Originally posted by RobtardI will say, he was a bigot against Muslims. I figure having a mom born in Israel kinda skewed that, but it wasn't funny when he would rage on innocent Muslims.
Cool story, bro. (ps You can click my profile and see when I joined, so it shouldn't be a mystery)You were banned because of racist/bigoted comments you chose to make, stop trying to pass the blame to someone else, no one forced you to act the way you did. But good job admitting you're mad over it. Quote needed to prove I called you "racist white trash", seems like another lie
What for?
Originally posted by Peace KeeperGender and age are two very different things and are not interchangeable in society. The negative issues of a man identifying as a woman, dressing and living as a woman are practically non-existent aside from some bigots crying over the use of a restroom. An 18 year old identifying as a 70yo has negative implications, since as a society we have laws to assist the elderly for time they actually put in.
Then you'll easily refute my argument, showing how awesome you are.Debate me, show me the error of my ways.
You're using this as another distraction, as noted, it's little different that the "what if a someone wants to marry their cat next!?" argument when people cried about marriage rights and how it will ruin society. But hey, you tried.
edit: Personally, find this to be trite, we've already done this when you were Lp, are you that bored you wish to repeat it?
Originally posted by Robtard
Gender and age are two very different things and are not interchangeable in society. The negative issues of a man identifying as a woman, dressing and living as a woman are practically non-existent aside from some bigots crying over the use of a restroom. An 18 year old identifying as a 70yo has negative implications, since as a society we have laws to assist the elderly for time they actually put in.You're using this as another distraction, as noted, it's little different that the "what if a someone wants to marry their cat next!?" argument when people cried about marriage rights and how it will ruin society. But hey, you tried.
edit: Personally, find this to be trite, we've already done this when you were Lp, are you that bored you wish to repeat it?
You are saying someone born a biological male but feels they are a woman is acceptable but someone being biologically one age , but feeling like they are another age is not acceptable.
And you say its because it's more socially acceptable for a biological male to dress as a woman than a biological 30 yr old to live as a younger person?
You didn't address, in fact you completely ignored, my entire point....which is the logic used for transgendered people should also apply to trans-age.
What is socially acceptable doesn't matter to me or to whom should have civil rights. Blacks marrying whites/desegregation weren't socially acceptable, but they were righteous causes. If the trans-issue is a righteous cause, then you should support it no matter the social acceptability of it.
Originally posted by Peace Keeper
So, to be clear, I said transgender and trans age are equally acceptable under the logic and laws used by transgender people.You are saying someone born a biological male but feels they are a woman is acceptable but someone being biologically one age , but feeling like they are another age is not acceptable.
And you say its because it's more socially acceptable for a biological male to dress as a woman than a biological 30 yr old to live as a younger person?
You didn't address, in fact you completely ignored, my entire point....which is the logic used for transgendered people should also apply to trans-age.
What is socially acceptable doesn't matter to me or to whom should have civil rights. Blacks marrying whites/desegregation weren't socially acceptable, but they were righteous causes. If the trans-issue is a righteous cause, then you should support it no matter the social acceptability of it.
People who are forced to live as a different gender and/or suffer bullying and discrimination for their unorthodox desires suffer enormous amounts of psychological distress and sometimes physical danger. This is obviously an undesirable outcome, both for the negative utility unto itself and for all of the issues it provides to society. Making accommodations such as modifying bathroom rules and just accepting trans behavior removes an enormous amount of suffering and really doesn't cost anything.
Meanwhile, there are not nearly as many documented instances of people suffering psychologically for identifying as a different age, so there's no real impetus to allow for it - but it does provide real, meaningful issues in enforcing various important legislation. Meanwhile, identifying as a different gender doesn't muddle any information because you can still separately ask for sex.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
People who are forced to live as a different gender and/or suffer bullying and discrimination for their unorthodox desires suffer enormous amounts of psychological distress and sometimes physical danger. This is obviously an undesirable outcome, both for the negative utility unto itself and for all of the issues it provides to society. Making accommodations such as modifying bathroom rules and just accepting trans behavior removes an enormous amount of suffering and really doesn't cost anything.Meanwhile, there are not nearly as many documented instances of people suffering psychologically for identifying as a different age, so there's no real impetus to allow for it - but it does provide real, meaningful issues in enforcing various important legislation. Meanwhile, identifying as a different gender doesn't muddle any information because you can still separately ask for sex.
Are you saying there's no proof people are born in the wrong age? If proof is required to validate...well that means the entire transgender community is invalid.
Originally posted by Peace Keeper
I agree with everything you saod, but you dodged my argument again.
Is there a difference between transgender and trans age when following the trans argument of "I feel like I was born ----, so that means I am -----. And you should respect it.".Are you saying there's no proof people are born in the wrong age? If proof is required to validate...well that means the entire transgender community is invalid.
There are plenty of documented, medical cases of people having things like hormonal imbalances that make them want to identify with a different gender. I'm not sure if there are similar records of trans ageism.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
There are plenty of documented, medical cases of people having things like hormonal imbalances that make them want to identify with a different gender. I'm not sure if there are similar records of trans ageism.
Plenty of studies have shown people with hormone imbalances....but self mutilation is never recommended.
There are many studies that show that the brain changes with age, and some people's brains are younger than their age. Thats the same amount of evidence for transgender people, so trans age is acceptable.
I also dislike how the regressive left change definitions. Gender and sex are interchangeable in the pre 2009 Webster dictionary. Gender isn't a social construct. Neither is race.
Oh, and racism isnt bigotry and power. Racism is judging someone by their race. Full stop. All races can be racist against anyone.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
... you decide to counter argue by providing a link about a bunch of animal film makers faking it 58 YEARS AGO ... ?
I chose the lemming example for a number of reasons. Your response highlights the difficulty of correcting misconceptions through this type of discourse. I must give you credit for tacitly admitting you dismiss points even if they are valid, but you're doing it once more here.
For starters, it generally takes time to expose frauds. Sometimes decades.
If memory serves correctly, exposing some of the more famous archaeological frauds took about half a century. Easy proof? Google "Piltdown Man". Even in the preview of one or more of the hits, you'll see "took over 40 years to fully expose", or some such language featured for that search term.
The antics of the tobacco companies are so well-known they are scarcely worth mentioning here, yet how many years had passed before anyone called them to task? How many lives were ruined because people accepted the lie perpetuated by them and their "researchers", that smoking is neither addictive , or made deliberately so, or not a cancer- causing agent?
Again, decades, and not anywhere near the time their lies were being spread to the public.
40 or 50 years, in fact, seems about the average length of time it takes for lies or false research on major scale to BE uncovered, exposed, and/or made known to the general public to the extent that it will actually register in the public consciousness. Ever hear of the Tuskegee experiment, for instance?
I'm still in disbelief over this one.
Being Australian you might not know of it.
Here's a link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
Can you propose anything more wicked than this conducted by a democratic government? Want to guess how long it took before this was exposed and the truth made known?
This last example should highlight another reason that claiming "x" happened decades ago is not a sufficient rebuttal. For often "x" doesn't STOP happening until an OUTSIDE party confronts the perpetrators. The Tuskegee experiment didn't stop because the people running the program suddenly developed a conscience, did it? On the contrary, 40 years into it only the actions of a whistleblower raised enough awareness and outrage that they were FORCED into shutting that down.
In other words, the passage of time all by itself does not confer integrity to communities and their leaders and producers.
Mind you, I'd LIKE to believe people have become admirably moral since a generation or so ago. Do you truly believe they have, though?
I would like you to explain to me what supposedly now makes people more honest than their fathers and grandfathers were?
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I am acutely aware that one should not believe everything they see on tv as truth or a matter of fact.But I was responding to someone who believes a bad habitat sexually arouses animals to breed & turn to homosexual acts.
We can look at this one if you want. There's a danger to dismissing good information just because you consider the messenger who shares it "bad".
Xyz may or may not be trolling. To me it's irrelevant.
I see a good case to be made for at least some of the information he's presented here. You ridicule the idea of bad habitat causing sexual behavior problems, including acts we can term homosexual, for instance?
Think carefully even on what the following, famously highlighted in the news a few years ago, suggests:
Musth is linked to sexual arousal or establishing dominance, but this relationship is far from clear. Cases of elephants goring and killing rhinoceroses without provocation in national parks in Africa have been documented and attributed to musth in young male elephants, especially those growing in the absence of older males. Studies show that reintroducing older males into the elephant population of the area seems to prevent younger males from entering musth, and therefore, stop this aggressive behavior.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I chose the lemming example for a number of reasons.For starters, it generally takes time to expose frauds. Sometimes decades.
If memory serves correctly, exposing some of the more famous archaeological frauds took about half a century.Again, decades, and not anywhere near the time their lies were being spread to the public.
40 or 50 years, in fact, seems about the average length of time it takes for lies or false research on major scale to BE uncovered, exposed, and/or made known to the general public to the extent that it will actually register in the public consciousness.
[/i]
I totally understand the point you're making.
What I don't understand is the relevance you're trying to make in response to my questioning, "an ape shit habitat leads to sexual arousal & possibly homosexual acts."
I asked you to provide links to back XYZ's "facts" & you're overall response is "maybe in 40 or 50 years, there will be proof."
None of you examples even remotely touches the subject in question.
Originally posted by Esau Cairni don't even remember most of what I was saying.
I totally understand the point you're making.What I don't understand is the relevance you're trying to make in response to my questioning, "an ape shit habitat leads to sexual arousal & possibly homosexual acts."
I asked you to provide links to back XYZ's "facts" & you're overall response is "maybe in 40 or 50 years, there will be proof."
None of you examples even remotely touches the subject in question.
Originally posted by bluewaterriderWe can look at this one if you want. There's a danger to dismissing good information just because you consider the messenger who shares it "bad".
Xyz may or may not be trolling. To me it's irrelevant.
I see a good case to be made for at least some of the information he's presented here. You ridicule the idea of bad habitat causing sexual behavior problems, including acts we can term homosexual, for instance?Think carefully even on what the following, famously highlighted in the news a few years ago, suggests:
Musth is linked to sexual arousal or establishing dominance, but this relationship is far from clear. Cases of elephants goring and killing rhinoceroses without provocation in national parks in Africa have been documented and attributed to musth in young male elephants, especially those growing in the absence of older males. Studies show that reintroducing older males into the elephant population of the area seems to prevent younger males from entering musth, and therefore, stop this aggressive behavior.
And what "good information" are we supposed to be enlightened by from homophobic comments?
Now musth may lead to sexual arousal but nowhere does it state being triggered by a habitat that goes "ape shit" or that it leads to homosexual acts.
So once again. what is your point or relevance by mentioning it?
And I admire how you conveniently leave out quotes like;
" However, whether this hormonal surge is the sole cause of musth, or merely a contributing factor, IS UNKNOWN."
"Scientific investigation of musth IS PROBLEMATIC."
"Although is has often been SPECULATED..."
"Musth is linked to sexual arousal or establishing dominance, BUT THE RELATIONSHIP IS FAR FROM CLEAR."