Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Unlikely.
No. Sometimes the world is not grey. This injonction to nuance is completely fallacious in certain cases.
And in cases of politic there is not three or four but only two sides. Simply because there are just values in conflict and those values can be categorized in two distinct entities.
But I can't make you understand something you don't want to understand. Stay in ignorance.
As I said, there are not doing that. You are just refusing to read what I'm saying and you keep repeating the propaganda of a crypto fasctist and far right state. Which makes you close in term of ideology.
You are a genocid defender.
Where do you see racism on the left ?
No. Sometimes the world is not grey. This injonction to nuance is completely fallacious in certain cases.
And in cases of politic there is not three or four but only two sides. Simply because there are just values in conflict and those values can be categorized in two distinct entities.
But I can't make you understand something you don't want to understand. Stay in ignorance.
As I said, there are not doing that. You are just refusing to read what I'm saying and you keep repeating the propaganda of a crypto fasctist and far right state. Which makes you close in term of ideology.
You are a genocid defender.
Where do you see racism on the left ?
This is already redundant considering that among the two sides you claim are the only one there are plenty subgroups.
And i dont know about any nuance fallacy, but there is the fallacy of false dichotomy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
And i dont know about any nuance fallacy, but there is the fallacy of false dichotomy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Of course there are sub groups. But those are part of the two major groups of value in conflict in the world today.
Yes, but its not the case here. There are in fact two major groups of values in the world. One groups simply exist in opposition to the other. There is not "another one".
You need to understand why there is a political field in the first place. Politic is not simply people making laws. Politics is a conflict of values.
If me and a liberal are different, its not because they are right wing and me a leftist, its because we have value that enters in conflict. In this example liberals believe in meritocracy while we believe that meritocracy is a myth and a system that simply can't work.
You can find this type of conflict for any kinds of values
Ok science denier
Yes, but its not the case here. There are in fact two major groups of values in the world. One groups simply exist in opposition to the other. There is not "another one".
You need to understand why there is a political field in the first place. Politic is not simply people making laws. Politics is a conflict of values.
If me and a liberal are different, its not because they are right wing and me a leftist, its because we have value that enters in conflict. In this example liberals believe in meritocracy while we believe that meritocracy is a myth and a system that simply can't work.
You can find this type of conflict for any kinds of values
Ok science denier
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/gender
Apparently this is still true. I thought the definition of gender was now completely overtaken by the lgbt stuff about being distinct from sex. Learned something again
^
Apparently this is still true. I thought the definition of gender was now completely overtaken by the lgbt stuff about being distinct from sex. Learned something again
Post automatically merged:
^
One of them. Yes. Not the first definition.
So its still fine to say there are two genders. Only difference is that this isnt about biology directly but gender roles in society
Nah, i dont care enough to argue against your obviously antiogical and oversimplified black and white nonsense anymore.
With that i just wanted to point to my post about the definition of gender
Maybe you need therapy
So its still fine to say there are two genders. Only difference is that this isnt about biology directly but gender roles in society
Post automatically merged:
Nah, i dont care enough to argue against your obviously antiogical and oversimplified black and white nonsense anymore.
With that i just wanted to point to my post about the definition of gender
Post automatically merged:
Maybe you need therapy
1. Definition don't create a reality. Again, its not because it is in a dictionnary that it is true. (most likely isn't)
2. The first definition is - as mentionned - compared to the sex attributed at birth. So this is only the reflection of the common usage in society. Its doesn't reflect the reality of the term
3. The definition includes literally the third gender, so its no true by definition.
There is no way to justify your queerphobia. Even with a dictionnary.
You can say it, but it negates other's identities and therefore some people simple existence and its queerphobic. But do as you wish mate. Just don't be surprised if one day the moderation recrutes someone from this community and you get dump in the sea of the banned because you denied their existence.
The one who lacks logic here is you mate. You are willingly ignoring the ressemblance that forges the values of the world, and you will therefore stay in ignorance of the reality of the political world simply because you don't understand that sometimes you being nuanced is actually not the logical thing to do.
No no. I'm right where I should be. The only one defending war crimes and crimes against humanity is you here mate. You can still try to make people believe that its me saying what you are saying, but this forum keeps historic.. so good luck with that.
2. The first definition is - as mentionned - compared to the sex attributed at birth. So this is only the reflection of the common usage in society. Its doesn't reflect the reality of the term
3. The definition includes literally the third gender, so its no true by definition.
There is no way to justify your queerphobia. Even with a dictionnary.
You can say it, but it negates other's identities and therefore some people simple existence and its queerphobic. But do as you wish mate. Just don't be surprised if one day the moderation recrutes someone from this community and you get dump in the sea of the banned because you denied their existence.
The one who lacks logic here is you mate. You are willingly ignoring the ressemblance that forges the values of the world, and you will therefore stay in ignorance of the reality of the political world simply because you don't understand that sometimes you being nuanced is actually not the logical thing to do.
No no. I'm right where I should be. The only one defending war crimes and crimes against humanity is you here mate. You can still try to make people believe that its me saying what you are saying, but this forum keeps historic.. so good luck with that.
Last edited:
Missing the point big time. Definitions dont create reality, sure, but it specifies how language is used. So gender can still be defined in a way where saying there are only two genders is a correct statement.
Usually i tell people that the statement is wrong because of the distinction between gender and sex. But i was wrong
Usually i tell people that the statement is wrong because of the distinction between gender and sex. But i was wrong
