Deluge Posted January 18 Author Report Posted January 18 13 hours ago, Scott75 said: The problem with your logic here is that many people these days can simply tell you they're a man or a woman, not what their biological sex is. Now, if it doesn't matter whether they are the same sex as the gender they identify with, no worries. If it -does- matter, however, you may want additional information. You could, ofcourse, ask them what their biological sex is, but from what I've seen, the better question is whether they are cisgender or transgender. That's ridiculous and needlessly complicated. Normal, level headed, people can spot a tranny almost instantly. If they see the tranny in a situation that they shouldn't be in then they need to report the tranny, immediately. This is the correct way to address this situation. Quote
Deluge Posted January 18 Author Report Posted January 18 14 hours ago, Scott75 said: I think what you're doing above can safely be classified as trying to alienate those in the LGBTQ community, as the opposite of normal is abnormal, which I think we can agree has negative connotations. The better way of putting it is that -most- people date people of the opposite sex. Generally speaking, those in the LGBTQ community don't, with some exceptions. It's the same for LGB. Keep your shit out of classrooms and public libraries, and to yourselves, and there won't be any problems. Quote
Deluge Posted January 18 Author Report Posted January 18 14 hours ago, Scott75 said: I've seen marchers march for and against LGBT rights, with both having issues because of it. I've personally never been much of a marcher myself, I prefer discussing things online. All I've seen is reactions to LGBT activism. It's a natural, expected response. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 (edited) On 12/29/2024 at 11:06 AM, User said: On 12/29/2024 at 8:02 AM, Scott75 said: I agree that you quoted me. Great. Glad you're happy about that. For the audience, my -second- sentence is the important one: ** You may want to read the rest of my previous post to see where we disagreed. ** Edited January 18 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 On 1/8/2025 at 10:50 AM, Deluge said: On 1/8/2025 at 10:20 AM, Scott75 said: What I'm trying to do is use logic and evidence to try to come to a mutual agreement as to what is true. There is no logic in your argument, and the "evidence" is delusional. For the audience, note how he makes that assertion without actually offering any evidence for it. But let's continue with what he said and see if he actually provides any evidence for his assertion. On 1/8/2025 at 10:50 AM, Deluge said: You can't just foist your beliefs on society just because you think you're a woman. So there you have it, folks. I had -hoped- that he would have the decency to back up his rather insulting claim, but instead he just makes another unsubstantiated assertion. For the record, I've never claimed to be a woman. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 (edited) On 1/8/2025 at 10:50 AM, Deluge said: On 1/8/2025 at 10:20 AM, Scott75 said: There you are, insulting transgender people again. For those who don't know, tranny has been considered to be a slur for transgender people for a while now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny Anyway, could you elaborate on this simple declaration you're referring to? And I will continue to insult the trannies for as long as they keep pushing their agenda. Insulting people you disagree with is not exactly a good way to persuade them that you're right. Edited January 18 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 (edited) On 1/8/2025 at 10:50 AM, Deluge said: On 1/8/2025 at 10:20 AM, Scott75 said: No, I'm not a soldier for anyone, at least if we're defining a soldier by one of the following 3 definitions: ** noun One who serves in an army. noun An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer. noun An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/soldier I've never served in any army, or been "an enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer". Finally, I'm just not the militant type, by which I mean I don't fit any of the following definitions for militant: ** adjective Fighting or warring. adjective Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause. noun A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party. ** Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/militant Yes you are. You fall under this definition: "noun An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization." You've been arguing trans points for weeks, just like a soldier, or even a cultist. As I've pointed out in the past, there is no "trans agenda". There are people who support trans rights, but there are divisions within the movement as to what those rights should be. To name an example I already brought one up, trans surgery, hormones and hormone blockers. For the time being, I've become persuaded that minors shouldn't be getting any of these. I also strongly suspect that many adults wouldn't be getting these things done as well if more people would respect the gender they identify with without such body modifications. Edited January 18 by Scott75 Quote
Deluge Posted January 18 Author Report Posted January 18 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: 1, For the audience, note how he makes that assertion without actually offering any evidence for it. But let's continue with what he said and see if he actually provides any evidence for his assertion. So there you have it, folks. I had -hoped- that he would have the decency to back up his rather insulting claim, but instead he just makes another unsubstantiated assertion. 2. For the record, I've never claimed to be a woman. 1, you've been given evidence - lots of it. I've given you links, and I've given you common sense. It's not my problem that you've been brainwashed. 2. Up till now you may have not. One year from now, who knows? You may change your mind. 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: Insulting people you disagree with is not exactly a good way to persuade them that you're right. You're pretty entrenched, Karen. lol Insults are just about all that you and the trannies deserve. Quote
Deluge Posted January 18 Author Report Posted January 18 (edited) 10 hours ago, Scott75 said: 1. As I've pointed out in the past, there is no "trans agenda". 2. There are people who support trans rights, but there are divisions within the movement as to what those rights should be. 3. To name an example I already brought one up, trans surgery, hormones and hormone blockers. For the time being, I've become persuaded that minors shouldn't be getting any of these. I also strongly suspect that many adults wouldn't be getting these things done as well if more people would respect the gender they identify with without such body modifications. 1. Yes there is, and you've been given links, plus common sense. Your shilling has fallen on deaf ears. 2. And there are more people who don't support your idea of "trans rights". See, your problem is that you're so brainwashed that you can't distunguish between avtual rights and the tranny agenda. Fortunately I can distingusih between the two, and I'm here to help you understand that. Deny that there is an agenda again, and we'll have to go in depth with the evidence together. 3. The fact that we don't "get" the trannies is not our problem. If they want the surgery then it's on them, not us. Edited January 18 by Deluge Quote
CdnFox Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 10 hours ago, Scott75 said: Glad you're happy about that. For the audience, my -second- sentence is the important one: You don't have an audience. You have spectators, like any monkey in a zoo. Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
User Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 10 hours ago, Scott75 said: Glad you're happy about that. For the audience, my -second- sentence is the important one: Feel free to explain why it was important. Otherwise... 10 hours ago, Scott75 said: For the record, I've never claimed to be a woman. For the record, I am not sure you can even define the term in any meaningful way... Quote
CdnFox Posted January 18 Report Posted January 18 (edited) 27 minutes ago, User said: For the record, I am not sure you can even define the term in any meaningful way... He's already admitted that. The definition is fluid to him. To him a definition means something that changes whenever you feel like it on a whim without general consensus, especially for marketing purposes. To me that's not the definition of definition as i would define definition but if you do use his definition for definition that I guess the definition of definition must be fluid as well. And this is why it's impossible to talk to the work left Edited January 18 by CdnFox 1 Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 On 1/8/2025 at 12:11 PM, User said: On 1/8/2025 at 12:08 PM, Scott75 said: On 12/29/2024 at 7:59 PM, User said: Rights? Calling normal people cis is not a "right" Generally speaking, it is, Twitter notwithstanding. You certainly don't have to put any dollar signs on the term here, unlike another term you like to use on me. And I have yet to find a dictionary that says that it's a pejorative. The fact that I define myself as a cisgender male strongly suggests that it's not a pejorative as well. No, not generally speaking at all. It is not a right. I think it might be best to simply agree to disagree on this point. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 (edited) On 1/8/2025 at 12:24 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/8/2025 at 11:41 AM, Scott75 said: No, just trying to point out that you made a typo, while you've been trying to "change the channel" as you say. For those who'd like to see the typo in question, it's all in the nested quotes in my post #786. That is the literal definition of trying to change the channel. No, I just refuse to let go of the fact that this whole subthread apparently started because you refused to acknowledge that you made a typo, which I first pointed out way back in post #610. Instead, you went off with some nonsense that it was "hard to say" in post #645. Edited January 19 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 (edited) On 1/8/2025 at 1:21 PM, User said: On 1/8/2025 at 1:14 PM, Scott75 said: What do you think I attempted to do? Not playing your dumb dishonest games. Quote the entirety of what I said from over a week ago. I think it's safe to say that I requote more than anyone here. If you yourself aren't interested in figuring out what you think I attempted to do by following the quotes back, I think we can chalk the whole thing up to something that wasn't all that important. Edited January 19 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 (edited) On 1/8/2025 at 1:23 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/8/2025 at 1:19 PM, Scott75 said: My whims have nothing to do with this. I've simply been pointing out that the definition of male and female, when used in the context of gender, has expanded for a great deal of people, and has reached places such as Wikipedia and even the legal system. And yes, I also think this is a good thing. Bullshit. You've created your own ideology and are attempting to bend definitions to fit it. Surely you know that I didn't create the new gender definitions. Edited January 19 by Scott75 Quote
User Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 3 minutes ago, Scott75 said: I think it's safe to say that I requote more than anyone here. If you yourself aren't interested in figuring out what you think I attempted to do by following the quotes back, I think we can chalk the whole thing up to something that wasn't all that important. The issue is not requoting... it is your responding to crap from over a week ago in incomplete quotes. Yes, it is not important, so why bother if you are going to keep playing these games like this? 15 minutes ago, Scott75 said: I think it might be best to simply agree to disagree on this point. You are the one here pushing this stupidity. If you are just going to chalk things up to best to agree to disagree eventually... why did you bother to start at all? LOL Quote
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 On 1/8/2025 at 1:25 PM, User said: On 1/8/2025 at 1:19 PM, Scott75 said: On 12/29/2024 at 9:08 PM, Nationalist said: That you think your whims can dictate the meaning of words and that you can force this unnatural trap on society is...hubris. My whims have nothing to do with this. I've simply been pointing out that the definition of male and female, when used in the context of gender, has expanded for a great deal of people, and has reached places such as Wikipedia and even the legal system. And yes, I also think this is a good thing. Good, so stop hiding behind this game you are playing like you are just here pointing out things like some neutral observer when your arguments are challenged. If memory serves, you've frequently acted like I was coming up with these new definitions. I simply pointed out that no, I didn't. I never said I was a neutral observer. On 1/8/2025 at 1:25 PM, User said: Let's see you defend these absurd definitions you are here pushing. Been defending these new definitions for a while now. Hopefully you'll notice at some point. Quote
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 On 1/8/2025 at 1:27 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/8/2025 at 1:24 PM, Scott75 said: I'm glad that you at least recognize that Wikipedia is posting what I'm quoting. You can ofcourse ignore whatever I say as fantasy, but the Wikipedia posts are a solid sign that this is much larger than me. Not at all. All that shows is that there's a couple of deranged people out there and we always assume that. If you want to define Wikipedia as "a couple of deranged people", that's your choice to make. I think most people wouldn't put it that way though. I also notice that you cut off what I said after the bit about Wikipedia. For the audience: ** Even more important is the legal cases that have gone through the court system. As I have acknowledged in the past, what I suppose I could call the gender identity movement hasn't won every court battle, but I think they've been winning more than they've been losing and I see that trend continuing in the future. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how things will go if that trend continues. ** Quote
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 On 1/8/2025 at 1:54 PM, Deluge said: On 1/8/2025 at 1:40 PM, Scott75 said: I find your above statement to be quite ironic. I can't speak for the internet, but in -this- forum, what I've seen is a -lot- of lack of respect for people who are transgender as well as others from the LGTB community. No, what you're seeing is pushback. I guess that's one way of putting it, but I don't think you really understand what you're pushing back against. I'd say what you and others are essentially trying to push back the LGBTQ community back into the small corner of society that it used to inhabit. It's not happening. But I guess you'll keep on trying, one insult at a time. On 1/8/2025 at 1:54 PM, Deluge said: It's funny; you think drag queens are being victimized because there's opposition to them reading stories to kids, or pole dancing in front of kids. lol I've already said that I skeptical that pole dancing in front of kids is a good idea, regardless of whether they're drag queens or anyone else, but I haven't heard that happening much to begin with. Drag queens reading stories to kids seems fine to me. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 35 minutes ago, Scott75 said: No, I just refuse to let go of the fact that this whole subthread apparently started because you refused to acknowledge that you made a typo, Well that's a blatant lie. Which I'll stack on top of your other blatant lies and hypocrisy. And again you still haven't addressed the basic points that have been raised to you by myself or anyone else. You insisted it's your right to call people cis but it's not anyone's right to call a man a man. You refuse to deal with any of the other issues raised either. But sure, your ignorant behavior, your hypocrisy, your refusal to address any of the points raised and bad faith discussions, you're disgusting and rude degradation of others, those are all my fault and not yours. Why not. 8 minutes ago, Scott75 said: If you want to define Wikipedia as "a couple of deranged people", that's your choice to make And here we have another example of your dishonesty. I question the integrity of a couple of contributors and you change it to me saying Wikipedia in its entirety is somehow only a couple of contributors. And the reason you do that is you can't address the point I made. All you can do is lie and dishonestly attempt to change the subject so that you can then argue with whatever you have framed. Can you point out where I said that all of Wikipedia are a couple of deranged people? No, no where, not at all? What a filthy dishonest liar you are. Typical of the left Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 (edited) On 1/8/2025 at 3:47 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/8/2025 at 1:32 PM, Scott75 said: I think Radiorum had a good response to you there: You mean you under another account. No, as I've mentioned before, Radiorum and I are different people. We even have some things we don't agree on, though I haven't challenged him in said threads. I find this one more interesting, and I only have so much time. It'd actually be pretty obvious if you knew anything about my views on the 2020 U.S. Federal election, but you don't, so I guess it's understandable that you still seem to think that we're the same person. Edited January 19 by Scott75 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 On 1/8/2025 at 6:38 PM, CdnFox said: On 1/8/2025 at 6:36 PM, Scott75 said: As I've told CdnFox before, I only have one account here. You're literally replying to me and talking to me as if I'm in the third person. Yes, but you're not the only person here, now, are you? Considering how our rapport is not exactly great, I had hoped to get a response from someone else, notably Radiorum, and I wasn't disappointed. For those in the audience, Radiorum responded to my post in post #1083. On 1/8/2025 at 6:38 PM, CdnFox said: See, nobody does that. Nobody quotes the way that you do. Almost sounds like you're recognizing the fact that I have a unique posting style. But then you ruin it with what you say afterwards... On 1/8/2025 at 6:38 PM, CdnFox said: There's a few other idiosyncrasies that are unique to you. Yet they show up with other people posting on this thread Let me guess, you think Radiorum is me -.- Given enough time, I think you'll realize that we're not the same person, at which point you'll probably try to hide the fact that you ever thought we were the same person, just like you seemed to hide the fact that you made a typo not too long ago. One thing I will point out to help you along your path- posters can sometimes immitate posters they like. Heck, I've noticed that even posters who -don't- like each other can sometimes mimick each other's words, and I am by no means saying that I'm immune to this. I don't think it's a bad thing either. I think everyone's -goal- in forums should be learn from others and to try to understand why others think differently then oneself. I think trying to use the same types of words and even turns of phrase can help with this. Quote
CdnFox Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 13 minutes ago, Scott75 said: No, as I've mentioned before, I find you to be pretty dishonest so your statement means nothing to me Just now, Scott75 said: Yes, but you're not the only person here, now, are you? Considering how our rapport is not exactly great, I had hoped to get a response from someone else, notably Radiorum, and I wasn't disappointed. For those in the audience, Radiorum responded to my post in post #1083. Almost sounds like you're recognizing the fact that I have a unique posting style. But then you ruin it with what you say afterwards... Let me guess, you think Radiorum is me -.- Given enough time, I think you'll realize that we're not the same person, at which point you'll probably try to hide the fact that you ever thought we were the same person, just like you seemed to hide the fact that you made a typo not too long ago. One thing I will point out to help you along your path- posters can sometimes immitate posters they like. Heck, I've noticed that even posters who -don't- like each other can sometimes mimick each other's words, and I am by no means saying that I'm immune to this. I don't think it's a bad thing either. I think everyone's -goal- in forums should be learn from others and to try to understand why others think differently then oneself. I think trying to use the same types of words and even turns of phrase can help with this. Kid I'm really not that interested. You are very clearly a scummy and dishonest person so the amount of energy I'm prepared to put into it is less than it would take to read your reply. It is painfully obvious to me that you don't have one account here but more than one. You keep mentioning the one person I brought up and said I'm not 100% sure about and ignoring the one I was 100% sure about so it's pretty obvious that you've been lying. What a piece of shit you are Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
CdnFox Posted January 19 Report Posted January 19 1 minute ago, Scott75 said: Yes, but you're not the only person here, now, are you? Nobody here likes you. Nobody here is buying into what you say. Everybody here is agreeing with the fact that you're not responding to points that are raised. And our rapport is a direct result of your dishonesty and hypocrisy. If you want good rapport with people be less of a scumbag Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.