YouFound_Lxam

I see. "Can't"  you say. So god never intervenes in human affairs?   What about reducing our life span? Was that nothing to do with god intervening because of human life choices ? 

FFS!  It was a  horrific biblical horror story. I would say that barbequing your own innocent virgin child was a pretty "wicked" act .

Indeed he was so regretful and sad that he followed through with the murder of his of his own virgin child.  Would you have done as Jephthah did.  Surely the honourable thing would have been to plead with god for the life of his child and offer  a sacrifice of a ram instead and  hand over all his worldly goods to the "poor" .  Or simply kill himself.

 kill your neighbor

 beat up a pre schooler. 

So then is it possible for god today to do something that's not in the bible? If the answer is no, then fine, we'll stick to the scriptures and I've given you examples of his wickedness in scripture. I can do it all day, but word games with the bible are fruitless and boring. If he CAN do things today that are not in the bible, then you can participate in my three different thought experiments. 

A five year finds a gun that was stashed away, decides to walk over to the playgroundold and play with it. Three minutes later a child is shot to death.

Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?

Let me try it one more way. Does god still interact with the world today? 

This is how you're describing having to burn his daughter alive. I'm starting to wonder about your intellectual honesty and frankly your personal integrity. 

According to you in this very topic, that's out of bounds as it's not in the scripture.

Why didn't god intervein in this "wicked" story and spare the child !?

Was Jephthah "wicked" or "good"?

Come on dude, this is a thought experiment. Please just answer the question. Is what I described a MORAL action? God told you to do it. 

Asserted definitions aren't evidence. Last time I'll say it.

There is absolutely nothing about going along with a particular definition of man and/or woman that requires one to abandon biological aspects of sex.

You seem incapable of recognizing that thoughts and ideas lead to words and definitions, not the other way around.

We can all hold and fully understand various aspects of biology while expanding our concepts of gender to include societal norms. Calling someone a man does not mean one cannot decipher between male and female DNA.

No, I don't. I am telling you that if you are going to criticize someone else's position, then you need to criticize that which is actually their position.

And the way you determine what someone else's position is, is by understanding what they mean when they use certain terms.

If you are unwilling to engage in this simple step then you are unwilling to have an honest good faith conversation.

You do not have to agree with someone else's usage of words. If you want to criticize others for improper use of terminology that is fair game. But that is an entirely different thing than claiming someone else is delusional.

Words are nothing more than a vehicle for conveying thoughts and ideas.

Even if god decided tomorrow to say "I want you to go to an pre school and beat up as many kids as you can, otherwise eternal separation from me"? It's a thought experiment. Would that action be moral? Not CONFUSING, not "God would never do that!", is that action now moral because God said to do it?

You are only in high school. That makes you uneducated 

Religion is the purest example of indoctrination. You have been indoctrinated 

That's going to need some major citation IMO.

Two datapoints among hundreds of thousands?

You can't just say X group is statistically likely to do bad stuff and therefore they're nuts. If that was valid what would you have to say about blacks in US cities?

You need to define mental illness and then show that the definition of transgender is by inescapable inference a mental illness. Otherwise this is inappropriate way to describe sapient beings.

• Leftists believe that everybody has an equal right to have an opinion on anything, irrespective of uterus status.
  

There is no fact that the LGBTQIA community is pushing which is not true.

You continue to pretend it's the case because you continue to pretend others are using your definitions and not theirs.

It is becoming apparently clear that you are not interested in a good faith discussion on this topic.

You criticize the LGBTQIA community for wanting laws that are not based in facts, yet not one reason you've provided for your stance on gay marriage has anything to do with facts.

You claim it has no benefit to society. That's because you disregard the concept of equality as beneficial to society. That's not a fact, that's your opinion.

You claim that the best way to raise a child is with one mother and one father. That is once again, your opinion. In fact the question of the best way to raise a child is inherently a matter of opinion.

You are guilty of exactly what you are criticizing others for.

So to summarize, 'gender must be based on biology because it has always been based on biology'. That is not an answer, it's a fill in for the absence of an answer.

Just because something has always been a certain way is not a reason for it continuing to be that way. We change the way we do things all the time and have all throughout human history. If your logic held up we would still have slaves.

you'll need an actual reason to support your assertion that gender must be based on biology.

If we decided however that we wanted to change the goal, all of this goes out the window. If we decided the purpose of money was too keep fires going, suddenly it wouldn't matter if you had a $100 bill in your pocket or a single.

No, I get irritated when you continue to characterize this conversation as being about a factual determination of reality and not a matter of how people should be treated.

Every trans person I've ever seen acknowledges that they are biologically different from those whom they identify with. That's why they had to have surgery, take hormone blockers, etc. This is such a common sense notion that it's absurd it needs to be pointed out.

When we say someone is a"man", we're talking about in every way that matters. You define a man as someone with particular chromosomes. Please tell me how on earth that actually matters to you. Do you have a chromosome reader in your back pocket? Do you scan people when you meet them? It's an absurd stance.

All these people out there providing "fool proof" definitions of man and woman have never once in their lives used these methods to tell whether anyone they've met fits their definition. That's what makes this so ridiculous, and why it is so transparently based on nothing more than bigotry.

• That works just fine.  So, obviously, no person who would argue that men should not have the same rights to opinion as women is "advocating for social equality"  They are doing the exact opposite of Leftism: they are arguing that men should not have the same rights as women in at least one respect.
  

• I am sure you can find somebody who identifies as Left-wing and yet will make this Right-wing  argument but that just makes the individual less Leftist, it does not, as you have proposed here, make all Leftists responsible for an anti-Leftist remark.
  

Your first proposition is fatally fucked:  So, you guys say that you can't have an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, right?

The only truthful response is "Wrong, such a remark is entirely inconsistent with Leftism."

Wrong, Leftists believe that everybody gets an equal and sovereign right to define and descibe themselves as they see fit without government interference.   

The Leftist position is that no government may with justice enforce a label of "man" or "woman" on any citizen against their will.

• That is the opposite of true.  Leftism advocates that all men and women are equal in rights.  Any argument that women deserve a right that men do not deserve is by definition, anti-Leftist and unrepresentative of Leftism as a political ideal.  All arguments supporting heirarchy, including the notion that women should have a unique right to hold an opinion on some particular subjec  are Right-WIng arguments by any dictionary's definition.
  

• If you will provide a specific example of YouTube taking action, I'm pretty confident I can find YouTube's reasoning.
  

  Let's agree that nobody under the age of 18 belongs on the Internet and the responsiblity for enforcement belongs 100% to parents.

As you say, YouTube has a right publish as it sees fit without government intervention.

• Climate Scientists: Climate Models Have Overestimated Global Warming
  
• The article literally says "these Oxford scientists claim X"
  
• 3 days later, all of those Oxford scientists come back and say "False, you totally misrepresented our findings and conclusion"
  
• Scientists everywhere condemned the article as 100% FAKE NEWS
  
• Andrew MacDougall: The article selectively quotes from interviews and scientific papers to create the false perception that climate models significantly overestimate the rate of warming. The article also falsely implies that the cited paper is about the so called “hiatus” while the paper is actually about the carbon budget for the 1.5 ºC target.
  
• Pierre Friedlingstein: Bad coverage of the Nature Geoscience article. The title and first 3 paragraphs are misleading. It seems very clear that the author of this article did not read the scientific article he is reporting on.
  
• Nevertheless, the Daily Wire has never apologized, corrected, or expained why they reported the opposite of the truth.
  

Or, that they are indeed women but still has no weight on opinions regarding uterus and similar matters.

Saying that this is absurd is like denying there are southerners who don't smoke pipes in a pickup truck with a confederate flag on it next to a field. Yes, I believe in present liberal standpoints, that "All women have uteruses" is not dissimilar from a stereotype. The overlap between (Those who are women) and (Those who have a uterus) exists, but does not prove they are exactly the same set.

People who can do neither aren't male or female? Listen, I get what you're trying to say, but I've already provided an example of people with male chromosomes and a uterus. That alone throws a wrench in your black and white conception of sex.

Sex is binary, because you can either have the ability to:

A. Bear a child.

B. Impregnant. 

There are people that are born different, but they still fall under that same binary. 

It seems clear we're not going to change each other's minds, so let me take this opportunity to thank you for the discussion and bow out. 

Okay. I'm more confused as to how you determine sex. Is it chromosomes, genitalia, or something else?

If I met this person on the street, chances are I'm not going to know their genitalia or their chromosomes. I will take cues from them as to what labels are appropriate. That's all we can do unless we are going to be super inappropriate or invasive. What's the problem with that?

• Yes, that's clear, and immediately raises the question about why aren't you getting your definitions from dictionaries?  Serious debaters use dictionaries so that everybody is talking about the same thing.  My definition of leftist comes from Wikipedia.  Your definition of leftist comes from Ben Shapiro.
  

• Look up the word CONFLATE on wiktionary.  It doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  I think you are looking for some word more like "contradicts".  Likewise, Leftist doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  Not all leftists are pro-abortion.  Not all abortion rights advocates are leftists.  Why not address the abortion rights advocates rather than swinging wide of target by addressing Leftists?
  

• I turned on age restrictions but I was still able to access everything on the Daily Wire.  I can't  confirm that such a restriction exists.  I believe you are under the age of restriction yourself and yet you seem to have access to the site as well.  Am I missing something?
  

The Daily WIre has been caught printing a lot of fake news, especially regarding the election, the pandemic, climate change.  I hope you are expanding your research to less motivated, more rigorously fact based sources, as well.

I have met a few women who have suggested that only women should vote on abortion.  I have never met any American who in serious debate would argue that a fellow American does not have a right to any opinion.  This is an obvious falsehood and a  misrepresentation of Leftism.

If you are saying that you can't find a single poltician who identifiies as Leftist and is recorded saying that only people with uteruses may have an opinion on abortion than you are conceding your point as lacking evicence.

If you're thinking well, there's people on the Internet who call themselves leftists and express some similar opinion than that's no kind of evidence at all.  That could be a Russian Agent or an 8 year old or  you, inventing evidence- whatever. 

 You need to find a bunch of real live Leftists who make the argument you claim they make.  If you can't do that then you had no basis to make the claim to begin with.

By that reasoning, a male (your label) can become pregnant. I think your label is not reasonable, but I thank you for the clarification. 

So, in your mind, an individual that looks female, has functional female genitalia, a uterus, fallopian tubes, and... XY chromosomes is male? [...]

Un-fkn - believable.

Coming from a Christian Conservative, that’s a real classic.

Everyone thinks your uninformed nonsense is funny, I think it's because of the superior way that you present your stupidity. 

I find it helps to imagine you with a red styrofoam nose and big floppy shoes.

This is your opportunity to explain.

So, in your mind, an individual that looks female, has functional female genitalia, a uterus, fallopian tubes, and... XY chromosomes is male?  I'm sure people with Swyer syndrome would disagree with that assessment.

It's not a belief, it's a viewpoint. Do you not understand the difference?

Should gay people be allowed to get married? Please explain what facts you used to reach your conclusion on this.

Enlighten me - why must that something be biology?

You only have one definition of a man and a woman that you accept.

So when you claim trans people believe a man can turn into a woman you are talking about biology.

When LGBTQIA members and supporters talk about turning a man into a woman we're using the terms in a gender based context