- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 82,050
- Reaction score
- 19,728
- Location
- Houston, in the great state of Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Good for you. But it is not for me either.
What is not for you?
Good for you. But it is not for me either.
Speaking from a biological standpoint, its men. Plain & simple.Who is the stronger sex? Sorry weirdos, no 3rd option in this poll.
What is not for you?
Your definition of what you interpret as strength.
Who is the stronger sex? Sorry weirdos, no 3rd option in this poll.
It depends on the individual.Who is the stronger sex? Sorry weirdos, no 3rd option in this poll.
I used the common definition and placed the adjective physical in front of it. Making the type of strength I was talking about very specific
strengths has a common definition. And adding the adjective physical Narrows that definition that is what I did.The OP did NOT define strength.
that is incorrect I used the common definition of strength and further narrowed it buy specifically talking about physical strength.So each poster is free to decide that on their own. You have your own- fine with me.
strengths has a common definition. And adding the adjective physical Narrows that definition that is what I did.
If you have a problem with the Op don't gripe at me about it
that is incorrect I used the common definition of strength and further narrowed it buy specifically talking about physical strength.
You need to have a better reading comprehension
False choice.
And yes, the OP does imply only two sexes. Are there more than two? I do not know. I am open to clear evidence either way. I am not open to fundamentalist views that dig in their heels without a shred of evidence to back them up.
You replied to me. Also I'm only replying to your replies. That's what a forum like this as about.I do not get why you are so obsessed with replying to me about this
No I'm using the common definition of physical strength. You are stupidly arguing that not all strength is physical. When I started specifically that I was talking about physical strength.when you are using one interpretation of what strength means and I am using a different one.
There is a common definition. You are seeking to use an esoteric definition.You want to see it your way for you - fine with me. I have no problem with that. But what personal problem of your own prevents you from accepting that my standard of what strength constitutes is different than yours?
There are only two sexes within humans. Sexes exist to procreate.False choice.
And yes, the OP does imply only two sexes. Are there more than two? I do not know. I am open to clear evidence either way. I am not open to fundamentalist views that dig in their heels without a shred of evidence to back them up.
There are only two sexes within humans. Sexes exist to procreate.
There isn't a need fur anything else other than a male and a female to procreate.
False choice? How so?
I "Imply" there are only 2 sexes? No I outright state there are only 2 sexes. Evidence seems pretty clear there are only 2 sexes, unless of course you self identify as a snowflake.
I'm pretty sure there is substantial evidence that shows the above as fact, but you feel free to start your own thread and disprove that fact.
That is a very barbed response to my declaration of openness to clear evidence either way. Do you have anything to present other than your own opinion?
Its a biological fact. You only need two sexes to procreate.That is the exact mindset that has been used against gays. No different.
That is a very barbed response to my declaration of openness to clear evidence either way. Do you have anything to present other than your own opinion?
Its a biological fact. You only need two sexes to procreate.
How has this been used against gay people?
There are only two sexes within humans. Sexes exist to procreate.
There isn't a need fur anything else other than a male and a female to procreate.
You said, and I quote:
What you're doing is equating sex and procreation. An elementary knowledge of biology shows this not to be the case.
Who is the stronger sex? Sorry weirdos, no 3rd option in this poll.
I fail to see your third option.Yes there is a 3rd option. Neither we are equal.
Because we evolved differently each sex with different strengths and weaknesses. This is the reason we have survived. You cannot have large powerful hands that are agile, accurate, and nimble. I struggle to pick a needle up off a table.
So how do humans procreate? Is there ever an instance that involves something more than a male and a female?
A elementary knowledge of biology suggests you need two individuals of the opposite sex to procreate.
You didn't explain how it was used against gay people.
You replied to me. Also I'm only replying to your replies. That's what a forum like this as about.
No I'm using the common definition of physical strength. You are stupidly arguing that not all strength is physical. When I started specifically that I was talking about physical strength.
There is a common definition. You are seeking to use an esoteric definition.
There you go again.
You seem to be unwilling to understand that sex is not just about procreation. Do you really need this explained to you?