Imagine That...
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
they are transgender by choice.
:wtf: I admit, I think some are. But many are just messed up in the head and need help. And not messed in the head by choice.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
They are not technically transgender until they have the surgical procedures performed. Until they CHOSE to have those procedures, they're just cross-dressers (which is ALSO a choice).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
They are not technically transgender until they have the surgical procedures performed. Until they CHOSE to have those procedures, they're just cross-dressers (which is ALSO a choice).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Any reason you are not also targeting Jews. Or are you simply having a Muslim rant?
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
In the US, I'd say that it has to happen; it's a question from the free market, and somebody will cater to their "needs". Lets hope the rest of the world keeps classifying animals according to the biological gender; a chicken is not called a chicken because it identifies as one, but because it lays eggs. No one cares how the chicken identifies itself.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Lets hope the rest of the world keeps classifying animals according to the biological gender; a chicken is not called a chicken because it identifies as one, but because it lays eggs. No one cares how the chicken identifies itself.
Pretty sure chickens exist for eating. So are you claiming that humans exist only for eating? If not then your analogy is not in fact an analogy.
-
I think we're probably using different definitions of things so I'll leave it alone now.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Lets hope the rest of the world keeps classifying animals according to the biological gender; a chicken is not called a chicken because it identifies as one, but because it lays eggs. No one cares how the chicken identifies itself.
Pretty sure chickens exist for eating. So are you claiming that humans exist only for eating? If not then your analogy is not in fact an analogy.
jschell wrote:
If not then your analogy is not in fact an analogy.
No, your idea that chickens exist exclusively for eating is wrong :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
jschell wrote:
If not then your analogy is not in fact an analogy.
No, your idea that chickens exist exclusively for eating is wrong :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Chickens in the modern usage of the word are referring to a animal raised on farms specifically as food. Some might produce eggs but that product is still food. And once they no longer make eggs they are reduced to food. If people stopped eating chickens then billions would need to be killed. Your analogy does not apply.
-
Chickens in the modern usage of the word are referring to a animal raised on farms specifically as food. Some might produce eggs but that product is still food. And once they no longer make eggs they are reduced to food. If people stopped eating chickens then billions would need to be killed. Your analogy does not apply.
I'm just pointing out how idiotic it is to state that humans or chickens "exist for eating", nothing else.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I'm just pointing out how idiotic it is to state that humans or chickens "exist for eating", nothing else.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'm just pointing out how idiotic it is to state that humans or chickens "exist for eating", nothing else.
And yet you were the one that decided to equate chickens with humans (not me) and that somehow complex interpersonal relationships would somehow change the nature of chickens.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I'm just pointing out how idiotic it is to state that humans or chickens "exist for eating", nothing else.
And yet you were the one that decided to equate chickens with humans (not me) and that somehow complex interpersonal relationships would somehow change the nature of chickens.
Yes, but that comparison still stands. If you find that baffling than that is not my problem :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.