-->
@ILikePie5
I think I would support Trump over DeSantis.
But I also don't think it would be a good idea for DeSantis to run this year, because of yes, his political career.
Conservatives should look to Ron Desantis instead of Donald Trump.
Posts
Total:
51
Kinda sounds like you guys think DeSantis is too much of a pussy to take on Trump in the primary, that he'd lose to Trump's schoolyard bully bullshit, but that Trump's getting less electable in a general election, so you want DeSantis to wait until Trump is no longer eligible / too old to run.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Trump is the leader of the fascist wing of the Republican Party.
DeSantis is the would-be leader of that wing.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
For the LGBTQIA+ movement, they have faith in the idea that a man can be a woman, and vice versa. They also have faith that it is ok for a man to be intimate with a man and a woman with a woman. They worship the trans-ideology, and the ideology itself is their God.It is a belief in something that is not supported by science or biology.
We've had this conversation before and I've already explained it to you multiple times. You can disagree with someone else's views, but you cannot just pretend their views are whatever you decided and not their actual position. And when you are debating someone else, you cannot just pretend they haven't made the arguments they did. I'm going to explain this in detail one more time before writing you off as being completely uninterested is good faith conversion on this issue.
The ideas being pushed by the LGBTQIA community has absolutely nothing to do with facts, science, or biology. Read this statement as many times as you need and be sure you have absorbed it entirely before reading any further.
What the community is talking about is how members of this community feel, how we should treat each other as fellow citizens and human beings, and how we should think of certain terms.
Once again, gender is a human construct. That is absolutely a fact. All words along with their definitions were all made up by human beings, so there is no reason other than your subjective opinion that any particular word should be defined in any particular way.
The LGBTQIA community is not claiming a man can be a woman, they're challenging the rest of us to think about why we define man and woman the way we do and to change it. Again, you don't have to change how you define it, but stop pretending the rest of us are bound to your black and white definitions.
So back to your points;
No, it does not take faith to define a term differently than the way society historically defined it. Terms change all of the time and have been since the beginning of human history.
No, it does not take faith to believe something is "ok". If you believe it is ok that is your subjective opinion. If you believe something is not ok that is your subjective opinion.
No, science and biology are not part of this conversation.
Do you finally understand this? Yes or No?
-->
@Double_R
We've had this conversation before and I've already explained it to you multiple times. You can disagree with someone else's views, but you cannot just pretend their views are whatever you decided and not their actual position.
I am not pretending that their views are whatever I decided. This is strait from them.
The LGBTQ+ community does in fact have faith in the conclusion that men can be women, and women can be men. That is a fact.
The LGBTQ+ community does in fact have faith that it is ok, and good for men to be intimate with men, and women with women. That is a fact also.
The ideas being pushed by the LGBTQIA community has absolutely nothing to do with facts, science, or biology.
I agree. So, if a belief is not based in facts, science or biology, then what is it based in?
I'll answer.
It is based on faith in the ideology/idea.
What the community is talking about is how members of this community feel, how we should treat each other as fellow citizens and human beings, and how we should think of certain terms.
What the community believes is that we should base political decisions and everyday decisions on feelings and not facts. This ideology/idea that they have faith in is not healthy for society, and will not help it to function, develop, or grow.
Again, I am not disagreeing with anything you're saying at this point. What you're saying is 100% right at this point. I am just adding more onto it.
Once again, gender is a human construct. That is absolutely a fact.
Yes, gender is a human construct, that is based in biology.
You can't have a construct, unless it is based in something.
Money is technically a human construct, but it's based in the idea of fairness.
Therefore, gender is based in biology, and that means that men = male, and woman = female. That is an absolute fact.
The LGBTQIA community is not claiming a man can be a woman
Brother.................
Transgender literally means a man transitioning into a woman, or vice versa.
That is what the T in LGBTQIA+ stands for.
If they support Transgender identifying people, then they support the idea that a man can become a woman, and a woman can become a man.
The LGBTQ+ community has literally said out loud (even in front of congress) that a man can indeed transition (become) a woman, and a woman a man.
No, science and biology are not part of this conversation.
Science and biology are part of every conversation, in the world, except for religions.
So, you can't claim that you aren't a religion, unless your beliefs are based in science and biology.
Therefore, the LGBTQ+ movement is indeed a religion.
Do you finally understand this? Yes or No?
I understand that you don't quite understand what you just claimed, and just be prepared for no one to take you seriously in any intellectual conversation when it comes to this subject, because when it comes to this subject you are delusional.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, if a belief is not based in facts, science or biology, then what is it based in?
It's not a belief, it's a viewpoint. Do you not understand the difference?
What the community believes is that we should base political decisions and everyday decisions on feelings and not facts.
Should gay people be allowed to get married? Please explain what facts you used to reach your conclusion on this.
Yes, gender is a human construct, that is based in biology. You can't have a construct, unless it is based in something.
Enlighten me - why must that something be biology?
The LGBTQIA community is not claiming a man can be a womanBrother.................Transgender literally means a man transitioning into a woman, or vice versa.
Words carry different meaning in different contexts.
You only have one definition of a man and a woman that you accept. So when you claim trans people believe a man can turn into a woman you are talking about biology. So when I respond to you're statement I am refuting what you are claiming based on how you are using the words.
Responding to someone else's claim based on how they are using their words is how good faith productive conversation works.
When LGBTQIA members and supporters talk about turning a man into a woman we're using the terms in a gender based context (which has little to nothing to do with biology).
Hence, these two statement use the same words but with different definitions, therefore they mean something completely different.
Do you understand?
-->
@Double_R
It's not a belief, it's a viewpoint. Do you not understand the difference?
Yes, I understand the difference.
But when you're perception of reality does not line up with facts, and logic, in any way shape or form, then that perception of reality is nothing more than a belief driven by faith.
Should gay people be allowed to get married? Please explain what facts you used to reach your conclusion on this.
A marriage is between a man and a woman. I think that men should be able to do whatever they want with other men, but gay marriage should be illegal.
Gay marriage has no benefit for society or for the gay couple. Marriages (believe it or not) has contracts and money involved. That means that money is being spent on a couple who don't have the capacity to have kids, and if they were to raise said kids, this would not be good, because the best way to raise a child and set them up for success, is with a mother and a father.
Now is legal gay marriage really that bad? No, it's not that bad. But it has no upsides except for someone gets to feed into their sexual and homosexual fantasies. As a society we should not move backwards, but forwards. So if there is a decision to be made we should not feed into the decision that moves us back as a society but the one that pushes us forward.
Enlighten me - why must that something be biology?
Gender has always been based in biology. We have the male sex, and the female sex. Humans (whether you like it or not) have created gender (the human construct) based off of the two sex's. That is why it must be based in biology, because that is why it was originally humanly constructed.
This is an extremely idiotic question I must add. This is like asking "Why must money (the human construct) be only based in the fairness, and trade of society?" Because humans that existed before us created that human construct.
To say that gender is not based in biology, is absurd given that the humans that created this construct for all of human history and for all of the human race, based it in biology.
If it is not based in biology, then what is it based on in reality?
You only have one definition of a man and a woman that you accept.
See, here is your contradiction.
You get upset at me, when you claim that I am setting up the argument against the LGBT movement with my own perception of reality, and not accounting for theirs. Yet you are doing the same thing when saying things like this.
I am not basing my argument with my own perception of reality, I am basing my argument on most of every single human in history up until about 5 minutes ago (metaphor).
You are the one basing your argument in your own perception of reality, and yelling at me that I can't set up the argument, based in my own perception.
You are being hypocritical.
So when you claim trans people believe a man can turn into a woman you are talking about biology.
No, I am talking about gender. You assumed that I was talking about biology.
I am not saying that trans-people believe that a male can become a female.
I am saying that trans-people believe that a man can become a woman.
I think you forgot that gender and sex are two different words for a second. Wow, it's almost like they are correlated..............
When LGBTQIA members and supporters talk about turning a man into a woman we're using the terms in a gender based context
I am as well.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But when you're perception of reality does not line up with facts, and logic, in any way shape or form, then that perception of reality is nothing more than a belief driven by faith.
Coming from a Christian Conservative, that’s a real classic.
Coming from a Christian Conservative, that’s a real classic.
Dude. I am admitting that I am faithful in my religion.
I am admitting that some aspects are not based in facts, but in faith.
I am saying to Double_R, that the LGBT community also bases their belief in faith.
You need some context dude.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
You might find this speaker interesting. He actually wrote a book about militant wokeness as the new religion:
-->
@cristo71
I'll check them out.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Dude. I am admitting that I am faithful in my religion.I am admitting that some aspects are not based in facts, but in faith.
You have at least 2 religions that require faith over facts - Christianity and Conservatism.
Both require you to set aside logic and reason.
-->
@cristo71
Great link sir
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
But when you're perception of reality does not line up with facts, and logic, in any way shape or form, then that perception of reality is nothing more than a belief driven by faith.
You continue to repeat the same drivel despite being repeatedly explained that you are attacking a complete strawman.
There is no fact that the LGBTQIA community is pushing which is not true. You continue to pretend it's the case because you continue to pretend others are using your definitions and not theirs. It is becoming apparently clear that you are not interested in a good faith discussion on this topic.
Gay marriage has no benefit for society or for the gay couple. Marriages (believe it or not) has contracts and money involved. That means that money is being spent on a couple who don't have the capacity to have kids, and if they were to raise said kids, this would not be good, because the best way to raise a child and set them up for success, is with a mother and a father.
You criticize the LGBTQIA community for wanting laws that are not based in facts, yet not one reason you've provided for your stance on gay marriage has anything to do with facts.
You claim it has no benefit to society. That's because you disregard the concept of equality as beneficial to society. That's not a fact, that's your opinion.
You claim that the best way to raise a child is with one mother and one father. That is once again, your opinion. In fact the question of the best way to raise a child is inherently a matter of opinion.
You are guilty of exactly what you are criticizing others for.
Enlighten me - why must that something be biology?Gender has always been based in biology. We have the male sex, and the female sex. Humans (whether you like it or not) have created gender (the human construct) based off of the two sex's. That is why it must be based in biology, because that is why it was originally humanly constructed.
So to summarize, 'gender must be based on biology because it has always been based on biology'. That is not an answer, it's a fill in for the absence of an answer.
Just because something has always been a certain way is not a reason for it continuing to be that way. We change the way we do things all the time and have all throughout human history. If your logic held up we would still have slaves.
The concept of gender was introduced to human civilization before we understood anything about biology or gender dysphoria. This isn't 10,000 BC, you'll need an actual reason to support your assertion that gender must be based on biology.
This is an extremely idiotic question I must add. This is like asking "Why must money (the human construct) be only based in the fairness, and trade of society?" Because humans that existed before us created that human construct.
Money must be based on fairness and trade because the goal of a financial system is to spur improvements to human civilization by giving incentives for people to contribute their abilities to society. And since that's the goal, fairness and trade are essential to achieving it's desired ends.
If we decided however that we wanted to change the goal, all of this goes out the window. If we decided the purpose of money was too keep fires going, suddenly it wouldn't matter if you had a $100 bill in your pocket or a single.
That's what you don't get, you have to start with a goal in mind. Then you can have an objective (aka factual) answer as to what follows. Without that, anything you have to say is merely your opinion.
You get upset at me, when you claim that I am setting up the argument against the LGBT movement with my own perception of reality, and not accounting for theirs.
No, I get irritated when you continue to characterize this conversation as being about a factual determination of reality and not a matter of how people should be treated.
Every trans person I've ever seen acknowledges that they are biologically different from those whom they identify with. That's why they had to have surgery, take hormone blockers, etc. This is such a common sense notion that it's absurd it needs to be pointed out.
When we say someone is a"man", we're talking about in every way that matters. You define a man as someone with particular chromosomes. Please tell me how on earth that actually matters to you. Do you have a chromosome reader in your back pocket? Do you scan people when you meet them? It's an absurd stance.
All these people out there providing "fool proof" definitions of man and woman have never once in their lives used these methods to tell whether anyone they've met fits their definition. That's what makes this so ridiculous, and why it is so transparently based on nothing more than bigotry.
So when you claim trans people believe a man can turn into a woman you are talking about biology.No, I am talking about gender. You assumed that I was talking about biology.I am not saying that trans-people believe that a male can become a female.I am saying that trans-people believe that a man can become a woman.
First of all, I didn't use the terms male and female, so your retort is already made up.
Second, you are the one arguing that there is essentially no distinction between gender and biology, so this response makes absolutely no sense.
-->
@Double_R
There is no fact that the LGBTQIA community is pushing which is not true.
Men can become women.
Women can become men.
Men can get pregnant.
Two women can reproduce.
Two men can reproduce.
The list goes on.
You continue to pretend it's the case because you continue to pretend others are using your definitions and not theirs.
Facts are facts for a reason. You don't get to make up new facts in order to fit your feelings, political, and emotional agendas. The definition of a woman has been agreed on for all of human history up until now. The only time it has changed is when the definition of a woman offended some members of the LGBTQIA community. I will continue to say that facts don't care about your feelings, because they don't.
You don't get to change the definition of words, because you or someone else gets offended, then expect everyone else to follow you blindly in that change.
