Total posts: 396
Moozer325,
Thanks for proving what I (we) already knew about you.
You’re a child. You don’t like to be proven wrong. You can’t handle confrontation. You have no respect for your elders. You suffer greatly from lack of attention to detail. Your reading comprehension skills are found wanting. AND last but not least, you whine like RationalMadman did when he was constantly proven wrong and couldn’t handle it. He quite the site.
Immature children who can’t admit when they’re wrong and operate as pseudo know-it-alls are cowards when they block those they disagree with yet fail to engage let alone rebuke with legit cogent rebuttals.
You were a waste of my time anyways, as you’re no different than the proverbial horse led to water hut refused to drink. 💀 🐎
Created:
-->
@Mall
Being Pro choice is being pro abortion/homosexuality.
That's quite the leap. Please elaborate so I have a better framework to reply appropriately and accordingly.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>Once again, I start a nice civil (the pun was I used the word civil in a conversation about the civil war) debate,
Wrong. You really need to use a dictionary from time to time; check that, all the time. This is like the 5th term you've used incorrectly.
Pun: A play on words which have the same sound but different meanings; an expression in which two different applications of a word present an odd or ludicrous idea; a kind of quibble or equivocation; OR a joke or type of wordplay in which similar senses or sounds of two words or phrases, or different senses of the same word, are deliberately confuse
There is no pun in using the exact same term only in a different context.
and you come along and start trash talking me trying to get a response out of me. Hey, guess what that is, trolling!
For redundancy's sake: Troll/trolling, for your edification: An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic.
You are writing back, so you are responding. I stay on topic and you're not replying with "strong emotive" responses....so, not trolling.
Can we please keep this at least a little professional? Because if you can’t I’m just done with you.
Professional? *facepalm* This is an obscure low traffic website for debating with complete strangers. There is nothing "professional" about being here interacting with strangers.
Try staying on task, use a dictionary when you're unsure of terms to use, and do a lot more research into the matter.
Genetic fallacy. Lack of reading comprehension skills. Yet again waiving the hand of ignorance without even making a single tangible argument in rebuttal to any of the numerous historical facts referenced therein.So about that, no. If you would like to use the information in that source to back up a claim of yours, that would be nice, but you used that source as your claim, when it wasn’t even an argumentative piece, it was just informative. Also, genetic fallacy? Really dude? Please can we just have a professional talk for once?
I did not use 'that' source as my claim. I made no claim. None. I merely linked to 4 sources. End of story.
Cited sources are meant to be informative. *facepalm*
Observing a logical fallacy and calling it out for what it is, is by definition, being formal (not professional).
The last one was States rights, which you could make a claim that it is different, but the specific states rights in question in the lead up to the civil war were slavery, slavery, and slavery, so as I've already mentioned, I would say that point comes out to just slavery also.Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.Care to elaborate?
"the specific states rights in question in the lead up to the civil war were slavery, slavery, and slavery,"
You're just wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong here. It's more nuanced that your uneducated oversimplification. Which is what all four cited sources given "inform" to discredit such ignorant simplicity.
Wrong. You clearly do not comprehend let alone appreciate the nuances of the complexities of the political sciences intertwining the core elements resulting in the shift from an agricultural based economy (which was a drain on the US overall) to an industrial based economy and the related innovations therein between the North and the South. The North was ready to move forward while the South wanted to remain decadent in the old (religious) ways.Your point makes sense if your (sic) just talking about that sentence I said, but I go on to elaborate, so let’s see what you have to say about that.
No need to elaborate on your nonsensical elaborations.
Lincoln really didn't want to take anything away from the South, but eventually saw the political necessity of it.You’re actually right here. I phrased my sentence very poorly. What I should have said, was the the (sic) south detested the election of Lincoln because they believed he would take their slaves.
I know I am right. Glad you can admit you were wrong.
Fun Fact: Lincoln actually favored a gradual phasing out of slavery, but the south took that to mean that the slaves were going away immediately, so with these added corrections, my point still stands.
Your opinion might stand if you actually backed it up with a credible legit source affirming that spurious claim. Otherwise, you're just spewing subjective nonsense on what you "think" you know. I do not care what you "think" you know, the only thing that matters in any debate/discussion is what you can prove.
Wrong again. You do not need to pay to read it. Bottom left gives you the option to register for FREE and read it.Yeah, this one is my bad. I saw that you needed a subscription to read it, and (I think justifiably) assumed that meant I needed to pay. Sorry.
No, not justified. It's called lack of attention to detail.
Delusions of grandeur. You contradicted yourself with a circular fallacy.How?
Go back and read what you wrote and think about it.
You haven't proven any of the cited sources are irrelevant to my opinion (an opinion not even given), and you have no basis in fact that I cite sources with the hopes you won't read them. What fucking sort of buffoonery is this nonsense!If you cannot even formulate a cogent foundation to argue your position off of, and you certainly never address any points within a given cited sources to argue against, just waiving the hand of ignorance at it claiming without proving they're "irrelevant" sources, why are you even here? Seriously!So (sic) I am really sorry for implying you cited sources without reading them. I got a little mad, and (sic) said some things I shouldn’t have. I do still believe that your sources don’t adequately represent your argument.
Like what you think, I do not care what you believe either. In debate/discussion it does NOT matter what you think, feel, or believe. The ONLY thing that matters is what you can prove.
You said that you hadn’t even said you point of view yet, but you basically did with the websites you linked.
No, I did not and no it does not. *facepalm*
Providing linked sources =/= announcing a clear and concise deductive (claimed) argument.
I still believe that I do have a decent point by saying your sources are irrelevant, but whatever. It is important to consider the other factors that lead to secession, but the biggest one was without a doubt, slavery. I look forward to talking about this with another history buff, if we can keep it professional
Again, I do not care what you believe. Only thing that matters is what you can prove. So far you haven't proven a thing other than your lack of accurate knowledge of certain terms you try to use, albeit incorrectly.
Look, the Civil War was about State's Rights down the list to Slavery. There were disagreements over issues like taxes, tariffs, internal improvements, state's rights vs federal (encroachment) rights, and slavery. Slavery was merely the labor for an agrarian based society in the Southern states. Taxes on goods and services, tariffs on products to be exported and those imported, cultural and social improvements, and the federal government trying to exert more control over the states by a one-way design. Additionally, other reasons involved include but are not limited to the following: economics, military protection, Lincoln's election, and context of the South's desire to secede from the Union.
Another breakdown of 9 Events That Led to the Civil War | HISTORY
As I said before, the totality of the reasons that lead up to the Civil war is more nuanced that your oversimplification of it being just "slavery, slavery, slavery, and slavery."
Created:
IwantRooseveltagain,"...the great Orange man who grabs the pussy"
hyperbole /hī-pûr′bə-lē/
noun
- A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
- A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.
- Extreme exaggeration or overstatement; especially as a literary or rhetorical device
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
-->@<<<Amber>>>You are an absolute troll, you know that right?
OMG! Another term you have no conceptual idea of what it means.
Posting cited sources with the intent to correct your misinformation is informative, not trolling.
Troll/trolling, for your edification: An internet troll is someone who makes intentionally inflammatory, rude, or upsetting statements online to elicit strong emotional responses in people or to steer the conversation off-topic.
Anyways, I'll try and keep it civil this time around. (pun intended)
There was no pun, you dolt.
You're first source didn't even say anything about how States rights was the biggest cause of the civil war, it just listed some facts about that issue, so that one is moot.
Genetic fallacy. Lack of reading comprehension skills. Yet again waiving the hand of ignorance without even making a single tangible argument in rebuttal to any of the numerous historical facts referenced therein.
You're Second source was really a better one for my side of the argument, seeing as most of what it talked about was issues related to slavery. It didn't come out and say that slavery was the biggest cause, but that was basically all it talked about.
Delusions of grandeur. You contradicted yourself with a circular fallacy.
It listed 4 major causes, which all are just slavery at their core.
Wrong. You clearly do not comprehend let alone appreciate the nuances of the complexities of the political sciences intertwining the core elements resulting in the shift from an agricultural based economy (which was a drain on the US overall) to an industrial based economy and the related innovations therein between the North and the South. The North was ready to move forward while the South wanted to remain decadent in the old (religious) ways.
Slavery was one of them, (no explanation needed there), but the other two that supported my claim were economy, and the election of Abraham Lincoln.Part of the reason the south wanted to keep slavery, was for their economy, and they detested Lincoln because he wanted to take their slaves. You can't really argue with that.
Lincoln really didn't want to take anything away from the South, but eventually saw the political necessity of it.
The last one was States rights, which you could make a claim that it is different, but the specific states rights in question in the lead up to the civil war were slavery, slavery, and slavery, so as I've already mentioned, I would say that point comes out to just slavery also.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong.
You're Third source was basically the same as the first one, because it's (sic) purpose was just educating the public about the history of states (sic) rights in America. However, the writing on the page doesn't even really support your claim, and was more informational, so on to the next one.
Easy to claim it doesn't support state's rights, but I made no claim in my OC to you. I merely cited sources. What you take away from the information therein is what matters. Clearly you didn't take much away from any of it because instead of legitimately refuting anything you feel or believe is contrary to your position, you just waive the hand of ignorance at it/them.
Finally, You're Fourth Source, (wait are you kidding me here?). It's under a pay wall, so it's my opinion that you didn't even read these websites, because they don't support your claim at all, and one of them is behind a paywall, so what do you want me to do here?
Wrong again. You do not need to pay to read it. Bottom left gives you the option to register for FREE and read it.
Your excuse here is one of pure ignorance and/or laziness.
