I know, I know, I'm breaking my own rule here by even bothering
Current Affairs Gender Nonsence
- Thread starter NeilMorepies
- Start date
- Status
Efcjake
Player Valuation: £80m
And what's the "or else"?
I assume the virtue signallers have a lot of power to support this "or else" threat?
Kever10
Player Valuation: £25m
Always with the ad hominem.There it is right there. You thought this was a set-up to some sort of big own didn't you?
virtue signalling
noun
derogatory
The public expression of opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or social conscience or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue.
I've already stated why I hold my opinions on the issue. Due to having friends who are trans I understand and emphathise with the problems they face on a daily basis.
Also, as a gay man myself, I know what it is like first hand to face discrimination from braindead chuds like yourself.
I am not 'virtue signaling', I am showing support for people who need it based upon my own real life experiences.
Please learn that these edge-lord phrases actually mean before throwing them around.
You are, by very definition, virtue signalling, and that's not me being edgy. It's always the same in any of these forum chats. A small group of the same people who can't take an opinion different to their own being expressed, banding together in an attempt to bully and shut down any dissenting voices, while simultaneously claiming to be the pure voice of rationale and reason.
Always with emotion, never with logic.
I don't care whether you are gay or straight. You chose to bring that up as some kind of weird own. I have many gay friends and actually i do know some Trans people. I'm sure your friend is lovely, and i feel terrible that she has to go through any of the things you say she has endured.
But noone here, from what i can see, is anything like that kind of horrible sociopath that would do such a thing. What i, and many of the others in this thread have said, and obviously i cant speak on behalf of them, but this is simply what i have inferred, is that we have no problem with how anybody chooses to live their life. But the manipulation and weaponisation of language to antagonise and make enemies out of people that have no prior ill will is a hideously toxic trait.
Noone here is setting out to be mean or nasty to people going about living their best lives. But don't expect people to just sit back and take the insults you throw about when you or any of your "virtue signalling" friends, assume and accuse people of terrible motives or actions.
You play the victim, accusing others, while doing what you yourself claim to hate. Its bizarre and its twisted.
And as you clearly broke your own rule once, being the superior being who can do no wrong, you won't want to do that again, so we can just leave it there.
Hinchcliffe's Corner
Player Valuation: £50m
Clearly.
No I am not - I already explained why you are wrong, you are just too stupid to comprehend it.
That's literally the opposite of what my post is.
I never asked if you cared, I don't give a toss, I was giving context.
Again, it was context.
What's your relationship with them? 100% you've never had this convo with them.
Your opening post in the CA forum was looking down your nose and sneering at the opinions of others in here and you've continued that since, so you're fooling no-one. Well, except maybe yourself.
Where? Be specific.
I'd rather you'd just posted one of your crap Seinfeld gifs tbh
Just out of interest , and I genuinely have no idea as things like this conversation usually don’t bother me either way… but has there been an instance in the boxing world that you’re alluding to ?
Bishop Thumpety-Thump
Player Valuation: £20m
Yeah I agree mate, it’s only proper weirdos with no coherent argument who use ad hominem attacks;
Bozos in this thread:
"Musk is an idiot!"
Same Bozos in this forum:
"Kamala Harris is great and very impressive."
Then there’s this quote of yours from the now locked POTUS thread;
‘Mate, you are deluded.’
There’s also your personal attacks on Kamala Harris and E Jean Carroll. Seems like you either don’t understand the phrase ad hominem or you’re a massive hypocrite. Or it could just be that you have the cognitive capacity of a bluebottle.
I guess the argument would be (as we're leaving out the Olympics incident which I don't know the full conclusion of but seem to recall it actually was a female born opponent after all) when you open the door to men competing in sports such as swimming and weightlifting, where having gone through male puberty clearly gives you a significant advantage, the floodgates will open and they'll be crying and screaming if they can't participate in all sports.
In the interest of fairness, it's best to just either put a blanket ban on male born athletes participating in female sports, or only allow those that fully transitioned before puberty to participate, which in itself imo is sick enough as children clearly aren't psychologically developed enough by the start of puberty to make decisions for the rest of their lives.
This should not be a controversial or edgy view whatsoever.
Thanks for the reply, I’m guessing No would have sufficed though.
Strongly disagree, because you were leading into there being no instances of males participating in boxing thus it's not a topic that needs discussion, whereas the truth is loads of males are participating in many types of professional women's sport, probably boxing too, and it needs snuffing out pronto it regulating incredibly strictly.
Thank you for bringing to our attention. Is women’s sport something you are passionate about?
Dymak
Player Valuation: £40m
I'm loath to get into this again. I'm not lying when I say that I find the argument tedious and tiring. But to answer your question, I'm referring to ANY instance. Whether it be in the past, right now, or in the future. There should never, ever, be a scenario where men are allowed to twatt women in a boxing ring, or anywhere else for that matter. I don't care if the law is somehow manipulated to make it legal (and there really is an agenda to facilitate this) and that's what I am objecting to.
I'm not objecting to someone's clothes.
I'm not objecting to who anyone sleeps with.
I'm not objecting to the marriage between two people.
I'm not objecting to people adopting a child or a baby. In fact, I'm very pro-equality in this area. There's no way that I would advocate depriving a vulnerable child of two parents that have been assessed as being competent enough to adopt on the grounds of their sexuality. No chance!
But I'm not a believer of the ideology, and I do object to two things. I object to forcing the ideology onto other people, with the threat of consequences if they don't agree or accept the ideology. It therefore follows that I also object to incorporating the ideology into the law, to the point that it would make it okay for a man to twatt a woman in the boxing ring, or a male rapist could access a female prison, and the proposed law in Scotland would have facilitated this upon a man's say so. THIS IS NOT SAFEGUARDING!
I believe that JK Rowling is coming from a similar stance to myself. I don't think she is some kind of rabid bigot frothing at the mouth over the existence of trans people, and I think it's a disgrace the way people try to twist things to portray her as such. She's just some sweet old nana, who has enough backbone and enough privilege to openly say NO, I don't agree with this, and I'm not going to be bullied into ignoring the raft of problems that this ideology creates.
But just to be clear, do you agree that there are currently no men beating women up in the boxing ring.
Dymak
Player Valuation: £40m
I don't know. But I would object to any law that would facilitate that scenario.
As would I, but I don’t believe this is happening now, which is what a previous poster loosely alluded to.
- Status