Discussing which restroom they should be using is a little premature; we should be discussing which mental health institution they should check in to or which psychologist they should be visiting for treatment and therapy.
Living in close proximity to San Francisco I come across more transgendered individuals than one might in other parts of the world, and while I don't hold any animosity towards them, I do wholeheartedly believe they are mentally ill.
People who identify as a gender other than the one defined by objective standards of gender, like chromosomes, hormones, and gentiles, constitute a tiny minority of any population. A minority so tiny it's actually comparable to the number of people who identify as a species other than human, despite all the contrary evidence that they are not, in fact, a horse or a cat or a dragon. There's not a shred of evidence any of these humans are anything but, despite their protests that they feel, "trapped in a human body," coincidentally the exact same protest transgenders make.
If you think that someone who really believes at the core of their being that they are actually a dog and not a human being, and that they want to act out that fantasy by wearing nothing but a collar, barking at things, walking on all fours, and eating kibble, is utterly insane, I agree with you. And I find a transgendered person wanting to take drugs to fuck up their body chemistry, saw off their body parts, and run around in a wig to be equally insane.
Generally I don't have any problem with people doing something crazy so long as it's not a danger to others or themselves. However, transgenders suffer some of the highest suicide rates in the country, before and after any surgery or hormone treatment they undergo. If you care about the quality of life for a transgendered person, then you must agree they need treatment, not to be coddled and told their condition is perfectly acceptable.
I would say it means both a disbelief in religion and a disbelief in the supernatural. Religion is really just a philosophic practice that involves the supernatural. You have to believe in something supernatural to be religious in 99% of cases. Atheism is actively rejecting the potential supernatural element of reality; it follows naturally that any worship, practice, dogma, or religion founded on said rejected supernatural would also be rejected.
Additionally, I dislike the "or a lack of belief" bit of Atheism definitions, since that is the definition of agnosticism, and it's best to avoid redundancy and wasting words.
If you reject all or most of religion/the supernatural, you're an atheist.
If you don't know, are undecided, lack a belief, or haven't thought about it, you're an agnostic.
much of what is achieved is play to circumstance. skin colour is but one of many advantages you may or may not have, but unfortunately it will undeniably affect your life depending on where and in which culture you live in.
Agreed. But it would be pretty rich of me to move to China and whine and whine because all the Chinese people in China (who, you know, speak the language like natives, have a lifelong understanding of the culture, and look, act, and hold beliefs in a similar manner to the vast majority of people in China) have some kind of "undeserved privilege," and are therefore a bunch of oppressive racists who need to "check" themselves.
if you wouldn't mind, what are your views on the legitimacy of stereotypes?
That they're pretty damn legit if you keep in mind that by definition stereotypes are generalizations based on statistics (or maybe just mental analysis of repeated observation), and that while statistics are made up of individuals but individuals are not made up of statistics. To me this means being willing to cross the street to avoid a thugged-out, crip-walking black man coming my way, but, say, not to inquire about a black acquaintance's stolen firearm and gram of crack/cocaine, insisting he must have them, "because black are, of course, all a bunch of criminal drug dealing scum," or something like that.
Rephrased, just because I like metaphors, ignorance is meeting three Americans and remarking to the third one, "on, you're the one with herpes," citing the 1 in 3 American has herpes statistic. But it's not ignorant to wear a condom because 1 in 3 Americans has herpes.
In places like the US where slavery is only 150 years old, it probably does indicate it.
It's a possibility, I'll readily admit, and a certainty in certain cases, but that doesn't mean it's the norm or even a significant subset. I'm sure you'd agree there is a definite glorification of the poverty/crime lifestyle in large swaths of African American culture, perhaps a sway strong enough to persuade a black youth to choose a career path in gang-related drug peddling, for instance, instead of completing his education and getting a real job when the opportunity is available to him.
It might also have to do with the fact that Central and South America used to be populated by "uncivilized" people. It takes a while to catch up.
