Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 451 to 525 of 654
  1. #451
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Deputy FBI Director, and former acting Director Andrew McCabe took "terminal leave" today. Basically burning up all his vacation time before he's officially allowed to retire in March.

    While he was investigating Hillary Clinton, Clinton and her allies donated some $700K to McCabe's wife's senate campaign.

    And now a memo detailing corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement is set to be released and McCabe seems to be taking every precaution against getting fired and losing his benefits.

    What's your "preferred hypothesis" on this one Poop?
    My hypothesis is you're trying to change the subject.
  2. #452
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    So when Nixon did it, that proved he was too dumb to be president?
    You're being intentionally stubborn, or stupid here. That was not the same thing. Nixon's taped conversations were under subpeona, he really didn't have another play at that point.

    Trump was under no such pressure to fire Comey.

    It's also worth noting that Nixon didn't have to contend with a 24 hour news cycle on 25 different TV stations and a deep state leaking his every move to the press. So he probably thought he could get away with it.

    A guilty Trump could not make the same assumption. 1) He has less privacy than Nixon and 2) He can ask google "what happened when Nixon did this"?
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-29-2018 at 02:24 PM.
  3. #453
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    The left hates your penis? LOL
    Yes. Not trolling. Patriarchy! Fucking white males!
  4. #454
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You're being intentionally stubborn, or stupid here. That was not the same thing. Nixon's taped conversations were under subpeona, he really didn't have another play at that point.

    Trump was under no such pressure to fire Comey.

    It's also worth noting that Nixon didn't have to contend with a 24 hour news cycle on 25 different TV stations and a deep state leaking his every move to the press. So he probably thought he could get away with it.

    A guilty Trump could not make the same assumption. 1) He has less privacy than Nixon and 2) He can ask google "what happened when Nixon did this"?
    If Trump was guilty, what would be his play then? Wait for the inevitable subpoena and then start firing people?
  5. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Yes. Not trolling. Patriarchy! Fucking white males!
    Typical victim talk. Others hate you for what you are.
  6. #456
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    If Trump was guilty, what would be his play then? Wait for the inevitable subpoena and then start firing people?
    If Trump was guilty, you would know by now.

    If Trump was guilty, his play would be to delay as much as possible. I assume, I don't know for sure because I'm not an arch-criminal. I assume his SOP would be to deflect attention from the investigation whenever possible. He seems to be doing the opposite. If Trump was guilty, then Mueller would still be waiting to talk to Bannon, Kushner, Spicer, Preibus, Sessions, and others.

    EDIT: He would also be playing the "But Hillary was worse" card ALOT stronger. He could lock her up tomorrow if he really wanted to.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 01-29-2018 at 02:47 PM.
  7. #457
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    My hypothesis is you're trying to change the subject.
    I thought we were done with the first subject. I was under the impression that our agreed upon conclusion is that I have the facts, and you just have crazy leftist conspiracies supported by nothing but wishful thinking.
  8. #458
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If Trump was guilty, you would know by now.
    First, we don't know what he's possibly guilty of. That's one thing.

    Second, just because they don't find the smoking gun on day one or week one or year one of the investigation doesn't mean they have nothing and are just farting around wasting taxpayer money. Plenty of investigations take longer than this one and end up proving someone guilty. So sorry, but there's no time limit on how long they get to uncover the evidence, where if it takes longer than 'x' you get to conclude the person must be innocent.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If Trump was guilty, his play would be to delay as much as possible.
    How might he go about that? Assuming of course that's a good strategy. And in what way has he been doing the opposite?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I assume his SOP would be to deflect attention from the investigation whenever possible.
    He seems to be doing the opposite.
    Or it could be to try to discredit it in any way possible, which is exactly the opposite.


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If Trump was guilty, then Mueller would still be waiting to talk to Bannon, Kushner, Spicer, Preibus, Sessions, and others.
    How do you know he isn't? Also, what's your interpretation of Mueller wanting to interview Trump himself? Just wanting to shoot the breeze?


    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    EDIT: He would also be playing the "But Hillary was worse" card ALOT stronger. He could lock her up tomorrow if he really wanted to.
    Ya because that's what every arch-criminal says - sure I'm a criminal but so-and-so was worse. Lock THEM up, not me! Lol, right.

