General US Politics

[Phoenix Wright]

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.

i didn't shout it, and there's literally nothing to refute. your claim was "IT'S NOT NATURAL SO OBVIOUSLY IT DOESN'T EXIST" which is as much a claim as the luminiferous aether hypothesis or some shit lol. just cause you personally can't identify transsexual phenomena doesn't mean it's unidentifiable. and unfortunately for you, as with the luminiferous aether supporters all those years ago, you're demonstrably wrong. there are neuroscientists, etc. etc. studying transgender topics today. right now, even.

this is what modern scientists have to deal with. people like you spouting bullshit about nature like you're experts in fields you know nothing about, nor have even looked remotely closely into. then they claim we're the ones who are ignorant of nature! jfc

also, the labels i have given you are accurate. when you call a jew a kike, that's bigotry. when you call gay person a fag, that's bigotry. when you call a transsexual a tranny, that's bigotry. i'm not going to sugarcoat what i call you just because you're delusional and don't like it. this is the internet, after all.

"normal" is the wrong word. it's not "normal" biology because gender identity isn't biological, it's psychological. identity is wholly a social construct. even so, given how wonderfully evolved we are, and given how variable genetics and neuro-related processes are, it's not a stretch that sometimes sex and gender identity don't match. and this is what's been observed.

nice of you to assume i'd believe the wage gap mumbo jumbo lol. i'm a scientist by trade so i understand (somewhat) the subtleties of statistical arguments. i realize the national average doesn't necessarily reflect what's actually going on. women, on average, do make less than men, but also, women doing the same work make less than men too, on average. though the gaps aren't nearly as wide, more like +/- 10 cents.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Lord Raven]

I've checked just to confirm, but weren't slaves majoritarily bought at African slave markets and not directly captured by the Europeans? Not that the voyage from Africa to America wasn't a quite deadly affair for the slaves, but otherwise the conditions of a slave in Africa and one taken to America (that survived the travel that is) were functionally quite similar, other than some slaves in Africa being enslaved non-inheritably while the condition of a slave being inherited to the generations afterwards in America (And that in America there weren't mass sacrificial rituals). Even if the increasing demand from Western people did cause an increase in the amount of enslavement of Africans, the system was already there before the slave buying started.

I'm not quite sure how your point is any different from mine. You're splitting hairs with me. This is essentially the essence of your posts in here; you don't seem to say anything different, you just go into detail about something wholly irrelevant to the actual point, and then you end up making the same conclusion inadvertantly. Or making points that lead to the same conclusion.

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.

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.

There are also plenty of uses of these operations that have very little to do with fixing their back pain. Should people be banned from getting plastic surgery on their breasts just because they feel like it? Are you suggesting that any surgery that isn't relevant to your health should be banned and frowned upon? And once again, what does this have to do with being transgender?

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.

What are you basing this off of? Because it's not simple logic, considering I know a transfemale that is only into females, and transmales that are still only into males. Have you ever met a transperson in your life? Were these people afraid to admit they were straight for some reason?

I'm quite close to the transfemale woman btw, and I know for a fact that you're worse off as a gay transgender than a straight male in Texas.

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.

No, but what I requested was proof that animals outside of human beings cannot be transgender. As it stands, the answer is that we have no idea because it's primarily a thought-based concept rather than an outwards one.

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.

That honestly depends on the person. I know many straight people who want to avoid having kids by all means and they're all the happier for it. You don't regulate what defines their happiness and whether or not our biological need to reproduce drives them to have children. I imagine it's the same idea with gay and transpeople, and even if they want it they tend to adopt kids.

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.

So what about people getting a vasectomy? Women in menopause? Old people who have gone sterile? People who have gone sterile due to atomic behavior and things out of their control? Are they not human anymore? People also choose and stick by not having any children in their life, and I do not see how that is any different to being functionally a eunuch, because either way you do not have any children. Are they also less human?

And your point about "they forfeit their right to being a human being" - in your words I believe - implies we should treat transpeople differently. Should we now treat them differently for a lifestyle they are a part of? What about transpeople who don't decide to get the necessary surgeries to actually make them physically the other sex? You know those exist, right?

I'm not going to argue with you on the fact that transgender people exist, because while I do I don't think I can convince you short of any sort of scientific literature on transgenderism. As it stands, it sounds like you have a lot of misconceptions on the basic concept behind gender identity and how it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "chopping off your dick" to express yourself as a female. As it stands right now, I don't see how anyone can actually choose to be transgender, since I highly doubt you are the only one that shares your viewpoint. In fact, your viewpoint is probably closer to the norm than anyone else's in this thread. If you honestly want to know, this is a good summary of the biological stuff behind transgenders so I recommend you go through that before saying it's not natural or something.

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.

I think most pro-choice people can agree to this short of whether or not the birth is a legitimately threat to the life of the mother.

EDIT: Well, except the father part. That's between you and your baby mama.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Crysta]

I don't really care if you think it's morally wrong - but there's a lot more to being human than popping out babies, and I don't think people who are born infertile are abominations against nature (those exist, too). Why are they suddenly inhuman when they choose to not reproduce any more? It's the same damn result.

But I guess you can believe such if you really want to; but don't go passing ideology off as "logic" and a scientific truth.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Crysta

[Tryhard]

Why not?

I would like the advantages. That seems to suggest one group has something beneficial that the other doesn't.

Which is kind of like, privileged.

I mean, a serf is a slave. They're both slaves. They have almost no rights or privileges. In this case, I don't think they are really going to get treated any better or worse considering.

But if we're talking a working class poor white and black person, is the white person in a trailer park any better off than a black person in a ghetto? You would say, economically they are not, but the black person could be discriminated and subject to prejudice against more often. The experience that somehow just because the white person is white that they are better off isn't going to improve their situation, which is a shitty one, and I don't think that them being told they are "privileged" is going to resonate with them. How about an upper class black person and that same white person? Can we really believe that the white person is the one who has the privilege as opposed to their class (and money) defining their privileges?

I kind of agree but don't at the same time, which is the problem I have with "white privilege".

Edited August 5, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

Well "white privilege" is easier to say than "middle class and up Caucasian privilege" and "inherent bias against non-Caucasian people by the majority."

It's still kind of shit, but it applies to a significantly lesser extent to the lower class (although being white in a trailer home is still better than being black in the ghetto). I'm not about to walk up to a trailer park white person and say they are more privileged than some of the middle class black people I know. That's probably why we shouldn't take words and concepts at face value.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Crysta]

You just said you would prefer to be the white serf because of social perceptions and biases. It is not equal otherwise I can't see you caring and having a preference and that is the problem.

Being a serf sucks, but not all serfs suck the same. Pointing out being a serf sucks in general doesn't really address the problem and seems to... skim over it, to be honest.

EDIT: I think in general you would have an easier time getting ahead as a white serf when all things are initially put on the same level; we know this and that's why everyone would probably prefer it.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Crysta

[Moblin Major General]

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.

There are several transexual species of fish, lizards, and amphibians. Are we more evolved? No in the context of I don't consider evolution to apply to mankind, but yes physiologically. The main flaw I see in your argument is that you fail to account that some transgender people are either a)asexual, or b)gay by being attracted to the gender they identify with. The criticism you draw is to which your belief is implied to go:sub humanity.You are lead to call them different, and see them as lesser, but you still seem to want to at least allow them rights, even if they are wrong. I don't deny the conservative stance you've taken, but you're reasoning isn't leading down a slippery slope, as you've not voiced your desire to harm them, nor have you disregarded anyone's opinion as offensive. Hence why I'm hesitant to use "bigot" or "hater", the latter using the biblical meaning. And even though you believe that humanity is defined by reproducing, consider there is a group that both sides of the LGBT question tend to despise: asexuals. My sister is one, and she gets as much flak from neckbeard fuckboys than from gays and lesbians. She is in a straight relationship, but she isn't sexually attracted to her boyfriend. Is it wrong for her to want sex? Both sides might say yes, and that's unfair to her. Nobody right and nobody wrong.

To everyone jumping to conclusions, let me iterate something: the informed right is a thing, and just because they are wrong, it doesn't mean they subscribe to the same notions that the backwards right do. Most of you don't seem to take his statements at face value, and put the dark, biased undertones that you get from our politicians onto his statements to invalidate his argument entirely. Don't ad hominem his arguments, because that only proves that you don't have anything intelligent to add. Is he wrong? To me, yes. But I don't think he's a bigot for being wrong, just holding an opinion I see as harsh.

[Crysta]

No one's actually called him a bigot. We're attacking his argument, which he has a very high opinion of.

Again, I don't really care if he thinks it's immoral. I do care that he's willing to call people I know subhuman, but it doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of things.

[Life]

I don't really care if you think it's morally wrong - but there's a lot more to being human than popping out babies, and I don't think people who are born infertile are abominations against nature (those exist, too). Why are they suddenly inhuman when they choose to not reproduce any more? It's the same damn result.

But I guess you can believe such if you really want to; but don't go passing ideology off as "logic" and a scientific truth.

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?

[Phoenix Wright]

To everyone jumping to conclusions, let me iterate something: the informed right is a thing, and just because they are wrong, it doesn't mean they subscribe to the same notions that the backwards right do. Most of you don't seem to take his statements at face value, and put the dark, biased undertones that you get from our politicians onto his statements to invalidate his argument entirely. Don't ad hominem his arguments, because that only proves that you don't have anything intelligent to add. Is he wrong? To me, yes. But I don't think he's a bigot for being wrong, just holding an opinion I see as harsh.

literally replace his use of tranny with any other racial/cultural/ethnic epithet and you get a bigot.

i'm not going to give a bigot the time of day. sure, the informed right is a thing, but life is not a member of that group.

[Lord Raven]

I also care that he seems to have the concept of transgender entirely wrong, and at points appears to discount psychology from animal functionality.

A human is characterized as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Modern humans (Homo sapiens, primarily ssp. Homo sapiens sapiens) are the only extant members of Hominina clade (or human clade), a branch of the taxonomical tribe Hominini belonging to the family of great apes. They are characterized by erect posture and bipedal locomotion; manual dexterity and increased tool use, compared to other animals; and a general trend toward larger, more complex brains and societies.

Check the sources if you don't care for wiki definitions.

I have logically laid out the reason for why I believe transexuals are abominations.

Honestly? Your arguments seemed to have much more of an emotional basis than a logical basis. They ultimately make their way down to "I feel like they are not apart of the animal kingdom because of what I feel defines a human being." On top of that, your entire post seems to tell me that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a transperson actually is, so I have a hard time believing that your viewpoint is informed. The only reason I responded was because I felt like everything you posted in there was completely misinformed. It's much easier to correct misinformation than deal with someone else's ideology. Edited August 5, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Crysta]

On second thought, if he and people who thought similarly to him actually elected someone who would pass legislation which would treat my transgendered friends like abominations I would probably care a lot more.

Am I getting something wrong?

To me it sounds like honing on one particular aspect of the human experience and declaring that the utmost defining characteristic of being human... because he thinks so.

Which is... okay. How the fuck do you actually argue that? I can just insist it's something else and be just as valid.

[Life]

literally replace his use of tranny with any other racial/cultural/ethnic epithet and you get a bigot.

i'm not going to give a bigot the time of day. sure, the informed right is a thing, but life is not a member of that group.

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.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Pharoahe Monch

[Tryhard]

You just said you would prefer to be the white serf because of social perceptions and biases. It is not equal otherwise I can't see you caring and having a preference and that is the problem.

Being a serf sucks, but not all serfs suck the same. Pointing out being a serf sucks in general doesn't really address the problem and seems to... skim over it, to be honest.

EDIT: I think in general you would have an easier time getting ahead as a white serf when all things are initially put on the same level; we know this and that's why everyone would probably prefer it.

That's true about inequality.

But that's the thing, right? Everyone has their own experiences and a hypothetical situation as "on the same level" doesn't really happen in real life. You can't really make claims about how good or bad a specific white person has it. When people say "white privilege", they might be using it levied at someone who they really have no idea what their life is like. In that way, they assume that because they are white they have enjoyed more freedom or benefit because of that, when that may not be the case at all.

When people hear white privilege they assume that people are saying that the fact that others may be disadvantaged is somehow their fault. Their "gain" is someone else's loss. I assume the purpose was to motion people to try and make change in this degree, but really all it does is make people reject the notion and drive them away from it. I feel as though I'm splitting hairs on most here but the purpose is that I don't think people don't acknowledge that minorities are disadvantaged, but that not being discriminated against should be the "base" or "neutral" state, the actual thing that should happen, not an advantage. I mean, should I really feel so privileged that a cop doesn't pull me over and search me for no reason (i don't live in the usa so perhaps your answer is just yes)? Does that mean that it isn't a problem? No, it's a problem.

So essentially I do understand the meaning that the phrase is meant to have, it is certainly not exactly the most agreeable with people and it might not be because they aren't willing to accept that inequality exists.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

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.

Isnt using something that's considered a slur towards a transgender person and saying "I'd rather my kid have cancer than be a transperson" like half a step above that?

At any rate, some of the shit you said was not only a SWEEPING generalization towards what transgenderism is - and if those people are making the same generalization their viewpoints are completely skewed - but it honestly wreaks of fundamental and scientific misinformation. Like seriously? Transpeople are just closeted gays?

Edited August 5, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Crysta]

Milo Yiannopoulous is not what I would call an informed source. He literally thrives on the attention of just being a dickhead and profits from it. Because of the latter part, I doubt he'll stop, and I'm not even sure how much he truly believes some of the stuff he says.

You can't really make claims about how good or bad a specific white person has it. When people say "white privilege", they might be using it levied at someone who they really have no idea what their life is like. In that way, they assume that because they are white they have enjoyed more freedom or benefit because of that, when that may not be the case at all.

I believe because I am whiter than sour cream I have had an easier time achieving things than I would if I was a black female, simply because I'm aware of how other people around me perceive minorities (including other minorities). It doesn't apply to everyone I come across, but it's frequent enough that I am confident in that assumption.

Maybe there will be a day when I'm not, but today is not that day.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Crysta

[Phoenix Wright]

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.

none of them are scientists, so probably not. but more than that, none of them express knowledge in the sciences.

you're free to say what you're saying, but what you're saying is hateful, hurtful, and wrong, so i don't particularly care for the one you are trying to convey.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Life]

Milo Yiannopoulous is not what I would call an informed source. He literally thrives on the attention of just being a dickhead and profits from it. Because of the latter part, I doubt he'll stop, and I'm not even sure how much he truly believes some of the stuff he says.

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.

[Life]

none of them are scientists, so probably not. but more than that, none of them express knowledge in the sciences.

you're free to say what you're saying, but what you're saying is hateful, hurtful, and wrong, so i don't particularly care for the one you are trying to convey.

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.

[Time the Crestfallen]

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.

I don't think any of the people you listed (except for maybe Crowder, because I don't know enough about him) are particularly trustworthy on this source. In the video you showed me, Shapiro tried to argue against transgenderism by using genetics as an argument when transgenderism is a thing with psychology and neuroanatomy. If transgenderism (and homosexuality for that matter) was related to genetics, then it would be a hereditary characteristic, which it is very provably not.

Milo meanwhile, describes transgenderism as a 'mental disease'. Which would be fine, if not in-line with my opinions, if he weren't himself homosexual which under his logic, is also a mental 'disease' and considering his criticism of Islam over instances of homophobia, makes him extremely hypocritical.

[solrocknroll]

literally no one actually cares about biology

feelings are the only things that matter as human beings. To feel is to truly understand what it's like to live. Science doesn't deserve to decide what's right or what's wrong.

Humans are also worth far more than simply children factories. That's a terrible way to simply living.

also I'm seriously questioning why you haven't been modded for using slurs considering the fact that that word is just as bad as any other slur.

[Phoenix Wright]

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.

by informed, i thought you meant on this issue.

as for being the judge, you literally asked me. i acknowledge that the viewpoint exists, but what you're asking me to do is plain stupid. i already stated that to me the claim "it's not natural so it doesn't exist" is as interesting a claim as the luminiferous aether hypothesis. why would i spend any time refuting an already demonstrably false claim? i'm unsure what you want me to do besides tell you you're right and i'm wrong.

i mean seriously what else do you want me to acknowledge? the flat earth theory? geocentrism? trickle-down economics? creationist theory?

Edited August 5, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Life]

by informed, i thought you meant on this issue.

as for being the judge, you literally asked me. i acknowledge that the viewpoint exists, but what you're asking me to do is plain stupid. i already stated that to me the claim "it's not natural so it doesn't exist" is as interesting a claim as the luminiferous aether hypothesis. why would i spend any time refuting an already demonstrably false claim? i'm unsure what you want me to do besides tell you you're right and i'm wrong.

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.

literally no one actually cares about biology

feelings are the only things that matter as human beings. To feel is to truly understand what it's like to live. Science doesn't deserve to decide what's right or what's wrong.

Humans are also worth far more than simply children factories. That's a terrible way to simply living.

also I'm seriously questioning why you haven't been modded for using slurs considering the fact that that word is just as bad as any other slur.

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.

[CyborgZeta]

Science doesn't deserve to decide what's right or what's wrong.

Uh, maybe reconsider or rephrase this statement? Science does decide what's right and wrong; it is how we learn.

[Life]

Uh, maybe reconsider or rephrase this statement? Science does decide what's right and wrong; it is how we learn.

NO, DON'T TELL HIM/HER/IT (don't want to assume gender) THAT!

I'm going to immortalize that quote.