3RU7AL

Also, I disagree with your framing of this as a scientific question. Imagine I said "you are lying that your name is Bones, it's because you're delusional and ashamed of your real name." Obviously, I would be ignoring the distinction between your actual name and your username. It would not make sense to make the case by saying, that your name is scientifically, legally, your real name. Your username is your chosen username, and there is nothing scientific about it other than verifying what your chosen username is. Does that make your username completely meaningless, because it has no basis in scientific or legal reality? No, because it provides you with the freedom of expression to identify yourself that way.

So you would also agree then, on that note, that a 40 year old who's personal preference is that they are eight should be able to go to childcare then?  

Probably be best if they use a third bathroom,

If refusing to use a person's pronoun is considered hate speech,

(IFF) we can agree that language only exists to serve as a means of clear communication between humans with as little error and miscommunication as possible 

• This statement is manifestly false.
  

Atheism is a belief in the way that not eating oatmeal is a breakfast. 

Simply merge all sex separated lavatories, bath houses, changing rooms, living spaces in dorms and military barracks.

Disagreement of the law allowing normal children to be operated upon.

Disagreement of the law being used to force me to claim X as normal, true, or desirable,

Disagreement of the law being used to force pronouns out of me,

I don't believe that snapshots of horrific incidents set the standard for the conscience exhibited by people in general. But admittedly, I can only speak to my own experience. I, like many, have experienced both the good and bad, and yet I still have faith in people--politicians and members of government excluded. What would it state about the attempt to actualize ideals, when the the foundation--people at their best--is dismissed based on platitudes using "human nature"?

I do believe that people generally have a conscience.

You think sports has a hard time of separating classes by sex?

It's a 'basic example of obligated speech.

I don't want to live in a society that normalizes pedophilia or bestiality, meth use,

Than they are by people who 'normalize sex changes for 'normal people.

People fall into the gray more than the extremes, I 'think,

It's absurd to go about life in black and white morality/

Say there are three doors in a zoo, and I lie to an individual, telling them that the trapdoor to the Tiger Pit is the bathroom,

How do I need a citation?

strangely enough,

the people running this shit-show feel like they can live with a "clean-conscience" if the slaves "VOLUNTARILY" participate

this is the key benefit of the current system over say, FLAGRANT TYRANNY

I would personally agree with this. Though if we are to maintain our examples and standards, there is no way for either of us to know how "clean" their consciences feel.

there is a hard upper limit to how much comfort and entertainment any particular human can enjoy in one lifetime

Why would there be a limit on that which is not quantifiable?

It's too bad Jacob didn't have a smart phone.

Really, it's nothing to do with homophobia, they're just really big fans of the dictionary.

A 'degree of forced speech is necessary, such as if a person when asked, claims there is no fire in a building when there is, and a bunch of people die.

And I 'greatly dislike how items such as the pledge of allegiance trivialize oaths and by such make them meaningless.

I agree - there is absolutely no way the law should be able to compel you to certain speech, especially if the speech is demonstrably false. 

om a binary sample, that is, they are the only two options out of a selection of two. We can thus just consider the entire set valid and not mention them (since you can only either be a biological male or not a biological male, and you argue that either can be a women, there's no need to mention born male or not born male as a criteria. That's like me sa

> strict atheism is logically incoherent therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that logically incoherent concepts must be removed from the lexicon?)

> strict atheists are functionally indistinguishable from broad atheists therefore atheism should be redefined to its broadest sense. (Where is the value that performatively similar ideologies must be condensed under the same name?)

You know that and I know that,  that's two people not living a delusional indoctrinated lie.

I agree.

I'm 62 years of age, and I don't expect that my social niche will change.

By virtue of birth and upbringing, I am far more fortunate than a lot of my fellow earthlings.

I am content with the way things are.

I would suggest that the super-rich are no more content than I am.

There's only so much spare time in a day to be spent doing fun stuff, and I would be bored to tears floating about on a super-yacht all day.

Though I wonder how much time the super-rich get to spend on their super-yachts.

if a person is a hermit or recluse that doesnt participate in society, maybe they have a claim to not owing society anything or not wanting to pay taxes. anyone who participates in common society owes that government for what it does, in at least some capacity

I wouldn’t be 100% pessimistic about convincing people, only 90%. I’ve had people here make arguments that were logical enough to change my mind on a few topics. It shouldn’t take a deep dive into human psychology and an entire flame war to change someone’s mind. All it should require is a couple of solid arguments. So, while it is true that debating on the internet is mostly fruitless, it isn’t completely fruitless. Same thing with debating people irl honestly. It’s a product of human nature. A society with no debating at all is a society in free fall. And yes, it is possible to have a social life irl and a meaningful discussion on this site.

They can live better than those who live better than most kings, without the system.

even if it were the case, would you be comfortable with allowing visually caucasian men who have "one drop" of "black" blood in them to then identify as black? 

Well that's very subjective, what is "one-drop".

I care because if you utter that which is untrue and expect me to go along with it, that becomes my problem. 

Why would they--the rich--even want to participate in such a society?

that's roughly $48,000 each annually.

So taxes are tantamount to the rich paying the poor "protection" money?

Provided by who? At who's expense?

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF

(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

Inarguably the biologically ingrained hierarchy. Still one could argue that it would be monstrous to use this as an excuse to or a defense of exploiting the weak/defenseless or to initiate a policy of eugenics. 

Yes. However, Police and Mail are not sold in the market; they're just provided after the fact of taxation, a portion of which is provided to the aforementioned and is determined strictly by the government.

it doesn't appear to follow that ALL humans are worth preserving

I am not prepared emotionally or intellectually to decide which humans do not deserve to live. You are welcome to take a wack at it but I presume you will get a lot of pushback from whichever humans you deem unworthy.