    Basically, your argument starts out with 'he's innocent' and tries to see everything through that prism. I'm not saying he's guilty, but you already have the case decided in your mind based on whatever theories happen to suit.

    Let's just see what happens.
  9. #459
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    I thought we were done with the first subject. I was under the impression that our agreed upon conclusion is that I have the facts, and you just have crazy leftist conspiracies supported by nothing but wishful thinking.
    Sounds like more victim talk to me - oooh the left wing is trying to blame my president for something he didn't doooo...
  10. #460
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    First, we don't know what he's possibly guilty of. That's one thing.
    Thank you for admitting that. That's the exact circumstance that results in a 'witch hunt'. If we don't know what he did, then why are we investigating? That's not how justice is supposed to work. You don't just get to say "I don't like this election result, go sniff up the ass of everyone involved and find out if we can put any of them in jail"

    Second, just because they don't find the smoking gun on day one or week one or year one of the investigation doesn't mean they have nothing and are just farting around wasting taxpayer money.
    You kinda need the smoking gun, or at least a shred of evidence of some kind, in order to start the investigation. You can't go around initiating probes because you don't like someone. If that's not what happened, then how come the public hasn't heard a shred of evidence from this leaky investigation?

    Plenty of investigations take longer than this one and end up proving someone guilty.
    Dude...that's a BAD THING. There is a reason cops aren't allowed to follow any one driver for more than a limited number of miles. If you follow someone long enough, you WILL find a reason to pull them over. The longer you dig, the more dirt you have on your hands. You can use circumstantial evidence and loose interpretations of obscure laws to indict anyone for anything.

    There is no doubt in my mind that someone will end up arrested/indicted as a result of this investigation. There's no way Mueller is going to button this up without someone going down.

    So sorry, but there's no time limit on how long they get to uncover the evidence, where if it takes longer than 'x' you get to conclude the person must be innocent.
    Sorry but this is woefully glib. The DOJ works for the public. They are spending the public's money seeking out justice on behalf of the public. The DO have some degree of accountability.

    How might he go about that? Assuming of course that's a good strategy. And in what way has he been doing the opposite?
    Well, first of all, he wouldn't ever agree to talk to Mueller. Yet, he gave a press conference the other day saying he was eager for the meeting. He wouldn't be commenting to the press or tweeting anything about Russia, but he is doing the opposite. In fact, everything Trump is doing seems to suggest an impatience with the investigation. And by complaining about it, he's bringing the fact that it exists into the forefront of the media discourse.

    We never heard this much about Hillary's emails. That was one they wanted swept under the rug. Notice the differences in how that was handled, and how Trump is handling this Russia situation. Whenever they asked Hillary about her emails, she had a canned, deflecting, non-answer response.

    Or it could be to try to discredit it in any way possible, which is exactly the opposite.
    I see Trump making denials. And his comments discrediting the investigation are largely cliche (witch hunt, etc). If he wanted to discredit the investigation, he'd be using his power as president to decimate the FBI. There may be some bad optics involved, but I do believe that Trump could find a way to control the narrative just enough so as not to alienate his base of support. There is clearly more than just a little corruption going on at the FBI. If you want an example outside of this political arena....do some research into the FBI's relationship with Whitey Bulger.

    If you believe the government's preferred narrative that Zip Connolly was simply a rogue agent who turned dirty....you are in-fucking-sane.

    How do you know he isn't?
    Mueller has already talked to everyone I listed. He wouldn't talk to those people unless he was prepared to ask everything he could possibly want to ask. You don't get second chances at witnesses.

    Also, what's your interpretation of Mueller wanting to interview Trump himself? Just wanting to shoot the breeze?
    It is inevitable that the investigator would want to talk to the subject of the investigation. The fact that Mueller wants to talk to Trump is indicative of nothing other than Mueller was present for his "Detective 101" class.

    But again, you don't get second chances at witnesses. And you usually don't go for the top dog until you're done with all the underlings. So if Mueller wants to talk to Trump, all it signifies is that his investigation is almost over. That's it.

    Ya because that's what every arch-criminal says - sure I'm a criminal but so-and-so was worse. Lock THEM up, not me! Lol, right.
    Deflecting attention from your own crime would be a viable strategy, if you were a criminal. I would probably recommend leaving out the part where you say "sure I'm a criminal".

    Basically, your argument starts out with 'he's innocent' and tries to see everything through that prism.
    Not exactly. I believe deeply in a system of justice that values the concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty". So yes, my argument starts with "he's innocent". That's not politically motivated. Every single accused person should get the exact same blank slate. There was even a week or so in my early teens where I thought "OJ wouldn't do that, why would he fuck up being rich and famous just to stab some skank?"

    Now I'm open to ANY evidence at all that proves, or at this point even implies guilt. But despite two years of this nonsense, despite volumes of surveillance collected illegally, despite close Trump allies having every reason to roll over on the President (Manafort), and despite an unprecedented level of leaks coming out of the justice department......I haven't seen a shred of anything linking Trump and Putin.

    So I'm still kinda stuck on "he's innocent".

    I'm not saying he's guilty, but you already have the case decided in your mind based on whatever theories happen to suit.
    I haven't decided anything. I'm open to having my mind changed by facts, or evidence. What I've done in this thread is merely speculate about what would happen if Trump was guilty, and what would happen if he was innocent. And then try to match actual known events to each potential narrative.

    Let's just see what happens.
    I'll bet I can guess. Meuller uses some round-about silliness to accuse Trump of obstruction of Justice in relation to his asking Comey to go easy on Flynn. But it will be mild, and congress will not act. The logic being "how can it be real obstruction if there was no collusion? How can you obstruct an investigation into a non-event? Trump was just being business-man Trump when asking Comey to (appropriately) expediently dispense with a politically motivated investigation"

    It will hang over Trump in 2020, but he'll likely brush it off like everything else. Because anyone who is really put off by the indictment was already prepared to vote against Trump, even if the dems nominated a Blender to be their candidate. And anyone already planning to vote on Trump will not be compelled by an obstruction charge that can be explained away so easily.

    So in the end, it's all big fat nothingburger
  11. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    ...
    lol i'm not fucking reading that. if you have a point to make, do it in 100,000 words or less. fucking hell.
  12. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    lol i'm not fucking reading that. if you have a point to make, do it in 100,000 words or less. fucking hell.
    Sorry, facts and logic usually require more words than sensational accusations and unsubstantiated theories.
  13. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sorry, facts and logic usually require more words than sensational accusations and unsubstantiated theories.
    More like you think everyone else is as fascinated in every last one of your opinions as you are.
  14. #464
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Sorry, facts and logic usually require more words than sensational accusations and unsubstantiated theories.
    You can't reason with it.
  15. #465
    Lol, "waaah, he doesn't want to read your essay that probably just reiterates the same things you've been saying for days, with some insults thrown in for good measure."

    Maybe we should change the name of this thread to "official right-wing crybaby pussy victims thread"
  16. #466
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    It gets angry when it hasn't had its nap.
  17. #467
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    It gets angry when it hasn't had its nap.
    You better have a nap then.
  18. #468
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Women and pussies always argue in the same way:

    I know you are, but what am I.
  19. #469
    https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people...fessor-claims/

    We need to be tolerant and accepting of all different cultures.....

    BUT ONLY INDIANS CAN DO YOGA!
  20. #470
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people...fessor-claims/

    We need to be tolerant and accepting of all different cultures.....

    BUT ONLY INDIANS CAN DO YOGA!
    Stop making yourself a victim.
  21. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Stop making yourself a victim.
    Fine, but don't come cryin' to me when you get called out for watching Tyler Perry movies in a racist way.
  22. #472
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Fine, but don't come cryin' to me when you get called out for watching Tyler Perry movies in a racist way.
    Indian people using air conditioning supports brown supremacy.
  23. #473
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina


    CUCK NYE BTFO
  24. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    This needs more attention.
    I'm sure you can appreciate that surviving thanks to the taxpayer is not good for one's sense of self worth.

    And yeah you can't just walk out of your job and claim benefits. You have to argue your position became untenable due to circumstances beyond your reasonable control, for example a cunt of a boss coupled with stress. Throw depression in if needs be. Just don't be stupid and admit you left because work sucks.

