Who will replace Hillary Clinton on the Democrat ticket?

[pErvinalia]

pErvin wrote:<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Brian was talking about gender fluidity.

<br /><br />Fuck off. He was talking about sneering at those with contradictory views and also was talking about gender fluidity. This wasn't even your conversation, so fuck off with your declarations about what the conversation was about.

Bullshit. He was SPECIFICALLY talking about gender: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 4#p1678214

You are dodging as usual.

[Forty Two]

You're not reading the posts again...

[pErvinalia]

What does it matter what I believe? Was what I wrote accurate? If not, how have I got it wrong?

It's not about what you believe but what you communicate. Your ironic tone would suggest that you don't think gender is or can be fluid, that it bears some relation to physical form and therefore physical form denotes what pronoun should apply, that it is some kind of natural fact determined at birth, so that a person in a female body should always and only ever be seen as and referred to as female, and that people should not undermine this kind of natural fact by requesting that others respect their understanding of who and what they think and feel they are.

If you don't think any of this why do you keep banging on about it and sneering at those who express a contrary view?

But yes, please tell us how black is white again, 42.

[Forty Two]

Once again....not reading my whole post again...

You must try to read my explanation about why I would generally bang on about something about which I express a contrary view, and how the general notion of banging on about such things can, through deductive reason, apply to a specific instance of banging on.

Example. If you don't believe in God, why do you keep banging on about it and sneering at those who express a contrary view? Well, there are lots of things about which I bang on about even though I hold contrary views -- like, X, or Y, or Z, because of certain reasons presented. That example should help answer the question posed. If it's above your grade level, I understand.

[pErvinalia]

Stopped reading after the second ellipsis. He's only talking about gender issues in his post. You are wrong. Again. Black isn't white.

[Forty Two]

He asked why I kept on about an issue, in that case the gender issue, as against those expressing a contrary view. My discussion was to answer that question. If you think that I have to limit my references only to "gender issues" where people express contrary views in order to address that question, then you're wrong. My discussions of other times where I would find it interesting to bang on about issues where others express a contrary view elucidates why I would be doing it with respect to the gender issues.

You're right, black isn't white. But, I really have a hard time taking you seriously here. You're just trying to point fingers again and claim that I'm declaring black to be white, when in fact that's pure projection on your part. I can't believe you don't get this. I sense you are doing on purpose. I hope you are, because it would be really concerning if you honestly couldn't understand.

But, cheers, dude. It wasn't your conversation anyway, so fuck off.

[pErvinalia]

You said: "He was talking about sneering at those with contradictory views..." independent of gender issues. No he wasn't. He was SPECIFICALLY talking about gender issues and why you sneer at those who hold a certain view of gender. Dude, you're wrong. Black isn't white.

[JimC]

"Socialism with corporate approval", eh...

Pretend socialism maybe...

Socialism, in the sense of state ownership or control of the means of production, etc., is horrific. The socialist notion of "to each according to his need, and from each according to ability to give" is an absolute horrorshow. These are concepts and ideals that are an affront to human dignity.

Socialism as in "social democracy" where individual rights are to a large extent protected, there exists a reasonably vibrant free market, where the means of production is not generally owned by the state, but where there is a significant social safety net - that's not the same thing and is not socialism.

Socialism sucks royal butt with a straw. Social democracy and hybrid economies are not the same.

My point, which you may have missed, was not to praise socialism but to sneer at Dave's utterly ridiculous notion of socialism ever having "corporate approval"...

[Forty Two]

Corporate socialism is fascism, basically.