Philosophy Now Forum

attofishpi wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
No - i said "Is it only the religious of the fascists, racists, and homophobes that get upset?"

Did you learn to comprehend English because you certainly didn't comprehend my post.


On drugs? You are more irrational than ever.

Since when are Fascists religious? Which religion do they practice?

You are so dumb. Can someone please explain to this simpleton - i need some sleep, i would suggest bringing Italy into the equation - not that this digression has anything to to with the actual argument.

Into name calling. I guess your brains took a vacation.
This means you have no response and I'm done with you.

PhilX

There is no such thing.

Melchior wrote:There is no such thing.

Prove it.

PhilX

Mannie,

Being an indifferent (incompassionate) sort, I don't care that all manner of folks (young or old) off themselves. There's only so much of me to go around, only so much open real estate between my ears. My concerns are focused on the small number of people in this world I love. The rest can get bent (or eat lead).

And, no, I don't wanna pay for their funerals any more than I wanna pay for their reassignment.

#

Phil,

The reason religious folk get upset about trannies (and gays, and whatnot) is -- even though it's not explicitly spelled out in the Good Book-- such things stand as an affront to the Order as laid out by God. Joe sez he's really a womsn implying God screwed up...this is unacceptable to a religious person (who can accept the mystery of God, but not the fallibility of God).

Now you and Atto can stop waving dicks at each other.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Melchior wrote:There is no such thing.

Prove it.

PhilX

Pink unicorns. Prove they don't exist!

Transgender:

"denoting or relating to a person whose sense of personal identity and gender does not correspond with their birth sex.
'a transgender activist and author'"

Show me the pink unicorns in that definition.

PhilX

Mel,

If you mean trannies don't exist, obviously you're wrong. There's a whole whack of seriously fucked up folks who believe their junk is wrong and who'll mutiilate themselves chemically, hormonally, surgically to 'set things right'.

If you mean instead that men who think they're women are -- to be kind about it -- just plain wrong and are suffering with a disease of the thinking, then -- yeah -- 'there is no such thing'.

henry quirk wrote:Mannie,

Being an indifferent (incompassionate) sort, I don't care that all manner of folks (young or old) off themselves. There's only so much of me to go around, only so much open real estate between my ears. My concerns are focused on the small number of people in this world I love. The rest can get bent (or eat lead).

And, no, I don't wanna pay for their funerals any more than I wanna pay for their reassignment.

#

Phil,

The reason religious folk get upset about trannies (and gays, and whatnot) is -- even though it's not explicitly spelled out in the Good Book-- such things stand as an affront to the Order as laid out by God. Joe sez he's really a womsn implying God screwed up...this is unacceptable to a religious person (who can accept the mystery of God, but not the fallibility of God).

Now you and Atto can stop waving dicks at each other.

You're a bit off HQ as gays is mentioned in the Bible. Now why should transgender, aside from gas, be unacceptable to the religious folk? You haven't explained that part.

PhilX

Transgender: An insanity founded in the notion the notion Reality is wrong, or that individual perspective somehow trumps Reality. A subset of the individual-denying communitarianism, itself a fundamental rejection of 'what is'.

And, yeah, I did explain it, Phil...

Joe sez he's really a womsn implying God screwed up...this is unacceptable to a religious person (who can accept the mystery of God, but not the fallibility of God).

As for gays: ditto.

henry quirk wrote:Transgender: An insanity founded in the notion the notion Reality is wrong, or that individual perspective somehow trumps Reality. A subset of the individual-denying communitarianism, itself a fundamental rejection of 'what is'.

And, yeah, I did explain it, Phil...

Joe sez he's really a womsn implying God screwed up...this is unacceptable to a religious person (who can accept the mystery of God, but not the fallibility of God).

As for gays: ditto.

I find the definition you're using to be incoherent ("...An insanity founded in the notion the notion").

Illogical (Reality is wrong)

I'll stick with my definition.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
No it is not something to get upset about but the reason why that is has got nothing to do with the Bible

Exactly, so why this thread was started in the Philosophy of Religion forum needs to be clarified by the originator.

My understanding is that theists and those of religious persuasion do get upset.

PhilX

Who the hell cares what they 'think'?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

henry quirk wrote:Mannie,

Being an indifferent (incompassionate) sort, I don't care that all manner of folks (young or old) off themselves. There's only so much of me to go around, only so much open real estate between my ears. My concerns are focused on the small number of people in this world I love. The rest can get bent (or eat lead).

And, no, I don't wanna pay for their funerals any more than I wanna pay for their reassignment.

#

Phil,

The reason religious folk get upset about trannies (and gays, and whatnot) is -- even though it's not explicitly spelled out in the Good Book-- such things stand as an affront to the Order as laid out by God. Joe sez he's really a womsn implying God screwed up...this is unacceptable to a religious person (who can accept the mystery of God, but not the fallibility of God).

Now you and Atto can stop waving dicks at each other.

You're a bit off HQ as gays is mentioned in the Bible. Now why should transgender, aside from gas, be unacceptable to the religious folk? You haven't explained that part.

PhilX

Kristians claim to follow the NT, and it's certainly not mentioned in that.

Yeah, my definition isn't incoherent, just tongue in cheek with a severe need to be proofread.

As for 'reality is wrong' being illogical: absolutely right. So when Joe, biologically male, sez he's a woman, he's being insanely illogical.

henry quirk wrote:Mel,

If you mean trannies don't exist, obviously you're wrong. There's a whole whack of seriously fucked up folks who believe their junk is wrong and who'll mutiilate themselves chemically, hormonally, surgically to 'set things right'.

If you mean instead that men who think they're women are -- to be kind about it -- just plain wrong and are suffering with a disease of the thinking, then -- yeah -- 'there is no such thing'.

The suicide rate for them is very high in the US? Gosh, I wonder why that would be.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:
Exactly, so why this thread was started in the Philosophy of Religion forum needs to be clarified by the originator.

My understanding is that theists and those of religious persuasion do get upset.

PhilX

Who the hell cares what they 'think'?

Who cares what you think if you want to play that game?

PhilX