Quote from: http://www.sep7agon.net on November 23, 2016, 08:26:49 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on November 23, 2016, 08:22:48 PM

Quote from: Loaf on November 23, 2016, 08:20:26 PM

why? it's polite at best, a minor inconvenience at worst. words are just sounds anyways.

grammar > your feelings, sorry not sorry

if words are just sounds, then it really shouldn't make a difference how i choose to refer to you anyway

and yeah, whether you're talking about ONE person or MULTIPLE people is actually a pretty fucking important distinction

ok verb, social justice and english-language aficionado, how should one refer to a non-binary person?

If the English language had a singular gender-neutral pronoun, I would use that. But we don't, and you can't just make one up--it doesn't work like that. So, we have to settle with either "he" or "she." That's it. So pick one and be comfortable with it, because expecting people to bend over backwards for all your little idiosyncrasies is not only entitled as fuck, but also insufferable and childish. I'm not your caretaker--I don't have to give a shit about your personal comfort, and you don't have to give a shit about mine. The bottom line is that no one should care, and anyone who does is rather feeble-minded in my opinion.

Alternatively, you could just not associate yourself with such entitled little snowflakes.

You won't find a bigger supporter of the trans community on this forum than me, but I draw the line at non-binary nonsense.

Cadenza, that's who he is.

Specifically, races arose out of different selection pressures in different environments around the world, selecting for specific traits in the humans living there. Over time this evolutionary effect lead to the various races we have today. Creationists deny this by saying it isn't in the bible, and that god magically created all humans just like that. Whereas liberals deny this by saying it's just a social construct and trying to silence disanyone who agrees (kind of like how Winny automatically tries to ban me after realizing I can back my claims up, how pathetic).

The only difference between a race denier and a creationist, is that the creationist can admit they derive their beliefs from god, race deniers just yell "it's a social construct you shitlord, get over it". Well it's not and you can't change that fact.

tl;dr saying race is a social construct == saying race is not a genetic construct == evolution does not apply to race == humans are magically exempt from evolution == creationism

yeah I don't know how i fell for your supposed body dysphoria, that should've been the breaking point

Ironically, I believe I saw that this guy did nude photography and/or gay porn in his younger years.

But that's none of my business.

One of Donald Trump’s prospective picks for the Supreme Court believes gay people should be prosecuted for having sex because they are not protected by the constitution.

While serving as Alabama’s Attorney General in 2003, William H Pryor Jr wrote a legal brief in defence of a Texan law – later struck down by the Supreme Court – which criminalised consensual gay sex.

He compared it to “polygamy, incest, paedophilia, prostitution, and adultery” and said the Alabama court had “never recognised a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy”.


“Such a right would be antithetical to the ‘traditional relation of the family’ that is as old and as fundamental as our entire civilisation”, he added.

But he also said that anal sex between heterosexual partners was acceptable because it was not as bad as homosexual sex.

He explained: “Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected”.

He claimed that people did not have the right to engage in whatever consensual sex they liked behind closed doors because “homosexual sodomy has not historically been recognised in this country as a right; to the contrary, it has historically been recognised as a wrong. It is not a fundamental right”.

Justice Pryor, who currently sits on the US Appeals Court for the Eleventh Circuit which presides over Alabama, Georgia and Florida, also opposes abortion even in cases of rape, describing it as “murder”.

In 2000, he said the Supreme Court was responsible for  “two awful rulings that preserved the worst examples of judicial activism: Miranda v Arizona and Roe v. Wade”.

Roe v. Wade is the famous case which legalised abortion in the US in 1973.

In 1966, Miranda v Arizona ruled that evidence acquired by police interrogation is only admissible in court if a defendant is informed of their rights such as the right to an attorney and to remain silent – today known as their “Miranda rights”.

Lambda Legal, a legal charity working to protect LGBT rights across the world, called Justice Pryor “the most demonstrably anti-gay judicial nominee in recent memory”.

It comes after Mr Trump backtracked on a campaign promise to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision to legalise same-sex marriage in 2015.

In an interview with CBS’ “60 Minutes” programme on Sunday, the former reality star insisted he was “fine” with same-sex marriage and said it had already been “settled” by the Supreme Court.

But he did suggest he would appoint Supreme Court judges who were “pro-life” in a bid to get Roe v Wade overturned so the issue of abortion “goes back to the states”.

Mr Trump will be able to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court immediately after his inauguration in January.

There is a space on the bench following the unexpected death of conservative judge Antonin Scalia in February, but Barack Obama has been unable to get his choice approved by Congress.

The House of Representatives, which has been controlled by Republicans since  2010, claimed Congress should wait until a new President was installed in January 2017 – in the hope that a Republican would recapture the White House – claiming there is an informal agreement that a President will not appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his term.

But Mr Obama's spokesman Josh Earnest said the wait was an unprecedented decision to politicise a neutral judicial office. 

Quote from: Vien on November 17, 2016, 04:17:01 PM

You still have that photo shopped image you posted of him in anarchy?

fix your titlebar