On facebook's part, I just see it as pure marketing.Mark Zuckerberg
- By increasing the options you open your social platform to a new or revitalized market.
- By increasing the variety you stir up controversy, or press, regarding your social platform.
Especially important for a platform that revolves around the differences of people I suppose.
Mark Zuckerberg/pol/ is always right.
Zuckerberg
berg
To be fair I might be able to argue for 3 - 4 gender classifications in total. Since there have been a reasonable amount of people born with both sets of genitalia, so classifying people like that is a bit more complicated than what is for most people. Granted I'm not sure a medical condition like that is exactly something that would I want to make public on my Facebook...
Overall definitely a case of Facebook taking a ride on the bandwagon for some publicity. But seriously what do they need to advertise for? They have like 1.2 billion user accounts, there is only so much market penetration that is possible.
It is an undisputed fact that there are only two genders: male and female. Not according to the progressives. I also think it's worth mentioning that out of 3 people who were interviewed in this video 1 is a jew, another one is a transfaggot and third one is an LGBT/transgender-activist. How adorable.
Now seriously, how in the hell are there people who actually think that this is okay or that it makes sense? You might say that if I don't like it I shouldn't care especially since I don't use Facebook but the thing is that shit like this is not going to stop here it will spread further just like LGBT "values" are right now, not to mention that it's only a matter of time until liberals think of a new form of degeneracy to spread around.
Discuss.
Symptoms of GID in children include disgust at their own genitalia, social isolation from their peers, anxiety, loneliness and depression.[11] According to the American Psychological Association, transgender children are likelier than other children to experience harassment and violence in school, foster care, residential treatment centers, homeless centers and juvenile justice programs.[12]
Adults with GID are at increased risk for stress, isolation, anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem and suicide.[11] Transgender women are likelier than other people to smoke cigarettes and abuse alcohol and other drugs. In the United States, transgender women have a higher suicide rate than others, both before and after gender reassignment surgery,[11] and are at heightened risk for certain mental disorders.[13]
Transgender people are often harassed, socially excluded, subjected to discrimination, abuse, violence and murder.[11][14] In the United States, transgender people are less likely than others to have health insurance, and often face hostility and insensitivity from healthcare providers.[15]
does anyone on this forum actually know like, anything about genderDo you know anything about it yourself?
except maybe xrain
please tell me you're being sarcastic hereAre you seriously trying to tell me that people with certain illnesses/disorders means that they're different gender? Perhaps you'd also agree that gender is a "social construct"?
also, although there are about 50 new terms a lot of them mean the same thing
it's mostly a matter of letting people be more comfortable with themselves in as many public settings as possible, a lot of people genuinely don't identify with one gender or another because of a variety of things like hormone imbalances, past trauma, etc.
at least look up gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder on wikipedia before you start speaking so authoritatively on this, I would consider that much to be the minimum amount of information before you should even form an opinion on this
Do you know anything about it yourself?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that people with certain illnesses/disorders means that they're different gender? Perhaps you'd also agree that gender is a "social construct"?
Are you saying gender is not a social construct? Because it definitely is. It's about classifying people into their social roles they fulfill. Males are considered as "strong, working, an authority, fatherly, limiting", and females are "delicate, motherly, emotional, tender". Also females are supposed to wear dresses and skirts, and men shirts and pants. But what happens if a man feels comfortable in skirts and decides to start using them? Now, he doesn't fit into the male/man role he's suppoed to be in. What happens if, also, he is not as "authoritative" or "fatherly" as he "should" be, and rather feels motherly? He would get buried in shit by people who think he should not be like that. That's genders and their limitations very shortly explained.It definitely isn't. Each gender has different physique as well as different hormones which directly result in males being "strong, working, an authority, fatherly, limiting" and females being "delicate, motherly, emotional, tender".
a forum full of only cis people is about as qualified to discuss gender as a forum of only white people are qualified to discuss raceIf anything, a room full of "cis-people" is the most qualified to discuss gender.
the only reason sex is related to gender at all is because your endocrine system produces hormones and reproductive cells, and those hormones affect the growth of your body and your brain as well as influencing the way you think, act, and respond to outside stimuliThis is the only reason you need to know in order be sure that there can be only two genders.
so yes, if someone has a natural hormone imbalance or a certain upbringing/set of experiences that causes the way gender forms in their mind to be outside of the traditional binary of male and female or simply on the other side of the binary (hence the latin prefix trans- being used), they can absolutely be considered a different genderNo they can't, the can be considered as having a disorder.
since these differences can come in a lot of forms, it's to be expected that there would be multiple terms for multiple variations. for example, genderfluid and genderqueer are two different things, but can also be considered a sub-set of nonbinary because genderqueer people's identities is never distinctly male or female, and a genderfluid individual's gender can change over timeI really don't even know how I should even properly respond to this argument of yours. The fact that gender cannot change is obvious even to a 12 year old.
the issue with this is that when your sex and gender line up perfectly, (hence the term "cisgender") it's hard to see them as two distinctly separate entities and so being told that they can separate or change independently of one another is hard to believe for the overwhelming majority of people
nobody's even asking you to change your own life to any noticeable extent, all that's being asked of you is to acknowledge that differences exist and that this particular minority (and all of them, really) deserves the same rights and privileges as you doDo you really think that it's a good idea to let minorities change our definition of things just so it would appeal to them? The rights of minorities should be considered and respected but the rights of majority shouldn't be questioned.
The rights of minorities should be considered and respected but the rights of majority shouldn't be questioned.OOOOOOOOOOH BOOOOOOOOOOOOY. How does this change your rights AT ALL?
Good God I have never thought that a day would come when someone would use such terms as cis-gender and genderqueer seriously on these forums.
It definitely isn't. Each gender has different physique as well as different hormones which directly result in males being "strong, working, an authority, fatherly, limiting" and females being "delicate, motherly, emotional, tender".
Young boys play with toy cars and girls play with dolls not because they're being thought to do this because it is their "gender role" but because that's what their own mind which is effected by certain hormones tell them to.
You can also just take a look at the animal kingdom too, even the genders of the least intelligent animals operate the same way and share same differences between them because of different hormones.
If anything, a room full of "cis-people" is the most qualified to discuss gender.
This is the only reason you need to know in order be sure that there can be only two genders.
No they can't, the can be considered as having a disorder.
I really don't even know how I should even properly respond to this argument of yours. The fact that gender cannot change is obvious even to a 12 year old.
Do you really think that it's a good idea to let minorities change our definition of things just so it would appeal to them? The rights of minorities should be considered and respected but the rights of majority shouldn't be questioned.
How can people not realize and understand something as basic as the fact that there are only two genders? I know I'm going to use a strawman for this but seriously this is as basic as the fact that Earth revolves around the Sun. I just cannot comprehend how some people think that there are more genders then just male and female, this is just beyond stupid.
This is the only reason you need to know in order be sure that there can be only two genders.
No they can't, the can be considered as having a disorder.
Do you really think that it's a good idea to let minorities change our definition of things just so it would appeal to them? The rights of minorities should be considered and respected but the rights of majority shouldn't be questioned.
All I'm going to say is that if someone has an issue associating themselves specifically with a male or female gender, I feel that's for them to deal with and in most cases we don't need to know. Having these options on Facebook as I said seems unnecessary to me but I don't really care. It bothers me when people push to entirely change how the word is used, and that eventually people are going to have a separate page on job applications and any documentation for 500 genders. In that case I hope you'd agree that it would be unnecessary.
i feel like at this point you're blowing the entire issue out of proportion and almost making problems up to excuse not changing such a small part of your behaviorBefore I address anything you've said, I'd like to point out something about your behaviour. Everyone seems to be afraid to openly express how they feel about one another here I guess because it's an open forum and that opens up a door for them to be attacked by others. However I'd like to be honest and point out the aggression you throw into your posts, which bring these kinds of discussions to a personal level.
does anyone on this forum actually know like, anything about genderFirst two lines, first post, right off the bat. You're immediately saying (indirectly) "you guys are stupid, you know nothing, you shouldn't have an opinion... except xrain." Or at least that's how I interpret it, and I feel that's not an unreasonable opinion. Exaggerated a tad perhaps, but there's no doubt a certain sarcastic "I'm better than you" tone to the way you communicate. I'm pointing this out because my immediate reaction to that behaviour is to say to myself "yea, right" and move on without taking what you're saying seriously. It also very clearly suggests that you're entirely un-open to other views, which could be understandably agitating.
except maybe xrain
it's not that you need to know every detail of their issues, it's that you need to understand the nature of their experiences and in turn have enough basic common decency to, say, refer to someone as "they" instead of "she" without having to be directly asked multiple times because you saw on facebook that they specifically set their gender to non-binary and that they/them pronouns are what they're comfortable withI have certainly no issue with doing such a thing. I feel I'm a fairly reasonable person and believe me I do try to treat everyone with decency. That's not the issue, however. I just don't see it's necessary to be redefining gender. I'm absolutely aware it's possible and happening. If you read through my first post I quoted definition for gender. It is simply an opinion though. Maybe it's simply because I'm used to the way things were so I have no desire for it to change. Call me stubborn but knowing that doesn't change my opinion. I still see that giving all these options is unnecessary because I'm sorry even with the information you've included I don't believe giving them these options will solve their problems if they're so troubled that they can't decide if they want to be referred to as male or female. It's not about not accepting their differences though. It's just as I said, I see it as an unnecessary push.
if you actually had any friends or talked to any people on good terms who were transgender, you would realize that the in-your-face angry yelling type of activism is mostly just a facade that gets put on simply because they're so desperate and exasperated from trying so hard to be taken seriously and still get ignored; once you get past that then they're pretty much average people who have normal interests and have no real problem with cis people on an individual scaleI disagree. If I have an issue with someone who's got the in-your-face personality that I don't like, I solely blame them for it. People react to situations differently and can consciously make the decision to better their behaviour if they think it should be bettered. If there's a cause for their attitude I can acknowledge it but there's a point that I'm not going to accept it or be around it which is a situation I've personally been having to handle a lot recently. I don't associate everyone or anyone in the LGBT community to be of that irritating pushy attitude unless they give me reason to. At the same time, I don't want to give reason for people to act this way.
also, why would you need a separate page for gender on a job application? you could literally just have a box to write your gender in, and if a potential employer doesn't know what it is one could explain it to them in less than five minutes easily. i feel like at this point you're blowing the entire issue out of proportion and almost making problems up to excuse not changing such a small part of your behaviorI'm sure I don't need to explain how exaggeration can be used when making a point.
Before I address anything you've said, I'd like to point out something about your behaviour. Everyone seems to be afraid to openly express how they feel about one another here I guess because it's an open forum and that opens up a door for them to be attacked by others. However I'd like to be honest and point out the aggression you throw into your posts, which bring these kinds of discussions to a personal level.
First two lines, first post, right off the bat. You're immediately saying (indirectly) "you guys are stupid, you know nothing, you shouldn't have an opinion... except xrain." Or at least that's how I interpret it, and I feel that's not an unreasonable opinion. Exaggerated a tad perhaps, but there's no doubt a certain sarcastic "I'm better than you" tone to the way you communicate. I'm pointing this out because my immediate reaction to that behaviour is to say to myself "yea, right" and move on without taking what you're saying seriously. It also very clearly suggests that you're entirely un-open to other views, which could be understandably agitating.
From reading your posts I get the feeling that you think of us who have a differing opinion in this particular case as closed minded. Again that's what I interpreted, by no means a fact as I don't know what you think. Ironic maybe. You aren't involved on here much any longer so I wouldn't expect you to know but I've actually defended the LGBT community on several discussions which also brought me to discuss things further with some people outside of the forums. I'm by no means a part of the LGBT community myself but I do support them. I feel everyone should have freedom to have their own personal preference in these matters and that it's none of mine or anyone else's business. However, I simply see extending gender to so many more options opposed to male or female as unnecessary.
I have certainly no issue with doing such a thing. I feel I'm a fairly reasonable person and believe me I do try to treat everyone with decency. That's not the issue, however. I just don't see it's necessary to be redefining gender. I'm absolutely aware it's possible and happening. If you read through my first post I quoted definition for gender. It is simply an opinion though. Maybe it's simply because I'm used to the way things were so I have no desire for it to change. I still see that giving all these options is unnecessary because I'm sorry even with the information you've included I don't believe giving them these options will solve their problems if they're so troubled that they can't decide if they want to be referred to as male or female. It's not about not accepting their differences though. It's just as I said, I see it as an unnecessary push.
I disagree. If I have an issue with someone who's got the in-your-face personality that I don't like, I solely blame them for it. People react to situations differently and can consciously make the decision to better their behaviour if they think it should be bettered. If there's a cause for their attitude I can acknowledge it but there's a point that I'm not going to accept it or be around it which is a situation I've personally been having to handle a lot recently. I don't associate everyone or anyone in the LGBT community to be of that irritating pushy attitude unless they give me reason to. At the same time, I don't want to give reason for people to act this way.
I'm sure I don't need to explain how exaggeration can be used when making a point.
but there's a point that I'm not going to accept it or be around it which is a situation I've personally been having to handle a lot recently.
Personally i'm ok with three gender options for facebook users.
1. Male
2. Female
3. Dickbutt
in what way are your rights being threatened? do you have a basic human right to call people "transfaggots" because their gender identity is foreign to you? you're literally saying that the rights of minorities are here for "consideration," as if they're simply an option that the privileged majority may grant at their convenienceThey are simply an option for the "privileged" majority, we are the ones who should dictate things. Perhaps such silly things don't threat my rights that much but it distorts the general understanding of basic things like marriage or in this case gender for everyone. The more things like this we add and the more craziness we tolerate the lower the nation's moral standards go. There must be high moral standards instead of just do and be whatever the hell you want.
Also, regarding your admitted resistance to change, you do realize that none of this will actually affect your life that much, right? Nobody is going to get mad at you unless you allow your opinions to influence their life negatively, which is what happens when you resist positive change even though it wouldn't harm you at all. If a fairly sizable group of people, although a minority, ask for their identities to be formally recognized and respected by society, I can't think of any good reason not to do so.Resisting positive change? Dude I or majority of people don't even get to say what change we want, it is literally being forced upon us.
I usually take my time to respond and attempt refute main points of my opponents in discussions but in this case I just can't
I'm sure most of you here have seen me participating in quite a few discussions before and you know that I usually take my time to respond and attempt refute main points of my opponents in discussions but in this case I just can't, I'm sorry if this is going to offend you gamefreak but these whole two pages you've posted are probably one of the stupidest shit I've ever seen posted on this forum seriously, you are literally using social justice warrior-tier arguments and I just cannot take anyone seriously who does this.
Yeah yeah I can't come up with counter-arguments to your points, I really don't care at all. Such basic things like the fact that there are only 2 genders don't require anymore explanation then what I've already said in this thread.
They are simply an option for the "privileged" majority, we are the ones who should dictate things.
Perhaps such silly things don't threat my rights that much but it distorts the general understanding of basic things like marriage or in this case gender for everyone. The more things like this we add and the more craziness we tolerate the lower the nation's moral standards go. There must be high moral standards instead of just do and be whatever the hell you want.
Resisting positive change? Dude I or majority of people don't even get to say what change we want, it is literally being forced upon us.
Also if you are claiming that there are more then 2 genders then please, show me a picture of someone with a different gender, I'll be happy to see one.
Now let's get a little bit more personal. May I ask you what influenced you into having such views? Was it tumblr, reddit, perhaps you're one of those social justice warriors or maybe you are studying gender studies? What exactly was it because I know that a sane person like you could never come up with these kind of ridiculous ideas by yourself, there has to be something that made you change your views. I think it would be appropriate for me to tell you that I do browse /pol/ daily so it could have an effect on my views but I can assure you that my views on things like gender, marriage or even Israel are pretty much the same as they were before me starting to browse /pol/.
I know I have no right into this since I'm not that active and I'm not admin but can I suggest someone to lock the thread please?Remember kids: We can't have opinions on discussions.
Remember kids: We can't have opinions on discussions.
I know I have no right into this since I'm not that active and I'm not admin but can I suggest someone to lock the thread please?
I know I have no right into this since I'm not that active and I'm not admin but can I suggest someone to lock the thread please?The point of this thread and forum in general is to have discussions. For now I see no harm in having it open personally, unless the content becomes personal attacks of attacks on others in general. I fee like a lot of threads end up having to be locked when people having differing opinions because everyone stands so strong to what they believe. Having differing opinions isn't a bad thing though. Disagreements can be made peacefully. I don't think it's too late for that to happen yet.
So, Prox can make a thread with the sole purpose of being violently hateful towards multiple minorities at once and that's Admin Material (TM), but if I call him out on it I'm suppressing his opinion? Am I reading this incorrectly?ursus no, I did not mean it like that I think you are a cool person, I just see this not as a discussion but more of an argument from my perspective and if it's not an argument then just agree to disagree.
jesus christ I knew this would happen once I read OP
i knew it was bait from the beginning but it just looked so fun and deliciousYou know he's serous right?
You know he's serous right?
I know he's seriousIdk, Prox is just into that kind of political stuff and discussing touchy stuff. See previous serious discussions.
but I also know he's aware of how far-right wing his opinions are and he said himself that he's desperate for discussion, which is why he deliberately phrased the OP in the worst way possible
that's baiting a flame war imo as if it wasn't bad enough that he said it in the first place, like referring to transgender people as a form of "degeneracy" or going out of his way to express disdain at the fact that one of the people in the video was jewish (i don't know WHY coolz or any of you would tolerate that in the first place, he's implicitly expressing support for genocide/eugenics with those comments)
either that or he's just a walking hate machine, who knows
Idk, Prox is just into that kind of political stuff and discussing touchy stuff. See previous serious discussions.
Prox you should become a politician and see where that gets you.
are you actually taking sincere anti-semitism seriously as a political viewIt's a serious political view, no matter how much you disagree with it. Some people honestly think that way.
are you actually taking sincere anti-semitism seriously as a political viewIs it not? I don't agree with it but it's still a political view.
Well, allow me.(http://imageshack.com/a/img836/9930/zdmg.jpg)
"I've talked to people before! I usually try to argue with people when I talk to them, but this time I can't because you're just so stupid. You're using arguments from an imaginary group of people that I disagree with, and that's a valid excuse for me to give up and still think I'm right."
Even though I could probably get away with just saying "This requires no explanation" and then leaving much like you, I've decided that I don't want to debate on the same level.
Your references to separate discussions are irrelevant. This is a separate issue from whatever you think you've debated before, and you can't bring backup ethos from the past to support your points.
It doesn't matter if you think it's "the stupidest shit" you've ever seen. You don't get to dismiss things because you think they're stupid. I'm still talking to you, after all.
Also, what is a "social justice warrior?" There is no formally recognized group called the Social Justice Warriors. You're attempting to passively refute my argument by saying that it's on the same level as a group of people that many also dismiss with an appeal to incredulity ("I cannot believe this, therefore it is false").
"Even though I'm literally admitting that I'm unable to win this argument, I still win this argument because I say so. My viewpoint is so obviously right that I don't even have to defend it, because I'm so right."
So, not caring makes you the clear winner? Just because you admit that you cannot produce a counter-argument does not excuse you from the implications of your admission. If you're unable to respond to my argument, don't pretend to have already disproven it.
Stating that your viewpoint is so basic and universally accepted that it does not need to be proven is not a valid argument. If a billion people think that the Earth is the center of the solar system, this does not make them correct.
"Yes, giving people basic human rights is actually my authority because I also say so. The majority should always be allowed to infringe upon the rights of minorities because it's our job and we've earned it by being the majority."
My point from your previous quote stands. A viewpoint is not automatically correct because a majority of people hold it. Why are we the ones who should "dictate things?" You're not even a majority, you're Lithuanian. Your country is smaller than my thumb on a map. Does being American, a citizen of the most powerful military nation in the world, give me the authority to dictate aspects of your personal life? Think carefully.
"Even though this issue admittedly doesn't threaten my rights, it will still confuse people on other issues in which I also believe my stubbornly held viewpoints are so right that I don't even need to defend them. If we give more people the capacity to lead normal personal lives we will lower our morals, which is still my authority to judge even though morals are purely subjective. We have to keep these subjective morals high from my standpoint, because people can't do what they want even if it doesn't affect anyone else, because I say so."
Just because the majority of people are too lazy to understand a new concept does not mean that it should not be introduced. You're using deliberately vague terms like "general understanding of basic things" and "craziness" and "nation's moral standards," or especially "do and be whatever the hell you want." Pissing in the general direction of my argument also does not refute it.
What nation? Again, you don't even live in the USA. You don't even live in North America. How is this an issue to you? What is "craziness?" Is craziness just a term for something that you disagree with?
Regarding the last sentence, I'll take this opportunity to remind you that transgender people do not choose to be what they already are. They simply choose the terms and concepts to describe themselves as accurately and precisely as possible, something that you have produced no valid reason so far to be in opposition to.
I'm actually not even sure how to sarcastically paraphrase this. Are you really complaining that every single change in society doesn't get checked by you? Who elected you supreme ruler of the human race? Also, Facebook is not a right. Facebook is a company and a service, a service you are not obligated to continue using. If you don't like the choices OTHER PEOPLE have in affording themselves a comfortable experience on one website, then don't use it. Are you being forced to change your gender identity? Nobody is saying that you're no longer a male. Has someone held you at gunpoint or threatened to kill your family if you don't change your gender on Facebook? You're directing so much anger at this that one would think so.
To quote a favorite post of mine, from your least favorite website --
(http://puu.sh/6Z0p6.png)
But really, what? What kind of argument is this? If this is what it takes to get you to believe that these people exist, here's a picture of one of my non-binary friends with their cat:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
If anything, this should at least show you that they aren't constantly shoving their gender in your face. Would you have known that they sincerely describe themselves as "genderfluid" if I hadn't told you? Were you expecting a picture of an alien? We're still talking about actual humans here, something you don't seem to like very much.
How is this relevant?
"Now that I'm done telling you how right I am, you should tell me who gave you this viewpoint because that's totally important. I should also inform you that I willfully frequent a board known for its views that closely align with neo-nazism. This somehow improves my argument."
Are you also going to imply that because my views have changed at some point, that also proves that they are wrong? Is a viewpoint only worth something to you if someone has stubbornly held it their entire life, the literal opposite of what produces an intelligent society? Nobody "taught" me to respect minorities, I realized that it was the right course of action on my own simply by associating with them normally and realizing that their problems were legitimate. How many transgender people are you friends with? How many have you even attempted to have a normal conversation with? Do you also think that Black people all drive expensive cars, smoke weed, and rape/murder innocent people? The way in which you're forming and asserting your opinions on world events and issues is like trying to rebuild a car while Bill O'Reilly instructs you based on the one time he replaced his back tires. Do you think that I would be qualified and also entitled to hold political office in your home country because I read a few threads on /pol/ about it?
Consider yourself lucky that no matter what opinion you hold on this, it will never affect your mental health or physical safety. Some people aren't as fortunate, mostly because of people like you.
For the most part, I'm sorry that I don't have the will of iron that would be required to type this out in a less aggressive tone. I'd have liked to discuss this in a way that ended with one of us saying "Oh, I guess I never realized that" and leaving the thread in peace, but I suppose that's not possible here.
So, Prox can make a thread with the sole purpose of being violently hateful towards multiple minorities at once and that's Admin Material (TM), but if I call him out on it I'm suppressing his opinion? Am I reading this incorrectly?Yeah, how dares this heterosexual white privileged cis-scum male oppress minorities with moral values and obvious facts, he is such a hater, he must be demoted!
I know he's seriousWhaaa whaaa its the holocaust all over again why dont u guise stop him!!!1111!
but I also know he's aware of how far-right wing his opinions are and he said himself that he's desperate for discussion, which is why he deliberately phrased the OP in the worst way possible
that's baiting a flame war imo as if it wasn't bad enough that he said it in the first place, like referring to transgender people as a form of "degeneracy" or going out of his way to express disdain at the fact that one of the people in the video was jewish (i don't know WHY coolz or any of you would tolerate that in the first place, he's implicitly expressing support for genocide/eugenics with those comments)
either that or he's just a walking hate machine, who knows
are you actually taking sincere anti-semitism seriously as a political viewWow, how dares he not to like Jews after what they're doing to other people(most notably Palestinians), he must be an anti-semite! You are literally this retarded.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img836/9930/zdmg.jpg)There's no wrong or right everything discussed in this thread is an opinion. Where his originates from doesn't make it an invalid opinion. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's wrong or that you're right. I have to give Ursus credit because he has acknowledged and refuted to his best probably every point that's been provided to him. While I still disagree with his view, he's backed his argument well and maybe could have conducted himself better on here (not the only one) but he at least hasn't entirely resorted to the "wow your opinion is just so wrong that you should just stop talking," attitude. At least not enough to entirely stop debating.
Back to tumblr you go.
Btw the person in your picture is either a female or a transfaggot(notice this EXTREME form of oppression guise) male.
Yeah, how dares this heterosexual white privileged cis-scum male oppress minorities with moral values and obvious facts, he is such a hater, he must be demoted!
Whaaa whaaa its the holocaust all over again why dont u guise stop him!!!1111!
Wow, how dares he not to like Jews after what they're doing to other people(most notably Palestinians), he must be an anti-semite! You are literally this retarded.
Lol, I don't think I've ever had a chance to witness how tumblr can delude people into becoming complete idiots who can't even look at the basic biology facts, I've only heard stories until now.
There's nothing else left to discuss for us, gamefreak, I'm not going to waste my time on trying to help you realize how wrong you are, I've seen multiple occasions on the Internet when someone tried to bring deluded people like yourself back to the real world and ultimately all of those attempts failed due to them refusing to accept any facts or arguments that prove them wrong instead they just kept brining their own arguments backed by muh feelings logic.
why do you care so much Prox? let people do what they want, how does it affect you in the SLIGHTEST what someone else THINKS they are? if you can answer that properly and not with some shit about transfaggots or cis-queers then do it.It would be nice if I didn't get the gay-agenda shoved down my throat on a daily basis and being forced to believe what they believe. Just like a Christan would shove a bible in yours. Also, you're right. It doesn't effect us, but when someone openly says "I'm a trans/faggot" out of the blues in attempt to show society that he's different, he needs to get treated specially, they deserve to get called out honestly imo. Especially now since all these companies are pandering to the horrid LGBT community (cough disney cough), or else they get labeled as a bigot corporation.
why do you care so much Prox? let people do what they want, how does it affect you in the SLIGHTEST what someone else THINKS they are? if you can answer that properly and not with some shit about transfaggots or cis-queers then do it.Because things like this have potential to go mainstream and become universally accepted in USA. But what happens next? These new "values" are literally being imposed on European nations and since Lithuania is unfortunately a member of EU, our governments then get political pressure from EU to force these new "values" come into effect.
There's no wrong or right everything discussed in this thread is an opinion. Where his originates from doesn't make it an invalid opinion. Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's wrong or that you're right. I have to give Ursus credit because he has acknowledged and refuted to his best probably every point that's been provided to him. While I still disagree with his view, he's backed his argument well and maybe could have conducted himself better on here (not the only one) but he at least hasn't entirely resorted to the "wow your opinion is just so wrong that you should just stop talking," attitude. At least not enough to entirely stop debating.No. I agree that there are a lot of subjects where there might not necessarily be a right or wrong opinion for example even the homosexual marriage thing, while I'm absolutely against it I'm still not absolutely sure if I could say that I'm being absolutely right or wrong, however in a thing as basic as how many genders there are, there is right and there is wrong, in this case I am right and most of you know it. Also just because gamefreak can write tons of words and sound like he's refuting my arguments it doesn't really mean anything and I could definitely refute his points if I wanted to but this wouldn't get me anywhere and would only waste my time.
I have a question though because after re-reading the comments and the original post I'm unsure. Did you make this topic with intention of just slamming minority groups and hoping everyone would jump in and agree, or were you actually prepared for a discussion or debate on it with more than one opinion?
Back to tumblr you go.
Btw the person in your picture is either a female or a transfaggot(notice this EXTREME form of oppression guise) male.
Yeah, how dares this heterosexual white privileged cis-scum male oppress minorities with moral values and obvious facts, he is such a hater, he must be demoted!
Whaaa whaaa its the holocaust all over again why dont u guise stop him!!!1111!
Wow, how dares he not to like Jews after what they're doing to other people(most notably Palestinians), he must be an anti-semite! You are literally this retarded.
Lol, I don't think I've ever had a chance to witness how tumblr can delude people into becoming complete idiots who can't even look at the basic biology facts, I've only heard stories until now.
There's nothing else left to discuss for us, gamefreak, I'm not going to waste my time on trying to help you realize how wrong you are,
I've seen multiple occasions on the Internet when someone tried to bring deluded people like yourself back to the real world and ultimately all of those attempts failed due to them refusing to accept any facts or arguments that prove them wrong instead they just kept brining their own arguments backed by muh feelings logic.
Because things like this have potential to go mainstream and become universally accepted in USA. But what happens next?
Also why shouldn't I care? Why do you think that not caring about attempts to lover moral standards of any nation is a good idea?
Do you believe that ultimate tolerance will make this world better?
Do you think that abolishing traditional values on which entire nations were built is a good idea? Do you think it is necessary to try and "fix" something that isn't broken?
Contrary to the belief, imposing such "tolerance" laws won't make the hate in this world disappear it will only make us more divided and hostile to each other.
however in a thing as basic as how many genders there are, there is right and there is wrong, in this case I am right and most of you know it.
Also just because gamefreak can write tons of words and sound like he's refuting my arguments it doesn't really mean anything and I could definitely refute his points if I wanted to but this wouldn't get me anywhere and would only waste my time.
And I haven't made this discussion trying to slam minorities(that of course might depend on what minority groups you think might exist), and I expected to see some arguments against my opinion that are backed with logic, not feelings or tumblr-tier arguments that I have seen hundreds of times before.
more divided and hostile to each other. Also do you think that those gruops who say that they want to bring tolerance to this world are tolerant themselves? Their definition of tolerance is that everyone must share their views, otherwise they can be considered as intolerant bigots.Consider what you just said as it's incredibly easy to apply to probably all of your posts on this thread.
however in a thing as basic as how many genders there are, there is right and there is wrong, in this case I am right and most of you know it.Actually that's becoming debatable, regardless to what you or I may have been taught.
[MASS NOUN] the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):
: the state of being male or female
Also just because gamefreak can write tons of words and sound like he's refuting my arguments it doesn't really mean anything and I could definitely refute his points if I wanted to but this wouldn't get me anywhere and would only waste my time.But you're above him, right? You don't have to agree that he's disproving your points or something, he's at least taking you seriously enough to give honest replies whereas you've stopped. That's the point I was making.
And I haven't made this discussion trying to slam minorities(that of course might depend on what minority groups you think might exist), and I expected to see some arguments against my opinion that are backed with logic, not feelings or tumblr-tier arguments that I have seen hundreds of times before.So valid opinions can't be formed from a person's emotion? I would have to disagree. You don't better any group of individuals by only considering your own emotions and opinions. Besides, I don't feel he's doing that at all. He's supported what he's said with his own valid logic where you're disregarding everything he's said because he's gone to "tumblr-tier." You're actually letting your emotion effect your posts far more than he is, you even refuse to acknowledge his points now because you think he's just so stupid.
Consider what you just said as it's incredibly easy to apply to probably all of your posts on this thread.The definition was put there for a reason in the first place. The only way it would change is if everyone goes "everything is social construct" and start rallying to change the official definitions of gender. If it's not broken, then why does it need to be fixed?
Actually that's becoming debatable, regardless to what you or I may have been taught.
Ofxord dictionary's definition of gender:
Merriam-Webster dictionary's definition of gender:
Both are reliable dictionaries but Oxford's expands a little bit past the two options. It's possible that the definition could change and that gender could be defined by the person rather than their genitalia.
The definition was put there for a reason in the first place. The only way it would change is if everyone goes "everything is social construct" and start rallying to change the official definitions of gender. If it's not broken, then why does it need to be fixed?Language and the way words are used is by no means definite and changes as a majority begin to use the word differently.
The definition was put there for a reason in the first place. The only way it would change is if everyone goes "everything is social construct" and start rallying to change the official definitions of gender. If it's not broken, then why does it need to be fixed?
Why should anything ever change? The world worked just fine when everyone rode horses and walked everywhere. The only instant communication we need can be accomplished by telegraph. How minimalist and traditional is your ideal society?That's the thing though, not all change is good. In our current society, we have very few traditions left because left-wing extremists go "too offensive ban plz". The tradition of marriage is already a joke now, how is burning out all old traditions ever a good thing in your ideal society?
That's the thing though, not all change is good. In our current society, we have very few traditions left because left-wing extremists go "too offensive ban plz". The tradition of marriage is already a joke now, how is burning out all old traditions ever a good thing in your ideal society?
(http://imageshack.com/a/img845/5467/izp6.jpg)Is being fat a social construct?
Consider what you just said as it's incredibly easy to apply to probably all of your posts on this thread.The tolerance groups want to impose their views on us so it's only logical that I retaliate in the same way.
Actually that's becoming debatable, regardless to what you or I may have been taught.It's becoming debatable not because science thinks it's necessary, but because the very same "oppressed minority" groups want to change it so that it would suit them because right now some facts are "racist" by their definition.
[MASS NOUN] the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones):A place as famous as Oxford university will obviously share politically correct views. Also the quote says that it is being used by people in this way instead of what it actually means in science and to be honest I rarely ever see people refer to genders as social or cultural constructs.
There is nothing valid about his logic on gender. And seriously I've already said many times that it is not the first time I hear arguments that are like the ones gamefreak has posted, I'm not going to sit there and put my honest effort into refuting his points because this is a subject that doesn't really require much explanation, I would probably be literally repeating my previous posts and for what? For yet another pointless wall of text that I would have to use the same arguments to refute because really that would be all it would take.
So valid opinions can't be formed from a person's emotion? I would have to disagree. You don't better any group of individuals by only considering your own emotions and opinions. Besides, I don't feel he's doing that at all. He's supported what he's said with his own valid logic where you're disregarding everything he's said because he's gone to "tumblr-tier." You're actually letting your emotion effect your posts far more than he is, you even refuse to acknowledge his points now because you think he's just so stupid.
How is it not? "Tradition" is just something that's used to justify a custom without having to back it up logically. Do you think that it's a bad thing that we've abandoned the tradition of legally being allowed to duel someone to the death with pistols? Slavery was a tradition for thousands of years until we realized that it was harmful and unethical. Traditional Christian marriage was over when divorce was legal anyway, why should it matter what someone else does in their own lives now?Some progression was justified, some progression was not. A fine example is the whole politically correct push. You're offensive if you say this, you're offensive if you say that, please respect my feelings. Like god, everyone's too afraid of speaking their mind without accidentally "offending" someone. I'm not talking about being an asshole with freespeech, I'm talking about stupid shit like "plz don't joke I'm 1/16th Chinese" and every little thing that could offend someone.
Is being fat a social construct?As I restated on Steam and will do so again, sex remains limited to male and female, gender would simply be a more broad word covering more options. Science would by no means be stating that there are other genders than there are currently, it has nothing to do with that.
The tolerance groups want to impose their views on us so it's only logical that I retaliate in the same way.
It's becoming debatable not because science thinks it's necessary, but because the very same "oppressed minority" groups want to change it so that it would suit them because right now some facts are "racist" by their definition.
A place as famous as Oxford university will obviously share politically correct views. Also the quote says that it is being used by people in this way instead of what it actually means in science and to be honest I rarely ever see people refer to genders as social or cultural constructs.
There is nothing valid about his logic on gender. And seriously I've already said many times that it is not the first time I hear arguments that are like the ones gamefreak has posted, I'm not going to sit there and put my honest effort into refuting his points because this is a subject that doesn't really require much explanation, I would probably be literally repeating my previous posts and for what? For yet another pointless wall of text that I would have to use the same arguments to refute because really that would be all it would take.
>Is being fat a social construct?Muh highly qualified medical physician with decades of experience and harvard degrees doesn't know a thing about muh body.
I seriously hoped I wouldn't have to post this, but I do.
(http://1-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/q/image/1344/84/1344840021480.jpg)
Shiggy diggy bo-biggy
Banana-fana fo-figgy
Mee-Mi-mo-miggy
Shiggy!
Is being fat a social construct?
The tolerance groups want to impose their views on us so it's only logical that I retaliate in the same way.
It's becoming debatable not because science thinks it's necessary, but because the very same "oppressed minority" groups want to change it so that it would suit them because right now some facts are "racist" by their definition.
A place as famous as Oxford university will obviously share politically correct views. Also the quote says that it is being used by people in this way instead of what it actually means in science and to be honest I rarely ever see people refer to genders as social or cultural constructs.
There is nothing valid about his logic on gender.
And seriously I've already said many times that it is not the first time I hear arguments that are like the ones gamefreak has posted,
I'm not going to sit there and put my honest effort into refuting his points because this is a subject that doesn't really require much explanation,
I would probably be literally repeating my previous posts and for what? For yet another pointless wall of text that I would have to use the same arguments to refute because really that would be all it would take.
Muh highly qualified medical physician with decades of experience and harvard degrees doesn't know a thing about muh body.
Actually, since you asked, in a sense it is. "Fat" is a subjective judgment based on someone's weight, which is just a number to describe the weight of your body. If someone has 1% body fat but their bone structure is so large that they weigh 300 pounds, are they fat? If they are, on whose authority? Being overweight/diabetic to the point that it affects your health is not a social construct, but "fat" is simply a judgment passed down through the media to make people spend more money on diet programs and gym memberships. There is no social or cultural benefit to insulting people based on their weight.Gamefreak, being fat isn't a social construct. Weight means a whole lot more than a number. Obviously if they're 7 feet tall and weight 300 pounds with most being muscle mass, they're not fat. But if you're under 6 foot and weight 300lbs that isn't just muscle mass, you're fat/morbidly obese, and you will begin having health problems.
Gamefreak, being fat isn't a social construct. Weight means a whole lot more than a number. Obviously if they're 7 feet tall and weight 300 pounds with most being muscle mass, they're not fat. But if you're under 6 foot and weight 300lbs that isn't just muscle mass, you're fat/morbidly obese, and you will begin having health problems.
(http://cdn.lolzbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Where-Do-Fat-People-Get-Their-Genetics.jpg)
You're right, she isn't fat, she doesn't need to go to the gym to spend money of fat and diet programs.
Actually, since you asked, in a sense it is. "Fat" is a subjective judgment based on someone's weight, which is just a number to describe the weight of your body. If someone has 1% body fat but their bone structure is so large that they weigh 300 pounds, are they fat? If they are, on whose authority? Being overweight/diabetic to the point that it affects your health is not a social construct, but "fat" is simply a judgment passed down through the media to make people spend more money on diet programs and gym memberships. There is no social or cultural benefit to insulting people based on their weight.There is nothing wrong in media or other people encouraging overweight people to start losing weight. Being overweight isn't even healthy to begin with so it is good that society wants everyone to seek perfection because that way we can progress faster.
How do you define "imposing?" Is asking you to acknowledge their existence and allow them to live peacefully "imposing their views?"Implementing changes trough political pressure against people's will or using mainstream media as a propaganda machine to persuade people into it. There are already plenty of laws that cover the discrimination issue plus many of the laws that defend the rights of majority also defend the rights of minority. You can't beat, rob, kill etc. minorities, they really do have enough laws that let them live just fine, except they often like to think that they're being targeted because they're different when often it just happens that they were just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, I'm obviously not saying that it is like that all the time. Also it is worth mentioning that not all laws that apply to majority may be compatible with minorities.
