DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 5:41 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:43 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7974
Super Aurora wrote:
It's number 1.


Lazario wrote:
I'm going to guess number 2.


carolinakid wrote:
I think #1's the transgender male also.


Super Aurora wrote:
I would explain as I know who that person is (also #1 and #2 are the same person)


Time to tell you the truth. They are ALL transwomen. SA, you were right in that #1 and #2 is the same person because you recognized who she was but you weren't able to tell that the rest of them were transwomen also. I tried to dispel your preconceptions of how a transwoman looks like by saying that only one of them is. I hope I have made my point.

Although there are indeed transwomen who have more prominent masculine features (this is due to many variables), most of them look like everyday women.

For the record, #1 & #2 is Jamie Clayton, #3 is Nikki Araguz, and #4 is Kim Petras.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Last edited by Sotiris on Tue May 08, 2012 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:58 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 6:19 am
Posts: 2708
Sotiris wrote:
Time to tell you the truth. They are ALL transwomen.


...so you blatantly lied in your question. You said 'Only one of these four women is a transwoman'. I personally thought it was number #3.

_________________
http://onethousandandonemovienights.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:11 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 10414
Location: USA
I've stayed away from this thread, but partly due to procrastination on homework (ironically about infant abandonment laws), and partly due to curiousity, I wanted to pop in. I have mixed feelings about abortion. If I were pregnant and the fetus/baby wasn't going to harm me, then I would at least give the baby up for adoption or keep the baby, but I know people who have had abortions, and I don't think any less of them.

Saying that, I know someone who got pregnant at 17, and she had an abortion. Thinking about me being in her shoes, it makes me more compassionate towards the situation. I mean, in doing my research for the infant abandonment laws, many mothers who abandon their babies hid their pregnancies. It might not always be an option to hide your pregnancy (I would imagine like if you're naturally thin and the only part of you that gets bigger is your belly). And many mothers do abandon their babies in trash bins or in ditches or whatnot. So, thinking about it that way, what's the difference between killing your child by abortion or by abandoning the baby (whether or not you kill the baby first)? And it could be argued that the abortion would be more humane.


Super Aurora wrote:
I do murder all the time...

Just like these recent news stories:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. ... LAHO862914

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-573 ... this-year/

*sigh* (For the record, I am so not for those bills!) That is so over the top. I mean, women's eggs aren't always fertilized, either! I think that if it's not used in the creation of a fetus, then definitely, absolutely, it's not murder or anything. Ugh, people and their crazy beliefs.

Kraken Guard wrote:
I don't agree with people having an abortion simply because they don't want the unborn child when it is born.


It's definitely hard to understand why people would have multiple abortions, and some may say that they should get their tubes tied, especially because birth control (whether condoms, pills, or other methods) can be attained for free at many clinics. As a social work student, though, I definitely see issues differently, and one needs to be more sensitive and not lump people together, don't generalize. This article sheds some light into the mind-set of why women would seek multiple abortions:
Abortion Addict Confesses 15 Procedures in 16 Years
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Reproducti ... 0kXGfEgeBQ

So, sometimes it's more psychological for the women that have multiple abortions.

In the case of rape, I've read that actually giving birth to the baby can be psychologically scarring. Like this article says:
http://www.secasa.com.au/index.php/survivors/4/151
Quote:
For many women the emotional and psychological impact of rape creates Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and symptoms are often exacerbated when the victim/survivor gives birth.


And Goliath said something similar, good job!

candydog wrote:
And what about the rights of the father? Where does he factor into this? If the woman doesn't want the child and the father does, shouldn't he be able to raise the child himself?


This subject comes up in the infant abandonment arguments that I'm researching. For legal abandonment (dropping a newborn at a "safe haven", such as a hospital or police station), in some states, at least for abandonment issues, it's all confidential so the father can't always be contacted. In some states, such as South Carolina where I'm living now, media outlets need to be notified of the abandoned baby. In some states, an effort is made to find the father. Now, this is different from abortion, of course, but sometimes the father may not know that he impregnated the woman.

This article says:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/weeki ... lluck.html

Quote:
Case study one: a pregnant woman wants an abortion. Her husband doesn't. Should he have a say?...The answer, legally, is no in the abortion case.

...

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

...

The Casey decision effectively left the decision of whether to have an abortion entirely up to the woman.

...