Anyways, you can't go around citing things that are irrelevant to your opinion, and hoping I won't read them. Sorry, if I got a little pointed there, but it is all true. I hope we can keep this a bit more socratic (sic) and friendly than our other conversations.
You haven't proven any of the cited sources are irrelevant to my opinion (an opinion not even given), and you have no basis in fact that I cite sources with the hopes you won't read them. What fucking sort of buffoonery is this nonsense!
If you cannot even formulate a cogent foundation to argue your position off of, and you certainly never address any points within a given cited sources to argue against, just waiving the hand of ignorance at it claiming without proving they're "irrelevant" sources, why are you even here? Seriously!
Created:
-->
@Benedicta
@<<<Amber>>>That was a rhetorical question,
No, it wasn't. There were two distinct questions followed by sophomorically banal drivel.
for the sake of clarity a rhetorical question is meant to provoke thought and emotion rather than generate a response
Wrong.
"A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in which a question is asked for a reason other than to get an answer—most commonly, it's asked to make a persuasive point."
//Yes, I think even white people should use the word. I mean if we are going to make such words a societal norm we might as well slap equal rights on to of it. Isn't that what we always do, this human race?//
You hardly made any point here, much less a 'persuasive' one.
"...even white people..." "...make such words..." "...a societal norm..." "...slap equal rights on to (sic) it..." "...what we always do..." "...this human race?"
All of the "snippets" = pure childish drivel.
but I guess my rhetorical questions provoked so much emotional response (sic) for you that you forgot your debating etiquette.
Debating etiquette? LOL!!! Says the little one who doesn't even understand what a rhetorical question actually is then has the audacity to lecture me on yet another term they clearly have no conceptual idea thereof. LOL!!!
What do I mean by this? Yeah (sic) it is true according to the 1st Amendment swearing is a right. However (sic) it is a right with boundaries as it can not (sic) be used in certain contexts or cases as the following; (sic)1. **Obscenity**: If the swearing meets the legal definition of obscenity, it is not protected by the First Amendment. Obscenity is determined by community standards and must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Wrong again.
Swearing or swear words are words indicative of rude or offensive language that someone uses, especially when they are angry. All swearing is an inalienable right protected by the 1st Amendment.
Obscenity, the state or quality of being obscene, is to be disgusting to the senses - repulsive. In other words, abhorrent to morality or virtue.
Swearing =/= Obscenity.
2. **Fighting Words**: Speech that is likely to incite immediate violence or constitute "fighting words" is not protected. This category includes language that is intended to provoke a violent reaction.
Swearing =/= Fighting words.
3. **Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions**: The government can impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, provided these restrictions are content-neutral and serve a significant governmental interest.
There is no such thing where the language of swearing is concerned.
4. **Harassment or Threats**: Swearing that constitutes harassment, threats, or other forms of unlawful conduct is not protected.
Swearing =/= harassment or threats.
I hope I filled the portholes of intellectual bankruptcy your mind.
Well, you certainly exposed the 'portholes' in your mind whereas Constitutional Law and general legalities that you are so abhorrently ignorant if are concerned
.
2 posts and you're already off to an extremely rocky start; but you're doing an incredibly bang-up job exposing your lack of intelligence on the aforementioned subjects.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
People wonder why the stereotypes persistNo. We really dont wonder.
Yeah, you do.
We already know that racists exist who just search for excuse to hate black people.
It, racists exist across all peoples regardless of ethnicity, heritage, etc.
Doesn't change the fact that black people in America are the MOST racist of all the racists, even when it comes to their own. FACT!
Isnt it funny how, on this site, expressing racist views is correlated with high probability of being a Trump supporter?
How far off the cliff did you leap to that asinine conclusion?
So communist of you!
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
-->@<<<Amber>>>The problem here is you’re chalking the n-word up to just a swear word, but it can be used in a bigger context than just that.
When you do not even understand the definition of 'tribalism' let alone use the term in rebuttal correctly, you are in no position to tell me how I am (or not) chalking up the n-word. There is no such thing as a bigger context, it's a word.
I know this sounds all sparkles and rainbows, but words do have power over people,
No, a word has NO power over anyone. It's the receiver that gives any particular word some measure or form of power, not the one speaking it at them.
and specifically the n-word can be used to put people down.
Again, the receiver puts themselves down.
Only sticks and stones hurt, names bounce off you. At least they should, but as of late we have far too many snowflakes and hypocrites walking amongst us whining about words hurting their feelings without even bleeding from an actual wound.
I find you and your ideals disgusting, bigoted, and horrible, so I’m basically just done with you.
I find your young naive age, your ignorance, hypocritical bigotry, and intolerance for those who consistently prove you wrong "horrible" and I could care less if you're done with me. You don't mean anything to me. You're just another uneducated child mouthing off to adults who clearly know more, understand more, and are far more educated than you.
When you lack the integrity to admit you're wrong and personally attack those who prove you wrong, you just put on display 100% pure intellectual cowardice.
