Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#502 Mar 21 2013 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
Is this thread about Mindel's **** yet?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#503 Mar 21 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Joph likes big butts and cannot lie.


____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#504 Mar 21 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The measurement of a man's manhood by the number of women he sleeps with is widespread. You, my friend are a tool to accept such definition. Furthermore, it is also widespread to define a person's **** by their genitalia. So, I guess you really don't have a problem with that either. So, what again is your problem?
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had **** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had **** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 8:04pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#505 Mar 21 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
So what word do you use for men who have not had **** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 8:04pm by Rachel9


"Almalieque".
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#506 Mar 21 2013 at 6:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Rachel wrote:
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had **** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had **** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?


So, it's settled. You have no issue with defining a **** by their genitalia, because it's widespread.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#507 Mar 21 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
Almalieque wrote:

I suck at...


Best choice of words in a thread mostly about wieners? I think we have a winner!
#508 Mar 21 2013 at 6:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Torrence wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I suck at...


Best choice of words in a thread mostly about wieners? I think we have a winner!


Not sure why you would include "at".....

A swing and a miss....
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#509 Mar 21 2013 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Eske Esquire wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
So what word do you use for men who have not had **** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 8:04pm by Rachel9


"Almalieque".

**** /thread Smiley: laugh
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#510 Mar 21 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had **** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had **** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?


So, it's settled. You have no issue with defining a **** by their genitalia, because it's widespread.
That's correct.
____________________________
#511 Mar 21 2013 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
I guess? But i've never encountered anyone who used the word "man" to refer only to people who have slept with at least x women. Certainly it's not uncommon for people to consider a man who has never had **** worthless, or something, but when someone just says the word "man", no one thinks they are only talking about someone who has slept with x number of women before. Maybe it's a regional thing though. So what word do you use for men who have not had **** (with a woman) before? Boy, i guess?


So, it's settled. You have no issue with defining a **** by their genitalia, because it's widespread.
That's correct.


So WTF have you been arguing the contrary this whole time or would you like to expound on your problem?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#512 Mar 21 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
Transgender rights
____________________________
#513 Mar 21 2013 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Almalieque The Most Awesome wrote:
So WTF have you been arguing the contrary this whole time or would you like to expound on your problem?


It sounds like you're upset because transgenders are being treated as their biological **** and not some random gender/sex that they want to be. However, you have stated that you support widespread definitions. In this situation, it is widespread to label a transgender as their biological **** and not what they want to be. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#514 Mar 21 2013 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
some random gender/sex that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and sex.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 10:18pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#515 Mar 21 2013 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,944 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
some random gender/sex that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and sex.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 10:18pm by Rachel9


If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#516 Mar 21 2013 at 8:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
some random gender/sex that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and sex.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 10:18pm by Rachel9


If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.


It's Alma. It doesn't matter how good she is.
#517 Mar 21 2013 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
some random gender/sex that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and sex.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.
Probably.
____________________________
#518 Mar 22 2013 at 3:50 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
If you can't explain something to someone who doesn't already know what the thing is, you are a very bad explainer.

I don't understand.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#519 Mar 22 2013 at 5:35 AM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
So I have to know what something is already before I can have it explained to me?
#520 Mar 22 2013 at 7:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
11,967 posts
Nadenu wrote:
So I have to know what something is already before I can have it explained to me?


I have a 100% success rate at explaining concepts to people who already understand them completely!

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#521 Mar 22 2013 at 12:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
What the **** is wrong with Arizona?

Link

The article wrote:
An Arizona state legislator wants to make it illegal for transgendered people to go to the bathroom. More accurately, the bill proposed by state Representative John Kavanagh would make it illegal to use public restrooms, dressing rooms, or locker rooms designated with the **** different from that on your birth certificate (which is inaccurate for most transgender people), an offense punishable by six months in jail. The bill’s vote was delayed yesterday after the committee meeting was disrupted by transgender activists and protestors, though Kavanagh said the delay was due to a “paperwork error.”