You do know we're discussing gender, right? What does racism have to do with this?I've used racism as an example. Also if minorities want to be tolerated they must live up to the moral standards of everyone else instead of "LOOK AT ME GUISE IM GAY".
You talk about minority groups trying to make their own lives tolerable as if that's a bad thing.
You're literally dismissing the dictionary on the basis that you think they're trying to be "politically correct," another buzzword that holds no real meaning. Not offending people isn't a crime, it's just an act of human decency.I've used the term and then I also provided more detailed explanation about the Oxford's definition of gender.
You rarely see people refer to gender as a social/cultural construct because you refuse to acknowledge them. Do you think that /pol/ and reddit are the only two sources of real human opinions on the planet? I don't see many people complaining about Jews or social degenerates because I don't associate myself with those communities.Sources of real human opinions I've seen: real life, biology lessons, all the documentary about animals and nature that I've seen, youtube, almost every place on the Internet I've ever been, and /pol/ too.
Please refer at my posts on the first page of this thread for more info.
Prove it. Bring up even once piece of concrete evidence against my point. Please.
That doesn't change anything. This sentence is unnecessary.
Really? If it didn't require explanation then I wouldn't have to ask you to explain it. You're refusing to reveal the facts behind your reasoning, which is not a valid logical structure I've heard of.
If it's so easy and you've done it so many times before, show me the posts. I'll argue against those too. You're still refusing to actually answer to anything I claim.
When I have seen him type things that had little to no logical fallacies to begin with. Why? What is the point of continuing this thread if...?I used that to show how simply gender can be defined, or at least how pretty much everyone in here defines it.
There is nothing wrong in media or other people encouraging overweight people to start losing weight. Being overweight isn't even healthy to begin with so it is good that society wants everyone to seek perfection because that way we can progress faster.
Implementing changes trough political pressure against people's will or using mainstream media as a propaganda machine to persuade people into it.
There are already plenty of laws that cover the discrimination issue plus many of the laws that defend the rights of majority also defend the rights of minority.
You can't beat, rob, kill etc. minorities, they really do have enough laws that let them live just fine, except they often like to think that they're being targeted because they're different when often it just happens that they were just simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time,
Erika Keels (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 3/22/07) Erika, a 20-year-old black transgender woman, was murdered on 22 March 2007, on North Broad Street in Philadelphia. Witnesses saw an assailant eject Erika from her car and intentionally run her over four times, killing her and leaving the scene. A medical examiner’s report supports these eyewitness accounts. But police ruled Erika’s death an accident and have refused to conduct an investigation. The driver, Roland Button, was later apprehended, but he has yet to face criminal charges–including “hit and run” charges.
I'm obviously not saying that it is like that all the time. Also it is worth mentioning that not all laws that apply to majority may be compatible with minorities.
I've used racism as an example. Also if minorities want to be tolerated they must live up to the moral standards of everyone else instead of "LOOK AT ME GUISE IM GAY".
I've used the term and then I also provided more detailed explanation about the Oxford's definition of gender.
Sources of real human opinions I've seen: real life, biology lessons, all the documentary about animals and nature that I've seen, youtube, almost every place on the Internet I've ever been, and /pol/ too.
Please refer at my posts on the first page of this thread for more info.
I used that to show how simply gender can be defined, or at least how pretty much everyone in here defines it.
Why be associated with any label? I have always had that question in mind.
From what I have experienced, the act of doing something out of plain desire or want, rather than being associated with a label that parades the act, scares people more. Because in doing so, the act is less explainable.
Since the nature of a grouping is to idolize the similarities and marginalize the differences, you never can be fully represented by any one group unless you are the sole provider of that group.
In essence, to be part of a label you really have to believe you are. Having others believe you are superficially reinforces the validity of your choice in a label grouping.
Individuals within a group are likely to also provide a service of explanation or encouragement for scenarios relating to the group's societal place and experiences, which is appealing toward the idea of defending a source of thought or action.
Furthermore, groups tend to construct a set of agreed upon beliefs regarding themselves, other groups, individuals, the world around them, concepts of life and death and the nature of existence, morals for thoughts and actions.
I think it is more work to defend your thoughts and actions if you are alone, and easier for larger groups to work to silence your rebuttals.
Who are you? That is a big existential question but related nonetheless.
The issue of identity is impossible to quantify without belief, whether it be the origin of national identity, racial identity, sexual identity, etc., as there are too many factors to consider.
Many people spend their lives struggling to make themselves identifiable to other individuals and groups.
That being said, this is a large spanning topic.
A large problem with asserting belief is that it belongs solely to the individual, and will by nature conflict in some way with the interpretation of another individual or group.
The great thing about discussion is that we can analyze and not only build defense for our own beliefs but also consider the reasoning and it's validity to our own perspectives.
The beliefs one holds for themself rationally supports another individual withholding their beliefs.
Beliefs are what they are. And in the ever changing realm of experience and generally accepted knowledge, beliefs will shift and groupings will change as well.
Just my 2 centz
Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too?i'm pretty sure he doesn't
Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too? Being one of those social justice warriors, I'd to know how far in depth you are with this stuff.Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.
Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.I paid attention in english class too. But I'm just curious now, since every absurd "oppression" is now being pushed for recognition.
Ursus, do you believe in Pedophile rights too? Being one of those social justice warriors, I'd to know how far in depth you are with this stuff.
Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.
I paid attention in english class too. But I'm just curious now, since every absurd "oppression" is now being pushed for recognition.
I paid attention in english class too. But I'm just curious now, since every absurd "oppression" is now being pushed for recognition.It's dumb that you even brought pedophillia up, it wasn't mentioned at all here.
Pedophiles are not "oppressed." There is no basic human right to have sex with young children because children are legally unable to consent to sex. Pedophilia is a crime, not a minority.Pedophillia is a mental condition, and is not illegal. Acting on the urges a pedophile has is illegal, and called child molestation. It isn't illegal to be a pedophile.
It's dumb that you even brought pedophillia up, it wasn't mentioned at all here. And honestly, the only people pushing for the recognition that pedophiles are being oppressed are pedophiles. They haven't made any ground, I can't identify as one on Facebook yet anyways.
What even is the point of saying this? Pedophilia has never been a serious topic of this thread. Randomly accusing me of sympathizing with pedophiles won't help the discussion any more than me asking you if you fuck dogs would. Do you? I'm sure your answer will strengthen my position somehow.Juuuust wondering, thankfully you aren't that delusional. They haven't made any ground but they have been popping up. Also, the reason why I asked that was: Read my last two posts.
Pedophiles are not "oppressed." There is no basic human right to have sex with young children because children are legally unable to consent to sex. Pedophilia is a crime, not a minority.
Juuuust wondering, thankfully you aren't that delusional. They haven't made any ground but they have been popping up. Also, the reason why I asked that was: Read my last two posts.
I'll agree that being overweight is generally unhealthy. However, when approached from a capitalistic standpoint, it's clear that the people attempting to shame fat people into losing weight don't actually care about their health. This might only be an american thing, but our food is not healthy. If society as a whole really cared about the obesity epidemic, they would push for stricter food standards and start educating children on nutrition from a balanced perspective.It's also clear that most of people who are trying to shame fat people wouldn't gain any money from them starting to exercise either.
Also, what exactly is your idea of perfection? What would make "our society" perfect to you? What should we do with people whose genetics cause them to naturally store more fat? From another perspective, my genetics are inferior because I burn food too quickly and cannot survive long without food.
And? Political pressure is the only way anything gets done in a federal republic. This point would be valid if we lived in a direct democracy, but here the only way to effect change is to "pressure" your elected representatives or to elect new ones that will vote in your favor. That's just how things are. As for the media, propaganda is distributed from both sides. I've seen misleading information from right-wing and left-wing politicians alike, and even more so from news sites that just need to bring in ad revenue and can't be held accountable the same way politicians can. I don't think either of these two points are worth arguing about, since 1) We literally live in different countries, and 2) The media is unarguably biased no matter what side it's promoting. That's just how media works, and I don't think it's worth getting into which side is "more" untrustworthy.Lol, do you honestly believe that political pressure comes from the public or that it is a right thing to do? Just remember that political pressure isn't going to push for the ideas that you agree with forever.
Again, this is a country issue. The EU is actually pretty good about human rights from what I've heard, but discrimination laws still have a very long way to go here. (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-kansas-legislation-gay-marriage-religion-20140214,0,6718807.story#axzz2tcfNg31e)Just letting you know that marriage is a religious ritual and I'm pretty sure it is described as a union between a man and a woman in the Bible. Either way that's like, your opinion, In my opinion there are enough anti-discrimination laws already put in place, if not too many.
Strictly speaking, here there are laws on hate crimes. If you look at it from a purely legal perspective then you would be correct. However, there are many instances of police turning a blind eye or judges being much too lenient because of a lack of minimum sentencing. I'll use this list as an example. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unlawfully_killed_transgender_people) In that list, most of the people who murdered those individuals faced some kind of punishment. However, there are a number of worrying incidents like this:So, do you honestly believe that putting an extra fancy law would change those people's mind set? They were already breaking the law when they wanted to kill another person so do you really think they would give a shit if there was some kind of anti-discrimination law? Besides, in my opinion, operations which allow for a person to change his gender should simply not be performed anymore. It is just so stupid, what's the point if your gender and you look like an ugly woman when being a man? You still have the same mind set in your head. If you are born a man, then you die as a man. Gender is something that you can't choose.
This is true.Ultimately the best solution to this would be to simply just ban all gender-changing surgeries because this wouldn't even require to "educate" people.
For example, sex-separated bathroom laws focus on genitals, not gender. This is to be expected because society's understanding of gender is still changing very slowly, but this produces problems.
If a transgender woman (Or a "trap" if that's what you'd like to call them) enters a woman's bathroom as they would like to, women will complain that it's simply a man dressing as a woman to go in there and harass them (Even if they've undergone HRT and now have completely female features except for their genitals, which renders them completely infertile and is much too high a price to pay simply to harass women in their bathrooms). If they give up and go into a men's bathroom, they'll be viciously harassed for reasons that I don't think I need to explain. Straight men have an unusual habit in this country of harassing and usually murdering trans women for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying that all straight men (Including me, you, and most of us here) are murderers, but the majority of transgender hate crimes are straight white men brutally killing and sometimes torturing (mostly black) trans women. For this reason, going into a men's bathroom would be a bad idea.
To be honest, the bathroom issue I brought up as an example is too complicated for me to answer. I personally think that a third gender-neutral bathroom would solve most of these problems, but it's too simple of a solution to make everyone happy. In the end, the only true solution would be to enter an age where people are fully educated and understanding of the ways in which gender can differ from the usual. I am not suggesting that we force it on anyone (Hence why I think an additional bathroom would be optimal) because that would create more problems, but in the long term people need to be educated on this.
Has it ever occurred to you that if a minority member was completely silent about their gender/sexuality, you wouldn't notice?Has it ever occurred to you that heterosexuals don't really feel the need to go and tell everyone that they're straight? They only do that when they need to or they're being asked to, that's what I would expect from people of different sexual orientations to do.
If there are 100 people in a room and 2 of them start acting obnoxiously and shouting feminist rhetoric at everyone around them (It happens, trust me) would you be able to tell if there were 80 more feminists in the room? The majority of transgender people simply want their rights to be lawfully protected and recognized by society so that they can move on with their lives. Most people you see exhibiting the flamboyant "LOOK AT ME EVERYONE" attitude are either not aware of the negative effects their behavior has, or simply too angry about their situation to care. In the end it really is just their problem, but it's also a choice we can make to be understanding of that complication and not make preemptive judgments.
Now that I think about it further, I'm going to drop this point. The dictionary is still written by people, and that has a lot of implications. However, you shouldn't be so quick to assume that they're writing that definition just to gain positive attention or because of political pressure. It's much like Facebook adding new accommodations for trans people. Are they doing it for money? Are they doing it for attention? They could also be doing it because they believe it's the right thing to do, but there's no real way to know unless you talk to the people that did it. Zuckerberg does not personally oversee every decision his company makes, but I would imagine his reasoning was something along the lines of "It's a good thing that will also make me more money." I would do the same thing in his position.His reasoning was more like the lines of "It's good for you goyim!". But in all seriousness Facebook is pretty damn popular already, don't you think? I imagine that this decision wouldn't really bring any noticeable profit for Facebook, in fact it could even trigger some outrage.
I think you've missed the point of what I said. You personally decide what information you see. You decide who to talk to in real life. Again, you live in a miniscule country in eastern europe. On the other hand, I also live in a town of less than 100,000 people, but still in one of the largest states of one of the greatest military powers in the modern world. I have a vague idea of what you mean with the nature documentaries and biology lessons, but we're talking about people. People are more complicated than animals in almost every aspect. You can insist that there are still only two "real" genders all you want, but as the definition of the word changes and more and more people realize they fall outside the lines that have been drawn by society it won't be so easy.The more intelligent the animal is, the more he can resist his pheromones effecting his behavior. For example, if you look at basic insects like ants, their behavior is pretty much completely controlled by their pheromones and when you take a look at humans, they are able to suppress them and rely more on their own intelligence but that does not really change anything. Just like there are only 2 genders in probably every other species on earth, there are also 2 genders for humans too. What exactly makes you think that humans are somehow different in this aspect? It's illogical.
