Life

NO, DON'T TELL HIM/HER/IT (don't want to assume gender) THAT!I'm going to immortalize that quote.

What do I want? Hmm, a million bucks, hot women... oh, and a response that is really worth my effort.You have said that my stance is "I don't agree with this so this is wrong". Which isn't wrong but it's not correct. It is really "I don't agree with this and I believe that it is wrong for such and such reason". Your counter was "you're a bigot so you're wrong". Quite literally. That's just silly and it is not fodder for intelligent debate. It's great that you think of yourself so morally rightous but as others have demonstated (Raven and Crysta), there are constructive ways to debate a differing viewpoint. You haven't done so yet and you're simply trying to stifle any conversation by painting me as morally evil. Which, as I pointed out, is hypocritical. So I want an intelligent response from you. That's my Xmas wishlist, as long as Santa doesn't make me rub his magic wand. It's nice you have feelings. I really don't care about them.You're quite literally defining what is known as the "regressive left" with this comment. It's a pretty backwards way of thinking that believes that being offensive is somehow worthy of jail time. If we were not on this forum and were talking in real life, I would be using the word "tranny" (last time Bal, I promise) in front of your face as often as I want. But this forum does not promote full free speech (because any restriction onwhat I can say means that I do not have the right to free speech) and so, I can't if I want to not get suspended or banned. In addition, I am a Jew. Please feel free to call me "that stupid fucking kike". I've got thicker skin than you.

Really? I mean, really?So who classifies as informed right? Surely every respected economist out there does. And by that matter, since when are you the judge of what is informed and what isn't? For someone preaching equality for people, you clearly don't practice what you preach by refusing to acknowledge a viewpoint and responding with contempt and nothing else. I think we call that hypocrisy.

Then watch some of his real interviews. He's got two 3 hour segments with Joe Rogan where the two are just talking about anything and everything. That's the real stuff where you see his arguments. Steven Crowder was great too and I'm going to work through even more of those. I advise you to watch.

Milo Yiannopoulous, Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder all have similar views as I do. Are they also not part of the "informed right"?Dude, do you care about the diversity of ideas or not? I never once said (as Rommel pointed out) that I advocate hatred for trannies. But I wouldn't want my kid to be a tranny. I'd rather my kid had cancer. If the argument was between tranny and feminist though... damn, that's a tough one. Still cancer.

At the airport.If you are born infertile, that is unfortunate. But you are not infertile by choice. I'm not going to beat a dead horse here since I knew going in that I am in the minority with that viewpoint on this forum. But I do believe that you need to reread the definition of logic. I have logically laid out the reason for why I believe transexuals are abominations. There is more for me to add on the subject but I am currently not in a place where I can do so. Wait 24 hours for that. I am not asking you to agree with me. But I respect open debate. It's why I am responding to you and not to Pheonix (I believe that posts that are dripping with contempt due to a difference of opinions aren't worth my limited time). And I may change my stance at some point in the future if I feel that I am proved wrong. It's called evolving and maturity. But I haven't yet seen any reason to do so because I feel that everyone's response here is rather weak. Phoenix, if we were face to face, would you be willing to sit down and discuss this argument in a civil manner or do my viewpoints disgust you too much to do so?

Last response because I am on my way to the airport.I absolutely think so. And I have a very similar stance on abortion that has changed over the years (because I am entitled to learn and educate myself and form views that are not "socially acceptable"). Self mutilation in order to destroy progeny is horrific. You can do it and if you do, wonderful. But that does not mean that I must agree with you to all ends. The idea of bringing life into the world is both a biological necessity and a great ideal. Destroying that is horrendous in my eyes. As for abortion, I am pro-life in the sense that I believe that past a certain time frame, abortion is infanticide. I'm still debating when that is. And I am pro-choice in the sense that I see no benefits to outlawing abortion (and believe that outlawing abortion is detrimental to society). And I believe that if I am the father, I get a say in whether the child should be aborted or not because its DNA came from me. Pretty clear stance.