You literally need to grow up and get some life experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As soon as I read your headline, I immediately thought of IWRA. LOL!!!
Created:
-->
@Benedicta
When did swearing become a right?
1791
When did uttering foul words even become a privilege?
1791
Yes, I think even white people should use the word. I mean if we are going to make such words a societal norm we might as well slap equal rights on to of it. Isn't that what we always do, this human race?
It's called the 1st Amendment.
Please educate yourself.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
-->@TheUnderdogI’d rather that no one say it, but that’s not going to happen, so as long as it isn’t used to harm anyone, or used at anyone in a denominational way, yeah, I guess it’s okay.
Isn't used to harm anyone?
A word =/= a sword, a knife, a bullet, a spear...you know, physical inanimate objects used to harm someone or anyone.
A word is a word.
Words cannot harm anyone.
The mind is what harms. If you're so weak to allow a word, whether written or heard, to make you feel less than a whole person, well, look in the mirror and see the true source of the harm: YOU!
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You forgot that infamous word niggardly.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Saying white people can't say the N word is like saying men can't say the B word due to it's history of being misogynistic towards women. So many black dudes say that word; it's crazy.It should be socially acceptable to say any swear you want.
Amen!
As I have always taught my children, sticks n stones may break you but names will bounce off of you like bullets bounce off of Superman.
If you're so fragile that a word, a word, causes you such grief...you need to look in the mirror and see the true source of the problem: YOU!
Created:
-->
@Double_R
-->@TheUnderdogHey BLM; you want non-blacks to care about your organization? Then call it, "Stop Police Brutality" instead of, "Black Lives Matter".So if the cause doesn't include you, you don't care about it.That's exactly why black lives matter needs to be said.
Oh BS!
They can have a movement, but when the movement in and of itself is predicated on fabrications, racial animosity (black upon white), and hardcore divisiveness then none of it "needs to be said."
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
-->@Moozer325I leave you with these words. You are a horrible person. I doubt you will ever realize it for yourself, but I can’t leave without saying it.Well stated.
Two ignorant people patting one another on the back for their lack of ingenuity. Priceless.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
LOL!!! Love it!
So typical of her kind to behave that way.
Damn pseudo legal expert she is.
And she's a spitter too! Or is the term, squirter!
People wonder why the stereotypes persist.
She's one among countless reasons why.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
This argument is pointless anyways, because you still aren’t citing any sources and I don’t think you ever will.
What part of common knowledge not requiring source citations do you not understand?
I have provided plenty of sources to educate you on what tribalism actually means, among other terms you do not understand.
You linked a few studies about the definition of tribalism,
Studies are not required to define a term. A term is defined by what it is defined as.
but that doesn’t even really matter if I used tribalism in the wrong way,
LOL!!! Ah but it does because if you begin your premises on a false foundation, your conclusion is equally false.
because you still are dodging around the things I’m saying.
Cannot dodge a fallacious argument.
Perhaps you should start over by reading the OP, review some substantive responses, think then and only then reply on point (no fallacious arguments).
You explained away all the statistics you mentioned by calling them “common knowledge”,
Well, they are. The knowledge is widely known and easily and readily available for you to review all on your own. You don't need another holding your hand to do so.
or using ad hominem fallacies to try and attack my personal character, which has nothing to do with the argument at hand.
One word for you in reply to this nonsense: hypocrite.
I haven’t needed to cite any sources, because I haven’t made any unsupported claims, so don’t go talking about that.
BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAA!!!!!
Don't quit your day job, if you even have one.
I leave you with these words. You are a horrible person. I doubt you will ever realize it for yourself, but I can’t leave without saying it.
Oh, how precious. Psychological projection. You cannot admit you are wrong, so you attack me personally for proving you wrong.
I give you a lengthy substantive reply to your ignorant diatribe and this is all you have to say for yourself?
You have a lot to learn, and you really should start by looking in the mirror and garner some self-awareness.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
@<<<Amber>>>I am of the mind that you do not even know/understand the meaning of the term, 'tribalism.'How? You’re just saying random bs here.
Oh, bless your ignorant little heart.
Making a valid observation of your apparent lack of knowledge/understanding of the term 'tribalism' is not "just saying random bs here." Your next sentence proves my observation fact based (truthful).
Human tribalism is when you immediately assume people outside you’re group are worse, WHICH IS WHAT UNDERDOG WAS DOING
First, there is no need to put 'human' before 'tribalism.' Second, there is no assumption that outside groups of one's own "are worse."
Lastly, that is not what underdog was doing, and there is no need to YELL/SCREAM about it.
You clearly do not know what tribalism means.
"Tribalism refers to humans forming social groups and identifying with them, driven by shared identity, values, and goals."
"The brain's tribal nature stems from the importance of social behavior for human survival and evolution as explained by Teyssandier N. (2008). Our ancestors lived in small groups, necessitating cooperation, coordination, and the development of social skills like communication, empathy, and cooperation, all favored by natural selection."
"Tribalism is a word that contains a variety of phenomena that relate to loyalty to and favoring of groups to which one belongs."
"The Myth of Tribalism
Beware of the false notion that group solidarity leads inevitably to conflict."
Begin your rebuttal arguments upon a false premise, your conlclusion is equally false.
BLM does mean only Black Lives Matter, and the behavior, actions and results of BLM have firmly established that glaring salient FACT!This is the problem with you people. You all refuse to cite a dammed source! This is just an untrue claim that is unsupported.
Who is "you all"?
One cannot refuse to do what is not required of them when the information is common knowledge.
"Common knowledge is information generally known to an educated reader, such as widely known facts and dates, and, more rarely, ideas or language."
"...statements that are considered common knowledge do not need a citation."
Clearly you are not the average, educated reader. That much is certain. Proven by your own words, actions, behavior and demeanor herein.
And where did you matriculate to earning your degree in criminology or statistics?I don’t need one to know common sense.
Uh, yeah you do honey. Waving the hand of denial at statistical data proving you wrong claiming that data is wrong without proving it is wrong is pure ignorance on your part. Which is proof that you must have an actual education in the subject matter, basic (personal research) or advanced (formal education), precisely so you can refute it with cogent logical arguments vs the hand of ignorance.
And seeing as you demonstrated your ignorance of tribalism and common knowledge, you equally demonstrate your lack of common sense on the subject matter as well. Which you fail to do here below:
It’s true that this data is not reflective of your argument, despite my education.
You're all bark (making empty claims) and no bite (backing up those empty claims).
Besides, I could ask the same question to you. Where’s your degree in statistics?
Tit for tat banality.
I have a basic understanding of crime data and statistics, and one aspect of statistics outside of per capita that most people do not understand, which I KNOW you do not know/understand (without looking it up), is statistical proportionality when it comes to properly interpreting crime data by biographical and demographic factors.
Anyways, we can start talking when you show me some hard, relevant data here, but I don’t expect you to.
Says the little one who hasn't provided a single iota of "hard, relevant data here" in their unsubstantiated subjectively ignorant rebuttals to those with whom he/she disagrees with but cannot disprove. Nope. You just bark at everyone while demanding they bite back.
Let me dumb this down for you. I'll show you mine when you show me yours.
Until then, you're barking up the wrong tree with me little boy/girl.
Mind your manners and respect your elders. Oh wait, they (parents and schools) don't instill manners or respect in today's youth anymore. Clearly.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
-->@GreyparrotFirst of all, that statistic doesn't directly support your claim, because that data is influenced by the fact that many black people live in the same neighborhoods, and have more relationships with other black people, as is the same with any other group. Birds of a feather, flock together.
And where did you matriculate to earning your degree in criminology or statistics?
Your analysis is ALL wrong.
Second of all, this still doesn't even help your argument because even if many black people are violent, (which isn't true) some black people are not, and are very nice people, and thus your generalization is still unrepresentative.
You're so uneducated and naive it is pathetic.
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
-->@Best.KoreaNot really. Black thugs kill each other often.-->@GreyparrotThat’s just stereotyping.
Is it? Perhaps it is a commonsense FACT.
You clearly didn't even review the cited source affirming exactly what he proffered.
Stereotypes serve a purpose in the safety and protection of us from would be wolves in sheep's clothing. Even the devils carrying pitchforks.
When less than 1% of the 13% black population commit over 50% of the entire nation's violent person crimes (murders, non-negligent manslaughter, robberies, etc.), no one can risk being naive when a black male (or female) approaches them.
Even Jesse Jackson is famously noted as saying he always sighs a relief when walking down a dark street or alley hearing footsteps behind him to turn and see a group of white people vs black people. Black people KNOW the reality that 94%+ of ALL black crime victims are victimized by other blacks.
Besides, you could say that some people deserve to die because they committed horrible crimes, but there is a reason for that.
That's stating the obvious.
What you’re doing with black people is making an untrue generalization, that is based one a few unrepresentative examples, which in turn, ends up misrepresents an entire group of people.
That is not an untrue generalization, it is factually based. Again, you making this statement proves you didn't review the cited source GP provided.
You need to think (and do some research or at least, review the cited sources provided) before you speak.
Created:
GP thinks all black people are thugs.
Did your tinfoil hat or 8-crystal-ball tell you that?
He’s a MAGA MORON
Okay, little boy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Black thugs don't matter.
I agree, but according to BLM they do above and beyond all other black people (i.e., the innocent black people).
Created:
-->
@Moozer325
-->@TheUnderdogNot to be mean or anything, but this is human tribalism at its worst. BLM doesn’t mean ONLY Black Lives Matter, it means Black Lives Matter TOO!Just because you aren’t part of a group doesn’t mean that you should care about the well being, or their lives even of the people in that group. We are all human, and all deserve to be treated as such.
I am of the mind that you do not even know/understand the meaning of the term, 'tribalism.' You're just not using it correctly, especially when using the term 'human' before it.
