Dos the Left Hate Pride?

[maskedmelon]

I detect Pokesan levels of snarkiness here. That you Pokes? ^^

[Auvdar]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dude is on the ropes now. Its obvious you found it and it destroys your argument or you would post it trying to be all smug and superior and rubbing my face in how wrong I am.

Or just do what someone in a real debate class would do and present the evidence to shut him down? You also look like an idiot the way you're handling "your side"..

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

We were defining sex and gender, not man or male.
Once again you can't cherry pick the definition to suit your purposes you must use the whole thing. Sorry kiddo. You're embarrassing yourself now.

Let me show you again:

sex
seks/Submit
noun
1.
(chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.
"he enjoyed talking about sex"
synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse, lovemaking, making love, sex act, (sexual) relations; More
2.
either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
"adults of both sexes"


gen·der
ˈjendər/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
"traditional concepts of gender"

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also Alarti,

From page 12:

I think you've been sticking to the gender-sex argument because that is more ambiguous and why I abandoned it, to clarify the issue at hand: male/female, man/woman.

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

man
man/
noun
1.
an adult human male.
synonyms: male, adult male, gentleman; More


male
māl/
adjective
1.
of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
"male children"
synonyms: masculine, virile, manly, macho; More

wom·an
ˈwo͝omən/
noun
an adult human female.
synonyms: lady, girl, female; More

fe·male
ˈfēˌmāl/
adjective
1.
of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.
"a herd of female deer"



This is why a woman who assumes a male gender role is not male, nor a man and why a man who assumes a female gender role is not female or a woman. Understand how those 6 words work now?

Reposting and calling you names because that wins debates.


Buffoon!

[Nihilist_santa]

It doesnt matter what happens you just dont get Allaharti apparently. I could post the study and he would then go dig up some refutation online because he isnt very original or he will change the topic. Out "sourcing" each other and all that bullshit is why internet debates fail. If you were in a real debate there would be judges and rules none of which are present here and you would have to formulate your own argument not something you can look up online.

Besides Im a cartoon. Allarharti is the real idiot because thats actually him and he actually believes what he says here.

ETA: Im not debating something esoteric here. Google the case yourself (David Remier-Joan/John-Dr. Money)and you will see what game Allaharti is playing here.

[Auvdar]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It doesnt matter what happens you just dont get Allaharti apparently. I could post the study and he would then go dig up some refutation online because he isnt very original or he will change the topic. Out "sourcing" each other and all that bullshit is why internet debates fail. If you were in a real debate there would be judges and rules none of which are present here and you would have to formulate your own argument not something you can look up online.

Besides Im a cartoon. Allarharti is the real idiot because thats actually him and he actually believes what he says here.

ETA: Im not debating something esoteric here. Google the case yourself (David Remier-Joan/John-Dr. Money)and you will see what game Allaharti is playing here.

I've been around long enough to understand him. Point is, if you're going to put your entire point on some evidence.. then show the evidence. He can then refute it or work around it all he wants. Otherwise all this is is a "I'm right!" .. "Nu-uh I'M RIGHT!!".. and then someone goes on google dictionary to copy/paste something..

I'm going to be honest, it really sounds like no one has any real evidence to show. Both sides are ducking the issue. Making up lame excuses "Oh it's an internet debate so there is no point la la la".

Yet, you continue to go back and forth desperately trying to show how the other side is wrong.

edit: But you are debating. You are still going back and forth with him. You say you will not debate it, but you are still debating it with him.

[Nihilist_santa]

or you could google it your fucking self......

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Auvdar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

edit: But you are debating. You are still going back and forth with him. You say you will not debate it, but you are still debating it with him.

I will debate it but I shouldnt have to invest much time in this debate when the information is so readily available. I didnt see him post anything at all to support his claims about shit in Thailand. He just said it and here we are having a debate about a well known easily searchable case that is taught to this day in major universities.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Auvdar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've been around long enough to understand him. Point is, if you're going to put your entire point on some evidence.. then show the evidence. He can then refute it or work around it all he wants. Otherwise all this is is a "I'm right!" .. "Nu-uh I'M RIGHT!!".. and then someone goes on google dictionary to copy/paste something..

I'm going to be honest, it really sounds like no one has any real evidence to show. Both sides are ducking the issue. Making up lame excuses "Oh it's an internet debate so there is no point la la la".

Yet, you continue to go back and forth desperately trying to show how the other side is wrong.

edit: But you are debating. You are still going back and forth with him. You say you will not debate it, but you are still debating it with him.

Are you his room mate?

[Raev]

god you people

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Reimer said that Dr. Money forced the twins to rehearse sexual acts involving "thrusting movements", with David playing the bottom role. Reimer said that, as a child, he had to get "down on all fours" with his brother, Brian Reimer, "up behind his butt" with "his crotch against" his "buttocks". Reimer said that Dr. Money forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. Reimer said that Dr. Money also forced the children to take their "clothes off" and engage in "genital inspections". On at "least one occasion", Reimer said that Dr. Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities. Dr. Money's rationale for these various treatments was his belief that "childhood 'sexual rehearsal play'" was important for a "healthy adult gender identity".

[Auvdar]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

or you could google it your fucking self......

So you make the other side look up the evidence themselves instead of presenting it? Yeah, you're a real good debater! What's the "real school" you go to? Charter College? Some 2 month online degree?

For the record, I know the case. I'm just commenting on your lack of debate skills. And don't even try to tell me you weren't debating with him. You were.