Total posts: 2,182
Can you just please define a woman for me, it's really not that hard.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
To define the Dakotas, you have to use the term Montana. To define the term Montana, you have to use Dakota. It’s circular.
But each time, your using different states, so it is not circular.
Created:
Posted in:
I would also like to point out that people who identify as non-binary, should identify as it, rather than they, because being non-binary is identifying as neither gender, so they are just an object at that point.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It would be like if I defined Montana as:“A state bordered by Wyoming, Idaho, Canada, and the Dakotas”. This makes a definition circular.How is that circular?
I had the same question.
Created:
Yea, and in the debate you literally said the words:
Two genders are based in biology.
Therefore proving me right.
Created:
Posted in:
There are only 2.
Male/Man
Female/Woman
With only two pronoun sets:
He/Him/His
She/Her/Hers
And Gender is not a Social Construct, it is based in biology.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you define the Dakotas in this way, you would also have to define Montana as a state that borders a bunch of states, including North and South Dakota to be consistent. This is a circular definition, which you claim isn’t good.
What?
Please elaborate.
Created:
I just explained to you that words change over time.
They evolve. Some evolve more than others, but none have deliberately changed the definition entirely.
But I still bring up the point, that changing the definition isn't even the worst part. It is that the definition, that they used to describe a woman, has many flaws, and is not a valid definition.
Also, you seem incapable of understanding the difference between referring to “we” as individuals vs “we” as a society. Once again, no one is arguing that every individual can just run around making up their own words. Language is about communication, and we need other people to understand our terms if we want to convey thoughts and ideas. But if everyone is on the same page, we can all change terms to whatever we want because we will now be able to understand each other.
….did you reread what you just wrote?
This is really basic stuff and is not controversial when it comes to any other topic. The fact that now, all of a sudden on this one topic right wingers need this very basic fact explained speaks volumes about how political ideology deludes the human brain.
It's a little weird that biology is now controversial, and is a part of politics now.
Biology is what we base a lot of our knowledge on. If we can't even agree on that, then we have already failed as a society.
Define God.And don’t give me some definition that other people out there disagree with otherwise we won’t be able to use it and all of our language will just dissolve into mess causing chaos within our society that will take us all down.
My definition of God is based in faith.
I never forced anyone to believe God is real. I just believe that myself. It is up to others to make that decision for themselves.
But with this new definition of woman, people are trying to force others to come to terms with this new definition, even though a lot of people don't agree with it.
That's the major problem with the left. They want everyone to support and believe in what they believe, and they always preach equality. But then they go behind everyone's backs and try to censor and silence people who have a differing opinion, because it challenges theirs, and they know they won't win a debate on it.
So my definition of God, is:
"in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being."
This definition of a God isn't wrong. That literally is the definition of the concept of a God.
The new definition of a woman isn't even right. It is flawed in every aspect.
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
He posted this thread because of our current debate.
Which you have yet to reply to.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A definition needs to include all that should be included and exclude all that should be excluded. If the definition for Dakotas includes Nebraska, then you would have to call Nebraska one of the Dakotas. Whatever definition you apply to the Dakotas should include North and South Dakota and exclude every other place. My definition is, “Any state that is either North Dakota or South Dakota.”. This is defining with a list, and I think it’s okay to do this. It’s also better because most people don’t know what the northern Mississippi River valley is, and complex definitions need simplier terms. I’m pretty sure the northern Mississippi River valley is more complex than state learned in elementary school.
Dakotas:
Two states, in the USA, that are bordered by Canada, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota.
Now define a woman please.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If it’s a human construct then there is no “correct” way for us to interpret it. It’s up to us to decide that, that’s what this conversation is about.
Finally, we come to an understanding.
Political right and left are sides based on society’s issues. This hasn’t been an issue till now, so no.
So no then?
No one is arguing that *everyone* can just use words however they want, we’re talking about how all of us should be thinking of these terms, or at the least in this particular conversation I’m explaining to you that while you can take issue with how someone else uses a word, you can’t pretend their argument is stupid because you’re translating everything into your own terms and not theirs.
In the first part of this paragraph, you said, "No one is arguing that *everyone* can just use words however they want,"
Then in the last part, you said," I’m explaining to you that while you can take issue with how someone else uses a word"
So, can we make up our own personal definitions of words, or should we just stick to the key to how society has run and thrived for hundreds of years?
