What in the hell are you talking about?
You like to post these little clever quips, but that one in particular is about as clever as saying âthe children are our future!â
Doesnât add anything to the conversation one way or the other, but thanks for sharing.
Because you didnât post a âclever little quipâ âŠthat didnât add anything and was already stated decades ago.
Calling communism a religion is hardly new, original or provocative.
I may be confused because you posted a tweet and a meme and Iâm not sure which you are calling retarded.
And sometimes you seem like a thoughtful poster, and sometimes you post like a pissy 13 year old. Iâve got better things to do than go around and around with you, have a good day
If it keeps you from posting your freshly created views on life, my mission is complete. In the meantime I suggest you read some Raymond Aron.
Actually. this was the concept in Libya under the enlightened rule of Colonel Qaddafi. As you may have guessed, it didnât work out so well.
On a positive note, thanks to this policy the French-Arab author Riad Sattouf is now producing excellent works of literature by matter-of-factly chronicling his childhood traumas from growimg up in Qaddafiâs Libya:
3 Likes
Now youâre name dropping to seem clever? It must feel great to win the internet!
My belief is that it paved the way for the legitimization of other aberrant behavior. I do not think persons who believe they are other than their biologically proven gender would be given credence to that obvious psychosis as one example.
1 Like
Do you believe all beliefs have equal validity?
On a political level I believe each state has the right to choose whether or not to legalize same- sex marriage.
I am currently convinced males pretending to be females would not be allowed, for instance, to compete in women only sports had same-sex marriage not been legalized. This current âgender confusionâ lunacy is but the fruit of that tree.
The things youâre talking about happened before gay marriage was legalized.
I donât think so at all. It seems to me like you are really stretching trying to connect transgender issues with gay marriage.
Iâm sure there were instances that occurred prior but it didnât become mainstream until after the legalization. Men were not getting womenâs scholarships or being allowed to compete in womenâs sports prior to the push to legalize same-sex marriage.
1 Like
Still think the connection seems to be something you just want to believe. Do you think these issues someone is saying âwell gay marriage is legal.?â I donât see what transgender issues has to do with gay marriage. Itâs not brought up when those issues are discussed.
If someone is talking about biological gender issues in competition gay marriage is not brought up. One simply has nothing to do with the other.
Youâve had transgender competition issues since the mid 70âs. Long long long before gay marriage. And itâs still not something happening on any type of widespread scale.
I donât want to go in circles but to me youâre doing some real mental gymnastics here.
Thatâs actually a really big question. Like it spans the time of human cognition and the development of rudimentary philosophy.
And it still hasnât been answered in any objective manner.
Iâd say on an individual basis, all beliefs are valid if the person holding them actually believes them, or lives them.
Whether or not they are commonly held or accepted, the result of some psychological problem or anything else is a whole different argument.
1 Like
Ok, got it. I read the previous post as gay marriage should not have been legalized as it would open the floodgates to the other things you have stated in you posts.
My point was that, even if this was the case, it is irrelevant and should not factor into the decision making process. Painting all of them under the same brush and then penalizing one sub group for the actions(or potential actions) of another is essentially the same thought process as, for example, asking for slavery reparations from the present generation of Whites in the US.
2 Likes
How about the government has no business saying who is or isnât married? It adds no value to anything. They used tax breaks for married couples as a way to try and coerce men to stay around and raise their kids. The government has no business encouraging or discouraging social behaviours with incentives. They canât even pass a budget or handle the things they should do.
To those of you who will bring up estate law, itâs always been legal to leave your assets to anyone⊠married or not.
2 Likes
Watch that word objective when discussing philosophy. It is a loaded word.