Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
To answer seriously though, you and other Trump supporters complain when we generalize MAGA hat wearers and the MAGA hat itself as being racist, bigoted, xenophobic and homophobic... well here’s a perfect example of why we feel that way.
Yes, the artful dodge.
Is this ask stupid questions and really expect answers month? Do people really have to declare they are against killing children. Let's drop this ####### stupidity.
Oh, I'm sorry. I find every single one of your posts stupid. Not you, the substance of your posts. You obviously aren't stupid, but your posts are.....they're purposefully meant to be. You're so transparent I can see through you.
Pretty insensitive of you. It is actually African American History Month here in America.No it is Black History Month.
Not surprised you corrected me on a month you undoubtedly honor the achievements of AAs and celebrate every single day. However, per Wiki, I was not being insensitive and can provide numerous references by notable AAs on Twitter who recently have referred to it as Black History Month.
Not trolling when I specifically called you out on your posted words. I said nothing derogatory about you personally. In fact, I gave you a compliment just to differentiate between you the poster and the substance of the post itself.
You wouldn't think so , but here in the PSF if you don't express outrage over EVERYTHING!!!! (even the obvious idiocy like the guy in this video) you support it.
In defense of my colleagues, there are a lot of things that many of us consider so obviously beyond the pale that just three years ago it seemed unthinkable that conservatives would tolerate them in a politician. And then we found out we were wrong.
Now THAT is a stupid post. You did not 'specifically' call me out for anything. You did not call out any of my posted words. You are trying to be a passive aggressive troll, but you speak so generally you are just being a full blown troll.
Tom asked if you were ok with murdering gay children. He asked because you genuinely seemed to defend a post by UTILIT99 and the words of Delegate Porterfield. You didn't answer his question and instead deflected. So in fact I did specifically call you out on your posted words. Nothing passive aggressive about it.
If you took anything I said as genuinely defending the guys words, you are crazy. I take exception to generalizing the words of one idiot as representing a viewpoint of an entire group. For instance, if one person thinks it is OK to kill babies 6 months after birth (and there are some), it is pretty ignorant to project that belief onto all people who support abortion rights.
I did ask which you find more offensive: blackface or murdering your own gay children...? to which you never answered.
Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. In the Journal of Medical Ethics, they propose:
It’s a difficult subject to contemplate, there’s no question about that. But it’s a natural phenomenon. Happens in nature all the time. If one can have a serious conversation about it, it’s really not that hard to understand how and why it happens.
Peter Singer was good with 30 days.
Oh he is still around. But that is the point, using a whackjob and projecting that opinion on others.
To deflect and hijack the thread from the discussion of LGBT news and issues, what else?
I'm lost. What is the back story, what in the world is he talking about?Q: Mr. President, on your push to decriminalize homosexuality, are you doing that? And why?
TRUMP: Say it?
Q: Your push to decriminalize homosexuality around the world.
TRUMP: I don't know which report you're talking about. We have many reports.
Via Yahoo News
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1098359176529698817
Or Martina Navratilova condemning transgenders crossing over to play sports?
I don't agree with your premise and I don't think that we will ever become a genderless society.
This "theory" being espoused is seriously flawed. Really. Ridiculous, in fact.
sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion
Sexual identity is in relation to the gender they are attracted to, it is not their gender. For instance, bisexual is not a gender, it is an attraction to both genders.
what I'm saying is what if in 10 years "gender" isn't something that people use anymore. In other words there IS no gender .... its eliminated
What if in 10 years pigs fly? That has about the same likelihood as gender not being used at that time either. .
Yes I would like somebody to explain this to me I am confused by the whole transgender thing. So the two athletes feel they identify more as female but are still biologically male how can they still compete as females? I have no problem with anyone's sexual orientation or how anyone wishes to live their life. I was just wondering how this can possibly be fair.
Well-well look. I already told you: I deal with the “gosh darn” customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?
Shoot, sorry I missed this. I actually addressed this in a transgender athletic thread long ago. I'll see if I can find it, and I'll cross-post it here.
I'll keep looking in the HS transgender bathroom thread. Looks like that's where the bulk of it is.
The really important thing is time. I don't know how long these two athletes have been on hormone therapy, but if it's less than a year, they should likely be competing in a male division. It's a judgment call for the sports body between 1-2 years. After 2 years of continuous hormone therapy, it's foolish to use birth sex.