And yet definitions have evolved all throughout the history of human civilization, yet we’re all still here, still thriving.
Your comparing:
Evolved: "develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form."
And
Changed: "replace (something) with something else, especially something of the same kind that is newer or better; substitute one thing for (another)."
Just like animals have evolved, they still have characteristics of a common ancestor.
Changing the definition of words, is very different than the definition of a word evolving.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Humans also thought slavery was ok for most of human history, until we realized it wasn’t. Our previous usage of gender is irrelevant to what makes sense now.
No, humans only used slavery for economic purposes. Anyone with a moral conscience, even back then, would have seen that enslaving another human was bad.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Doesn’t Nebraska also fall under that definition as well? I don’t know too much about Native American history.
I added, two states in the definition, so no it doesn't count.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conservallectual
God has no need for us, but we need him.
Yes, God doesn't need us, but I find that statement to be very powerful in showing Gods love for us.
God is the creator of the universe, and could have anything he wanted to, but instead he made us.
He doesn't need us, but he loves us.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How would you define the Dakotas without using the term, “Dakota” then? The only alternative definition I can think of are 2 states between various other states and provinces. But if you define these states and provinces, you end up using the term Dakota in that definition.The only alternative to the best of my knowledge is realizing that you don’t have to define every subsequent term to define the term you were originally trying to define.
No, I could define Dakotas right now:
Two states in the USA, that was named by a member of an Indigenous people of the northern Mississippi River valley.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I can define the word, “Dakotas” with North and South Dakota. That is using the word Dakota to define the term, “Dakotas”.
If I asked you:
What are the Dakotas?
Then you would answer:
North and South Dakota
All I am gaining from that definition is that there is a north and south Dakota. That doesn't define what the Dakotas are. Just that there is a north and south version of it.
Created:
you just undermined your own argument with this statement genius.
I'm not arguing that gender identity doesn't exist, because of course it exists.
I am arguing that gender identity only applies to the sex that you are born with.
Of course, there are masculine girls and feminine men, but they are all still men and woman, regardless of how they feel.
Created:
You were the one that defined a woman as someone who can produce an offspring. Now after telling Underdog not to use woman in the definition of a woman you are defining a woman as female. That’s brilliant
You need to work on your English. The word female and woman are different.
Woman is the identity.
Female is the biological aspect.
I am saying that identifying as a woman, is the same as being a biological female.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, that’s what you base it on.Biological sex is a matter of fact which we look to science to define. Gender is a human construct no matter how much you pretend it isn’t. Science has nothing to do with whether one prefers to be called a him or a her, whether one should wear Timberlands or a dress, or whether one should pursue a career as a seamstress or a construction worker. We invented all of that, and that is all part of the conversation with regards to gender.
No, it's what humans have based it on through all of human history up until now. To assume that gender is a human construct, is to assume that there are more than 2 genders, and that proposal cannot be argued thoroughly or good in any way.
What the political right does is just pretend that the way we’ve always thought of gender is the only way to think about it....
So, everyone through human history is part of the political right?
and then by extension pretend that when other people talk about it, they’re using words in the same way you are. That’s just plain stupid.
So, by that logic, everyone can use the same words to mean different things, and then society falls.
It would be like this:
One person thinks the word firetruck, means car crash, and the other person thinks it is a truck that puts out fires.
With logic like this, the world couldn't go round.
This logic is plain stupid.
If you want to have a conversation with someone else you have to begin by understanding what they mean when they use certain terms. That’s common sense. People who are experiencing and/or advocating for those going through gender dysphoria are talking about all of this is a very different way. If you’re going to criticize it the least you can do is make an effort to understand what others are talking about.
There is a difference between having preferences, and thinking words are different. If I want to have a conversation with someone who uses different definitions, then I couldn't have any conversation at all.
It would be like me trying to talk to someone, but they believe that the word love means hate. So, am I just supposed to say love for hate for just that specific person? Then the media and news would be screwed, because they can't keep tabs on what everyone thinks.
As a functioning society, we have to have the same basic understanding of the English language, or else no one will understand what anyone else is saying.
To assume that others look at words differently, and we should submit to those terms, is exactly how you let a controlling government take power.
Created:
You realize there are many women who can’t bare offspring or produce eggs. right? What do we call those people?This came up in the Supreme Court case for gay marriage when conservatives tried to argue that the purpose of marriage was for procreation.
It's really simple.
The definition of a woman is a biological adult human female. It's not that complicated.
Can you think of any other words that had their definition change or evolve over time? Did it destroy society?
Of course, the way words have been used has changed, but this definition goes against basic biology, and gender itself. If the definition of a word goes against biology, then why in the world are we accepting that?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Woman: Anyone that is a cis woman or trans woman
That is a circular definition. Don't use the word woman, to define the word woman. It's simple English really.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you please draw me the straight line from "the definition of woman in the Cambridge dictionary" to "the entire American way of life unravels"? Take advantage of freedom and rights in what SPECIFIC way? Where has this happened and how?
It's simple really. If a dictionary has the ability to change the definition of words that we use everyday, then how can we function as a rational society. By that logic the constitution could play into whatever you want the law to be, just based on a couple of simple definition changes. That is how it takes away freedom and rights. And guess where it has happened? Cambridge Dictionary....just a couple of months ago.
Society isn't based on language. And you realize every single Supreme Court decision is literally based on a handful of people's interpretation of language? This is how we ended up with corporations being treated as individuals and dark money in elections.
Your confusing language, with definitions. I am talking about the literal English language. If you really think that a functional society can exist without a proper way of communication, then you are wrong.
"Indoctrination," can you please define what it is specifically you're worried about children learning?
Sexualization.
Children don't need to be exposed to any kind of sexualization in any sort of way. And there is no other way, besides sexualization, to teach kids about pronouns and the LGBTQ+ community.
Basically, kids learn that mommy and daddy love each other very much, and they have a baby. That's all they need to know.
You can't teach the same thing for mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy, because they don't have baby's. So then the next thing that you have to do, is explain what makes mommy and mommy, different from daddy and mommy. And you can't do that in any other way, besides talking about some type of sexual content.
Even telling kids that they can identify as anything they want is sexualization. Imagine this:
A kid says that he wants to be a girl now. Then you ask him why he thinks this. I can guaranty you, that every kid on the planet would answer that it is because they like playing with toys or clothing, associated with the opposite gender. Well, that's not how it works. So then you," a crazy LGBTQ+ ideological parent" will have to explain that the reason they feel that way, isn't because of toys or clothes, but it is because they like boys, and not girls.
Most of the kids who identify as something different, did not choose it. Most of the little kids who do this have been pushed to do this by woke parents.
Furthermore, do you not believe that a person's body (an adult) is their own to treat as they please, or should government actively get involved with elective surgery decisions? Do you recognize that some people find a tremendous amount of relief and happiness post transition (many more than regret it)?
I think that adults above the age of 18 should be able to make whatever decisions to there body, that doesn't harm others in any way shape or form, but doing it to kids is where I think it should be illegal. Kids don't have the capacity to think for themselves like an adult does.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The discussion over gender has absolutely nothing to do with science. It’s about how people feel and what we can and/or should be doing to respect our fellow citizens and allowing them to live a life of dignity. This isn’t complicated.
No, gender has everything to do with science. It is based in biology. It is not a social construct. It is how people identify, based on their biological sex.
And your right, it isn't and shouldn't be complicated, but the left and the LGBTQ+ community has made it just that.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Further research to help you decide what to do.
Maybe your confused, given you were able to find a load of sources very quickly pertaining to this problem.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
OK, and you are only 15, so now you would need your parents approval anyway, and since it is irreversible, you should wait till you are sure.
Well 16, but hey who's counting?
Also, that is exactly my point. I would need my parents consent to get gender reassignment surgery. But the left is pushing the idea, that kids have a mind of there own, that is advanced enough to make life altering decisions, which is entirely false.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Who exactly is this "they" that is doing all this denying?
The LGBTQ+ community that is pushing gender reassignment surgery for people who are confused with their gender identity.
Do you have examples, is there anything more to this than what the voices in your head tell you to make up?
I will gladly provide you with examples.
These are trans people who are warning us about how transitioning is not the right choice, but all right left tends to silence these types of stories for some odd reason.
Then you have literal healthcare professionals just trying to make a quick buck and transition these kids and lie about there being any consequences, and them lying about it being completely reversable, when it clearly is not.
Then you have legitimate data that says gender reassignment surgery is not reversable.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I do not think the legal definition has changed, but correct me if I am wrong.
You are correct, but it is the start of what I was talking about.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
And the discussing thing about the left, is that they support this kind of stuff, with no arguments to back them up.
The only thing they say, when they are backed into a corner, is stuff like," Why are so obsessed with this subject?" It's because they can't provide any argument to back them up, so they only ask questions to fight back. And when the truth is revealed to them, they deny it.
They deny all of the people who have transitioned, and have warned people to stop.
They deny the level of sexualization of kids in school.
They deny gender transition surgery to be irreversible.
They deny all of the evil things that the left has done to push this agenda.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
What is threatened? What thread in the very fabric of a civil society unravels? No one is telling YOU you have to identify in any way, you're free to be whatever you think you are.
That exact sentence,"...you're free to be whatever you think you are." is exactly the sentence that could be used for wrong. Think about it.
If anyone is free to be anything they wanted to be, then what is stopping the government from using that to their advantage, to take advantage of the American people's freedom and rights.
Society is threatened. Society is based in language. If we can just change language at will, then what is stopping people from changing.... oh idk, the US constitution? Then all of the rules and laws that the most successful country has run on to become successful, could be changed completely to something that could destroy what we have.
it sounds more like you're afraid.
I'm not afraid of LGBTQ+ people specifically, but the movement itself, and the government pushing it through the media, does scare me, because it is causing the indoctrination of children, and hurting the new generation specifically. The new definition of woman comes mostly from the LGBTQ+ movement.
I draw the line when it comes to children, and it has come to children.
CHILDREN ARE LITERALLY BEING SEXUALIZED.
WHY ARE WE NORMALIZING THIS???
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Like what about the way this word is defined changes your day to day life in such a way that it generates some sort of offended feeling inside you?
No not offence but changing basic language just for the sole purpose of "including people" can start a chain to other things.
I don't feel offended by this in any way, but I'm pretty sure all of the sane women out there are very offended with this new update, and they should be.
The whole purpose of this new definition was to include everyone who might "identify" as a woman, without contradicting themselves, or making any kind of circular definition.
But they still fail to do so, given that there might be people out there who live as a male, but identify as a woman, won't be considered a woman.
And they used the word female in their so called "new definition", but the word female translates to: "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes." according to the Oxford Dictionary.
So how can someone identify as something that they are biologically incapable of being. Of course, men can feel like they are women and vice versa, but that doesn't make you a woman.
It would be the same thing as me debating someone on this website and saying that I strongly feel like the right person with all the knowledge on the topic that I am debating.
I could even go as far as to ask you to affirm my identity, by saying I was right all along, even though I was not.
The reason I and a lot of people care so much, is because a civil society, cannot run without language. And if we are just changing language at will, then what is to stop others for changing it for their benefit in a not so nice way?
This whole definition falls back on the thinking that gender is a social construct. But time and time again, people have proven this claim to be wrong, no matter how others feel about it. Gender is not a social construct.
Created:
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Who cares? Let’s just assume we don’t have an answer to your question… now what?
Exactly my point.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The FBI’s biggest concern when answering any question is to ensure their sources and methods for attaining information are not compromised
That doesn't answer why thy FBI informant wouldn't answer the question. If they had nothing to do with the riot, then why would they have a problem with answering?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly.
Most people won't do more work than they have to.
Making an 800+ page reason for why trump incited the January 6 riot is just plain stupid.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
In all seriousness, this is a ridiculous argument and you two really should abandon it immediately.It doesn’t take 800 pages to see that Trump was responsible for January 6th. That’s just how much evidence is out there because this was such an obvious case.Much of the evidence is right there is plain sight because he did it right in front of our own eyes. But I’m not going to go through all of that right now so let’s just make this really simple; go through the Mark Meadows text messages. Take note of how all the people around Trump including Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram and Hope Hicks understood full well as it was happening that Trump was responsible. That alone should tell you something, and that’s before we get to the mountain of evidence.This isn’t rocket science.
Then why is there evidence of FBI agents whispering in people's ears, and then seconds later, they are tearing down blockades and other things of that manner? And why when the FBI was questioned about this, did they refuse to answer, or address these claims?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Third, your statement that illegal immigrants are more likely to be involved in illegal activities is just plain wrong. Every serious study on this consistently shows that illegal immigrants are the least likely of any group within the US to commit crimes, and the reason for this is not rocket science; they are terrified of getting caught. The last thing they want is to get stopped by police. They don’t get the luxury of spending a night in jail, they will get deported. That’s quite a big motivator.