If by "uncivilized" you mean "not as likely to be competent academics," I agree with you, as was my point. But why were they less civilized, as you put it? Why do they have to catch up? Central and South America weren't colonized predominantly by white people, nor were the residents made to be slaves. Africa had been the cradle of civilization for thousands of years before white people landed on Her shores and started loading up fieldhands. By rights Africa should posses the most advanced civilization (architecture, agriculture, economy, government, social rights, etc) on the planet, since it's been populated the longest. It doesn't. In fact on average Africa is the worst continent on the planet. Again, why is that? Why were they so far behind that they needed catching up in the first place, even before people who look like me started taking advantage?
Many of them are also immigrants from the nation of Japan, not descendants of slaves. There is a fairly large difference between a slave and a temporary enemy of the state.
Where they are actually from is largely irrelevant. Racism is predominantly predicated on appearance, not actual nationality. Someone discriminating against blacks isn't suddenly going to be nice to a black person if he finds out he's an immigrant or a national; the racist hates the black person because he's black.
Regarding the difference, no argument there, and I meant to say as much but accidentally left it out. However, my point was that pretty much every minority group (including non-American white minorities, like the Irish) faced heavy persecution in the US when they first arrived, and then said minorities largely overcame the persecution, integrated, and are now significantly more successful. I agree that slavery is more damaging than internment, but when you factor in the time differences I think it balances out; the internees themselves and their children went on to college and are now running IMB, Google, and Intel in America. No American to African ex-slaves are still alive. The "oppressed" black descendants of slaves are half a dozen or more generation removed from slavery. Hell, they're more American than half the white people in this country, because they've been here longer.
I think the point is that on average, a while male will receive far more opportunities than some random minority. Maybe your specific case is different, but that does not change the average.
You're probably right, but I'm also unique there because I live in a portion of California where whites are a poverty-ridden minority. What it's gone to show me is that yes, when white men are calling the shots, other white men do pretty well. But also that when Chinese men are calling the shots, other Chinese men do pretty well. And that when Hispanic women are calling the shots, Hispanic women do pretty well. I guess what I resent is less the often correct assertion that whites are doing disproportionately well in the US, and more I resent the implication that racism and/or profile-based favoritism are somehow unique to white people, and all other races are only ever victims.
you briefly hinted at poverty being the cause for black aggression, which i agree with, but i feel you underestimate the predicament horrendously and accept it only when in favour of your race
Yes, but black poverty doesn't automatically indicate white oppression. I heard an NPR piece on Hispanics worldwide being behind in education because both past and present Hispanic culture hasn't had a big emphasis on reading and writing in the household. Maybe true, but it goes to show that just because a group of people is behind doesn't mean it has to be because some other group is holding them back, nor does a group require special privilege to do well. Blacks bore the brunt of slavery in the US, but there were just one group in a long line of oppressed minorities, many of whom are now excelling in the United States. Japanese Americans were subject to internment and discrimination in only the last century, but that hasn't stopped them from jumping to the top of several academic and professional fields in this country. As a white male living in the US I've always resented the notion that anything I achieve isn't the result of my hard work or dedication but of a special, unearned advantage inherit to my skin color, and conversely that any lack of achievement or bad behavior from minorities is a direct result of the terrible, ongoing racial oppression all whites are apparently responsible for.
whenever whites find themselves in a position such as some blacks and others are in now they rebel and slaughter, only in history the whites in these scenarios are seen as righteous and just.
Ahh no. The kind of aggression we're talking about is burglary, mugging, assault, gang association, etc., all of it driven by poverty. Shotgun-totting white-trash hicks with prison tattoos selling crank on the street corner are remembered every bit as distastefully as their black counterparts. I agree that history as we know it is a biased account, but that fact isn't relevant here.
in addition to this, there are no world wars worth mentioning amongst blacks whilst whites have caused 2
That's borne of a lack of capability, not a lack of malicious intent. There have been plenty of insane, homicidal warlords in Africa who would have gladly sparked global conflict if only they had the strength to do so. In fact there's probably even more aspiring tyrants in Africa than anywhere else, given the horrific level of violence that has characterized the continent for most of recorded history (that would be before imperialism, colonization, slavery, the Cold War, and all the other world problems that are evidently the inherited sins of young white people like myself who, of course, had jack shit to do with all of that).