BLM does mean only Black Lives Matter, and the behavior, actions and results of BLM have firmly established that glaring salient FACT!
Your last sentence needs to be fixed because the grammar makes it a waste of time to try and decipher what you mean. Not to be mean or anything. ;-)
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Black Lives Matter only cares about black peopleAuthor:TheUnderdogThere is a reason why, "Black Lives Matter" isn't, "Stop Police Brutality".It's because BLM advocates only care about black people. Me as a white suburban guy; I don't care about BLM that much. The same would be true if I was Hispanic or Asian (but not black, because only then would it be personal).Hey BLM; you want non-blacks to care about your organization? Then call it, "Stop Police Brutality" instead of, "Black Lives Matter". Until then, I as a white guy (that is neither proud not ashamed to be white) doesn't care about your organization as I know you guys are only cheering for your people.
Black Lives Matter does not care "only" about black people. BLM only cares about some black people. Not all black people. Patrisse Collurs is the prime example of this reality. She only cared about the blacks that were criminals so she could profit off their demise then take the money and run to white neighborhoods where she purchased expensive homes. Not a single dime was used to benefit the other black people she doesn't care about.
Yes, I agree there is a reason why BLM =/= "Stop Police Brutality," because it is not as pervasive as the media and the left have claimed it to be. Hence any attempt to push that agenda would be met with facts and figures (as if BLM hasn't been already, which destroyed its fallacious narrative) to ultimately destroy it, as it should be.
No, BLM advocates do NOT care about only black people because they do not care about ALL black people, just the criminals. They do not care about the black pregnancies aborted, they do not care about the intraracial violence that takes so many young black lives, and they certainly do not care about the non-black criminal across the board. They only care about black criminals shot, harmed, and/or killed by either a white person or a cop. That's it. They do not even care about the innocent blacks accidentally killed by gross mistakes of law enforcement or even non-law enforcement. It's all crickets.
So, your point is rather moot.
Created:
Posted in:
ok, perhaps you believe that they can be "fixed" with MORE oppression and mocking ?
Psychological treatment.
Psychiatric treatment, if necessary.
Obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@3RU7AL41% of LGBTQ+ young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past yearThats because of oppression and mocking. People dont like being oppressed or mocked, but lots of people in USA oppress and mock LGBT community. Just look at comments on YouTube. They are filled with hate, insults and mocking of LGBT.
@Best.KoreaThats because of oppression and mocking. People dont like being oppressed or mocked, but lots of people in USA oppress and mock LGBT community. Just look at comments on YouTube. They are filled with hate, insults and mocking of LGBT.it seems pretty obvious
It has absolutely nothing to do with oppressing or mocking. Nothing at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Non sequitur & appeal to mockery.
Can't argue the topic, so you just attack the person.
You're done.
We're done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Thank you for the invite, wish I had the time and energy, but alas I do not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@<<<Amber>>>Everything I mentioned has already been done before, we just need to get back to the way it was.and that cured trans people ?
We did not have the social contagion of transgender ideology back then, therefore there were no trans people to cure.
What we did have back then was actual psychologists and psychiatrists devoted to their profession in truth, with integrity and dignity. Those mentally and/or physically abused, sexually abused, bullied, etc. were all given the appropriate care and treatment to set them on the right productive path. As such, there was no stupid gender confusion or a medical/pharmaceutical drive for profits pushing for the chemical and physical castration of little boys and girls.
You need to wake up and stop being so naively ignorant on this subject matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@<<<Amber>>>You can't prove me wrong,because you haven't rigorously defined your claimmaking undefined or underdefined, unfalsifiable statements is not something to be proud of
LOL!!!
Everything I claimed and have said in support of same is 100% common knowledge.
Everything I mentioned has already been done before, we just need to get back to the way it was.
It's no different than when certain drugs were criminalized, then decriminalized (stupidly) and when shit hit the fan (obvious failure that idea was), states are now going back to criminalizing those drugs. Common sense knowledge = we knew it wouldn't work but the liberals didn't care.
Same goes for mental illness. Closing psych hospitals and letting the loonies loose was stupid and clearly hasn't worked. Neither does pandering to their mental illness, as it only makes it worse. So, logic suggests we go back to psych hospitals and intensify the need for help and treatment vs pandering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
You clearly lack the temperament required of mature civil discourse. Why are you even here, other than the obvious (trolling)!?!LOL, another idiot that came to a debate site looking for an echo chamber.Sorry, you can keep spewing your bigotry and intolerance, I'll keep responding, and you can just keep up with the whiney baby stuff.
You psychic?
Didn't think so.
Therefore, you have no idea whatsoever why I am here.
But one thing is certainly clear, you are definitely here for your own personal echo chamber. You even have a cheerleader or two that follow you. Birds of the same feather, flock together.
Truth =/= bigotry.
Truth =/= intolerance.