I should take this time to let you know that personally, I do think gender as a whole is unnecessary. I also think that people should not be coerced into acting a certain way on the basis of their sex, which is what creates these problems in the first place. However, me thinking gender is unnecessary does not make it un-exist.
Aaaand, here we are.
Gender is defined however people define it. Language is simply a series of words with agreed-upon definitions that are used to communicate information. When the majority of people start using a word with a different denotation, the definition of the word changes. There's no official process for changing the definition of a word. While you define gender as what's in someone's pants, I define gender as a composite of social environment, hormone balance, and the behavioral patterns that result from a person's past experiences. Gender as a concept is more complicated than it needs to be, but we cannot make it less complicated unless we first unravel the current situation in staggering depth.
While people of certain sexes do often act in certain ways, it's not as much as you might think. How many of you are violent, loud, dominating and unusually strong? Gender roles are not as naturally occurring as you said on the first page. I know many more women who are not fond of being quiet, submissive, or domesticated. Feminism has actually been pretty angry about that for hundreds of years. While I would normally take this opportunity to lecture you on the fine line between gender and gender roles, I won't because I actually know nothing about it. Even the people who I look up to for information on this have never given me a particularly solid answer, so I treat them as being more or less conjoined to one another.
You still haven't answered most of the things I've said in the post other than the one you just replied to. I'll admit that "Prove it." is a bit antagonistic, but that's really the only thing I could have said at that point.I'm not going to bother reading 2 or 3 pages of a generic tumblr rant. Perhaps there was something else that wasn't gender related in those posts(for example: something about anti-semitism maybe) that you'd like me to address, if so, then you can just quote those parts. As for me not answering your points about gender, well I don't think you will ever be satisfied no matter how much I'd rephrase my self and perhaps even I'd bring some points on the table. This would ultimately end in an endless circklejerking and a massive waste of time for both of us.
Non Sequitur? I'm new at recognizing fallacies, but that seems like Non Sequitur. Or maybe the one where he is jumping to a conclusion? This thread is riddled with them, I should print it out and analyze it with my uni prof.I wonder how much people actually care about this.
They're just people who don't have an overwhelming stubborn skepticism surrounding everything they do. They were told "Look, these people are oppressed and we should discuss how to help them" and instead of things like "FUCK OFF SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE TRANSFAGGOT JEW DEGENERATE SJW SCUM" they just abandoned their old views and moved on.And this is exactly the problem. Instead of being skeptical of things and forming their own opinion, they fight for their cause because "they were told". You can only form an opinion of your own, an opinion, completely independent of human/organizations/governments greed, hate, their emotions and their agendas and an opinion which relies on facts, logic and is backed up by morality and true values of human decency. It is exactly because of people being unable or just simply unwilling to accept this is why over thousands of years a minority governing groups, dictators and governments were able to succeed, because they weren't relying on humans having a skeptical look at things, they wanted people who would follow norms, people who would conform to higher authority because they're "being told" to do so. Why else are we not being thought of skepticism at schools then? Skepticism is not only applied to politics, it can be used to pretty much everything, even in social interactions with people, skepticism is an incredibly important skill in life so how come schools don't teach it?
It's also clear that most of people who are trying to shame fat people wouldn't gain any money from them starting to exercise either.You've spoken of high moral standards several times yet your justification for not supporting anyone that's somehow (usually biologically in one way or another) different than you is because they need to basically just give in and bow down to the majority 'above them' or at least that's how I've interpreted a lot of what you've said. To me, that's so very much the opposite of high moral standards. Just sounds kind of like you think you're always on top of the podium or something, and for yourself.
My idea of a perfection is when a society is living with a high moral standards and focuses on great technological, artistic, sports achievements and explorations.
Lol, do you honestly believe that political pressure comes from the public or that it is a right thing to do? Just remember that political pressure isn't going to push for the ideas that you agree with forever.
Just letting you know that marriage is a religious ritual and I'm pretty sure it is described as a union between a man and a woman in the Bible. Either way that's like, your opinion, In my opinion there are enough anti-discrimination laws already put in place, if not too many.
So, do you honestly believe that putting an extra fancy law would change those people's mind set? They were already breaking the law when they wanted to kill another person so do you really think they would give a shit if there was some kind of anti-discrimination law? Besides, in my opinion, operations which allow for a person to change his gender should simply not be performed anymore. It is just so stupid, what's the point if your gender and you look like an ugly woman when being a man? You still have the same mind set in your head. If you are born a man, then you die as a man. Gender is something that you can't choose.
Ultimately the best solution to this would be to simply just ban all gender-changing surgeries because this wouldn't even require to "educate" people.
Has it ever occurred to you that heterosexuals don't really feel the need to go and tell everyone that they're straight? They only do that when they need to or they're being asked to, that's what I would expect from people of different sexual orientations to do.
His reasoning was more like the lines of "It's good for you goyim!". But in all seriousness Facebook is pretty damn popular already, don't you think? I imagine that this decision wouldn't really bring any noticeable profit for Facebook, in fact it could even trigger some outrage.
The more intelligent the animal is, the more he can resist his pheromones effecting his behavior. For example, if you look at basic insects like ants, their behavior is pretty much completely controlled by their pheromones and when you take a look at humans, they are able to suppress them and rely more on their own intelligence but that does not really change anything. Just like there are only 2 genders in probably every other species on earth, there are also 2 genders for humans too. What exactly makes you think that humans are somehow different in this aspect? It's illogical.
Now tell me, what is scientific gender definition, or how many genders real science considers there to be? And it really doesn't matter if people start using one word and because of their flawed understanding it starts to lose it's meaning, that's not what changes definition of things in science.
Also it sounds to me that when you refer at females as being "quiet, submissive, or domesticated" you make it sound like they are being forced to be like that just because of "gender roles". Most if not all females choose for themselves how to act and due to their gender differences they usually are seen watching over kids more often then man. That's also how it usually is with other animal species. I'd also like to disagree with that females have to be quite submissive and domesticated.
I'm not going to bother reading 2 or 3 pages of a generic tumblr rant. Perhaps there was something else that wasn't gender related in those posts(for example: something about anti-semitism maybe) that you'd like me to address, if so, then you can just quote those parts. As for me not answering your points about gender, well I don't think you will ever be satisfied no matter how much I'd rephrase my self and perhaps even I'd bring some points on the table. This would ultimately end in an endless circklejerking and a massive waste of time for both of us.
I wonder how much people actually care about this.
And this is exactly the problem. Instead of being skeptical of things and forming their own opinion, they fight for their cause because "they were told". You can only form an opinion of your own, an opinion, completely independent of human/organizations/governments greed, hate, their emotions and their agendas and an opinion which relies on facts, logic and is backed up by morality and true values of human decency. It is exactly because of people being unable or just simply unwilling to accept this is why over thousands of years a minority governing groups, dictators and governments were able to succeed, because they weren't relying on humans having a skeptical look at things, they wanted people who would follow norms, people who would conform to higher authority because they're "being told" to do so. Why else are we not being thought of skepticism at schools then? Skepticism is not only applied to politics, it can be used to pretty much everything, even in social interactions with people, skepticism is an incredibly important skill in life so how come schools don't teach it?
The main thing is allowing people to feel comfortable with themselves and their surroundings, without intentionally or actively disturbing other people mental and physical integrity. The laws are there to legitimize the issues. It's not gonna make you change your opinion, but it will (hopefully) make no harassment (true attacks and harms, not calling someone a faggot) go unpunished. Everything needs its due context to be analyzed and judged accordingly. If a guy enjoys wearing dresses, you WILL have to deal with it. You may not like it, you may disagree, but in the end it does not affect you all. If a person wants to paint their house ugly, you have to accept it.Which basically means to abolish all standards essentially. If some man wears a dress or paints his house ugly as you say then he should be ready to face criticism and humiliation by the public. Why? Because he's not living up the moral standards of our society. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against change and new things, I welcome them, but those new things have to be decent and share good values as opposed to your example of a man wearing a dress or painting their house ugly, there is no need to kill or hurt them, but when they get harassed by others they shouldn't be surprised why. Basically we should only support change that's good and enriches our culture as opposed to moving it backwards.
You've spoken of high moral standards several times yet your justification for not supporting anyone that's somehow (usually biologically in one way or another) different than you is because they need to basically just give in and bow down to the majority 'above them' or at least that's how I've interpreted a lot of what you've said. To me, that's so very much the opposite of high moral standards. Just sounds kind of like you think you're always on top of the podium or something, and for yourself.It really is disappointing to see people nowadays treating our values upon which entire nations were built like dirt.
So what makes morals for you? What gives you such high moral values? Do you not think that considering the well-being of others is important in regards to having high morals standards? Or do you just think that putting the 'superior' group above all is what's important? Be strong and stay strong sort of thing.
I'm not going to bother reading 2 or 3 pages of a generic tumblr rant. Perhaps there was something else that wasn't gender related in those posts(for example: something about anti-semitism maybe) that you'd like me to address, if so, then you can just quote those parts.
Actually, I'd like to be educated on this. Please explain, if you are able, how Jews as an entire nation of people and as a race are all guilty of oppressing others. I'm happy to learn. Also, on a side note, would you say that they're a form of degeneracy as well? Just curious.
Which basically means to abolish all standards essentially. If some man wears a dress or paints his house ugly as you say then he should be ready to face criticism and humiliation by the public. Why? Because he's not living up the moral standards of our society. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against change and new things, I welcome them, but those new things have to be decent and share good values as opposed to your example of a man wearing a dress or painting their house ugly, there is no need to kill or hurt them, but when they get harassed by others they shouldn't be surprised why. Basically we should only support change that's good and enriches our culture as opposed to moving it backwards.Then wouldn't it be suitable for me to remove all your posts form this thread since your opinions becoming a minority, as in most people posting now are disagree with a lot of your views (not necessarily the ones about gender options). Just like you feel that the LGBT community should have no say since they're a minority group, maybe I feel the same about you and that your opinion should be disregarded and to be never noted.
It really is disappointing to see people nowadays treating our values upon which entire nations were built like dirt.
Now I'm not saying that other groups have to bow down to us, they just shouldn't expect special treatment and make such a big deal out of every little thing that goes wrong to them and yell "discrimination!". Those minority groups should also respect our culture and they shouldn't have anymore rights in changing our culture then we do because right now it is the minorities that are in the lead, at least in the so called "Western world". The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few.
Now what are the morals and values for me? Well I probably won't list everything but I'll try to mention a few important ones that will come to my mind: nationalism, love, real quality, friendship, a lot of morals can also usually be found in religion which teaches people to respect each other and treat others as they themselves want to be treated etc., a sense of pride and dignity, respect for marriage and family values, helpfulness, wanting to positively contribute to the society, being proud and respecting your culture and heritage. I'd probably could think of more but I think it's good enough for the sake of this argument. It also scares me how some people these days are referring to religion as bigoted or full of hate, I'm not a hard core Catholic but I just cannot comprehend how any sane individual can actually think so.
Actually, I'd like to be educated on this. Please explain, if you are able, how Jews as an entire nation of people and as a race are all guilty of oppressing others. I'm happy to learn. Also, on a side note, would you say that they're a form of degeneracy as well? Just curious.Jews basically kicked out Palestinians out of their own nation and right now at the very moment we speak the Palestinians are being treated like cattle. They also have use chemical weapons on them as well(white phosphorous).
”respectYes, I'm sure those groups who push for tolerance are very tolerant to those who disagree with them and they never resort to name calling ever.
each other and treat others as they themselves
want to be treated"
Hehehe... Funny.
Then wouldn't it be suitable for me to remove all your posts form this thread since your opinions becoming a minority, as in most people posting now are disagree with a lot of your views (not necessarily the ones about gender options). Just like you feel that the LGBT community should have no say since they're a minority group, maybe I feel the same about you and that your opinion should be disregarded and to be never noted.Where in this thread I have ever said that the opinions of minorities should never be heard and noted? Also this is a forum where there aren't that much people involved relatively speaking besides it's not like I'm the only one who shares similar beliefs on these forums. I'm also not a minority, in here, and even in the entire world in general I'm sure that there are a lot of people who could agree with my ideas(not with all of them of course).
Funny thing though is that you're ignoring a key point where more and more people who aren't a part of the LGBT community are in support of them and their views. That means the majority of people are starting to accept other's views and personal practices, shaming them less and raising their quality of living overall. It's not a minority if they're in the lead. They're clearly well supported, and in my opinion for good reason. This gives these people pride and dignity. Because they want change for themselves doesn't mean they don't respect others or their opinions.Funny thing though, in European countries, Russia and in probably a few other big countries there is no push in the media for things like LGBT rights, but there is also no discrimination on them as well, meanwhile when you look at USA for example, there's lot of push for LGBT values in media, movies, social media. Gee I wonder why all of this "tolerance" is coming mainly from the west and people who live there seem to share those views more much more then your average Russian or European. Lol.
Respect for marriage?The fact that people are now viewing marriage as a way to gain money, publicity and attention and the fact that the divorce race has dramatically increased in like the last century(especially in USA) is clearly a sign of moral degeneracy. You have to pretty stupid to disagree with that. Also 1600s? Try 1900s.
http://weddings.about.com/cs/justforfun/a/ShortCelebWeds.htm (http://weddings.about.com/cs/justforfun/a/ShortCelebWeds.htm)
Right.