I've always interpreted the prefix 'a' like in 'a'theism to mean anti, or against. It seems to me we already have a term for the lack of belief: agnosticism. To be atheist (i.e. anti-theist, against theism) means you have an active belief that god does not exist. If you simply lack a belief on the matter or you are just unsure, I'd call you an agnostic.
On a personal aside, i don't see how anyone could be an atheist on any ground other than a moral rejection of god/religion as a whole (i.e. the Christian god endorses slavery, I'm morally opposed to slavery, therefore I reject god and am an atheist). Most theists claim their god is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless... an invisible man in the sky, if you will. I don't see how you could prove such an entity does not exist anymore that you could prove it does, so it seems to me rather foolish to assert the theist position of 'yes, god exists' as much as it is to claim 'no, he doesnt;' We don't really know.
As a standalone concept, it doesn't. Even if someone kept, say, an objectively filthy and disgusting living room, it's not really anyones business to go and criticize that. It's a little gross, but also totally private.
Religion as we know it, however, doesn't even come close to anything private. Spirituality, maybe. Faith, maybe. But generally religion is a just greedy, capitalistic, extremely public enterprise that peddles faith to make money. And it is my sincere belief that any public company deceives people into trading money (tax free) for eternal salvation (under the threat of eternal damnation) - including people forcibly indoctrinated into this scam as children - deserves ridicule, and for obvious reasons.
It depends on what you mean by "real problem."
If you mean does video game addiction actually exist, yes, it does. It is real. So it tic-tac addiction and reading addiction and CD addiction.
If you're asking if it's a real problem like is it a large enough problem or epidemic to actually merit concern, no, not as a concept. Maybe certain, rare individuals let their lives be driven to shit by video game addiction, but no more than people who do the same cooped up reading books. I think, like texting, it just gets a bit more media attention than, say, chronic tic-tac addicts because it's new.
This is, by analogy, exactly what I was going to say on the God and freewill argument. Thank you for saving me the time. Pity I can only up-vote you once.
The key word in the debate title is "if."
It's fun to argue hypotheticals like "Hulk vs Thor" or some shit, even if they are complete nonsense.
Yes. Easily. It's a video; i've seen worse in real life. Just recently in fact a gentleman using one of those pole-mounted chainsaws for cutting tall branches dropped it while on a ladder and it shaved off all the skin and some of the muscle on the left side of his left leg. On top of blood gushing out freely, you could also see his muscles moving with no skin to hide them. I've seen people die, but that incident was the most graphic thing I've ever seen, and I don't think any video can compete.
Yay for synonyms!
Oral sex is also oral sex
Anal sex is also anal sex
Sex is also sex
And "intercourse" is:
1: connection or dealings between persons or groups
2: exchange especially of thoughts or feelings : communion
3: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person ; especially : sexual intercourse 1
So if "consummation" requires "intercourse," and "intercourse" includes any kind of sex involving the junk, one can use oral or anal sex to consummate a marriage.
The definitions are very clear. Pity there's so many of them, and they so often contradict one another.
I did look at MW and apparently you are just making this shit up:
1: connection or dealings between persons or groups
2: exchange especially of thoughts or feelings : communion
3: physical sexual contact between individuals that involves the genitalia of at least one person ; especially : sexual intercourse 1
So not only does "intercourse" have different meaning than the sexual one, but the sexual one specifically references oral and anal sex and being a type of intercourse.
Nice try, joe.
They are using a book that has stopped progressing.
When you have a scientific text that makes a factual statement, and it turns out at a later date that statement was false and we learned something new about it, the book gets revised and re-released.
That doesn't happen with the Bible, or with any holy text. The words themselves cannot change as we learn and progress.
Yes we are over 1000 years older than you
Depends when you want to count England as England, but sure. Thats better for my argument.
Which is why I find it surprising that you Americans think you can possibly compare your country to ours.
Firstly, you'll notice it was an Englishman who made this debate, not an American.
