1. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    654995
    06 Oct '22 12:42
    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,
  2. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    142320
    06 Oct '22 13:00
    @ponderable said
    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,
    ok, lets start with the word woman...what is your definition?
  3. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    654995
    06 Oct '22 13:05
    @mott-the-hoople said
    ok, lets start with the word woman...what is your definition?
    Biologie: female human, charcterised by sexual chromoson setup XY (though 0X, XXy and other setups result also in phenotypical females.
  4. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51832
    06 Oct '22 13:16
    @ponderable said
    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,
    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!?!
  5. Subscriberkevcvs57
    Flexible
    The wrong side of 60
    Joined
    22 Dec '11
    Moves
    37011
    06 Oct '22 13:251 edit
    @ponderable said
    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,
    Nice 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 🤷🏻‍♂️
  6. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    654995
    06 Oct '22 13:25
    @averagejoe1 said
    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!?!
    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?
  7. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51832
    06 Oct '22 17:251 edit
    @ponderable said
    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?
    I 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?
    Let’s not observe a room full of kindergartners. That gets into ‘Gimme It!” Territory!
  8. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    06 Oct '22 17:30
    @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.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    06 Oct '22 17:31
    @AverageJoe1
    He wasn't asking for background BS, he asked for definitions without political rhetoric.
  10. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    151917
    06 Oct '22 17:41
    @mott-the-hoople said
    ok, lets start with the word woman...what is your definition?
    This issue seems personal to you. What happened ??
    You kiss a man in a dress by accident once ?
  11. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    142320
    06 Oct '22 17:54
    @ponderable said
    Biologie: female human, charcterised by sexual chromoson setup XY (though 0X, XXy and other setups result also in phenotypical females.
    so then, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
  12. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51832
    06 Oct '22 18:28
    @sonhouse said
    @AverageJoe1
    He wasn't asking for background BS, he asked for definitions without political rhetoric.
    Who, Sonhouse?? Who? Who is 'He'. Is it Marauder, or Techsouth, who??,
  13. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51832
    06 Oct '22 18:29
    @mott-the-hoople said
    so then, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
    Excellent. Too much for them on a Thursday.

    Ha... 'Them'. It is like they are outer-spacers.
  14. SubscriberAverageJoe1
    Gimme It! Free Stuf!
    Lake Como
    Joined
    27 Jul '10
    Moves
    51832
    06 Oct '22 18:30
    @mghrn55 said
    This issue seems personal to you. What happened ??
    You kiss a man in a dress by accident once ?
    Why do you libs not answer questions?
  15. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    654995
    07 Oct '22 08:45
    @mott-the-hoople said
    so then, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
    No, it is not. And we are still talking biology here.

    If you want to discuss gender issues you are to define your terms first,
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree