Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
It’s Ma’am ma’an!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Revvv" data-source="post: 16107878" data-attributes="member: 189537"><p>I had a debate a while back concerning gender assignment. I let my opponent lay out everything possible. This guy discussed science, culture, genetics, legality and so on. His goal was to outsmart me, not have a debate. So I used this to my advantage. </p><p></p><p>My response was framed in questions. The answers were great.</p><p></p><p>Me: If I wanted to identify as a chicken, would I be able to do so? Could I purchase a chicken costume, live in a chicken coup, eat chicken feed, and expect the chicken farmer to accept me as a chicken? </p><p></p><p>Opponent: You are not using a fair comparison. You are missing the point that needs to be established.</p><p></p><p>Me: How did I miss the point? I could have used any number of examples. Can I identify as a black woman? I'm clearly a white male, but I may not identify mentally with my gender or race. How about if I identify as a child or teenager; would you allow me to date your 16 year old daughter? Would you allow me to identify as a female teenager and have a slumber party at your house?</p><p></p><p>Opponent: You are slightly back on topic, but you are twisting things around in such a way that identifying as a pedophile is normal. You can't break a law to justify a gender or identity crisis. </p><p></p><p>Me: Why not; in my mind I identify as such, so therefore I should be treated in that manner. This is exactly what your entire statement stood for. You are willing to defend a person's stance until it conflicts with your moral standing.</p><p></p><p>Opponent: We aren't discussing morals.</p><p></p><p>Me: You just allowed your personal convictions judge my approach. That is morality. </p><p></p><p>So back to my original, less offensive question; can I be a chicken? Can I claim to lay eggs, and even hatch eggs that I cannot physically lay?</p><p></p><p>Opponent: This is absurd. You are refusing to debate.</p><p></p><p>Me: Would I be crazy for trying to identify as a chicken?</p><p></p><p>Opponent: Identifying as a chicken would be ruled as incompetent and psychologists and psychiatrists would deem you insane.</p><p></p><p>Me: So you are telling me that if I want to identify as something, or even someone, that I am not, that I would be mentally unstable and unfit to live in society?</p><p></p><p></p><p>End of conversation. There were no more rebuttals, questions, or witty remarks. My opponent just called the people he tried to stand for insane. </p><p></p><p>I really wanted more. I had so much more simple minded material in hand. A religious argument was expected from me. I didn't even touch religion. There was no need. I would have lost the debate. Instead I used my opponent's own logic. </p><p></p><p>Conclusion: Transgender people have a mental and moral condition. </p><p></p><p>Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Revvv, post: 16107878, member: 189537"] I had a debate a while back concerning gender assignment. I let my opponent lay out everything possible. This guy discussed science, culture, genetics, legality and so on. His goal was to outsmart me, not have a debate. So I used this to my advantage. My response was framed in questions. The answers were great. Me: If I wanted to identify as a chicken, would I be able to do so? Could I purchase a chicken costume, live in a chicken coup, eat chicken feed, and expect the chicken farmer to accept me as a chicken? Opponent: You are not using a fair comparison. You are missing the point that needs to be established. Me: How did I miss the point? I could have used any number of examples. Can I identify as a black woman? I'm clearly a white male, but I may not identify mentally with my gender or race. How about if I identify as a child or teenager; would you allow me to date your 16 year old daughter? Would you allow me to identify as a female teenager and have a slumber party at your house? Opponent: You are slightly back on topic, but you are twisting things around in such a way that identifying as a pedophile is normal. You can't break a law to justify a gender or identity crisis. Me: Why not; in my mind I identify as such, so therefore I should be treated in that manner. This is exactly what your entire statement stood for. You are willing to defend a person's stance until it conflicts with your moral standing. Opponent: We aren't discussing morals. Me: You just allowed your personal convictions judge my approach. That is morality. So back to my original, less offensive question; can I be a chicken? Can I claim to lay eggs, and even hatch eggs that I cannot physically lay? Opponent: This is absurd. You are refusing to debate. Me: Would I be crazy for trying to identify as a chicken? Opponent: Identifying as a chicken would be ruled as incompetent and psychologists and psychiatrists would deem you insane. Me: So you are telling me that if I want to identify as something, or even someone, that I am not, that I would be mentally unstable and unfit to live in society? End of conversation. There were no more rebuttals, questions, or witty remarks. My opponent just called the people he tried to stand for insane. I really wanted more. I had so much more simple minded material in hand. A religious argument was expected from me. I didn't even touch religion. There was no need. I would have lost the debate. Instead I used my opponent's own logic. Conclusion: Transgender people have a mental and moral condition. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
It’s Ma’am ma’an!
Top