Secondly, the US and the UK are comparable countries. Out of all the nations of the world you'd be hard pressed to find a country more similar. Which, when you consider you've had an extra thousand years to figure your shit out, must be pretty embarrasing for you guys.
Jumping in on the winning side is also good strategy isn't it? It's what you Americans did in the World Wars anyway.
That's not what we were talking about or the war we were talking about. But thanks for again sharing your evident butthurt over our behavior in a European war 70+ years ago.
1) Yes, our Empire was extremely large, it has yet to be overtaken in size, military power, naval power, economic power etc. and yet you Americans have had a centuries worth of technology to try overtake us and you haven't even come close.
As you pointed out, you have a 1000 year jump on us. We shouldn't even have come close, except we have. Do you honestly believe in a modern US vs England war (one on one) you guys would actually win? We spend all our money on our military.
2) To claim that the entire British Empire was beaten by America is stupid, while the American revolution was occurring British politicians were arguing whether to bother fighting at all, because the American colonies were so worthless.
We fought against England for our independence and won. I don't really care if that happened because of our military prowess or because of your governments incompetence, or both; victory is victory.
To call the French, Spanish and Dutch empires a 'bunch of upstart hicks' is a bit of an insult to them
Oh, well, good thing I never did that, then.
We could handle the Germans quite fine without you and anyway we had Russia to help us.
(Un)fortunately, we'll never know if you would have eventually retaken Europe and kept England if the US hadn't participated in the war and aided you throughout, because that's what happened. Anything else is speculation. Which is why I didn't say we won the war for you, because we didn't, I said we helped, because we did, and you seem to be to arrogant and proud to accept even that.
I also said we helped because we are friends, an opinion that's feeling awfully one-way right now.
A few years is not what I call "straight away".
Yay I get to learn you a on a bit of California slang.
I didn't say 'straight away' (quickly) I said 'straight giving away,' 'straight' here meaning clearly, evidently, up-front, obvious. Example: 'she's a straight bitch.'
Also I made that statement in response to Mic saying it was immoral and unjustified for us to help you in WWII. Do you honestly share that opinion?
Well, joining a war when we start to win isn't exactly fair play.
Firstly, fair play? Are you a fucking knight in shining armor? Perhaps you miss the days when armies would convene at a preappointed time and place, break for brunch, line up, shoot at eachother a bit, have dinner, shoot some more, and whichever side with the most developing infections loses and goes home, but war hasn't been about "fair play" for a very, very long time. In fact fairly fighting a war is a sure way to lose a war.
Secondly, it was a European war. We didn't hesitate to engage the Japanese because they actually attacked us on American soil. We got involved in the European side of things because a European Axis power (namely, Germany) declared war on us. After sinking several of the ships we were using to send you supplies, of course. So no, we didn't just keep and eye on the war and hop in when things started looking good; the war came to us.
Because of the holocaust (which according to you, the Europeans had handled) there was a slight moral imperative to get involved, but aside from that it was a European war. Why should we have gotten involved? European countries fighting European countries over European problems.
I don't know about Mic, but I despise America because they produce citizens with such a distorted view of history that they can claim statements such as "you boasted having an empire so large the sun never set on it, to be eventually bested by a bunch of upstart hicks in colonies half the world away."
So you hate us because our school system isn't to your standard? That seems a lot of energy to put into your opinion about the education of a country half a world away.
The only thing I despise England for is it poor gene pool. It's a cool ass country I really wanted to move to until I actually went there and realized it's populated with some of the most unattractive people on Earth. I understand there's nothing you guys can really do about this, though, and I wouldn't find it so bothersome if I didn't desire to sleep with attractive women, so it's a very personal, subjective qualm.
And wider bodies. Much, much wider bodies.
Hahaha a member of the second most obese country in the world making fat jokes to a member of the most obese country in the world. Do something about your own morbid obesity before you start judging others for it.
Besides, as a nation we're only 7% more obese than England. That means roughly 3.5% more obese chicks in the US. But we also have some 250,000,000 more people, half that many women, which overall means we still have wayyyyyyyyy more skinny chicks to choose from than you do.
All I said was that the rest of the world despises American food due to its habit of being slather with grease or fat.
No, you said the global opinion of American food is that it will kill you if you eat it for too long. Which doesn't make any fucking sense.
That is very interesting, as being an Englishman, I've yet to find anything in our cuisine which is covered with as much grease as your typical american foodstuff.
Maybe we're just better at cooking with it.
Some people need to have such a clarification, otherwise I end up being moaned at for apparently not disputing their entire argument.
But you were disputing my entire argument.
The timestamps don't help as we posted at the same time. And a post that comes after mine with no other clarification can only really be seen as a response by me.
Not really. If someone wants to respond to your post specifically they have several ways they can do that. Making a new, standalone post that's not attached to yours in any way is not one of they ways they can do this. This post, for example, is specifically disputing something you said, so I hit the "dispute" button under your post so it would show up in your activity feed and also be evident to you and anyone else who reads this that I am addressing your post, specifically. If I just made a new post it might very well end up a dozen posts or more away from yours very quickly, making it confusing to know who is talking to who. That's why we use the support, dispute, and clarify buttons; they're designed for that purpose. The only reason your mistake was 'highly justifiable" is you're relatively new (in posts, if not time) to this website, though honestly I'd think over a hundred points accumulated over more than 100 days would be enough to figure out how those buttons work.
Intercourse
Sexual intercourse
Sex
Anal sex
Oral sex
Vag on vag sex
It doesn't seem like it's really a very complicated connection to make.
Anyways, mainly I just wanted to say I don't think you'd be bringing this issue up if some war vet paralyzed from the waist down (including his penis) got married after his tour.
Haha actually what am I saying... you of all people just might do that.
Yeah, that's a good decision, lets have a class where students have to study and learn all about a book filled with ideas, opinions, principles, and dogmas that stopped progressing some 2000 years ago... and then we can make hundreds or thousands of other classes where kids can pore over other books and texts just as useless...
...wait...
When I'm talking about how attractive English or Americans generally are, I'm not talking about the celebrities from either of those countries. I'm talking about day-to-day men and women in the street. The general populace. Real people, as opposed to people who are so dressed-up, made-up and plastic-surgery-up they hardly resemble human beings.
I'm forming an opinion of British chicks based on British chicks I've met both here and there. Not based off famous British celebrities I saw on TV.
Brilliant. So America is also a very wasteful country
Consuming something and wasting something are not the same thing.
It isn't bland you crazy, uncultured fool
Funny you'd say that in response to a post where I said, "Similarly, you'll deny the bland, unpalatable nature of English food because you are English." You're very predictable.
But my opinion of English food has nothing to do with insanity or lack of culture. It's just after trying English food in England and trying English food in America and making English recipes at home, I've determined English food is bland at best and greasy/gross at worst. This would be like me eating Mexican food in Mexico and in America and making it at home and deciding Mexican food is generally pretty spicy, or something.
I always used to do that on exams hoping a black hole would open up on my paper and thus excuse us all from completing the test while we run for out lives.
No luck.
I think it's kind of a bullshit disorder. Certainly an over-diagnosed one.
5mg (very small) pills of adderall (add/adhd meds) have a perforation so you can break them into 2.5mg halves. Why? So you can give them to 3 year old children. Why would a parent give their toddler legal meth? Because "he has trouble concentrating."
Bullshit.
What child doesn't have difficulty concentrating on something?
I'd say maybe one in ten people I've met who are currently on some crack-like prescription for add or adhd actually needs the medication. Everyone else could handle their problem with some quiet music, breathing exercises, and perhaps some incense. We live in a pharmaceutical nation. You're too sad? Take a pill. You're distracted? Take a pill. You have habits? Take a pill.
Well here's some news: everyone gets sad; everyone gets distracted; everyone has habits. This doesn't mean you need to take a pill that (for example) is 75% of everything in meth(amphetamine <--adderall) every day for the rest of your life. You just need to handle your shit.
I speak as someone who turned down OCD medication because I feel like I can handle my OCD naturally, and I speak as someone who spent 2 years of his life effectively addicted to the legal meth we give to 3 year olds because they can't focus.
