Marriage is for men in 2023 (not women) (Page 7)

Posted by Enfant-Terrible-II

Posted by __ixi__

"A woman is a person born of the female sex."


This assertion is based on a traditional understanding of sex and gender as being the same. However, modern understanding recognizes a difference between sex, which is biological and determined by physical characteristics, and gender, which is a personal and societal construct tied to identity and roles. By this understanding, a woman is not necessarily a person born of the female sex but could be anyone who identifies as a woman.

How do you feel about Lia Thomas? Should we indiscriminately accept her gender identity at the expence of biolgoical women in women’s sports? I mean how can we both accept her identity and not let her compete in women’s sports? We can’t. Clearly everyone sees how utterly insane and absurd it is to have the world spin around one person’s subjective reality. It’s the literal definition of an insane asylum with patients running the show.

click to expand

UCI, the world governing body for cycling, has recently banned trans athletes who transitioned after puberty from they're cycling events.

Posted by __ixi__

Posted by Enfant-Terrible-II

Posted by __ixi__

One thing I hope you learn is that the practice and exercise in discernment in what sources you choose to engage with is an important part of being open-minded. Open-mindedness isn't about consuming all information indiscriminately which you seem to try to chide folks over. It's about being willing to consider new perspectives and ideas critically, which I do.


My choice not to engage with a source known for promoting bigotry is not a sign of closed-mindedness. On the contrary, it demonstrates that I have standards for the type of dialogue and ideas I am willing to entertain. Not all viewpoints are equally valid.


Promoting tolerance and understanding doesn't mean tolerating hate speech, discrimination, or bigotry. It's important to stand against sources that consistently demonstrate these traits, as they contribute to a hostile and divisive atmosphere that undermines productive and respectful conversation.


Open-mindedness should never require anyone to put up with abuse, hatred, or discrimination. It's about fostering understanding, respect, and empathy among diverse perspectives, not about endorsing harmful or prejudiced viewpoints even a casual viewing of Matt Walsh's viewpoints (which I have looked into) tell me that the source from which that video flows is disqualifying for me.

Tbh you always come off like a robot to me because you always toss around words but ultimately you’ve said nothing as seen here above. You can copy and paste that speech into any context and you’d be right regardless of where you stand. Relativity and context is everything.


Critical thinking is not hate speech, discrimination or bigotry. Looking into things from different perspectives - occassionally checking out Matt Walsh or FOX or that documentary that you think you disagree with is not going to kill you. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day, no?


How do you even know what you are debating for or against if you don’t know the other side’s arguments or what they are based on or where they get their information? Do you really think you can get accurate information about anything by only tuning in to “your” channel?


It’s kind of ironic to see this coming from you: “Open-mindedness isn't about consuming all information indiscriminately which you seem to try to chide folks over. It's about being willing to consider new perspectives and ideas critically, which I do.”


I remember your intellectual dishonesty from a thread a while back when I presened Thomas Sowell, Coleman Hughes, and other black voices in a counter-argument, speaking about the black experience in the US. Voices that are informed, educated and have credibility and relevance. Voices who have different perspective on the topic (sociologically, historically, politically) than what you perfer to lecture, and I remember you getting dismissive and sort of offended (subjective impression) that I was using black voices against you and the Al Sharpton cool-aid, and you refused any elaboration on how or why you consider their experience or assessments to be wrong.


You are not open-minded, my friend. You have a severe case of tunnel-vision.

You assume a ton as per usual but "sure".

It is fascinating that you're pissed that I won't take the time. It's eye-opening that your entire assessment of my personality is based on the fact that I didn't take the time to engage with your sources on your command, and didn't validate their bad-faith arguments. And I still won't be doing that today. There are hundreds if not thousands of hot takes and academic papers that take on their thinking. As for myself I won't be bringing up anything, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's never been for lack of ability dude, it's for lack of desire and less care to plug your knowledge gaps.

And I am very okay with that, we agree to disagree.

Edit: Eh, I wouldn't call em bad faith just bad lol

click to expand

Ohh and here we go -- I knew that this would come down to this, that this would be your exact take-away from what I said: that I'm "pissed" (assumption?) because you didn't take time to engage with my sources, depriving me of your precious attention.

Yeah there are "hundreds if not thousands academic papers" on any topic, so why bother engaging in any discussion when we can just read papers?

Ixi be like