Scott75

I'm not interested at all. Can't say I'm surprised, though I did hold a brief glimmer of hope that you actually wanted to try to understand why I believe what I believe. I've only brought up one youtube video so far, so I guess it's safe to assume that's the one you're referring to. For the audience who may have not seen the video DUI is probably referring to, that would be this one: The video has gotten 398,000 views since it was published around a year ago, so I'm not sure what DUI's standards are for "obscure". Perhaps only half a million views qualifies as something that isn't obscure for him, who knows. Anyway, I highly recommend the video, as it shows the double standards a lot of people have when it comes to questioning vaccines as opposed to questioning just about anything else. You do you, but I think it's good to be aware that not everyone is so trusting of the institutions you mention. As to the medical community, there's a growing chorus of doctors who have reservations on vaccines. Even the mainstream media admits as much: https://theconversation.com/the-1-in-10-u-s-doctors-with-reservations-about-vaccines-could-be-undermining-the-fight-against-covid-19-179929 https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/02/aaps-make-health-care-great-again/607015/ It was actually by following the links in the above 2 articles that I came across the following book: https://www.amazon.com/Vaccines-Trial-Truths-Consequences-Mandatory-ebook/dp/B077NX99G9 Quoting a bit from what I guess is the book summary: ** Mandated Vaccines or Medical Freedom? EVERY VACCINE COMES WITH A PRINTED INSERT "Permanent disorder" is a listed side-effect - an admitted reaction. Can you trust a shot that lists seizure and permanent disorder as a side-effect? Yet if you quote the vaccine insert people will call you a conspiracy theorist. Whatever side of the vaccine debate you're on, be open to read the science studies in this book. PROVEN FACTS 1. The US vaccine court has awarded more than $4 billion for vaccine-injurIes. "The federal government has compensated hundreds of cases of vaccine induced brain injury associated with autism. What they have acknowledged is that vaccines cause brain damage, and brain damage manifests as autism." – Mary Holland PhD ADVERSE REACTIONS ARE NOT RARE 2. “The CDC admits that the reported number of adverse effects of vaccines is probably only 10% of actual adverse effects.” – AAPS on Mandatory Vaccinations, April 9/2009 A new Health and Human Services study found "only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported." Vaccine-injury cases prove vaccines do not protect everybody. WHAT'S IN THAT SHOT? 3. Vaccines contain aluminum, mercury, and formaldehyde – chemicals that harm a child's tender body. Vaccine injuries, mercury toxicity, and autism have increased parental concerns. Are you willing to allow that risk for your family? MANDATED SHOTS BOOST VACCINE RISKS 4. The CDC admits MMR vaccine is formulated with cells from chicken and cow embryos, as well as aborted human fetal cells (WI-38 & MRC-5). YES, they inject humans with non-human DNA, as well as DNA from aborted fetuses. ONLY TWO SHOTS IN THE 1970s 5. Today, babies get 24 shots before age 2. Blue Cross Blue Shield gives a $400/child bonus to doctors who inject every shot. Beware of doctors who pressure you to fully-inject your family. Vaccines are big business. The profit motive has destroyed medical compassion. **

And which MEDICAL EXPERTS performed the peer reviewed research published on that amateur site? There you go with the capsed words again -.- There's no need to yell, you know? You were much more civilized in the "Are you a man or a woman" thread (I just changed my name from phoenyx75). Anyway, I think the following article is a good one when it comes to strong evidence that vaccines are harmful: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/hazlehurst/ Quoting the introduction to the article below: ** The Tipping Point of Justice for Vaccine-Injured Children Countless vaccine-injured children who developed autism after receiving routine vaccines have been denied justice for decades. Largely because the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) determined vaccines didn’t cause autism in three “test” cases. Those three cases determined the fate of 5,400 children in the NVICP’s Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP) — and those 5,400 children represent millions of vaccine-injured children. “The NVICP is one of the fundamental causes of the autism epidemic,” said CHD Senior Staff Attorney Rolf Hazlehurst. “Understanding why this is true and how the United States Department of Justice perpetrated fraud upon the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is the key to ending the autism epidemic.” **

That's unbelievably stupid. Like, literally, it's hard to believe that a functional adult could say such a thing. I have some suggestions as to how you could improve your posting style: 1- Be respectful of people who disagree with your own views. If this is simply too much for you to manage, at least reserve your insults for the end of your posts. That way, there's a much higher likelihood that the poster you're responding to may actually read the main body of your post. 2- Start with your arguments, not your conclusions. If nothing else, it has a higher likelihood of keeping those who may disagree with your conclusions around to hear your actual arguments. You failed on both counts, so I decided to stop responding to what you had to say after the second sentence. If that was your -goal-, though, then congratulations on a job well done.

So post your references to your "research" published in peer reviewed medical journals, or your claims mean NOTHING. No need to start caps locking words. I think that Children's Health Defense has a good article with some information that certainly suggests that vaccines do more harm than good: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/vaccine-curriculum/ As you may know, Children's Health Defense is a website that RFK Jr. founded.

You may want to do scientific research, instead of watching random YouTube channels. Oh boy -.- I've certainly seen some documentaries on vaccines, such as Vaxxed and Vaxxed 2, though when it came to debating the safety and efficacy of vaccines, I spent most of my time reading to solidify my arguments. But your assumption that I couldn't possibly be doing "scientific" research got me thinking of a good skit from Jimmy Dore on the Covid narrative. I'll let him speak for himself: Anyway, here's a thread I made back in June on another forum on the subject of the safety and efficacy of vaccines if you're interested: https://politicalhotwire.com/t/are-vaccines-truly-safe-and-effective.284388/ THe you either Googled "why vaccines are bad" or you're f*cking dyslexic. Always a bad sign when people start swearing because their worldviews are challenged. I suspect that with you, it may perhaps be best to suggest we just agree to disagree.

I've done a lot of research on vaccinations, and I've come to the conclusion that none of them are helpful and all of them are harmful. From what I understand, RFK Jr. doesn't go that far, but he -has- said that no vaccine has been properly safety tested.

I suspect that User isn't lying, at least in the sense that he is saying something that he -knows- isn't true. I think it's more that posters like User and CdnFox jump to false conclusions and then state these false conclusions as facts. I know that lies can be defined as untruths, but I personally think there's a big difference between someone -knowingly- saying something that is false and someone who just jumps to false conclusions.

So... if you change all normal people to cisgender and then label all trans people as male and female... everyone will know they are trans still. This isn't about changing anyone, this is about what labels we use for different categories of people. Secondly, I'm not advocating that terms like cisgender be used all the time, quite the reverse, I think they should be used sparingly, in situations where knowing whether someone is cisgender or transgender is important. The same goes for people who are transgender. In other cases, simply using the gender a person identifies with is sufficient.

You keep on saying things like "the vast majority", but you haven't actually shown me any statistics as to how many people mind trans people just saying that they are the gender that they identify with. The main issue is that there is a fair amount of transgender inequality. I don't have to show you statistics... That's certainly true. Ofcourse, assertions without hard evidence are frequently not very credible. You seem to think that because there is no standard box for cis in forms, this means that the vast majority of people would mind trans people saying they are the gender they identify with. If that is what you're suggesting, you've presented no evidence for this.

If you think you can rid society of such acts, you're barking up the wrong tree. We don't know the circumstances that lead to such beatings, but I'd say they are probably instinctual in nature. I actually spent a good amount of time just now trying to figure out the main causes of violence against the transgender community. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find much. Here's perhaps the best of what I could find: ** Harassment and violence Main article: Violence against transgender people The stigma against transgender people often results in physical violence or bodily harm, sexual violence or assault, and verbal or emotional abuse.[38] Transgender individuals are at increased risk for experiencing aggression and violence throughout their life when compared to cisgender individuals, especially when it comes to sexual violence.[39] Other kinds of abuse include bullying, harassment, and multiple forms of discrimination.[40] Abuse against transgender people can come from many different sources, including family and friends, partners, co-workers and acquaintances, strangers, and the police, and the abuse can occur at each developmental stage in life.[39] As homophobia and transphobia are correlated, many trans people experience homophobia and heterosexism due to people who associate trans people's gender identity with homosexuality, or because trans people may also have a sexual orientation that is non-heterosexual.[4][41][5] Author Thomas Spijkerboer [Wikidata] stated that "transgender people subjected to violence, in a range of cultural contexts, frequently report that transphobic violence is expressed in homophobic terms."[5] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transphobia

Like I said, you are the one creating this problem What problem do you think I am creating?

Oh, that's a given, but you apparently don't even have a high opinion of your own. You say things like "You've been given links" and suggest I haven't gone through them, but when I challenge you on your assertion, you say that it "doesn't matter anymore." I suspect it never did. I suspect your primary source is your own opinion, objective evidence be damned. Do people are just sick of dealing with your dishonesty. I'm going to assume you meant something like "Dude" instead of "Do". Anyway, you haven't provided any evidence that I've been dishonest. Personally, I think that everyone matters, even people like you who say things like this. These ad hominem attacks of yours are a real disgrace.

Personal attacks, the last bastion of those who have no substantive argument to make. Is this a joke? You just got done saying the poster would fit right in with KKK. No, I didn't. Deluge used a term that is generally considered to be a slur for transgender people and I pointed out that the KKK tend to use slur terms for people they dislike as well. Deluge, on the other hand, clearly used an insulting term on me.

And the majority of US citizens want the words male and female to be according to their biological sexes. First of all, do you have evidence that this is true? Secondly, even if it was true, there's clearly a sizeable part of the population, myself included, that believes that there should be a distinction made between a person's gender and a person's biological sex. This part of the population clearly has some clout, or there wouldn't be cases like the one I described above. First of all, no one is fighting biology here. The issue is how we're defining words. As to normality, I decided to look into the term and decided that what best describes what you're talking about are social norms. I found some interesting points in Wikipedia's article on the term. This one, for instance: ** Three stages have been identified in the life cycle of a norm: (1) Norm emergence – norm entrepreneurs seek to persuade others of the desirability and appropriateness of certain behaviors; (2) Norm cascade – when a norm obtains broad acceptance; and (3) Norm internalization – when a norm acquires a "taken-for-granted" quality.[7] ** This part too: ** Deviance also causes multiple emotions one experiences when going against a norm. One of those emotions widely attributed to deviance is guilt. Guilt is connected to the ethics of duty which in turn becomes a primary object of moral obligation. ** That, in turn, leads to unfortunate things such as this: ** Moretz has publicly supported LGBT equality.[84] Moretz, who is gay, also has two gay brothers; Moretz states they had initially tried to "pray the gay away" to appease their community.[85] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloë_Grace_Moretz

I'm sure the KKK said similar things about black people back in the day too. It's so easy to just say that some other group is wrong and use whatever means is necessary to try to put them "back in their lane", as you say. What's hard is to actually try to understand the other group's reasoning. The KKK hates black people and used to murder them, I just want the LGBT community to stay in their lane [snip] Oh, they don't just hate blacks. Recently, they sometimes don't even mention that part: ** June 18, 2021 by Ben Cohen Police in Virginia are investigating a series of violently antisemitic and homophobic flyers targeting a local school board that were distributed by a white supremacist group affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Flyers denouncing the school board in Fairfax, Va., as “Jew-inspired, communist, qu*er-loving sex fiends violating the words of the Holy Bible” were discovered on Wednesday, ahead of the board’s meeting on Thursday night. The flyers carried the insignia of the “Loyal White Knights,” one of several groups around the country that compose the organized KKK movement, along with the warning that “Yahweh is Watching!” ** Source: Ku Klux Klan Fanatics Distribute Antisemitic, Homophobic Flyers Targeting School Board in Virginia | The Algemeiner It certainly looks like in some ways, you might fit right in. Personal attacks, the last bastion of those who have no substantive argument to make. The KKK never did have a bright outlook on things - poor bastards. On this, at least, we agree. If you look at the nested quotes in the first part of this post, you'll see that I first brought up the KKK after you'd said "The key now is to get the trannies, and all the other radical activists, back in their lane so America can recover from the woke infection." You may not be aware of the fact, but the term tranny is a slur. Wikipedia spells it out: ** Tranny is an offensive and derogatory slur for a transgender individual,[1] often specifically a transgender woman.[2] During the early 2000s, there was some confusion and debate over whether the term was considered as a slur, was considered acceptable, or a reappropriated term of unity and pride, but by 2017, the term had been banned by several major media stylebooks and was considered hate speech by Facebook.[3][4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny The KKK and other groups of this nature also use coded language on those who they dislike. There's an article that delves into how politicians use coded language to appeal to those who dislike various groups, from blacks to the LGBTQ community. It can be seen here: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/1/10889138/coded-language-thug-bossy

Oh, that's a given, but you apparently don't even have a high opinion of your own. You say things like "You've been given links" and suggest I haven't gone through them, but when I challenge you on your assertion, you say that it "doesn't matter anymore." I suspect it never did. I suspect your primary source is your own opinion, objective evidence be damned. Your challenges are now irrelevant, phoenix75. You presented your cases and they've been shut down by the voters of this country. First of all, it's phoenyx75, with a y, not an i. I'm honestly thinking it might be better to just switch to the name I use in 'real life', if that's an option. I've done this in another forum I'm in. Secondly, I'm guessing that by "this country", you mean the U.S.? If so, the fact that Trump was elected doesn't mean that debates on things to do with transgenderism and other LGBTQ issues is over. Furthermore, people didn't just vote for Trump because of his stance on LGBTQ issues. Trump has a lot of stances. Some I even agree with, such as his stance to stop helping Ukraine bomb Russia.

I don't know if anyone is here to play games. I -do- believe that when people start insulting a person's views or worse, the person themselves, that it greatly impedes any productive discussion. At that point, I don't care whether they are conservative, liberal or something else, the result for me is the same, the quality of the conversation goes down.

By -that- definition, I would consider myself a conservative :-). I think your definition is basically conserving good values.

Lol...the hubris of this is fckin' monumental. Your article proves that. What do you think my article proves?

You ignore the answers and they're all stronger than anything you've got, yet you keep flapping your cyber gums. What "answers" are you referring to? ALL of them. Your statement reminds me of CdnFox's "Above" statement that he made back in post #376 -.- Honestly, I'm embarassed for you. Anyway, if you ever figure out what answers I'm allegedly ignoring, let me know.

I've put a lot of thought into my posts, but I also back up many of my points with evidence picked up from various sources. Most of the time, you and others on your side of this debate don't actually post evidence of any kind, instead just voicing your opinions and calling it a day. No, when you refuse to defend your assertions What assertions of mine do you believe I refuse to defend?

You put no thought into your posts. I think this statement is so obviously untrue that it's best to just quote it and let others decide for themselves who they want to believe.

Most find it insulting and derogatory And your evidence for this is where? All over. Do those types of nebulous statements ever work for you? Elon Musk got so many complaints about what? JK Rowlings has written about a lot of things. Can you be more specific as to what you're referring to? I will say that I've certainly done a fair amount of thinking about what JK Rowlings has written about in regards to transgender people. What is this "it" you're referring to? I don't even know what you're referring to by "that". It may all be perfectly clear in your mind, but you've got to put a little more work into explaining what you mean if you want to have a decent conversation here. Your constant personal attacks are your worst trait. Seriously, you really need to work on that.

But we have. Where? Above. If you're having comprehension problems then repeating it simply won't help What I'm having trouble comprehending is how you could think that saying "Above" would answer my question. I'm pretty sure that real answer is that you simply don't have any evidence that I "want to create a problem for the 99% of people who have no interest in being called cisgender by labeling them as such".

Your solution only works if everyone defines a man as a biological man and a woman as a biological woman and perhaps do our best to simply ignore intersex people. I and many others think that's a bad solution, which is why we no longer define gender to only include people of a given biological gender, but rather anyone who identifies as that gender. Now, I know, this isn't the traditional way of doing things, and I also know that conservatives tend to love traditions, but sometimes, traditions hold us back from a better world. I believe this is one of those cases. I have in the past mentioned a recent animated film that I think gets into all of these concepts without the lengthy words. I think it has a very good metaphorical way of describing gender fluidity. It's called Nimonia and it's available on Netflix. Here's the trailer: And your solution doesn't work at all - in fact it confuses the hell out of most people and causes real psychological damage to those who aren't prepared to deal with it properly. This is why it's best to stick with what has been, unburdened by what people like you, want. Change can certainly be painful at times. It reminds me of a quote from Frank Herbert that CdnFox really didn't like: "Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future." I'm sure it's a bit of an exageration, but I think there is some truth to it. The thing is, times change and people need come to terms with this. I can certainly agree that times don't always change in a progressive manner, but I definitely think that in this case, it is indeed progressive.