Problematic Stuff

[Hermit]

But Hermit, someone once gamed the system, so nobody can be trusted - not even kids in diapers. Best treat them all like criminals.

Especially the ones hiding metal spoons - or would hide spoons if they had access to them. Just imagine 2300 Uri Gellers roaming free in the country, defrauding the unsuspecting public.

[Brian Peacock]

[Seabass]

[pErvinalia]

What's your basis for thinking that gender is something someone chooses, suggesting that it isn't biologically based?

I didn't say "choose," I said "identify as." Is that the wrong term?

You juxtaposed that against biological. I assumed that meant you consider it a choice. If it's not biological and not a choice, then what exactly is it?

Is "identify as" the wrong term? Is it correct to say that sex is biological/genetic, and gender is what people identify as?

I am using in that post the distinction that I've heard made. Sex and gender are not the same thing, and sex is the biological/genetic bit and gender refers to what one identifies as (whether male, female, other, nonbinary, fluid, and which can change from day to day, depending on the person). Is that wrong? If so, let me know where you think I'm wrong.

Surely that implies it's a choice?

In any case, L'Emmy has provided some scientific arguments that it's biological. Have you addressed those?

Does it? Do you think it's a choice? Or, do you disagree with the distinction between sex and gender?

What is the difference between sex and gender? Did L'Emmy post that?

trolololol...

What's got up your nose? Are you sad I'm picking on your only buddy Cunt?

[pErvinalia]

...who say that people who are overt about their sexuality deserve to be treated harshly.

I don't remember saying deserved, but I would say I would expect them to be treated harshly.

Not because they are gay (or trans, or LGBTQRSTUA++) but because everybody gets treated harshly for being overtly sexual in public.

.

Which pegs you as a moralising conservative. Many of who are worthless bigots.

So because I observe these things in the world, I am moralizing? I would let you fuck your goat in my yard. I would film it (if it is lawful goat-fucking) and shield you from the prying eyes of neighbours. I would not judge you a lousy goatfucker (unless you did a poor job of fucking that goat)

I am not talking about MY morals, but about what my community does. You don't have to agree with your community about nosepicking, to suffer the social opprobrium if you pick your nose where you shouldn't.

My bold. Yes you are. Here's what you wrote:
"Gay people aren't 'looking to be different', but if they flaunt their sexuality, they will (and SHOULD) be treated differently. I would treat them like someone who flaunts their sexuality."
My emphasis.

[pErvinalia]

Don't worry, there isn't much better out there. When debate is offered, the gender-policing community either hides their best debaters, or has only fools presenting their side.

Umm, you're the gender-policing one. YOU are the one who says that people who flaunt their sexuality and gender should be treated harshly.

[Cunt]

My point is, there are lots of reasons that even you would have to separate families (or those pretending they are families). The media could make you seem horrible for doing so, even if your every motive was human dignity, every action audited.

Indeed.

Are you suggesting that separating 2300 children from their parents in a matter of a few weeks whose crime it was to cross a border without a visa, and sticking them into cages was motivated by human dignity? Or maybe you have evidence that those 2300 children would have concealed metal spoons in their underwear, had they only known about that trick - and the existence of metal spoons - and only those clued in ICE agents were aware of their problem?

The spoon reference was to point out that unexpected and private matters can lead to separation.

As to the numbers, I don't know who to blame for the 2300. The current law enforcement (as ordered by the voters) or the previous lack of enforcement (as ordered by the voters).

This IS jarring, and there will be mistakes, but it is the will of the voters being carried out, so that is who I will blame for now. (for the 2300 you mention, I mean)

There crime was exactly what you describe. You keep wanting to minimize it, but it IS a crime. Their guardians chose to make them crimmigrants. Probably in most cases chose correctly, I would add. The fact that they were doing their best doesn't mean it isn't against the law. They probably thought the risk of being ejected rudely by ICE was favourable to whatever their other option was (if they even had one)

Anyway, I don't know why everyone seems shocked that securing borders is awful. It was expected to be awful. Families will be separated. How many? I don't know. For some, it sounds like they think no-one should be ejected.

It's like any awful job, lots of criticism, very few people willing to take a career at ICE and do their best job.

I guess a criticism starting with 'they' (i.e. - blaming Trump, republicans or ICE) sounds less convincing than when someone who takes responsibility offers criticism. You can identify them by their use of 'we' instead of 'they'.

[Cunt]

...who say that people who are overt about their sexuality deserve to be treated harshly.

I don't remember saying deserved, but I would say I would expect them to be treated harshly.

Not because they are gay (or trans, or LGBTQRSTUA++) but because everybody gets treated harshly for being overtly sexual in public.

.

Which pegs you as a moralising conservative. Many of who are worthless bigots.

So because I observe these things in the world, I am moralizing? I would let you fuck your goat in my yard. I would film it (if it is lawful goat-fucking) and shield you from the prying eyes of neighbours. I would not judge you a lousy goatfucker (unless you did a poor job of fucking that goat)

I am not talking about MY morals, but about what my community does. You don't have to agree with your community about nosepicking, to suffer the social opprobrium if you pick your nose where you shouldn't.

My bold. Yes you are. Here's what you wrote:
"Gay people aren't 'looking to be different', but if they flaunt their sexuality, they will (and SHOULD) be treated differently. I would treat them like someone who flaunts their sexuality."
My emphasis.

So if someone acts sexual I treat them differently. I feel that I should. Why is that such a problem for you?

If someone flaunts their sexuality, don't YOU treat them differently?

[Cunt]

Don't worry, there isn't much better out there. When debate is offered, the gender-policing community either hides their best debaters, or has only fools presenting their side.

Umm, you're the gender-policing one. YOU are the one who says that people who flaunt their sexuality and gender should be treated harshly.

I said 'should be treated differently'. May have said 'will be treated harshly'. Careful about your confusions, pErvinalia

[Cunt]

What's your basis for thinking that gender is something someone chooses, suggesting that it isn't biologically based?

I didn't say "choose," I said "identify as." Is that the wrong term?

You juxtaposed that against biological. I assumed that meant you consider it a choice. If it's not biological and not a choice, then what exactly is it?

Is "identify as" the wrong term? Is it correct to say that sex is biological/genetic, and gender is what people identify as?

I am using in that post the distinction that I've heard made. Sex and gender are not the same thing, and sex is the biological/genetic bit and gender refers to what one identifies as (whether male, female, other, nonbinary, fluid, and which can change from day to day, depending on the person). Is that wrong? If so, let me know where you think I'm wrong.

Surely that implies it's a choice?

In any case, L'Emmy has provided some scientific arguments that it's biological. Have you addressed those?

Does it? Do you think it's a choice? Or, do you disagree with the distinction between sex and gender?

What is the difference between sex and gender? Did L'Emmy post that?

trolololol...

What's got up your nose? Are you sad I'm picking on your only buddy Cunt?

Oh look - you get asked a direct question, and flee with 'trolololol'

How unique and surprising you are today.

[Brian Peacock]

Please stop flaunting your masculinity.

[pErvinalia]

I don't remember saying deserved, but I would say I would expect them to be treated harshly.

Not because they are gay (or trans, or LGBTQRSTUA++) but because everybody gets treated harshly for being overtly sexual in public.

.

Which pegs you as a moralising conservative. Many of who are worthless bigots.

So because I observe these things in the world, I am moralizing? I would let you fuck your goat in my yard. I would film it (if it is lawful goat-fucking) and shield you from the prying eyes of neighbours. I would not judge you a lousy goatfucker (unless you did a poor job of fucking that goat)

I am not talking about MY morals, but about what my community does. You don't have to agree with your community about nosepicking, to suffer the social opprobrium if you pick your nose where you shouldn't.

My bold. Yes you are. Here's what you wrote:
"Gay people aren't 'looking to be different', but if they flaunt their sexuality, they will (and SHOULD) be treated differently. I would treat them like someone who flaunts their sexuality."
My emphasis.

So if someone acts sexual I treat them differently. I feel that I should. Why is that such a problem for you?

Because I don't like moralising conservatives. They are antithetical to civilised society.

[pErvinalia]

Don't worry, there isn't much better out there. When debate is offered, the gender-policing community either hides their best debaters, or has only fools presenting their side.

Umm, you're the gender-policing one. YOU are the one who says that people who flaunt their sexuality and gender should be treated harshly.

I said 'should be treated differently'. May have said 'will be treated harshly'. Careful about your confusions, pErvinalia

You don't even know what you wrote. You said you would expect them to be treated harshly. While saying you treat them differently.

[pErvinalia]

I didn't say "choose," I said "identify as." Is that the wrong term?

You juxtaposed that against biological. I assumed that meant you consider it a choice. If it's not biological and not a choice, then what exactly is it?

Is "identify as" the wrong term? Is it correct to say that sex is biological/genetic, and gender is what people identify as?

I am using in that post the distinction that I've heard made. Sex and gender are not the same thing, and sex is the biological/genetic bit and gender refers to what one identifies as (whether male, female, other, nonbinary, fluid, and which can change from day to day, depending on the person). Is that wrong? If so, let me know where you think I'm wrong.

Surely that implies it's a choice?

In any case, L'Emmy has provided some scientific arguments that it's biological. Have you addressed those?

Does it? Do you think it's a choice? Or, do you disagree with the distinction between sex and gender?

What is the difference between sex and gender? Did L'Emmy post that?

trolololol...

What's got up your nose? Are you sad I'm picking on your only buddy Cunt?

Oh look - you get asked a direct question, and flee with 'trolololol'

How unique and surprising you are today.

Not surprised you pretend to be unable to see answering questions with questions as a diversionary tactic. Come on Spoonman, it's your own favourite tactic..

[Cunt]

Don't worry, there isn't much better out there. When debate is offered, the gender-policing community either hides their best debaters, or has only fools presenting their side.

Umm, you're the gender-policing one. YOU are the one who says that people who flaunt their sexuality and gender should be treated harshly.

I said 'should be treated differently'. May have said 'will be treated harshly'. Careful about your confusions, pErvinalia

You don't even know what you wrote. You said you would expect them to be treated harshly. While saying you treat them differently.

Yes. I expect them to be treated harshly. I expect them to be treated more harshly in Tehran, than in San Francisco. Do you disagree with my assessment somehow? Are my expectations different from yours?

If I missed a particular question, do me a favour. Don't quote it, just wait a few posts or pages, then whinge about my refusal to answer.

I treat them differently. You haven't answered whether you treat them differently or not.

I know what to expect of you though. So do your thing.