Shouting "it's uninformed drivel and hate speech" does nothing to refute it and furthermore, does not address the fact the biology doesn't care about "hate speech".This is what we modern conservatives have to deal with. You have no way to refute my well crafted argument with facts and reason so you decide that "bigotry" is an excellent way of refuting me. Can you simply not admit that this is not normal? Or give me a reason why it is normal for transexuals to exist? This is the exact same answer I would get if I go out and say that the wage gap doesn't exist. You have no facts to back up your views and you have forgotten how to argue and debate properly. So clearly, I must be a bigot, racist and mysogynist when those are unfounded claims because you don't agree with me.

What's shit about it? The fact that don't agree?Then don't agree. I was asked for a defense and I laid out my argument in a very logical way. If you have a problem with proper discussion, then that is your problem, not mine. What I asked (and if you had read my post, you would have picked up on it) was for people to wait to respond until I could tackle other points made against my stance due to getting on a flight to the other side of the world in 4 hours. That is a very reasonable request. There was also another thing I forgot to point out. It was the "prove that transgender does not also occur in the animal kingdom". That is absurd. We are performing medical operations to do something that is unnatural to nature. If it existed in the animal kingdom, then maybe we wouldn't need to have medical procedures that can perform these acts. It would then be organic and by all merit natural. But that's like saying "what if human beings were born with wings". We are not so flying without assistance is impossible. Example: The banana slug is asexual. Do you want to equate yourself to a banana slug in order to argue the validity of transexuals? If you do, go ahead. Me personally, I like to think that I'm more evolved than a banana slug.

Phone's stupid. Hence the bad quote So I'm flying in 5 hours so I'll take the rest when I touchdown (I ask for people not to reply to this response so that I can tackle everything else without being ambushed due to 13.5 hours in an airplane). So you asked about trannies and posted three questions. Let's tackle them. A) Necessity. None whatsoever and this is in fact both detrimental to said person and deeply homophobic. First of all, a sex change is not medically necessary in order to live. Sure, the same argument can by thrown to boob jobs and other operations but the vast majority of those operations have practical uses. Like a boob job. I'll give two examples in my own personal life. Both my sister and my ex have had boob jobs. My sister did it to reduce the size of her breasts simply because of back pain and my ex enlarged one of her tits because they were uneven in size and also caused her back problems. Boom. But for cutting off your dick? Where is the medical science behind that in order to better your physical quality of life? I'll save you the trouble; there's none. As for why it is homophobic, understand that the word -phobia means an "irrational fear of something". A person who believes that they are born in the wrong body is simply too scared to admit that they might be gay. It's very simple logic and it is a disease. If it doesn't terrify you that this is being perverted as acceptable, then I don't know what to say in addition. B+C) This point and the next are basically identical. Human beings are animals. As animals, our primary natural function is to reproduce. Not to write articles about how Caitlyn Jenner deserves to be Woman of the Year. When you cut off your dick, you become a eunich. A man's body is not biologically designed to bring a child into the world. And a woman's body is not designed to impregnate another woman. All the feelings in the world will not change the fact that this is a biological absolute. Now with regards to gays, do you honestly believe that they are happy that they cannot bring a human being into the world with their partner and have to rely on other means? Milo Yiannopoulos expounds on this excellently and much better than I can. To wrap this up and to answer your final question ("What defines a human being"), I can point to a tranny and answer "not that". A human being is someone who has the physical ability to reproduce. Trannies forfeit this ability and therefore forfeit the right to call themselves human beings. Feelings do not equate into this argument because biology does not give a shit about feelings. Being a homosexual does not keep you from physically being able to reproduce. Becoming a eunich does. Once again, please wait for me to land and respond to more points before attacking me. That's the only request I have.

I'll respond later to the rest because I have work soon and I fly in like 12 hours but let me jump onto this one. First of all, I am not shouting down the other side and I am not stifling debate. You want to prove me wrong? Go ahead. I welcome an open debate where I can learn from the content. I cannot say that about the left on any regard. As I said, I am educated as opposed to the vast majority of conservative voters that exist in the USA. I recognize that for what it is. But the vast majority of liberals in today's day and age prefer to shout "racist", "bigot" and "misogynist" to the rooftops in hopes that an ad hominem will actually win the debate. And the sad part is, the vast majority of media outlets parrot this view. When I say "vast", I am saying that I have not had a single political debate with any liberal that I know (and I grew up in Canada so I know a lot of liberals) who can answer with something that is more intelligent than "you're a racist so you're wrong". No, I'm not a racist. I hate racism just like you. The difference is, I don't call criticism of the black community on very viable terms (like high attrition rates at secondary school, for example) racism. I have yet to meet a liberal who will do the same.

Is this a serious question or do you simply not pay attention to the actual rhetoric that Black Lives Matter uses? As for the second line, I get the feeling that you simply don't understand the issue here. I'm pointing out that there is a cultural problem here. Black men kill each other much more often than white men kill them. As I stated, it's 90%. If you don't believe me, look at the evidence. So why is Obama speaking about racial problems within the policing community that don't exist?

Understand that I lost my entire post twice. I edited it so that it is now complete.

With regards to the first sentence, I don't care if it's derogatory and it is certainly not in the same category as "Jap" or "Paki" or what-have-you. The second you feel the need to have a completely unnecessary medical procedure in order to change your sex because "you don't feel comfortable in your body", you have forfeited your right to be treated as a human being. Full fucking stop. It is a perversion of the animal kingdom. And before you want to jump down my throat for possibly thinking the same way of homosexuality, that is incorrect because homosexuality also exists within the animal kingdom, especially in primates (but not limited to). As for why it is not on the same level as saying "Chink" or "Kike" or whatever, it is because the operation itself is unnecessary whatsoever in any medical capacity. It is something that the person is choosing the change. Race is from your DNA and ancestry. There is no medical procedure available to change race. Unpopular view but whatever. It is my informed opinion of the matter and I won't attempt to convince you because it sounds so evil. But that is a logical explanation of why I feel that way. As for the question (which I typed out twice and lost both), let's assume that left = liberals = Democratic Party of America for the purpose of this argument. Not a hard stretch. Now the left's issue is one of bold hypocrisy, much more so than the right. They are so two-faced when it comes to a lot of the myths that get spread around. I mentioned "white privilege" above but let's dive into that. Black Lives Matter does not preach peace. It preaches segregation. Didn't MLK fight against that exact notion 50 years ago? And the best part is that they refuse to call it what it is (racism against the white majority because let's not sugar-coat the issue). Instead, they use a couple of bad (and they truly are bad) videos of a couple cops shooting black males. So suddenly there's an epidemic of racism in America's police force that goes around and shoots blacks by the minute? Wrong. Let me point out the three best statistics from this study. 1) You have the same chance of getting killed by the police as you do of getting hit by lightning. 2) Black males have 37x more chance of being murdered by a private citizen than they do by a cop who is on duty. 3) 89.6% of blacks murdered... are murdered by other blacks. Well shit, that basically blows apart the BLM's entire movement. But when did the left let facts get in the way of feelings? And that's the problem I have. Conservatives aren't perfect. It's why we are conservative; we do not adapt to change easily. But we don't go around perpetuating lies as a way of institutionalizing racism. Even Trump's most asinine comments about immigration are not unfounded. That is a job that the left does.

The issue here is that liberals don't get it. Seriously, they don't. For years and years, the left has been trying to paint this picture as conservatives being "holier than thou" Bible thumpers who marry their own cousins and just generally eat dirt. And it's worked. But what I love is that when the left realized that their values and opinions don't hold up to scrutiny when you look at empirical evidence, they came up with the idea of stifling free speech. Conservatives get labeled as bigots and racists more often than Tila Tequila gets cock at a nightclub. What's so funny about it is that the left comes off as hypocrites and more people are getting wise to it. One of my favourite examples is Ben Shapiro's appearance on Dr. Drew where a tranny committed assault and battery against him on national television. And the tranny was getting all the support because Ben decided to mock the tranny's ignorance of genetics by calling him "sir". Which to be fair, the tranny's voice is an octave lower than Ben's. Sure, it might have been an asshole thing for him to do. But to respond to that in a civilized forum with "I'm going to send you home in an ambulance"? That is a threat, by the definition of the law. And the tranny grabbing him by the neck while saying that makes it "assault and battery". And you're trying to claim the moral high ground but you have to resort to threats in order to shut down debate? Watch for yourself. At the end of the day, I'm a conservative. And furthermore, I am educated. And yes, that is not an oxymoron despite what the media wants to claim.

How sudden? After how many years? The vast majority of my family on my father's side is related to me because my grandfather remarried when my dad was ten years old. So we're not related by blood. But they're still my cousins, aunts and uncles, just like my father's biological sister. In fact, I was named after one of my dad's step-brothers who passed away when he was 19 (we Jews like to name our kids after deceased relatives and not living ones). So the idea of family relation without blood is not a foreign idea to me.

After looking at the evidence (like from the Tax Policy Center or the IRS), the myth of the top 1% controlling everything and never paying taxes has been thoroughly debunked. And this is a myth that is constantly put out by the left in order to instill fear and hatred, similar to the ideas of "white privilege" or "rape culture". That's all they are; myths. I've changed my viewpoint entirely. If I were American, I would vote for Trump simply as a middle finger to a ruling establishment that has constantly failed me and will continue to do so. The Milo Yiannopoulos way of voting, you might say. We're talking about an educated person who would vote Trump.

https://youtu.be/N1Oxq98wGpo - Skip to about 4 or so minutes in. This isn't really new but it's just one of the things that doesn't fit with the media's support of Hillary because god forbid should they criticize her because she has a vagina.

Because (and I say this to every single liberal) Hillary Clintom does not care about you. She has repeatedly shown that she simply wants your vote. Take the Khans. Hillary is fine with rolling them out to support her when she wanta more parents to sacrifice their children so that she can intervene in Syria (about 3 years too late). Or what about her admission that her husband will continue to run the Clinton Foundation when she is President. You know, the humanitatian organization that pays for her fancy suits and her husband's prostitutes. Pretty sure that's embezzlement. In a side note, Anderson Cooper asked her about this and Hillary's response made me cringe.

Your argument makes absolute sense but as per my own reasons stated above (and I know that I'm currently irreplaceable at my work), I can't agree simply because it feels completely unprofessional. The player is still under contract when he is holding out. To me, that's insubordination (I know about a lot of insubordination because I'm ex-military) and there is no excuse for it. Especially when you are negotiating such high figures. New news. Tyrod might get resigned before the start of the season. ​Please let it be a 2 year extension for 30 million (20 guaranteed). I need more proof before I lock the guy up for a good 5 years. ​EDIT: Ana, want to ask you something via PM but you've blocked the shit out of me.

I have an issue with hold-outs. Period. End sentence. I think it shows a lack of professionalism and if I were a GM, a player who wants to hold-out can go fuck himself and leave my team on the spot. Obviously that's a bit of an exaggeration but to me, it's like me working at my restaurant. If I decide to not go to work because I want a serious raise and I know I can get that money somewhere else if I go there in a few months, the owner has all the right in the world to say "Fuck you, collect your shit and get out". I don't see why it should be any different here.

Just started watching this again and got to Chapter 5. "My good friend, Lord Raven." WHERE IS MY JOE FLACCO COMMENT?!

DeAndre immediately loses points with me after a hold-out on his contract. Even though it was only 1 day. I don't care if it's a business. You sign to play for X years and you are a member of the organization during that time, even if you want to renegotiate your contract. Either man the fuck up or get out after the year is over but do NOT bitch about your next contract while you still have one going. I think that every contract should have a clause saying that if a player wants to subordinate due to future contract negotiations, they will be fined by the organization for 10% of their total contract to date. That compounds for 5 days and if by then the player is continuing to hold out, it jumps to 100% of the entire contract and the organization does not have to retain the player as of that day. Maybe it'll teach players to be more respectful because that shit is unacceptable from my point of view. EDIT: Anyone down for starting a round table about football every week, starting with the preseason? Like over Skype or shit, one of us hosts and we ask questions where we all can comment and discuss. Sort of like a "SF does NFL" podcast or something.

Reggir Bush just signed a 1 year deal (incentive-based) in Buffalo. Holy crap, our backfield is dangerous. Shady Karlos Williams (comes back fresh in Week 5) Mike Gillesie New rookie named Jonathan Williams that runs like a freight train Reggie Bush (PR but may see some two back sets early on) Jerome Felton (PURE FULLBACK BABY) Don't fuck with the number 1 running attack in the league.

They simply won't vote for or against it. The only thing that matters is that nobody in their family turns out gay.