What's new
By:

Caitlyn Jenner

I love how Caitlyn has pushed the weak-*** forms of libertarianism that get peddled around here to their breaking points. I think "can't relate" is a perfect way of saying it, actually, because it points to your own deficit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8
LogGrad98 said:
I'd like some proof of that claim, otherwise I just have to say ********.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I think this is more common than people realise. Many simply have not made the transition or "come out" yet. For many reasons including fear.
 
NAOS said:
I love how Caitlyn has pushed the weak-*** forms of libertarianism that get peddled around here to their breaking points. I think "can't relate" is a perfect way of saying it, actually, because it points to your own deficit.
Click to expand...

If being unable to relate to someone is now a "deficit" then it is one that we all show on here in a damn near daily basis.

Also hahaha at your libertarianism shot, makes me smile.
 
Stoked said:
I'm not so sure. I think this is more common than people realise. Many simply have not made the transition or "come out" yet. For many reasons including fear.
Click to expand...

I am not disputing that it is likely more common than most people think. But actually some informal polls among my family and friends would indicate it is far less common than they all think. But I still dispute the unqualified claim that EVERYONE has been in a locker room with such an individual. All absolutes are the work of the devil!
 
LogGrad98 said:
I am not disputing that it is likely more common than most people think. But actually some informal polls among my family and friends would indicate it is far less common than they all think. But I still dispute the unqualified claim that EVERYONE has been in a locker room with such an individual. All absolutes are the work of the devil!
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I am not disputing that it is likely more common than most people think. But actually some informal polls among my family and friends would indicate it is far less common than they all think. But I still dispute the unqualified claim that EVERYONE has been in a locker room with such an individual. All absolutes are the work of the devil!
Click to expand...

Semantics, but whatever.
 
fishonjazz said:
Make a thread about it.

Btw, it only matters of the person she killed was black
Click to expand...

You bringing that into this to mock me only reveals your inherent racism. You don't think those past threads I've made are good - fine, that's your opinion. But to state it like that shows the diminished nature in which you view people of other races. You're a pathetic coward, who wouldn't dare mock someone in public. You'd get your *** beaten in like the punk bitch you are.
 
HighlandHomie said:
You bringing that into this to mock me
Click to expand...

Wow.
I 100% was not mocking you even a little.
While I was kind of making a joke, I was being serious as well.
Black people dying stirs things up more than white people dying imo.

In response to your unwarranted attack on me however, **** you. You are a dirty little slut bitch **** and your grandma is a whore.

That was fun
 
NAOS said:
What's your point?

what is your understanding of my shot at libertarianism, exactly? Why does it make you smile?
Click to expand...

The reason it made me smile is simple. There are several posters on here, myself included, that have ideas that are libertarian in nature. I saw your shot as a light hearted jab at us and I find most things funny in one way or another. I am usually up for laughing at myself.

As for the "deficit" you mentioned. I disagree. I cannot relate to his being a man that is gender identifying as a woman and transitioning (fully I assume) to a woman. I have no point of reference for that.

But that doesn't mean I oppose it or am frightened by it. I take deficit as having a negative connotation here and I do not think that is the case. While I don't understand it I have no problems with it and wish him happiness in his life and the changes he is going thru. That is not a deficit at all. The deficit would be if I used that inability to relate to this to try to control his life, belittle him or otherwise harm his well being.
 
On a side note I do not agree with giving awards and what not to people for political reasons.

Two examples of this:

Al Gore's Nobel over Irene Sendler
Caitlyn Jenner's ESPY over Lauren Hill
 
Stoked said:
On a side note I do not agree with giving awards and what not to people for political reasons.

Two examples of this:

Al Gore's Nobel over Irene Sendler
Caitlyn Jenner's ESPY over Lauren Hill
Click to expand...

Okay
 
Stoked said:
The reason it made me smile is simple. There are several posters on here, myself included, that have ideas that are libertarian in nature. I saw your shot as a light hearted jab at us and I find most things funny in one way or another. I am usually up for laughing at myself.

As for the "deficit" you mentioned. I disagree. I cannot relate to his being a man that is gender identifying as a woman and transitioning (fully I assume) to a woman. I have no point of reference for that.

But that doesn't mean I oppose it or am frightened by it. I take deficit as having a negative connotation here and I do not think that is the case. While I don't understand it I have no problems with it and wish him happiness in his life and the changes he is going thru. That is not a deficit at all. The deficit would be if I used that inability to relate to this to try to control his life, belittle him or otherwise harm his well being.
Click to expand...

what do you think it means "to relate" to something?
 
LogGrad98 said:
The difference between "some" and "every" is not semantics, but whatever dude.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. You are using the literal distinction between "some" and "everyone". I'll assume you know that "everyone" is used in passing and not in the literal sense all the time in common conversation and more often than not should not be taken literally. It's a simple issue of semantics, or perhaps connotation more so. Why you are hung up on this is strange and comes off as defensive.

But more to the point, where did I state that EVERYONE has experienced this? You said that, not me.

Guess what? You and your kids have all shared a locker room with a transgendered person at some point. And it will happen again and again and there's nothing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

I am not disputing that it is likely more common than most people think. But actually some informal polls among my family and friends would indicate it is far less common than they all think. But I still dispute the unqualified claim that EVERYONE has been in a locker room with such an individual. All absolutes are the work of the devil!
Click to expand...

Piss farther, dude.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Sure it is. You are using the literal distinction between "some" and "everyone". I'll assume you know that "everyone" is used in passing and not in the literal sense all the time in common conversation and more often than not should not be taken literally. It's a simple issue of semantics, or perhaps connotation more so. Why you are hung up on this is strange and comes off as defensive.

But more to the point, where did I state that EVERYONE has experienced this? You said that, not me.





Piss farther, dude.
Click to expand...

So now all does not equal every? OK. gotcha. All sparrows are birds but every sparrow is not a bird. I suppose it makes sense if you don't care about logic or defitions or anything.

For what it's worth I was disputing the claim that it is so common that "all" locker rooms (your word) have transsexual individuals in them with the frequency required for all of us to have been in a locker room with such an individual. I Fully acknowledgeit is more common than we probably think. I dispute that it is THAT common.
 
LogGrad98 said:
So now all does not equal every? OK. gotcha. All sparrows are birds but every sparrow is not a bird. I suppose it makes sense if you don't care about logic or defitions or anything.

For what it's worth I was disputing the claim that it is so common that "all" locker rooms (your word) have transsexual individuals in them with the frequency required for all of us to have been in a locker room with such an individual. I Fully acknowledgeit is more common than we probably think. I dispute that it is THAT common.
Click to expand...

If you read it again I used "all" in reference to "you and your kids". I used it improperly so I can see how it may be confusing. But again, the preoccupation with my use of language seems like deflection. No one is arguing that your proximity to trans individuals is THAT common. I made the assertion that Hantlers, not even you which makes this even more hilarious, has at one point in time shared a locker room with a trans person. It's not THAT common, but it happens, will always happen and there's nothing you can do about it. Thats it!
 
NAOS said:
what do you think it means "to relate" to something?
Click to expand...

I think it is fairly clear that "to relate" in this sense is being used to mean being able to understand Caitlyn's motivations for why she (I'm assuming that's how she wants to be referred to) is transitioning to a female gender role or more.

But either way I do not wish to get bogged down in a useless semantics debate as Log and Baby are.

I'm taking what Joe (I think) said differently than you and so what? That shouldn't surprise either of us haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top