Transgender man wins VT primary (Dem)

  • Thread starter Deleted member 159002
  • Start date
Is there a current study that shows mass acceptance is forthcoming? I can't see this or anything close to it being seen as normal by any sane person.

We'd all be labeled (or more labeled) as racist, bigots and religious zealots if those of us who think transgender procedures should be illegal.

I'd love to see that crapfest go down . . .

The worst is that insurance companies pay for some of this shit.
 
The worst is that insurance companies pay for some of this shit.

Insurance covering an elective surgery like this is probably one of the dumbest things ever.
 
No the government would have to get involved if it was required as a precursor to voting to be "moral" and have "sound mind".

We might all be screwed if that happens
 
Scientific laws merely describe what happens under normal circumstances. Jesus's resurrection was a case of abnormal circumstances. It's not a logical contradiction for a person to resurrect, whereas it is for a person born with testes to be a woman. There is no possible world where a person born with testes is a woman.

Sorry bud. I just don't understand the distinction. Can I not substitute the word 'Jesus' for 'transgender' and arrive at the same conclusion?

I think your last statement sums it up for both arguments:

"There is no possible world where a person born with testes is a woman."

Likewise, there is no possible world where a person resurrects who was previously dead.

Both require an investment in a belief that lies outside of our physical reality. You seem to be pinning your argument on the definitions of male/female in relation to one's gonads, and thereby saying it's not logically possible for a man to call himself a woman. In the same way, I can state that our physical laws exclude any discussion of resurrections or water walking, therefore it is a contradiction to believe those things.
 
Gay people ought to repent. The fact that I think that in no way means I think they're subhuman.
Sure dude. They way they choose to live their lives is an abomination to you, but you don't think they're subhuman....
 
Gay people ought to repent. The fact that I think that in no way means I think they're subhuman.

lowlandgorilla-004.jpg


Sub human? Yes.
Abominable? No.

LANEX390.jpg


Sub-human? No.
Abominable? Yes.
 
Sorry bud. I just don't understand the distinction. Can I not substitute the word 'Jesus' for 'transgender' and arrive at the same conclusion?

I think your last statement sums it up for both arguments:

"There is no possible world where a person born with testes is a woman."

Likewise, there is no possible world where a person resurrects who was previously dead.

Both require an investment in a belief that lies outside of our physical reality. You seem to be pinning your argument on the definitions of male/female in relation to one's gonads, and thereby saying it's not logically possible for a man to call himself a woman. In the same way, I can state that our physical laws exclude any discussion of resurrections or water walking, therefore it is a contradiction to believe those things.

You don't seem to understand the difference between physical and metaphysical impossibilities. A world where creatures resurrect right after they die is a possible world. That is, there could be a species, call them Human2, whose bodies go through the same physical processes that define human death -- and then resurrect shortly after. A world with teste-born women is no more possible than a world with married bachelors. It's a contradiction.
 
You don't seem to understand the difference between physical and metaphysical impossibilities. A world where creatures resurrect right after they die is a possible world. That is, there could be a species, call them Human2, whose bodies go through the same physical processes that define human death -- and then resurrect shortly after. A world with teste-born women is no more possible than a world with married bachelors. It's a contradiction.

No I don't understand. In one instance you want to use the framework of a metaphysical world to assert that basically anything is possible, and absolve your argument of it's connection to reality. Whereas with transgenders, you want to root the apparent contradiction in the reality of how we scientifically define male/female. To me, that's inconsistent, or at the very least, applying two different sets of standards as a basis for the argument.
 
That's not what his opponent is though. You're making an appeal to absurdity.

Fine then. Replace shitting into your idiot mouth with some other bad Republican policy. The point is, how much bad policy are you willing to endure to stick to the transexual?
 
Fine then. Replace shitting into your idiot mouth with some other bad Republican policy. The point is, how much bad policy are you willing to endure to stick to the transexual?

The incumbent is pretty liberal for a Republican. It's not like he's Jeff Sessions.
 
Rather have an overt tranny in office than a closeted homo like Guiliani or closeted pedo like Trump.

Btw trannies creep me the fuck out, but at least they wear that creepiness as a badge of honor. The real sick fucks hide it
 
You don't seem to understand the difference between physical and metaphysical impossibilities. A world where creatures resurrect right after they die is a possible world. That is, there could be a species, call them Human2, whose bodies go through the same physical processes that define human death -- and then resurrect shortly after. A world with teste-born women is no more possible than a world with married bachelors. It's a contradiction.
So if I believe in an all powerful transgender / non-binary God and it was it's goal to create man to evolve to the point that they could start creating themselves in it's image. Is that crazy or because we can debate about it on a metaphysical level it is rational? Or sane?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top