Ignoring the fact that it's from about.com, it's become incredibly popular for marriage to be used for a variety of things like publicity, money, etc essentially nothing that I believe marriage is intended for. Sorry but you're not in the 1600s, marriage is already very different. This is spreading to another debate, but I don't see why marriage can't be simply for two individuals of any race, gender, etc who want such a commitment. You say you value love for your morals, so why would you exclude those who experience love differently?
Family values? That's great. Family's important.That's great, now try this one:
Zach Wahls Speaks About Family (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ#)
Do take the time to watch that. Some really good points are made and in my opinion. It's people, families, like that which makes me so confident in my beliefs in this regard.
Jews basically kicked out Palestinians out of their own nation and right now at the very moment we speak the Palestinians are being treated like cattle. They also have use chemical weapons on them as well(white phosphorous).About marriage: the point is that marriage is already abused by those who have rights to marry. Honestly I see no good reason that allowing same sex marriage would demean it aside from because a book tells you so. You said in the your post about morals that people need to make their own decisions and that is why I don't allow a text to determine my judgement.
Then there's Iran which is under constant threat by Israel. Israel has been saying that Iran is a year or two away from achieving a nuclear weapon for the last few decades, not to mention that Israel has plenty of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. They're trying their hardest to steer USA and the world in yet another war, they also almost succeeded at brining USA to a war against Syria, but thank God that plan has crashed and burned, although Syria is in a very bad shape at the moment.
Then there's also constant jewish support for mass emigration for Europe And USA meanwhile in Israel they preach for exactly the opposite - no immigration and no intermarriage.
Mandatory article dump commencing:Israel shills edition:Spoiler (click to show/hide)Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Top lel of the day: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.566021 (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.566021)
Check out this lovely person: http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/10/gentiles-exist-only-to-serve-jews-rabbi-ovadia-yosef-says-234.html (http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2010/10/gentiles-exist-only-to-serve-jews-rabbi-ovadia-yosef-says-234.html)
Mandatory image dump commencing:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Hmmm, but why don't people ever hear about this? Maybe it has something to do with this?Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Lol, there's literally hundreds if not thousands of articles and videos all across the world about this, you just have to be willing to spend your time on it.
Yes, I'm sure those groups who push for tolerance are very tolerant to those who disagree with them and they never resort to name calling ever.
Where in this thread I have ever said that the opinions of minorities should never be heard and noted? Also this is a forum where there aren't that much people involved relatively speaking besides it's not like I'm the only one who shares similar beliefs on these forums. I'm also not a minority, in here, and even in the entire world in general I'm sure that there are a lot of people who could agree with my ideas(not with all of them of course).
Funny thing though, in European countries, Russia and in probably a few other big countries there is no push in the media for things like LGBT rights, but there is also no discrimination on them as well, meanwhile when you look at USA for example, there's lot of push for LGBT values in media, movies, social media. Gee I wonder why all of this "tolerance" is coming mainly from the west and people who live there seem to share those views more much more then your average Russian or European. Lol.
The fact that people are now viewing marriage as a way to gain money, publicity and attention and the fact that the divorce race has dramatically increased in like the last century(especially in USA) is clearly a sign of moral degeneracy. You have to pretty stupid to disagree with that. Also 1600s? Try 1900s.
That's great, now try this one:
(http://imageshack.com/a/img834/6121/xnxm.jpg)
What I'm saying by this is that there will always be people like in your video and situations like in my example. This thread is about gender(for the most part I guess) so if you'd like to discuss family values I suggest you to make a separate thread because it would require a separate discussion for it.
You've said several times that majority know you right and implied that therefore your opinion shouldn't be challenged.Where in this thread I have ever said that the opinions of minorities should never be heard and noted?(http://gyazo.com/14afefa4a2d6be4dab44463e831bec84.png)
For thousands of years, adult males married girls around 13yo, why should we change that if it's alright.Do you seriously think that's a good argument against preserving traditional values?
Also, on a side note, would you say that they're a form of degeneracy as well? Just curious.The term degeneracy is used to refer at certain activities or values for example gay marriage or those kind of MLP autists who photoshop themselves with ponies(for God's sake I'm just using this as an example don't get all mad about it). However you can call other people or jews degenerates. Now do I think that jews are degenerates? No. If you take a look at Israel and the jews who live there, they definitely don't seem degenerative. In fact as far as I know gay marriage isn't legalized in Israel and nobody in the governments are really trying to change that, they also are against illegal immigration, they also don't like the idea of mixing with other cultures too. Funny thing is that a lot of Israelis would probably agree with my views on marriage, multiculturalism and traditional values much more then they would agree with you, so hey, if you people want to fight for equality then I could definitely say that Israel needs your help lol. Now why the jews push for exactly the opposite things in Europe and America is not something I can answer to you, I could only speculate about it.
About marriage: the point is that marriage is already abused by those who have rights to marry. Honestly I see no good reason that allowing same sex marriage would demean it aside from because a book tells you so. You said in the your post about morals that people need to make their own decisions and that is why I don't allow a text to determine my judgement.The current disintegration of marriage and the increase of divorces was ultimately a result of people failing to understand the importance of traditional values, now what caused this? Well it really is difficult to explain, I really advise you to invest some time into political things(they don't have to be LGBT related), to browse Internet for a bit, that way you would encounter all sorts of opinions and articles about various of political topics, that way it would be much more easier for us to understand each other.
For the record I find it ironic that you've dismissed points made by ursus because he uses tumblr as a source of information whilst your images are fro funnyjunk as it seems.Wait, what? Which picture that I posted was from funnyjunk? I don't think you can find pictures like this on funny junk.
Do you seriously think that's a good argument against preserving traditional values?Sorry, forgot I have to browse /pol/ to have a legitimate opinion.
The term degeneracy is used to refer at certain activities or values for example gay marriage or those kind of MLP autists who photoshop themselves with ponies(for God's sake I'm just using this as an example don't get all mad about it). However you can call other people or jews degenerates. Now do I think that jews are degenerates? No. If you take a look at Israel and the jews who live there, they definitely don't seem degenerative. In fact as far as I know gay marriage isn't legalized in Israel and nobody in the governments are really trying to change that, they also are against illegal immigration, they also don't like the idea of mixing with other cultures too. Funny thing is that a lot of Israelis would probably agree with my views on marriage, multiculturalism and traditional values much more then they would agree with you, so hey, if you people want to fight for equality then I could definitely say that Israel needs your help lol. Now why the jews push for exactly the opposite things in Europe and America is not something I can answer to you, I could only speculate about it.
The current disintegration of marriage and the increase of divorces was ultimately a result of people failing to understand the importance of traditional values, now what caused this? Well it really is difficult to explain, I really advise you to invest some time into political things(they don't have to be LGBT related), to browse Internet for a bit, that way you would encounter all sorts of opinions and articles about various of political topics, that way it would be much more easier for us to understand each other.
Wait, what? Which picture that I posted was from funnyjunk? I don't think you can find pictures like this on funny junk.
The current disintegration of marriage and the increase of divorces was ultimately a result of people failing to understand the importance of traditional values, now what caused this? Well it really is difficult to explainThe point being made is that tradition changes and very valid points have been made by several people that explain that just because a tradition exists doesn't mean that it's right or that there are no better alternatives.
How is it not? "Tradition" is just something that's used to justify a custom without having to back it up logically.Which you then disregarded entirely with nothing but this lovely constructive and elaborating meme contribution:
Wait, what? Which picture that I posted was from funnyjunk? I don't think you can find pictures like this on funny junk.A few of them in your post were, though you may have found it on something else.
Sorry, forgot I have to browse /pol/ to have a legitimate opinion.You don't have to be upset. I mean, do you seriously think that you can put up an even discussion with me on political topics when you aren't nearly as much interested in politics as I am? Also, /pol/ isn't the Internet, /pol/ is just one board on 4chan which is equal for 1 opinion, although there's plenty of discussions(if you can call it like that) there with people who share different ideas, but still that doesn't really change anything. When I suggested to browse Internet for political topics that is what I actually meant, I could have easily suggested for you to browse /pol/, but that's not the right thing to do.
The point being made is that tradition changes and very valid points have been made by several people that explain that just because a tradition exists doesn't mean that it's right or that there are no better alternatives.The alternatives should be an improvement over traditional values, not a step back. There's plenty of things indicating that the so called "progressive" society isn't really progressing anywhere, but that's a different topic.
How is it not? "Tradition" is just something that's used to justify a custom without having to back it up logically.Traditions are usually backed up by time, by that I mean those traditions were used for a long time and proved themselves to be effective. If you want to change or improve them then I believe there's always room for improvement but as I've said earlier it must be a step forward for the society as a whole.
A few of them in your post were, though you may have found it on something else.I don't see a typical funnyjunk logo on any of those, I'm afraid you're going to have to show them to me.
I believe this is necessary.I do sometimes use that world lightly sometimes I use it to it's full extent but not once in this thread I have referred to any group of individuals as degenerates. Also what exactly makes you think that I don't understand their way of living? Has it ever occurred to you that after being interested in political issues I may, just may have an understanding of their way of living? Has it ever occurred to you that I might in fact have better understanding of their way of living? Because things like these, that my opponent may know better on the topic then I do, do occur to my head when I'm debating someone who shares different ideas then I do. Also I'm neither immoral nor corrupt, I don't see how the word "degenerate" would apply to me anymore then it would to you.
Degenerate:
(http://gyazo.com/9ed275a5f7a2cbe678daa554e6708d12.png)
Either you're using the word lightly or you have a very strong dislike for their practices but either way it's extremely insulting, if you weren't aware.
Just because you don't understand their way of living or can relate to it (using the fact that it deters from tradition to support your ideas and opinions suggests this) doesn't mean they're degenerates. Frankly, if I were to use the word that way I'd have to describe you as a degenerate.
You don't have to be upset. I mean, do you seriously think that you can put up an even discussion with me on political topics when you aren't nearly as much interested in politics as I am? Also, /pol/ isn't the Internet, /pol/ is just one board on 4chan which is equal for 1 opinion, although there's plenty of discussions(if you can call it like that) there with people who share different ideas, but still that doesn't really change anything. When I suggested to browse Internet for political topics that is what I actually meant, I could have easily suggested for you to browse /pol/, but that's not the right thing to do.You're clearly very unfamiliar with sarcasm.
You might say that if I don't like it I shouldn't care especially since I don't use Facebook but the thing is that shit like this is not going to stop here it will spread further just like LGBT "values" are right now, not to mention that it's only a matter of time until liberals think of a new form of degeneracy to spread around.(I may be misunderstanding this but it sounds like you're referring to LGBT rights as degeneracy)
The fact that people are now viewing marriage as a way to gain money, publicity and attention and the fact that the divorce race has dramatically increased in like the last century(especially in USA) is clearly a sign of moral degeneracy. You have to pretty stupid to disagree with that. Also 1600s? Try 1900s.(sounds like you're saying anyone who abuses marriage is a degenerate)
The term degeneracy is used to refer at certain activities or values for example gay marriage or those kind of MLP autists who photoshop themselves with ponies(if you already knew what the word meant then this is without a doubt labelling two groups of people as degenerates)
I don't know why I have to restate this.It is related with politics more then you think which is why I suggested for you to spend some time on such topics.
1:01 PM - Sabb: this isnt even a matter of politics
1:01 PM - Lithuanian pride world wide!: a lot of it is
1:01 PM - Sabb: you dont even know how involved i am with that anyways however?
1:01 PM - Sabb: i dont need to be a politician to have an opinion i this
1:01 PM - Sabb: it effects politics
1:01 PM - Sabb: it is not
1:01 PM - Sabb: politics
It's annoying that you think your opinion's above everyone's because you browse /pol/ and are incredibly well informed.Is it just me or are your views and assumptions are preventing you from reading and understanding what I'm saying? I've already mentioned twice that /pol/ isn't the only place I ever go to, there are plenty of other sites that I visit like RussiaToday or telegraph or even CNN, youtube is also bretty gud.
However nothing I've touched requires me to spend hours of research as it's based on opinion which doesn't really need a lot of background information. That and I'm addressing flaws in your arguments, is all. Nothing political.You are so wrong. Pretty much everything requires background information, the more the better.
Guess what, time is supporting change for those traditions just as time created them. Slowly, people push for it to change and then in one way or another something does change.I'm assuming you're referring to the LGBT "values". Well, first things first, marriage is a religious ritual and I doubt anyone has a right to overwrite religion. Then the whole point of marriage is basically to create a family and to have kids and we all know that homosexuals can't have kids therefore what's the point of marriage? If two homosexuals like each other then they can live together, why is it so necessary for them to have marriage?
Explain with good reason as to how changing any of the traditions mentioned in this thread is a step back and not forward aside from the fact that it's because it's change.
(sounds like you're saying anyone who abuses marriage is a degenerate)Abusing the marriage is a form degeneracy but I don't think that it is enough to make a person a degenerate.
Yeah, way to quote out of context.
(if you already knew what the word meant then this is without a doubt labelling two groups of people as degenerates)
The term degeneracy is used to refer at certain activities or values for example gay marriage or those kind of MLP autists who photoshop themselves with ponies(for God's sake I'm just using this as an example don't get all mad about it).
We get it, you spend a lot of time on /pol/. Really though, you think that all politicians are open and understanding of all other ideas just because they're maybe informed?This is the third time you say the same thing even when I specifically told you that it's not the case, in fact I don't even spend a lot of time on /pol/. Are you seriously that desperate?
