Caitlyn Jenner

[NAOS]

Every time I see a post from this thread in the activity feed, I can see it's going about as poorly as I would have forecast. The special bonus was that it brought it's creator, Beanclown, out of hiding for this special occasion.

Very sad when people can't open their minds to the fluidity of gender. If not, then it's impossible to then also open their minds to the fact that the process by which a body is gendered is nearly autonomous from the process by which that body is sexed. Life is complicated, guys. When it produces unusual combinations, that's a sign of life's health.

 

[JimLes]

But why intentionally hurt someone with your words when you know it's hurting them?

I assume you're looking for an answer other than "because you're a dick."

 

[Deleted member 848]

Every time I see a post from this thread in the activity feed, I can see it's going about as poorly as I would have forecast. The special bonus was that it brought it's creator, Beanclown, out of hiding for this special occasion.

Very sad when people can't open their minds to the fluidity of gender. If not, then it's impossible to then also open their minds to the fact that the process by which a body is gendered is nearly autonomous from the process by which that body is sexed. Life is complicated, guys. When it produces unusual combinations, that's a sign of life's health.

PLS set aside this academic gobbledygook we live in the reel world NAOS pls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[babe]

Everybody wants to do certain things, and lots of necessary things don't make us happy. Welcome to real life.



But why intentionally hurt someone with your words when you know it's hurting them?

It's sometimes a choice whether to care what I say. And whether to feel "hurt" somehow by what someone else does. I come down on people having the right to choose. If someone wants to feel hurt by words, I'm just not going to let that hurt me, or affect my pretended opinions or speech.

A few years ago, a deer hunter came up to my truck and jammed a deer rifle between my eyes, and told me he didn't think we were on my land. I said it didn't matter what he thought. I told the story to the local sheriff, for a laugh, and he got all agitated saying that the hunter had committed assault and could be charged. I said forget it, nothing happened. Some folks wouldn't hire that man because they think his pot smoking has messed up his mind too much, but the last time I spoke to him it was pretty civil and respectful all the way around.

 

[Deleted member 848]

It's sometimes a choice whether to care what I say. And whether to feel "hurt" somehow by what someone else does. I come down on people having the right to choose. If someone wants to feel hurt by words, I'm just not going to let that hurt me, or affect my pretended opinions or speech.

A few years ago, a deer hunter came up to my truck and jammed a deer rifle between my eyes, and told me he didn't think we were on my land. I said it didn't matter what he thought. I told the story to the local sheriff, for a laugh, and he got all agitated saying that the hunter had committed assault and could be charged. I said forget it, nothing happened. Some folks wouldn't hire that man because they think his pot smoking has messed up his mind too much, but the last time I spoke to him it was pretty civil and respectful all the way around.

Your anecdote is apples to oranges. Completely different circumstance. Thinking this simplistically (& void of nuance) is incredibly unsophisticated. I suppose the answer is that you don't give a **** for respecting the trans community.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Siro]

I've noticed that most discussions on JF eventually devolve into a debate on the value of political correctness.

 

[babe]

Every time I see a post from this thread in the activity feed, I can see it's going about as poorly as I would have forecast. The special bonus was that it brought it's creator, Beanclown, out of hiding for this special occasion.

Very sad when people can't open their minds to the fluidity of gender. If not, then it's impossible to then also open their minds to the fact that the process by which a body is gendered is nearly autonomous from the process by which that body is sexed. Life is complicated, guys. When it produces unusual combinations, that's a sign of life's health.

I agree life is complicated, and we can make it a lot more so with all our possible ideas, or choices. From some of your other comments, I've wondered if you might not be a woman, or something like a woman, based on some of your opinions which I think I have observed pretty uniquely in women's thinking.

Women are actually a lot smarter than men in certain ways. Men are handicapped by the neurological snipping that occurs in the male brain as a consequence of testosterone binding to membranes of nerves and marking them for removal. You could say our male bodies perform an autonomous sort of "operation" in the first place to produce a phenotypical male out of our embryonic equality with women. I'd say, logically, that a brain with more nerves still functioning on the original complex model has gotta be more intelligent, really.

I mean, a person with one leg can't walk like a person with two legs, although a person with two legs can walk the same way as person with one leg, if he/she wants.

males have some advantages, functionally, with the narrowed field of possible thoughts, emotions, and focus. They can aim a rifle better and pull the trigger smoother. Probably a lot of stuff, going back all the way to atlatls and doneys for crushing other peoples' skulls. Less distraction.

 

[babe]

Your anecdote is apples to oranges. Completely different circumstance. Thinking this simplistically (& void of nuance) is incredibly unsophisticated. I suppose the answer is that you don't give a **** for respecting the trans community.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Siro's observation is likely a general reference to all my comments in this forum. I'm out on the warpath with political correctness and the whole agenda for change. Can't you ideologues just leave the world alone?

The "trans community" as you term it, is a sort of religion seeking state sanction. The hell with that. Do whatever, but let others do whatever just as well.

 

[Siro]

Siro's observation is likely a general reference to all my comments in this forum. I'm out on the warpath with political correctness and the whole agenda for change. Can't you ideologues just leave the world alone?

The "trans community" as you term it, is a sort of religion seeking state sanction. The hell with that. Do whatever, but let others do whatever just as well.

I'm actually with you on the subject of political correctness, even though we clearly have very different worldviews in general. I couldn't give two ****s if what I say "offends" someone. You either convince me that I'm objectively wrong, or feel free to be as offended as you'd like.

 

[fishonjazz]

I've noticed that most discussions on JF eventually devolve into a debate on the value of political correctness.

This.

I don't think people should say mean things.
I also think people should not act like little bitches and get offended so easily when people do say mean things.

 

[fishonjazz]

Everybody wants to do certain things, and lots of necessary things don't make us happy. Welcome to real life.

Sometimes people say things about people who do certain things.
Welcome to real life

 

[fishonjazz]

Do whatever, but let others do whatever just as well.

As long as it doesn't involve smoking pot. Amirite?

 

[Stoked]

I think this should be true for ignoramuses, haters, phobics of all kinds, communists, and me. I'm just not gonna be happy having to give Jenner a sick little smile and pretending I'm down with his femininity. I wanna call him a moron who couldn't live with his manhood. I just won't be happy with all this fancy footwook about what we can or cannot say.

When I grew up, the taunt was frequently made, when someone said something you didn't like or called you dumbass names. . ..

"Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Yeah some people are just too silly to have real self-respect that can stand for being what they are, but if you want real social justice, we all need free speech. I draw the line at physical injury, except I don't quibble if it's a fair fight, either.

But then, Jenner really just doesn't matter to me. I'm not gonna go outta my way to tell him anything. A lot of people do stuff I don't have a lot of interest in.

I'm all for free speech and think political correctness is idiotic at best.

But just because we can say something doesn't always mean we should. Sometimes you can just be respectful and show some tact.

As for Caitlyn. If this is who he/she wants to be the rock on. I do not need to get into who I think he/she should be for my own happiness.

 

[babe]

I assume you're looking for an answer other than "because you're a dick."

I lose respect for the other side of a discussion when they run out of reasoned insults. So you think I should be all sensitive to others' feelings, and the best you can do it throw out some insults?

The place where Dal's analysis goes wrong is in saying I'd intend to hurt someone. No, I said it's their choice if they want to feel hurt. It would not be my motive for saying anything. I really don't care to hurt people, and I would if I were aware of the feelings of another, make some effort to deflect that result. When someone is there demanding that I not say what I think, or stand up for something I think, they are committing an assault on my rights. They are not giving respect for my feelings, or rights. They have no right to do that, and I'll deny them a successful assault.

A swaggering hunter with a deer rifle demanding I not stand my ground is doing exactly the same thing as a LGBT activist trying to pass laws, or demonstrating for "rights", that will not tolerate others in their speech or opinions. The swaggering crusader for special "rights" for any class of people is forgetting the part about equal protection under the law. The crusaders don't think other people's feelings, ideas, or beliefs matter as much as theirs, and they've crossed the line, the "property" the belongs to others to impose their views.

The net effect of our society bending over for the LGBT agenda will be the empowerment of government to dictate belief and conscience. It will be the loss of human rights including the rights of any "special" class of persons you might have sympathy for.

I'm looking down the road at the result of this kind of society that does not really guarantee equal protection under the law for speech or belief.

 

[Stoked]

I lose respect for the other side of a discussion when they run out of reasoned insults. So you think I should be all sensitive to others' feelings, and the best you can do it throw out some insults?

The place where Dal's analysis goes wrong is in saying I'd intend to hurt someone. No, I said it's their choice if they want to feel hurt. It would not be my motive for saying anything. I really don't care to hurt people, and I would if I were aware of the feelings of another, make some effort to deflect that result. When someone is there demanding that I not say what I think, or stand up for something I think, they are committing an assault on my rights. They are not giving respect for my feelings, or rights. They have no right to do that, and I'll deny them a successful assault.

A swaggering hunter with a deer rifle demanding I not stand my ground is doing exactly the same thing as a LGBT activist trying to pass laws, or demonstrating for "rights", that will not tolerate others in their speech or opinions. The swaggering crusader for special "rights" for any class of people is forgetting the part about equal protection under the law. The crusaders don't think other people's feelings, ideas, or beliefs matter as much as theirs, and they've crossed the line, the "property" the belongs to others to impose their views.

The net effect of our society bending over for the LGBT agenda will be the empowerment of government to dictate belief and conscience. It will be the loss of human rights including the rights of any "special" class of persons you might have sympathy for.

I'm looking down the road at the result of this kind of society that does not really guarantee equal protection under the law for speech or belief.

I agree that you don't intend to hurt someone but I think you don't care if you do. And like anything, when that is taken to an extreme, as it seems to be here, then it can become a bad thing.

Yes you have the right to freedom of speech. But just because you/I want to say something doesn't mean you/I necesarrily should.

So my question would be where on that scale of what should be said would you say enough is enough? What crosses the line of common decency?

I'd say I am somewhere between you and Dala.

 

[babe]

I'm all for free speech and think political correctness is idiotic at best.

But just because we can say something doesn't always mean we should. Sometimes you can just be respectful and show some tact.

As for Caitlyn. If this is who he/she wants to be the rock on. I do not need to get into who I think he/she should be for my own happiness.

I was going to rep this. I owe you one.

I don't go around picking fights with gays or anyone, except in JF forum where I think ideas might be worked out a bit. I have, I think, some renters who are very good renters. Having a lifestyle that sorta makes it hard to find a place to rent sometimes results in a bonus to those who will rent to them. What they do after the rent is paid isn't particularly concerning unless it's cleanliness and care for the property. Guys with gay sorts of sensitivities sometimes are a lot better housekeepers, and they can take care of some little issues with the property better than most women can.

As a general rule, outside of a discussion where the topic is out in the open and begging for attention, I don't go up to anybody just to make some bigass point of what I think they oughtta do or not do.

 

[Stoked]

I was going to rep this. I owe you one.

I don't go around picking fights with gays or anyone, except in JF forum where I think ideas might be worked out a bit. I have, I think, some renters who are very good renters. Having a lifestyle that sorta makes it hard to find a place to rent sometimes results in a bonus to those who will rent to them. What they do after the rent is paid isn't particularly concerning unless it's cleanliness and care for the property. Guys with gay sorts of sensitivities sometimes are a lot better housekeepers, and they can take care of some little issues with the property better than most women can.

As a general rule, outside of a discussion where the topic is out in the open and begging for attention, I don't go up to anybody just to make some bigass point of what I think they oughtta do or not do.

Now this is much more the Babe I expected. So you agree that there are somethings that don't need to be said even though you can say them.

Guess it all comes down to where people think that line should be.

 

[babe]

I agree that you don't intend to hurt someone but I think you don't care if you do. And like anything, when that is taken to an extreme, as it seems to be here, then it can become a bad thing.

Yes you have the right to freedom of speech. But just because you/I want to say something doesn't mean you/I necesarrily should.

So my question would be where on that scale of what should be said would you say enough is enough? What crosses the line of common decency?

I'd say I am somewhere between you and Dala.

The line I'm trying to defend is not dickiness or rudeness, but the general principle of equal protection under the law. Imposing a moral or legal obligation under either social constraints, legal constraints, or in general under any ideal you think is just or right, rubs out another persons rights in some degree. We should all respect others' rights as much as our own.

 

[JimLes]

I really don't care to hurt people, and I would if I were aware of the feelings of another, make some effort to deflect that result.

Well, then act that way. Simple as that. What the hell is wrong with asking that we, as a society and as individuals, be kinder and more understanding of one another? To not say things like "I wanna call him a moron who couldn't live with his manhood." Or, heaven forbid, to not think that. To not think less of and dehumanize people based on what they say or do or feel?

The swaggering crusader for special "rights" for any class of people is forgetting the part about equal protection under the law.

Equal protection is bullsh*t. Those who need more protection ought to get more protection.

 

[Archie Moses]

I'm curious as to why Dalamon skipped my post (unless I missed his response) and why DWD responded the way he did.