Jump to content

Are you a man or a woman?  

20 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
6 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:
On 11/13/2024 at 12:53 PM, CdnFox said:

Kid you have nothing to teach me.

I can believe that. As the old saying goes, When The Student Is Ready, The Teacher Will Appear. I hope that one day, you learn how insulting people isn't the best way to engage in a productive conversation.

You're trying to discuss something with someone who doesn't see discussion as an activity different from rock/paper/scissors.  To many here, discussion is a zero sum game and if you question assumptions, or are unclear on their points, they will declare that you are 'playing games' and abandon the discussion ... adding " and you know this " to their points.  So they simultaneously try to discuss with you and accuse you of being an abject liar.  It makes no sense.

I started using the IGNORE feature to said people en masse.  I do peek at their responses, guiltily, occasionally but it's a pretty effective way for me to focus my forum time on people who actually want to talk.

I don't believe I've ever used the ignore feature, though I -have- banned people from threads I've made in online forums where that's possible. It's not here, though, so I weather through it. As to why I don't use the ignore feature, I think it comes down to the fact that I think that even someone like CdnFox can make some very interesting points at times. I think basically it's a matter of filtering out the good from the bad. I've now at least started to not respond to some of his responses to me. As Radiorum so rightly pointed out in post #502, CdnFox is a heavy flame bait poster and it's never good to overfeed such posters with responses. An austere diet is the way to go. The idea being that they'll learn to appreciate responses more if they get less of them.

Posted
2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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... it is the status quo. When you go fill out forms for male or female, there is no standard box for cis as you are arguing for now. You are trying to change it. Now you are saying there is nothing to change? Trans people are fine with being called trans, there is no need to call people cis?

No, the main issue is not that there is transgender inequality, that is not what we were discussing at all, but please feel free to explain how that has anything to do with your wanting to change terminology for what male and female mean and then calling normal people cis. 

2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

So as you can see, there are -very- good reasons why trans people would want to hide the fact that they're trans from most people, as anti-transgender violence is a very real thing. 

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. 

Your position is illogical and makes no sense. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, phoenyx75 said:

I don't believe I've ever used the ignore feature, though I -have- banned people from threads I've made in online forums where that's possible. It's not here, though, so I weather through it. As to why I don't use the ignore feature, I think it comes down to the fact that I think that even someone like CdnFox can make some very interesting points at times. I think basically it's a matter of filtering out the good from the bad. I've now at least started to not respond to some of his responses to me. As Radiorum so rightly pointed out in post #502, CdnFox is a heavy flame bait poster and it's never good to overfeed such posters with responses. An austere diet is the way to go. The idea being that they'll learn to appreciate responses more if they get less of them.

Sure, but even CdnFox makes good points sometimes. 

To my experience, you'll have the best time if you ignore people that you can't engage with positively. I'll frame it that way so as to remove blame from either side.

Edited by Michael Hardner
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

I've already backed it up, you just didn't notice. If anyone else is intersted in the evidence I gathered on the subject, by all means take a look at the nested quotes in post #394 in this thread, which can be seen here:

All you did is link back to the same baseless assertion. LOL

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

To my experience, you'll have the best time if you ignore people that you can't engage with positively. I'll frame it that way so as to remove blame from either side.

Yeah... sure, except you don't just ignore them. You campaign against them, just like you are doing here. Then you repeatedly advertise that you have done it. 

What you are doing is garbage. Its not enough that you have to run away and hide from people, no, you have to try to get the whole forum to do it with you. 

Then when you get called out for it, you lie and act like it never happened. 

 

  • Sad 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

"Madness", eh? Your language betrays your mindset. What I'm concerned about is if it makes sense to continue to try to get you and others here to see certain things that you seem determined not to see.

I was never hiding my mindset. It is absurd what you are trying to argue here. 

You are conflating a lack of agreement and acceptance of your nonsensical definitions and bad arguments with an inability to see. I can see just fine what you are doing and I soundly reject it. 

 

1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

That depends on what definition is being used.

No, it doesn't. None of the definitions you provided say that a Democrat is merely someone who identifies as a Democrat. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

You always want to make this about me, when this issue is so clearly much larger than me.

You are the one here making these arguments. I am not making the issue about you. I am responding to the absurd and nonsensical things you are here arguing for. 

 

  • Like 1

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
41 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah... sure, except you don't just ignore them. You campaign against them, just like you are doing here. Then you repeatedly advertise that you have done it. 

What you are doing is garbage. Its not enough that you have to run away and hide from people, no, you have to try to get the whole forum to do it with you. 

Then when you get called out for it, you lie and act like it never happened. 

 

I don't campaign against anyone personally, I only recommend don't waste your time in Engaging with people who don't want to deal with you on an even level. 

Don't you think I'm a liar? So why do you want to deal with me, again? Why do you keep responding to me? It's intriguing 🤔

Posted
7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't campaign against anyone personally, I only recommend don't waste your time in Engaging with people who don't want to deal with you on an even level. 

Whether you think it is personal or not, what you are doing is garbage. You do in fact campaign against those you ignore to get others to do the same. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Don't you think I'm a liar? So why do you want to deal with me, again? Why do you keep responding to me? It's intriguing 🤔

Why do you deal with others in telling people to ignore them?

I call out your lies, because you post them here. 

Once again, you seem confused about how public forums work. You ignore people who call out your crap and then complain when people respond to your crap and then you go cry to the moderator because you can still kind of see the people you ignore posting. 

You should invest in a journal if this is too much for you here. 

 

LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... 

From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE."

 

Posted
1 minute ago, User said:

Whether you think it is personal or not, what you are doing is garbage. You do in fact campaign against those you ignore to get others to do the same. 

Why do you deal with others in telling people to ignore them?

I call out your lies, because you post them here. 

Once again, you seem confused about how public forums work. You ignore people who call out your crap and then complain when people respond to your crap and then you go cry to the moderator because you can still kind of see the people you ignore posting. 

You should invest in a journal if this is too much for you here. 

 

Ok.

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on that point.

Agreed.

But in the meantime, I'll be here to listen to any arguments you may have for mainstreaming trannies. ;) 

Posted
On 11/13/2024 at 3:18 PM, CdnFox said:
On 11/13/2024 at 3:15 PM, phoenyx75 said:

No, that would generally be posts you and others like you make. Full of assertions, yet almost completely lacking in evidence for said assertions.

Oh look, the loser lefty is accusing others of what he has done himself.

 

Your latest unsubstantiated assertion made me smile. I believe Yoda said it well:

 

Posted (edited)
On 11/14/2024 at 9:49 AM, Deluge said:
On 11/13/2024 at 12:33 PM, phoenyx75 said:
On 11/10/2024 at 2:59 PM, CdnFox said:

It's not a question of caring. It's a question of whether or not anything you say has value. If it contributes to a conversation or not or is just you being a pathetic little weasel.

One thing I hope you learn one day- personal attacks never contribute to a discussion in a positive way. Your emotions are in control, not you. 

This is funny coming from a trans sympathizer. 

You never were in control, my friend. You're fighting for a group of people that deny their true sex - it doesn't get more out of control than that. 

The issue I was discussing with CdnFox was about his lack of control when it came to insulting people he disagrees with. I'm hardly the only person to point out his flame baiting posts. Radiorum made a good post on some of his many flame baiting remarks in post #502 in this thread. Michael Hardner alluded to CdnFox's unproductive discussion methods in post #549. The writing is really on the wall when it comes to many of CdnFox's posts.

As to your assertion that I'm "fighting for a group of people that deny their true sex", you seem to be assuming that all transgender people believe the same things. They don't. From what I've seen, most in the transgender community accept that their biological sex is not the same thing as the gender they associate with, which is why they are transgender instead of cisgender.

Edited by phoenyx75
  • Thanks 1
Posted
On 11/14/2024 at 12:47 PM, User said:
On 11/14/2024 at 9:31 AM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

If this is your dumb game... not everyone defines male or female the nonsensical way like you are here arguing for... so, there goes your big argument. 

First of all, it's not my "dumb game". I'm just pointing out a fact. Secondly, I completely agree that not everyone defines male and female in the way that I and others do. If everyone did, I doubt we'd be having this debate to begin with. You may recall that in the post you were responding too, I was pointing out why your solution of just saying that "men are men" only works if everyone in a given audience agrees what a man is. Since there are clearly a fair amount of people (myself included) that now define men as people who identify as men, your solution won't work if anyone in a given audience has this definition, at least if you'd like to determine a person's biological sex.

Posted
On 11/14/2024 at 3:29 PM, Deluge said:
On 11/14/2024 at 9:31 AM, phoenyx75 said:
On 11/10/2024 at 3:24 PM, User said:

The very problem you are sitting here claiming you are solving. That there is some need for language to clarify what a real man is. 

No, we already have that language. Men are men and trans people are trans. 

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.

Posted

 

On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:
On 11/14/2024 at 8:11 PM, phoenyx75 said:
On 11/10/2024 at 7:41 PM, CdnFox said:
On 11/10/2024 at 4:57 PM, phoenyx75 said:

You've presented no evidence that calling biological males and females who identify as their biological gender would create a problem for 99% of the population.

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".

Posted
On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:
On 11/14/2024 at 8:11 PM, phoenyx75 said:
On 11/10/2024 at 7:41 PM, CdnFox said:
On 11/10/2024 at 4:57 PM, phoenyx75 said:

You've presented no evidence that calling biological males and females who identify as their biological gender would create a problem for 99% of the population.

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?

On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

Elon musk got so many complaints that it's now considered a slur on x.

Elon Musk got so many complaints about what?

On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

JK Rowlings wrote about it.

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. 

On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

We see it used as a slur and pejorative all the time. 

What is this "it" you're referring to?

  

On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

And eveyrone knows that.

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.

On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:

So not only are you a bit of a lying c*nt you're also a sealion. Pathetic.

Your constant personal attacks are your worst trait. Seriously, you really need to work on that.

 

Posted
On 11/15/2024 at 12:50 AM, CdnFox said:
On 11/14/2024 at 8:06 PM, phoenyx75 said:

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.

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.

Posted
On 11/15/2024 at 8:01 AM, User said:
On 11/14/2024 at 8:06 PM, phoenyx75 said:
On 11/10/2024 at 3:27 PM, User said:

No, your posting links without any thoughts of your own is easy.

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?

Posted (edited)
On 11/15/2024 at 8:37 AM, Deluge said:
On 11/14/2024 at 8:26 PM, phoenyx75 said:
On 11/10/2024 at 9:03 PM, Deluge said:
On 11/9/2024 at 8:03 PM, phoenyx75 said:

First of all, I'd like to think that calling posters a troll is a personal attack and thus now allowed. However, I'm not sure, so I've asked the moderation team to clarify.

Secondly, if no one cared what I had to say, I think the logical thing to do would be to just put me on ignore. Instead, I got 4 responses to the post you're responding to. So it's not that no one cares, it's that a lot of people in this thread don't like my point of view. Which is fine in and of itself, but I've always felt that personal attacks is the way to derail productive discussions. If I don't care to argue with someone anymore, I just stop conversing on my end. No need to attack the messenger.

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.

Edited by phoenyx75
Posted
On 11/16/2024 at 8:20 AM, Nationalist said:
On 11/16/2024 at 5:09 AM, phoenyx75 said:

A biological woman can't procreate without a biological man's sperm. But for people who define men and women as people who identify as such, a woman could in fact procreate with another woman's sperm- it's just that this other woman would have to biologically be a man and identify as a woman. This actually turned into a real life issue not too long ago:

N.J. trans prisoner who impregnated 2 inmates transferred to men's facility | NBC News

There are certainly laws of nature, but those laws don't include words. Words are defined by groups of people and can mean whatever said groups want them to mean.

Lol...the hubris of this is fckin' monumental. Your article proves that.

What do you think my article proves?

Posted
1 hour ago, phoenyx75 said:

What do you think my article proves?

As I said...monumental hubris. In your article and your argument, what's to stop the following fron happening?

 

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
4 hours ago, phoenyx75 said:

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.

I think that may be true, or perhaps may have been true when it was a question of going forward or going backward. 

There's no going backward today. 

There are far too many changes in the political landscape to undo.  There is no going back. 

So what is a conservative then? 

It is not a populist. For they want to Echo and amplify a chorus of complaints against the establishment. This used to be the main of the left, but it is not so today. 

It's not a capitalist, a corporatist, or a globalist. They are not interested in anything in the past, only the objectives of their Enterprise.

It's not a conservative Christian or fundamentalist of any faith.  What they would retain from the past just can't fly in a multipolar moral environments such as today, and in a multicultural population. 

To me, a conservative is someone who looks at the infrastructure of our collaborative politics and tries to move towards preserving and strengthening the principles that they have proven will help us in any future.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted

And here's a listmus test: People who come here to broadcast their views rather than dialogue, who see this activity as a zero-sum game, do not believe in politics. 

They believe in entertainment. 

They are part of the problem, in that discussion at a low level is needed today. And they would rather play games. 

They are not conservative.

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,861
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    SteveJohnson14
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Cyfar earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • JVDZD earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Barquentine went up a rank
      Enthusiast
    • Scott75 earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • A Freeman went up a rank
      Apprentice
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...