Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Incorrect.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

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.

---

---

It is evident through biology. Women are adult female humans. Females are of the sex to bear offspring. Men are adult human males. Males are of the sex that produces gametes used to fertilize and create offspring.

Those are definitions. They have meaning. If someone wants to dress and act the opposite of the traditional manner of their sex, fine. That is their choice.

No one else is required to acquiesce to demands to call them something they are not. No one else is required to acquiesce to demands that someone identifying as a woman who is not should be able to receive benefits of being in that protected class. Athletics teams, scholarships, bathrooms, and more have designations expressly designated for "women."

You don't get to have it both ways, either you say trans women are women and get all the rights, or you say they are not really women and don't. This is why you would be called a bigot for denying trans women the right to participate in sports. You have to pick a side. Science vs not wanting to hurt people's feelings.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Hating, dehumanizing, or banning from political life is different from disagreeing about moral issues. One can disagree with a Jewish interpretation of scripture, for example, without being a bigot.

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Incorrect.

---

Why?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

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.

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

---

Surely you something more in the way response beside a ad hominin attack?

---

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.

---

You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See the

---

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.

---

---

I am not misrepresenting you with lies, I am revealing the empty nature of your argument with logic and reason. They are two separate statements but they are both statements you made and if one is true then the other makes no sense. The only reason for a "transgendered league" (and good luck finding enough people to participate) would be if a man cannot actually be a woman, which, of course, he cannot. So, when you say "maybe" we should have a transgendered league, you are saying that "maybe" you are wrong about your claim that a man can be a woman and vice versa.

Me: A man cannot be a woman.
You: A man can be a woman!

Me: Women, not men, should compete in women's sports. If a man could be a woman, we would be required to let him participate in women's sports by virtue of his being a woman.

You: Maybe a transgender league! (The implication is that maybe a man should not participate in women's sports after all and the only non-bigoted reason would be if he isn't actually a woman).

Also you: You a bigot for saying that a man can't be a woman!

Logically, you "may be" a bigot for saying that "maybe" a man shouldn't compete in women's sports.

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Incorrect.

---

Why?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

I live in the old south and go to bbq with white people all the time and none of what you posted is ever a topic of conversation. We mostly talk about SEC football or hunting.

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

I live in the old south and go to bbq with white people all the time and none of what you posted is ever a topic of conversation. We mostly talk about SEC football or hunting.

---

Waco hasn't actually been to any such place, but he imagines he knows, so that's what he posts.

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

So please share with us what qualifies as an old south white barbecue. Thanks in advance.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

So please share with us what qualifies as an old south white barbecue. Thanks in advance.

---

This, I suppose.

Let's consult Mr Rogers.

From 1980, Mr. Rogers and Johnny Carson discuss children’s gender identity. pic.twitter.com/3dE4cNMgW3

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 7, 2023

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

The color of the cow/pig is not relevant to the taste of the BBQ.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

Blacks Barbecue is good, but I much prefer Schulze's Pit Room in Seguin or City Market in Luling.

Whew. Thanks 83, I totally misread that.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

So please share with us what qualifies as an old south white barbecue. Thanks in advance.

---

Can a yankee self identify as a southerner?

Can a TTech grad self-identify as an Ivy-Leaguer?

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

The color of the cow/pig is not relevant to the taste of the BBQ.

---

Maybe he was referring to the bark? Ooo, or burnt ends and pieces!

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

The color of the cow/pig is not relevant to the taste of the BBQ.

---

Maybe he was referring to the bark? Ooo, or burnt ends and pieces!

---

If only I had read that around dinner time. Way too late in the day for me to even think about, say brisket or ribs ...

Osodecentx said:

---

Let's consult Mr Rogers.

From 1980, Mr. Rogers and Johnny Carson discuss children’s gender identity. pic.twitter.com/3dE4cNMgW3

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) June 7, 2023

---

There is a Mr Rogers statue in Pittsburgh, might as well TEAR IT DOWN since he is a retro-Nazi.

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See the

---

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.

---

---

There already is one that would work perfectly. It's called the special olympics.

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See the

---

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.

---

---

There already is one that would work perfectly. It's called the special olympics.

---

Disagree. The Special Olympics is full of kids and athletes with great courage, optimism and a joyful spirit.

Any biological male who demands the "right" to compete against women so as to improve his win likelihood and the benefits thereof (awards, sponsorships, ad deals) should be ignored or mocked, but in no way enabled.

Btw, ever notice that it's never biological women demanding to compete against men?

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See the

---

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.

---

---

There already is one that would work perfectly. It's called the special olympics.

---

Disagree. The Special Olympics is full of kids and athletes with great courage, optimism and a joyful spirit.

Any biological male who demands the "right" to compete against women so as to improve his win likelihood and the benefits thereof (awards, sponsorships, ad deals) should be ignored or mocked, but in no way enabled.

Btw, ever notice that it's never biological women demanding to compete against men?

---

Just give the trannies their own category, compete against each other only.

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See the

---

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.

---

---

There already is one that would work perfectly. It's called the special olympics.

---

Disagree. The Special Olympics is full of kids and athletes with great courage, optimism and a joyful spirit.

Any biological male who demands the "right" to compete against women so as to improve his win likelihood and the benefits thereof (awards, sponsorships, ad deals) should be ignored or mocked, but in no way enabled.

Btw, ever notice that it's never biological women demanding to compete against men?

---

Just give the trannies their own category, compete against each other only.

---

Actually, I'm cool with the Trans running against career politicians too. There's always entertainment value in seeing, say, Schumer or Biden losing to a guy in a dress.

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

You cannot simply deny the evident bigotry on these pages See the

---

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.

---

---

There already is one that would work perfectly. It's called the special olympics.

---

Disagree. The Special Olympics is full of kids and athletes with great courage, optimism and a joyful spirit.

Any biological male who demands the "right" to compete against women so as to improve his win likelihood and the benefits thereof (awards, sponsorships, ad deals) should be ignored or mocked, but in no way enabled.

Btw, ever notice that it's never biological women demanding to compete against men?

---

Just give the trannies their own category, compete against each other only.

---

Actually, I'm cool with the Trans running against career politicians too. There's always entertainment value in seeing, say, Schumer or Biden losing to a guy in a dress.

---

That's what makes all the Michelle O trannie memes so funny. Dems get all outraged when they see one, yet, if it were actually true, they'd ostensibly be over-the-moon with excitement.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Incorrect.

---

Why?

---

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

---

You can't?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

Old south whites at a barbeque would dispel your notions that racism is at an end.
Even among gentrified whites who some decency not to say the n_word in public still use dog whites.

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

Old south whites at a barbeque would dispel your notions that racism is at an end.
Even among gentrified whites who some decency not to say the n_word in public still use dog whites.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

Old south whites at a barbeque would dispel your notions that racism is at an end.
Even among gentrified whites who some decency not to say the n_word in public still use dog whites.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FTR, disagreeing about a moral or political issue is not bigotry. Refusing to be civil in your disagreement is.

---

Yes, his disagreements are bigoty.
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."

---

Where are jews banned from political life? Jews control both political parties and nobody can get elected president today without a vist to the wailing wall in Jerusalem. I would say they have way too much control over politcal life in a country where they are only 2% of the population.

---

I referenced the Nazis but listen to any old south white barbecue

---

Please; blacks make the best barbeque.

---

Old south whites at a barbeque would dispel your notions that racism is at an end.
Even among gentrified whites who some decency not to say the n_word in public still use dog whites.

---

---

Seems like as often as not, when I hear that kind of stuff, it's from people who vote Democrat.

Not too many years ago, I sat latish on a Montana evening at a table playing cards with 7 other people surrounded by bird dogs sleeping on the couches, shotguns stacked up in the wall rack, cigar smoke hanging in the air, empty whisky bottles on the table, etc...... The gentleman to my right was tipsy and made a questionable joke, then another, then an anti-Semitic comment, which really piqued my curiosity as two of the others at the table were, in fact, Jewish. The tipsy young man wound up to let another one fly, then caught himself as he made eye contact with one of the Jews across the table, and froze, mouth slightly ajar. The young Jewish man picked up his highball dosed with Macallan 12 and said "If I were you, I'd think very carefully about what I plan to say, and if I had any doubt at all about whether or not to say it, I wouldn't say it"....then calmly took a sip of Macallan and sat the glass down, staring at the tipsy fellow across the table. 3-4 seconds of silence in such a scenario is a lifetime. I spoke up with the icebreaker...."so (tipsy kid next to me) where are we going to run dogs tomorrow." And the rest of evening went on without incident, as did the next two days of hunting.

The tipsy young man who played the ass that night was the (then) state director for Senator Jon Tester, and scion of one of the larger landowners in Montana. Also at the table was his brand-new brother-in-law, who was heir to another large and influential farming concern in Montana, as well as proud Democrat lovin' him some farm programs despite having made some comments about minorities to me one-on-one that would have really gotten your knickers in a wad.

And, yes, you guessed it - the two Jewish men at the table are Republicans.

Real life is rarely as you need it to be to fit your ideologically constructed worldview.

I think '47s head just exploded seeing this...

What appears to be muslim kids stomping on "pride" flags at education over indoctrination protest in Ottawa.

You know the groomers aren't going to like that.

They prefer their opposition to be only White Christians. pic.twitter.com/DRnycCF6Xd

— Doochebag (@MalcolmRenoldz) June 9, 2023

Christians and Muslims united…all it took was some chicks with dicks to garner world peace. Who knew

nein51 said:

---

Christians and Muslims united…all it took was some chicks with dicks to garner world peace. Who knew

---

A fragile coalition, kinda like it took Hitler to bring together FDR, Churchill and Stalin.