Truth =/= "whiney baby stuff" either.
Only one being a bigot, intolerant, and whining baby stuff here is you and your cohorts.
You can't prove me wrong, or anyone else you disagree with, so name calling like little children is all you have.
So pathetic.
Just pathetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@<<<Amber>>>That's like saying just leave the house invader alone and let them take what they want and let them leave.so now you're claiming that trans people are just as dangerous as literal psychopaths ?your true colors finally emerge
-->@<<<Amber>>>That's nothing short of an ignoratio elenchi circular argument that is tantamount to an appeal to mockery.You clearly lack the temperament required of mature civil discourse. Why are you even here, other than the obvious (trolling)!?!wow
Quoting out of context destroying the analogy's intent and purpose, along with this last banal response.
Clearly you lack the same temperament
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
-->@ADreamOfLibertyyou're the one who asked"how do you solve the issue of (gender) dysphoria ?"that's like asking"how do you solve the issue of homosexuality ?"Dysphoria is defined as dissatisfaction. It's not a sexual orientation, it's stress.That's correct, the dictionary definition is:dysphoria: a state of feeling very unhappy, uneasy, or dissatisfied.It would be fair to say that the existence of transgender people has caused a severe dysphoria among MAGA people.You are suffering from Transgender dysphoria, and we are just trying to help.We are telling you to just leave these people alone, and focus on your own life, because we care and want to alleviate your suffering.Please, let us help you overcome your Transgender Dysphoria.
That's nothing short of an ignoratio elenchi circular argument that is tantamount to an appeal to mockery.
You clearly lack the temperament required of mature civil discourse. Why are you even here, other than the obvious (trolling)!?!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
->@3RU7ALI'm asking about the dysphoria. Are you encouraging that no help is to be given to those that seek it in ridding of the problem?i already answered that questionif they want help they should get help, just like anyone elseif they don't want help, leave them the fuck aloneEven if they want help, leave them the fuck alone.There are between 1 and 2 million transgender people in the US, there is an entire medical industry around helping them, with doctors, psychologists, surgeons, and plenty of other resources, there is nothing to rectify, those who want help have plenty resources available, those who don't want help have resources available.This idea that they need MAGA clowns to rectify their existence is nonsense, nobody is swallowing the garbage Mall and Amber and ADoL are spewing, pretending that we care about them, what a fucking joke."Oh no, you don't understand, we don't hate them, we just don't think they should be allowed to exist" LOL.The stupidity of MAGA is fucking astounding.
Would you say the same about schizophrenics? Psychopaths? Sociopaths? Pedophiles? Multiple Personality Disorder folks? Just leave them alone?
That's like saying just leave the house invader alone and let them take what they want and let them leave. Despite the fact that they have invaded your safe space, clearly have "special" rights superseding the homeowners' rights, and leaving the homeowners without any recourse to recover their property or be compensated for it because the home invaders were allowed to take it!?!
Gender dysphoria = societal chaos.
Men in women's face are allowed to invade all female spaces, employment, sports, classrooms, DV shelters, prisons, etc.
Women in men's face are being beaten down when they try to get into men's spaces, sports, etc.
Both are mentally unstable and lash out with violence, men more than the women, but both have been committing heinous acts of violent person crimes.
That mental instability is evidence that transgenderism is in fact a mental illness, and screwing with the human body by mutilating it and injecting chemicals in it that was never meant to be, furthers that mental instability and propensity for violent outbursts.
This issue has nothing to do with existence of a person but rather everything to do with treating their mental illness while keeping not only others safe, but the patient safe as well.
The only STUPIDITY I see and hear is the kind of ignorant blind garbage you just wrote.
Congrats.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
@Sidewalker
-->@Sidewalker@<<<Amber>>>"Do tell, if I meet a trans person, how can I tell them they can get in touch with you so you can "rectify" them?"Hold on , I'll relay this to our friend here I believe may have a way to help those that are SUFFERING with dysphoria that are SEEKING help whether you believe it or not.Obviously you and I don't have the answer. I asked for what the solution is and then you turnaround on me and ask me so the rational move to make is to actually ask the one that knows or makes an effort to communicate a sincere idea.@Amber"Do tell, if I meet a trans person, how can I tell them they can get in touch with you so you can "rectify" them?"Perhaps tell us what helpful information we can spread to people, parents included, the community, everyone.
https://www.reddit.com/r/detrans/ - online community
Research and reach out to those who have or currently are detransitioning. Obviously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
My only argument would be that without evidence, there is no reason to believe in theism.
Bingo!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@<<<Amber>>>What does a woman wearing men's clothing have to do with gender identity/dysphoria disorder (transgender ideology)?Nothing.ok, i thought one of the key "problems" with the trans peoplewas men wearing dresses and going into the "wrong" bathroom
Wow, that is one helluva non sequitur right there.
what do you mean by "ZERO TOLERANCE" then ?
