False labels

[Temujin]

Irrelevant to the issue because it was the Biblical testimony that influenced my beliefs and personal feelings and and opinions, whatever the differences you see or dont see.

You chose the Bible as the source based on your personal feelings and opinions.

absolutely, whilst it seems you have you own ideas of morality.

Of course, based on my personal feelings and opinions, no more objective than yours.

I have never studied the law of the jungle.

You should. It is a clear set of moral instructions, written in English so no interpretation issues and just as objective as the Bible, according to your part-formed quote-mined definition.

The Bible is objective in that it isnt influenced by my personal feelings.

You are not the only person to have personal feelings or opinions. Among other people who have them are the human beings who wrote, interpreted, rewrote, translated and updated the Bible, which consequently was influenced by their personal feelings and opinions. At least my subjective morality is determined by me and not by the personal feelings and opinions of long dead people from a completely different culture.

 

[BMS]

You chose the Bible as the source based on your personal feelings and opinions.
Of course, based on my personal feelings and opinions, no more objective than yours. You should. It is a clear set of moral instructions, written in English so no interpretation issues and just as objective as the Bible, according to your part-formed quote-mined definition.

You are not the only person to have personal feelings or opinions. Among other people who have them are the human beings who wrote, interpreted, rewrote, translated and updated the Bible, which consequently was influenced by their personal feelings and opinions. At least my subjective morality is determined by me and not by the personal feelings and opinions of long dead people from a completely different culture.

As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

 

[Temujin]

As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

Of course you could claim that. You are doing so. The question is whether you can legitimately claim that, based on a quote-mined portion of a definition of a collection of loosely connected and often contradictory stories written over several centuries based on third-hand accounts of mystical goings-on in the bronze age.

 

[BMS]

Of course you could claim that.

And have, and quite rightly

You are doing so. The question is whether you can legitimately claim that, based on a quote-mined portion of a definition of a collection of loosely connected and often contradictory stories written over several centuries based on third-hand accounts of mystical goings-on in the bronze age.

Whatever they are doesnt affect the fact they are not influenced by my personal feelings.

Your personal feelings however are all you have got, and the more we see of them the more legitimate the Biblical testimony becomes

 

[Temujin]

And have, and quite rightly
Whatever they are doesnt affect the fact they are not influenced by my personal feelings.

Your personal feelings however are all you have got, and the more we see of them the more legitimate the Biblical testimony becomes

They are influenced (read, invented) by other people's personal feelings and opinions. The definition of objective doesn't mention you personally.

Personal feelings are all anyone has got. At least mine are my own, rather than hand-me-downs from a bygone age.

 

[BMS]

They are influenced (read, invented) by other people's personal feelings and opinions. The definition of objective doesn't mention you personally.

Personal feelings are all anyone has got. At least mine are my own, rather than hand-me-downs from a bygone age.

No, you are playing self righteous woke rules. It doesnt. The Biblical testimony is not influenced by my feelings, whether you believe it or not.

 

[Temujin]

No, you are playing self righteous woke rules. It doesnt. The Biblical testimony is not influenced by my feelings, whether you believe it or not.

You are not reading. Biblical testimony was influenced by the personal feelings of the people that wrote it.

 

[BMS]

You are not reading. Biblical testimony was influenced by the personal feelings of the people that wrote it.

In your opinion. It says, and I believe it, it is inspired by God. So objective.

Its also objective fact that a man who calls himself a 'transwoman', is a man.

 

[Temujin]

In your opinion. It says, and I believe it, it is inspired by God. So objective.

OK, you believe it to be objective, therefore it is. You are a closet Terconite.

Its also objective fact that a man who calls himself a 'transwoman', is a man.

Well thank you for providing another, if completely irrelevant illustration of your ability to get "objective facts" wrong. You need one more for the set. It is an "objective fact" that the earth is flat, perhaps? Or better to use one you have used before. It is an "objective fact" that the sole purpose of human sexual behaviour is conception. Perhaps more relevant would be the "objective fact" that abortion is murder, or the "objective fact" that the unborn foetus is a person.

Do you see the pattern? Your "objective facts" are in fact statements of opinion that a great many people would not hold and that are at odds with reality. But I suppose that for someone who thinks "I believe it, therefore it is an objective fact.", being at odds with reality is not important.

 

[BMS]

OK, you believe it to be objective, therefore it is. You are a closet Terconite.


Well thank you for providing another, if completely irrelevant illustration of your ability to get "objective facts" wrong. You need one more for the set. It is an "objective fact" that the earth is flat, perhaps? Or better to use one you have used before. It is an "objective fact" that the sole purpose of human sexual behaviour is conception. Perhaps more relevant would be the "objective fact" that abortion is murder, or the "objective fact" that the unborn foetus is a person.

Do you see the pattern? Your "objective facts" are in fact statements of opinion that a great many people would not hold and that are at odds with reality. But I suppose that for someone who thinks "I believe it, therefore it is an objective fact.", being at odds with reality is not important.

