How The Trans Agenda Seeks To Redefine Everybody
"It’s ironic that those leading the charge for the transgender revolution would claim there is only *one* right side to history."
"Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda."
"Indeed, “civil rights” is always a nice line. It works well to stop debate. There’s lots of emotional blackmail involved because of the social punishments (labels of “hater” or “bigot”) heaped upon anyone who might question the agenda."
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
The face at the forefront of the Tyrrany of the minority the founders of this country warned of.
I have a close friend who is a woman. She identifies as a woman. you know the phrase walks like a duck...well anyway-she walks like a man, has muscles like a man, talks with a deep voice, sized like a man (proportionately), is attracted to women...How is she to fit in? She tries hard to. It is a constant dissonance, and lots of ridicule, looks, and heartbreak. Luckily, she loves athletics and has made that her career...she hangs with the guys drinking beer watching the game while us "women" gossip and and nurture the little kids...which bathroom can she use? You might punch her before you realize she's not trans...
The purposeful blurring or changing of language or purposely not defining one's terms is dishonest and the province of charlatans and despots.
"This is something a bricklayer can do that a barber can't".
"What's that?"
"piss on his work".
It's one of the PC things I haven't caught up to speed on yet. I know they use "actress" when it benefits them to display a veneer of femininity, but just when that is eludes me most of the time.
Otherwise they've adopted the term "actor".
Which I find really funny among people who would rather use the mouthful of "chairperson" or "Congresswoman" than be associated with Man. Seems feminazis never can tell when they want to distance themselves from Man and when they don't...
One for the men
One for the women
One for me.
Men do pee in private, in most bathrooms. Urinal stalls in stores and offices, unlike in sports stadiums, are individual affairs with small dividers between them. When urinating, men look directly ahead at the wall, even while talking. Looking at another man while peeing isn't forbidden, but it can get you a dirty look and make the other guy uncomfortable.
In his book "Caves of Steel" (which I highly recommend) Isaac Asimov painted a future Earth where cities were domed over artificial habitats. In the novel, it was rare to rate a private bathroom in your family's apartment.
So people used the public "freshers".
There was a cultural divergence in the bathrooms in the novel. While the women's "fresher" was a social place, with gossip and personal interaction, the men's 'fresher" was cloaked in silence. You kept your eyes forward and on your own business and... you... did... not... speak to anyone. The men donned a virtual "cloak of solitude".
Other than lovemaking, there are few situations where men are more vulnerable than when using the necessary... and, in spite of social engineering, men have evolved to be averse to vulnerability.
Human social instinct is usually pretty good at determining what is positive and negative behavior, even though it takes some time to work things out. What gets in the way are religious and government interference.
Its not that we don't like privacy,
They are there for efficiency more than anything else, that and tradition of course. Until unisex becomes the norm, mens rooms will always have urinals if it is designed for more than 2 at a time
And if those bother you don't go to Japan or a good bit of asia either.
Lectern + Constitution + over inverted flag (signifying danger)
Devil would be - donkey + presidential seal
Devil's advocate would be - donkey + presidential seal + press card (over justice dept seal)
Also, if you say that one variable cannot equal another variable, all math and deductive reasoning becomes impossible. Ayn Rand takes the axiom A is A (otherwise known as Law of Identity, or the Reflexive Property of Equality) from the writings of Aristotle, but Aristotle NEVER said that A cannot also be equal to B. That's not how the Law of Identity works. In fact, Aristotle said exactly the opposite. What the Law of Identity ACTUALLY means is simply that the variable A cannot hold more than one value at a time, but that in no way prevents it from being equivalent to another variable. Yes, it's true that Aristotle said A must be equal to itself, but he also said that if A equals B, and B equals C, then A must also equal C. For example, Socrates cannot be anyone else except Socrates, and if Socrates is a Greek, and all Greeks are men, then logically Socrates must be a man. That's called Syllogism, not Socialism.
And I'm not a Socialist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
http://www.basic-mathematics.com/propert...
Load more comments...