What do you hate about the left and the right?

[Jopious Extronimous]

Webster's:



That should be the last word on the issue. I understand that you don't *like* for gender to mean something different from sex, but factually, it does. So your argument is that you don't think that there should be a term of what "gender" is defined as.

No, I'm gonna go with the numerous other sources who've simply defined it as "the state of being either male or female". Not the one specifically expounded to include a new generation of confused people. We're simply gonna have to agree to disagree if we're using different definitions, but I'm sticking with the universal one of "the state of being either male or female".

By the new definition that you want to give the word rather than the current definition.

I'm not giving it a new definition, I'm going with the very standard, accepted version of the word. Not a definition that specifically explores it's every applicable use.

Do you disagree that gender is "the state of being either male or female"?

So you don't like the terminology that people use to describe their preferences. Just kind of grammarian fussbaggery?

I guess you can call it that. Or just a preference that we teach kids what words actually mean, and don't support a hypocritical line of thinking where it's suggested that individuality is defined by an adherence to a select group of gender-specific stereotypes.

1. He doesn't have to say it. It's just an easy way to communicate

Laziness isn't an excuse for being wrong.

2. Obviously, no one is pretending that a boy who prefers a feminine gender expression doesn't have a dick, etc. You are egregiously (and humorously) misunderstanding the discussion.

No I'm not. I work at a store where changing rooms and bathrooms can be used by whoever identifies with the gender labeled. A man can tell us "I identify as a woman", and we have to let him into the woman's changing room. I essentially have to pretend that he's right to use the bathroom specifically designed for human's who have a vagina, even though I know he doesn't.

That's me having to play pretend.

Do you see why this might end up causing more problems for society as a whole, as opposed to relieving a minority of a minor inconvenience? Especially when it comes to human sexuality, the last thing we need is less definition and more openness.

Again, there's no scientific dispute here (much less "throwing out science"). It's purely semantic. Your view seems to be that we should change our language to make it harder to discuss the issue.

No, what we should do is teach people that if you have a vagina, but wanna have short hair and play sports, you're still a girl. You can identify as a girl, because that's what your gender is. We shouldn't be teaching boys that if they like make-up and dresses, they should tell people they're a woman. Because that's simply lying to them. They aren't a woman. They're still a male, their gender is still the same.

 

[Quequeg]

session is a massive POS

i think they should have focused less on 'he's racist' and more on 'look at what this clown supports' to try and defeat him

does anyone alive like Sessions, seriously?

Sessions is all of the above.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Finally found the time to get back with your post.

1) I’m not a fan of public sector unions..we agree here.

Good to hear we can start this on a positive note.

2) you assumed my common sense gun control comment meant extreme liberal view points...no..
comprehensive background checks.
Proper vetting..mental history evaluation
I wouldn’t change anything about what type of guns people have..just what type of people are able to get guns.

I assumed you were a leftist by the term 'common sense' being tacked on before all gun control proposals because leftists are the only ones that use the term.

Most recently, Obama used it at a CNN Town Hall about gun control in 2016, and Jimmy Kimmel used it after the Las Vegas shooting a few months ago.

Gun control is a very complicated issue, with every detail of a proposal needs to be analysed and scrutinized. Simply classifying one position as 'common sense' is self-agradizing and condesending to differing viewpoints.

I'd go into each of the issues you mentioned, but I don't want this post to be a mile long.

3) the fbi aswell as all government organizations need a better universal system of checks.
Something the nra has went out of its way to block:

Private gun sales loophole
Under existing federal law, unlicensed gun sellers are allowed to sell weapons without a background check of the buyer at gun shows and other private sales. Paradoxically, only licensed dealers are required to conduct such background checks, which gun control advocates see as crucial in cutting off the supply of weapons to criminals and mentally unstable individuals. The NRA strongly opposes legislation that would close this glaring loophole by requiring background checks for all gun sales.
Tracing guns used in shootings
In 2004, a Republican congressman from Kansas, Todd Tiahrt, a long-time ally of the NRA, added an amendment to bill regarding the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives (ATF). Until that point, data had been kept on the history of guns used in murders and shootings, which allowed police and policymakers to trace them back to corrupt dealerships and other holes in the system. The rule change, known as the Tiahrt amendment, made this data much harder to acquire. It also forced the justice department to destroy within 24 hours the records of any gun buyer whose background check was approved. The overall impact of the amendments was to make it much harder for police to clamp down on illegally distributed guns.

Honestly, this is the one angle of the gun issue I know the least about. I do know the 'gun show loophole' is bullshit, and I've never seen a single private seller at a gun show. They're all professional and do background checks with every purchase.

I'll learn more about the 'private sales' issue in the next few days.

Terror watch list

The NRA has strongly opposed legislation to prohibit the sale of guns to people on the federal government's terrorist watch list. Under current law, a suspected terrorist can be put on the no-fly list and be kept off a plane, but can't be prevented from buying a gun.

This, I know ALOT about.

Did you know Teddy Kennedy was on the no-fly list?

Why was he put on it?
Who put him on it?

No one knows, but there was no means for him to appeal being put on the list.

So, these secret lists - Anyone can be put on them, for any reason, and there's no way to get their name off the list, apparently.

But U.S. citizens don't have the right to fly on an airplane, so the government can deny that to anyone they please for any reason. But owning a firearm is a constitutional right, and the only means for that right is to be stripped is by the person to be convicted of a felony.

Not by being put on a mysterious list.

Revoking licences from corrupt dealers

The NRA has made several attempts to usher through Congress an "ATF reform bill" that would make it much harder – some say virtually impossible – to revoke the gun-selling licenses of crooked dealers. If the bill passed – and the NRA is expected to try again soon – the ATF would have to prove the dealer's state of mind, in terms of his or her premeditated intention to break the law.

If these 'crooked dealers' are actually crooked, with premeditated intention to break the law, whatever the law is they're breaking is a felony.

The crooked dealers would lose their gun-selling licence AND their right to buy a firearm by being convicted of whatever felony they committed.

To answer your last question... if some of the above copy pasta were passed, a lot of criminals wouldn’t be able to get guns aswell as hold accountable the people that make it easier for said criminals to get guns.

Is it a one size fits all answer? .not at all but it’s a start and progress toward some common sense gun control....

Something the nra does a great job of suppressing.

Because the nra supports 2nd amendment rights, it shouldn’t earn them a pass for directly contributing to a social issue that has mass death as a consequence.

Unions and there politics are in no way parallel to the nra and it’s lobbying...

One ends with people killed.

Aside from the private sales issue, I believe I've defended all points in your post respectfully and adequately.

I'd be more than willing to reply back to any other points you have.