If illegal immigrants crossed the border illegally, then they have no basic identification, when it comes to crime. So, let's say an immigrant murdered someone. At the crime scene, forensics experts won't be able to identify the perpetrator, based on DNA or any other means. This means that even if the immigrant gets caught in the act, all they have to do is get away, and no one will be able to locate them.
Assuming that immigrants won't commit crimes based on only the fact that they are terrified of getting caught, is racist in of itself, because you are assuming that all immigrants that cross the border, are stupid, and don't understand basic United States law.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people”
Are you blind. He just called some are good people. But it is common knowledge that a lot of illegal immigrants will be involved in illegal activities.
The January 6th committee just released an 800 plus page report explaining their evidence. Have you read it? Do you have any clue what’s in it besides what Fox News and OANN told you?
I don't watch Fox.
And why does it take the committee 800+ pages to explain why Trump incited the riot. If it was so obvious that he, did it, it would take only a couple of pages.
This isn’t rocket science.
Then why 800+ pages. Some rocket science papers have less pages.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Agreed. No one else was willing to call Mexicans rapists or call for the banning of all Muslims. No one else was willing to wage an all out war on the free press and label them “the enemy of the people”. No one else was willing to rally up their own supporters to attack the US Capitol because they were mad they lost.
He didn't call all Mexicans rapists, he called the illegal immigrant's rapists, because some of them were, and they were crossing the border illegally. I mean yes sure, he could have just stopped doing things at the border, and let people flood in and ruin our security, like the Biden administration is doing.
And as for Muslims, he called for a complete shutdown, of Muslims entering the US. The ones that were already in the U.S. would have been fine.
And no, even though you can keep repeating it over and over again, Trump did not incite January 6. It was only a conspiracy. The only evidence that they have of Trump doing that, is the way he was......looking at the crowd? How stupid is that?
Next time you post these things, you need to go deeper into the facts, and not just read the headlines, like:
Trump calls all Mexicans rapists
Trump tries to ban all Muslims
You really need to not listen to just headlines.
Trump has done some really stupid stuff. He has in some ways, ruined our economy, but went back and fixed and grew it.
He made some dumb decisions, in choices of words, but overall, he ran an amazing presidency.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A bit of an international criminal then.Well done Romania for arresting the baddie.
I thought he was caught too.
But it turns out he was innocent, and it was just some random chick trying to save her relationship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I define a woman as anyone that is a cis woman or trans woman. You don’t have to define the smaller terms to define the bigger term, just like you don’t have to define North America to define the Americas.
So, your definition of a woman is anyone who is a cis woman or trans woman.
You are still using a circular definition.
You are defining a woman as anyone who is a cis woman or trans woman.
You can't use the same word you are trying to define as a definition.
All you have to do, is define the word woman, without using the word woman.
It isn't a trick question; it is not that hard to do.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Well, he did make a Slovenian sex worker First Lady and he is the first President to be married 3 times, all Republican values.
So, one Republican makes a bad decision, and that makes it a Republican value?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Definition of a Dictator: "a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force."
Trump wasn't a dictator, and he had all of those accomplishments.
I think that most democrats don't like Trump, because he said things no one else was willing to say. And he did things that no one else was willing to do. He led a powerful presidency, not powerful as in a dictator, but powerful as in he was strong, and willing to do the things that others were afraid to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nope, I'm not gonna read it for you, if you want to know what it says, you will have to read it yourself.
It's because you can't find any example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don’t think the APA is politicized. Can you send me a non partisan scientific review site that agrees with you?
Defining the Americas in this manner is like me defining woman by stating the billions of women that are on this planet. If I were to do this, I could include the names of the transwomen.
First of all, no you couldn't include the names of trans women, just like I wouldn't be able to include Great Britian in my definition of Americas.
I have provided my definition, so stop dodging the question, and define a woman. If you can't do that, then you have already lost.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
He is teaching to not hate. Not be "be inclusive".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Nope, that is pure BS, you use God to justify your prejudice, if you would try reading the Bible you'd find that is just something you made up.
So, tell me. Give me one example of God being hateful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
What is a "real Christian"?
Someone who follows the teachings of the Bible and Loves the Lord.
Not someone who constantly sins and thinks it's for the good of the Lord.
Someone who isn't ignorant enough to not do research into the bible and its teachings and follows the churches blindly.
Created: