Poll: Is transgenderism anti-science?
This poll is closed.
It is.
17.39%
4 17.39%
It is not.
78.26%
18 78.26%
I am uncertain.
4.35%
1 4.35%
Total 23 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 6 Vote(s) - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Regarding Transgenderism
#31
I just don't care, I respect who you are if you respect who I am.
HM King Max I
Kingdom of Jupiter and Greater Territories.
Quote:I just don't care, I respect who you are if you respect who I am. 
Kingdomjupiter.weebly.com 
#32
I believe that freedom of lifestyle is a God-given right, and anyone who disagrees is unamerican. :sleepy:

However, if you want me to be "proud", in any respect, of your sexual habits, then you are greatly mistaken, as that also violates the "freedom of lifestyle". My lifestyle includes not caring about your sexual orientation, and if you continuously shove it in my face, you are infringing on my lifestyle.

I don't march through the streets and have parades about how much I enjoy the genitals of the opposite sex, and with good reason, because it is depraved and indecent and the public should not be subjected to your sexuality. :dodgy:

The fact that there wasn't an "I don't care" option is quite provocative of thought, in my opinion. The culture of people who shove their sexuality in people's faces make it really hard to proclaim that "we don't care".
[Image: 9768554.png]
Siwa Sopako Wogo Sani-Hong Kunoku
Manu ku awaso yo Tongowa Manuka hehe yoma tise.

If a post doesn't have a question mark, it isn't a question.
If it isn't a question, I'm not asking you anything, I'm telling you.
#33
(27 Jul 2016, 16:28:00)kingjohnthefirst Wrote: I believe that freedom of lifestyle is a God-given right, and anyone who disagrees is unamerican. :sleepy:

However, if you want me to be "proud", in any respect, of your sexual habits, then you are greatly mistaken, as that also violates the "freedom of lifestyle". My lifestyle includes not caring about your sexual orientation, and if you continuously shove it in my face, you are infringing on my lifestyle.

So freedom of speech only applies if you aren't offended by it? Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and "shove their religion down my throat", but that's within their rights. On the other hand, I've never had a gay person shove their sexuality down my throat. (Woow that sounds dirty)
Matthew Cummings
President, Federated States of Noveria | Wiki
Senator, Eodus
#34
(27 Jul 2016, 16:41:28)Matthew of Noveria Wrote:
(27 Jul 2016, 16:28:00)kingjohnthefirst Wrote: I believe that freedom of lifestyle is a God-given right, and anyone who disagrees is unamerican. :sleepy:

However, if you want me to be "proud", in any respect, of your sexual habits, then you are greatly mistaken, as that also violates the "freedom of lifestyle". My lifestyle includes not caring about your sexual orientation, and if you continuously shove it in my face, you are infringing on my lifestyle.

So freedom of speech only applies if you aren't offended by it? Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and "shove their religion down my throat", but that's within their rights. On the other hand, I've never had a gay person shove their sexuality down my throat. (Woow that sounds dirty)

Why Matt, why. My morning was normal until this :D.

Engineer ~ Businessman ~ Progressive

Editor of the Quo Times

I survived because the fire inside burned brighter than the fire around me. - Joshua Graham
#35
You have freedom of speech when talking, however it isn't "total," and by that I mean try and walk up to outside the White House gate and tell the officer there you'd like to cause harm to the President. You'll soon find out just how "total" that freedom of speech really is.

But back on topic.
The Government of the Kingdom of Madrona in exile

o Nationalist o Activist o Monarchist o Royalist o Separatist o Humanist o Philanthropist o Realist o Research Scientist o Imperialist o Patriot o Progressive o
#36
(27 Jul 2016, 16:46:21)Tjorvi Wrote: You have freedom of speech when talking, however it isn't "total," and by that I mean try and walk up to outside the White House gate and tell the officer there you'd like to cause harm to the President. You'll soon find out just how "total" that freedom of speech really is.

But back on topic.

Yea....because you never know there could be a legitimate threat

You can't go into a theater and yell fire. People could get hurt and possibly die because they were trampled. This was a case in the supreme court. You can say anything just as long as it doesn't physically or mentally hurt someone (using words to make a person feel bad or something is verbal bullying. It could also be psychological bullying in certain cases)
Sincerly, His Royal Highness, King Stephen The First
#37
(27 Jul 2016, 18:44:44)QueenJosephineTheFirst Wrote:
(27 Jul 2016, 16:46:21)Tjorvi Wrote: You have freedom of speech when talking, however it isn't "total," and by that I mean try and walk up to outside the White House gate and tell the officer there you'd like to cause harm to the President. You'll soon find out just how "total" that freedom of speech really is.

But back on topic.

Yea....because you never know there could be a legitimate threat

You can't go into a theater and yell fire. People could get hurt and possibly die because they were trampled. This was a case in the supreme court. You can say anything just as long as it doesn't physically or mentally hurt someone (using words to make a person feel bad or something is verbal bullying. It could also be psychological bullying in certain cases)

Right but a gay pride parade or a Jehovah's Witness is not a threat.
Matthew Cummings
President, Federated States of Noveria | Wiki
Senator, Eodus
#38
(27 Jul 2016, 18:52:12)Matthew of Noveria Wrote: Right but a gay pride parade or a Jehovah's Witness is not a threat.

Tell that to Markus ;)
The Government of the Kingdom of Madrona in exile

o Nationalist o Activist o Monarchist o Royalist o Separatist o Humanist o Philanthropist o Realist o Research Scientist o Imperialist o Patriot o Progressive o
#39
Markus, I don't think you know how Modern Thinking works. There may possibly be 2 genders, but 63 Classes of Gender which are based off the factors of the Three Following.

1. Physical
2. Personality
3. Preference.

Seriously, someone saying that "Transgenderism" as Markus describes is against Science when this guy literally believes the Earth is 6,000 Years Old and when he literally denies Evolution which has been proven by Science time and time again. Who wants the entire world to accept Theocratic Christianity, an Islamophobic, Homophobic, Transphobic, and Biphobic person. We are talking about a person who literally believes a Bible is a "Scientific Text". It was made by desert scribes 2,000 years ago. I mean I do believe it tells some okay stories that help people live better lives. But other than that he thinks that all the stories in a book made 2,000 years ago actually happened. I am starting to think Markus has a Dark Age way of thinking. When people were burned because they were "Witches". Now we have science to help us prove things. There is zero evidence for "Magic" which the Bible says there are Witches and Fortune Tellers. This is exactally why I am an agnostic.

My Final Word is that Markus II is a complete hypocrite when it comes to his words. He denies many parts of Science for Biblical Beliefs which have No Evidence of being proven they exist.
Yours Truly, Giovanni Tomelleri
#40
(27 Jul 2016, 20:51:35)RepublicofSmithvilleGovernment Wrote: Seriously, someone saying that "Transgenderism" as Markus describes is against Science when this guy literally believes the Earth is 6,000 Years Old and when he literally denies Evolution which has been proven by Science time and time again.
Concluding Markus is wrong on one matter because he may be wrong on another (e.g. the age of the Earth) is an example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. You are attacking his credibility rather than the merits of his arguments. Please come up with something more substantive.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)