Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've been trying to understand right wing posters and right wingers generally and why they take conspiracy theories over facts. I read this and it resonated with me. We see these same behaviours on KMC daily. One look at the Corona virus thread and these issues will strike anyone with half a brain like a wet haddock in the face. Perhaps they are not gaslighting, perhaps these people just like their own wacky narratives over facts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/04/listen-doctors/

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Opinions
Trumpers are resistant to experts — even their own
Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus response coordinator, arrives before President Trump speaks at a briefing in the Rose Garden on April 27, 2020.
Dr. Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus response coordinator, arrives before President Trump speaks at a briefing in the Rose Garden on April 27, 2020. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
Image without a caption
Opinion by
Jennifer Rubin
Columnist
May 4, 2020 at 12:45 p.m. GMT+1
It has never been clear why right-wingers think that climate experts, trained for years in the hard sciences, are some left-wing cabal trying to pull a fast one on the industrial world — but the climate-change deniers no doubt will have some explanation. They likewise seem suspicious of epidemiologists, physicians, public health professionals and anyone who can speak from a position of authority on the pandemic. That’s a shame, given the dangerous consequences of pandemic denial and the plethora of sane advice coming even from current and past advisers to President Trump.
On Fox News Sunday, Deborah Birx — accused from time to time of assuaging President Trump’s ego at the expense of accuracy — pulled no punches. Chris Wallace asked about Michigan, where gun-toting protesters bearing Confederate and Nazi symbols screamed inches from the faces of police officers and media. They did not wear masks and did not practice social distancing. Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator, was emphatic: “It’s devastatingly worrisome to me personally because if they go home and infect their grandmother or their grandfather who has a co-morbid condition and they have a serious or a very — or an unfortunate outcome, they will feel guilty for the rest of our lives,” Birx said. “So we need to protect each other at the same time we’re voicing our discontent.”

Birx’s boss had dubbed these some “very good people” and previously seemed to encourage such protests (Liberate Michigan!). Whatever advice Birx might offer is diluted by Trump’s enthusiastic defense of the people who are anything but “good,” but rather endanger others and attempt to intimidate democratically elected officials.

I think this depends on what anyone would mean by "struggles with science." There seem to be some distinct concepts that have solid consensus in life and/or physical science that a good deal of right-leaning individuals and organizations take issue with but it's challenging to say if these are politically contingent (Newt Gingrich did advertisements with Nanci Pelosi concerning global warming and Margaret Thatcher called for action against it) or reflective of disbelief toward a perceived self-organizing consensus that has a progressive inclination.

I think the right seemingly has a consistent struggle with a little bit of both of what I've mentioned, especially concerning physical science. The major things, in a contemporary context, seem to be climate change, COVID-19, and anti-vax. The people who most often reject meaningful scientific consensus seemingly skew on the right side of the political aisles.


(Public perception/view on climate/energy)
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

(Partisan divide on masks)
https://tompepinsky.com/2020/05/13/yes-wearing-a-mask-is-partisan-now/

(A rugged proxy for differences in vaccination opinions. NOTE: People can disapprove for mandatory vaccinations for reasons unrelated to skepticism about whether or not vaccines have efficacy so it stays a proxy)
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-1-patterns-underlying-public-views-about-science/

(BONUS: Partisan divide is evident even when it comes to whether or not COVID-19 was lab-made)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/nearly-three-in-ten-americans-believe-covid-19-was-made-in-a-lab/

Originally posted by Gehenna
I think this depends on what anyone would mean by "struggles with science." There seem to be some distinct concepts that have solid consensus in life and/or physical science that a good deal of right-leaning individuals and organizations take issue with but it's challenging to say if these are politically contingent (Newt Gingrich did advertisements with Nanci Pelosi concerning global warming and Margaret Thatcher called for action against it) or reflective of disbelief toward a perceived self-organizing consensus that has a progressive inclination.

I think the right seemingly has a consistent struggle with a little bit of both of what I've mentioned, especially concerning physical science. The major things, in a contemporary context, seem to be climate change, COVID-19, and anti-vax. The people who most often reject meaningful scientific consensus seemingly skew on the right side of the political aisles.


(Public perception/view on climate/energy)
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s-public-views-on-climate-and-energy/

(Partisan divide on masks)
https://tompepinsky.com/2020/05/13/yes-wearing-a-mask-is-partisan-now/

(A rugged proxy for differences in vaccination opinions. NOTE: People can disapprove for mandatory vaccinations for reasons unrelated to skepticism about whether or not vaccines have efficacy so it stays a proxy)
https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-1-patterns-underlying-public-views-about-science/

(BONUS: Partisan divide is evident even when it comes to whether or not COVID-19 was lab-made)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/nearly-three-in-ten-americans-believe-covid-19-was-made-in-a-lab/ Excellent account really., sums it up very well.

The leftist trans movement escapes science.

Originally posted by Blakemore
The leftist trans movement escapes science.

Sure, so, in what way?