According to the AP, Kavanagh is worried that anti-discrimination protections for transgender people being passed around the country will “serve as a cover for pedophiles who want to expose themselves to children of the opposite gender.” And his proposed law will supposedly protect businesses from the economic threats posed by transgender rights, such as the cost of installing unisex bathrooms and lawsuits from people pretending to be transgender just to sue local restaurants.

“This law simply restores the law of society: Men are men and women are women,” he reportedly said. “For a handful of people to make everyone else uncomfortable just makes no sense.”

Assuming they actually feel uncomfortable. A transgender teen profiled by The New Yorker recently admitted there was “some awkwardness” about which bathroom he’d use after transitioning from female to male in ninth grade, “but when [he] started using the boys' rest rooms nobody said anything, and that was that.” If a bunch of high schoolers can handle it, surely the good patrons of Arizona's public restrooms can too.
#522 Mar 22 2013 at 12:36 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,596 posts
Belkira wrote:
What the @#%^ is wrong with Arizona?
It's Arizona.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#523 Mar 22 2013 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,790 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Belkira wrote:
What the @#%^ is wrong with Arizona?
It's Arizona.
Sunstroke I guess.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#524 Mar 22 2013 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
What the @#%^ is wrong with Arizona?

They probably have dictionaries over there.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#525 Mar 22 2013 at 4:20 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
some random gender/sex that they want to be.
Okay, so i was right, you don't understand the difference between gender and sex.

Unfortunately i don't know how to explain it to someone who doesn't already understand, so i'm not sure where we can go from here.

Edited, Mar 21st 2013 10:18pm by Rachel9


Nice attempt, but no cigar. I do know the difference, hence my intentional usage of the words. I used a "/" because what a person wants to be is irrelevant to the point of changing it. According to your logic, as long as it's wide spread, then it's an official definition. So, why does it matter if I'm referring to **** and/or gender. Does your "widespread" rule only apply to one and not the other? If not, then it's irrelevant.

It sounds like you're upset because transgenders are being treated as their biological **** and not some random gender/sex that they want to be. However, you have stated that you support widespread definitions. In this situation, it is widespread to label a transgender as their biological **** and not what they want to be. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#526 Mar 22 2013 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
Nice attempt, but no cigar. I do know the difference, hence my intentional usage of the words. I used a "/" because what a person wants to be is irrelevant to the point of changing it.
Please explain what you mean. Because this makes no sense to me.
____________________________
#527 Mar 22 2013 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,288 posts
Please explain what you mean. Because this makes no sense to me.

Welcome to how everyone else feels about the last 4 pages of this thread.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#528 Mar 22 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
See, you all miss me arguing now, mmHMMMmm...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#529 Mar 22 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Nice attempt, but no cigar. I do know the difference, hence my intentional usage of the words. I used a "/" because what a person wants to be is irrelevant to the point of changing it.
Please explain what you mean. Because this makes no sense to me.


The point is not what **** and or gender a person wants society to perceive them as. The point is rather society should accept and support the desired **** and or gender if it is contrary to what society want them to be.

That's the whole point. Who defines what a man is and how he should behave? How is one action considered feminine and another defined masculine? According to your logic, as long as it's wide spread, then it's an official definition as opposed to official sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.. So, why does it matter if I'm referring to **** and/or gender. Does your "widespread" rule only apply to one and not the other? If not, then it's irrelevant.


It sounds like you're upset because transgenders are being treated as their biological **** and not some random gender/sex that they want to be. However, you have stated that you support widespread definitions. In this situation, it is widespread to label a transgender as their biological **** and not what they want to be. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#530 Mar 22 2013 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
So, why does it matter if I'm referring to **** and/or gender.
Because they are two completely different, unrelated things.

