Bob1
Well-known member
Agreed. That issue should be made clear prior to any physical activities.I tend to agree with you except that they need to identity their sex, not their status as trans.
Agreed. That issue should be made clear prior to any physical activities.I tend to agree with you except that they need to identity their sex, not their status as trans.
Only if you are the arbiter of what is right or wrong. Which you are not. All that does is show that somewhere (Iran? Nicaragua?) there are law-makers who share your unorthodox and eccentric opinions.So I will cite will cite the laws I agree with, which makes the laws you agree with wrong.
But it was you guys who have this position, stating what laws say not me, as I said the laws are different so if we choose laws we have contradicting ones.Only if you are the arbiter of what is right or wrong.
Perhaps, if you tried rewriting this, it would make sense. Somehow, I doubt it.But it was you guys who have this position, stating what laws say not me, as I said the laws are different so if we choose laws we have contradicting ones.
So yes I am the arbiter, and you are wrong. ... you have made your bed now lie in it.
Ok I will leave it for others to readPerhaps, if you tried rewriting this, it would make sense. Somehow, I doubt it.
Under the law, yes. Morally, no. Caveat emptor.Should rape by deception be legal for trans people? To have sex without telling they are trans.
Then your friend is a moron.My friend is a victim of this.
Exactly.Under the law, yes. Morally, no. Caveat emptor.
Or imaginary.Then your friend is a moron.
It obfuscates the fact that murder does not depend on a law code existing....except that it's plain, clear and correct.
It is thefreedictionary.com one of the first things that comes up in the search results. But however that may be, we know that this is a correct definition, and we know that it doesn't depend on their being alone code. So it refute your argument, the fact that it exists refutes your argument. The reader will note that you're not denying the truth of the definition, and that would be the only thing that would save your argument. You can't deny the truth of the definition, so your argument is blown to smithereens, it's extinct.Again, ONE definition. ONE. From ONE source. Which you had to hunt for, avoiding all the other definitions which didn't suit your purpose.
No that's not blatantly false. Without the concept of "murder" which is an unjustified killing of a human, it would be impossible to write a law against murder. Obviously the concept preceded the law, making it the primary definition which in turn is used to draft the law.That is blatantly false, as you well know.
Are you believe you can disqualify valid definitions of a word. You can't. So until you figure that out you really don't understand how a dictionary works.Then you think wrongly. Again.
Your statement "abortion can't be murder by definition" is false, because I've given you the definition of murder showing it to be false. The only way to save the truth of your statement is to show that the definition that I've demonstrated is false. You can't do that so your argument is extinct.Since nobody said anything about that...so what?
The truth of your statement never turned on whether there is a legal definition of murder. That's not in dispute, never has been, it's a relevant to the discussion.Of course it is. Six different sources give my definition.
Do you understand that this is not a popularity contest? Because from this comment that's not clear.One gave yours.
I'm address that above. And in so doing I showed very clearly there's nothing stupid or dishonest about it.To claim that that one is the 'standard English definition' is either vacuously stupid or simply dishonest.
So you are denying the definition of murder that I cited from thefreedictionary.com website? Because that is the only way your negation here can be saved.Nope.
We just showed above that it's not so I don't know what do you think you're achieving with this comment.Yes, it does. Because it is.
The opinion of an expert… how did you put it? Oh yes, "vacuously stupid or simply dishonest."I'm not surprised that mindless insult
"Abortion can't be murder by definition" is not a fact.is the best you have to combat statements of fact.
Alas, while your point was obvious, some people want to be oblivious.That is the whole point, or rather half the point. The other half being that I didn't say there was anything mutual about it.
I wouldn't mind, but others apparently got the joke. It must be my "failure to communicate" that only affects you, again.
Ugly atheist Richard dawkins asks what's the big deal about mild pedophilia.What are the horrible consequences of having sex with a trans person?
And are there horrible consequences if you have sex with a bloke who has Swyer syndrome too?
Non Sequitur. Feeble attempt to shift the goal posts.Ugly atheist Richard dawkins asks what's the big deal about mild pedophilia.
How? You made detogatory comments about Dawkins as an atheist. You playing arbiter again?Non Sequitur. Feeble attempt to shift the goal posts.
I dismissed Dawkins views on a subject he is not expert in, when you tried to use him as an expert. His views on paedophilia may be troubling, but they don't affect his abilities as an ethologist and science author. Neither are they anything to do with the topic of this thread.How? You made detogatory comments about Dawkins as an atheist. You playing arbiter again?
And the churches ignored strong paedophilia by their clergymen.Ugly atheist Richard dawkins asks what's the big deal about mild pedophilia.
The subject doesnt need an expert since it is logic, science and observable reality.I dismissed Dawkins views on a subject he is not expert in, when you tried to use him as an expert. His views on paedophilia may be troubling, but they don't affect his abilities as an ethologist and science author. Neither are they anything to do with the topic of this thread.
So, he is right when he agrees with you. And wrong when he doesn't. How very convincing.The subject doesnt need an expert since it is logic, science and observable reality.
However Dawkins is right of course when he points out that a man can no more be a woman under the deception of transwoman than a white person be black.
On the contrary that is how it works for you! The subject is right and it just so happens we both agree on it.So, he is right when he agrees with you. And wrong when he doesn't. How very convincing.
What evidence?On the contrary that is how it works for you! The subject is right and it just so happens we both agree on it.
This is exactly the problem with your worldview which cause you to agree with what people claim that suits you rather than looking at the evidence to see whether you and they are actually right. Thats why you believe a man who claims he is a transwoman is a transwoman when the evidence shows he is a man
I dont know what evidence you are thinking if not the one being discussed?What evidence?
Chromosomes are nothing to do with gender. Try again.I dont know what evidence you are thinking if not the one being discussed?
As to the one being discussed you yourself presented the definition of biological sex as chromosomes and anatony and thus restrooms are segregated by sex and often structure to suit anatomy. In the case of black people its the skin colour that determines they are black as opposed to skin colour that determines white people are white, and its the chromosomes and anatomy that makes a man a man and not a transwoman because a woman has different chromosomes and anatomy.