With abortion, said Marsha Garrison, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, the courts recognize that "that embryo is in the woman's body, it's within her and can't be separated from her, so it's not just her decision-making about whether to bear a child, it's about her body."

Ms. Garrison said even if a man is tricked into impregnating a woman, many courts have held that "well, it just doesn't matter: if you engage in sexual intercourse, you assume the risk that a child will be born."


Lazario wrote:
But that being said, for my 2 cents, I don't think people are properly educated on sex.


Thank you. It boils my blood that a comprehensive sex education isn't included in health classes across all middle and high schools. It's not encouraging the people to have sex. Adolescents who were already going to have sex will just be more educated. We learned about sex and contraception and sexually transmitted diseases/infections in my public high school, and I know that I wasn't more likely to have sex before I was ready to just because we were learning about it. I mean, show the slides of what herpes looks like, let the students learn about the "unsexy" characteristics of having sex!

This is super-interesting. I'd be curious to know anyone's thoughts on this:

Unwanted pregnancy doubles women's risk of mental health problems, but opting for abortion 'has no impact'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... mpact.html

candydog wrote:
For those of you interested in the subject of child support I came across this article, it's an interesting read.

http://andtheylivedhappilyeverafter.com/74.htm


Quote:
Even if a man doesn't even have intercourse with a woman, but agrees to receive oral sex from her after which she inseminates herself with the contents of the condom, completely unbeknownst to him, he is still made to pay child support for the resulting baby


That's completely horrible. Wow.

Disney Duster wrote:
A siamese twin must depend on the other to survive, yet killing one of them would be considered murder.


If you're speaking about Siamese twins who have been born, then those twins aren't in the mother's womb, they are not "parasites," using other people's terminology. So it's completely different, it'd be killing a really-for-real, born human.
And this is getting off-topic, but what do you feel about pulling the plug on someone who is on life-support? Do you think that that's wrong, that someone who has been on life-support for years and it's so unlikely that their health will improve, should stay on life support, just in case?

yamiiguy wrote:
That definition of death is archaic due to the fact you can restart the heart and due to the fact that some living organisms do not have a heart. Due to the fact that there is no real definition of life, there is no real definition of death.


:clap: So well-put!

[quote=:my chicken is infected"]Pro-choice all the way. Pro-choice =/= pro-abortion. I don't think anyone likes abortion. I don't know anyone who's like "Oh, I just cannot WAIT to get this abortion! We'll paint toenails, order Chinese, watch some romantic comedies, have fetus-shaped cookies! It'll be fun!" It just means it's someone else's choice, not mine.[/quote]

That's a really, really good point. I mean, I think when it comes down to it, it's a matter of quality-of-life for the woman. If the pregnancy would negatively impact her life, such as she supports herself and due to the physical nature of her job, she wouldn't be able to work anymore, for one example. Or a rape example. It really is a personal decision, based on what the woman deems is right for herself. It's more about the woman than the fetus.

Then, of course, we have the cases like mentioned above, where the abortion is continually used as a method of birth control, but as the article points out, often there is a psychological issue there.

Disney Geek wrote:
A fetus isn't human life if it isn't viable outside the womb, and you mentioned arms and legs when arguing that it is. Another problem with what you have said(raised by yamiiguy), is that using the heart to define life and death, is outdated, as not all organisms have hearts.

I'm finished with this. You are using wishy washy arguments in the face of accepted Biology, and I don't know what else I can write if you're going to opine that limbs make an underdeveloped baby a soulful being :roll:


A thought just popped into my head, and it may be a moot point, but some humans aren't born with limbs...just saying.

DancingCrab wrote:
According to the bible, a fetus is not a living person with a soul until after drawing its first breath.


:shock: That's actually a super-amazing revelation!

Super Aurora wrote:
Bottom line, It seems like people only love to pick a chooses what they like or want from the bible to justify their own ideals or beliefs.


Not to get too much into this since this isn't the religion thread, but I agree with you so much. So much.

Disney Duster wrote:
I think what we like about ourselves is what is not mistakes, and what we don't like is mistakes.


I've always liked you, DD, so I'm not picking on you whatsoever, but...

I'm short. Luckily, I'm fine with being short, but if I weren't, I could chalk it up to it being a mistake? A person has what everyone else would call psychological issues, and that person is a serial killer. He is fine with who he is, he doesn't think of it as a mistake, so that wouldn't be a mistake?

Sotiris wrote:
Also, by not legalizing abortion you're not really stopping abortions from happening. You're just forcing women to travel to third-world countries and have an abortion under dangerous and unhealthy situations in which they might even lose their lives.


This. So hard this.

Last semester, we watched the "1952" segment starrting Demi Moore of If These Walls Could Talk. Apparently the first part waS taken off of YouTube, but search it out. Basically, Demi's character's husband died, she needed comfort, she slept with her husband's brother and gets pregnant. So, so moving. And she didn't have to go to another country. So many women don't.

Alphapanchito wrote:
I am continuously astounded that everyone in this thread is only addressing rape and abortion for women


I just wrote stuff and erased it. I feel that you explained it well in your response(s) to Goliath. In my earlier parts of this post, I wasn't at all trying to be insensitive- I just wasn't thinking about gender identity, just the physical aspects of getting pregnant.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:17 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7974
Dr Frankenollie wrote:
...so you blatantly lied in your question. You said 'Only one of these four women is a transwoman'. I personally thought it was number #3.


Yes, that was the point. :P If it is so easily to spot them like Goliath asserted, people would know right away that all of them were transwomen despite of what I had said. And judging from all the different answers members have given so far, you obviously cannot tell which are transwomen unless they have obvious masculine characteristics (and even in those cases you can't be certain).

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4790
blackcauldron85 wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:
I do murder all the time...

Just like these recent news stories:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. ... LAHO862914

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-573 ... this-year/

*sigh* (For the record, I am so not for those bills!) That is so over the top. I mean, women's eggs aren't always fertilized, either! I think that if it's not used in the creation of a fetus, then definitely, absolutely, it's not murder or anything. Ugh, people and their crazy beliefs.


I was being sarcastic as I'm a male and basically saying that by masturbating and throwing away sperm i'm "killing potential life humans". It was a sarcasm.

Unless I'm misinterpreting what you're saying there.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:57 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 10414
Location: USA
I know you were being sarcastic. :) But there are people trying to pass bills like that saying that any ejaculatory fluid not entered into a vagina would be equal to murder, which is...words can't describe how stupid I think that is.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:00 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4790
blackcauldron85 wrote:
I know you were being sarcastic. :) But there are people trying to pass bills like that saying that any ejaculatory fluid not entered into a vagina would be equal to murder, which is...words can't describe how stupid I think that is.


Ah yeah that's is stupid I know. I think they pass that in order for them to give themselves a "valid" excuse to "prove" that abortion is "wrong".

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:27 pm 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Dr Frankenollie wrote:
Sotiris wrote:
Time to tell you the truth. They are ALL transwomen.

...so you blatantly lied in your question. You said 'Only one of these four women is a transwoman'. I personally thought it was number #3.

Well... yes. In a way. But remember that Goliath said they were really easy to spot and if he couldn't tell they were all transwomen, he would have been wrong about them being that easy to spot.

Anyway, he was at least wrong about one thing he said. I thought all the women were very attractive. And I'm a man. He didn't specify only heterosexual men don't find transwomen beautiful. (That's a double negative, isn't it- "didn't" and "don't"?)

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Sotiris wrote:
Yes, that was the point. :P If it is so easily to spot them like Goliath asserted, people would know right away that all of them were transwomen despite of what I had said. And judging from all the different answers members have given so far, you obviously cannot tell which are transwomen unless they have obvious masculine characteristics (and even in those cases you can't be certain).

In those members' defense, it's really hard to judge people based on photo's alone. It's very different when you see people in real life than when you see them on just a photo.

But to come back to the topic of abortion: I completely agree with everything blackcauldron85 said. Unfortunately, in Virginia, a bill is not introduced by the Republicans that requires women who want to have an abortion to undergo a forced vaginal probe before they're allowed to proceed with it. I'm fuming mad about this! Even Jon Stewart on the Daily Show said he didn't have a joke about it when he was talking about it. It's just too absurd that this is really happening! And when you listen to people like Rick Santorum, things will get a lot worse. Now even contraception is subject of debate, like it was in the 1950's! This is why Europeans look at the US and think: "what the fuck...?!"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:00 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 10414
Location: USA
^ A good point was made in that- men can have vasectomies without governmental interference...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Goliath wrote:
This is why Europeans look at the US and think: "what the fuck...?!"

Yeah, but you said Europe is becoming more like the U.S.

(God help you.)