    I won't quit though unless I have something else lined up, my new place is amazing and I can't afford it on benefits.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #475
    I have two log burners.

    Two.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #476
    Good to hear.
  27. #477
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm sure you can appreciate that surviving thanks to the taxpayer is not good for one's sense of self worth.

    And yeah you can't just walk out of your job and claim benefits. You have to argue your position became untenable due to circumstances beyond your reasonable control, for example a cunt of a boss coupled with stress. Throw depression in if needs be. Just don't be stupid and admit you left because work sucks.

    I won't quit though unless I have something else lined up, my new place is amazing and I can't afford it on benefits.
    I'm sincerely glad that you're making choices that are giving you a more enjoyable life man.
  28. #478
    Dems want to end the use of the term "chain migration". Jackie Speier was on CNN this morning pushing the term "family reunification".

    Confirmed cuck.
  29. #479
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Dems want to end the use of the term "chain migration". Jackie Speier was on CNN this morning pushing the term "family reunification".

    Confirmed cuck.
    Family reunification in their own fucking country is more like it.
  30. #480
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
  31. #481
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Uniformed officer asked to leave 'gun-free' Outback Steakhouse because of service weapon

    http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...ce-weapon.html

    Ward said the chain told him “there was another customer that was ‘scared for her life’ who was seated across” from the couple, and said “she was afraid because ‘police are shooting people.’”

    According to Ward’s post, “This customer went on to demand to be escorted to her vehicle out of fear of being shot.”
    Let's just cater to the idiots.
  32. #482
    http://video.foxnews.com/v/5727162690001/

    Pretty cool how he completely ignores that girl's person's question
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-06-2018 at 01:26 PM.
  33. #483
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    He's the President of Cuckistan.
  34. #484
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina


    Speaking of cucks
  35. #485
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina


    Watch the last 45-60 seconds. Idiot puts his hands on Ben Shapiro and threatens to put him in the hospital on Dr. Drew's show, and everyone defends the idiot threatening violence.

    Shapiro doesn't even blink.
  36. #486
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Watch the last 45-60 seconds. Idiot puts his hands on Ben Shapiro
    You trying to get put in the hospital bro?
  37. #487
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    You trying to get put in the hospital bro?
    Ikr

    Funny thing is, I didn't even do that on purpose.
  38. #488
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Do you have a talk where you think Ben Sharpino is making good points? That guy seems like an easy target.
    Last edited by oskar; 02-07-2018 at 03:49 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  39. #489
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Do you have a talk where you think Ben Sharpino is making good points? That guy seems like an easy target.
    The points he was making in the show that short clip was from were fine.
  40. #490
    http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/0...t-alleges.html

    Emotional support animals have to be the cuck-iest thing happening in America today.

    Even if everything this girl says is true.....I still don't see how she could be considering legal action against the airline.

    People think that ESA's are the same as the service dogs that lead blind people through wal-mart. THEY'RE NOT.

    The law protects services animals, not support animals. There is a legal distinction. Spread the word.
  41. #491
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/0...t-alleges.html

    Emotional support animals have to be the cuck-iest thing happening in America today.

    Even if everything this girl says is true.....I still don't see how she could be considering legal action against the airline.

    People think that ESA's are the same as the service dogs that lead blind people through wal-mart. THEY'RE NOT.

    The law protects services animals, not support animals. There is a legal distinction. Spread the word.
    Just now got around to reading this:

    A college student said she flushed her emotional support hamster down the toilet after Spirit Airlines refused to let her bring her furry pet on the plane.
    Haha
  42. #492
    did you see the follow up story??
  43. #493
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    The points he was making in the show that short clip was from were fine.
    That it's not rude to use the pronoun associated with someones biological sex when that's not the gender they identify as?
    Would you address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex?

    Also why is he always so angry?
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  44. #494
    im on my phone so its too much of a pita to dig up the link. ill find it though.

    basically her lawyers comments were stunningly ridiculous. something along the lines of 'an adult told her to flush it, so she did. how could she object...shes only a kid!!"

    she was 21

    and incidentally, pretty cute.

    if being an adult means that hot 21 year olds will obey you unconditionally....then what am I doing wrong?????
  45. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    if being an adult means that hot 21 year olds will obey you unconditionally....then what am I doing wrong?????
    not making a dating account that says "looking for young tight woman who thinks she's special and acts like she's special yet deep down knows she's not and just wants a big dick to set her straight."

    with pic of rolled up sleeves and bulging forearms while mowing the lawn.

    or something like that.
  46. #496
    fuck i accidentally posted in this thread again

    really gotta change the name
  47. #497
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    not making a dating account that says "looking for young tight woman who thinks she's special and acts like she's special yet deep down knows she's not and just wants a big dick to set her straight."

    with pic of rolled up sleeves and bulging forearms while mowing the lawn.

    or something like that.
    Funny.

    My actual dating profile isn't that far off. It's just the only four good pictures of me that exist and a profile that reads "Hell of a guy".

    Then, my opening line to every single woman is "Whoa, there she is"

    It works.
  48. #498
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    That it's not rude to use the pronoun associated with someones biological sex when that's not the gender they identify as?

    Would you address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex?

    Also why is he always so angry?
    No. His point (which he stated almost verbatim, so I'm confused as to why you missed it) was that your feelings do not determine whether you are male or female. Your chromosomes do.

    I would address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex, which is what pronouns are associated with anyway by definition, in plenty of cases. There are also some cases where I'll refer to someone as the incorrect pronoun to be polite, but I never non-standard pronouns, and I never will.

    Your last question is typical of certain significant sections of the left and is completely irrelevant.
  49. #499
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    No. His point (which he stated almost verbatim, so I'm confused as to why you missed it) was that your feelings do not determine whether you are male or female. Your chromosomes do.
    Well the way he said it verbatim was not debatable. He said your biological sex determines your biological sex, when obviously everyone is talking about gender identification. I did not miss that. I found it to be completely irrelevant.

    I would address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex,
    How do you even do that? How do you determine the biological sex of the person you're talking to? Do you ask for blood samples? But that's not perfect either because there are women with a y chromosome, so you'd have to go by genitals. That seems hardly practical.
    This is all rhetorical nonsense. You identify the gender of a person by the way they dress and behave. You wouldn't think for a second: I hope I'm using the biologically correct pronoun here. You'd use the one that's overtly obvious, and that one has nothing to do with the genitals or the chromosomes of that person.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  50. #500
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Your last question is typical of certain significant sections of the left and is completely irrelevant.
    Oh cmon now. You see a little person in a yarmulke getting all riled up about knobs and you're not going to say anything? This seems a lot more to ask than to call a man in a wig 'her'.
    Last edited by oskar; 02-10-2018 at 06:31 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  51. #501
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You identify the gender of a person by the way they dress and behave.
    This is completely and totally incorrect. How someone dresses and behaves has nothing to do with the gender they identify with.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You'd use the one that's overtly obvious, and that one has nothing to do with the genitals or the chromosomes of that person.
    Male and female are the two sexes, and those are determined by chromosomes. The personal, singular pronouns in the English language are used to identify male and female. The personal, singular pronouns in the English language are based on sex, not gender. Not one word of any of this is in dispute whatsoever.
  52. #502
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    This is completely and totally incorrect. How someone dresses and behaves has nothing to do with the gender they identify with.
    ????????????????????????????????
    Not one word of any of this is in dispute whatsoever.
    Well I'm glad we sorted this out... it's a complete waste talking to you.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  53. #503
    Lots of people dress up as the opposite sex and still identify as the sex they were born with.

    The whole point is that gender is a pretty made up concept whilst sex isn't. Sex is based on chromosomes, gender is based on social norms. The whole s/he argument is really unimportant and actually just creates more issues with gender identity.
    Last edited by Savy; 02-10-2018 at 06:25 PM.
  54. #504
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    If someone looks like a woman you're going to address that person as a woman. How they identify doesn't matter because that's not what I asked. Chromosomes and genitals are way down on the list of things you use as clues to identify someone as a man or a woman.

    So in the real world you have no chance on basing your pronouns on sex because you can't possibly know it. As I've also already pointed out, there are biological women with Y chromosomes. It's rare but it happens.
    Last edited by oskar; 02-10-2018 at 06:49 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  55. #505
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You identify the gender of a person by the way they dress and behave. You wouldn't think for a second: I hope I'm using the biologically correct pronoun here. You'd use the one that's overtly obvious...
    You seem confused as to why this is incorrect. Savy spells it out in a pretty straightforward way here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Lots of people dress up as the opposite sex and still identify as the sex they were born with.
    Unless you want to start telling people they don't have the right to identify with the gender they want, you have to accept this.

    For a personal anecdote, I have a young friend who identifies as a man, who has a penis and who presents as a woman. He also has ass like a motherfucker and is super pretty to the point that it's almost weird how pretty he is. Do with that information what you will.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Would you address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex?
    As an aside, there are a number of transgender people who prefer to be called the pronouns associated with their sex instead of their gender.

    I think that a lot of your confusion comes down to having an idea in your head of what you've been told transgender people want without actually having substantial experience with the LGBTQ+ community that would allow you to connect with people as individuals and see that they don't all fall into this cookie cutter mold that you've devised.

    And I want to make it clear to you that as a member of the LGBTQ+ community that I do not blame you for that whatsoever. It's a mistake that a ton of people make because they feel like they want to be good people, and they get this idea of what being a good person means, but they're tragically mistaken because they try to fit everyone into a box and apply a set of behaviors to the box instead of learning about people as individuals instead of their labels.

    The discussion of whether there are more than two genders is much more interesting to me on a personal level because I identify as gender-nonconforming.


    Edit: Fixed a bracket.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-10-2018 at 06:50 PM.
  56. #506
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Dude, basic reading comprehension. I'm asking how YOU identify them. Not how they identify themselves.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  57. #507
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    If someone looks like a woman you're going to address that person as a woman.
    No, if someone looks like a woman, I'm going to ask their preferred pronouns.

    Edit: Alternatively, I'll use language in a way that does not presume gender or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    How they identify doesn't matter because that's not what I asked.
    It's actually the only thing that matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Chromosomes and genitals are way down on the list of things you use as clues to identify someone as a man or a woman.
    No, a man is an adult male, and a woman is an adult female. Male and female are determined by chromosomes by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    So in the real world you have no chance on basing your pronouns on sex because you can't possibly know it.
    You don't seem to have much experience with enough of a variety of people with regards to gender to understand why you're wrong about just about everything you're saying on the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    As I've also already pointed out, there are biological women with Y chromosomes. It's rare but it happens.
    The word you're looking for is intersex, and that does not make them a woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Dude, basic reading comprehension. I'm asking how YOU identify them. Not how they identify themselves.
    I have no business identifying them. That's why I ask, as do anyone else who has a clue.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-10-2018 at 07:06 PM.
  58. #508
    I call everybody dude and dawg.
  59. #509
    Also homey.
  60. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I call everybody dude and dawg.
    guys is a general term used teachers use to address classes as a whole which isn't great. I've never really thought about it too much until I heard a teacher use it in an all girls school.
  61. #511
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    guys is a general term used teachers use to address classes as a whole which isn't great. I've never really thought about it too much until I heard a teacher use it in an all girls school.
    In English and Romance languages, the masculine plural is used for all-male and mixed groups while the feminine plural is only used for all-female groups. This is a point of contention in the pronoun debate for similar reasons as what you're pointing out above, even though it really should be 'girls' in that case if it's referring to an all-female group.
  62. #512
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    In English and Romance languages, the masculine plural is used for all-male and mixed groups while the feminine plural is only used for all-female groups. This is a point of contention in the pronoun debate for similar reasons as what you're pointing out above, even though it really should be 'girls' in that case if it's referring to an all-female group.
    I just stick to "sup bitches" shows both the sexes im the alpha in charge.
  63. #513
    I honestly think all this ambiguity surrounding gender/sex is just a fad. Future generations are gonna look back at us and be like "what the fuck were they thinking??"

    Chromosomes determine gender and sex (if you insist on separating those into two separate words). Fin.

    Anything else is just another cog in the progressive identity politics machine.

    This is illustrated by the cognitive dissonance that says Bruce Jenner can be a woman, but Rachel Dolezal can't be black.
  64. #514
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Chromosomes determine gender and sex (if you insist on separating those into two separate words). Fin.
    Sort of a fun fact type of thing:

    This is the basic argument of trans-exclusionary radical feminism (TERF for short). Essentially, they view gender as a synonym of sex while subsequently denying the existence of transgender people. In their worldview, a man who wants to wear a dress, get boob implants, have his dick cut off, etc. is still a man, regardless of how he presents himself. They also would think someone who fits this description still benefits from male privilege, etc.

    They're not particularly popular as a group with respect to intersectional feminism as a result.
  65. #515
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    This is the basic argument of reasonable people
    Fixed your post
  66. #516
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Fixed your post
    If you really want to take a ride down the rabbit hole, there's a term called "truscum" which is a derogatory term for someone who is transfundamentalist. A transfundamentalist is someone who believes that the only people who are transgender are those who experience gender dysphoria (which is listed in the DSM-5).

    Gender dysphoria defined:

    the condition of feeling one's emotional and psychological identity as male or female to be opposite to one's biological sex.
    ...which is exactly what people keep getting told being transgender means. But believing that is so bad now that it has a derogatory term attached to it that's pronounced "true scum."

    From the SJWiki:

    Based on their understanding of what it means to be trans (i.e., a purely medical condition), truscum accuse trans people who do not experience gender dysphoria of appropriating trans labels and culture as a fashion statement or as a misguided attention-seeking technique.
    For what it's worth, there's a lot of pretty interesting neurological evidence to suggest gender dysphoria exists, and it's not really up for debate because it can't be fully proven one way or the other with our current level of technology.

    Whether we need to be pumping kids full of hormones or have tax dollars paid for people to transition are completely different discussions.

    But whether gender dysphoria exists doesn't really matter at this point because people who believe it's required to be transgender are being called truscum pieces of shit.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-10-2018 at 09:24 PM.
  67. #517
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    If you really want to take a ride down the rabbit hole, there's a term called "truscum" which is a derogatory term for someone who is transfundamentalist. A transfundamentalist is someone who believes that the only people who are transgender are those who experience gender dysphoria (which is listed in the DSM-5).
    If something is in the DSM5, all that means is "We've identified an unusual pattern of thinking that we can monetize". That doesn't necessarily mean it's a medical condition.

    ...which is exactly what people keep getting told being transgender means. But believing that is so bad now that it has a derogatory term attached to it that's pronounced "true scum."
    Another chapter in the tragic saga of identity politics. I've heard this story before. Marginalize a group, villainize the oppressors, demand accommodation. Fuck that game.

    For what it's worth, there's a lot of pretty interesting neurological evidence to suggest gender dysphoria exists
    ,
    Massive eye roll

    But whether gender dysphoria exists doesn't really matter at this point because people who believe it's required to be transgender are being called truscum pieces of shit.
    Because dissenting opinions, fact based arguments, and adherence to provable science is scummy. Right
  68. #518
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    If something is in the DSM5, all that means is "We've identified an unusual pattern of thinking that we can monetize". That doesn't necessarily mean it's a medical condition.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Another chapter in the tragic saga of identity politics. I've heard this story before. Marginalize a group, villainize the oppressors, demand accommodation. Fuck that game.
    I agree x 1 million.

    It's worth pointing out that the left is cannibalizing itself over things like this at a more rapid pace each year.

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Massive eye roll
    It is what it is. Most of it in terms of possible/probable causes comes down to things not happening as they typically would as a developing fetus. The genitals you have and the brain structure you have (which can be decidedly male or female, structurally speaking) not being determined at the same time seems to play a part in it.

    It's really important to point out that this type of thing happening in a fetus is so extremely rare that it doesn't account for the word transgender being a thing (similar in rarity to intersex individuals).

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Because dissenting opinions, fact based arguments, and adherence to provable science is scummy. Right
    I agree x 950,000 or so.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-10-2018 at 09:48 PM.
  69. #519
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    No, if someone looks like a woman, I'm going to ask their preferred pronouns.

    Edit: Alternatively, I'll use language in a way that does not presume gender or lack thereof.
    So you're either dyslexic or you're trolling. For the 3rd time: not what I asked.
    The word you're looking for is intersex, and that does not make them a woman.
    Well congrats on using wikipedia, but once again it fails you. If you are born with a uterus, ovaries, and no parts of male genitalia, your biological sex is female regardless of your Y chromosome. Like I said this is very rare, I was just bringing it up because you said biological sex is determined by chromosomes when that's not the entire story.

    If you could play devils advocate for something properly it could be interesting but if your debate tactic is to fake cognitive impairment there's nothing in it for me.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  70. #520
    Honestly, this whole point about "intersex" people is stupid. That's so fucking rare that it shouldn't really be part of the discussion. It's a fringe biological anomaly that almost never happens.

    it just comes up in discussions like this as a form of "gotchya".

    Someone says "Chromosomes determine gender"

    then some dink says "Yeah, but that only applies to 99.9999999999999% of people, so it's not good enough"

    And then somehow that means that people who are definitely NOT intersex, get to make up some other definition of gender that helps them collect victim points.
  71. #521
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    No, that was just a note on the side. My point was, and I am very confused as to why this is so difficult to grasp: You do not use chromosomes to identify gender. You use visual and auditory clues. Does this person have long hair, breasts. Does the person walk in a certain way. The pitch of the voice. When all clues point to one gender you use the appropriate gender pronoun. To say you don't is simply dishonest. Ben Sharpino says he will always use the pronoun associated with the biological gender, and Spoon said he finds this agreeable, and then a couple posts later contradicts himself directly. So my conclusion is that this is a complete waste of a conversation.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  72. #522
    You're actually not the first person to play the "what about intersex people" card in this forum recently.

    Also, it's hard to take your complaints about spoon seriously when you yourself are polluting the conversation with extraneous and irrelevant nonsense like trying to account for the handful of mutants out there.

    Finally, your argument fails up close. If you see someone from 1000 feet a away with long hair, high heels, and tits, and you wanna guess its a woman, then fine. But when you're 1 foot away and you see an adams apple, gigantic calves, and a baritone voice....then what? You have conflicting visual and auditory clues.

    Now you must pick a side. Are you on the side of science, biology, chromosomes, anatomy, and common sense

    or are you on the side that says gender is up to this person's imagination??
  73. #523
    I wish to identify as a dolphin, and anyone who doesn't refer to me by my preferred pronoun is comitting a hate crime.

    My preferred pronoun has no English representation, since I am a dolphin. It's basically an inaudible high pitched screech, your dog might understand it. Here's the binary represenation of it... 10110001101001110101101000101010000000101010110101 001010001111010100101

    You have my permission to shorten it to 101, since it's my lucky number.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #524
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    So you're either dyslexic or you're trolling. For the 3rd time: not what I asked.

    Well congrats on using wikipedia, but once again it fails you. If you are born with a uterus, ovaries, and no parts of male genitalia, your biological sex is female regardless of your Y chromosome. Like I said this is very rare, I was just bringing it up because you said biological sex is determined by chromosomes when that's not the entire story.

    If you could play devils advocate for something properly it could be interesting but if your debate tactic is to fake cognitive impairment there's nothing in it for me.
    Sex is determined by chromosomes, not by genitalia.
  75. #525
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You do not use chromosomes to identify gender.
    Correct. Chromosomes determine sex; self-identity determines gender.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    You use visual and auditory clues. You use visual and auditory clues. Does this person have long hair, breasts. Does the person walk in a certain way. The pitch of the voice. When all clues point to one gender you use the appropriate gender pronoun.
    Incorrect. None of this allows you to determine the gender they identify as without asking them.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    Ben Sharpino says he will always use the pronoun associated with the biological gender, and Spoon said he finds this agreeable, and then a couple posts later contradicts himself directly. So my conclusion is that this is a complete waste of a conversation.
    Incorrect. I said that Ben Shapiro makes good points, which he does from the perspective that sex and gender are synonyms. Those points include pronouns being tied to whether someone is of a male sex or of a female sex, and they also include that no one should be able to force him to use a different pronoun from the perspective of basic human rights. The person sitting beside of him very much proves his point by trying to coerce him into using a different pronoun with threats of violence, which is the point that should be focused on in this discussion instead of most of the things that you're talking about here.

    While I do not agree with his perspective that sex and gender are synonyms based on issues of definition, I do agree that using threats of violence to coerce someone into changing their speech is a violation of human rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •