This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Assassin 11D7
Pages: 1 ... 353637 3839 ... 336
1081
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:50:11 PM »
I want to go back to 1045 where we didn't have to deal with this gender shit.
1082
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:32:00 PM »
I want to fight Brian Reed.
A fight would imply he has some chance of winning.
1083
« on: February 22, 2016, 10:10:11 PM »
Spookism is a spook, tbh
1084
« on: February 22, 2016, 09:41:45 PM »
Vegan friendly sheeps eyeballs
It's a bit like a grape, melon and strawberry rolled into one
Looks like a prickly raspberry filled with cotton
1085
« on: February 22, 2016, 09:28:13 PM »
Every time I see these "weapon sweeps", I am stunned that they're real. It's absolutely comical.
I'll have you know that in a criminal's hands a key like this can be as dangerous as any trench knife. 
1086
« on: February 22, 2016, 09:22:55 PM »
 Cutlery? well off to the slammer wit ye
1087
« on: February 21, 2016, 09:42:45 PM »
We have arrived, and it is now we perform our charge. In fealty of the God-Emperor, our undying lord and by the grace of the Golden Throne, I declare Exterminatus on the Internet. I hereby sign the death warrant of an entire digital world, and consign a billion souls to oblivion.
May Imperial justice account in all balance...
The Emperor Protects.
=][=
 Prepared to sever
1088
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:34:48 PM »
The claim I was responding to was "Homosexuality is an erroneous desire". I said it's true biologically, therefore the doctor is right about the claim. I'm not talking about the doctor's support of his claim, only you are doing that.
I think you're missing an implication there. Distinguish between these two claims:
"Homosexuality is [a biologically] erroneous desire"
"Homosexuality is [a socially] erroneous desire"
It is clear that his was the second, and it has relevance to the discussion at hand because it discredits his views on other matters of social importance. The former claim is true but has almost no relevance at all to this discussion.
For example, distinguish between these two claims:
"Smoking is (physiologically) good for you."
"Smoking is (emotionally) good for you."
One of these is arguably/occasionally/weakly true. The other is downright false. Either could be condensed to "Smoking is good for you" in the context of a conversation in progress, but you would know to what the person was actually referring.
Sorry if that's a weak example, I'm trying to think of something simple that illustrates this notion of something being true in one sense and not in another/the importance of context and implications.
I'm viewing them as 2 different supports for the same point, so I can't help you friend.
1089
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:24:31 PM »
I have no idea what connection you're expecting me to talk about, I stated that the claim that homosexuals have an erroneous desire is correct from a biological standpoint, meaning that the doctor's claim doesn't discredit him. Failing to reproduce because of a desire to mate with the improper sex, makes that desire erroneous.
You need to stay on what was said instead of looking for shadows to fight.
The issue is that the doctor did not make that claim. You did. His statement was not a biological one; yours is. You can go back and read his exact statements yourself. He is discredited exactly because he is attacking the issue from a non-biological perspective. Meanwhile your point is simply . . . irrelevant. Biologically/evolutionarily it is an error, yes. But I'm pretty sure that aspect only has relevance to about 5% of the population, and not for any good reason.
The claim I was responding to was "Homosexuality is an erroneous desire". I said it's true biologically, therefore the doctor is right about the claim. I'm not talking about the doctor's support of his claim, only you are doing that.
1090
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:17:41 PM »
Great point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.
I see what you're trying to say so, in that case, please demonstrate the logical connection between homosexuality being a biological error and it being a social problem that demands some solution.
I'm glad you see what argument I'm making, because based on your comment I sure don't.
Was your intent merely to state that homosexuality is a biological error? Without meaning to imply that that should have any bearing on the discussion at hand or this thread?
I have no idea what connection you're expecting me to talk about, I stated that the claim that homosexuals have an erroneous desire is correct from a biological standpoint, meaning that the doctor's claim doesn't discredit him. Failing to reproduce because of a desire to mate with the improper sex, makes that desire erroneous. You need to stay on what was said instead of looking for shadows to fight.
1091
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:53:40 PM »
Great point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.
I see what you're trying to say so, in that case, please demonstrate the logical connection between homosexuality being a biological error and it being a social problem that demands some solution.
I'm glad you see what argument I'm making, because based on your comment I sure don't.
1092
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:48:42 PM »
That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo. My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.
Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?
if homosexuality showed any sign of threatening our species i would consider it a valid concern
as it stands i'm gonna need to see some evidence suggesting the world will be coming to an end as a result of tolerating homosexuality. in the meantime i have faith in heterosexuality to be able to keep up considering the comparatively low rate of homosexuality
I don't even understand this anymore, are you trying to not be insane? Never was the claim made that being tolerant of gays will doom the human race, only that they have an erroneous desire, which biologically is completely accurate.
I went from (apparently) misinterpreting one of your statements as being an appeal to nature in the context of a social issue to you claiming that it is relevant in our species' need to reproduce. Again, the biological "error" would only be relevant to this social issue if it were an actual threat to our species, which it isn't. So how is it relevant again?
Great point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.
1093
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:47:37 PM »
That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo. My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.
Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?
Honestly, yeah. Everyone doesn't need to breed.
In fact, we, and our planet, would probably be better off if most people DIDN'T breed.
It's not like it's 2000 BC and there's only a million of us.
You might as well object to Catholic priests practicing celibacy and married men getting vasectomies.
That's what land wars are for.
1094
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:42:20 PM »
But why does it fucking matter if it's "biologically erroneous?"
Who in their right mind would give a solitary fuck what nature intends?
Frankly, we should be going out of our way to defy nature's order.
Verb, this argument doesn't apply to you in that it relates to prolonging the existence of the human species.
1095
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:37:38 PM »
average_trump_voters_arguments.png
A Trump supporter's keyboard wouldn't have "Truth," "Facts," "Evidence," "Hard Data," or "Rational Thoughts" on it.
No, that's what all the crime statistics in their image folders are called.
1096
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:34:09 PM »
That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo. My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.
Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?
if homosexuality showed any sign of threatening our species i would consider it a valid concern
as it stands i'm gonna need to see some evidence suggesting the world will be coming to an end as a result of tolerating homosexuality. in the meantime i have faith in heterosexuality to be able to keep up considering the comparatively low rate of homosexuality
I don't even understand this anymore, are you trying to not be insane? Never was the claim made that being tolerant of gays will doom the human race, only that they have an erroneous desire, which biologically is completely accurate.
1097
« on: February 21, 2016, 06:58:41 PM »
That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo. My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.
Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?
1098
« on: February 21, 2016, 06:36:10 PM »
Refers to homosexuality as "erroneous desire" Well, biologically this is correct.
On another front, as the sexuality debate within mainline churches seems to have shifted so profoundly in favor of the left, how do you see the debates of the broader culture changing in the next five to ten years?
It really is amazing ... I mean, 50 years ago [homosexual behavior] was a crime, and now we're talking about [same-sex marriage]. Anyone who wants to stick with the tradition is accused of being a biblical literalist or a homophobic racist, because, in part, of the more fundamental change in our society towards permissiveness, that is, easy divorce, cohabitation and concubinage, abortion, pornography ... and euthanasia. The issue of the homosexual is not separate ... it's all part and parcel of the pandemonium that the permissive movement has brought. We have just licensed all kinds of behavior."
You have noted the critical influence of social behavior clusters on sexual development. You also mentioned that, early on in your medical training, you knew there were certain things that would disqualify you from becoming a doctor, including poor grades, a criminal record or a failed marriage.
Yes, that's right. Fundamentally, I expected that, if I did marry, I was supposed to make it a go.
Now, wouldn't some argue that those were societal expectations which were imposed upon you and your generation?
Yes, and they were good ones - and biblically based, and part and parcel of my commitment to really what amounts to loving relationships. You see, what has happened with the permissive movement is that it has picked up the Freudian confusion of desire and love, making them the same. And with the implication, for example, that I must desire my mother. I don't desire my mother. I love my mother. Now the fact is that in my marriage, of course, I desired this woman and I felt love for her. Now, 50 years into marriage with her, I still desire her, but now I love her. She's irreplaceable. There is this thing that has come and it's different. This person exists for me as irreplaceable. So, there is this confusion of desire and love. [Homosexuality] is erroneous desire. Doesn't sound to me like he's making any appeal to biology.
That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo.
1099
« on: February 21, 2016, 06:22:28 PM »
Wow, what a great unbiased source that definitely doesn't have any sort of religious agenda.
Refers to homosexuality as "erroneous desire" Well, biologically this is correct. Argues that being medically accomodating to a transgender child is "like performing liposuction on an anorexic child" Children are malleable, and the odds of the child truly being transgender is risky, so he's saying it's best to be safe and wait. Filed an amicus brief arguing in favor of Proposition 8 on the basis that homosexuality is a "choice." To a certain degree, it is. Describes post surgical trans women as "caricatures of women" Again, not wrong, although tremendously blunt.
1100
« on: February 21, 2016, 05:48:09 PM »
The Hopkins chief psychiatrist seemed like he would be against HRT as well, based on the reasoning behind his argument against SRS.
He would be against it for childhood but I don't see any reason he would for adults considering he only cited statistics for postop and the changes made by hormones are far milder than SRS.
And in the end, even his argument boils down to it being benign at worst. He can say "removing functional organs" but he can't decide what value a penis is if the person with it never uses it the way he thinks it should be used.
Well how often do people just stop at HRT without aspirations of going further? You might be correct, though. Removing of genitalia does more than just disable the person from commencing in sexual activities, it will have significant effects on the psychology of the individual.
1101
« on: February 21, 2016, 05:38:19 PM »
I like to imagine that the animals are all like Verb, so by killing them I am giving them an ultimate kindness.
1102
« on: February 21, 2016, 05:35:54 PM »
The Hopkins chief psychiatrist seemed like he would be against HRT as well, based on the reasoning behind his argument against SRS.
1103
« on: February 21, 2016, 05:22:25 PM »
Who is your daddy and what does he do?
1104
« on: February 21, 2016, 02:56:29 PM »
cindy pls stop taking the bait
Le epic all opposing ideas are bait meme.
it's bait because it's already been proven that classifying it as a disorder was an incorrect assessment and has since been changed
Thing is, by definition it is a mental disorder. A mental disorder, also called a mental illness, psychological disorder or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern that causes either suffering or a poor ability to function in ordinary life. Such features may be persistent, relapsing and remitting, or occur as a single episode. Many disorders have been described, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders. Whatever is stated otherwise is really just a PR front.
1105
« on: February 21, 2016, 02:30:22 PM »
cindy pls stop taking the bait
These are all quality posts, sir tranny.
ah yes this thread is just oozing with genuine quality discussion that is not intended to start any arguments in any way whatsoever
Nothing is being started that hasn't already been stated.
1106
« on: February 21, 2016, 02:08:15 PM »
cindy pls stop taking the bait
These are all quality posts, sir tranny.
1107
« on: February 21, 2016, 02:06:54 PM »
Me
Jono
Thunder
BC
I think Nuka is half
Alphy
Yutaka
Naru
Zen's a beaner?
Zen's like 1/4, he can become honorary white if he tries.
1108
« on: February 21, 2016, 01:11:16 PM »
I mean, Sparta had some good ideas.
1109
« on: February 21, 2016, 12:48:41 PM »
^
It's a joke.
I know, I was facetiously agreeing with you anyway.
Gotta love the sheep who bend over and allow profit hungry monsters like Monsanto to decimate their health.
WE'RE BREAKING THE CONDITIONING, NYAH!
1110
« on: February 21, 2016, 12:34:48 PM »
honeland
Is that not the British way of spelling?
Pages: 1 ... 353637 3839 ... 336
|
Show Posts