Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Outed" - Ok! You like to out people I guess - sounds kinda commie like.
I'll put it out here right now - I disabled my old account almost 2 years ago and now signed up again. So what? Are you having problems sticking to the OP and the arguments or are you fumbling to maintain your stance without getting into the gutter? Typical of one who is losing.
Yes, moving on! Thanks!
03-25-2022, 11:01 AM
xd4t5gv
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC
I don't think you'd understand science if it slammed you up side of the head.
You do, however, seem to understand trolling quite well.
Trolling? Really I mention a scientific fact based upon the issues in this thread and you can't handle it so now I'm trolling. Funny! By the way - that violates the TOS. Try to stick to the issues. It's better to move on if you can't refute the point.
There's XX, XO, XXY, and a lot of other combinations that result in varying presentations of genitals. I mean, c'mon, kindergarten cop is cute, but that's it. Other congenital disorders NOT related to sex chromosomes can impact reproductive organs such that they don't work as intended or are missing entirely. Not to mention injuries that would, according to you all, render someone "neither."
Plus, they asked about "woman" not about a "female."
She was just smart enough not to wade in a that cesspool.
Smart enough? Cesspool? Yes, we have a cesspool of dishonesty being exposed here for sure, which was the primary purpose of the thread to begin with, while highlighting the fact that we have a nominee for the highest court in our land who is demonstrating the primary characteristic required to be a member of the leftist club …. blatant dishonesty. Seriously, what could be more dishonest than a woman claiming not to know what a woman is? There are only two possibilities …. she is either dumb as a box of donuts, or she is being dishonest when she claims not to know what a woman is. In either case, that disqualifies her as an appropriate selection for any court justice. But we know it’s dishonesty and not stupidity, because a stupid person would just offer a stupid answer. This liar, claimed not to know the answer, apparently relying on the hope that there are enough stupid people out there who might believe her.
This, by the way, was the purpose of the thread, to expose the dishonesty that has taken over virtually every conversation regarding virtually every topic imaginable. Your statement about the question applying to “woman”, not a “female” is precisely the point of the question, so that we can determine who is willing to be honest, and who is not. And this wasn’t an exercise designed to find out just how far rationalization can go, however, it was bound to dive in that direction, and there you are, diving right in, as if on cue.
The point is simple …. a woman is simply defined has a “human female”, because we don’t refer to any other female of any other species as a “woman”, do we? That label is very specific, and has an origin. It does not refer to a man who feels like a woman, or a man that dresses up like a woman, or a man who chooses to have his penis removed so as to appear more like a woman. There are separate labels that refer to those people too, and we should not attempt to confuse the matter by misuse of such words and meanings. These new definitions that keep cropping up are just another example of leftwing lunacy wanting to normalize the abnormal, while compelling everyone to accept lies as truths. And this can only be accomplished by twisting reason into pretzel shapes, and denying basic reality. And this cannot possibly serve a positive purpose for anyone. Fundamental honesty is the base foundation for any and all successful relationships between people, and dishonestly destroys every one of them eventually. If we don’t share a common understanding of what specific words mean, and the importance of being honest, then the words themselves have no value, communication becomes impossible, and trust is nonexistent. Without honesty and trust, there is nothing.
And it’s even more disastrous when we have a significant segment of society who jointly agrees to deliberately distort the meaning of words in order to promote dishonesty, by intentionally presenting lies as truths. We call people that do this … LIARS …. in case that term is also confusing to you. And a society based on lies, and governed by liars, is exactly what we have now, and it needs to be reversed. And the first step is obviously for the liars to stop lying, and for the honest folks to stop accepting lies as truths.
Smart enough? Cesspool? Yes, we have a cesspool of dishonesty being exposed here for sure, which was the primary purpose of the thread to begin with, while highlighting the fact that we have a nominee for the highest court in our land who is demonstrating the primary characteristic required to be a member of the leftist club …. blatant dishonesty. Seriously, what could be more dishonest than a woman claiming not to know what a woman is? There are only two possibilities …. she is either dumb as a box of donuts, or she is being dishonest when she claims not to know what a woman is. In either case, that disqualifies her as an appropriate selection for any court justice. But we know it’s dishonesty and not stupidity, because a stupid person would just offer a stupid answer. This liar, claimed not to know the answer, apparently relying on the hope that there are enough stupid people out there who might believe her.
This, by the way, was the purpose of the thread, to expose the dishonesty that has taken over virtually every conversation regarding virtually every topic imaginable. Your statement about the question applying to “woman”, not a “female” is precisely the point of the question, so that we can determine who is willing to be honest, and who is not. And this wasn’t an exercise designed to find out just how far rationalization can go, however, it was bound to dive in that direction, and there you are, diving right in, as if on cue.
