The Democratic Presidential Debates

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Remember that Sanders loves and accept everyone - except for assholes and tax-fleeling-billionaires. 

But he's okay with tax fleeing millionaires like himself?  

I will allow that you quote me. Not feeling a bit annoyed.

What do you mean with him being a tax fleeing millionaire ?

He's a millionaire and I'm fairly certain he is paying at the tax code level required.  I've never heard him say he's paying at a marginal rate higher than required by law.  Therefore because we all know that millionaires adn billionaires are under-taxed, he must be in the same camp as them... tax fleeing. 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rogan doesn't hate the left. that's laughable. he also isn't fucking transphobe. that's also just a talking point for outrage seekers. 

Buying into birtherism shows a lack of judgment though.  

that's the first i heard of that. that's admittedly a little concerning. 

Wait, you’re cool with his anti-trans bullshit, but you draw the line at birtherism?

he's not anti-trans. i've listened to him talk a lot about it, and he has no issue with people being trans. he has issues with trans women competing against cis women in sports, which i agree with. imagine if brock lesnar was a trans woman. you think that's a level playing field?

That’s anti-trans, champ. 

no it isn't champ, it's common sense biology. 

Really doubling down on your own transphobia. Bold move. 

You obviously don't know where HFD is coming from.  Why are you bating like this?

I don’t care where he’s coming from. I care that he’s spouting anti-trans nonsense. That’s not baiting. I consider his views extremely harmful. 

how is it harmful to cite science? maybe instead of a women's division and men's division in sports, we create a more all-inclusive based on physical attributes or other types of criteria instead of just penis or vagina?

Did you come up with this idea before you started worrying about trans athletes? And why are we trusting science here? 

Because we try to be enlightened and science has been the way since the middle ages.  What do you trust?  Your gut?  Trump the anti-science guy?  Is that a real counterargument?

You might want to have a look at the history of how science has treated race, sex, gender, and sexuality before wholeheartedly embracing science's approach to areas in which social prejudice is widespread. 

Yeah, compared to religion and other 'reasoning' as well?  I have a pretty good grasp on history, thanks.  I don't get my medical advice from the barber though.  Join the anti-vax movement if you wish.  

Oh FFS. Yes, compared to other forms of reasoning. We had abolitionists coexisting with racist science. We had 2nd-wave feminists talking about sexist science. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, the only way to look at things, and in many cases, brave people bucked the scientific "fact" of their era to do good things. Fetishizing science like you do isn't quite as ridiculous as rejecting all science, but it's not great. You know, there's a middle ground: you can actually evaluate science as it interacts with other areas. 

What way to you recommend looking at this, if not science?  We are talking specifically about competitive athletics, not civil right, marriage, employment, etc.  

I'm saying that "competitive athletics" does not justify saying to any trans person "sure, you're a 'woman,' but...." 

brianlux

Somebody please remind me what this thread is about! 

Say, how about that Andrew Yang qualifying for the February debate.  Sweet!

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Remember that Sanders loves and accept everyone - except for assholes and tax-fleeling-billionaires. 

But he's okay with tax fleeing millionaires like himself?  

I will allow that you quote me. Not feeling a bit annoyed.

What do you mean with him being a tax fleeing millionaire ?

He's a millionaire and I'm fairly certain he is paying at the tax code level required.  I've never heard him say he's paying at a marginal rate higher than required by law.  Therefore because we all know that millionaires adn billionaires are under-taxed, he must be in the same camp as them... tax fleeing. 

Emma Watson is tax-fleeing. 

Bernie Sanders pays what he should pay. Or are there raports of him tax-loopholeing his way through life?

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Remember that Sanders loves and accept everyone - except for assholes and tax-fleeling-billionaires. 

But he's okay with tax fleeing millionaires like himself?  

I will allow that you quote me. Not feeling a bit annoyed.

What do you mean with him being a tax fleeing millionaire ?

He's a millionaire and I'm fairly certain he is paying at the tax code level required.  I've never heard him say he's paying at a marginal rate higher than required by law.  Therefore because we all know that millionaires adn billionaires are under-taxed, he must be in the same camp as them... tax fleeing. 

Emma Watson is tax-fleeing. 

Bernie Sanders pays what he should pay. Or are there raports of him tax-loopholeing his way through life?

Should? You mean morally or legally? Pretty sure Bloomberg and the others pay what is legally obligated

Ledbetterman10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

ecdanc

brianlux said:

Somebody please remind me what this thread is about! 

Say, how about that Andrew Yang qualifying for the February debate.  Sweet!

Bernie Sanders's acceptance of the Joe Rogan nomination seems on topic--many leftists are talking about how problematic him accepting that endorsement is (Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor had an especially insightful Twitter thread about it recently)--it's problematic precisely because of his racism and anti-trans statements--ergo, we're on topic! 

ecdanc

Ledbetterman10 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread. 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rogan doesn't hate the left. that's laughable. he also isn't fucking transphobe. that's also just a talking point for outrage seekers. 

Buying into birtherism shows a lack of judgment though.  

that's the first i heard of that. that's admittedly a little concerning. 

Wait, you’re cool with his anti-trans bullshit, but you draw the line at birtherism?

he's not anti-trans. i've listened to him talk a lot about it, and he has no issue with people being trans. he has issues with trans women competing against cis women in sports, which i agree with. imagine if brock lesnar was a trans woman. you think that's a level playing field?

That’s anti-trans, champ. 

no it isn't champ, it's common sense biology. 

Really doubling down on your own transphobia. Bold move. 

You obviously don't know where HFD is coming from.  Why are you bating like this?

I don’t care where he’s coming from. I care that he’s spouting anti-trans nonsense. That’s not baiting. I consider his views extremely harmful. 

how is it harmful to cite science? maybe instead of a women's division and men's division in sports, we create a more all-inclusive based on physical attributes or other types of criteria instead of just penis or vagina?

Did you come up with this idea before you started worrying about trans athletes? And why are we trusting science here? 

Because we try to be enlightened and science has been the way since the middle ages.  What do you trust?  Your gut?  Trump the anti-science guy?  Is that a real counterargument?

You might want to have a look at the history of how science has treated race, sex, gender, and sexuality before wholeheartedly embracing science's approach to areas in which social prejudice is widespread. 

Yeah, compared to religion and other 'reasoning' as well?  I have a pretty good grasp on history, thanks.  I don't get my medical advice from the barber though.  Join the anti-vax movement if you wish.  

Oh FFS. Yes, compared to other forms of reasoning. We had abolitionists coexisting with racist science. We had 2nd-wave feminists talking about sexist science. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, the only way to look at things, and in many cases, brave people bucked the scientific "fact" of their era to do good things. Fetishizing science like you do isn't quite as ridiculous as rejecting all science, but it's not great. You know, there's a middle ground: you can actually evaluate science as it interacts with other areas. 

What way to you recommend looking at this, if not science?  We are talking specifically about competitive athletics, not civil right, marriage, employment, etc.  

I'm saying that "competitive athletics" does not justify saying to any trans person "sure, you're a 'woman,' but...." 

There has to be some standard,  just like every sport.  You haven't answered the question about fairness or safety to the CIs woman.  

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

Somebody please remind me what this thread is about! 

Say, how about that Andrew Yang qualifying for the February debate.  Sweet!

jesus. i'll never mention joe rogan again. lol

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rogan doesn't hate the left. that's laughable. he also isn't fucking transphobe. that's also just a talking point for outrage seekers. 

Buying into birtherism shows a lack of judgment though.  

that's the first i heard of that. that's admittedly a little concerning. 

Wait, you’re cool with his anti-trans bullshit, but you draw the line at birtherism?

he's not anti-trans. i've listened to him talk a lot about it, and he has no issue with people being trans. he has issues with trans women competing against cis women in sports, which i agree with. imagine if brock lesnar was a trans woman. you think that's a level playing field?

That’s anti-trans, champ. 

no it isn't champ, it's common sense biology. 

Really doubling down on your own transphobia. Bold move. 

You obviously don't know where HFD is coming from.  Why are you bating like this?

I don’t care where he’s coming from. I care that he’s spouting anti-trans nonsense. That’s not baiting. I consider his views extremely harmful. 

how is it harmful to cite science? maybe instead of a women's division and men's division in sports, we create a more all-inclusive based on physical attributes or other types of criteria instead of just penis or vagina?

Did you come up with this idea before you started worrying about trans athletes? And why are we trusting science here? 

Because we try to be enlightened and science has been the way since the middle ages.  What do you trust?  Your gut?  Trump the anti-science guy?  Is that a real counterargument?

You might want to have a look at the history of how science has treated race, sex, gender, and sexuality before wholeheartedly embracing science's approach to areas in which social prejudice is widespread. 

