The Democratic Presidential Debates

Ledbetterman10

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.

But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.

You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies. 

Well I disagree but I've already explained why so I won't go on and on. You just keep fighting the good fight against us bigots. 

I'm happy to let this drop, but I do encourage you to keep thinking about these issues. You operate with a very binary sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. As we continue to progress, you may find that stance alienates more and more people. Have a good day. 

You operate with a very narrowminded and scientifically ignorant sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. Read up if you want...https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/702735/

Have a good day!

ecdanc

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

You're arguing semantics. I've made it quite clear I'm arguing that from a physical standpoint, a transwoman has the physical makeup of a man. And while that is not relevant in another aspect of her life, it is if she's competing in spors against women.

But I know your type. So keeping arguinig with Hugh that I'm a bigot, or flag my post, or tag the moderator or whatever. Cancel away.

You can call it "semantics" if you want; I'm simply reading what you said. Your efforts to justify that statement merely sink further into a morass of offensive statements. If a trans woman is a woman, then her body is a woman's body. She, by definition, has the "physical makeup" of a woman. Short women have women's bodies; tall women have women's bodies; trans women have women's bodies. 

Well I disagree but I've already explained why so I won't go on and on. You just keep fighting the good fight against us bigots. 

I'm happy to let this drop, but I do encourage you to keep thinking about these issues. You operate with a very binary sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. As we continue to progress, you may find that stance alienates more and more people. Have a good day. 

You operate with a very narrowminded and scientifically ignorant sense of what (physically) is a man and a woman. Read up if you want...https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jos/2011/702735/

Have a good day!

I’m not a scientist, so could you please summarize this article in laymen’s terms, then explain how it supports your claims. 

Spiritual_Chaos

https://youtu.be/cgnBIuXYXYQ

brianlux

ecdanc said:

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! 

No, you got into an argument over whether or no Rogan is this or that.  That is not on topic.

brianlux

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So... anyone excited about Yang?

mrussel1

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So... anyone excited about Yang?

Im open to hearing more.  I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though.  Maybe that was just to get people to notice. 

Lerxst1992

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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?)

You remind me of my uncle: "well, when I was growing up we just called them [n-words]; how am I supposed to keep up with what they want to be called?" 

Typical. Even when I try to ask what term I can use instead of “regular” so that I can better myself and not be a bigot towards the LGBTQ community, I’m likened to a racist uncle. Oh well, I tried. 

No, you didn't try. You're on the fucking internet. Look it up yourself before you say something offensive. You did not ask what term to use; you mocked the fact that there is a "woke" term. And in the process, you further diminished trans women by suggesting they are not "born female." Don't now try to play like you really care about the words you should use. 

Give it a fucking rest.   

In a few hours 135 unread? Like wth happened here. Did someone stumble into this topic with an extra MSG ticket?

You missed the edited post where I was told "go fuck yourself" and Ledbetter was called a bigot.  So yeah, shit went pretty side wise on a topic that could have been interesting.  

I removed those and apologized. 

I’ll take the heat for that . I’ve been pricing a hypothetical Quebec trip and blowing smoke on porch. I’ve been bitching about the lack of nyc shows, and I’m likely going to Balt. I’m a spoiled brat. My fault.

hey how about the lack of klobuchar discussions?

HughFreakingDillon

Spiritual_Chaos said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

Was it birther-Rogan who said it?

i don't think so. 

brianlux

Spiritual_Chaos said:

https://youtu.be/cgnBIuXYXYQ

Smart, energetic, sensible, articulate, willing to listen, diplomatic- I love this guy.  The movement is building!

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%. 

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So... anyone excited about Yang?

Im open to hearing more.  I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though.  Maybe that was just to get people to notice. 

The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively)  and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes.  Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!)  I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang.  I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So... anyone excited about Yang?

Im open to hearing more.  I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though.  Maybe that was just to get people to notice. 

The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively)  and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes.  Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!)  I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang.  I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.

You can do all those other things without the freedom dividend though. 

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%. 

You avoided the question. 

OnWis97

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So... anyone excited about Yang?

Im open to hearing more.  I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though.  Maybe that was just to get people to notice. 

The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively)  and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes.  Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!)  I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang.  I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.

The Freedom Dividend is not what America is all about.  It would on it’s own, enable the word “socialism” to defeat him.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So... anyone excited about Yang?

Im open to hearing more.  I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though.  Maybe that was just to get people to notice. 

The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively)  and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes.  Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!)  I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang.  I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.

You can do all those other things without the freedom dividend though. 

Probably, M, but I think the AVT makes the Freedom Dividend possible though no the other way around.

brianlux

OnWis97 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

So... anyone excited about Yang?

Im open to hearing more.  I think the monthly"freedom dividend" is a terrible idea though.  Maybe that was just to get people to notice. 

The thing to remember here is that Yang wants to include with the Freedom Dividend a Value Added Tax (which many developed countries already use very effectively)  and close some of these loop holes that places like Google and Amazon use to avoid paying taxes.  Unfortunately, a lot of news media sources don't give a very clear picture (but what's new there, LOL!)  I hope you do get a chance to look a little further into Yang.  I think you will find many of his ideas and qualities appealing.

The Freedom Dividend is not what America is all about.  It would on it’s own, enable the word “socialism” to defeat him.

I don't see the Freedom Dividend as being the same as socialism, not at all.  And Yang has never referred to himself as a socialist.  If people interpret it that way, thin need to do the MATH, i.e. Yang's slogan, Make America Think Harder. 

And look, Google and Amazon and Big Pharma, etc. are, in essence, receiving HUGE dividends by not having to pay takes while you and I fill their pockets.  I don't think that is what America wants.

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%. 

You avoided the question. 

your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question. 

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%. 

You avoided the question. 

your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question. 

Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?

Ledbetterman10

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%. 

You avoided the question. 

your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question. 

Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?

You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative. 

So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it. 

ecdanc

Ledbetterman10 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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

Trans women compete in MMA. That’s a man fighting a woman. That’s dangerous and they can get hurt. 

Not it isn't, and that statement appears bigoted. 

this is funny watching the back peddling. 

Seriously, for just one moment, take my abrasive personality out of the equation: do you really want to align yourself with what Ledbetterman said? You claim to support trans rights, but you take up his side here?

i don't take 'sides'. i align myself with common sense. the terms he used were ignorant at worst, not even close to bigoted. there is a major difference there. you simply can't expect everyone to accept and change their verbiage overnight. it just doesn't work that way, and screaming at someone who doesn't know does more harm to any given cause than good. 

He directly referred to a trans woman as a man. That is not verbiage; that is a statement about what a trans woman IS. I hope you really are an ally in the real world, but you aren't showing it here. 

one of my more favourite quotes of the last few years: "just because you're outraged, doesn't make you right". 

I'm not sure what your point is: are you claiming he didn't refer to a trans woman as a man? Or that him doing so is ok?

because you think you get to decide what level of 'ally' i am. you don't. just like you don't get to keep labeling people simply because they don't support your view 100%. 

You avoided the question. 

your question was asking what my point was. you gave two possibilities, neither of which was my point. so yes, i did answer your question. 

Still avoiding. You cool with what he said?

You're acting like such a baby. First off, on the subject of "avoiding," your pathetic response to the article I posted yesterday that lays out the physical differences of men and women was a total cop out ("Uhh...I'm not a doctor. Can't you explain this in layman's terms?"). Umm... no. If you're too stuck in your ways to even want to read up on other side of the argument, then you're just like the Republicans that ignore the science of climate change because it doesn't fit their narrative. 

So quit being so sensitive and harassing Hugh about whether he's "cool" or not with me suggesting when a transgender woman FIGHTS a ciswoman (I used "ciswoman" there to pacify you. Wouldn't want you whining over my use of "normal" woman again), then that is basically a man fighting a woman. Cry about it. 

I'm not crying; I'm angry. Hate makes me angry. 

As for your article, I was testing to see if you understand it. If I'm dealing with a scientist, I might approach things differently.

But, I'll jump in: in the context of your argument, the article begs the question. It repeatedly refers to "gender differences," yet--so far as I can tell--the study did not include transgender people. So, your reasoning is: men and women are discrete physical beings, definable a priori, with differing traits; here is an article that precedes with the premise (not the conclusion) that men and and women are discrete physical beings definable a priori (it then proceeds, of course, to offer more specific knowledge about one of those differences). You're using circular logic.