Get a dictionary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
@AmberWell, maybe I still just dont understand, but can you tell us what you meant when you said "bring back corporal punishment" in a text which you said describes how to "fix trans children"?
Still quoting out of context. Never said anything remotely close to what you are ignorantly insinuating. At this point, you're trolling, clearly.
Not responding to anymore of your troll retorts. If you can act like an adult and bring a cogent question or reply in rebuttal, then I will. Until then, radio silence as far as you're concerned.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
English clearly isn't your first languageWell, maybe I just dont understand, but can you tell us what you meant when you said "bring back corporal punishment" as a way to "fix trans children"?
Quoting out of context is a faux rebuttal.
Try again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
@SidewalkerI see, and what makes you qualified to "get rid of dysphoria"?Well, they do seem really obsessed with "helping" trans people, but what really bothers them is that trans people exist. It confuses their sexual attraction dichotomy of male and female, because they find trans women attractive and they cant make sense out of it and just want the feelings to go away.This retort is no surprise coming from you.Except for it didn't come from me, it came from Best Korea, pay attention.
And I did reply directly to BK in #89
So yeah, pay attention!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
@AmberTrans = mental illness.And you want to treat that by beating the trans out of a child?
English clearly isn't your first language.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Get back to corporal punishment and be actual parents. Give authority back to the parents and make kids obedient, as they were once beforeOh, so beat the gay out of a child.
This subject is about gender identity/dysphoria, not homosexuality.
Please stay on topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
@amberIt's not a plan per se as much as it is a call to go back to the standards of parenting before the liberal push of individualityOh yeah, which standards are those? Please, tell us all about them.
Reading comprehension problems?
Lack of attention to detail problems?
Cherry picking posts problem?
See, you're one of the trolls I previously spoke of.
I already gave an ample description, you just chose not to read it, just couldn't comprehend it, or you did comprehend it and you cannot refute it so you come back with the trolling response above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
@SidewalkerI see, and what makes you qualified to "get rid of dysphoria"?Well, they do seem really obsessed with "helping" trans people, but what really bothers them is that trans people exist. It confuses their sexual attraction dichotomy of male and female, because they find trans women attractive and they cant make sense out of it and just want the feelings to go away.
This retort is no surprise coming from you.
Who is/are, "they"?
People in the medical industry are not "obsessed" with anything other than finding cures for the things that ails the sick & injured.
No one is "bothered" by people existing with a mental illness. The human mind is a complex organ, one that can fail on any level that affects the mental health of the individual. Trans = mental illness. When one has a mental illness, like trans or schizophrenia, people want to help treat them towards a more normal existence and being productive in life.
The existence of mental illness like transgender ideology doesn't confuse normal people's sexual attractions towards anyone.
Clearly YOU find trans women attractive and are the one questioning your own sexuality given all the ridiculous sex-themed topics you bring up, and have brought up in the past. One word describes you to the proverbial "T": pervert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
@<<<Amber>>>Good points on the transgender subject like I said.I wonder why others maybe particularly one individual on this site assumes hatred and disgust just because of topics like these.Assuming I'm judgmental being judgemental on me at the same time.This must be striking a personal nerve.
Thank you
I've been spending some time going through topics of interest to me, reading on how some offered their point of view and the responses of others, and you are correct, there are a few, one in particular, who are obnoxiously rude and clearly trolling, effectively destroying interest in this debate website since those trolls caused those they attacked to get banned or just leave altogether.
This transgender debate/discussion along with black (intraracial and interracial) crime are clearly hot topics for those few individuals. Makes having an actual intelligence discussion highly difficult, if not impossible, and turns people off when the trolls take over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@<<<Amber>>>Make parents actually parent and provide emotional stability to their kids.Get back to teaching the basics like in scouts: camping, starting a fire, living off the land, firearm (hunting) training.Make sports competitive as well as education vs everyone getting a damn participation trophy.Kids need to learn success as well as failure and learn from the latter, not cry about it and seek other losers who cry when they lose and create alternate realities (alphabet soup) to make themselves feel better.this is a genius planhow do we enforce it ?
It's not a plan per se as much as it is a call to go back to the standards of parenting before the liberal push of individuality and kids having more say than their own parents. Get back to corporal punishment and be actual parents. Give authority back to the parents and make kids obedient, as they were once before. It's not like what I said has not been done before and proven to actually work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@<<<Amber>>>Emotional discomfort is all it is. People as of late are simply emotionally (psychologically) damaged. Most leaning towards the alphabet soup (namely trans, nonbinary, etc.) have been emotionally damaged. Mental and/or physical abuse. Sexual abuse. Torment of some kind. They feel despondent. Detached. Peers aren't understanding, so they find a group that would and that group is part of the alphabet soup with open arms to corrupt a new member into believing a fake reality because none of them can accept the real word (reality).let's make psychological damage illegal
Child abuse, sex abuse, so on and so forth are already illegal.
that will fix everything
Ignorant pompous retort.
Created: