metalslug

Members
  • Content

    1,141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by metalslug

  1. Consider the entirety of that older post and especially the context of what I was replying to. The older statement had meant to imply 'women' in the context of DSD cases (the 'address them as' exception that I noted) as opposed to arguing a grammatical definition in that post. I concede the way I wrote it could be viewed an inconsistent within the thread, although not intended that way. Don't sweat an apology, that was always going to be a bridge too far.
  2. Another outright lie from you. I said I would address a specific kind(s) of genetically male person as a woman as a practical courtesy to them and then in the very same sentence I also asserted that they do not meet the definition. That's a far reach to your "genetically male person is a woman". Twisting logic is your specialty here. Similarly; despite what Merriam-Webster has stated; I'll regard freefall jumps from a high altitude balloon as skydiving, but not freefall jumps from a tree, an opinion that is likely to hold a majority view amongst those who know skydiving.
  3. ?? I cannot assist you with reading and comprehension courses. Do those on your own time and dime.
  4. Is that what you think this is about? Is gay and trans completely synonymous to you or are you attempting a strawman? Many gay people (arguably most gay people) are completely fine with a gender identity matching their biology. Those are not my definitions. In this case they are Merriam-Webster definitions and are much more widely accepted than the fringe opinions of a few on DZ.com and I'm sure you can all relate to that fact. Perhaps a comparison more relatable for you would be an argument that "Great Replacement Theory" is not racist because your definition of it does not matter. Does that sound like a fair argument to you? Probably not, because if it is racist then it might include ideologies or actions intended to undermine or disadvantage people of colour. Following on from that, many forum members here are not people of colour nor do they identify as Lgbtqi+ and yet they might advocate for the causes of those groups. Fair enough. In the same way myself and winsor might be seen to advocate for feminist causes or to speak against absurd cases of supposed 'hate crime', either via indirect association with an affected person or merely on principle. So; who would be an 'affected person'? Swimmers who competed against Leah Thomas, for example, or the victims of Karen White, or perhaps some of the 120000+ people registered on the UK's Orwellian NCHI (non-crime hate incidents), where a UK citizen can potentially find themselves listed for something as innocuous as mis-gendering someone (The police only ask that the ‘victim’ reports a ‘perceived’ sense of ‘ill-will’ or ‘dislike’.) Therefore, when you consider the term 'no skin off your arse' then first consider all the causes that you advocate for that are not targeting you directly.
  5. I just did exactly that. A moth that's lost it's wings is still a moth, despite not meeting the typical definition of a healthy specimen. But not a single case in which a man meets the definition of a woman.
  6. Again your own ignorant comments persist. Try this; Woman: An adult human female Female; of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes. There has never been an instance of any XY chromosomal person producing ova, not even DSD cases. Certainly there are cases in which XX women have had medical conditions or undergone procedures that affect fertility and/or impact the definitions above , but the intentions of the definitions are typical, for someone presumed to be perfectly healthy remain valid and therefore do not preclude them as women. Curiously, in my earlier post, nobody seemed to object to the Merriam-Webster skydiving definition , which I intentionally knew was flawed (it excludes balloon jumps, for example) and yet I'd be fine to regard a balloon jump, with freefall time, as a skydive. Similarly I've already stated in this thread that I'd be willing to address a XY Swyer syndrome person or full-transitioned transgender as female, as a practical courtesy, even while accepting that they don't meet the definition. What I would not do is credit a skydiver title to someone who has merely jumped from a tree with a grocery bag above their head or hand my rig to someone who identifies as a skydiver but lacking the required skydiving credentials.
  7. ?? Globally; do you believe that gender identity and gender fluidity are more widely accepted by non-white cultures ? You have about 9 pages of this thread to get through. Have at it.
  8. Agreed. The woke mob have been raging to redefine words since they made this a social issue and have been debunked earlier in this thread already. More hot air comments from someone who skipped their homework. Quite recently I even gave credit to a NASA scientist for their predictions. ...but you've already demonstrated that you don't follow thread topics here.
  9. Your thesis above has zero relevance to understanding a woman by definition, in as much as it's also completely superfluous to understanding skydiving by definition. Do you find yourself struggling with the above learning curves for every noun that you learn? .. porcupines, teacups, pineapples... ? The 'gender fluid' argument reduces the term 'woman' (or 'man') from being a noun to being an adjective; "I feel womanly." and by that logic the Matt Walsh argument appears; "My preferred adjectives are 'handsome and brilliant' and I'll take offence if others don't recognise and address me as such." I expect you're also in denial that 'alternate' definitions of a woman are very much a fringe opinion. Barely a decade ago this subject thread would never have existed because the definition has been largely undisputed for millennia. Is this because human biology has evolved over the last decade? Nope, only the subject activism. You seem to be willing to forgo scientific and grammatical consensus on this issue, or even consensus within the Lgbtqi+ communities that you like to believe you're advocating for. This seems inconsistent with your advocacy on other subjects.
  10. I'll spare you a "Let me Google it for you", it's here . About 3 posts down. I had first thought it was satire myself, it got 11 'laughs', but checking the comments and the poster's rebuttals seems to confirm they were laughing at the post, not with it. A curious use of your word 'libtards' though. Up until recently in Australia, the center-right Prime Minister was leader of the Liberal Party.
  11. Partial blackouts/brownouts now impacting parts of Australia, a country with some of the largest energy resources under their feet and this (below) is an indication of the emerging electorate in a country that contributes 1% to global emissions. I look forward to seeing this person protesting at the Chinese embassy ("wait.. what?").
  12. Are you genuinely still unaware that there's a push (even an existing practice) of teaching CRT in US schools? You've no idea why bill compared CRT to Holocaust studies? 51 pages into this thread and yourself and Olof are still at the starting blocks asking old questions about CRT? If that's where you are then I can't engage with you further as you're either trolling or demonstrating an abject inability to follow the thread (and even some individual posts), neither of which I have patience for.
  13. ?? Carefully read my part that you quoted, observing the punctuation too. You might realise that I made two separate literature references in that statement; the original work and the 'concise'. Tell that to the educators pushing it through schools. Non sequitur. My statement that you replied you stands. Nothing. I think my statement that you're replying to was fine in all respects.
  14. Zero. I didn't take courses on Lord of the Rings either, although it was a good read. Taking courses is not a requirement for knowing the nature of the authors and the content. Which 'Great Replacement Theory' courses did you take?
  15. Holocaust studies, as I experienced them, were literature written by historians taught as history. The authors of CRT are largely activists and lawyers. The message is different.
  16. The clearest evidence yet that you've never read it. The original work was not a stand-alone publication. Do you feel angry? If you need it concise, try this. Yup; children and adolescents respectfully interacting within multicultural communities, that's actually 'a thing'. Unfortunate if you experienced it differently.
  17. A disgraceful statement. Holocaust studies are not a theory and to attempt to compare that to CRT is probably deeply insulting to the Jewish community. CRT, if you've ever read more than a few lines of the original literature, is significantly more skewed than a mere recounting of history. How does that statement make any sense (without a tinfoil hat)? Alex Jones has made disgraceful statements but it's absurd to believe that traits of either racism or anti-Semitism are defined by an individual's low awareness of history. By your logic there can be no such thing as a racist or anti-Semitic historian. Would you not find it plausible that children and adolescents, having a relatively low awareness of history, can respectfully interact within multicultural communities... until they learn a particular flavour of history designed to re-introduce old hate?
  18. If there were a Critical Anti-Semitism Theory being pushed through schools or a JLM movement then maybe you'd have a stronger whataboutism argument here. I have yet to meet a Jewish person who wears their oppression on their sleeve with the same kind of defeatist attitude and present day blamestorming that CRT encourages.
  19. I'm correct then. You have nothing.
  20. How is this different from alarmists Mike Cannon-Brookes and Simon Holmes a Court ? How would it make sense for Plimer to not be financially invested in something he believes in? Can you actually refute the science argument that he makes ? Err.. no, you have nothing there. You probably also think that reducing Australia's 1% (of global) carbon emissions will reduce it's bushfires and east coast flooding.
  21. Australia too While I'll be fair here and not blame everything on the net-zero goal, it certainly hasn't been helpful that the governments (past and present) have been disparaging to the coal industry, blocking many new coal and gas projects, and now expect cooperation. Also, curiously, at least one scientist reckons Australia is already at net zero and even waggishly suggested that Australia should bill other countries for scrubbing their emissions.
  22. ..and yet with asinine statements like that you've yet again demonstrated absolutely fsckall knowledge of the subject controversy yourself. Next player, please...
  23. Yet another lie from you. I attacked the deliberate concealment of the laptop story. Quote me where I directly attacked Biden's family as individuals. Even with that aside, are you really equating a family (some of whom are minors) of a man who is not in office or politics with the son of a sitting president? Gee, that's big of you.
  24. I agree with BillyVance from another recent thread in that I believe the left has gone further left and the right further right (equal and opposite reaction?). I can't recall politics being quite as divisive and toxic as present day and that's reflected right here in this forum too comparable over several years. I think the topics of 'woke' and climate change have been fundamentally divisive with people landing firmly on either side of the issue with little neutrality. As both of these concepts were initiated from the left, I think the political right has asserted reaction rather than action. Globally also; the recent outcome of the Australian federal election saw the (previously) ruling party, while attempting to pander to both left and right sides on climate change issues, ultimately abandoned to some degree by both. The recent French elections; a surge in 'right' support (albeit not a win) at a time when the two main parties had very different ideologies. One might assume that the ruling party had moved too far left for some voter's liking.