06 Oct 22
Starting point: I observe, that a lot of posts here use words and expression, which are not well defined if at all. That leadsto confusion and in some instances nonsensiacl mud-slinging. (And this is not limited to "one side"😉.
My thesis is: The more accurate we define our terms, the better we can agree on the problem at hand, and the more fruitful a debate can be,
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147483
06 Oct 22
@ponderable saidok, lets start with the word woman...what is your definition?
Starting point: I observe, that a lot of posts here use words and expression, which are not well defined if at all. That leadsto confusion and in some instances nonsensiacl mud-slinging. (And this is not limited to "one side"😉.
My thesis is: The more accurate we define our terms, the better we can agree on the problem at hand, and the more fruitful a debate can be,
06 Oct 22
@mott-the-hoople saidBiologie: female human, charcterised by sexual chromoson setup XY (though 0X, XXy and other setups result also in phenotypical females.
ok, lets start with the word woman...what is your definition?
06 Oct 22
@ponderable saidFAIR SHARE!!! Please ....
Starting point: I observe, that a lot of posts here use words and expression, which are not well defined if at all. That leadsto confusion and in some instances nonsensiacl mud-slinging. (And this is not limited to "one side"😉.
My thesis is: The more accurate we define our terms, the better we can agree on the problem at hand, and the more fruitful a debate can be,
Libs say it all the time, as they are in lock step with their godfather Bernie, and they truly do NOT know what they are even saying. If they did, would they tell us, to enlighten us, so that we would have a light-bulb moment and reach Into our savings and give them a share?....So they can take more time off from work!?!
@ponderable saidNice try Ponderable but as you can see there are far to many halfwitted illiberal’s here who are strangers to honest debate and are happy sitting in dunces corner as long as they can fire spitballs at anyone that does not look or act like a cardboard cut out of themselves and Joe just makes stuff up in his head, then assigns it to other people (libs) and adds some exclamation marks 🤷🏻♂️
Starting point: I observe, that a lot of posts here use words and expression, which are not well defined if at all. That leadsto confusion and in some instances nonsensiacl mud-slinging. (And this is not limited to "one side"😉.
My thesis is: The more accurate we define our terms, the better we can agree on the problem at hand, and the more fruitful a debate can be,
06 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidThe problem seems to be "fair share" of what, than the definition of a fair share.
FAIR SHARE!!! Please ....
Libs say it all the time, as they are in lock step with their godfather Bernie, and they truly do NOT know what they are even saying. If they did, would they tell us, to enlighten us, so that we would have a light-bulb moment and reach Into our savings and give them a share?....So they can take more time off from work!?!
If we had the situtaion of 50 children in a group and 50 cookies, you might come out with a decent answer, wouldn't you?
The problem here is to define: What is in the bowl (Is there anything at all, or should there?) and who is to paricipate.
The fundamental question would at some point be: Do we want a society?
If we want a society what do we expect of whom and why?
@ponderable saidI respect your post, but first, let us ask the liberals, when THEY say, in a civilized society, that they want a fair share, what do they mean. It is a given, just with the word ‘want’, it would come from outside their purview, and that it is something monetarily. So what, and equally important, from whom?
The problem seems to be "fair share" of what, than the definition of a fair share.
If we had the situtaion of 50 children in a group and 50 cookies, you might come out with a decent answer, wouldn't you?
The problem here is to define: What is in the bowl (Is there anything at all, or should there?) and who is to paricipate.
The fundamental question would at some point be: Do we want a society?
If we want a society what do we expect of whom and why?
Let’s not observe a room full of kindergartners. That gets into ‘Gimme It!” Territory!
06 Oct 22
@Mott-The-Hoople
Right away running this post directly into BS politics. We all know about the SCOTUS hearings where that question was asked so you are clearly not interesting in an actual answer, ONLY interested in pushing your sick POS POV.
06 Oct 22
@AverageJoe1
He wasn't asking for background BS, he asked for definitions without political rhetoric.
06 Oct 22
@mott-the-hoople saidThis issue seems personal to you. What happened ??
ok, lets start with the word woman...what is your definition?
You kiss a man in a dress by accident once ?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147483
@ponderable saidso then, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
Biologie: female human, charcterised by sexual chromoson setup XY (though 0X, XXy and other setups result also in phenotypical females.
06 Oct 22
@sonhouse saidWho, Sonhouse?? Who? Who is 'He'. Is it Marauder, or Techsouth, who??,
@AverageJoe1
He wasn't asking for background BS, he asked for definitions without political rhetoric.
06 Oct 22
@mott-the-hoople saidExcellent. Too much for them on a Thursday.
so then, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
Ha... 'Them'. It is like they are outer-spacers.
07 Oct 22
@mott-the-hoople saidNo, it is not. And we are still talking biology here.
so then, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
If you want to discuss gender issues you are to define your terms first,