Quote:
Does your "widespread" rule only apply to one and not the other? If not, then it's irrelevant.
It applies to words, not the concepts those words refer to.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2013 8:23pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#531 Mar 22 2013 at 6:51 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
At this point, it is evident that you realize that you're wrong and you're just going tap dance. I can happily play this game.

Rachel wrote:
Because they are two completely different, unrelated things.


That doesn't answer the question. Does your "widespread" rule only applies to one and not the other? If not, then it's irrelevant. According to your logic, as long as it's wide spread, then it's an official definition as opposed to official sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc.. If I define myself as a "car", then as long as it's widely accepted, then I am a car. That's why we have dictionaries, to prevent such nonsense from occurring.

It sounds like you're upset because transgenders are being treated as their biological **** and not some random gender/sex that they want to be. However, you have stated that you support widespread definitions. In this situation, it is widespread to label a transgender as their biological **** and not what they want to be. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?

Rachel wrote:
It applies to words, not the concepts those words refer to.


WTF? Please expound the differentiation of a defined word in a dictionary and the concept of the aforesaid word. How can you possibly talk about concept when you're stuck on **** vs gender when the concept is about society accepting either or when contrary to public beliefs?

The point is not what **** and or gender a person wants society to perceive them as. The point is rather society should accept and support the desired **** and or gender if it is contrary to what society want them to be.

That's the whole point. Who defines what a man is and how he should behave? How is one action considered feminine and another defined masculine? You're grasping at straws. It's ok just to admit that you're wrong. This is just silly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#532 Mar 22 2013 at 7:21 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
If I define myself as a "car", then as long as it's widely accepted, then I am a car.
Correct, but you are not the same thing as is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car . You'd be something completely different that happens to also be called a "car".
Quote:
That's why we have dictionaries, to prevent such nonsense from occurring.
No it's not.

Quote:
It sounds like you're upset because transgenders are being treated as their biological **** and not some random gender/sex that they want to be. However, you have stated that you support widespread definitions. In this situation, it is widespread to label a transgender as their biological **** and not what they want to be. So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
Until you clarify wtf you're talking about, specifically the first sentence, i cannot respond to it.

Quote:
WTF? Please expound the differentiation of a defined word in a dictionary and the concept of the aforesaid word.
For example, if all of society decided to go along with your new definition of the word "car", we could add "Almalieque" as one of the definitions for the word car in all of our dictionaries, and refer to you simply as "car". However, this doesn't change who, or what you are. You still the same person, regardless of whether we call you Almalieque, car, or anything else. Words are just labels. The thing, or concept that those labels refer to does not change just because the label does. See: thousands of different languages using different words to refer to the same thing.

More examples: This and this are both called the same thing. They are obviously very different things, we just happen to use the same word to refer to them.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2013 9:43pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#533 Mar 22 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Does your "widespread" rule only applies to one and not the other? If not, then it's irrelevant. According to your logic, as long as it's wide spread, then it's an official definition as opposed to official sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc..

Almalieque wrote:
That's why we have dictionaries, to prevent such nonsense from occurring.
Rachel wrote:
No it's not.
Rachel wrote:
Correct, but you are not the same thing as is described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car . You'd be something completely different that happens to also be called a "car".

Contradict much?

Rachel wrote:
Until you clarify wtf you're talking about, specifically the first sentence, i cannot respond to it.

Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
So, it's settled. You have no issue with defining a **** by their genitalia, because it's widespread.
That's correct.

So WTF have you been arguing the contrary this whole time or would you like to expound on your problem?

Transgender rights
what's your beef? What rights?


What part of that don't you understand?

Rachel wrote:
However, this doesn't change who, or what you are. You still the same person, regardless of whether we call you Almalieque, car, or anything else. Words are just labels. The thing, or concept that those labels refer to does not change just because the label does. See: thousands of different languages using different words to refer to the same thing.

More examples: This and [url=http://i.imgur.com/ThfyRA1.pngthis[/url] are both called the same thing. They are obviously very different things, we just happen to use the same word to refer to them.