I don't care if you think the definition of words is something different than reality, because that's on you, but don't come up to me and say I'm wrong, when I am using factual definitions, and you are not. You might think your definition of words are factual, but really, it's based on your own feelings and emotions. It contradicts your whole ideology. Maybe if you see facts that contradict your beliefs, you should at least put them into consideration rather than trying to change them.
It is becoming apparently clear that you are not interested in a good faith discussion on this topic.
I am interested in good faith discussions on this topic. I have given a lot of thought and time into these arguments with you. What is becoming clear, is that you are going to use your pride and ego, in believing that your definitions are right, and mine are wrong, and use that as a way to escape the hole that you have inevitably dug for yourself.
You criticize the LGBTQIA community for wanting laws that are not based in facts, yet not one reason you've provided for your stance on gay marriage has anything to do with facts.
Yes, it does. Proof shows that raising kids in a household with a mother and a father, is the best and most successful way to raise your child.
You claim it has no benefit to society. That's because you disregard the concept of equality as beneficial to society. That's not a fact, that's your opinion.
Yes, an opinion based on factual principles of reality.
You claim that the best way to raise a child is with one mother and one father. That is once again, your opinion. In fact the question of the best way to raise a child is inherently a matter of opinion.You are guilty of exactly what you are criticizing others for.
My opinion on the best way to raise children is based upon research, facts, and logic.
I am criticizing others for basing their opinions on delusion, no facts, and no logic.
See the difference.
So to summarize, 'gender must be based on biology because it has always been based on biology'. That is not an answer, it's a fill in for the absence of an answer.
No, that's not an accurate summary of what I said.
An actuate summary of what I said would be "gender is based in biology, because gender and biological sex correlate, and have for all of mammalian history.
Just because something has always been a certain way is not a reason for it continuing to be that way. We change the way we do things all the time and have all throughout human history. If your logic held up we would still have slaves.
Thats not what I am arguing at all. I am saying that for all of human history, gender and sex have been considered synonymous, because gender and biological sex correlate. Gender roles play a part in not only human lives, but animals live as well. Gender and sex don't only correlate with humans, but with animals as well.
you'll need an actual reason to support your assertion that gender must be based on biology.
Gender must be based on biology, because every social construct needs to be based in something, and gender for all of human history has been based on the two biological sexes.
Question:
If gender is not based in biology, then what is it based in?
If it is based in nothing, then it's not a social construct.
If we decided however that we wanted to change the goal, all of this goes out the window. If we decided the purpose of money was too keep fires going, suddenly it wouldn't matter if you had a $100 bill in your pocket or a single.
So, we should throw gender out the window?
Yea, well, just like money that would cause a lot of problems.
No, I get irritated when you continue to characterize this conversation as being about a factual determination of reality and not a matter of how people should be treated.Every trans person I've ever seen acknowledges that they are biologically different from those whom they identify with. That's why they had to have surgery, take hormone blockers, etc. This is such a common sense notion that it's absurd it needs to be pointed out.When we say someone is a"man", we're talking about in every way that matters. You define a man as someone with particular chromosomes. Please tell me how on earth that actually matters to you. Do you have a chromosome reader in your back pocket? Do you scan people when you meet them? It's an absurd stance.All these people out there providing "fool proof" definitions of man and woman have never once in their lives used these methods to tell whether anyone they've met fits their definition. That's what makes this so ridiculous, and why it is so transparently based on nothing more than bigotry.
....................read that again buddy.
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The definition of a woman has been agreed on for all of human history up until now. The only time it has changed is when the definition of a woman offended some members of the LGBTQIA community.
Once again, definitions have been changing for all of human history. That's literally why we have English, Spanish and Italian, all of which along with others came from Latin.
You talk about logic but do not understand how to apply it. Logic is how we arrive at conclusions from a given set of premises. The premises of an argument can change drastically depending on the definition of the words being used.
If I told you I bought new nails for myself, you might conclude that I'm gay or just enjoy dressing in drag. The opposite of a masculine man. If I clarified that I bought nails to finish building a tree house for my son you would probably come to a completely different conclusion.
This is communication 101; when refuting someone else's claim as not factual, you have to use their definition, not yours. The fact that you disagree with someone else's usage of a word regardless of whether you have a valid reason to reject it is completely and utterly irrelevant to whether the claim made by someone else is factual.
Anyone who does not understand this basic concept has no interest in a good faith discission.
So let's try this one last time:
You claim the LGBTQIA community and it's supporters are delusional because they believe a man can become a woman.
So explain how [the LGBTQIA community's definition of a] man cannot become the [the LGBTQIA community's definition of a] woman.
Go.
-->
@Double_R
Ok. Let's pretend for a second that gender is a social construct, and the LGBTQ+ communitys deffinitons of words are the right ones.
If this were to be the case then the LGBTQ+ community would have to deny all of current biological aspects of sex. This means that more women will endure physical pain, and more men will endure emotional pain.
When men endure emotional pain the response is usually violence. When women endure physical pain, well they get hurt.
In other words, in order for the LGBTQ+ community's deffinitons of words to work in reality, we must deny biology, we must deny mental illness, we must deny the fact of risk to women, we must deny the risk of violent men. As a community we would slowly die out, because of our reproductive problems. In in fact these deffinitons hold any ground, we are to deny gender itself, we are to deny biological sex itself, we are to deny religion itself, we are to risk education itself.
But here's the thing. You tell me that in order to argue against this topic I must subject myself to your definition of words and not mine, yet you come back and do the same thing.
Word have had deffinitons for a reason. Society has grown to understand these deffinitons for reason. It's not just for convenience, but to hold society and humanity together as a whole.
Anyone who doesn't understand the consequences of denying the importance of gender, religion, reproduction, Marriage, etc. doesn't understand how important to society it really is, and is either uneducated, or indoctrinated to belive otherwise.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Anyone who doesn't understand the consequences of denying the importance of gender, religion, reproduction, Marriage, etc. doesn't understand how important to society it really is, and is either uneducated, or indoctrinated to belive otherwise.
You are only in high school. That makes you uneducated
Religion is the purest example of indoctrination. You have been indoctrinated
You are only in high school. That makes you uneducated
In some things and topics, yes I am.
In some, I'm not.
Religion is the purest example of indoctrination. You have been indoctrinated
Nope.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Ok. Let's pretend for a second that gender is a social construct, and the LGBTQ+ communitys deffinitons of words are the right ones.If this were to be the case then the LGBTQ+ community would have to deny all of current biological aspects of sex.
There is absolutely nothing about going along with a particular definition of man and/or woman that requires one to abandon biological aspects of sex.
You seem incapable of recognizing that thoughts and ideas lead to words and definitions, not the other way around.
We can all hold and fully understand various aspects of biology while expanding our concepts of gender to include societal norms. Calling someone a man does not mean one cannot decipher between male and female DNA.
You tell me that in order to argue against this topic I must subject myself to your definition of words and not mine
No, I don't. I am telling you that if you are going to criticize someone else's position, then you need to criticize that which is actually their position.
And the way you determine what someone else's position is, is by understanding what they mean when they use certain terms.
If you are unwilling to engage in this simple step then you are unwilling to have an honest good faith conversation.
You do not have to agree with someone else's usage of words. If you want to criticize others for improper use of terminology that is fair game. But that is an entirely different thing than claiming someone else is delusional.
Words are nothing more than a vehicle for conveying thoughts and ideas. If you are not responding to the actual thoughts and ideas others are conveying you are only arguing with yourself, which is what you've been doing this whole time.
-->
@Double_R
There is absolutely nothing about going along with a particular definition of man and/or woman that requires one to abandon biological aspects of sex.
Define a woman for me.
You seem incapable of recognizing that thoughts and ideas lead to words and definitions, not the other way around.
Define a woman then.
We can all hold and fully understand various aspects of biology while expanding our concepts of gender to include societal norms. Calling someone a man does not mean one cannot decipher between male and female DNA.
Do you realize that sometimes societal norms are not healthy for society, and not always factually biologically true. If calling someone a woman, does not mean they are a female, then define the word woman for me.
No, I don't. I am telling you that if you are going to criticize someone else's position, then you need to criticize that which is actually their position.And the way you determine what someone else's position is, is by understanding what they mean when they use certain terms.If you are unwilling to engage in this simple step then you are unwilling to have an honest good faith conversation.
I am using the dictionary to define words.
Feelings don't define words, facts define words.
If feelings defined words, then I manipulate so many people.
You do not have to agree with someone else's usage of words. If you want to criticize others for improper use of terminology that is fair game. But that is an entirely different thing than claiming someone else is delusional.
"Agree with someone else's usage of words?" What does that statement even mean? There is only one usage of words. If you can't believe that then I can't continue this conversation, because you are living in a world in which reality does not hold any truth. That is also the definition of delusion so I will continue to use that word.
Words are nothing more than a vehicle for conveying thoughts and ideas.
Words literally define reality.
The word mitochondria is just a thought, or idea?