@mott-the-hooplesaid so then, is it possible for a man to become a woman?
yes. Because what you dingdongs fail to realize is that they aren't trying to become a woman/man in the biological sense.
They want to be a woman/man in the sociological sense.
And, if it's not too much trouble and there is nothing else more important, not get beaten up or murdered or bullied to the point of suicide while and after transitioning
@zahlanzisaid yes. Because what you dingdongs fail to realize is that they aren't trying to become a woman/man in the biological sense.
They want to be a woman/man in the sociological sense.
And, if it's not too much trouble and there is nothing else more important, not get beaten up or murdered or bullied to the point of suicide while and after transitioning
Only if it's not too much trouble.
I have never uttered the word 'transitioning '... I am good at prophecy, and I hereby predict I will never utter the word 'transitioning'.
@averagejoe1said I have never uttered the word 'transitioning '... I am good at prophecy, and I hereby predict I will never utter the word 'transitioning'.
@ponderablesaid 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,
It's the same in the spirituality forum. Most Internet screaming matches come down to sloppy definitions, I do believe.
The terms rioters versus protesters get confused a lot.
Near as I can tell, if they are left wing radicals they are protesters standing up for their rights, if they are conservatives, they are rioters out to destroy the country, at least according to the crowd here.
@ponderablesaid Biologie: female human, charcterised by sexual chromoson setup XY (though 0X, XXy and other setups result also in phenotypical females.
@jj-adamssaid The terms rioters versus protesters get confused a lot.
Near as I can tell, if they are left wing radicals they are protesters standing up for their rights, if they are conservatives, they are rioters out to destroy the country, at least according to the crowd here.
thumb up.
Another , libs will say money is being distributed, mixing it up with the word getting paid. They think the govt is paying! them when they get those checks on the way to Frisbee park.
@averagejoe1said 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!
That's fun, and also the complete opposite of the point of the thread. Instead of asking others' to define terms for you, maybe you should define what you think it means first.
@jj-adamssaid The terms rioters versus protesters get confused a lot.
Near as I can tell, if they are left wing radicals they are protesters standing up for their rights, if they are conservatives, they are rioters out to destroy the country, at least according to the crowd here.
Can you define what you think it means first, before someone (assumingly) disagrees with your definition?
@wildgrasssaid It seems like a lot of folks on here want to claim they know how other people define terms, without clearly providing their definition first.
Me first! To pay someone, is to give them money for work done or goods provided.
To distribute is to (flat out) deliver something to someone. Its source is irrelevant.
@averagejoe1said Me first! To pay someone, is to give them money for work done or goods provided.
To distribute is to (flat out) deliver something to someone. Its source is irrelevant.
Nice.
So when trump admin wrote checks from uncle sam to Americans they were ________.
@ponderablesaid 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,
Fascism should be properly defined. People on here are using the term as a pejorative rather than the true definition. Calling a socialist a fascist is stupid.
07 Oct '22 10:00
defining terms
Back to Top