• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After firing conservatives for politics ESPN launches liberal political site

Henrin said:
I'm uninterested in your excuses. To sit there and try to figure out how to get transsexuals claim of sex to be true is rather stupid, dishonest, and not deserving of any respect. Furthermore, when speaking towards gender their claims aren't even true either, so again, you claim is crap no matter how you want to approach it.
Click to expand...

The wikipedia section on "intersex" was not written by transexuals, it reflects the actual biological science that actually shows how normal it is to have a biological sex that does not fit into the pathetically oversimplified model that people who are ignorant on the concept of biological sex appeal to.
 
Absentglare said:
The wikipedia section on "intersex" was not written by transexuals, it reflects the actual biological science that actually shows how normal it is to have a biological sex that does not fit into the pathetically oversimplified model that people who are ignorant on the concept of biological sex appeal to.
Click to expand...

Yawn. Stop trying to fall back on intersex people. I realize you want to play the cute little, but it's not an absolute thing, but can it. I don't have time for your fallacies and inability to understand genetic disorders. Oh and yeah, I'm calling it a genetic disorder no matter what you PC people claim.

Oh and btw, you might want to stop treating Wikipedia as a scientific source.
 
Henrin said:
Yawn. Stop trying to fall back on intersex people. I realize you want to play the cute little, but it's not an absolute thing, but can it. I don't have time for your fallacies and inability to understand genetic disorders. Oh and yeah, I'm calling it a genetic disorder no matter what you PC people claim.
Click to expand...

Okay Henrin.

I don't know why you think ESPN is not allowed to fire someone who compares Muslims to Nazis, i guess it's part of your "the market is always free as long as it adheres to my personal philosophy, ideology, and authoritarian rule."
 
How the **** did a thread about ESPN morph into a debate about transsexuals and intersexuals and transgenders and wiki and everything except the thread topic?
 
Absentglare said:
Okay Henrin.

I don't know why you think ESPN is not allowed to fire someone who compares Muslims to Nazis, i guess it's part of your "the market is always free as long as it adheres to my personal philosophy, ideology, and authoritarian rule."
Click to expand...

How you go through the following for ****s and giggles.

XY women
XX men
XXX women
XXY men
XYY men
X women
Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS)
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)
5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency (5-ARD)

Lets see if you can expand beyond Wikipedia

What characteristics do they usually have and what issues do they face?

Your PC argument is ****.
 
tres borrachos said:
How the **** did a thread about ESPN morph into a debate about transsexuals and intersexuals and transgenders and wiki and everything except the thread topic?
Click to expand...
Kinda like how this thread derailed into a discussion about feminist propaganda in TV Shows a while back.

**** just happens I guess.
 
tres borrachos said:
How the **** did a thread about ESPN morph into a debate about transsexuals and intersexuals and transgenders and wiki and everything except the thread topic?
Click to expand...

Well, ESPN fired a guy for his views on transsexuals, so it kind of all started there. :D
 
Henrin said:
How you go through the following for ****s and giggles.

XY women
XX men
XXX women
XXY men
XYY men
X women
Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS)
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)
5-Alpha Reductase Deficiency (5-ARD)

Lets see if you can expand beyond Wikipedia

What characteristics do they usually have and what issues do they face.
Click to expand...

Feel free to make an argument rather than tasking me to teach you about sex.
 
Absentglare said:
Feel free to make an argument rather than tasking me to teach you about sex.
Click to expand...

Go through the list and tell me how they are not disorders. How about you start with Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (PAIS) for lots of fun.
 
tres borrachos said:
How the **** did a thread about ESPN morph into a debate about transsexuals and intersexuals and transgenders and wiki and everything except the thread topic?
Click to expand...

The claim at the bottom of this post :

jmotivator said:
I still find it funny that Schilling made a perfectly true statement and that has SJWs pissed.

"A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

SJWs are biology deniers.
Click to expand...

Is attempting to claim that Schilling was fired for discussing biology. He was not. He was fired for :

- Tweeting a picture of Hitler with the words:

"It’s said only 5-10% of Muslims are extremists.
In 1940, only 7% of Germans were Nazis.
How’d that go?"

- Talking about Hillary on a Kansas City sports radio station :

"I hope she does. If I’m gonna believe, and I don’t have any reason not to believe, that she gave classified information on hundreds if not thousands of emails on a public server after what happened to General [David] Petraeus, she should be buried under a jail somewhere. ...

"If [Clinton is] allowed to get to the general election before she’s in prison, I’ll be stunned and upset."

Note the "buried under a jail somewhere," that's not just a conservative political view, that's a desire for her to pass away.

- Apparently, he was given grave warnings for his social media behavior because he questioned his own employment :

"Shortly after that, a filing with the Federal Election Commission showed that Schilling, while donating $250 to Ben Carson’s presidential campaign, had listed his employer as “ESPN (Not Sure How Much Longer)” and, under “Occupation,” he wrote, “Analyst (For Now Anyway).”"

And, after all those warnings, he spread his hateful, sarcastic, ignorant strawman that was posted earlier in-thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ires-curt-schilling-for-unacceptable-conduct/

So, to answer your question, because conservatives are trying to play the victim card when it doesn't apply.
 
notquiteright said:
Schilling got several chances and since when has conservative been the same as bigoted... oh never mind i'm old enough to remember when it wasn't... continue masking bigotry with 'conservative'... :peace
Click to expand...

Yes I think we all miss good old fashioned bipartisanship

"Goddamn it, if I have to be nice to a bunch of sodomites to be elected President, the the hell with it" - Democratic front runner Muskie 1972
 
tres borrachos said:
I didn't see any reference to what a black person would have seen in Exaggerator's victory that I wouldn't see. Or how his victory would have any impact on cultural or social differences. I also didn't see where I'd look at the Red Sox/Yankees series and a black man would see something completely different than me. We can attempt to bring culture and social things into the discussion, but for what purpose? None.

Sports are sports. People like some, don't like others. Fans are fanatic, fair weather, ugly, and so on. Attempting to intentionally bring race into it when it shouldn't be is just perpetrating the centuries old divide between blacks and non-blacks. It exacerbates the problem, and it should be one area where these differences shouldn't matter. A rich black man and a poor white man shouldn't see anything different in what is going on in the competition. It isn't about color. It's about the sport.
Click to expand...

1. Re: the Preakness, I did answer that with "probably nothing."

2. Sports is a much more integral part of the culture than "the Yankees lost today."

Take the now-crumbling wall of homophobia that has existed around sports for decades. Isn't it fair to say that gay athletes have faced a pretty unique set of circumstances and challenges, and that stories about that perspective may reach an eager audience?
 
Absentglare said:
I don't care what you think Kobie said. You could have avoided this issue on which you have clearly showcased a singularity of ignorance. Instead, you have dragged this tangent discussion into a discussion on ESPN. This victim mythology is unconvincing because it is obvious that your position is borne of willful ignorance on the subjects of sex and gender.
Click to expand...

You still haven't actually made an argument, only dsiplayed that you don't understand your own sources.
 
Absentglare said:
You're still not making sense Henrin.

I was addressing this bit of ignorance that misrepresents biology :



"A man is a man," is not a biological statement. It is a truism in that it is saying that a thing is equal to its own definition. That's not biology. The biology clearly shows that male and female are not exhaustive categories. They can be meaningful broad groups of categorization based on many different factors of differentiation.

The fallacy is in how the biology of sex is misunderstood so as to push for an absolute black and white view of gender. Of course; this is ridiculous on its face in light of the definition of gender being based on social roles rather than strictly on biological sex, but the appeal to biological sex was itself sufficiently ignorant so as to warrant a response.
Click to expand...

So you have decided to backtrack because you messed the last argument so badly?

You still don't understand what you are saying and failed to even make an argument in support of your own source and your own assertion that transgenders are hermaphrodites.

I'll keep asking you until you show even a sliver of understanding and a willingness to support your own claims.
 
jmotivator said:
You still haven't actually made an argument, only dsiplayed that you don't understand your own sources.
Click to expand...

Declaring that i'm wrong isn't a real reason why i'm wrong. If you asserting that i misunderstood something, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. You have failed to do so, conflating your ignorant arguments with my alleged confusion.

jmotivator said:
So you have decided to backtrack because you messed the last argument so badly?

You still don't understand what you are saying and failed to even make an argument in support of your own source and your own assertion that transgenders are hermaphrodites.

I'll keep asking you until you show even a sliver of understanding and a willingness to support your own claims.
Click to expand...

There is no backtracking, that was nut-shelling. I did not assert that transgenders are hermaphrodites, you are sorely mistaken.

You aren't asking me much of anything, your sole question was a rhetorical one.
 
Absentglare said:
Declaring that i'm wrong isn't a real reason why i'm wrong. If you asserting that i misunderstood something, the burden is on you to demonstrate that. You have failed to do so, conflating your ignorant arguments with my alleged confusion.
Click to expand...

I notice you didn't quote the posts where I explained why you were wrong. Rather dishonest of you.

There is no backtracking, that was nut-shelling. I did not assert that transgenders are hermaphrodites, you are sorely mistaken.
Click to expand...

Of course you did. You did as soon as you tried to explain transgenderism using intersex. Your denial only furthers the evidence that you really don't understand either.

You aren't asking me much of anything, your sole question was a rhetorical one.
Click to expand...

I asked to to explain how the 5 factors of intersex apply to Transgenders. You are in such denial that you won't even address that the question was aksed.

I'm still waiting.
 
Kobie said:
1. Re: the Preakness, I did answer that with "probably nothing."

2. Sports is a much more integral part of the culture than "the Yankees lost today."

Take the now-crumbling wall of homophobia that has existed around sports for decades. Isn't it fair to say that gay athletes have faced a pretty unique set of circumstances and challenges, and that stories about that perspective may reach an eager audience?
Click to expand...

If ESPN wants to start a site to get the view of sports from the gay perspective, I'd ask the same question. Why do sports need to be segregated by bedroom preferences? And there isn't really a large divide in this country between gay people and hetero people, as there is between blacks and others. Homophobia isn't much different than any other -ism. Some people don't like women. Some people don't like Jews. Some people don't like Asians. But we aren't desperately trying to close the gap between Asians and Caucasians, or Jews and non-Jews.
 
Henrin said:
Walt Disney operates the network and as people should be aware they just released a Star Wars movie that was perhaps the most obvious feminist bull**** movie of the decade.
Click to expand...

You see trouble everywhere, don't you. It must suck to be afraid all the time.
 
tres borrachos said:
from an African American perspective? Wut? Why do sports have to be segregated by color, too?
Click to expand...

because for many years sports were segregated by color?
 
Texmex said:
You see trouble everywhere, don't you. It must suck to be afraid all the time.
Click to expand...

If people haven't noticed the strong change in media towards the female gender and feminist propaganda then they simply aren't paying attention.
 
Henrin said:
I'm really not interested in talking to a feminist about a feminist movie. It's like talking to CC on transgenderism but a hundred times worse.
Click to expand...

I imagine you see feminism all over the place, don't you? It's like a child pulling the covers over their heads to avoid the boogeyman.
 
Henrin said:
If people haven't noticed the strong change in media towards the female gender and feminist propaganda then they simply aren't paying attention.
Click to expand...

You seem afraid of a woman who steps outside of your idea of what they should be. What you don't see is that it betrays your misogyny.
 
Texmex said:
You seem afraid of a woman who steps outside of your idea of what they should be. What you don't see is that it betrays your misogyny.
Click to expand...

If you enjoy watching women act like men and men acting like sissies that get beaten up by someone half their size, more power to you. As for me, I don't care to watch feminist bull**** based on idiotic notions with no historical or real world standing. If you think feminists reversing sexism is just peachy, fine, believe what you please, but I think it's bull****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom