Reply With Quote
Sounds like you're living in a consequence-free universe. Sorry, I didn't know. Carry on.
Your right to believe whatever you want isn’t more important than somebody’s else right to think whatever they want.
Thus, there’s really nothing to flight for there, other than throw a hissy fit when the cuckservative safe space is invaded.
Sounds like you're living in a consequence-free universe. Sorry, I didn't know. Carry on.
I’m living in the same universe we all live in, largely rational and logical. Furthermore, I live in a country which protects free speech, as wrong as I might think it is.
Cons utional rights used to be subject to race too... there just wasn’t Twitter back then to fight for the rights of black folk...
Not the one that doesn't believe in unlimited genders, apparently.
"Furthermore," nobody is arguing against free speech.
The only thing you have to accept is the fact that somebody else might have a different idea/opinion about a subject. If you can’t accept that, then you’re directly arguing against free speech.
In other words, there’s no such ‘fight’ unless we’re strictly talking about limiting speech.
We had a discussion about the whole gender/sex difference a while ago, not going to rehash here.
You're white flagging it pretty hard, bruh.
I haven't been strongly arguing for "fight" rhetoric; my point was that this debate is a matter of societal functionality regardless of how much you want to lash out.
There's nothing for you to "rehash"; we haven't gotten to anything nitty gritty while you throw your tantrum, tbh.
You quoted me laughing at the ‘fight’ comment, at least keep track of your knee jerk reactions.
I’m laughing at a triggered cuckservative when his traditionalism gets challenged, and throw a hissy fit about ‘fighting’. If you’re one of those, then I’m laughing at you.
What’s this ‘societal functionality’ you’re babbling about? Flesh out your theory, hopefully without resorting to hunches, gut feelings or ‘that’s the way it always been’, so I can take you seriously. Any rational argument will do.
Genders-based roles have existed since even tribes existed, millennia ago, let’s see this argument about this gender flare up du jour somehow changing a functioning society...
I didn't lose track of that, spazz. I was'ing at your semantical nothing argument and I still am. This got you unhinged and wildly throwing out insults like "triggered cuckservative".
There are legal and societal ramifications in official genders. I never presented a theory; if you weren't unhinged you might've grasped that.
lmao @ throwing half of your 6 buzzword vocabulary at me, but I’m ‘unhinged’
People here have trolled with lib s and cuckservatives forever, not sure what you’re going off about. Maybe it’s hitting too close to home for you? Is it the cuck or the conservative part? both? rofl
We can make the argument that the end of segregation also had legal and societal ramifications. Women suffrage also had the same.
So what? Tradition is largely an opaque construct, oftentimes ignorant and irrational. Let people test the boundaries, and society will shun or embrace organically.
Fake News from Fake Christian
oh this bull again. chris, we've been over this. you ran away from it last time too
was the change in the 1800's?
The calculation by ARRHENIUS (1896) of the influence of carbon dioxide on the temperature was the most extensive made during the nineteenth century. In a series of articles CHAMBERLIN (1897, 1898, 1899) presented in detail the geological implications of the carbon dioxide theory. As a result of these early articles, during that period the carbon dioxide theory was probably the most widely held explanation of climatic change
nah, i dont think the white race is the superior race. the theory of evolution didnt begin or end with darwin. you're correct that he made it popular and brought it to the mainstream. there's over 150 years of follow-up research and experimentation which supports the overarching theory.
there isn't comparable research validating what ideas he had about racial superiority. you don't have to accept everything somebody says wholesale. isaac newton is a genius and got a long of things right, but just because i believe in gravity doesn't mean i have to believe everything newton thought, like the existence of the philosopher's stone and the ability to transform metals like mercury into gold.
but you didn't answer mono's question. what are your thoughts on evolution?
Thanks mono
ah sorry i hacked ur guys PM convo
anyway, i'll start a new line of conversation.
hey chris, what are your thoughts on global warming and evolution?
Plus Newton gravity discovery and proof mostly applied locally (that is, to Earth). That doesn’t make it wrong, simply incomplete to a larger domain. Einstein eventually solved the equation that applies generally.
yeah, newtons laws fail when you go too small or too big... couldn't account for mercury's orbit as it was too close to the massive sun. but i think you get the concept i was going for.
darwin's theory had a ton of holes too. DNA/genetics are a massive part of the field and he didnt even know that existed when he laid out his work. he talked about the passing down on traits but had absolutely no idea how it would actually happen
Chump Lite in Mono's PM box? What?
Tell us the real news, then. How many abortions were performed in 2018 worldwide?
yeah we're the same person.
how have you not known this
All the Chumpettes are more/less the same person, tbh.yeah we're the same person.
how have you not known this
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions