Recent content by Michael R2

He did. He got more popular votes than any other candidate. I never said he did. That is why I used the proper term plurality.

What claim? That he won the popular vote? He did. He received more popular votes than any other candidate. He did not win a majority of the total vote, but that is not a requirement to winning the popular vote.

That's fine. He still received more of the popular vote than any other single candidate. The same thing happened in 17 other elections. It's not that big a deal. Five had another candidate receive more popular votes (list given in post 26) and the other twelve won with that technical term...

If you wish to get more technical, he won the plurality of votes. He still received more popular votes than either Bush or Perot. As well, he did better than Lincoln, who won in 1860 with just under 40% of the popular vote. Breckinridge and Douglas combined to receive 48%. If you include Bell...

And yet he still won the popular vote over both Bush and Perot. He wasn't running against their combined vote, was he?

Not true. There have been only five presidents elected that did not win the popular vote. The first was John Quincy Adams ((D-R) who lost in the electoral college as well but was selected by Congress). The other four are all Republicans: Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888...

To be fair, that type of thinking is endemic with humanity, regardless of any particular worldview. That said, those who pawn their morality to the more structured isms tend to more easily rationalize bad behavior.

And this is why any debate is useless. You ascribe a position to me which is incorrect, despite numerous attempts on my part to explain it to you. I'll return to merely reading and chuckling at your posts.

Unless, and until, you are able to accept that myself, and others, are not denying biological sex there is no point in debate.

Gender fluidity exists in many native cultures. Here is a basic introduction to their viewpoints.

I'm describing their point of view (as I know it from various interactions). I added the observation that this mindset may be foreign to you but is very real. I don't believe I implied anything other than that. I think we're arguing at cross-purposes here. You seem to be focusing on how others...

The beauty of the English language is in its ambiguity. We read it differently.

A difference in abilities does not necessarily mean having different abilities. Actually, I didn't. I said you should consider that this is how they see themselves. I've never met a deaf person who cared about being called deaf. Some do care, however, about the use of the term 'disabled'.

From your point of view, it has an element of denial. From their point of view, it is an element of acceptance. That would be an unjustified inference on your part. Deaf people do have a somewhat enhanced ability to concentrate on singular tasks when there are fewer distractions. I know this...

You don't have to. Still, you should consider that it is being sold to you honestly. Many people that are deemed disabled do not feel that the term, even if properly applied by common standards, does not properly apply to how they see themselves.