Yeah, compared to religion and other 'reasoning' as well?  I have a pretty good grasp on history, thanks.  I don't get my medical advice from the barber though.  Join the anti-vax movement if you wish.  

Oh FFS. Yes, compared to other forms of reasoning. We had abolitionists coexisting with racist science. We had 2nd-wave feminists talking about sexist science. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, the only way to look at things, and in many cases, brave people bucked the scientific "fact" of their era to do good things. Fetishizing science like you do isn't quite as ridiculous as rejecting all science, but it's not great. You know, there's a middle ground: you can actually evaluate science as it interacts with other areas. 

What way to you recommend looking at this, if not science?  We are talking specifically about competitive athletics, not civil right, marriage, employment, etc.  

I'm saying that "competitive athletics" does not justify saying to any trans person "sure, you're a 'woman,' but...." 

There has to be some standard,  just like every sport.  You haven't answered the question about fairness or safety to the CIs woman.  

I don't believe "fairness" and "safety" IN SPORTS justifies treating trans women differently than other women. In other words, I don't privilege sport over identity. Mine is not a complicated stance, even if you don't like its ramifications. 

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

Somebody please remind me what this thread is about! 

Say, how about that Andrew Yang qualifying for the February debate.  Sweet!

jesus. i'll never mention joe rogan again. lol

If only the entire world would agree to the same.

Ledbetterman10

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread. 

You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions. 

ecdanc

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread. 

You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions. 

"Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement! 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Remember that Sanders loves and accept everyone - except for assholes and tax-fleeling-billionaires. 

But he's okay with tax fleeing millionaires like himself?  

I will allow that you quote me. Not feeling a bit annoyed.

What do you mean with him being a tax fleeing millionaire ?

He's a millionaire and I'm fairly certain he is paying at the tax code level required.  I've never heard him say he's paying at a marginal rate higher than required by law.  Therefore because we all know that millionaires adn billionaires are under-taxed, he must be in the same camp as them... tax fleeing. 

Emma Watson is tax-fleeing. 

Bernie Sanders pays what he should pay. Or are there raports of him tax-loopholeing his way through life?

Should? You mean morally or legally? Pretty sure Bloomberg and the others pay what is legally obligated

Have I said he doesnt?

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rogan doesn't hate the left. that's laughable. he also isn't fucking transphobe. that's also just a talking point for outrage seekers. 

Buying into birtherism shows a lack of judgment though.  

that's the first i heard of that. that's admittedly a little concerning. 

Wait, you’re cool with his anti-trans bullshit, but you draw the line at birtherism?

he's not anti-trans. i've listened to him talk a lot about it, and he has no issue with people being trans. he has issues with trans women competing against cis women in sports, which i agree with. imagine if brock lesnar was a trans woman. you think that's a level playing field?

That’s anti-trans, champ. 

no it isn't champ, it's common sense biology. 

Really doubling down on your own transphobia. Bold move. 

You obviously don't know where HFD is coming from.  Why are you bating like this?

I don’t care where he’s coming from. I care that he’s spouting anti-trans nonsense. That’s not baiting. I consider his views extremely harmful. 

how is it harmful to cite science? maybe instead of a women's division and men's division in sports, we create a more all-inclusive based on physical attributes or other types of criteria instead of just penis or vagina?

Did you come up with this idea before you started worrying about trans athletes? And why are we trusting science here? 

Because we try to be enlightened and science has been the way since the middle ages.  What do you trust?  Your gut?  Trump the anti-science guy?  Is that a real counterargument?

You might want to have a look at the history of how science has treated race, sex, gender, and sexuality before wholeheartedly embracing science's approach to areas in which social prejudice is widespread. 

Yeah, compared to religion and other 'reasoning' as well?  I have a pretty good grasp on history, thanks.  I don't get my medical advice from the barber though.  Join the anti-vax movement if you wish.  

Oh FFS. Yes, compared to other forms of reasoning. We had abolitionists coexisting with racist science. We had 2nd-wave feminists talking about sexist science. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, the only way to look at things, and in many cases, brave people bucked the scientific "fact" of their era to do good things. Fetishizing science like you do isn't quite as ridiculous as rejecting all science, but it's not great. You know, there's a middle ground: you can actually evaluate science as it interacts with other areas. 

What way to you recommend looking at this, if not science?  We are talking specifically about competitive athletics, not civil right, marriage, employment, etc.  

I'm saying that "competitive athletics" does not justify saying to any trans person "sure, you're a 'woman,' but...." 

There has to be some standard,  just like every sport.  You haven't answered the question about fairness or safety to the CIs woman.  

I don't believe "fairness" and "safety" IN SPORTS justifies treating trans women differently than other women. In other words, I don't privilege sport over identity. Mine is not a complicated stance, even if you don't like its ramifications. 

so if a cis woman dies at the hands of a trans woman, you're ok with that, because....identity?

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

brianlux said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

rogan doesn't hate the left. that's laughable. he also isn't fucking transphobe. that's also just a talking point for outrage seekers. 

Buying into birtherism shows a lack of judgment though.  

that's the first i heard of that. that's admittedly a little concerning. 

Wait, you’re cool with his anti-trans bullshit, but you draw the line at birtherism?

he's not anti-trans. i've listened to him talk a lot about it, and he has no issue with people being trans. he has issues with trans women competing against cis women in sports, which i agree with. imagine if brock lesnar was a trans woman. you think that's a level playing field?

That’s anti-trans, champ. 

no it isn't champ, it's common sense biology. 

Really doubling down on your own transphobia. Bold move. 

You obviously don't know where HFD is coming from.  Why are you bating like this?

I don’t care where he’s coming from. I care that he’s spouting anti-trans nonsense. That’s not baiting. I consider his views extremely harmful. 

how is it harmful to cite science? maybe instead of a women's division and men's division in sports, we create a more all-inclusive based on physical attributes or other types of criteria instead of just penis or vagina?

Did you come up with this idea before you started worrying about trans athletes? And why are we trusting science here? 

Because we try to be enlightened and science has been the way since the middle ages.  What do you trust?  Your gut?  Trump the anti-science guy?  Is that a real counterargument?

You might want to have a look at the history of how science has treated race, sex, gender, and sexuality before wholeheartedly embracing science's approach to areas in which social prejudice is widespread. 

Yeah, compared to religion and other 'reasoning' as well?  I have a pretty good grasp on history, thanks.  I don't get my medical advice from the barber though.  Join the anti-vax movement if you wish.  

Oh FFS. Yes, compared to other forms of reasoning. We had abolitionists coexisting with racist science. We had 2nd-wave feminists talking about sexist science. Science is not now, nor has it ever been, the only way to look at things, and in many cases, brave people bucked the scientific "fact" of their era to do good things. Fetishizing science like you do isn't quite as ridiculous as rejecting all science, but it's not great. You know, there's a middle ground: you can actually evaluate science as it interacts with other areas. 

What way to you recommend looking at this, if not science?  We are talking specifically about competitive athletics, not civil right, marriage, employment, etc.  

I'm saying that "competitive athletics" does not justify saying to any trans person "sure, you're a 'woman,' but...." 

There has to be some standard,  just like every sport.  You haven't answered the question about fairness or safety to the CIs woman.  

I don't believe "fairness" and "safety" IN SPORTS justifies treating trans women differently than other women. In other words, I don't privilege sport over identity. Mine is not a complicated stance, even if you don't like its ramifications. 

so if a cis woman dies at the hands of a trans woman, you're ok with that, because....identity?

I'm not ok with any athlete dying. If there's a strong chance of that, the sport probably shouldn't exist in the first place. But, I digress...

Maybe instead of looking to prohibit trans athletes from participating, you instead find ways to make your sport safer? Maybe sports evolve to deal with changing athletic abilities (as ALL sports do already) rather than making arbitrary exclusions?

Spiritual_Chaos

Everything in life can’t be completely ”fair” and a society that is made for and to include a huge amount of individuals can’t and doesn’t have to in every detail serve or fit specifically you. 

Ledbetterman10

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URz-RYEOaig

Must say I'm a little saddened by this turn in this thread. 

You turned it this way. And video isn’t insulting to trans people. It’s a good satire of the insanity of men who transition to women competing against regular women in athletic competitions. 

"Men who transition to women competing against regular women." We have a winner for the thread's most anti-trans statement! 

I was waiting for that response. Like clockwork, I knew you’d have a problem with “regular” there. Sorry I don’t know the woke term for a female that’s born female and stays female. So I went with regular. 

A transwoman should complete in sports with the men. Her physical dynamics are that if a man’s, and she could hurt the “regular” women. (What’s the gender term you want there that won’t offend you?)

Spiritual_Chaos

the ”other women will be hurt” is a really weird argument to fall back on.