non-binary stuff isn't utter NONSENSE?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Vindris_SNH 01/11/18 3:46:16 PM #101:	I am actually appalled that our society has let this gender debacle get this far. It is absolute nonsense. You literally have to forgo common sense to think this kind of thing is reasonable. --- glitteringfairy: Just build the damn wall ThyCorndog: and how exactly will that stop the mexican space program from orbital dropping illegal immigrants? <cite>Vindris_SNH posted [p:893850552] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>I am actually appalled that our society has let this gender debacle get this far. It is absolute nonsense. You literally have to forgo common sense to think this kind of thing is reasonable.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
--kresnik-- 01/11/18 3:53:59 PM #102:	Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. --- President Trump 2020 <cite>--kresnik-- posted [p:893851069] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 3:54:42 PM #103:	--kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. im on the books as a saltwater crocodile dentistry is a big problem for me. --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893851126] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> im on the books as a saltwater crocodile dentistry is a big problem for me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hollow_shrine 01/11/18 4:15:55 PM #104:	--kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago. --- Whatever happened to standards? Whatever happened to bare minimums? https://i.imgtc.com/7UnK3hx.jpg <cite>hollow_shrine posted [p:893852533] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 4:18:37 PM #105:	hollow_shrine posted... --kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago. Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female. --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893852719] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago.</quote> Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 01/11/18 4:19:51 PM #106:	hollow_shrine posted... More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. What is your intent in wanting to talk with him over this issue, out of curiosity? --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:893852789] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote>More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. </quote> What is your intent in wanting to talk with him over this issue, out of curiosity?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hollow_shrine 01/11/18 4:22:38 PM #107:	s0nicfan posted... hollow_shrine posted... More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. What is your intent in wanting to talk with him over this issue, out of curiosity? I've no desire to talk with him about this. I wanted to draw attention to some of the mistaken priorities implicit in the reasoning of that post. --- Whatever happened to standards? Whatever happened to bare minimums? https://i.imgtc.com/7UnK3hx.jpg <cite>hollow_shrine posted [p:893852965] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote>More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. </quote> What is your intent in wanting to talk with him over this issue, out of curiosity?</quote> I've no desire to talk with him about this. I wanted to draw attention to some of the mistaken priorities implicit in the reasoning of that post.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 01/11/18 4:23:43 PM #108:	hollow_shrine posted... s0nicfan posted... hollow_shrine posted... More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. What is your intent in wanting to talk with him over this issue, out of curiosity? I've no desire to talk with him about this. I wanted to draw attention to some of the mistaken priorities implicit in the reasoning of that post. Then more generally, what is the purpose of having a discussion with anyone on the issue of gender fluidity? Would you say it is to educate them on the issue? --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:893853030] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote>More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. </quote> What is your intent in wanting to talk with him over this issue, out of curiosity?</quote> I've no desire to talk with him about this. I wanted to draw attention to some of the mistaken priorities implicit in the reasoning of that post.</quote> Then more generally, what is the purpose of having a discussion with anyone on the issue of gender fluidity? Would you say it is to educate them on the issue?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 4:27:26 PM #109:	Your clowns make no sense... If I say "The earth isn't flat... that's bullshit" You don't then come in say "Well, I don't want to discuss that issue with you cause you're not doing this in good faith" You lot are fucking insane!!!!! --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893853287] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>Your clowns make no sense... If I say "The earth isn't flat... that's bullshit" You don't then come in say "Well, I don't want to discuss that issue with you cause you're not doing this in good faith" You lot are fucking insane!!!!!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
not__shawn__z 01/11/18 4:28:08 PM #110:	hollow_shrine posted... Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. It has been that simple For one, he said basically. The word "basically" covers the exceptions and isolated incidents, such as hermaphrodites Secondly, you don't teach exceptions and include that as the norm. Ask someone how many fingers are you born with. The vast majority of people will tell you 10. I was born with 12. But we don't teach everyone that we are born with 12 fingers or between 10-12. You just say 10, because that's the vast majority --- Calling another user a jabroni is a flaming violation. - jabroni gamefaqs moderator <cite>not__shawn__z posted [p:893853336] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote>Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong.</quote> It has been that simple For one, he said basically. The word "basically" covers the exceptions and isolated incidents, such as hermaphrodites Secondly, you don't teach exceptions and include that as the norm. Ask someone how many fingers are you born with. The vast majority of people will tell you 10. I was born with 12. But we don't teach everyone that we are born with 12 fingers or between 10-12. You just say 10, because that's the vast majority</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hollow_shrine 01/11/18 5:17:05 PM #111:	s0nicfan posted... Then more generally, what is the purpose of having a discussion with anyone on the issue of gender fluidity? Would you say it is to educate them on the issue? Usually, yes, with broader aims towards fostering a more critical self examination of how we express ourselves. But context matters, and in this context I'm not sure education, or failing that structured discussion, is even a priority here. It's kind of the wrong time and place. That doesn't mean we should just accept people committing rhetorical malpractice, though. not__shawn__z posted... It has been that simple For one, he said basically. The word "basically" covers the exceptions and isolated incidents, such as hermaphrodites You say it covers them. I would say the generalization renders them nearly invisible. And if you look at the state of awareness of that distinction across history and even for people in this very topic, I think you have to agree with me. 'Basically' is not an inclusive term, but a functionally exclusionary one. And on your second point, your primary consideration is here seems to be one of convenience and an appeal to popularity. These aren't terribly strong foundations for an argument. Furthermore this position is actually complicated by your supporting example. Contrary your conclusion, we do eventually expect that the children to whom that original lesson is taught will come to understand its nuances: that while most people have ten fingers, there are people with more and people with less. To bring it back to this topic, the collection of us participating in this topic aren't children who need the crutch of oversimplification to organize the world. We appreciate a great deal of nuance in our day to day lives, when we're motivated to do so. The question at the center of this topic centers around that motivation or our resistance to it. --- Whatever happened to standards? Whatever happened to bare minimums? https://i.imgtc.com/7UnK3hx.jpg <cite>hollow_shrine posted [p:893856603] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>Then more generally, what is the purpose of having a discussion with anyone on the issue of gender fluidity? Would you say it is to educate them on the issue?</quote> Usually, yes, with broader aims towards fostering a more critical self examination of how we express ourselves. But context matters, and in this context I'm not sure education, or failing that structured discussion, is even a priority here. It's kind of the wrong time and place. That doesn't mean we should just accept people committing rhetorical malpractice, though. <cite>not__shawn__z posted...</cite> <quote>It has been that simple For one, he said basically. The word "basically" covers the exceptions and isolated incidents, such as hermaphrodites</quote> You say it covers them. I would say the generalization renders them nearly invisible. And if you look at the state of awareness of that distinction across history and even for people in this very topic, I think you have to agree with me. 'Basically' is not an inclusive term, but a functionally exclusionary one. And on your second point, your primary consideration is here seems to be one of convenience and an appeal to popularity. These aren't terribly strong foundations for an argument. Furthermore this position is actually complicated by your supporting example. Contrary your conclusion, we do eventually expect that the children to whom that original lesson is taught will come to understand its nuances: that while most people have ten fingers, there are people with more and people with less. To bring it back to this topic, the collection of us participating in this topic aren't children who need the crutch of oversimplification to organize the world. We appreciate a great deal of nuance in our day to day lives, when we're motivated to do so. The question at the center of this topic centers around that motivation or our resistance to it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 5:18:44 PM #112:	Via_Negativa posted... hollow_shrine posted... --kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago. Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female. I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893856726] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago.</quote> Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female.</quote> I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 01/11/18 5:22:40 PM #113:	hollow_shrine posted... Usually, yes, with broader aims towards fostering a more critical self examination of how we express ourselves. But context matters, and in this context I'm not sure education, or failing that structured discussion, is even a priority here. It's kind of the wrong time and place. That doesn't mean we should just accept people committing rhetorical malpractice, though. So the reason I bring this up is because you take issue with the structure of his post being more focused on "winning" and not "talking" (which is fair - being combative isn't a way to hold a conversation). However, if the purpose of a conversation is to educate, that already presupposes that one person is right and the other wrong, and that if you could only explain to them how they're wrong then they would change their mind. You say it's not a thing you win/lose because the very foundation of the conversation is that you've already "won" on the subject. Educating someone is no different than a debate, except the premise is that there's only one right side to the issue. You may disagree with the way he's talking, but his perspective is a valid one in a general sense. To be specific, it would be like debating with a flat earther: to even agree to a debate is to imply that they have a perspective that needs to be critically defended. Many people criticized Bill Nye for debating that creationist because they felt it gave undue legitimacy to his opponent. The other poster is effectively taking the same position: you want a "conversation" about a topic he feels doesn't merit one. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:893856995] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote>Usually, yes, with broader aims towards fostering a more critical self examination of how we express ourselves. But context matters, and in this context I'm not sure education, or failing that structured discussion, is even a priority here. It's kind of the wrong time and place. That doesn't mean we should just accept people committing rhetorical malpractice, though.</quote> So the reason I bring this up is because you take issue with the structure of his post being more focused on "winning" and not "talking" (which is fair - being combative isn't a way to hold a conversation). However, if the purpose of a conversation is to educate, that already presupposes that one person is right and the other wrong, and that if you could only explain to them how they're wrong then they would change their mind. You say it's not a thing you win/lose because the very foundation of the conversation is that you've already "won" on the subject. Educating someone is no different than a debate, except the premise is that there's only one right side to the issue. You may disagree with the way he's talking, but his perspective is a valid one in a general sense. To be specific, it would be like debating with a flat earther: to even agree to a debate is to imply that they have a perspective that needs to be critically defended. Many people criticized Bill Nye for debating that creationist because they felt it gave undue legitimacy to his opponent. The other poster is effectively taking the same position: you want a "conversation" about a topic he feels doesn't merit one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 5:23:48 PM #114:	averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... hollow_shrine posted... --kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago. Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female. I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 So... linking me to some bullshit article does what? --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893857067] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago.</quote> Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female.</quote> I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943</quote> So... linking me to some bullshit article does what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 5:29:15 PM #115:	Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... hollow_shrine posted... --kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago. Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female. I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 So... linking me to some bullshit article does what? you should try reading it instead of calling it bullshit, because it's not bullshit and it pretty thoroughly disproves the idea that "there is no fucking area between male and female" --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893857389] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago.</quote> Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female.</quote> I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943</quote> So... linking me to some bullshit article does what?</quote> you should try reading it instead of calling it bullshit, because it's not bullshit and it pretty thoroughly disproves the idea that "there is no fucking area between male and female"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 01/11/18 5:29:45 PM #116:	It's all an example of the patients taking over the asylum --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:893857423] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>It's all an example of the patients taking over the asylum</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 5:30:37 PM #117:	averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... hollow_shrine posted... --kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago. Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female. I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 So... linking me to some bullshit article does what? you should try reading it instead of calling it bullshit, because it's not bullshit and it pretty thoroughly disproves the idea that "there is no fucking area between male and female" You don't understand what that article is talking about. --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893857487] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago.</quote> Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female.</quote> I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943</quote> So... linking me to some bullshit article does what?</quote> you should try reading it instead of calling it bullshit, because it's not bullshit and it pretty thoroughly disproves the idea that "there is no fucking area between male and female"</quote> You don't understand what that article is talking about.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 5:35:15 PM #118:	Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... hollow_shrine posted... --kresnik-- posted... Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are. Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago. Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female. I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943 So... linking me to some bullshit article does what? you should try reading it instead of calling it bullshit, because it's not bullshit and it pretty thoroughly disproves the idea that "there is no fucking area between male and female" You don't understand what that article is talking about. yes I do - the article is written pretty clearly. have you read it yet? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893857782] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>--kresnik-- posted...</cite> <quote>Basically, you are what your birth certificate says you are.</quote> Unless you're somewhere on the spectrum of intersex and your parents/doctor made a convenient decision. It's never been that simple. Even biologically speaking there are common enough outliers that the impulse towards generalization is almost always wrong. More telling is this tone, that this (wrong) conclusion constitutes the last word, as though it spoke with authority, as if there are even last words. You don't want to talk. You want to win. And you're willing to resort to intellectual dishonesty and willful reductive thinking to justify that position. You might as well not have participated in the discussion at all. And if you didn't want to talk about it you should have left it alone hours ago.</quote> Can somebody tell me what this post is supposed to be? There is no fucking grey area between male and female... medical conditions excluded. End of fucking discussion. If you're man with a female vocal tone and you like washing dishes... that doesn't make you a female.</quote> I've lost track of the number of times I've linked this article on here, but it pretty thoroughly disproves you https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943</quote> So... linking me to some bullshit article does what?</quote> you should try reading it instead of calling it bullshit, because it's not bullshit and it pretty thoroughly disproves the idea that "there is no fucking area between male and female"</quote> You don't understand what that article is talking about.</quote> yes I do - the article is written pretty clearly. have you read it yet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 5:43:22 PM #119:	It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? Did I not already exclude medical conditions? Am I tripping? --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893858297] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? Did I not already exclude medical conditions? Am I tripping?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
hollow_shrine 01/11/18 5:44:32 PM #120:	s0nicfan posted... So the reason I bring this up is because you take issue with the structure of his post being more focused on "winning" and not "talking" (which is fair - being combative isn't a way to hold a conversation). However, if the purpose of a conversation is to educate, that already presupposes that one person is right and the other wrong, and that if you could only explain to them how they're wrong then they would change their mind. You say it's not a thing you win/lose because the very foundation of the conversation is that you've already "won" on the subject. Educating someone is no different than a debate, except the premise is that there's only one right side to the issue. I think a lot of this is fair, particularly the hypocrisy of my winning vs talking contrasted with my stated aims (education) and didactic tone, both of which presupposed my own rhetorical victory. I should have instead, criticized the perspective that post claimed on the grounds that its understanding of the topic was reductive and incomplete, and this lack of understanding undermined its authority to claim that there was no need for serious conversion on this topic. --- Whatever happened to standards? Whatever happened to bare minimums? https://i.imgtc.com/7UnK3hx.jpg <cite>hollow_shrine posted [p:893858360] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>So the reason I bring this up is because you take issue with the structure of his post being more focused on "winning" and not "talking" (which is fair - being combative isn't a way to hold a conversation). However, if the purpose of a conversation is to educate, that already presupposes that one person is right and the other wrong, and that if you could only explain to them how they're wrong then they would change their mind. You say it's not a thing you win/lose because the very foundation of the conversation is that you've already "won" on the subject. Educating someone is no different than a debate, except the premise is that there's only one right side to the issue.</quote> I think a lot of this is fair, particularly the hypocrisy of my winning vs talking contrasted with my stated aims (education) and didactic tone, both of which presupposed my own rhetorical victory. I should have instead, criticized the perspective that post claimed on the grounds that its understanding of the topic was reductive and incomplete, and this lack of understanding undermined its authority to claim that there was no need for serious conversion on this topic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
s0nicfan 01/11/18 5:47:19 PM #121:	hollow_shrine posted... s0nicfan posted... So the reason I bring this up is because you take issue with the structure of his post being more focused on "winning" and not "talking" (which is fair - being combative isn't a way to hold a conversation). However, if the purpose of a conversation is to educate, that already presupposes that one person is right and the other wrong, and that if you could only explain to them how they're wrong then they would change their mind. You say it's not a thing you win/lose because the very foundation of the conversation is that you've already "won" on the subject. Educating someone is no different than a debate, except the premise is that there's only one right side to the issue. I think a lot of this is fair, particularly the hypocrisy of my winning vs talking contrasted with my stated aims (education) and didactic tone, both of which presupposed my own rhetorical victory. I should have instead, criticized the perspective that post claimed on the grounds that its understanding of the topic was reductive and incomplete, and this lack of understanding undermined its authority to claim that there was no need for serious conversion on this topic. that is a 100% fair reinterpretation of the other poster's post and tone. --- "History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz <cite>s0nicfan posted [p:893858547] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>hollow_shrine posted...</cite> <quote><cite>s0nicfan posted...</cite> <quote>So the reason I bring this up is because you take issue with the structure of his post being more focused on "winning" and not "talking" (which is fair - being combative isn't a way to hold a conversation). However, if the purpose of a conversation is to educate, that already presupposes that one person is right and the other wrong, and that if you could only explain to them how they're wrong then they would change their mind. You say it's not a thing you win/lose because the very foundation of the conversation is that you've already "won" on the subject. Educating someone is no different than a debate, except the premise is that there's only one right side to the issue.</quote> I think a lot of this is fair, particularly the hypocrisy of my winning vs talking contrasted with my stated aims (education) and didactic tone, both of which presupposed my own rhetorical victory. I should have instead, criticized the perspective that post claimed on the grounds that its understanding of the topic was reductive and incomplete, and this lack of understanding undermined its authority to claim that there was no need for serious conversion on this topic.</quote> that is a 100% fair reinterpretation of the other poster's post and tone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 5:49:51 PM #122:	Via_Negativa posted... It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893858706] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed?</quote> in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 5:51:23 PM #123:	averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? You haven't "disproved" anything... lol --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893858787] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed?</quote> in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html</quote> So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? You haven't "disproved" anything... lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 5:52:35 PM #124:	Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female" --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893858873] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed?</quote> in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html</quote> So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand?</quote> "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 5:53:39 PM #125:	averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female" How is it a "major" grey area? Like... are you just talking out your ass and rolling with it? --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893858951] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed?</quote> in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html</quote> So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand?</quote> "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female"</quote> How is it a "major" grey area? Like... are you just talking out your ass and rolling with it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 01/11/18 5:54:20 PM #126:	averagejoel posted... in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:893858989] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html </quote> You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 5:56:31 PM #127:	Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female" How is it a "major" grey area? I don't particularly care if you consider it a "major" grey area. that's irrelevant to my point though --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893859118] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed?</quote> in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html</quote> So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand?</quote> "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female"</quote> How is it a "major" grey area?</quote> I don't particularly care if you consider it a "major" grey area. that's irrelevant to my point though</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 5:58:32 PM #128:	averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female" How is it a "major" grey area? I don't particularly care if you consider it a "major" grey area. that's irrelevant to my point though What's your point? That people can run around identifying themselves as whatever and not be considered silly cause of some article on the internet about intersex conditions? No. Address that other dude while you're at it. --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893859230] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed?</quote> in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html</quote> So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand?</quote> "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female"</quote> How is it a "major" grey area?</quote> I don't particularly care if you consider it a "major" grey area. that's irrelevant to my point though</quote> What's your point? That people can run around identifying themselves as whatever and not be considered silly cause of some article on the internet about intersex conditions? No. Address that other dude while you're at it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 5:59:16 PM #129:	COVxy posted... averagejoel posted... in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided. ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893859267] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html </quote> You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided.</quote> ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 6:01:10 PM #130:	averagejoel posted... COVxy posted... averagejoel posted... in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided. ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well No. You fucked up. You have no clue. Don't try and spin shit. You posted a bullshit article that had nothing to do with me or what I was saying. --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893859392] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html </quote> You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided.</quote> ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well</quote> No. You fucked up. You have no clue. Don't try and spin shit. You posted a bullshit article that had nothing to do with me or what I was saying.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 6:01:32 PM #131:	Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed? in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female" How is it a "major" grey area? I don't particularly care if you consider it a "major" grey area. that's irrelevant to my point though What's your point? That people can run around identifying themselves as whatever and not be considered silly cause of some article on the internet about intersex conditions? No. Address that other dude while you're at it. obviously some people (like you) will always consider them silly. but that doesn't mean they aren't valid. you're also exaggerating the identity issue. "I identify as an attack helicopter" is not a real thing my point is that your assertion that there is no grey area between male and female is incorrect. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893859414] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote>It's an article that addresses intersex conditions. Is it peer-reviewed?</quote> in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html</quote> So, what does that have to do with what I'm saying? What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand?</quote> "there's no grey area between male and female, unless you include this major grey area between male and female"</quote> How is it a "major" grey area?</quote> I don't particularly care if you consider it a "major" grey area. that's irrelevant to my point though</quote> What's your point? That people can run around identifying themselves as whatever and not be considered silly cause of some article on the internet about intersex conditions? No. Address that other dude while you're at it.</quote> obviously some people (like you) will always consider them silly. but that doesn't mean they aren't valid. you're also exaggerating the identity issue. "I identify as an attack helicopter" is not a real thing my point is that your assertion that there is no grey area between male and female is incorrect.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
averagejoel 01/11/18 6:02:53 PM #132:	Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... COVxy posted... averagejoel posted... in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided. ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well No. You fucked up. You have no clue. Don't try and spin shit. You posted a bullshit article that had nothing to do with me or what I was saying. Yes. No I didn't. I am pretty clearly more knowledgeable on this than you are. I'm not trying to spin shit. The article is not bullshit, and it has everything to do with what you were saying. --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:893859501] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html </quote> You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided.</quote> ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well</quote> No. You fucked up. You have no clue. Don't try and spin shit. You posted a bullshit article that had nothing to do with me or what I was saying.</quote> Yes. No I didn't. I am pretty clearly more knowledgeable on this than you are. I'm not trying to spin shit. The article is not bullshit, and it has everything to do with what you were saying.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 6:08:06 PM #133:	averagejoel posted... Via_Negativa posted... averagejoel posted... COVxy posted... averagejoel posted... in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided. ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well No. You fucked up. You have no clue. Don't try and spin shit. You posted a bullshit article that had nothing to do with me or what I was saying. Yes. No I didn't. I am pretty clearly more knowledgeable on this than you are. I'm not trying to spin shit. The article is not bullshit, and it has everything to do with what you were saying. No, it doesn't have everything to do with what I'm saying. What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? I don't know what you're struggling with. Playing dumb isn't helping you out here. --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893859841] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Via_Negativa posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>in other words, it addresses a grey area in sex. it is not a binary and you can see their peer-review process yourself: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html </quote> You are confusing their actual academic journal with their news and opinions website. The latter works like any other online news publication, rather than the link you just provided.</quote> ah ok. I mostly linked that because I hoped it would shut him up, but no, he found another straw to grasp at. oh well</quote> No. You fucked up. You have no clue. Don't try and spin shit. You posted a bullshit article that had nothing to do with me or what I was saying.</quote> Yes. No I didn't. I am pretty clearly more knowledgeable on this than you are. I'm not trying to spin shit. The article is not bullshit, and it has everything to do with what you were saying.</quote> No, it doesn't have everything to do with what I'm saying. What part about "medical conditions excluded" don't you understand? I don't know what you're struggling with. Playing dumb isn't helping you out here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Via_Negativa 01/11/18 6:10:16 PM #134:	You're clearly more knowledgeable? LOL. Linking an article doesn't mean YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK you're talking about. It just means you can link an article and spout a bunch of shit which has nothing to do with me or what I'm saying. You can't even explain to me why that article applies to what I'm saying. --- What! The Farmclub! It's the mother f'ing -chika-chika- Farmclub! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJr8QDBH-3E <cite>Via_Negativa posted [p:893859984] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>You're clearly more knowledgeable? LOL. Linking an article doesn't mean YOU KNOW WHAT THE FUCK you're talking about. It just means you can link an article and spout a bunch of shit which has nothing to do with me or what I'm saying. You can't even explain to me why that article applies to what I'm saying.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 01/12/18 8:09:39 AM #135:	averagejoel getting absolutely demolished. Must be a day that ends in y lmao --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:893895291] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>averagejoel getting absolutely demolished. Must be a day that ends in y lmao</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 01/12/18 8:11:40 AM #136:	FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel getting absolutely demolished. Must be a day that ends in y lmao Guess a few more people will be added to his ignore list shortly. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:893895351] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>averagejoel getting absolutely demolished. Must be a day that ends in y lmao</quote> Guess a few more people will be added to his ignore list shortly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FLUFFYGERM 01/12/18 9:41:47 AM #137:	The Admiral posted... FLUFFYGERM posted... averagejoel getting absolutely demolished. Must be a day that ends in y lmao Guess a few more people will be added to his ignore list shortly. He probably surpassed the 300 user maximum or w/e the limit is --- but Marxist theory is extremely consistent, both internally and with reality. -averagejeol <cite>FLUFFYGERM posted [p:893898706] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote><cite>FLUFFYGERM posted...</cite> <quote>averagejoel getting absolutely demolished. Must be a day that ends in y lmao</quote> Guess a few more people will be added to his ignore list shortly.</quote> He probably surpassed the 300 user maximum or w/e the limit is</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DragonGirlYuki 01/12/18 2:17:12 PM #138:	I recall someone complaining on message board help about the ignore list cap being too small. --- ~Yuki~ <cite>DragonGirlYuki posted [p:893913722] in Who thinks... [t:76189888]...</cite> <quote>I recall someone complaining on message board help about the ignore list cap being too small.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > Who thinks that gender fluidity/non-binary stuff isn't utter NONSENSE? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Who thinks that gender fluidity/non-binary stuff isn't utter NONSENSE?