Not really for my own convenience, more for the sake of objective truth.

The discrepancies between mental and physical masculinity/femininity, being the main topic of discussion, are differentiated easily by referring to the mental as "gender" and the physical as "sex". Why would you purposely make discussion more difficult by arbitrarily creating a line of equivalence between the two words? As if the English language is the ultimate, infallible dictator of all meaning in the universe. As if words have never had their definitions changed drastically in the past.

No, sex and gender are synonyms.

What you'd be better of saying is this:

Gender is a fake concept. A social construct. A contrivance. Something that we made exist simply by perceptual fiat. Kinda like the "value" of gold, or our perception of who we are—it is a mark of who we are in our minds.

Treating ideas as though they hold any water in our material world gives a lot of people comfort, whether you like it or not.

Quote from: SecondClass on September 14, 2014, 05:33:06 PM

If you're born with a penis, you're a man. If you're born with a vagina, you're a woman.

Objectively incorrect.

Sex =/= gender.

He meant to say "biologically male" and "biologically female". Keyword being "biologically". Our SecondClass friend isn't good with words, be easy with him.

He didn't even say "boy" and "girl", he literally said you're born a man or woman. But no one's pointing that out.

Name calling will get you nowhere kid.

It gets my dick hard.

Also, hypocrite. Call me a "kid" in a meager attempt at sounding bigger than me. Your insecurities are blatant, obvious, and I'm relishing in my ability to psychologically pick your vulnerable ass apart like a bad supper.

And also yes, they WERE saying it isn't human, because murder is wrong but abortion isn't "up to a point". That point is when they think there is finally a human involved, when in fact its a human being the whole time.

Well, they're idiots then, because hey, guess what, if abortion is murder, then maybe murder isn't all that bad, and we should reconsider the connotations associated with the word. You pull heartstrings, that's all you're here to do, and it's a waste of time.

I really don't understand why.

There may not be an "objective moral truth", but as sapient humans with such a high capacity for construction, critical thinking, problem solving, so forth... I would say we're basically obligated to prevent suffering to the best of our ability. It's this type of high-minded ideal that furthers society and prevents nihilistic cunts from doing anything the fuck they want to do, when they have no right, according to this basic moral law that we have imposed for the good of sentient life.

I don't understand.

Are you saying moral truths exist for those who are empathetic?

I'm saying it would be in the best interest of the species to sort of impose moral truths. We can come up with these moral truths on our own by using empathy.

I don't want to fucking suffer and die.
She doesn't want to fucking suffer and die.

As well as I am able to perform, I am going to prevent anyone from experiencing anything that I wouldn't personally want to experience.

And that's your prerogative, as I stated, but really, recognize the basic truth that theft is wrong and realize that's just what he did.

^-- I hate when that shit happens.

If you have a capacity to experience and dwell on suffering (sentience), then your value is 1.
If you don't (nonsentience), your value is 0.

Those that can suffer hold the only value in the universe.

It looks like a human because HOLY CRAP its a human baby. No duh.

So you're telling me that it looks human because it is human.

...As if anyone was trying to tell you anything different.

Patronizing prick.

By the way, this "right to choose" argument is really bogus. I'd have no problem with life itself if life itself was voluntary, so that's why I'm an anti-natalist. So, unless you declare yourself an anti-natalist, you can't make the "right to choose" argument. It's internally inconsistent and hypocritical to do so.

And I don't mean to change the subject or inject my philosophy into the discussion, but Jesus, that shit drives me UP the fucking wall.

As I said: deeming that future person as "inhuman" because people believe somehow that "doesn't look like a baby yet = not human" is just a cop-out.

And saying that you can't kill something just because "IT LOOKS TOO HUMAN" is just a bunch of emotional heartstring propaganda bullshit.

2) if you were the one being aborted, would you still support abortion? Support the fact that you never get a chance to live or breathe, simply because of somebody's preference?

Oh GOD. This MAY just have given me cancer. I'm pretty sure it did.

As a pro-death individual, I think I'd respect my parent's choice to not force me into life, as if life is the greatest goddamn thing in the whole godless world. They shouldn't have conceived me to begin with, sure, they should have been more careful during sex, sure, but only because of two or three external factors unrelated to my fucking existence.

If someone was gonna buy me lottery tickets, but did so by stealing my money, and then changed their mind and returned what they stole, I'd be a pretty fucking happy camper.

Yeah, as if anyone cares if there's a "designated spam thread". Because Solonoid says so. People are just gonna spam and shitpost elsewhere, you dumb moron. Fuck.

And yeah, you are a shitposter, by the way. Sorry to break it to you.

Except "thy" means "your", so...

What's your argument against it?

To celebrate, let's ban everyone who says "shrekt" unironically.