The point is simple …. a woman is simply defined has a “human female”, because we don’t refer to any other female of any other species as a “woman”, do we? That label is very specific, and has an origin. It does not refer to a man who feels like a woman, or a man that dresses up like a woman, or a man who chooses to have his penis removed so as to appear more like a woman. There are separate labels that refer to those people too, and we should not attempt to confuse the matter by misuse of such words and meanings. These new definitions that keep cropping up are just another example of leftwing lunacy wanting to normalize the abnormal, while compelling everyone to accept lies as truths. And this can only be accomplished by twisting reason into pretzel shapes, and denying basic reality. And this cannot possibly serve a positive purpose for anyone. Fundamental honesty is the base foundation for any and all successful relationships between people, and dishonestly destroys every one of them eventually. If we don’t share a common understanding of what specific words mean, and the importance of being honest, then the words themselves have no value, communication becomes impossible, and trust is nonexistent. Without honesty and trust, there is nothing.
And it’s even more disastrous when we have a significant segment of society who jointly agrees to deliberately distort the meaning of words in order to promote dishonesty, by intentionally presenting lies as truths. We call people that do this … LIARS …. in case that term is also confusing to you. And a society based on lies, and governed by liars, is exactly what we have now, and it needs to be reversed. And the first step is obviously for the liars to stop lying, and for the honest folks to stop accepting lies as truths.
Agreed about our society unraveling due to a collusion to lie and to obliterate meaning and truth permeating virtually every sector of it. But I still say that KBJ's response was merely symptomatic of our collective disease. I don't think she is either dumb or a liar in a malevolent sense. When she heard the question, I could see in her expression a moment of incredulity/outrage (which I would have felt too if I'd been asked that blatantly inflammatory question), then a quick recollection of herself as a professional trained in the law. She answered like a lawyer, i.e., in most people's minds dishonestly in that specific lawyerly flavor of evading an inconvenient truth. I'm reminded here of Bill Clinton's (a trained lawyer as well) infamous "what is the meaning of 'is'?" But that's how the law has been practiced now for many, many decades, or perhaps a century, so that brand of dishonesty, if you will, has been part of the law just as long. What's new is the level of cognitive dissonance demanded of everyone, including KBJ, in colluding with the lies. If she'd answered honestly in a non-lawyerly fashion, she wouldn't get confirmed.
Last edited by Timaea; 03-25-2022 at 12:21 PM..
Reason: better grammar
Agreed about our society unraveling due to a collusion to lie and to obliterate meaning and truth permeating virtually every sector of it. But I still say that KBJ's response was merely symptomatic of our collective disease. I don't think she is either dumb or a liar in a malevolent sense. When she heard the question, I could see in her expression a moment of incredulity/outrage (which I would have felt too if I'd been asked that blatantly inflammatory question), then a quick recollection of herself as a professional trained in the law. She answered like a lawyer, i.e., in most people's minds dishonestly in that specific lawyerly flavor of evading an inconvenient truth. I'm reminded here of Bill Clinton's (a trained lawyer as well) infamous "what is the meaning of 'is'?" But that's how the law has been practiced now for many, many decades, or perhaps a century, so that brand of dishonesty, if you will, has been part of the law just as long. What's new is the level of cognitive dissonance demanded of everyone, including KBJ, in colluding with the lies. If she'd answered honestly in a non-lawyerly fashion, she wouldn't get confirmed.
why on earth is being asked to define 'woman' blatantly inflammatory?
Agreed about our society unraveling due to a collusion to lie and to obliterate meaning and truth permeating virtually every sector of it. But I still say that KBJ's response was merely symptomatic of our collective disease. I don't think she is either dumb or a liar in a malevolent sense. When she heard the question, I could see in her expression a moment of incredulity/outrage (which I would have felt too if I'd been asked that blatantly inflammatory question), then a quick recollection of herself as a professional trained in the law. She answered like a lawyer, i.e., in most people's minds dishonestly in that specific lawyerly flavor of evading an inconvenient truth. I'm reminded here of Bill Clinton's (a trained lawyer as well) infamous "what is the meaning of 'is'?" But that's how the law has been practiced now for many, many decades, or perhaps a century, so that brand of dishonesty, if you will, has been part of the law just as long. What's new is the level of cognitive dissonance demanded of everyone, including KBJ, in colluding with the lies. If she'd answered honestly in a non-lawyerly fashion, she wouldn't get confirmed.
Mmmmmmm, something my Parents taught me.....don't quibble.
You either did or you didn't.
If anything, quibbling is for low frequency radar trying to track a stealth aircraft.......and you have high capacity computer. BUT, if so, I suppose there is a relation in that be it the stealth aircraft or the human.....both are trying to deceive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
