw something or other.
that's the normal progression of things. The left embraces something crazy in the name of "inclusion." The ordinary person typically shrugs & says "well, that's crazy, but hey, it's a free country, so whatever...." But the left doesn't just want space to be. It wants to own the stage. So it starts gaslighting and kafkatrapping and finally organizing cancellation of anyone who dares question the "something." Then the ordinary person correctly realizes there is not just a cost to speaking out, but actual risk: accidentally making a truthful statement about the something...family divisions, friendship loss, job consequences or loss....so the seething starts. Then, finally, the "something" perceives lack of public pushback as a signal they've won the argument, and steps out in the shoes of hegemony to demand not just compliance but enthusiastic participation. The silent majority finally stands up & said "I don't think so, Tim," prompting the left to run around holding its panties in the air railing about all the -ism and -phobery going on.
Reality is, one can usually assume anyone using the words "tolerance" or "inclusivity" or "diversity" to be making the case for exactly the opposite - conform or incur consequences. In virtually all cases, it is the left doing the bullying of everyone else, self-righteously presuming that it does so to overcome the latent fascism of everyone who does not feel the same way.
BlackRock CEO: “At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors… you have to force behaviors.” pic.twitter.com/2Q2H84GPC7
— TexasLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay_) June 4, 2023
This is not just being pushed by fringe leftist activists. Companies are being forced by Blackrock & Vanguard to push this social change. There was legislation to stop these fund companies ability to control the voting rights of all the shares they manage but that legislation was killed. These super rich globalist fiananciers should not have the ability to fundamentally change our society into something that the majority do not want.
Because it was a non existent covenant.Harrison Bergeron said:Why? Why did he not discuss a husband divorcing his husband?Waco1947 said:Full context Mt 19 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"Harrison Bergeron said:So you are going to ignore? Maybe read Matt 19:5 and would love your thoughts.Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:Please explain Matt 19:5. Back in the day, "Red Letter Christians" celebrated a sub-Scripture of just Jesus' words, so please give us the exegesis for this saying of Jesus. Nah, this post is about gender identity. Bring your Bible to the table and show me Jesus' comments on the subject.Waco1947 said:I have addressed this idiocy about the Scripture many times.Mothra said:Your error is believing that it is somehow loving to abandon God's commands and precepts.Waco1947 said:I got it from Jesus' love commandment. "You love the Lord God with all your heart" So I am asking about your heart "is it in tune with the love commandment?"Jack Bauer said:Which **** list did you get that BS from - Buzzfeed or Vox??Waco1947 said:
Aw the bigotry indeed, what about your heart?
Show me a passage in which gender identity was ever a problem to Jesus.
P, yes, "Women may not teach men." but Jesus . . .NO.
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Clearly Jesus is addressing divorce not sexuality.
The question is asked with reference to heterosexual marriage "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" therefore Jesus responds in kind about heterosexual marriage.
Waco1947 ,la
D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Waco1947 ,la
Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman.
2. A woman cannot become a man.
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness. What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated and chemically altered for profit. You support these atrocities. This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too.
Yeah, um, no.Waco1947 said:Because it was a non existent covenant.Harrison Bergeron said:Why? Why did he not discuss a husband divorcing his husband?Waco1947 said:Full context Mt 19 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"Harrison Bergeron said:So you are going to ignore? Maybe read Matt 19:5 and would love your thoughts.Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:Please explain Matt 19:5. Back in the day, "Red Letter Christians" celebrated a sub-Scripture of just Jesus' words, so please give us the exegesis for this saying of Jesus. Nah, this post is about gender identity. Bring your Bible to the table and show me Jesus' comments on the subject.Waco1947 said:I have addressed this idiocy about the Scripture many times.Mothra said:Your error is believing that it is somehow loving to abandon God's commands and precepts.Waco1947 said:I got it from Jesus' love commandment. "You love the Lord God with all your heart" So I am asking about your heart "is it in tune with the love commandment?"Jack Bauer said:Which **** list did you get that BS from - Buzzfeed or Vox??Waco1947 said:
Aw the bigotry indeed, what about your heart?
Show me a passage in which gender identity was ever a problem to Jesus.
P, yes, "Women may not teach men." but Jesus . . .NO.
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Clearly Jesus is addressing divorce not sexuality.
The question is asked with reference to heterosexual marriage "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" therefore Jesus responds in kind about heterosexual marriage.
Sight the verse?Harrison Bergeron said:Yeah, um, no.Waco1947 said:Because it was a non existent covenant.Harrison Bergeron said:Why? Why did he not discuss a husband divorcing his husband?Waco1947 said:Full context Mt 19 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"Harrison Bergeron said:So you are going to ignore? Maybe read Matt 19:5 and would love your thoughts.Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:Please explain Matt 19:5. Back in the day, "Red Letter Christians" celebrated a sub-Scripture of just Jesus' words, so please give us the exegesis for this saying of Jesus. Nah, this post is about gender identity. Bring your Bible to the table and show me Jesus' comments on the subject.Waco1947 said:I have addressed this idiocy about the Scripture many times.Mothra said:Your error is believing that it is somehow loving to abandon God's commands and precepts.Waco1947 said:I got it from Jesus' love commandment. "You love the Lord God with all your heart" So I am asking about your heart "is it in tune with the love commandment?"Jack Bauer said:Which **** list did you get that BS from - Buzzfeed or Vox??Waco1947 said:
Aw the bigotry indeed, what about your heart?
Show me a passage in which gender identity was ever a problem to Jesus.
P, yes, "Women may not teach men." but Jesus . . .NO.
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Clearly Jesus is addressing divorce not sexuality.
The question is asked with reference to heterosexual marriage "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" therefore Jesus responds in kind about heterosexual marriage.
Waco1947 ,la
Waco1947 said:Sight the verse?Harrison Bergeron said:Yeah, um, no.Waco1947 said:Because it was a non existent covenant.Harrison Bergeron said:Why? Why did he not discuss a husband divorcing his husband?Waco1947 said:Full context Mt 19 3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"Harrison Bergeron said:So you are going to ignore? Maybe read Matt 19:5 and would love your thoughts.Waco1947 said:Harrison Bergeron said:Please explain Matt 19:5. Back in the day, "Red Letter Christians" celebrated a sub-Scripture of just Jesus' words, so please give us the exegesis for this saying of Jesus. Nah, this post is about gender identity. Bring your Bible to the table and show me Jesus' comments on the subject.Waco1947 said:I have addressed this idiocy about the Scripture many times.Mothra said:Your error is believing that it is somehow loving to abandon God's commands and precepts.Waco1947 said:I got it from Jesus' love commandment. "You love the Lord God with all your heart" So I am asking about your heart "is it in tune with the love commandment?"Jack Bauer said:Which **** list did you get that BS from - Buzzfeed or Vox??Waco1947 said:
Aw the bigotry indeed, what about your heart?
Show me a passage in which gender identity was ever a problem to Jesus.
P, yes, "Women may not teach men." but Jesus . . .NO.
4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
Clearly Jesus is addressing divorce not sexuality.
The question is asked with reference to heterosexual marriage "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" therefore Jesus responds in kind about heterosexual marriage.
Cite.
D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
Waco1947 ,la
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Foreign Trade Regulations?Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Failure To Rescue?
Fail To Republicans?
F*** The Reparations?
It is not KOOKY Democrats that will lead to the fall of civilization. It is three letter acronyms.
"Stand with anyone when he is right; Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
For the record.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Foreign Trade Regulations?Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Failure To Rescue?
Fail To Republicans?
F*** The Reparations?
It is not KOOKY Democrats that will lead to the fall of civilization. It is three letter acronyms.
For The RecordRD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Foreign Trade Regulations?Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Failure To Rescue?
Fail To Republicans?
F*** The Reparations?
It is not KOOKY Democrats that will lead to the fall of civilization. It is three letter acronyms.
Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
I thought that is what you meant, but why not just type out for the record? For the record was not in Google's top two.Sam Lowry said:For the record.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Foreign Trade Regulations?Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Failure To Rescue?
Fail To Republicans?
F*** The Reparations?
It is not KOOKY Democrats that will lead to the fall of civilization. It is three letter acronyms.
To leave no doubt, type it out!
Truth be known, Sam, I'm just pulling your chain.
"Stand with anyone when he is right; Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
"For the record"RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:I thought that is what you meant, but why not just type out for the record? For the record was not in Google's top two.Sam Lowry said:For the record.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Foreign Trade Regulations?Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Failure To Rescue?
Fail To Republicans?
F*** The Reparations?
It is not KOOKY Democrats that will lead to the fall of civilization. It is three letter acronyms.
To leave no doubt, type it out!
Truth be known, Sam, I'm just pulling your chain.
"pulling your chain"
Wow, we are showing our age in these posts!
I knew it wasn't in the top two...I was going to type JFGI but decided I'd better JFGI first. Thus the leftoverRD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:I thought that is what you meant, but why not just type out for the record? For the record was not in Google's top two.Sam Lowry said:For the record.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:Foreign Trade Regulations?Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Failure To Rescue?
Fail To Republicans?
F*** The Reparations?
It is not KOOKY Democrats that will lead to the fall of civilization. It is three letter acronyms.
To leave no doubt, type it out!
Truth be known, Sam, I'm just pulling your chain.
. Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
There is no rational basis whereby one can argue that man can actually be a woman, yet you assert that this is so with the statement that "of course he/she can" as though you are simply observing something that is self evident. It is not. The opposite of what you say is self evident.
I did not say that maiming and and pumping kids full of hormones was exactly like Tuskegee. I said it is adjacent to it. It is. It is also similar to the lobotomy crazy of the 1940s and 1950s.
When you say that "of course" a man can become a woman, you are unintentionally taking a position that men should be allowed to compete against women because, if a man can in fact be a woman as you claim, there would be no reason to deny him access to competition if he is actually a woman.
Finally, the fact that you haven't consciously taken a position on whether women should be forced to compete against men is misogynistic in the extreme and quite disgusting, making a mockery of women and women's sports.
the surgical alterations being done on pre-pubescent children are experimental butchery in service to patently ideological unrealities. It is Mengele-esque in every sense, elite society figuratively looking at the Tuskegee and lobotomy pages of history and saying "hold my beer."D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
There is no rational basis whereby one can argue that man can actually be a woman, yet you assert that this is so with the statement that "of course he/she can" as though you are simply observing something that is self evident. It is not. The opposite of what you say is self evident.
I did not say that maiming and and pumping kids full of hormones was exactly like Tuskegee. I said it is adjacent to it. It is. It is also similar to the lobotomy crazy of the 1940s and 1950s.
When you say that "of course" a man can become a woman, you are unintentionally taking a position that men should be allowed to compete against women because, if a man can in fact be a woman as you claim, there would be no reason to deny him access to competition if he is actually a woman.
Finally, the fact that you haven't consciously taken a position on whether women should be forced to compete against men is misogynistic in the extreme and quite disgusting, making a mockery of women and women's sports.
Your logic is unassailable. It will be illogically assailed in 3 2 1 -D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
There is no rational basis whereby one can argue that man can actually be a woman, yet you assert that this is so with the statement that "of course he/she can" as though you are simply observing something that is self evident. It is not. The opposite of what you say is self evident.
I did not say that maiming and and pumping kids full of hormones was exactly like Tuskegee. I said it is adjacent to it. It is. It is also similar to the lobotomy crazy of the 1940s and 1950s.
When you say that "of course" a man can become a woman, you are unintentionally taking a position that men should be allowed to compete against women because, if a man can in fact be a woman as you claim, there would be no reason to deny him access to competition if he is actually a woman.
Finally, the fact that you haven't consciously taken a position on whether women should be forced to compete against men is misogynistic in the extreme and quite disgusting, making a mockery of women and women's sports.
Hear, hear. Good postwhiterock said:the surgical alterations being done on pre-pubescent children are experimental butchery in service to patently ideological unrealities. It is Mengele-esque in every sense, elite society figuratively looking at the Tuskegee and lobotomy pages of history and saying "hold my beer."D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
There is no rational basis whereby one can argue that man can actually be a woman, yet you assert that this is so with the statement that "of course he/she can" as though you are simply observing something that is self evident. It is not. The opposite of what you say is self evident.
I did not say that maiming and and pumping kids full of hormones was exactly like Tuskegee. I said it is adjacent to it. It is. It is also similar to the lobotomy crazy of the 1940s and 1950s.
When you say that "of course" a man can become a woman, you are unintentionally taking a position that men should be allowed to compete against women because, if a man can in fact be a woman as you claim, there would be no reason to deny him access to competition if he is actually a woman.
Finally, the fact that you haven't consciously taken a position on whether women should be forced to compete against men is misogynistic in the extreme and quite disgusting, making a mockery of women and women's sports.
Well played.Osodecentx said:Your logic is unassailable. It will be illogically assailed in 3 2 1 -D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
There is no rational basis whereby one can argue that man can actually be a woman, yet you assert that this is so with the statement that "of course he/she can" as though you are simply observing something that is self evident. It is not. The opposite of what you say is self evident.
I did not say that maiming and and pumping kids full of hormones was exactly like Tuskegee. I said it is adjacent to it. It is. It is also similar to the lobotomy crazy of the 1940s and 1950s.
When you say that "of course" a man can become a woman, you are unintentionally taking a position that men should be allowed to compete against women because, if a man can in fact be a woman as you claim, there would be no reason to deny him access to competition if he is actually a woman.
Finally, the fact that you haven't consciously taken a position on whether women should be forced to compete against men is misogynistic in the extreme and quite disgusting, making a mockery of women and women's sports.
Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Any number of moral issues are bigotry. "Jews are to be hated and banned from participation in political life." Nazis
"Blacks are not human according to Bible." Racists
"Gay, you cannot marry because of the Bible and you are an abomination to the Lord."
Waco1947 ,la
Sounds like gay Jewish black people are really screwed!Waco1947 said:Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.Sam Lowry said:
FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.
Any number of moral issues are bigotry. "Jews are to be hated and banned from participation in political life." Nazis
"Blacks are not human according to Bible." Racists
"Gay, you cannot marry because of the Bible and you are an abomination to the Lord."
"Stand with anyone when he is right; Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." - Abraham Lincoln
D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See theD. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?Harrison Bergeron said:This is a fantastic post. Using inaccurate, divisive labels like "hate," "extreme," and "bigotry" only makes healthy conversations difficult and promotes divisiveness and disrespect. It harkens to the root cause, which is the lack of self-awareness by many regressives - in their mind "divisive" also means "anything I disagree with." Calling a conservative black man an "Uncle Tom" is a sign of unity, and calling someone who opposes butchering children a "bigot" also is a sign of unity. The reason the regressives only have ad hominem attacks is because at the core they know their positions are illogical and indefensible.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:
What is bigotry? Read this thread:12 Hours from Conservatives losing their mind -- Pride Month
In your book, "bigotry" is when you don't want to paint the crosswalks at your factory in rainbow colors to "celebrate" the sexually deviant lifestyle choices of others. It is not enough to say that people have a legal right to act immorally, instead you call anyone who does not sing the praises of the LBGTQ+ movement a bigot. That "plus" on the end inevitably will include "minor attracted persons" and your ilk will be making excuses for it.
"Bigotry" in your book is also thinking that mentally ill kids deserve mental health treatment that reflects their physical reality rather than their psychological delusions. You have gone so far off the deep end that you think we should believe, or at least pretend, that a biological man, by virtue of having his ***** removed and getting a bunch of hormone shots, is actually a woman or that if we whack of a woman's breasts and pump her full of testosterone she is now a man. However, that isn't how reality works.
Throwing out the "bigotry" label when it does not apply, as you do, is a worthless ad hominem attack.
The broader theme and tension we are having as a country and culture is at the root of all of these debates and disagreements:
1. Are we going to work toward a unified, national identity where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us united as Americans and prioritize and celebrate those common traits
2. Or are we going to work toward a divided, group identities where we seek to find and celebrate things that make us different and prioritize and celebrate those different traits Strawman premise with no discernable facts especially "prioritizing"
That's the core tension between conservatives seeking unity and commonality and regressives seeking division and differences. Again not regressive. Make America Great Again is literally regression which harkens back to a time of fantasy when life was good.
"Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) encompasses the interconnectivity relationship, philosophy and culture of acknowledging, embracing, supporting, and accepting those of all racial, sexual, gender, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds, among other differentiators." Lisa Dunn
What you advocate is flat out abuse and malpractice on par with lobotomies, and, if you want to see a bigot, look in the mirror as you are bigoted against anyone who doesn't agree with the insanity you promote. Your position is indefensible and all you have is to cry "bigotry" agains those who point out its madness.
I am not "denying the bigotry," I am pointing out your bigotry. You are bigoted against those who believe in facts. You are advocating physically maiming mentally ill children. It has reached this point in part because sensible people didn't want people like you to call them bigots for holding "outrageous" positions like "women, not men, should compete in women's sports."
You're on the factually What are your facts?
and morally wrong side of this. What is immoral about about how someone sees themselves sexually?
Facts:
1. A man cannot become a woman. of course he/she can
2. A woman cannot become a man. Of course she/he can
Morality:
It isn't immoral to suffer from a mental illness.
What is immoral is to act like children suffering from gender dysphoria should be (1) encouraged to believe their delusions and (2) physically mutilated Hyperbole.and chemically altered for profit.Proof?
You support these atrocities. Hyperbole. They are not "atrocities" but concerned parents recognizing their children's feeling.
This stuff is Tuskegee adjacent. False equivalence The men were not informed of the nature of the experiment, and more than 100 died as a result.
Then, you turn around and accuse those who don't think children suffering from gender dysphoria should me mutilated and shot full of hormones of being bigots. Still a bigot with only hyperbole and non-science to show for yourself.
Not only do you promote the physical experimentation on minors, you also promote the idea that women should have to compete against men in women's sports. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
It is grossly unfair to women for them to be forced to compete against men. It is no different than having a trained gorilla compete in the the dead lift against men, and, by promoting the fiction that a man can be a woman, you support this lunacy, too. NO, I have never taken a position on this issue. Maybe a transgendered league.
There is no rational basis whereby one can argue that man can actually be a woman, yet you assert that this is so with the statement that "of course he/she can" as though you are simply observing something that is self evident. It is not. The opposite of what you say is self evident. It is only self evident to bigots who like racists used to claim "Black are inferior. It is self evident." Gender identity is a human right to self agency about who they are and who they love. It is no business of yours.
I did not say that maiming and and pumping kids full of hormones was exactly like Tuskegee. I said it is adjacent to it. It is. It is also similar to the lobotomy crazy of the 1940s and 1950s. And I said, "It was a false equivalency" which it is for the reasons stated. It was racist and kept secret from the men.
And furthermore I objected to the phrases: "maiming and and pumping kids full of hormones" These phrases ae a distortion of truth.
When you say that "of course" a man can become a woman, you are unintentionally taking a position that men should be allowed to compete against women because, if a man can in fact be a woman as you claim, there would be no reason to deny him access to competition if he is actually a woman.
You are conflating my two statements. I was clear that they are two separate issus inspite of your conflation.
Finally, the fact that you haven't consciously taken a position on whether women should be forced to compete against men is misogynistic in the extreme and quite disgusting, making a mockery of women and women's sports. You are misrepresenting me with lies. I, again, clearly, stated maybe there should be a transgendered league.
Waco1947 ,la