Jump to content

Transsurrection: All the documented events that aren't happening. TRANS WOMEN ARE MEN


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

I don’t even know what the stalemate is.  You’re playing some semantical game about “ban.”  You disagree with Noah Webster with respect to the definition of the word.  Fine.  Maybe you have a problem with linguists.  Whatever.  Beyond that, I have no clue what you’re talking about. 

I don't know what your reason for your stalemate is either. I used Webster. You are taking an extremely narrow view IMO

 

I stated above that I was kinda in the middle of this issue. I think both extreme viewpoints here are whacked. There's a pretty simple and reasonable compromise and you and other extremists refuse to yield, at all.

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Are you purposely trying to deny that genital examinations are NOT part of these bills?

 

 

Of every single child? Absolutely

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

I don't know what your reason for your stalemate is either. I used Webster. You are taking an extremely narrow view IMO

 

I stated above that I was kinda in the middle of this issue. I think both extreme viewpoints here are whacked. There's a pretty simple and reasonable compromise and you and other extremists refuse to yield, at all.

Of every single child? Absolutely

 This is where we disagree.  You think a ban has to be universal.  I recognize the reality that a ban can apply to certain places.  (Dogs are banned from the grocery store.  Guns are banned in movie theaters.  Christians are banned from Mecca.) My view is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition (dictionary.com, for what it’s worth), which does not contain the universality component you wish to project.  

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in another  post, Slime's modus operandi:

1. Not answer questions posed to him.

2. Change the subject when  stuck in a corner.

3. Insult  other posters.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Like I said in another  post, Slime's modus operandi:

1. Not answer questions posed to him.

2. Change the subject when  stuck in a corner.

3. Insult  other posters.

 

While @BillStime is the most overt with the above strategy, its really how all the commies here operate.

 

Therefore my ignore list is ever expanding.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Like I said in another  post, Slime's modus operandi:

1. Not answer questions posed to him.

2. Change the subject when  stuck in a corner.

3. Insult  other posters.

 

You're a bit obsessed... 

 

image.thumb.png.8e4a3592801969356b41b1898ffefc40.png

 

Should we review your quality contributions here?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Wacka said:

Like I said in another  post, Slime's modus operandi:

1. Not answer questions posed to him.

2. Change the subject when  stuck in a corner.

3. Insult  other posters.

Well., your name  looks like BillsSlime in a quick look, so I decided to call you Slime from now on.  Figured out your SOP, so you got mad??

Call me what you will, it doesn't bother me  bit. There are infinitely more important things to worry about.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, BillStime said:

 

Yeah, exactly.

 

 

image.png

And this is the point.  A bunch of dudes who, based on their fleeting relationships with grammar and logic, probably never previously cared for education now are overwhelmed by concern for children in schools throughout the nation because someone told them about a book with a possibly gay frog and a possibly gay toad.  America 2023.  Gotta love it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And this is the point.  A bunch of dudes who, based on their fleeting relationships with grammar and logic, probably never previously cared for education now are overwhelmed by concern for children in schools throughout the nation because someone told them about a book with a possibly gay frog and a possibly gay toad.  America 2023.  Gotta love it. 

 

Well, when the simps source Matt Walsh - someone who never attended COLLEGE - and think this guy is an authority on trans and education - they already lost...

 

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And this is the point.  A bunch of dudes who, based on their fleeting relationships with grammar and logic, probably never previously cared for education now are overwhelmed by concern for children in schools throughout the nation because someone told them about a book with a possibly gay frog and a possibly gay toad.  America 2023.  Gotta love it. 

When my party has large districts where not one student can pass a competency test, or is eliminating algebra until kids are 15 I might not be so quick to call out others on there interest in education. Just curious C3 what area of the country do you live in?

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

When my party has large districts where not one student can pass a competency test, or is eliminating algebra until kids are 15 I might not be so quick to call out others on there interest in education. Just curious C3 what area of the country do you live in?

One where the difference between there and their is taught. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 This is where we disagree.  You think a ban has to be universal.  I recognize the reality that a ban can apply to certain places.  (Dogs are banned from the grocery store.  Guns are banned in movie theaters.  Christians are banned from Mecca.) My view is perfectly consistent with the dictionary definition (dictionary.com, for what it’s worth), which does not contain the universality component you wish to project.  

I don't think a ban has to be universal. I think you think, however, that complete access has to be universal.

1 hour ago, BillStime said:

 

So why do need these laws?

 

To not allow trans men to compete against women? I think many have covered this in this thread. What are you not understanding?

Edited by Pokebball
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

And this is the point.  A bunch of dudes who, based on their fleeting relationships with grammar and logic, probably never previously cared for education now are overwhelmed by concern for children in schools throughout the nation because someone told them about a book with a possibly gay frog and a possibly gay toad.  America 2023.  Gotta love it. 

Calling me a "dude who...never previously cared for education" isn't scoring you points in this discussion. It makes one think you're getting desperate on your position, you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Interesting.  We’re going to play the semantics game.  Ban is synonymous with prohibit.  MAGA wants to prohibit books that hurt its feelings from appearing in school and public libraries.  If you’re saying that you don’t want to ban said books in totality, then I suppose you’re correct.  But, ultimately, you’re still talking about a ban.  

 

Dumb.  Next you're going to convince us that kids are "banned" from seeing R-rated, much less X-rated, movies?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

When my party has large districts where not one student can pass a competency test, or is eliminating algebra until kids are 15 I might not be so quick to call out others on there interest in education. Just curious C3 what area of the country do you live in?

this is how libtards are formed

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

I don't think a ban has to be universal. I think you think, however, that complete access has to be universal.

To not allow trans men to compete against women? I think many have covered this in this thread. What are you not understanding?

 

But @Chris farley told us they already do GENITAL CHECKS for "physicals" in sports - so why do we need these laws? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...