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:08 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 215
Location: South Florida Gender: Female
Sotiris wrote:
Although there are indeed transwomen who have more prominent masculine features (this is due to many variables), most of them look like everyday women (others are beautiful, others are plain, others are ugly).

Thats it. There is no way to tell, except in some extreme cases. And even then there is no way to be sure. In your picture, people were just guessing based on who they thought was the least attractive (excluding SA). You absolutely can not "spot" a transwomen based on how attractive a person is. The point is, if you saw any of the people in Sotiris's example in real life, you wouldn't give them a second glance.

Goliath wrote:
In those members' defense, it's really hard to judge people based on photo's alone. It's very different when you see people in real life than when you see them on just a photo.

No, it wouldn't be different. They don't have a different aura about them.. they are just like anyone else, and would be treated as such. Even yourself, because you would never realize it. I mean, just watch an interview of Kim Petras on youtube- then tell me all the things that "tipped you off". You wouldn't be able to come up with one, unless you were making stuff up. These members don't need a defense, because there is no reason they should be able to "spot" a transwomen, because they are no different than any other woman, besides having to go through a bunch of discrimination from people like you.

blackcauldron85 wrote:
I just wrote stuff and erased it. I feel that you explained it well in your response(s) to Goliath. In my earlier parts of this post, I wasn't at all trying to be insensitive- I just wasn't thinking about gender identity, just the physical aspects of getting pregnant.

Thats totally fine. The reason I brought this up in the first place was just to remind or inform that no, not only woman get pregnant, and therefore not only woman get abortions. And that you could possibly use this knowledge to be more inclusive in future discussions on abortion, if you so choose.

Now, I am going to leave the discussion to the topic of abortion, as I think I've made my point. And I also don't think there is any point in further deliberating this with Goliath; at least not here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:23 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Lazario wrote:
Yeah, but you said Europe is becoming more like the U.S.

(God help you.)

Fortunately, not in that regard. Over here, even our conservative right-wing parties are defending gay rights, womens' choice etc. Well, in Western Europe, that is. Eastern Europe is, unfortunately, still a cesspool of homophobia and misogyny.

Alphapanchito wrote:
These members don't need a defense, because there is no reason they should be able to "spot" a transwomen, because they are no different than any other woman, besides having to go through a bunch of discrimination from people like you.

Wow, wow, wow... Hold it there, sonny. Where did I ever discriminate against transgender people? Just because I don't agree with you on certain issues, doesn't give you the right to make those kind of false accusations against me. Maybe you should look up the meaning of 'discrimination' and then come back to me and apologize.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline
Suspended
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:35 am
Posts: 8296
Location: Shock and Awe Gender: Freakazoid
Goliath wrote:
Lazario wrote:
Yeah, but you said Europe is becoming more like the U.S.

(God help you.)

Fortunately, not in that regard. Over here, even our conservative right-wing parties are defending gay rights, womens' choice etc. Well, in Western Europe, that is. Eastern Europe is, unfortunately, still a cesspool of homophobia and misogyny.

Well, so long as it's STILL bad.

:wink:

_________________
Image
4 Disney Atmosphere Images


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 215
Location: South Florida Gender: Female
Goliath wrote:
Wow, wow, wow... Hold it there, sonny. Where did I ever discriminate against transgender people? Just because I don't agree with you on certain issues, doesn't give you the right to make those kind of false accusations against me. Maybe you should look up the meaning of 'discrimination' and then come back to me and apologize.

Dictionary.com says discrimination is the "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"


Goliath wrote:
I wrote:
(a lot of transwoman are really beautiful, oftentimes more so than many ciswomen).

No.

Just no. They aren't. Not to men. They're very easy to spot, too.

You just said that transwoman are not only not favorable to men, but that they are easy to spot. Saying you can spot them just because they are transwoman, is discrimination. Saying men aren't interested in these woman because they belong to a certain group is discriminatory. That is judging them based on the group they belong to, rather than individual merit.

Goliath wrote:
I wrote:
And by the way, you mentioned that more often than not, you can spot them in a crowd.. This is not true at all. As I said before, many are insanely beautiful (or good looking).

No.

No offense, but just... no.

Again, some are beautiful. Some are not. Some are average. Just like any woman. And by denying this, it is discrimination because you are going by exaggerated cases in the media. Not what actually occurs in real life.

Goliath wrote:
In those members' defense, it's really hard to judge people based on photo's alone. It's very different when you see people in real life than when you see them on just a photo.

These members don't need a defense. You shouldn't be able to spot someone because they belong to a certain group that doesn't always have physical markers. Again, you say you can spot them because they belong to a certain group; that is being discriminatory.

This is why my most recent message had an angry tinge towards you. Because you hadn't dropped to discrimination before these recent posts. I will apologize if I somehow read these statements wrong, and feel free to point this out to me.

Oh, and if you can refrain from calling me "sonny" in the future, that would be really appreciated. It feels a little demeaning to me. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7974
Goliath, you said that men don't find transwomen attractive. That's a discriminatory statement. Perhaps you should be more careful what you say next time if you don't want people to call you on it.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:26 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:12 pm
Posts: 215
Location: South Florida Gender: Female
Sotiris wrote:
Goliath, you said that men don't find transwomen attractive. That's a discriminatory statement. Perhaps you should be more careful what you say next time if you don't want people to call you on it.


This. Also, I'm not a man, but I am a lesbian. And that means I'm attracted to femininity, just like heterosexual men. And I am attracted to certain transwoman, as I am attracted to certain ciswoman. It's all the same, because I don't discriminate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:33 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Alphapanchito wrote:
Dictionary.com says discrimination is the "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"

And exactly... how... have I done that by saying I don't agree with you that a man who calls himself a woman is not a woman until he becomes a woman? Disagreeing is no discrimination.

Alphapanchito wrote:
You just said that transwoman are not only not favorable to men, but that they are easy to spot. Saying you can spot them just because they are transwoman, is discrimination. Saying men aren't interested in these woman because they belong to a certain group is discriminatory. That is judging them based on the group they belong to, rather than individual merit.

No, it's not. I'm not saying they are lesser persons or that I think less of them because of who they are. I'm not putting them down. I just gave my opinon on what I don't consider attractive. If I were to say I don't find people with red hair attractive, am I discriminating against people with red hair? I'm just stating a preference, like lots of people do! It's only because this time it's about transgendered people that you make a fake outrage about it. And saying someone is easy to spot or not isn't discrimination. A black guy is easy to spot, too, when he's all surrounded by white men. Pointing that out doesn't mean somebody is discriminating against black people.

Alphapanchito wrote:
Again, some are beautiful. Some are not. Some are average. Just like any woman. And by denying this, it is discrimination because you are going by exaggerated cases in the media. Not what actually occurs in real life.

I already explained this above: stating preferences does not equal discrimination. Some people don't think black women are attractive; they prefer white women. Doesn't make them racist.

Alphapanchito wrote:
These members don't need a defense. You shouldn't be able to spot someone because they belong to a certain group that doesn't always have physical markers. Again, you say you can spot them because they belong to a certain group; that is being discriminatory.

Again, your fake outrage is getting the best of you. A guy who's 2 metres long stands out from a group of liliputters as well. Doesn't mean I'm discriminating against tall people when I point that out.

Alphapanchito wrote:
This is why my most recent message had an angry tinge towards you. Because you hadn't dropped to discrimination before these recent posts. I will apologize if I somehow read these statements wrong, and feel free to point this out to me.

Awaiting my apology...

Alphapanchito wrote:
Oh, and if you can refrain from calling me "sonny" in the future, that would be really appreciated. It feels a little demeaning to me. Thanks.

Well, accusing me of discriminating people feels a little demeaning to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 7974
Goliath wrote:
I just gave my opinion on what I don't consider attractive. If I were to say I don't find people with red hair attractive, am I discriminating against people with red hair? I'm just stating a preference, like lots of people do!


But that's NOT what you said. You didn't just say that only you personally don't find them attractive (which is also ridiculous because transwomen are not just one type and you can't really tell them apart from other women hence your redhead comparison is invalid). You said that ALL men don't find transwomen attractive ergo transwomen are not beautiful.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:50 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Sotiris wrote:
But that's NOT what you said. You didn't just say that only you personally don't find them attractive (which is also ridiculous because transwomen are not just one type and you can't really tell them apart from other women hence your redhead comparison is invalid).

How is saying I don't like all redheaded women is different from saying I don't like all transgendered women?

Sotiris wrote:
You said that ALL men don't find transwomen attractive ergo transwomen are not beautiful.

Hyperbole. Most men I know of are of that opinion. That's why I used hyperbole. Something which is often lost on the chief justices of the PC patrol.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group