Speaking of which when I asked you about morals you really had no mention about the care of others or equality or respect for others in your definition. I guess other people just don't matter, right?
Now what are the morals and values for me? Well I probably won't list everything but I'll try to mention a few important ones that will come to my mind: nationalism, love, real quality, friendship, a lot of morals can also usually be found in religion which teaches people to respect each other and treat others as they themselves want to be treatedI made a typo, when I said quality I meant so say equality. Also just to reassure you there are no disputing that care of others and respect for others are values.
Reread the last sentence of my last post. I said I could describe you as a degenerate if I were to use the word as you seem to. In other words I can't relate to your opinion or lifestyle.Sabb pls
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/slippery_slope.png)(http://imageshack.com/a/img36/4014/5iom.jpg)
It is related with politics more then you think which is why I suggested for you to spend some time on such topics.There's no more to discuss here. I've said too many times that what we're talking about isn't directly political.
Is it just me or are your views and assumptions are preventing you from reading and understanding what I'm saying? I've already mentioned twice that /pol/ isn't the only place I ever go to, there are plenty of other sites that I visit like RussiaToday or telegraph or even CNN, youtube is also bretty gud.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+sarcasm (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+sarcasm)
I'm assuming you're referring to the LGBT "values". Well, first things first, marriage is a religious ritual and I doubt anyone has a right to overwrite religion. Then the whole point of marriage is basically to create a family and to have kids and we all know that homosexuals can't have kids therefore what's the point of marriage? If two homosexuals like each other then they can live together, why is it so necessary for them to have marriage?(http://gyazo.com/8d2a9290f9ac83d8502a54f0ddca2cb3.png)
Then we have the trans gender people, however they're pretty much the same as homosexuals when it comes to having kids so same thing can be applied to them, although I think that banning surgeries which change your gender would ultimately the best choice as there is absolutely nothing good that comes out of it. I mean, look at the marriage right now, in some countries like in USA for example it's a disaster so what exactly makes you think that adding more "progressive" ideas will make it any better? And overall if you look at how people are like today then I'm not so sure if you could say that the society is heading the right way, or at least that's what it looks like to me. You don't have to agree with any of this and I don't expect you too, I'm just simply stating my opinion on the subject.
Going back ontopic:I never said it's normal nor do I think it is or will ever be. Biologically it's certainly abnormal. That doesn't mean it can't be accepted. I see no harm in allowing them freedom of their own sexual orientation and personal practices so long as it doesn't harm anyone or anything else.
"Hey guise, I was born with a male with a penis. Totally natural, right? Even though I'm 100% genetically a man, I have this totally normal mindset where I think I was meant to be a girl, lemme chop it off and magically swap to one! I'm normal, right?".
Ursus, Sabb, whoever, no matter how much you try to argue and refute my point, being a transgender isn't, and will never be normal/accepted. For god's sake, we were born with the gender identify organs we have naturally, and to claim something as stupid as "I'm genderfluid, I swap back and forth lelelel", it's astonishing how much of this pink agenda shit is being forced on society today, because people can't have normal lives, instead have to share with the world about what they think they are.
"Hey guise, I was born with a male with a penis. Totally natural, right?
Even though I'm 100% genetically a man, I have this totally normal mindset where I think I was meant to be a girl, lemme chop it off and magically swap to one! I'm normal, right?".
Ursus, Sabb, whoever, no matter how much you try to argue and refute my point, being a transgender isn't, and will never be normal/accepted.
For god's sake, we were born with the gender identify organs we have naturally,
and to claim something as stupid as "I'm genderfluid, I swap back and forth lelelel",
it's astonishing how much of this pink agenda shit is being forced on society today,
because people can't have normal lives, instead have to share with the world about what they think they are.
What does this even mean? Please check the syntax of your posts in the future.If you dunno what that means, then it's beyond me.
I don't think you understand how gender psychology actually works. Are you just making up this imaginary narrative as you go along based on what you've heard? Have you actually spoken to any transgender people rather than hearing stories on news sites that you subscribe to because they align closely with your political views? The extent to which you all ignore your own confirmation bias is astounding.
On whose authority? Do you speak for the entire human race, from which you conveniently exclude people you don't like? You only think that transgender people won't be accepted because you refuse to listen to anyone who does. (Again, reminding you that they are people, not an abstract concept that you can accept or deny.)
English.
This isn't even an argument on your part. It's just you complaining about how stupid you think it is. Are you just trying to spam the thread or something?
What's a pink agenda? What actions of yours are being forced because of it? The only thing in your life that's different because of this is you choosing to vehemently attack their rights and identities with zero direct provocation.
Also, what is the content of the agenda itself, since you're so angry about it? Do you think that they're trying to convince people to acknowledge their humanity and afford them basic courtesy and respect for some sinister purpose? Do you think that transgender people make up their entire lives and identities just so an online news site they have no stake in can profit from it? Where are these imaginary evil motives you're referring to?
Yes. They want to have normal lives. They would like nothing better than to see absolutely no reason to talk to you about their problems or their identity. You and them seem to want the same thing.
This is not the case because trans people, as it stands, have to live their lives in constant fear of physical abuse, murder, verbal and emotional abuse from their family and even psychologists/therapists. It doesn't help that there are people who refuse to even acknowledge them or these fears because they disagree with their entire existence.
There's quite a sizable amount of these people. Do you believe they're all choosing to completely fabricate the exact same types of experiences across the world, independently of one another, just to satisfy a desire for attention? Where is the logic in this? I've offered you detailed and sound explanations for why they're speaking out and you're still insisting that it's all for some kind of "agenda."
Unless you're afraid you'll hook up a chick with a dick. In which case, better luck next time skippy.
If you dunno what that means, then it's beyond me.Do you believe it's their fault that they're uncomfortable in their body?
You claim I don't know any transgendered people, yet I highly doubt you've ever spoken to someone that has their reasons against it.
If you think society will 100% accept transgenders, then you should really try to break out of the tumblr world and enter reality every once in a while.
Ursus pls
Just like you trying to mask your complaining using 3 length essays on why those who don't agree are wrong?
I'm surprised you don't honestly know what that means by now. God forbid if someone disagrees with something. In this case, only LGBT should have the only opinion and the right to speak.
Once again, please, go watch any modern media source. How do you expect me and others to respect them when they do shit like this infront of everyone:Also you'd be surprised how many openly gay/trans/LGBT members will bash religion and trash traditional values because of the "muh oppression" movement. That, and most of them usually cannot understand the concept of "not everyone agrees with you". Example: See the Chick-fil-A and the disagreement of gay marriage.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Gee, I wonder how many trans people you talked to live outside of your extremely biased community. A transgender person doesn't live in fear every day of their life unless they purposely wear degrading clothing, have inappropriate behavior, and live in an extremely conservative area. I don't know where you get your credible sources from, saying that transgendered people get the shit beat out of them often, as you put it, and hated upon by many. Believe it or not, I have friends that are gay, or support gay rights, and you know what? They do nothing wrong to get hatred. They dress normal, talk normal, act normal, just the only thing is they like the same sex. They don't go on and tell me about how they're gay and I should have to treat them different. One of my very close friends actively supports gay marriage and the LGBT community, and he knows I very much disagree. But I don't look down upon him or disrespect him, nor does he look down upon me. They don't do the shit that LGBT attention seeking whores do.
No one will have a problem with a transgendered person if they don't do out-casting, "look at me I'm different", attention seeking crap. Wearing normal clothes or engaging in normal behaviors won't provoke anyone, since the city I live has them almost in the millions range, compared to the millions who travel here everyday. Dunno if I told you, but yes I do interact with one or two on a weekly basis, there's nothing for me to be angered by them for, they don't do provoking shit or force their beliefs on me, even though I find it wrong that they are. At least gays are happy with their body, unlike a tranny who is too confused/screwed up in the head to choose what side.
(http://i.imgur.com/Cy8JqZZ.jpg)
Sabb pls, no, pls.
Once again, please, go watch any modern media source. How do you expect me and others to respect them when they do shit like this infront of everyone:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No one will have a problem with a transgendered person if they don't do out-casting, "look at me I'm different", attention seeking crap. Wearing normal clothes or engaging in normal behaviors won't provoke anyone, since the city I live has them almost in the millions range, compared to the millions who travel here everyday. Dunno if I told you, but yes I do interact with one or two on a weekly basis, there's nothing for me to be angered by them for, they don't do provoking shit or force their beliefs on me, even though I find it wrong that they are. At least gays are happy with their body, unlike a tranny who is too confused/screwed up in the head to choose what side.Cross-dressing isn't for attention. Maybe for some very select few people, but that's not generally the reason they do it. I don't have tolerance for the people who I feel do throw their sexual orientation in everyone's face for attention though. But they're not all like that.
There's no more to discuss here. I've said too many times that what we're talking about isn't directly political.So, which case do you think is more likely to be true, a claim that LGBT issues aren't related to politics by someone who himself isn't interested in politics or a claim that LGBT issues are related to politics by someone who has been interested in politics for a while? You know the answer.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+sarcasm (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+sarcasm)I hope you realize that this kind of sarcasm of yours was put in a very bad time. I personally find it hard to think that it was sarcasm even now, but since you assured me that it is, I do kind of see it now.
I do not think /pol/ is your only source of information.
(http://gyazo.com/8d2a9290f9ac83d8502a54f0ddca2cb3.png)Even if your greatly insightful Oxford dictionary isn't mentioning religion, it still doesn't change the fact that marriage originated from it and I don't see how extra definition that "(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex" supports your argument. It just tells us that there are places in the world where same sex couples can get married.
Marriage is actually now just as much if not more simply for legalities. For example, people with no religious values certainly can and do get married. Notice that the definition (from the Oxford dictionary) doesn't even mention religion. In fact...
(http://gyazo.com/613f003a598c9335028f8719db545123.png)
Adoption. If a husband or wife in a traditional marriage is infertile does that mean they shouldn't get married since they can't have children of their own? The only purpose of marriage isn't to raise a family. I know many married couples who don't ever want children including one of my neighbours.
Why is it necessary for someone like you to have marriage? You can like a woman and live with her too, you don't have to marry her. It's about equality.
It's all about treating people with respect, decency, and improving the lives of others. Your values of marriage or life or anything don't have to change to adapt to them. Hell, you don't even have to acknowledge them, but at least let them live equally and allow them to have their own values because it really doesn't affect you. I believe this is also relevant to the gender issue which is why I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of other genders, though I still don't support it either.
I never said it's normal nor do I think it is or will ever be. Biologically it's certainly abnormal. That doesn't mean it can't be accepted. I see no harm in allowing them freedom of their own sexual orientation and personal practices so long as it doesn't harm anyone or anything else.What exactly makes you think that all this transgender bullshit isn't harming anyone or anything? In fact I do believe it does contribute greatly to the moral decay in today's society and transgender people easily fit the definition of a degenerate. When will you people realize that allowing everyone to be and do whatever the hell they want with themselves can be extremely harmful to the society? I repeat my self saying that there must be high moral standards who would apply to everyone without exception and we shouldn't tell to those people who fail to meet those standards that it's okay because by doing so we're basically saying that our society should have high moral standards but you don't have to if you don't want, this isn't something people should be allowed to choose.
What exactly makes you think that all this transgender bullshit isn't harming anyone or anything? In fact I do believe it does contribute greatly to the moral decay in today's society and transgender people easily fit the definition of a degenerate. When will you people realize that allowing everyone to be and do whatever the hell they want with themselves can be extremely harmful to the society? I repeat my self saying that there must be high moral standards who would apply to everyone without exception and we shouldn't tell to those people who fail to meet those standards that it's okay because by doing so we're basically saying that our society should have high moral standards but you don't have to if you don't want, this isn't something people should be allowed to choose.
First, can you offer literally any evidence that this is true? Saying it's true isn't enough. You can't just assert that the existence of a group of people is harmful to society because you think it is.I do not think that existence of transsexuals is necessarily harmful to the society, however accepting it as something that's normal or alright does. Why? Because such acts of one individual changing his/her gender are disgusting and absolutely unnatural.
Second, this isn't something people can choose like you say. Transgender people have been around just as long as humanity itselfI'm sorry but it is hard not to laugh at this statement. They absolutely have the ability to choose it because in order to become a trans gender person you have to make a decision to perform such surgery. I also wasn't aware that people back in the stone age had the technology to perform complex surgeries to change their gender with stone tools.
You do know that we (I, at least) live in a democracy right? It's not your will that determines the fate of humanity. If a majority of people support something, it eventually happens. No law can be "forced" on anyone unless it's by politicians, who at the very least have to worry about re-election.People can be persuaded to accept transsexuals trough media just as easy as they were persuaded into wars, especially today when television and the Internet has become so influential to our society. Also I do not think that majority of people approve of transsexuals just yet.
So, which case do you think is more likely to be true, a claim that LGBT issues aren't related to politics by someone who himself isn't interested in politics or a claim that LGBT issues are related to politics by someone who has been interested in politics for a while? You know the answer.I can't tell if it's the self-righteous belligerent attitude or the language barrier that makes you unable to understand what I say.
I hope you realize that this kind of sarcasm of yours was put in a very bad time. I personally find it hard to think that it was sarcasm even now, but since you assured me that it is, I do kind of see it now.
Even if your greatly insightful Oxford dictionary isn't mentioning religion, it still doesn't change the fact that marriage originated from it and I don't see how extra definition that "(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex" supports your argument. It just tells us that there are places in the world where same sex couples can get married.
I feel that legalizing homosexual marriage would only degrade it's value and would probably contribute to increasing the divorce rate which is already pretty high in some places. I also don't think it's necessary for homosexuals to be able to marry each other, they are different then us after all when it comes to sexual orientation, I also personally find homosexuality quite disgusting(except for maybe lesbians lol but hey, other females would probably find female on female act displeasing so I have to be fair lol) and because of it I don't want to see it being promoted. But seriously can we just drop this already? I've started this thread to discuss gender not traditional values or homosexual marriage and I am really not interested in doing so because we've already had multiple discussions on this topic before so please let's just get away from this topic because I probably won't bother discussing this issue in this thread anymore.
What exactly makes you think that all this transgender bullshit isn't harming anyone or anything? In fact I do believe it does contribute greatly to the moral decay in today's society and transgender people easily fit the definition of a degenerate. When will you people realize that allowing everyone to be and do whatever the hell they want with themselves can be extremely harmful to the society? I repeat my self saying that there must be high moral standards who would apply to everyone without exception and we shouldn't tell to those people who fail to meet those standards that it's okay because by doing so we're basically saying that our society should have high moral standards but you don't have to if you don't want, this isn't something people should be allowed to choose.
a claim that LGBT issues aren't related to politicsWhere is such a claim? I see none.
(http://gyazo.com/d885c2be78a6cd2c3473eb7b70c30675.png)In other words I'm saying there's a difference. While it is related to politics, I need no more political knowledge than I already have to have a valid opinion on the things discussed as it is not directly political. The only additional background information to support my opinion or anyone else for that matter is knowledge of my own (or their own) moral values.
(http://gyazo.com/1c51c871064d9330915d468e58ef5534.png)
(http://gyazo.com/f30df0ff83cf8dc2cd2a884b5354d238.png)
I hope you realize that this kind of sarcasm of yours was put in a very bad time.I thought it was pretty clear especially since it was repetitive.
Even if your greatly insightful Oxford dictionary isn't mentioning religion, it still doesn't change the fact that marriage originated from it and I don't see how extra definition that "(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex" supports your argument. It just tells us that there are places in the world where same sex couples can get married.I never disagreed lol. Nor would I, it originated from religion. However the point I made (which you didn't address) is that it has already changed as everything else does, enough that even the oxford dictionary hasn't included any mention of religion in it's description.
=I feel that legalizing homosexual marriage would only degrade it's value and would probably contribute to increasing the divorce rate which is already pretty high in some places.You supplied an idea, back it up with some information. Use your political knowledge, it's inferior.
they are different then us after all when it comes to sexual orientation, I also personally find homosexuality quite disgusting(except for maybe lesbians lol but hey, other females would probably find female on female act displeasing so I have to be fair lol)You're not being forced into their sexual practices so I don't see how that's relevant. I find it gross too as I imagine most straight men would but that doesn't mean I'm going to prevent them from having freedom to do as they please in that regard. It's not affecting me.
But seriously can we just drop this already? I've started this thread to discuss gender not traditional values or homosexual marriage and I am really not interested in doing so because we've already had multiple discussions on this topic before so please let's just get away from this topic because I probably won't bother discussing this issue in this thread anymore.Na, if you want to drop a topic you don't make several paragraphs long of counter-argument (if that's what you'd call it) and then just say "but hey, I don't want to talk about this." Expect a hefty response if you do so. Plus you and ursus went off topic about Jews previously because of a comment you made about them in your original post, but you didn't halt that discussion. Besides I brought it up because it is related to the original topic. Gay marriage has probably been the most controversial change that's being pushed by the LGBT community. If you were to become more open or accepting of gay marriage you'd most likely be more open about the other changes they ask for (the gender issue). It's also an example of how they're simply trying to get equal rights and to be considered as human as you or me, not to overrule and ruin tradition and morals and whatever else. Which brings me to something else which I didn't cover earlier.
I made a typo, when I said quality I meant so say equality. Also just to reassure you there are no disputing that care of others and respect for others are values.If that's the case then relate this to you wanting limited rights for the LGBT people. How can you mention true equality when you have no support or willingness to reason with LGBT people, Jews, or for mixing races. Hell I don't know about you but that sounds like a lot of different social classes you want people divided between, and those are only the ones that you've either mentioned on this thread or to me personally so I'm sure there are more.
When will you people realize that allowing everyone to be and do whatever the hell they want with themselves can be extremely harmful to the society?You have a very odd sense of equality. I may have to bring out my greatly insightful Oxford dictionary again.
I do not think that existence of transsexuals is necessarily harmful to the society, however accepting it as something that's normal or alright does. Why? Because such acts of one individual changing his/her gender are disgusting and absolutely unnatural.
I made a typo, when I said quality I meant so say equality. Also just to reassure you there are no disputing that care of others and respect for others are values.Where do your moral standards of equality apply here?
I can't tell if it's the self-righteous belligerent attitude or the language barrier that makes you unable to understand what I say.I think it's time for you to stop picking on my attitude over and over again it hardly contributes the discussion at all, and besides, it isn't as bad as it was in the first 2 pages of this thread. Also I think you should stop making assumptions that I somehow refuse to understand other ideas because I'm fairly confident with my ability to do so. Also I think I now understand you better on your stance about LGBT relation to politics although I'd like to say again, the more you know, the better. Also what force am I using to convince other people that I'm right? I'm just stating my views on the issue.
Where is such a claim? I see none.In other words I'm saying there's a difference. While it is related to politics, I need no more political knowledge than I already have to have a valid opinion on the things discussed as it is not directly political. The only additional background information to support my opinion or anyone else for that matter is knowledge of my own (or their own) moral values.
It's like me saying that you can't have an opinion because you don't communicate with the LGBT community on a regular basis or are not part of it yourself. I've probably spoken to and heard more from these people than you have, whereas I choose not to use that as an argument to devalue your opinion. Besides, it's better that people have different sources for their opinions and information as different perspectives are shown. You'd recognize that if you actually wanted to hear (or god forbid reason) with perspectives other than your own.
If you still disagree, however, and think what I say has no meaning since I don't spend as much time researching politics and events then I would like to hear a specific example of where my opinion would be illegitimate for that reason. Give an example of something political I must know as well.
I mean really if it's so ideal (and I agree with you) then I may just do some browsing to learn more for the sake of the argument. Convince me.
And a tip I might add. You don't convince people to share your views by force or by proving you're more important. Give good reasoning. Keep in mind that when it came down to it we actually shared (and still do share) the same basic opinion on the gender issue. However, I very very strongly disagree with your reasoning and the authoritative approach you use to back the opinion. Really, I wouldn't want to be associated with it.
If that's the case then relate this to you wanting limited rights for the LGBT people. How can you mention true equality when you have no support or willingness to reason with LGBT people, Jews, or for mixing races. Hell I don't know about you but that sounds like a lot of different social classes you want people divided between, and those are only the ones that you've either mentioned on this thread or to me personally so I'm sure there are more.So me not supporting LGBT or jews due to what they're doing means I'm against equality? Ok. Race mixing would require yet another separate discussion for it and just right of the bat, I'm not 100% against race mixing of any way shape or form.
You have a very odd sense of equality. I may have to bring out my greatly insightful Oxford dictionary again.
Where do your moral standards of equality apply here?
I'm sorry but you must be really fragile if you can't handle a few gay guys gone gals.
I think it's time for you to stop picking on my attitude over and over again it hardly contributes the discussion at all, and besides, it isn't as bad as it was in the first 2 pages of this thread. Also I think you should stop making assumptions that I somehow refuse to understand other ideas because I'm fairly confident with my ability to do so. Also I think I now understand you better on your stance about LGBT relation to politics although I'd like to say again, the more you know, the better. Also what force am I using to convince other people that I'm right? I'm just stating my views on the issue.A lot of points made in my post were unrelated to gay marriage and instead were related to the original discussion but they weren't addressed. You've clearly lost interest, so I won't continue. You can choose whether or not to consider the contradictions I've noted and arguments I've made as I feel pretty much everything I wanted to say has been said either on here or Steam.
Also I didn't start this thread to discuss homosexuality or same sex marriage so I won't bother responding to that since I've already addressed that issue in a few previous posts already.
So me not supporting LGBT or jews due to what they're doing means I'm against equality? Ok. Race mixing would require yet another separate discussion for it and just right of the bat, I'm not 100% against race mixing of any way shape or form.
I don't have to apply my moral standards to all sorts of filth and degeneracy.
A lot of points made in my post were unrelated to gay marriage and instead were related to the original discussion but they weren't addressed. You've clearly lost interest, so I won't continue. You can choose whether or not to consider the contradictions I've noted and arguments I've made as I feel pretty much everything I wanted to say has been said either on here or Steam.Pretty sure I have addressed most of them, some of the points that I didn't addressed I either agreed with or I felt that I have made points in previous posts that relate to them. Either way you can quote a few of them if you want me to specifically address them. Also you're definitely right that I'm losing interest since I have never thought this thread would consume so much of my time and me arguing about off topic issues didn't really helped.
Pretty sure I have addressed most of them, some of the points that I didn't addressed I either agreed with or I felt that I have made points in previous posts that relate to them. Either way you can quote a few of them if you want me to specifically address them. Also you're definitely right that I'm losing interest since I have never thought this thread would consume so much of my time and me arguing about off topic issues didn't really helped.
It definitely isn't. Each gender has different physique as well as different hormones which directly result in males being "strong, working, an authority, fatherly, limiting" and females being "delicate, motherly, emotional, tender".
If anything, a room full of "cis-people" is the most qualified to discuss gender.
No they can't, the can be considered as having a disorder.
what constitutes a "disorder" to you?
if hormones and social context determine gender and both of those things are subject to variation, how can you say gender is still logically restricted to a binary system? if I have blue paint, yellow paint, and red paint and i only mix the yellow and blue to make green, does that mean that it's literally impossible for me to make orange or purple? just because the overwhelming majority of people fall into one of two classifications and are often forced into them does not mean that any change in this is some kind of disease. are you just under the impression that transgender people don't exist?
After me stating that gender is influenced by hormones, social environment, and past experiences, you responded by saying that each gender derives their behavior and physique from their hormones and hormones alone. Does this mean that:I've also mentioned that the more intelligent and complex the animal specie is the more it can resist the pheromone influence. Humans are the most intelligent life form on Earth which surpasses all other species by light years so they are definitely able to act against the will of their pheromones.
- People's behavior cannot be influenced by widely-held stigmas or media representation that shows all people of their sex acting a certain way?
- People's behavior cannot be influenced by friends and family directly telling them that they should act a certain way because of their sex?
How is this true? Explain how a person with no psychological or hormonal variations in their gender and no education on their existence is the most qualified person possible to speak authoritatively on and interpret the experiences of someone who has all of these things.
After me stating that because gender is composed of hormone balance, social environment, and past experiences, variations in these can produce variations in gender, you said that this would simply be called a disorder. Why is it a disorder? Since you're convinced that "Jewish media" is influencing people's thoughts subliminally, it could also be supposed that portrayals of men and women in media influence men and women to act within a certain behavioral margin in real life.Only someone as deeply deluded as you would be unable to understand why it's a disorder. The only way you would get it is if the SJW people on tumblr would tell you so for a long enough period of time.
This fits within your ideas that Jewish people are manipulating the world to make more money (I think it's non-specific to race, but I thought I'd incorporate your own ideas here) -- When you have the entire population drawing from only two sets of basic likes and dislikes, it's easier to sell things to them.
If someone's hormones differ naturally from birth or their behavior and thought patterns are fundamentally different because of their outside influences, how is it unreasonable to have broad gender classifications for these variations?
what constitutes a "disorder" to you?When someone has some sort of physical, mental, pheromone or any kind of other defect, for example a male who likes to behave like a female due to hormone imbalance or someone with downs syndrome. You're also using a straw man to support your argument if I can even call it like that since the example you proposed doesn't really make any sense. I'm also aware that trans gender people exist because such surgery is possible.
if hormones and social context determine gender and both of those things are subject to variation, how can you say gender is still logically restricted to a binary system? if I have blue paint, yellow paint, and red paint and i only mix the yellow and blue to make green, does that mean that it's literally impossible for me to make orange or purple? just because the overwhelming majority of people fall into one of two classifications and are often forced into them does not mean that any change in this is some kind of disease. are you just under the impression that transgender people don't exist?
Also the room full of "cis-people" is qualified to discuss such things because they have the majority's interest first as opposed to trans gender people who have their own interest in mindB-b-back to /pol/ you go.
B-b-back to /pol/ you go.B-b-back to LGBT you go.
B-b-back to LGBT you go.um
umIt makes about as much sense as your previous reply does.
what
um>Tumblr
what
It makes about as much sense as your previous reply does.I... don't consult the LGBT community nor am I part of the LGBT community so... no, not really lol.
I... don't consult the LGBT community nor am I part of the LGBT community so... no, not really lol.Neither am I on /pol/.
Neither am I on /pol/....w-what
I think it would be appropriate for me to tell you that I do browse /pol/ daily so it could have an effect on my views
...w-whatI check the catalog everyday for a few minutes and sometimes lurk on a thread or 2 if I can find anything new and from your behavior it seems like you think that I spend hours on /pol/ each day.