So your argument is that we can create labels for things "all willy nilly", but it doesn't change the actual definition? Welcome to my point. Just because you call yourself a woman, doesn't make you a woman. So, I ask again, what exactly is your beef?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#534 Mar 22 2013 at 8:22 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
One bow looks the same as a another bow to me in the dark.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#535 Mar 22 2013 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
Does your "widespread" rule only applies to one and not the other? If not, then it's irrelevant. According to your logic, as long as it's wide spread, then it's an official definition as opposed to official sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc..
It applies to all words.
Quote:
Contradict much?
Uh, how?

Quote:
So your argument is that we can create labels for things "all willy nilly", but it doesn't change the actual definition?
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.
____________________________
#536 Mar 23 2013 at 6:34 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts

If you don't mind me asking, are you over 18?

Rachel wrote:
It applies to all words.


If it applies to all words, then why do you care that I'm using "sex/gender"? It doesn't matter if they are two different concepts, because they are both applicable to the concept of widespread acceptances. Furthermore,both concepts are relevant to the topic of conversation.

Rachel wrote:
Uh, how?


My argument has been that we use official documents such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to determine official definitions of words. While in casual conversation, society can create slang words to mean anything they want, the definition isn't official until officially recognized by credible sources. Else, mass confusion would occur in contracts, laws, rules, etc., when people can create and/or infer their own meanings of words. To prevent that chaos from happening, we have official definitions as standards. "this isn't a 'gun', it's a 'toaster'! That's what we call it back at home!"

You said that wasn't the purpose of dictionaries. However, when I said that I'm defined as a car, you used an encyclopedia to counter my definition. You did exactly what I said dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. are used for, while denying the same exact purpose.

Rachel wrote:
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.


For example, if all of society decided to go along with your new definition of the word "car", we could add "Almalieque" as one of the definitions for the word car in all of our dictionaries, and refer to you simply as "car".

Here you stated that we could add the definition "Almalieque" to the word "car" in all of our dictionaries simply because society decided to go along with it. That equals "creating labels for things all 'willy-nilly'". That is, unless you have a logical connection between "almalieque" and "car"?

You still the same person, regardless of whether we call you Almalieque, car, or anything else. Words are just labels. The thing, or concept that those labels refer to does not change just because the label does

Here you state that regardless if I'm called "Almalieque", "car" or anything else, those are just labels and the actual thing doesn't change. That equals "not changing the actual definition".
Maybe "definition" was a poor word to use. So, let me rephrase it.So your argument is that we can create labels for things "all willy nilly", but it doesn't change the thing or concept that the labels refer to?

The next logical question goes back to who defines that "thing" or "concept". How does one label outweigh another label? You're simply going in circles to avoid conceding your point.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#537 Mar 23 2013 at 8:31 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Yes, i am.

Quote:
My argument has been that we use official documents such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to determine official definitions of words. While in casual conversation, society can create slang words to mean anything they want, the definition isn't official until officially recognized by credible sources. Else, mass confusion would occur in contracts, laws, rules, etc., when people can create and/or infer their own meanings of words. To prevent that chaos from happening, we have official definitions as standards. "this isn't a 'gun', it's a 'toaster'! That's what we call it back at home!"

You said that wasn't the purpose of dictionaries. However, when I said that I'm defined as a car, you used an encyclopedia to counter my definition. You did exactly what I said dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. are used for, while denying the same exact purpose.
I didn't use it as an official irrefutable source. Wikipedia is wrong all the **** time. I used it because i didn't feel like describing a car. Would you be happier if i had used a picture instead? Dictionaries and encyclopedias are very useful, even if they aren't the official word of god. I can confirm that the article does in fact refer to exactly what i was thinking of. While it's possible for Wikipedia to be wrong, i can confirm that in this case, it's not.

Quote:
Here you stated that we could add the definition "Almalieque" to the word "car" in all of our dictionaries simply because society decided to go along with it. That equals "creating labels for things all 'willy-nilly'". That is, unless you have a logical connection between "almalieque" and "car"?
There's just as much of a logical connection between this and "car". All words are just made up at some point. That's kind of how it works.

Quote:
Here you state that regardless if I'm called "Almalieque", "car" or anything else, those are just labels and the actual thing doesn't change. That equals "not changing the actual definition".
How? That's exactly what we've done in that case.
Quote:
Maybe "definition" was a poor word to use. So, let me rephrase it.So your argument is that we can create labels for things "all willy nilly", but it doesn't change the thing or concept that the labels refer to?
You basically just quoted what i said, so yes, i agree.
____________________________
#538 Mar 23 2013 at 9:05 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
If opinion applies to all words, then why do you care that I'm using "sex/gender"? It doesn't matter if they are two different concepts, because they are both applicable to the concept of widespread acceptances. Furthermore,both concepts are relevant to the topic of conversation.
Rachel wrote:
You basically just quoted what i said, so yes, i agree.


So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?

Rachel wrote:
I didn't use it as an official irrefutable source. Wikipedia is wrong all the @#%^ing time. I used it because i didn't feel like describing a car. Would you be happier if i had used a picture instead? Dictionaries and encyclopedias are very useful, even if they aren't the official word of god. I can confirm that the article does in fact refer to exactly what i was thinking of. While it's possible for Wikipedia to be wrong, i can confirm that in this case, it's not.


Your opinion of wikipedia's accuracy is not the point. My argument is that we use sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. to determine standards on definitions. Else, mass confusion would occur in contracts, laws, rules, etc., when people can create and/or infer their own meanings of words. To prevent that chaos from happening, we have official definitions as standards. "this isn't a 'gun', it's a 'toaster'! That's what we call it back at home!"

You said that wasn't the purpose of dictionaries. However, when I said that I'm defined as a car, you used an encyclopedia to counter my definition. You did exactly what I said dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. are used for, while denying the same exact purpose.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#539 Mar 23 2013 at 9:11 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
You said that wasn't the purpose of dictionaries. However, when I said that I'm defined as a car, you used an encyclopedia to counter my definition.
lol, no i didn't. I never even said you couldn't be called a "car".

Quote:
If opinion applies to all words, then why do you care that I'm using "sex/gender"?
Because i have no idea what you mean. If your intention is to ask two separate questions, then please, for the sake of clarity, split them into two sentences.

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 11:13am by Rachel9
____________________________
#540 Mar 23 2013 at 9:47 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Rachel wrote:
Because i have no idea what you mean. If your intention is to ask two separate questions, then please, for the sake of clarity, split them into two sentences.


If "a" is your solution for problem "x", and "a" is your solution for problem "y", then why do you care if "x" and "y" are listed independently or jointly as "x/y"? Your solution will always be "a". That notation represents that the problem can be either "x" and/or "y", where "a" will be your solution.

You're going in circles to prevent admitting defeat.

Rachel wrote:
lol, no i didn't. I never even said you couldn't be called a "car".

You stated that I could be called a car, but that doesn't change what I am. That's what I've been arguing for the entire time.

So, I ask again, what's your beef? What rights?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#541 Mar 23 2013 at 9:55 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
If "a" is your solution for problem "x", and "a" is your solution for problem "y", then why do you care if "x" and "y" are listed independently or jointly as "x/y"? Your solution will always be "a". That notation represents that the problem can be either "x" and/or "y", where "a" will be your solution.
Huh? My answer will be very different for each question.


Quote:
You stated that I could be called a car, but that doesn't change what I am. That's what I've been arguing for the entire time.
Oh, it is? I thought you have been arguing that if god doesn't approve of a definition, then it can't be used at all. At least that would explain why you are still refusing to call trans women women.
____________________________
#542 Mar 23 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,161 posts
For the love of god Rachel, stop arguing with that moron.
You're never going to convince him of anything because he's too stupid to grasp even the most simple of concepts and you're only getting dumber by arguing with him.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#543 Mar 23 2013 at 10:14 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
I'm bored :(
____________________________
#544 Mar 23 2013 at 10:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
Rachel wrote:
Huh? My answer will be very different for each question.


You said that the concept of labels apply to all words. Now you are saying that it doesn't? Which one is it?

Rachel wrote:
Oh, it is? I thought you have been arguing that if god doesn't approve of a definition, then it can't be used at all. At least that would explain why you are still refusing to call trans women women.


I never mentioned God, that was you. I admitted to the evolution of words and language, but that evolution doesn't take away from current meanings. Just because the definition of a word might change in the future, doesn't mean that there is no definition standard. Else, mass confusion would occur in contracts, laws, rules, etc., when people can create and/or infer their own meanings of words. To prevent that chaos from happening, we have official definitions as standards. "This isn't a 'gun', it's a 'toaster'! That's what we call it back at home!"

You said that as long as the definition was wide spread, then it is acceptable. Well, it is widespread that a man with a wig and women's clothing acting like a woman is a man with a wig and women's clothing acting like a woman, not a woman. By your own philosophy, you agree with me. So, I asked you what have you been arguing about and you said "transgender rights"; however, you have refused to expound on what "transgender rights" you are referring to or the overall problem.

By your own philosophy, you are wrong. If we are free to create and use any label as we see fit, then what is your beef?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#545 Mar 23 2013 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,161 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
I'm bored :(
There's better ways to waste time.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#546 Mar 23 2013 at 10:37 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,948 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
For the love of god Rachel, stop arguing with that moron.
You're never going to convince him of anything because he's too stupid to grasp even the most simple of concepts and you're only getting dumber by arguing with him.


You're not helping Rachel at all by bolstering that nonsense. If you're too invidious towards me to admit that she has done nothing but create a circle of contradictions, you're better off remaining silent. Your silence (along with the thread) is evident that you agree with me, else I would have had several people responding. This forum isn't that serious where you would rather come off as a grade A douche than to accept the fact that your own beliefs maybe flawed.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#547 Mar 23 2013 at 10:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,161 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Your silence (along with the thread) is evident that you agree with me
Smiley: lolSmiley: laugh
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#548 Mar 23 2013 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
490 posts
Quote:
You said that the concept of labels apply to all words. Now you are saying that it doesn't? Which one is it?
That is not at all what i am saying.

Quote:
"This isn't a 'gun', it's a 'toaster'! That's what we call it back at home!"
That's fine, but everywhere else it's known as a gun. So you can continue calling it a toaster, but you can't say it's not a gun. Because it is. Being a "toaster" doesn't prevent it from also being a "gun".

Quote:
that evolution doesn't take away from current meanings. Just because the definition of a word might change in the future, doesn't mean that there is no definition standard.
Yes, i have said just as much before.

Quote:
You said that as long as the definition was wide spread, then it is acceptable.
Correct.

Quote:
Well, it is widespread that a man with a wig and women's clothing acting like a woman is a man with a wig and women's clothing acting like a woman, not a woman.
This is...not true. For example:

Quote:
If you're too invidious towards me to admit that she has done nothing but create a circle of contradictions
All i had to do was change my name, and say i'm a woman now, and what do you know, even you will refer to me as "she".

Edited, Mar 23rd 2013 1:00pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#549 Mar 23 2013 at 10:49 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Quote:
toaster


Oh, are we there already?

Eske's Law. Thread lock plz.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#550 Mar 23 2013 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,596 posts
Jophiel wrote:
See, you all miss me arguing now, mmHMMMmm...
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#551 Mar 23 2013 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,161 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
toaster


Oh, are we there already?

Eske's Law. Thread lock plz.
Wait a bit, I predicted 17 pages of stupidity and we're not quite there yet.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 45 All times are in CDT
Allegory, TirithRR, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (42)