There was recent triggerdom over people saying only women can get cervical cancer.

This is a bait thread. Plain and simple.

I will bottom line it: no, the left is not better or worse than the right when it comes to science and their understanding/acceptance/whatever.

Originally posted by Gehenna
Sure, so, in what way? chromesomes
hormones
genetics
mutilation
mental health
body image dysphoria


to name a few

Originally posted by Surtur
There was recent triggerdom over people saying only women can get cervical cancer.

This is a bait thread. Plain and simple.

I will bottom line it: no, the left is not better or worse than the right when it comes to science and their understanding/acceptance/whatever.

All of the studies posted by Gehenna would suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by Blakemore
chromesomes
hormones
genetics
mutilation
mental health
body image dysphoria


to name a few

This is just a list of things.

So I'll rephrase my question based on this post by you:

Originally posted by Blakemore
The leftist trans movement escapes science.

In what specific ways does this particular movement supposedly "escape science?"

*yawn* @ this thread.

Coming from the side that thinks there are five dozens genders they have no room to be accusing others of being "science deniers".


This is just another "I'm so butthurt that people on the right don't agree with me and my BS 'science'!" thread.


Nah, we don't struggle with science at all.Leftists do. And this is like the fifth or sixth type of this thread that crybaby leftists have created since I joined the forum in which they accuse right-wingers of being anti-science or having "crazy beliefs".

They really need to look in the mirror at themselves instead of trying to project their own problems and shortcomings onto Conservatives.

Originally posted by Gehenna
This is just a list of things.

So I'll rephrase my question based on this post by you:



In what specific ways does this particular movement supposedly "escape science?" I just told you.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I just told you.

No, you didn't. You listed a bunch of words in response to me asking you in what ways the leftist trans movement escapes science. I tried to rephrase my question to ask you how this movement (whatever movement you're referring to) specifically does this and you referred back to your list of random words.

Have you talked to someone else before this conversation?

They're not random words they're biological things that occur naturally in the body and transgender people don't look like normal people because they've ****ed up their genes, hormones, genitalia and mental health.

Originally posted by Blakemore
They're not random words they're biological things that occur naturally in the body and transgender people don't look like normal people because they've ****ed up their genes, hormones, genitalia and mental health.

Are not able to tell me in what ways the movement you mentioned escapes science?

Telling me that the things you listed are natural occurrences and that trans people don't "look like normal people" doesn't answer this question at all.

If you don't wish to answer my question, you could just tell me.

Originally posted by Surtur
There was recent triggerdom over people saying only women can get cervical cancer.

This is a bait thread. Plain and simple.

I will bottom line it: no, the left is not better or worse than the right when it comes to science and their understanding/acceptance/whatever.

Originally posted by Gehenna
Are not able to tell me in what ways the movement you mentioned escapes science?

Telling me that the things you listed are natural occurrences and that trans people don't "look like normal people" doesn't answer this question at all.

If you don't wish to answer my question, you could just tell me. Either you don't understand those terms, and basic human biology, or you're being difficult for the sake of difficulty.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Either you don't understand those terms, and basic human biology, or you're being difficult for the sake of difficulty.

What terms do you think I've failed to understand?

Also, I've been relatively straightforward and asked an incredibly simple question that you should be able to answer in regards to the initial claim you made in this thread.

Again, if you don't wish to answer, just say so.

Originally posted by Gehenna
What terms do you think I've failed to understand?

Also, I've been relatively straightforward and asked an incredibly simple question that you should be able to answer in regards to the initial claim you made in this thread.

Again, if you don't wish to answer, just say so. They're not random words you retard.

Since you seem to be incredibly triggered and apparently cannot have a conversation, I think that about it wraps it up for us.

So much for seeing an honest discussion.

I listed scientific terms that show that we can't change genders but those things determine your gender. It's basic biology.

You responded with hurr durr just random words.

I'll give you random words:

rainbow gender
colour gender
female to male pre op
and other nonsense.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I listed scientific terms that show that we can't change genders but those things determine your gender. It's basic biology.

You responded with hurr durr just random words.

First of all, listing terms just out of nowhere don't explain how someone cannot change genders. Also, they don't determine gender. That terminology essentially has more to do with what determines biological sex so it's weird you'd try to classify that as "basic biology" when it's an inaccurate statement having nothing to do with biology.

Secondly, I asked you to show me in what way the "leftist trans movement" (which movement, anyway?) escapes science and, yes, you listed random words. It didn't address and/or answer my question whatsoever.

If someone came along and said, "The Pyromaniacs Guild escapes setting fires" and I said "In what way?" and this person responded with:

Combustion
Oxidation
Exothermic Process
Extinguishing

It doesn't mean anything, nor does it tell anyone how the Pyromaniacs Guild seemingly fails to set fires. It's... it's just a ****ing list of words LOL

Originally posted by Gehenna
If someone came along and said, "The Pyromaniacs Guild escapes setting fires" and I said "In what way?" and this person responded with:

Combustion
Oxidation
Exothermic Process
Extinguishing

It doesn't mean anything, nor does it tell anyone how the Pyromaniacs Guild seemingly fails to set fires. It's... it's just a ****ing list of words LOL


You leave my Guild out of this!

Well I'm sorry I have to explain high school science.

I figured that was XYZ due to the Bulbasaur sig.

That explains a lot LMAO

Originally posted by Gehenna
I figured that was XYZ due to the Bulbasaur sig.

That explains a lot LMAO



Yeah, no sane functioning person really gives him the time of day on here.

BTW, I really like your avatar/sig. What series is it from?

Originally posted by Eon Blue


Yeah, no sane functioning person really gives him the time of day on here.

BTW, I really like your avatar/sig. What series is it from?

Ghost In The Shell artwork.

Chromosomes are the building blocks of DNA. They're defined as XX and XY.

DNA are the building blocks of hormones known as androgens and glycogens. Andro means male, gyno means female.

I that creates your biological sex ie gender.

Redefining gender as a social construct that a political wing of leftists activate (you retards) basically means you've made it up.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Chromosomes are the building blocks of DNA. They're defined as XX and XY.

DNA are the building blocks of hormones known as androgens and glycogens. Andro means male, gyno means female.

I that creates your biological sex ie gender.

Redefining gender as a social construct that a political wing of leftists activate (you retards) basically means you've made it up.

You're literally just ignoring my responses toward you to inaccurately prattle on about how you personally think biological sex is somehow synonymous with gender.

I'm in an okay mood so I'll walk you through what the academic position is: Biological sex directly refers to an individual's anatomy concerning their reproductive system and what's known as secondary sex characteristics. Where this differs from gender identity is that is reference to an individual's personal identification of their own gender congruence based on internal awarenesses, with gender expression being the physical manifestation of said identity and gender roles being a manifestation of social norms closely associated with sex.

If you disagree with this, you're disagreeing with:

- World Health Organization (they are behind one of the two primary psychological diagnostic manuals known as the DSM)

- European Professional Association for Transgender Health

- World Professional Association for Transgender Health (organization that researches gender incongruence with academics in the fields of law, medicine, psychotherapy, sociology, and more)

- American Psychiatric Association (the largest academic psychiatry body on this planet responsible for the ICD)

So I'm not sure on what grounds you, someone who is nothing but a ****ing ideologically charged layman, rejects the academic positions and scientific consensus concerning this matter from multiple organizations of health professionals across the world.

Originally posted by Gehenna
You're literally just ignoring my responses toward you to inaccurately prattle on about how you personally think biological sex is somehow synonymous with gender.

I'm in an okay mood so I'll walk you through what the academic position is: Biological sex directly refers to an individual's anatomy concerning their reproductive system and what's known as secondary sex characteristics. Where this differs from gender identity is that is reference to an individual's personal identification of their own gender congruence based on internal awarenesses, with gender expression being the physical manifestation of said identity and gender roles being a manifestation of social norms closely associated with sex.

If you disagree with this, you're disagreeing with:

- World Health Organization (they are behind one of the two primary psychological diagnostic manuals known as the DSM)

- European Professional Association for Transgender Health

- World Professional Association for Transgender Health (organization that researches gender incongruence with academics in the fields of law, medicine, psychotherapy, sociology, and more)

- American Psychiatric Association (the largest academic psychiatry body on this planet responsible for the ICD)

So I'm not sure on what grounds you, someone who is nothing but a ****ing ideologically charged layman, rejects the academic positions and scientific consensus concerning this matter from multiple organizations of health professionals across the world. That doesn't change the faact that it's make believe.

LOL good one, XYZ.

Never change, mate.

gender
/ˈdʒɛndə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: gender; plural noun: genders
1.
either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
"a condition that affects people of both genders"
members of a particular gender considered as a group.
"social interaction between the genders"
the fact or condition of belonging to or identifying with a particular gender.
"video ads will target users based only on age and gender"
2.
GRAMMAR
(in languages such as Latin, French, and German) each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections which they have and which they require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex.
the property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to a grammatical gender.
"determiners and adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number"

guess which definition isn't scientific?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
The Rights Struggle with Science.


Probably religion is a large factor. Seems the more religious a person is, the more they're likely to turn away from any science that they can't gel with their religious beliefs and the Right is generally a more religious group.

eg Kent Hovind believes in the "Young Earth" position and he rejects all science that claims otherwise. But I guarantee you if he got cancer, he'd look to science to cure him.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably religion is a large factor. Seems the more religious a person is, the more they're likely to turn away from any science that they can't gel with their religious beliefs and the Right is generally a more religious group.

eg Kent Hovind believes in the "Young Earth" position and he rejects all science that claims otherwise. But I guarantee you if he got cancer, he'd look to science to cure him. Yeah, but you're religious, my mum is an 87 year old raving Catholic who met the pope... and she believes in Evolution, climate change and wearing a Coronavirus mask. My eldest son has finally stopped trolling her about God he did it pretty much from the moment he hit his teens till he reached thirty, he is her favourite grandson so got away with it. But then she is a socialist politically.

I know I bang on about this, but...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

The brain of a transgender person is often more like the desired gender from an early age.

The cart now leads the horse.

It used to be that your certain set of beliefs dictated whether you were conservative. Now it seems to be more that if you identify as conservative you are compelled to believe in a particular set of beliefs regardless.

That set of beliefs has also grown over the decades to include more than just religious dogma.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The cart now leads the horse.

It used to be that your certain set of beliefs dictated whether you were conservative. Now it seems to be more that if you identify as conservative you are compelled to believe in a particular set of beliefs regardless.

That set of beliefs has also grown over the decades to include more than just religious dogma. I don't disagree at all.

In fact I agree totally.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The cart now leads the horse.

It used to be that your certain set of beliefs dictated whether you were conservative. Now it seems to be more that if you identify as conservative you are compelled to believe in a particular set of beliefs regardless.

That set of beliefs has also grown over the decades to include more than just religious dogma.


You're wrong, as usual.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably religion is a large factor. Seems the more religious a person is, the more they're likely to turn away from any science that they can't gel with their religious beliefs and the Right is generally a more religious group.

eg Kent Hovind believes in the "Young Earth" position and he rejects all science that claims otherwise. But I guarantee you if he got cancer, he'd look to science to cure him.


I still laugh at how Kent Hovind triggers morons and haters ike you lol. He knows far more about actual science than you do.

I see you still haven't called him up to debate. Hmm, wonder why that is, exactly. We both know the reason. It's because you'd lose, badly, just as pretty much everyone else who debates him loses.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I still laugh at how Kent Hovind triggers morons and haters ike you lol. He knows far more about actual science than you do.

I see you still haven't called him up to debate. Hmm, wonder why that is, exactly. We both know the reason. It's because you'd lose, badly. He triggers nobody little one. He just makes people laugh.

Hovind knows more about actual science than you and robbie put together.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I still laugh at how Kent Hovind triggers morons and haters ike you lol. He knows far more about actual science than you do.

I see you still haven't called him up to debate. Hmm, wonder why that is, exactly. We both know the reason. It's because you'd lose, badly, just as pretty much everyone else who debates him loses.

What did I say about Hovind that was incorrect?

I called, got a voicemail, left a message and never heard back.

IIRC, his number is 1-800-BIG-DINO, I believe.


Call him up , Rob, and set up a debate with him on You Tube. Dazzle us all with your "superior knowledge" of science lol.

Don't be a little chicken shit who only talks trash about someone behind their back. Prove to us all how much more knowledgeable about science you are than he is lol.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The cart now leads the horse.

It used to be that your certain set of beliefs dictated whether you were conservative. Now it seems to be more that if you identify as conservative you are compelled to believe in a particular set of beliefs regardless.

That set of beliefs has also grown over the decades to include more than just religious dogma.


That's why I don't go in for those click-baity things that tell you whether you're centrist/left/right/whatever. Merely 'knowing' that a political ideal I have leans slightly more in one direction that I would like isn't enough to make me change it.

Like I'm supposed to go; Oh no, my opinion on prison reform is apparently more authoritarian than I want it to be, I'd better step in line.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Hovind knows more about actual science than you and robbie put together. yeah, but no little one.

Originally posted by samhain
That's why I don't go in for those click-baity things that tell you whether you're centrist/left/right/whatever. Merely 'knowing' that a political ideal I have leans slightly more in one direction that I would like isn't enough to make me change it.

Like I'm supposed to go; Oh no, my opinion on prison reform is apparently more authoritarian than I want it to be, I'd better step in line. Agreed, I dont do socual media at all.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
IIRC, his number is 1-800-BIG-DINO, I believe.


Call him up , Rob, and set up a debate with him on You Tube. Dazzle us all with your "superior knowledge" of science lol.

Don't be a little chicken shit who only talks trash about someone behind their back. Prove to us all how much more knowledgeable about science you are than he is lol.

If you're just going to ignore what I said and dodge questions meant to further the conversation I see no point.

Originally posted by samhain
That's why I don't go in for those click-baity things that tell you whether you're centrist/left/right/whatever. Merely 'knowing' that a political ideal I have leans slightly more in one direction that I would like isn't enough to make me change it.

Like I'm supposed to go; Oh no, my opinion on prison reform is apparently more authoritarian than I want it to be, I'd better step in line.

Bingo.

^More trash talk from the little chicken.

Put up or shut up, Rob. Debate him, chicken.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^More trash talk from the little chicken.

Put up or shut up, Rob. Debate him, chicken. oh star you truly are an amusing and obvious troll account. No one could be as retarded as you in real life.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Talk, talk, talk. That's all you and your e-pal Rob do.

Man up and debate him, cowards.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Talk, talk, talk. That's all you and your e-pal Rob do.

Man up and debate him, cowards. Whilst I enjoy debating rightist retards, hence why I mock you, i would only debate a fool such as that under neutral conditions. Being cut off and posted around the Internet falsely isn't on my bucket list. He is welcome to come to KMC and find me.

Originally posted by samhain
That's why I don't go in for those click-baity things that tell you whether you're centrist/left/right/whatever. Merely 'knowing' that a political ideal I have leans slightly more in one direction that I would like isn't enough to make me change it.

Like I'm supposed to go; Oh no, my opinion on prison reform is apparently more authoritarian than I want it to be, I'd better step in line.

That's partly my stance. I'm also not averse to changing my stand on subjects when I learn more about them so I tend not to worry about where my own opinions fit on the political spectrum.

Yes, people have been saying gender is made up (ie a social construction), while biological sex isn't for a long time.

And those people who claim gender is just a "social construct" are wrong, Rob.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
And those people who claim gender is just a "social construct" are wrong, Rob.

The very fact that different societies through the ages have different views of gender proves otherwise. Gender is a social construction, gender is not biological like sex.

eg In the Philippines to this day they have what is referred to as a 3rd gender. The "Bakla", it's a social construct.

Originally posted by Robtard
The very fact that different societies through the ages have different views of gender proves otherwise. Gender is a social construction, gender is not biological like sex.

eg In the Philippines to this day they have what is referred to as a 3rd gender. The "Bakla", it's a social construct. it is, actually many other countries in Asia do similar.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, people have been saying gender is made up (ie a social construction), while biological sex isn't for a long time. Well why bother with total bollocks?

For what it's worth Germans have a neutral gender. Mules are an example.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I still laugh at how Kent Hovind triggers morons and haters ike you lol. He knows far more about actual science than you do.

I see you still haven't called him up to debate. Hmm, wonder why that is, exactly. We both know the reason. It's because you'd lose, badly, just as pretty much everyone else who debates him loses.

https://vishumenon.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/kent-hovind.jpg

^*yawn*

Ad hominem. "Duh, because Hovind served time in prison that proves he doesn't know science her derp!".

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^*yawn*


Ad hominem. durwank

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^*yawn*

Ad hominem. "Duh, because Hovind served time in prison that proves he doesn't know science her derp!". He doesn't know science because he doesn't understand relativity.

Pooty still hasn't manned-up and called to debate Hovind because he's so scared of him lol.

Hovind is just an old man, pooty. Come on, don't be chickenshit.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Pooty still hasn't manned-up and called to debate Hovind because he's so scared of him lol.

Hovind is just an old man, pooty. Come on, don't be chickenshit.

Didn't dd call to debate him?

Originally posted by snowdragon
Didn't dd call to debate him?

Yes. There was no option to schedule a debate or even talk to him.

I think you need press or something public because he needs publicity for it.

All you have to do is press the correct extension option. I believe it's #2.

How hard is that?

Oh, and Hovind doesn't need any more publicity. He gets more than enough already as it is lol.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
All you have to do is press the correct number option. I believe it's #2.

How hard is that? ill debate him here at KMC, get him to come.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
it is, actually many other countries in Asia do similar.

Gender just like 'race' are social constructs.

Which other Asian countries have similar?

More excuses from little chickenshit cowards.

Originally posted by Robtard
Gender just like 'race' are social constructs.

Which other Asian countries have similar? Thailand see "sissy" behavior as fine, so do Sri Lanka and even Japan I think. I'm sure others exist. Buddhism doesn't seem to have a problem with homosexuality at all, I'm not sure shinty or Hinduism do either. Good on them.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
More excuses from little chickenshit cowards. Get your mate to come to KMC.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Get your mate to come to KMC.


Lmao Kent doesn't have time for a back and forth forum kind of debate.
He's a very busy man.

Why are you so afraid of him, pooty? If you are so confident in your debate abilities and science knowledge you don't need all of your sad KMC friends as backup, do you?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Lmao Kent doesn't have time for a back and forth forum kind of debate.
He's a very busy man.

Why are you so afraid of him, pooty? If you are so confident in your abilities, you don't need all of your sad KMC friends as backup, do you? busy getting banged up! Excuses.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Lmao Kent doesn't have time for a back and forth forum kind of debate.
He's a very busy man.

Why are you so afraid of him, pooty? If you are so confident in your abilities, you don't need all of your sad KMC friends as backup, do you?

I already called him. Twice. The option is not there. I probably have to send a formal letter.

He would be much safer with me since, in general, I like his approach and we are both Christians. It would be a pleasant debate, not virtiolic.


Contact him and ask if he's interested in doing something like that. I can meet him. We can live-stream and record the debate.

It's sad that the only way pooty can take on a tired old man is by ganging up on him with his KMC friends lol.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
busy getting banged up! Excuses. Get him to come on a forum, I'm not a Christian and I can't promise I won't out him for being a complete ****tard.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I already called him. Twice. The option is not there. I probably have to send a formal letter.

He would be much safer with me since, in general, I like his approach and we are both Christians. It would be a pleasant debate, not virtiolic.


Contact him and ask if he's interested in doing something like that. I can meet him. We can live-stream and record the debate.


That's weird. He has debates with other people on You Tube on a pretty regular basis. Funny how they don't seem to have a problem setting up debates with him yet you do. You can easily find a lot of his recent debates on You Tube. His channel is "Kent Hovind Official".

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
That's weird. He has debates with other people on You Tube on a pretty regular basis. Funny how they don't seem to have a problem setting up debates with him yet you do. You can easily find a lot of his recent debates on You Tube. His channel is "Kent Hovind Official". Maybe he picks and chooses like most YouTube. Get him to the crucible of logic that is KMC. We are waiting for your pal.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
It's sad that the only way pooty can take on a tired old man is by ganging up on him with his KMC friends lol.

Debating him on a forum is a trash/retarded idea.

In person, live, where immediate responses are required with indepth of knowledge on topics is required is a far better debate medium. In person, live, you can't hide behind google searches and post links at each other.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Debating him on a forum is a trash/retarded idea.

In person, live, where immediate responses are required with indepth of knowledge on topics is required is a far better debate medium. In person, live, you can't hide behind google searches and post links at each other. Disagree. Not debating him on a forum is a trash/retarded idea. Google searches only help if you know what you are looking for DDM, otherwise...

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Lmao Kent doesn't have time for a back and forth forum kind of debate.
He's a very busy man.

Why are you so afraid of him, pooty? If you are so confident in your debate abilities and science knowledge you don't need all of your sad KMC friends as backup, do you?


So it's save to assume that since you hold Hovind up to be some master scientist, you also believe in the "Young Earth" theory like he does? Where do you stand there?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
All of the studies posted by Gehenna would suggest otherwise.

No, none of them would suggest otherwise.

Don't die on this hill

Other ways you can set up a debate with him:


By commenting under one of his videos that you want to debate him. You do it often enough and he will likely see it. About once a week he makes video replying to some of the comments on his videos. It's actually one of the more entertaining types of videos he makes because so many of the comments are so hilarious.


Or, you can contact the people who run the You Tube channel called "Modern Day Debate". That channel is a totally non-biased channel and they host many of Hovind's debates. They also have debates on a lot of other interesting topics as well. Like political stuff and debates about crazy flat earth nonsense lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, none of them would suggest otherwise.

Don't die on this hill Oh dear, here's Surt...

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Other ways you can set up a debate with him:


By commenting under one of his videos that you want to debate him. You do it often enough and he will likely see it.


Or, you can contact the people who run the You Tube channel called "Modern Day Debate". That channel is a totally non-biased channel and they host many of Hovind's debates. They also have debates on a lot of other interesting topics as well. Like political stuff and debates about crazy flat earth nonsense lol. doesn't he set a time limit so people don't get a chance to refute his bullshit.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Now it seems to be more that if you identify as conservative you are compelled to believe in a particular set of beliefs regardless.

That set of beliefs has also grown over the decades to include more than just religious dogma.

Best part is you could replace "conservative" with "leftist" and this statement is still 100% true.

And I'm sure anyone who thumbed up the original post will not be sad enough to disagree. That definitely wouldn't fly.

The left has a religion of their own, make no mistake.

Originally posted by Surtur
Best part is you could replace "conservative" with "leftist" and this statement is still 100% true.

And I'm sure anyone who thumbed up the original post will not be sad enough to disagree. That definitely wouldn't fly.

The left has a religion of their own, make no mistake. it's Surt falsely equalising as usual on his hill.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
it's Surt falsely equalising as usual on his hill.

Thank god you didn't agree with his original post, you'd be quite the pathetic hypocrite

And oh one more thing: only women can get cervical cancer. This is not up for debate, at all. It never will be up for debate.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
it's Surt falsely equalising as usual on his hill.

Par for the course.

Nah, what Surtur said is 100% true.

Originally posted by Surtur
And oh one more thing: only women can get cervical cancer. This is not up for debate, at all. It never will be up for debate. look up Swyer syndrome...

Originally posted by Surtur
Best part is you could replace "conservative" with "leftist" and this statement is still 100% true.

And I'm sure anyone who thumbed up the original post will not be sad enough to disagree. That definitely wouldn't fly.

The left has a religion of their own, make no mistake.

Uh-huh.

But what's the thread title?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, what Surtur said is 100% true.

Notice they couldn't actually put up any arguments as to why the left aren't the same.

I wonder how far someone who is pro life anti illegal immigratiom who agrees with the new title 9 rules from Betsy DeVos and came out vehemently against the mass protests would get with the progressive left.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
look up Swyer syndrome...

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Uh-huh.

But what's the thread title?

Don't care, just pointing out obvious facts. Good on you for not disagreeing, it's why you're only a part time e-gang member you could never fully drink their kool aid

Originally posted by Surtur
And oh one more thing: only women can get cervical cancer. This is not up for debate, at all. It never will be up for debate. Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
look up Swyer syndrome...

Yup, I noticed. It's par for the course for leftists.

Only women can get cervical cancer.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

I love this part. And no, the syndrome mentioned isn't the same thing.

Originally posted by Surtur
Only women can get cervical cancer.

Show me a case that proves otherwise.

I love this part. And no, the syndrome mentioned isn't the same thing. Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
look up Swyer syndrome...

Originally posted by Surtur
Don't care, just pointing out obvious facts. Good on you for not disagreeing, it's why you're only a part time e-gang member you could never fully drink their kool aid

I reciprocate the thanks for not disagreeing with my original post. 👍

Many leftists also argue that men can also get pregnant lol. Yup, that's the crowd that loves "science" so much.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
look up Swyer syndrome...

Look at Caster Semenya, she is a woman, but has male traits and while I believe she has a vagina, she also has inner-testicles. So here's a woman who could potentially get testicular cancer, despite being a woman.

Science is always proving Surt's claims wrong.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I reciprocate the thanks for not disagreeing with my original post. 👍

Well yeah, they all have their dogma.

Just like some atheists do, some make it akin to a religion in itself with the way they obsess over it and continually tell anyone and everyone they are an atheist.

Just like a damn vegan and if you have an atheist vegan god damn...

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at Caster Semenya, she is a woman, but has male traits and while I believe she has a vagina, she also has inner-testicles. So here's a woman who could potentially get testicular cancer, despite being a woman.

Science is always proving Surt's claims wrong.

Me>>>>>you if your next post doesn't contain evidence of a non-female getting cervical cancer.

Originally posted by Surtur
Me>>>>>you if your next post doesn't contain evidence of a non-female getting cervical cancer.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
look up Swyer syndrome...

Okie dokie, no link, so we move on.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well yeah, they all have their dogma.

Just like some atheists do, some make it akin to a religion in itself with the way they obsess over it and continually tell anyone and everyone they are an atheist.

Just like a damn vegan and if you have an atheist vegan god damn...

The atheist flexing really only seems to be a thing in the US. In most other English speaking countries and much of Europe the default assumption is that the person you're talking to is an atheist until they inform you otherwise and for the most part they won't bring it up and you won't ask.

I know 1 devout religious person. A friend of the family who goes to church several times a day. (I have no idea how she finds the time).

Militant vegans like Joey Carbstrong are hilariously entertaining though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yO5Hdidlh2g

Count Dankula is a fud.

Originally posted by Surtur
No, none of them would suggest otherwise.

Don't die on this hill

By all means, refute them. We will all await your brilliant retort.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, refute them. We will all await your brilliant retort. "back to your games again" - surtur

XYZ, were you hurt inexorably so by a trans person?

No. I just don't think should be lying to themselves and cutting themselves up permantly.

Originally posted by Surtur
And oh one more thing: only women can get cervical cancer. This is not up for debate, at all. It never will be up for debate. And men who are intersex, and biological males who have undergone MtF transition.

These guys can also get cervical cancer:

https://transguys.com/wp-content/uploads/checkitoutguys3.jpg

i.e. transgender men. They also have a right to medical treatment, have their awareness rasied that they need medical treatment, and to have their gender identity respected when recieving it, why do you have a problem with this?

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
And men who are intersex, and biological males who have undergone MtF transition.

These guys can also get cervical cancer:

https://transguys.com/wp-content/uploads/checkitoutguys3.jpg

i.e. transgender men. They also have a right to medical treatment, have their awareness rasied that they need medical treatment, and to have their gender identity respected when recieving it, why do you have a problem with this?

Only females can get cervical cancer. Provide a link to a man getting it. Just 1 case. Not someone who is intersex, but a male.

Nobody in this thread so far has been able to do this. They have only been able to talk about the possibilities, and even then had to use intersex people.

Might be a sign this is a losing issue and this is not the best hill to die on.

More proof the left doesn't embrace science: the firing of David Shor for posting a study(done by a black man) showing riots don't increase democrat voter turnout.

Does someone here wanna attempt to justify that as well?

And the 1619 project just flat out ignores historical fact, but is praised by a lot of lefties.

Any geniuses wanna come defend that too?

Originally posted by Surtur
Only females can get cervical cancer. Provide a link to a man getting it. Just 1 case. Not someone who is intersex, but a male.

Nobody in this thread so far has been able to do this. They have only been able to talk about the possibilities, and even then had to use intersex people.

Might be a sign this is a losing issue and this is not the best hill to die on. Intersex men and trangender women are not biologically female and can get cervix cancer, this is a fact, so we can move on from that.

So again:
Can I get a genuine response?

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Intersex men

Not a male if you have a cervix



A transgender woman is a person born male who identifies as a woman, and they can't get it.



You seem confused. Men can't get cervical cancer. Transgender women were born men. Someone born female but who identifies as a guy is a transgender man. And yes they can get it(cuz they're not really men, you see?)




I have no problem with females(even ones who believe they are men) getting treated for their cervical cancer.

And why even pretend like those who threw a b*tch fit over the sentence "only women can get cervical cancer" did so with intersex people in mind?

You know damn well they didn't. And your final question wasn't about intersex people it was about transgender men getting treatment. Despite me not saying they should be denied treatment for cancers, how come you weren't all "why shouldn't intersex people get treated"?? Oh right, it's clear.

So why even try to bullshit me and act like you came in here in some grand defense of science and intersex people? Explain.

An intersex AMAB individual with a cervix is not a woman/female, end of. And yes, transgender women who have undergone bottom surgery are at a small risk of getting cervical cancer, google it.

If you don't which to nitpick over details like this then don't support absolutist statements that you're unable to defend.
The "b*tch fit" was thrown by those taking issue with medical orgs being inclusive of trans, non-binary and intersex individuals when talking about cervical cancer. Namely by using terms like "people with cervixes" instead of "women with cervixes" in relation to getting treatment. The reason? Because trans, non-binary and intersex people are at risk of getting cervical cancer as well, and not including them in the conversation only risks them missing out on screenings.

I encourage you to read up on why such issues are trending before wading in to the debate, because based on your response to my question, you shouldn't have any problem with medical orgs behaving in this way.

Oh I'm aware of the reason those who melted down have given for it.

It's not valid.

I encourage you not to make assumptions in the future

You can expand on your reasoning as to why anytime, but I don't expect you to. Until next time.

Time to show how much the left truly appreciates science, some articles about David Shor, fired for sharing data from a study(conducted by a black man no less):

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/case-for-liberalism-tom-cotton-new-york-times-james-bennet.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/

Time to show how much the left appreciates historical fact:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/not-the-way-to-do-history-princeton-university-historian-blasts-1619-project-as-historical-sloppiness-unworthy-of-pulitzer

https://reason.com/2020/03/06/1619-project-fact-checker-nikole-hannah-jones-leslie-harris/

I encourage folk not to die on this hill

https://i.imgur.com/oLLZfnD.jpg

V83JR2IoI8k

https://i.imgur.com/WySJ56N.jpg


ohhh she blinded me with science

I can't see, I'm bliiiiinded!

Yes, Men Can Have Periods and We Need to Talk About Them

blinded by the science, revved up like a deuce another beaker in the night

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh I'm aware of the reason those who melted down have given for it.


Seems like you're one of them TBH, I'm unaware of this story but can gather the details from context and you have brought it up more than once in more than 1 thread (I think).

Originally posted by samhain
Seems like you're one of them TBH, I'm unaware of this story but can gather the details from context and you have brought it up more than once in more than 1 thread (I think).

Nah, I'm not one. So don't even try going that route.

Brought it up in another thread to laugh. Brought it up in here for the obvious reasons.

But still, you did good and you've given the usual suspects something to cheerlead

Oh, you're wearing your tough guy boots today I see son.

I'll pretend to allow it even though I have no say in what goes on on this board or who says what.

You do you on your hill kid.

Originally posted by samhain
Oh, you're wearing your tough guy boots today I see son.

I'll pretend to allow it even though I have no say in what goes on on this board or who says what.

You do you on your hill kid. Bingo! Top match!

Originally posted by Surtur
Not a male if you have a cervix



A transgender woman is a person born male who identifies as a woman, and they can't get it.



You seem confused. Men can't get cervical cancer. Transgender women were born men. Someone born female but who identifies as a guy is a transgender man. And yes they can get it(cuz they're not really men, you see?)




I have no problem with females(even ones who believe they are men) getting treated for their cervical cancer. women can get testicle cancer. men can get breast cancer.

you're an idiot.

People with a cervix can get cervical cancer. People with testicles can get testicular cancer. Regardless of what other male or female sexual traits they have or what gender they identify with or are perceived as.

Originally posted by Artol
People with a cervix can get cervical cancer. People with testicles can get testicular cancer. Regardless of what other male or female sexual traits they have or what gender they identify with or are perceived as. Correct.

Originally posted by samhain
Oh, you're wearing your tough guy boots today I see son.

I'll pretend to allow it even though I have no say in what goes on on this board or who says what.

You do you on your hill kid.

Lets explore this: what about my post was "tough" ?

Originally posted by Blakemore
women can get testicle cancer. men can get breast cancer.

you're an idiot.

link me to a female getting testicular cancer, I'd love to know more about the case you're thinking of

Originally posted by Surtur
link me to a female getting testicular cancer, I'd love to know more about the case you're thinking of https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-0142(19850401)55:7%3C1607::AID-CNCR2820550733%3E3.0.CO;2-0 It's a testicular cancerous lump on her fallopean tube.Not all cancers are the same.

But that isn't testicular cancer though lol

in specific, you said women can get "testicle cancer".

Where are her testes located?