What is a woman? Part II

[BMS]

nwrt

Nwrt

 

[Harry Leggs]

Already answered.

This has already been addressed. Conservative so-called 'Christians' aren't interested in what we say.

Edit

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551280460097110017

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Edit

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551280460097110017

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

 

[BMS]

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Not answered then.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Not answered then.

Butt butt butt.

The post to which I was responding was not a question.

 

[BMS]

Butt butt butt.

The post to which I was responding was not a question.

I have just been back to page 15 before, in amongst all your 'nwrt' and 'not interested' and ad hominem comments, you made any constructive point, and that was debatable

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I have just been back to page 15 before, in amongst all your 'nwrt' and 'not interested' and ad hominem comments, you made any constructive point, and that was debatable

Sorry, attempting to ad hominem me doesn't get you out of butting into someone else's conversation without even taking the time to see what it was about.

 

[BMS]

Sorry, attempting to ad hominem me doesn't get you out of butting into someone else's conversation without even taking the time to see what it was about.

Your reponse is more of the same useless opinion.

 

[BMS]

Butt butt butt.

The post to which I was responding was not a question.

its your own fault, you should have clarified what a woman is before engaging in a debate.

 

[Nedsk]

its your own fault, you should have clarified what a woman is before engaging in a debate.

It's "Feeeeeeeeelings.....nothing more than feeeeelings......."

 

[Electric Skeptic]

its your own fault, you should have clarified what a woman is before engaging in a debate.

Nope, you butting into a conversation in which you were not involved without even taking the time to determine what the conversation was about is entirely your fault.

 

[Furion]

Nope, you butting into a conversation in which you were not involved without even taking the time to determine what the conversation was about is entirely your fault.

Have you addressed what a woman is yet?

Was it 'already addressed'?

Can you already address it again? lol

 

[BMS]

Nope, you butting into a conversation in which you were not involved without even taking the time to determine what the conversation was about is entirely your fault.

I am sorry for you that you feel that way. Perhaps you can learn the art of debate

 

[BMS]

Nope, you butting into a conversation in which you were not involved without even taking the time to determine what the conversation was about is entirely your fault.

Already addressed.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Have you addressed what a woman is yet?

Was it 'already addressed'?

Can you already address it again? lol

Yup, yup, and nope.

 

[Furion]

Yup, yup, and nope.

I read you thought a woman is someone who wears a dress and says she is a woman.

Is this true?

Is that the scientific version or the atheist version?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I am sorry for you that you feel that way. Perhaps you can learn the art of debate

Not from you, as witness:

I am sorry for you that you feel that way. Perhaps you can learn the art of debate

You think that a person butting into a conversation in which they were not involved without even taking the time to determine what the conversation was about is not their fault!

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I read you thought a woman is someone who wears a dress and says she is a woman.

Is this true?

Is that the scientific version or the atheist version?

Already repeatedly addressed.

 

[Furion]

Already repeatedly addressed.

So then you think a woman is defined by clothes, and a delusional statement.

Ok

Your view is coming into focus for sure, no matter how many times you've repeated it.

Would you date a woman in a dress who claims she is a woman, but has a weiner?

You don't need to reveal you sleep with crossdressers, I'm just curious if you would.

 

[BMS]

Yup, yup, and nope.

Nope, nope and nope. The three nopes