Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Transgender rightsFollow

#377 Mar 17 2013 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
You can't state that you don't know what determines the validation of a label while at the same time insisting that accuracy of a label.
I'd respond to this, but it occurs to me, i have no way to know what even a single word you said means, so maybe it doesn't really mean what i think it does.

You probably didn't understand any of that, for the same reason...

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 5:04pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#378 Mar 17 2013 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
You can't state that you don't know what determines the validation of a label while at the same time insisting that accuracy of a label.
I'd respond to this, but it occurs to me, i have no way to know what even a single word you said means, so maybe it doesn't really mean what i think it does.

You probably didn't understand any of that, for the same reason...

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 5:04pm by Rachel9


Almalieque wrote:
The question is based on what? You have 11 million people here that are LABELED illegal. If those 11 million people decided to LABEL themselves as legal, what determines which label is correct? How are they lying or simply mistaken?


What part of that is confusing?
#379 Mar 17 2013 at 4:15 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
It's not a real Alma thread until he's overextended himself to the point that he's questioning the very notion of "definitions".
#380 Mar 17 2013 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's not only a question of what the definition of "is" is, it's a question of the definition of "definition".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#381 Mar 17 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
It's not a real Alma thread until he's overextended himself to the point that he's questioning the very notion of "definitions".


Are you claiming that definitions aren't important in arguments?
#382 Mar 17 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
It's not a real Alma thread until he's overextended himself to the point that he's questioning the very notion of "definitions".


Are you claiming that definitions aren't important in arguments?
Sure, they are, but it is not so important to know how a definition came to be, or why something is called what it is.
____________________________
#383 Mar 17 2013 at 5:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
I shudder to think what would happen if we brought all those Asian/Polynesian traditional cultures that have three defined genders in them, or heavens above, the nation that has five. Someone google that for me, I'm going back to bed, perchance to dream, or read, or wonder over all the ******* in the world.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#384 Mar 17 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel wrote:
Sure, they are, but it is not so important to know how a definition came to be, or why something is called what it is.


I'm not asking why something came to be or why something is called what. I'm asking you a simple question, who determines the definition and how is it validated? You can dance around it all you want, but you can't argue against a definition if you don't know if that definition is validated. In other words, if I told you that men are defined by their height and how much income they earn, then you would have to equally consider it as a definition. You have nothing else to compare it to.
#385 Mar 17 2013 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
I'm not asking why something came to be or why something is called what. I'm asking you a simple question, who determines the definition and how is it validated?
dot dot dot

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 8:42pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#386 Mar 17 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
I'm not asking why something came to be or why something is called what. I'm asking you a simple question, who determines the definition and how is it validated?
dot dot dot

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 8:42pm by Rachel9


You do realize that those are two different questions right? Why something is illegal is different from who determines it illegal. Murder is illegal because you don't have the right to take someone's life. Lawmakers are the ones who determine if murder is legal or not.

Hence why a woman who has an abortion isn't committing murder, yet if a pregnant woman is killed, it's a double homicide. Hence why capital punishment isn't illegal, yet you killing your friend because he took your ipod without your permission is illegal. Lawmakers are the ones who determine if murder via self-defense is justified or not, not you. You just can't say "self-defense" and everything be ok. Likewise, just because you call yourself a woman, doesn't make you a woman. The "why" is not the same as "who determines it".

So, unless you can determine the approving authority of what *** is what, you have no grounds to argue the accuracy of any claims.
#387 Mar 17 2013 at 7:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
The authority that decides who is a citizen is the government.

There is no authority that can decide what "fork", "rock", "girl", or "definition" means. They mean whatever they are understood by english speakers to mean.
____________________________
#388 Mar 17 2013 at 7:12 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
So a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with. How can you counter that if there is no standard? How is anyone wrong?
#389 Mar 17 2013 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
So a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with
You keep saying this, but i have no idea what you mean.

Quote:
How can you counter that if there is no standard? How is anyone wrong?
That isn't how languages work. There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words. That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word. It means a word means whatever the speakers of the language use it to mean.

Edited, Mar 17th 2013 10:06pm by Rachel9
____________________________
#390 Mar 17 2013 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words.


Ya, like when I say that Alma and Rachel are awesome posters, I really mean they both suck. Because **** language, all words mean only what I mean they mean.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#391 Mar 17 2013 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
496 posts
Quote:
Ya, like when I say that Alma and Rachel are awesome posters, I really mean they both suck. Because @#%^ language, all words mean only what I mean they mean.
Quote:
That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word.
Smiley: glare
____________________________
#392 Mar 17 2013 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Rachel wrote:
You keep saying this, but i have no idea what you mean.


What's so hard to understand. Your argument is that a man isn't defined by a *****. My argument is that a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with. Since there is no standard, you can't say that I'm wrong.

Rachel wrote:
That isn't how languages work. There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words. That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word. It means a word means whatever the speakers of the language use it to mean.


Read above. So, if I call a ******* a male, then you have NO AUTHORITY to say that I'm wrong.

What is the purpose of contracts if words aren't held to a standard?
#393 Mar 17 2013 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,884 posts
Rachel9 wrote:
Quote:
Ya, like when I say that Alma and Rachel are awesome posters, I really mean they both suck. Because @#%^ language, all words mean only what I mean they mean.
Quote:
That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word.
Smiley: glare


Ya, I have to remember to quote the whole thing so you can't go back and edit it and make yourself NOT look like a dumbass. My bad.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#394 Mar 17 2013 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
Alma, why does it matter to you so much if a person born biologically male feels like a woman? Do you dispute that this happens? Do you not believe that it's possible? What's the problem?

I don't get why it's a big deal.
#395 Mar 18 2013 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Belkira wrote:
Alma, why does it matter to you so much if a person born biologically male feels like a woman? Do you dispute that this happens? Do you not believe that it's possible? What's the problem?

I don't get why it's a big deal.

Because what if she sees his wiener in the shower?! it could fall off.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#396 Mar 18 2013 at 7:35 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,745 posts
Belkira wrote:
I don't get why it's a big deal.
Meh, they're both playing the definition game.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#397 Mar 18 2013 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Exodus wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
I find anyone that even hints at suicide to be trash.


This would strike me as a very silly position to hold.


From the outside looking in, its only natural he'd hold a position like that. Inside looking out, imo, suicide is just pure weakness.

I'm sure there are exceptions for situations where you're terminally ill, dying, etc, though.


Is that a defense? Setting aside "pure weakness" for a second - he said "anyone that even hints at suicide is trash." That's not quite the same thing as saying that they're weak.

"Pure weakness" itself is a gross oversimplification; as convenient a mental dissonance as the one that lets some rich folks believe that the poor are only poor because they deserve as much.
Not ever having killed myself I can only surmise, but I'd think it takes some courage to off yourself.

But it takes a really big man to call the imperfect human 'trash'. Smiley: rolleyes



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#398 Mar 18 2013 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
496 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Rachel wrote:
You keep saying this, but i have no idea what you mean.


What's so hard to understand. Your argument is that a man isn't defined by a *****. My argument is that a man is defined by how many women he sleeps with. Since there is no standard, you can't say that I'm wrong.
All of it? "How many woman he has slept with" doesn't make sense as a definition for the word "man" (or any other word). If you said "a person who has slept with at least 10 woman", then it would at least make sense...

Quote:
Rachel wrote:
That isn't how languages work. There is no authority that can decide the meaning of words. That doesn't mean anyone can just decide to redefine a word. It means a word means whatever the speakers of the language use it to mean.


Read above. So, if I call a woman a male, then you have NO AUTHORITY to say that I'm wrong.

What is the purpose of contracts if words aren't held to a standard?
They ARE held to a standard, there is just no single authority that can decide that standard.
____________________________
#399 Mar 18 2013 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,010 posts
Why does it even matter? The only argument, as I saw it, was whether or not it's a good idea to let any biologically male human have open access to use the facilities reserved for biologically female humans. I could care less who feels they are what inside - what I care about is the safety of the population at large. That's not to say I feel trans are the danger - don't misunderstand.

The danger is in allowing a precedent to be set that anyone can say they are anything and be allowed immediate and open access to areas they shouldn't have access to. I don't get access to the vault at a casino in vegas just because I say I'm the most important person in the world. Neither should any biologically male human get open and unquestioned access to the ladies' room just because he says he feels female inside. There's no way for the population at large to quantify that or know whether or not he's being truthful or is just an opportunistic predator.

I'm sorry that trans have a hard life. I agree that should change. I'm part of the LGBT community too and my life was just as hard - it sucked. I've been subject to some of the most awful violence known to humankind because of it, so I understand your plight as well as anyone can, Rachel. Sometimes, though, you have to look beyond your bubble and think about consequences that might result from your little "victory". Sure, you get to use the ladies room with your *****. So does everyone else, and now we have five or six more reported sexual assaults a month because predators have easy, unquestioned access to a private area where there are no cameras.

It's just not worth it.
#400 Mar 18 2013 at 9:16 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
So many of you are making this a harder problem than it is. Transgendered people go on a journey, inside and outside. When they are on their way on the outer physical journey, other people can tell. Not just by clothes, make up and hair, but also by body-language, speech patterns and other outward mannerisms. If a straight male perve tosses on a skirt and makeup and uses the female toilets to check out women, or gain access to them while they are vulnerable, women are going to know that this person is not a legit person in the bathroom, unless the man attacks them within seconds. It's all in the behavior. Society has very strict and defined public bathroom etiquette rules, and most people stick to them closely. That's why we can trust lesbians and trannies in with us. And men can trust gays and trannies in with them. And why in South Yarra and Prahran, the *** guys come in with the girls in the female bathrooms and are trustworthy there.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#401 Mar 18 2013 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aripyanfar wrote:
Society has very strict and defined public bathroom etiquette rules

Like "The ones with the ***** go in the men's room and the ones with no ***** go in the ladies' room"? Because that's the primary bathroom etiquette rule around these parts. Great if everyone down there has moved beyond such things or whatever but generally, around these parts, the whole ***** thing is the first thing you categorize someone on when they're in the restroom with you. You know, before wondering if they're standing the proper number of urinals away from you or using too many paper towels.

Which is why I argued before regarding both owner protections and patron protections for restroom use. Because whatever Pollyanna dreams we may all hold for a future where no one cares... people care.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 89 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (89)