Be assured, a man is a biological objective fact.
And it is an objective fact that the human being at foetal stage is a human being.

 

[Temujin]

Be assured, a man is a biological objective fact.
And it is an objective fact that the human being at foetal stage is a human being.

Neither of which is in dispute.

 

[BMS]

Neither of which is in dispute.

Then dont say a man who calls himself a 'transwoman'is a woman

 

[Temujin]

Then dont say a man who calls himself a 'transwoman'is a woman

But she is a woman. Your problem is assuming that she is calling herself biologically a woman. Gender identity is not necessarily the same as biological sex. I know it's difficult for you to contemplate anything more complicated than the number two, but if the organisers of the Brit Awards can manage this, surely you can?

 

[BMS]

But she is a woman.

No. he is a man, that is reality, and you just said its not in dispute.

Your problem

I dont have a problem, its a man by biological sex. You have a problem.

is assuming

I am not assuming, you are assuming a man isnt a man, which is a denial of reality

she is calling herself

A man is 'he'.

biologically a woman.

he is biologically a man. That is what I referred to, the biological sex.

Gender identity is not necessarily the same as biological sex.

gender identity doesnt exist and I was referring to the biological sex which is objective. Gender identity is a subjective lie.

Here you go, told you I would keep you informed of how gender identity will get dealt with. here is the first

BBC Quits Stonewall Diversity Programme Over Impartiality Concerns - Times News Express

The BBC has pulled out of leading UK LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme and Workplace Equality Index due to questions over

timesnewsexpress.com

 

[Temujin]

No. he is a man, that is reality, and you just said its not in dispute.
I dont have a problem, its a man by biological sex. You have a problem.

I am not assuming, you are assuming a man isnt a man, which is a denial of reality
A man is 'he'.
he is biologically a man. That is what I referred to, the biological sex.
gender identity doesnt exist and I was referring to the biological sex which is objective. Gender identity is a subjective lie.

Here you go, told you I would keep you informed of how gender identity will get dealt with. here is the first

BBC Quits Stonewall Diversity Programme Over Impartiality Concerns - Times News Express

The BBC has pulled out of leading UK LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall’s Diversity Champions Programme and Workplace Equality Index due to questions over

timesnewsexpress.com

Gender identity does exist. Everyone has one, including you. Neither the BBC nor Stonewall are the gatekeepers to gender identity. You are talking through your hat. I have no idea what you do for a living, but you would benefit from some diversity training. Whatever your views on the subject it might help you avoid such stupidly untrue statements as "gender identity doesnt (sic) exist".

 

[BMS]

Gender identity does exist.

No it doesnt. By biological sex the man/male is quantifiable by having XY chromosomes and male anatomy with male reproductive organs. By biological sex the woman/female is identifiable by having XX chromosomes and female anatomy with female reproductive organs. The is the objective reality.
No such thing as the transphobic, homophobic and misogynistic lie of gender identity that you and woke peddle.

You tell us how you identify a male/man as opposed to woman/female in terms of gender.

 

[BMS]

Of course you could claim that. You are doing so. The question is whether you can legitimately claim that, based on a quote-mined portion of a definition of a collection of loosely connected and often contradictory stories written over several centuries based on third-hand accounts of mystical goings-on in the bronze age.

I can claim that because its true. Unlike you I am not deceived by imaginary trans neutrois non trinary spirits and pixies

 

[BMS]

Gender identity does exist. Everyone has one, including you. Neither the BBC nor Stonewall are the gatekeepers to gender identity. You are talking through your hat. I have no idea what you do for a living, but you would benefit from some diversity training. Whatever your views on the subject it might help you avoid such stupidly untrue statements as "gender identity doesnt (sic) exist".

Your ideology according to gays and lesbian is homophobic, not least because lesbians arent attracted to the men who call themselves 'transwomen' because of course they are men.

 

[Temujin]

No it doesnt. By biological sex...

Let me stop you there. As gender identity is not based on biology, this is irrelevant.

No such thing as the transphobic, homophobic and misogynistic lie of gender identity that you and woke peddle.

Quite right. The transphobic, homophobic and misogynist lies are peddled by those like you who deny the existence of gender identity.

You tell us how you identify a male/man as opposed to woman/female in terms of gender.

By asking them. If I was an official needing to know for some specific reason, I could ask for government recognised documentations. For the vast majority of human interactions, it is not a necessary question. Wanting to know someone's gender identity is a bit creepy unless you have a particular reason to do so. Prurient curiosity such as yours, doesn't cut it.

 

[Temujin]

I can claim that because its true. Unlike you I am not deceived by imaginary trans neutrois non trinary spirits and pixies

Imaginary beings, whether they be trans neutrois non trinary spirits and pixies or gods, do not produce objective moral codes. Neither do human beings writing religious tracts. Confusing completely different subjects as you do here, doesn't work because you have completely lost the plot in both of them.