Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/23/06 12:48 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

I do base my opinions more in logic than Fli does, and that's a fact. He has provided no reasoning and has called people freaks and said they should live a life of misery, just because.

YankeeFli at least respects their right to make a choice. Others do not.

That doesn't mean his "opinions" aren't horrific, though.

At 4/23/06 12:55 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote: How can God be an asshole and, at the same time, as you've said in previous threads, not exist?

The same way Tyler Durden can be a cool guy.

At 4/23/06 12:48 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Why not, if it's evident from their reasoning(or lack thereof) that they are?

Its not 'evident' Everyone has their own reasons for believing things. If they believe that its morally wrong, that doesn't mean they're saying we should kill them or that they are lesser.

Whatever happened to *true* Moral outrage?

Its evident in soccer-moms, militaristic feminists, radicals, etc.

No, I will. You throw shit at me, you have to say where you got it from.

I'm throwing shit?
Well, okay....

Penal, I'm making my opinion clear and ending because you are blinded by your hate against someone else's opinion.

I'm sorry for hating unbacked opinions that call my friends freaks, and that you firmly believe they should go through a torturous life instead of being happy.

It is a physical choice to go through with plastic surgery, and to injest supplements.

You didn't listen to a fucking word I said.

But whatever, far be it for ME to tell you who and who not to call "horrible human beings" based on your lack of understanding of people's points.

What points!? There ARE no points, not on your side anyway.

When you typed "little freaks", did anything click in your mind to tell you "fucking hell I'm a horrible human being"? Because it really should have.

There; four. I can get more.

No, they're only partially fueled by opinion. Most of them are founded in logical concepts or education on a particular subject.

What are these logical concepts, and education on what 'subjects

There are no "facts" on sexuality? Yes there are. There are facts for EVERYTHING. You can't just leave things like that "open to interpretation".

No, there aren't. There are opinions on everything that MIGHT one day be facts.

I do base my opinions more in logic than Fli does, and that's a fact. He has provided no reasoning and has called people freaks and said they should live a life of misery, just because. I'm sorry that doesn't outrage you in the least.

At what point has ANYONE said they should be miserable? You're more outraged than me, yes, and I'm trans. So really, if anyone has a right to be mad its me, but I'm not.

At 4/23/06 12:55 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote: How can God be an asshole and, at the same time, as you've said in previous threads, not exist?

I've never said God does not exist. I've said 'if God does exist' but thats because I'm not sure, not that I'm atheist.

As for beng an asshole, read those arguments that you seem to think mean I'm atheist...

At 4/23/06 01:04 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

At 4/23/06 12:55 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote: How can God be an asshole and, at the same time, as you've said in previous threads, not exist?

The same way Tyler Durden can be a cool guy.

ok, that sounds reasonable.

Its not 'evident' Everyone has their own reasons for believing things. If they believe that its morally wrong, that doesn't mean they're saying we should kill them or that they are lesser.

But if their reasoning is less sound that someone else's, then their opinions shouldn't be taken with as much weight as a properly backed on. Otherwise everything goes to pot and there's no point arguing to begin with, if nobody has to back anything up.

; There; four. I can get more.

How were any of those me tearing into someone merely because their opinion differed? Is calling someone a "freak" just a "difference in opinion"? If it is, then my tearing into them is just an opinion too, and you can't criticise me for it.

What are these logical concepts, and education on what 'subjects

Logical concepts is just a fancier way of saying "logic", which you're meant to use when debating(i.e. no "God says so", "I believe therefore I'm right", circular reasoning, begging the question, false correlations, etc) and education is obviously on transsexuality. People's opinions who don't know anything about transsexuality don't have any real weight.

No, there aren't. There are opinions on everything that MIGHT one day be facts.

There are plenty of "facts" regarding sexuality. I remember when someone linked to the "straighttalk" website, it posted several "facts" which weren't true, they were exagerrated/faked statistics. There are certain things that ARE true for sexuality, like that gays aren't all paedophiles. There are similiar things you can extend to transsexuals. There ARE facts.

At what point has ANYONE said they should be miserable? You're more outraged than me, yes, and I'm trans. So really, if anyone has a right to be mad its me, but I'm not.

Just because *you* are not outraged, doesn't mean others wouldn't be. One thing I find in dealing with transsexuals is that because they're so "bottom rung", they often try too hard to find middle ground, and become pushovers. It's not a good thing as it resulted in one of my online friends recieving an awful lot of abuse.

You not being outraged doesn't mean I'm wrong. It could just mean you're a doormat.

And he did say they should be miserable. He said that undergoing any treatment for transsexuality was morally wrong and they shouldn't do it. Which means he thinks they should be miserable just to uphold some silly religious notions. He said that numerous times and I don't see how you couldn't have seen that.

At 4/23/06 01:14 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: But if their reasoning is less sound that someone else's, then their opinions shouldn't be taken with as much weight as a properly backed on. Otherwise everything goes to pot and there's no point arguing to begin with, if nobody has to back anything up.

And who are you to say that someone isn't resonable? You have said multiple times that people are wrong simply for disagreeing, and you make your argument and yourself lesser by using insults.

How were any of those me tearing into someone merely because their opinion differed? Is calling someone a "freak" just a "difference in opinion"? If it is, then my tearing into them is just an opinion too, and you can't criticise me for it.

Your ignoring the calling someone a horrible person and such. You are JUST LIKE people who claim that homosexuality and transexuality are wrong because God says so, except opposite on the views.

Logical concepts is just a fancier way of saying "logic", which you're meant to use when debating(i.e. no "God says so", "I believe therefore I'm right", circular reasoning, begging the question, false correlations, etc)

And are you saying your arguments are based off of logic? There is no logic in controversal opinions. Right now, we have genetic evidence that races are not superior, but 200 years ago you would have 'proof' that there is, and 500 years ago you'd have 'proof' that the world is flat.

and education is obviously on transsexuality. People's opinions who don't know anything about transsexuality don't have any real weight.

And do you know why people are aginst it? And don't pull any ofthat 'because they are horrible fucking jerks who think me and my friends are shit so anything they say is moot because I'm right because I'm me'

There are plenty of "facts" regarding sexuality. I remember when someone linked to the "straighttalk" website, it posted several "facts" which weren't true, they were exagerrated/faked statistics. There are certain things that ARE true for sexuality, like that gays aren't all paedophiles. There are similiar things you can extend to transsexuals. There ARE facts.

There are exaggerated opinions and made-up statistics, yes. But does this make the thing they are aguing fact?

Just because *you* are not outraged, doesn't mean others wouldn't be. One thing I find in dealing with transsexuals is that because they're so "bottom rung", they often try too hard to find middle ground, and become pushovers. It's not a good thing as it resulted in one of my online friends recieving an awful lot of abuse.

Sorry for your friend. But now you are the one generalizing. Myself; along with every transsexual friend I have; do NOT allow ourselves to be pushovers. I try to find middle ground because it allows me to argue people based somewhat on their beliefs as well. And if they go extreme, it discredits whatever they say. You on the other hand say people are discredited simply because they think something is morally wrong.

You not being outraged doesn't mean I'm wrong. It could just mean you're a doormat.

I know what you're trying to do. It hasn't worked the many times people have tried it on me before, and it certainly won't work this time.

And he did say they should be miserable. He said that undergoing any treatment for transsexuality was morally wrong and they shouldn't do it. Which means he thinks they should be miserable just to uphold some silly religious notions. He said that numerous times and I don't see how you couldn't have seen that.

You're putting words in people's mouths. You're twisting words around and making assumptions. Don't you see? They can USE that against you in an argument, just like I am right now.

At 4/23/06 01:07 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:
As for beng an asshole, read those arguments that you seem to think mean I'm atheist...

I could read them to you, verbatum.

I'd have to start a new thread about God, though.

And I loathe the idea of starting threads that are not about politics.

At 4/23/06 01:31 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote: I could read them to you, verbatum.

I know you could, and I'm glad you would. So then; as I said, they hold why I would believe that. What with the 'who the Bible was written by' and the 'do what I say or go to hell' and the violence caused by religions.....

At 4/23/06 01:31 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote:

At 4/23/06 01:07 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:
As for beng an asshole, read those arguments that you seem to think mean I'm atheist...

I could read them to you, verbatum.

I'd have to start a new thread about God, though.

And I loathe the idea of starting threads that are not about politics.

You could attempt it in General. You may get a flood 13 year old, emo wannabes saying God doesn't exist though.

At 4/23/06 01:40 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:

and the violence caused by religions.....

An equal or greater ammount of violence was instigated by atheistic communists.
Should I take that to mean that communist philosophy is pro-violence?

At 4/23/06 01:41 PM, GunCrave wrote:

At 4/23/06 01:31 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote:

I'd have to start a new thread about God, though.

And I loathe the idea of starting threads that are not about politics.

You could attempt it in General. You may get a flood 13 year old, emo wannabes saying God doesn't exist though.

My all-time favorite theology thread has got to be "Jesus::black or white?"
I thought, "hey, arab and semite weren't options, WTF?"

I enjoy God debates, though. They encourage me to research and analyze my faith and become a craftier debater.

At 4/23/06 02:10 PM, Steel_Reserve wrote: An equal or greater ammount of violence was instigated by atheistic communists.
Should I take that to mean that communist philosophy is pro-violence?

Not all communists are athiest. In fact, its mainly just Stalinism. Communism is pro-revolutionary, but not pro-violence. However, flooding Earth, killing children, the crusades, inquisitions, holocaust... all those seem worse than what ANY communist philosophy has done

At 4/23/06 02:26 PM, altanese_mistress wrote:
Not all communists are athiest. In fact, its mainly just Stalinism.

I know. That's why I made the distinction between theistic and atheistic communists.

Communism is pro-revolutionary, but not pro-violence.

Which is pretty much my point. Because communists do bad things, That doesn't mean communism is faulty.

all those seem worse than what ANY communist philosophy has done

There are good communists and there are bad communists.
Just as there are good theists and bad theists.

Human beings can have lofty ideals, yet still behave like savages.

And who are you to say that someone isn't resonable? You have said multiple times that people are wrong simply for disagreeing, and you make your argument and yourself lesser by using insults.

No I didn't, and you didn't quote me on a single instance of that. Just another ridiculous straw-man.

Your ignoring the calling someone a horrible person and such.

Except he DID something to deserve it, whereas transgenders aren't doing *anything* to warrant being called "freak".

You are JUST LIKE people who claim that homosexuality and transexuality are wrong because God says so, except opposite on the views.

Prove this. Otherwise it's just the typical "I'm bad at arguing" method of trying to make someone succumb by making them out to be the person out to be what they hate.

And are you saying your arguments are based off of logic? There is no logic in controversal opinions.

What kind of idiotic logic is that?

Right now, we have genetic evidence that races are not superior, but 200 years ago you would have 'proof' that there is, and 500 years ago you'd have 'proof' that the world is flat.

What has that to do with anything? Most of that proof was nowhere near as sound, on an unbiased scale, as what we have today.

And do you know why people are aginst it? And don't pull any ofthat 'because they are horrible fucking jerks who think me and my friends are shit so anything they say is moot because I'm right because I'm me'

Many people ARE against it because they're horrible fucking jerks. Being ignorant is one thing, but insisting ignorance in the face of people who actually know what they talk about and can show you otherwise is entirely another. Fli refuses real, backed evidence in favour of his own uniformed opinion, and uses it to slander people based on it.

I know what you're trying to do. It hasn't worked the many times people have tried it on me before, and it certainly won't work this time.

Do I care? No. It's just pathetic that you claim to make a stand for your rights and are spending more time attacking your own side than someone who truly believes you are a freak who deserves a lifetime of misery. Sort out your priorities and stop making a "Michael Moore" of me.

Funny how penal tries to draw attension to all of this.. Did you ever stop to think that some people would rather be left alone, to live a NORMAL life. Drawing publicity to these things only makes people feel less normal because of the big deal they make out of it. If you really want to help trans.. leave them alone, let them live a life that is semi-normal without everybody telling them that they are so different. My God. You are a 1 lane, stuborn bitch.

At 4/23/06 03:20 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: No I didn't, and you didn't quote me on a single instance of that. Just another ridiculous straw-man.

I don't need to quote anymore. o_O Read back yourself.

Except he DID something to deserve it, whereas transgenders aren't doing *anything* to warrant being called "freak".

No, we don't. Does that give you ANY right to call him an idiot?

Prove this. Otherwise it's just the typical "I'm bad at arguing" method of trying to make someone succumb by making them out to be the person out to be what they hate.

I'm not trying to use 'methods'. You simply use the same arguing techniques.

What kind of idiotic logic is that?

Logic isn't arguable; its based off of fact. If its arguable, contested by society; only opinions.

What has that to do with anything? Most of that proof was nowhere near as sound, on an unbiased scale, as what we have today.

Oh? And what we call 'proof' today is infallible?

Many people ARE against it because they're horrible fucking jerks. Being ignorant is one thing, but insisting ignorance in the face of people who actually know what they talk about and can show you otherwise is entirely another.

Yes, there are a lot who are. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opinion.

Fli refuses real, backed evidence in favour of his own uniformed opinion, and uses it to slander people based on it.

Just like you.

Do I care? No. It's just pathetic that you claim to make a stand for your rights and are spending more time attacking your own side than someone who truly believes you are a freak who deserves a lifetime of misery.

He NEVER said I; or anyone for that matter; deserve a lifetime of misery. He simply disagrees and said its freaky to change your body. Not because of trassexuality either, but simply ANY plastic surgery.

Sort out your priorities and stop making a "Michael Moore" of me.

Look at yourself; insulting me by saying I'm a pushover because I don't share your views.

Did you ever stop to think that some people would rather be left alone, to live a NORMAL life. Drawing publicity to these things only makes people feel less normal because of the big deal they make out of it.

Don't be a moron. There's a real rights issue here. People want to be left alone to live a normal life, but they also want the ability to actually do so. Transsexuals aren't even legally recognised in the U.S. as their "new" genders. That's a serious issue. Discrimination another. As it is, being constantly mocked in the media. Drawing attention to the validity of transsexuality is important.
Just because one transsexual is being an idiot doesn't mean they all think the same way.
No issue should be ignored like you're asking for. Nobody ever got any rights by doing absolutely nothing about it. Ignoring it achieves nothing. It doesn't stop the prejudice, the lack of rights, society's perceptions. It just makes TS people look like pushovers that deserve to be made fun of.

I don't need to quote anymore. o_O Read back yourself.

You haven't provided any valid points as to how I lash into people solely because I disagree with them, whatsoever. I specifically stated that I *only* was an ass about opinions if they were discriminative, or lacking backing, logic and reason to a high degree, not just because people disagree with me. You did nothing to show otherwise. You're being a jerk and using a stupid strawman.

No, we don't. Does that give you ANY right to call him an idiot?

Yes, it does. Unlike the people he's calling a freak, he deserves it.

I'm not trying to use 'methods'. You simply use the same arguing techniques.

Yes you are, don't be a dick. And very bad ones too, such as the earlier strawman.

Logic isn't arguable; its based off of fact. If its arguable, contested by society; only opinions.

But people DO argue against logic. It doesn't make any sense, but they do it anyway. Much of Conservatism is founded in the "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy, anyway. I despise unreasonable opinions so I always point out their flaws.

Oh? And what we call 'proof' today is infallible?

Before much of our "proof" was intermingled with religious and conservative superstition. While our proof isn't absolute, it's far more unbiased than our previous notions of "proof".

Yes, there are a lot who are. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have an opinion.

It does mean they shouldn't be able to use it in a debate. You're not meant to be able to use unbacked opinions in any form of debate.

Just like you.

Just like me? Where did I do that? Your whole argument seems to be "YOU'RE JUST AS BAD!!!" without showing anything as to how. Sure I'm being an ass to him, but I have every right to be, as do you. Some people just don't respond to logic and reason, as he's shown.

Look at yourself; insulting me by saying I'm a pushover because I don't share your views.

Another fucking strawman. EVERYthing is always because I don't fucking share someone's views. Not because they call people freaks, make illogical arguments, act like dicks and ignore any evidence that contradicts them, or mercilessly defend someone in doing that even when they're the target end, no, it's all just because I disagree with them. People like you are just as dangerous to a cause as people like Fli. Trying to make out the people who are actually taking a firm stance out to be "extremists" or "just as bad" without any damn reasoning as to why.

At 4/23/06 04:04 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

You haven't provided any valid points as to how I lash into people solely because I disagree with them, whatsoever. I specifically stated that I *only* was an ass about opinions if they were discriminative, or lacking backing, logic and reason to a high degree, not just because people disagree with me.

Perhaps in your mind you're giving valid facts, but from what I've seen, its just disagreements.

You did nothing to show otherwise. You're being a jerk and using a stupid strawman.

Insults again...

Yes, it does. Unlike the people he's calling a freak, he deserves it.

And do you think it helps your argument at all?

Yes you are, don't be a dick. And very bad ones too, such as the earlier strawman.

Insults, and assumptions.

But people DO argue against logic. It doesn't make any sense, but they do it anyway. Much of Conservatism is founded in the "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy, anyway. I despise unreasonable opinions so I always point out their flaws.

So do I. But they are still entitled to opinion. I disagree with them in many respects, but they deserve to be heard regardless of what you or I think.

Before much of our "proof" was intermingled with religious and conservative superstition. While our proof isn't absolute, it's far more unbiased than our previous notions of "proof".

And in... 500 years, maybe; do you think people will think the same of our self-proclaimed 'genious'?

It does mean they shouldn't be able to use it in a debate. You're not meant to be able to use unbacked opinions in any form of debate.

Unback is right. But where is your source? And don't give some random link. I agree with your opinions on sexuality, but not with how you argue them.

Just like me? Where did I do that? Your whole argument seems to be "YOU'RE JUST AS BAD!!!" without showing anything as to how. Sure I'm being an ass to him, but I have every right to be, as do you. Some people just don't respond to logic and reason, as he's shown.

And by using insults and such, you are only making yourself look worse. I'm trying to HELP you to argue your point better.

Another fucking strawman. EVERYthing is always because I don't fucking share someone's views. Not because they call people freaks, make illogical arguments, act like dicks and ignore any evidence that contradicts them, or mercilessly defend someone in doing that even when they're the target end, no, it's all just because I disagree with them.

And you doing the same; calling them horrible, idiots, etc.; is no better.

People like you are just as dangerous to a cause as people like Fli. Trying to make out the people who are actually taking a firm stance out to be "extremists" or "just as bad" without any damn reasoning as to why.

Because you call someone who disaproves on a personal moral stance of different sexualities a 'horrible bigot'?

Someone was acting like a total dick, I called them on it. You're being an ass to someone's on your side. End of story.

At 4/23/06 04:04 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

Don't be a moron. There's a real rights issue here. People want to be left alone to live a normal life, but they also want the ability to actually do so. Transsexuals aren't even legally recognised in the U.S. as their "new" genders. That's a serious issue.

I was going to stay out of this, but they aren't a new gender. No matter how much they have physically changed thier still the same genetically.
There still going to have XY or XX chromosones.

At 4/23/06 05:52 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Someone was acting like a total dick, I called them on it. You're being an ass to someone's on your side. End of story.

And calling them names like that lessens your argument. It doesn't even matter if they were or weren't; what matters is that you don't resort to insults in an argument.

At 4/23/06 06:32 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/23/06 04:04 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

Don't be a moron. There's a real rights issue here. People want to be left alone to live a normal life, but they also want the ability to actually do so. Transsexuals aren't even legally recognised in the U.S. as their "new" genders. That's a serious issue.

I was going to stay out of this, but they aren't a new gender. No matter how much they have physically changed thier still the same genetically.
There still going to have XY or XX chromosones.

So you go around examining people's skin cells under a Microscope? You may as well just fess up to looking for reasons to justify your prejudice, instead of the other way around.

People that aren't shallow judge people on what's inside, their brain, which is almost surely going to be what most transsexuals believe it to be.

Not to mention that many "natural" women can be born with XY Chromosones. Still looking for that link, though.

Would you treat them as men? I didn't think so. So when it boils down to it, it's just a silly conservative notion.

At 4/23/06 06:47 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

At 4/23/06 06:32 PM, YankeeFli wrote:

At 4/23/06 04:04 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

So you go around examining people's skin cells under a Microscope? You may as well just fess up to looking for reasons to justify your prejudice, instead of the other way around.

But legally, there still the same, you know with the whole birth certificate thing.

Not to mention that many "natural" women can be born with XY Chromosones. Still looking for that link, though.

Yeah, thats what we call in this world Hermaphrodites.
But usually at birth the parents choose a sex for the child.

Though there are some exceptions.

Would you treat them as men? I didn't think so. So when it boils down to it, it's just a silly conservative notion.

Matters how good thier surgery is.
If they look and act like a woman I would probally treat them as women.
If I could tell, I would probally treat them as how they wanted to avoid a confrentation.

I AM SO CONFUSED.

Can somebody, ANYBODY, answer these following questions, before go further down the path of idiocy?

1. What is a transgender?
2. What is a transexual?
3. What is a transvestite?
4. What is a hermaphrodite?

While you all ponder this, I will stare at Furry Porn.

Now, where did I put that racoon suit? yif yif yif yif yif

But legally, there still the same, you know with the whole birth certificate thing.

Not in every country. The U.K., for instance, passed a Gender recognition act. And so it should be. If a team of experts decide over the period of up to 2-3 years that someone is the gender they say they are, why should law-makers who have no idea about the subject disagree?

Yeah, thats what we call in this world Hermaphrodites.

But usually at birth the parents choose a sex for the child.

Though there are some exceptions.

Read the link. And "chosing" sex in Hermaphrodites is a major cause of transsexualism.

Matters how good thier surgery is.

If they look and act like a woman I would probally treat them as women.
If I could tell, I would probally treat them as how they wanted to avoid a confrentation.

But you still consider them men, and when you voice your opinion around them, consider them men. Chances are your choices in the ballot would enforce your opinion, too. Yet there *are* women born with genetic defects that makes their genes say they're men, even though they're blatantly not. You shouldn't treat people the way they wish to be treated out of fear of conflict, but out of respect. Respect is a big issue here.

It would say something about the nature of the affliction if anyone was hetrosexual in terms of their body and wished to live as a gay member of the other sex. This is not a judgment call or a joke, merely a call as to the nature of the condition.

At 4/23/06 07:19 PM, stafffighter wrote: It would say something about the nature of the affliction if anyone was hetrosexual in terms of their body and wished to live as a gay member of the other sex. This is not a judgment call or a joke, merely a call as to the nature of the condition.

What would it say about it? A good percentage of TS ARE gay, probably at least 3 times that of the normal populace. While the two things aren't directly related, they still appear to have similiar causes and be related somehow. The way I think of it is that when sexuality gets coded, it sometimes causes a kind of "error" that makes the tiny little organism's/egg's biology go "hold on, there's a problem here" and recodes the gender according to the sexuality. It sounds complex, but it's a possibility. Someone more knowledgable could come up with a more realistic interprettion.

I don't think you understand what transsexualiy is about though. It's an image thing. You're implying that MtF transsexuals are quite probably perverts, which is silly. Nobody dedicates their entire life to a "perverted" cause without making it obvious that it's a perversion.

At 4/23/06 07:27 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:

I don't think you understand what transsexualiy is about though. It's an image thing. You're implying that MtF transsexuals are quite probably perverts, which is silly. Nobody dedicates their entire life to a "perverted" cause without making it obvious that it's a perversion.

I am doing no such thing. I am wondering as to the connection in a phycological sense. I will give a better example. An individual is in the body of a man but has the self identity of a woman. Is there a realistic chance that she will be attracted to other females?