Total posts: 3,954
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I don't know who Niamc is, but Zarroette already has an account over here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
A more extreme version would be fordism where humans are controlled by this one corporation providing everything but that is nothing practical either. If the proletariat hero can rule the state like the bourgeois used to have, then corporations can just BE the governmental force until something else outbreaks, further, further, loops.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Weirdly, Jorgensen’s libertarianism is libright.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Well when I got into politics I describe myself as an “ancap”. An ancap society is not impossible, but wouldn’t need to exist as the regulation is hard and soon the corporations will be willing to steal your information, making it a non-anarchist society. A true “ancap” society after years will be authoritarian capitalism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well this man must not like communism then. Nevertheless, if the union initiates that everyone owns their own things, then it is laissez-faire economy or something, and even then, regulation exists to be libertarian(right), not anarchist. Libs aren’t anarchists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kbub530
In my mind a “bitch” is someone possibly annoying and detrimental to oneself. Was I correct or was I mislead by the community?
Created:
Posted in:
For them, calling themselves an anarchist when they are a centre liberal is comparable of calling someone a commie when they are a neo-nazi just because it is "National Socialism".
Created:
Posted in:
Let’s say the government is fine, then why seek “freedom” if nothing is supporting you?
If the government is corrupt, then I think you want people to govern itself, in this case, is it still an “anarchy”?
There is no authority to suppress them in anarchy but there is also nothing to support them. Every man for himself. In an anarchy one could get assaulted, murdered, raided, etc. Why would anything want that? More than that, why do some “anarchists” support something that isn’t even anarchy?
Created:
I doubt there are any rules because even if they don’t cross the line(note the dart Trump supporters are relatively polite even) others do all the time. There are lots of trump supporters like “White lives are better” or something similar, and they allow themselves to do anything and everything as long as it is trump.
Which makes it near anarchy considering there isn’t bound rules, just mostly what you can do.
Oh, the irony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rajkumarjoy26
I thought you were an advertiser of a form of online means of education.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well, for me, the mother and only the mother owns the fetus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Well I would want to suffer “Charter school insanity” if I am pro. Arguing a thing I never knew is fun. Arguing something that I am specifically against is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
I think discipulus is more experienced than sum1.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
You are doing wrong things to them then blaming them for causing that. You are deliberately mis gendering them then saying “what’s the point, they dying anyways” when you indirectly causes death. That is the same as executing one kind of people and then like “they deserve to die because they have been dying” while being a part of the problem. You are the part of the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
How do you, a person who never experienced such feeling for one second, have the right to dictate what’s good for that person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
No, I am not asking her if transgenderism is good. I know that she knows it is good. I am asking her for arguments supporting transgenderism.
I would ask a Barcelona fan about why it is so good, or a Furry why being an animal is good, even if I don't believe in them. Asking someone who tried in these shoes is more authentic, more "Primary source", than asking someone who just looked at it and said it is a piece of shit.
Created:
Posted in:
Better get a backup by 11/16. I am going to school most of the week and will probably have little time to contemplate an argument for repeat and on and repeat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Why not? Well I can think that she'd be against your idea. What other reasons are there?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kbub530
Upon the arrival of the third page, we invite a transgender individual to argue in favour of transgenderism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Mis gendering is wrong nevertheless. If you want your right to call him whatever you want it would be unfair to him.
Hey old man, you get that?
Hey girl, do you think you are winning now?
Hey grandpa, why do you think calling people by your preference, not theirs, is still better than vice versa?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@seldiora
Well I think RM is more capable than me. You can put him above me once someone else joined in. He won over 100 debates while I don't even have half of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Let's say, the UK shall we? Nations are basically social(and essentially political) constructs, just like genders, which we agree. The UK is now a constitutional monarchy(or Ceremonial monarchy) in which the head of the state is no longer first-hand the decider of political events. Queen Elizabeth is not seen doing politics and is overall just a powerful noble, but she is rightfully the head of state.
This is different from back then where monarchy is absolute and the King(or queen) has the power of the now-average prime minister. Calling the UK an absolute monarchy would be wrong.
How about China? From 4,000BC China is basically feudalism from then to about 500BC, and then absolute monarchy until 1912, then imperialism, then communism, then Market Socialism. Calling the People's Republic of China a monarchy or an empire would be wrong.
A "woman" can essentially transform enough that it is a man. Calling something it was but isn't is essentially wrong. Just because in all examples now you might be correct doesn't mean you always will be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
So if a biological Chinese painted himself white (You can't say this is racist as this is exactly what trans folks are doing), is he biologically white?
No, the same way saying "I am a woman" doesn't automatically make you a woman. However, just because there is a failed attempt doesn't mean there is no successful attempt. If he change his DNA just enough his skin appears whiter and his genes are related more to Caucasians, then he is then biologically white. Just because "I say I am a woman" doesn't mean I am a woman doesn't mean, even if after transfuse attempts, behavioral changes, and psychological aids, the man is really indistinguishable to and from the average woman, then this "man" is a woman, alright.
I just want to clear up the fact that I would call a trans man a man, but will not acknowledge them as a BIOLOGICAL male.
See, that is concession. Transgender trans gender and Transgender trans not sex. There is no case yet, due to our incompetence as a body of science, so that a trans female mind would be fused with a brain of a biological female, vice versa. However, if a transgender individual managed to become his/her/their preferred sex, then you would be walking home with loads of cash ending up in his/her/their hand.
It is theoretically possible, and just because there is no case yet doesn't falsify its correctness. I agree that none of transgender folks are truly, in the sense of sex, their preferred sex, but don't worry, as that the world is becoming more liberal and more advanced, such an example would emerge sooner or later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
If a white person painted himself black or had qualities enough to determine that one is black, then he is. If the boy can be treated as a transformer by the people, then he is one. A trans man can be treated as a man by the society. You don’t rule, the society does. You are not the monarch, we are in a democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Of course men are men. Trans men are men. Is there any problem there?
Created:
Why does a woman want to be stripped of such rightsBecause a fetus is not, never was, and never will be part of her body. Not a shred of the placenta, amniotic sac & its fluid, umbilical, nor the fetus itself share identical DNA with any part of her body. There is a blood barrier between woman and fetus across which nothing passes but nutrients. I use this analogy: if a fetus was part of a woman's body, her tongue would fall out if she opened her mouth. Given that separation of entities, woman and fetus, although her body complete surrounds the fetus during gestation, that fetus, and all other tissue with which it does share DNA, will evacuate at term. Therefore, she does not have that assumed right of her body, because her body ends where the fetus begins. And, this is why when a pregnant woman is murdered, it is a dual murder charge if a perp is indicted [Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004] . The fetus is, was, and always will be a separate individual.
Well you can call me a "hypocrite" because I am a man fighting for women's rights. Well We divide here. Until the fetus was born right out, it is a part of the women. Just because I am separate from an entity of a company doesn't mean I am not in the company, in fact, anything but that. A fetus is women's property, until it is granted personhood. Surely you would feel happy about granting two cells a Legal ID card, shall you? If the Fetus is independent from the woman then why does the fetus always get nutrients from the woman? Why does the fetus depend on the woman? The woman have every right to literally own the little guy(or girl) she created, and can do everything she can to it. Unless the baby is so important to society, I support abortion rights. Aborting an unborn child reduces not a lot of value to this world, and if the child is completely nothing but a burden aborting it would be literally adding value to the world via the mother. This is on top of that most abortions are before 6 months, meaning that stopping a baby from exerting a clump of cells is what is happening most of time, and why shouldn't the woman have the right to have the clump of cells who can't even survive independently on its own?
If you are calling Lamborghini an independent company free of any ownership just because it has its own cars then it is as false as it could be. Said company is literally being supported by Audi and VolksWagen. Why is a fetus an independent being free of its mother if the fetus depends on the survival basis, its mother?
Created:
I am not suicidal with both of these, weird.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
You can judge. If you are the challenger then we are dead. If you are a tower defender then, sucks to be whoever playing offense here.
Created:
Posted in:
/in challenge tower
Where Ragnar and Oro is, where Wins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Ah yeah, even if calling a trans male a male is wrong( which is not), it reduces suicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Your argument is based on the incompetence of technology. Let’s say if I have a machine that can turn any male into females, completely, then would that female still be a male despite everything she has gone through?
I am not even going only psychological. If one transitioned but is not acknowledged, then why is that?
If changing gender is as easy as changing sex, then you would see more trans people fitting to their own body. But no, why? Their mind is harder to change than their body, and it will be harder and harder, to the point where one can transfuse one’s memory into another’s.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
You have your mind like a panda, your body look like one, everything of a panda. But nope: you are a human. In what planet does this make all the sense?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Exactly. You stubbed your own toe. With your own logic no one upon their right mind would change their sex thousands of times, as a result it is no longer a regular concern.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes. You can chose to credit me if you feel like to.
Created:
Why do you want to overturn roe vs wade? Why does a woman want to be stripped of such rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
Saying “I want to be a pilot” 1,000 times is easy, becoming one is hard. Changing your gender thousands of times is harder than you think and using it as a concern is absurd. If one’s gender is constant: only inconsistent with the sex, then it is unrealistic for him to change more than 2 times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Juice
If one, upon transition, is still the previous gender, then I say a Chinese-born US citizen is Chinese in nationality, or that a Monarchy-to-democracy country still practices monarchy politically, despite none of these are true.
Created:
Posted in:
I am against anyone who says “transgender male” is a gender. A female-to-male trans person is male alright, and Juice will probably say that he’s a female. “Immigrated American Citizen” is not anywhere on the nationalities record because it isn’t.
Created:
Posted in:
Well different sexes are mutations, but genders aren’t. We basically have a spectrum between male and female, maybe something even looking like a political compass for genders. Still three dots for sex.
Created:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah, if The world is really atheist, then every single god we believe is the wrong one.
Created:
Posted in:
@RM
If "Pro-non-whites" or "Pro-minorities" means less racism, then I would rather stick to that.
If it creates a second layer of racism, in which it strengthens the hatred of between back and forth both the White Americans and the minoties, then nah.
Created: