Celestial-body-NOS
Liberalism has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.
No bio...
User ID: 290
Again, what would they be identifying with?
The gender identity which has a lot more people born with 🌮 than with 🍆.
Hiw would you know? How do you know that the trans women that do put on a dress and whatnot aren't lying?
It was revealed to me in a dream. I can make an educated guess; in the absence of indicators of bad faith, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
I meant the 'hormones and secondary characteristics mediated by hormones' definition, and the 'what plumbing one currently has' definition.
2+2 had a different answer than the 4 that was a correct answer.
2 + 2 = 5, for large values of 2.
I'm more than happy to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with Somalians and aboriginals etc., and to help them achieve the most they can with their inherent abilities.
a standard of living and civilization beyond their ability to maintain.
The standard of living people can maintain themselves is orthogonal to the standard of living they deserve. Our ancestors did not deserve to bury half their children before their fifth birthdays, even if they could not maintain a low infant mortality rate themselves.
We (with the exception of Social Darwinists and others of that kidney) expect society to give many people within a racial group 'a standard of living beyond their ability to maintain', e. g., children, the elderly, and the disabled. I am simply advocating that this standard be applied to the 'Human' race.
For any purpose that is. if you aren't interacting with the trans individual's body, any of your beeswax.
(Also, some definitions of 'biological sex' can be changed.)
'Woman'.
If she identifies as a woman, yes. (I doubt there are any transwomen fitting those specifications, though.)
If he is lying in order to pivot progressives to maintaining the black-and-white 1-bit oversimplification he was taught back when he was knee-high to a grasshopper, no.
I believe that that is addressed in the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel According to St Luke.
So effeminate men are women, actually?
Not unless they identify as such.
And trans women, who aren't adopting the female gender role well enough aren't actually women?
They still identify as women, they're women.
(Perhaps you're thinking of gender presentation?)
Yes; Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and H. sapiens sapiens.
what is a woman?
For most purposes, a woman is someone who either (a.) is of the gender identity found more commonly in people born with vulvas, or (b.) has no gender identity and has a vulva.
Sapir and Whorf are doing the opposite of rolling in their graves right now.
What about C. S. Lewis?
Sometimes I wonder if there's anyone left anywhere who actually believes this.
I don't know whether it is possible to achieve, but it would be a good outcome if it were, and I believe it is every person's duty to put their greatest effort towards it.
Those of us who try, even if we are not successful, will be able to stand before the Ultimate Judge and say that we did not fail to do our utmost.
How is talking to your daughter going to reduce the number of potential perpetrators?
Well, for one thing, if her date tries to force himself on her using one of the aforementioned excuses, he is less likely to gain her acquiescence and more likely to end up with a face full of pepper spray, a kick to the nadgers, and/or a court summons.
Or are you talking about a different kind of action you are simultaneously undertaking to affect wider society?
Yes. I am referring to the arcane art known as 'teaching my sons that a woman is entitled a veto over her nether regions, and cannot forfeit it by inchastity.'
do you also simultaneously advocate for the mass importation of men from countries notorious for a comparatively more 'laisser-faire approach to consent', so to speak?
I reject the framing of 'importation'. Immigrants are human beings with agency, who choose to relocate; they are not widgets brought in by the container-load.
However, I am in favour of (1.) more efforts to educate immigrants from such countries that women in the West have the right to say no themselves, without the involvement of a husband or a male relative, and that a woman not being under the control of a man does not make her a public accommodation, and (2.) prosecuting brown rapists to the same degree as white rapists.
Do you also teach your children that the most important consideration while crossing the street is whether or not the light says they are owed the right-of-way, and not whether or not the fast-travelling vehicles actually stop?
No, but I would teach them that a driver who runs over a pedestrian does not become less liable because the pedestrian assumed that they would adhere to the traffic laws.
Given the fallout of the #MeToo movement in the past few years, is it not questionable whether the most vocal proponents of a maximalist approach to consent are not also themselves prone to consent infractions?
They are certainly not immune to such, but someone who publicly avers that, if a woman does XYZ, he is entitled to coitus with her regardless of her preferences, and to take it forcibly if she does not agree, is probably (1.) more dangerous, and (2.) not someone I want raising children.
Isn't that the crux of the matter? If her being intoxicated invalidates her 'enthusiastic consent', his being intoxicated also invalidates his own 'enthusiastic consent' to the rape, he is being falsely accused of what he did not consciously engage in.
Perhaps there was a mis-communication on my part. I am not at this time addressing the cases in which Alice and Bob were both drunk, did the dance with no pants, and Alice or Carol accuses Bob the next morning of rape. I am referring to the simpler case in which Alice does not want to be intimate with Bob, makes this quite clear to him, and he forces himself on her anyway. In that case, Bob is guilty of rape, and his guilt is not lessened one iota because Alice was three sheets to the wind.
Until they get back to civilisation....
If
And if they don't, what stops Alice from channeling Lorena Bobbitt?
in a way that doesn't unfairly create a duty to one side.
It doesn't create a duty to one side.
If Alice controls the only safe shelter, she is obligated not to deny Bob access to it without a Good Reason.
If Alice demands sexual favours from Bob as a condition of shelter access, Alice has committed rape.
I think a better question would be, "Why does he think he is justified in refusing her?".
Some possible answers to that question might lead one to the conclusion that he is justified, such as "I let her in last night and she tried to stab me.".
Is he obligated to provide her with shelter?
If he controls the only safe shelter, he is obligated to not prevent her from using it.
Some things have to be believable; to abbreviate a Chesterton quote, people might or might not believe a story that Gladstone was haunted by Parnell's ghost, but they would not at all believe that Gladstone slapped Queen Victoria on the back and offered her a cigar.
See also the "Would you be more surprised to find a walrus or a fairy on your doorstep?" debate from two years ago.
True; I only referred to chattel slavery because the previous posters were arguing whether or not its restoration was an absolute impossibility. A society deprived of machines might very well turn not to chattel slavery but to serfdom, casteism, enslavement of petty criminals combined with an extremely strict and micromanaging legal code, enslavement of prisoners of war combined with a bellicose foreign policy, or some form of unfree labour not currently attested in history. What wouldn't happen is everyone accepting a life of drudgery without complaint. People want to make their lives easier, and obtain greater creature comforts for less toil; if they can't shift their workload onto machines, they will seek to dump it on to people weaker than themselves.
Alien Space Bats was just the first thing I thought of; a nuclear exchange, supervolcano, or asteroid impact of sufficient magnitude, or a political victory by the degrowtherismists, would also fit in that space.
(e. g. = for example; i. e. = in other words.)
If Alice and Bob divide up the maintenance schedule for the shelter, and Alice subsequently offers sexual favours to Bob in exchange for his carrying out her share as well as his own, that would be prostitution.
But is Mr Wara objecting to his group being treated as equal when he thinks it entitled to superiority, or is he objecting to his group being treated as inferior when it deserves equality?
I believe the school system was also mentioned, along with the time-honoured metaphor of 'shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic'.
- Prev
- Next

86 = get rid of, originally a code of uncertain derivation referring to a restaurant expelling a customer who has become tired and emotional as a newt; 47 = 47th president; someone apparently confused '86' with 'deep six' (from the standard depth of a grave) and thought it was a death threat.
More options
Context Copy link