- Jan 15, 2013
- United Kingdom
The website the interview was conducted by is completely irrelevant to the fact you're still uncritically taking one side in an ongoing suit at their word.Yes and I'm talking about the website said interview was conducted by, the one it's increasingly becoming clear you didn't look at or read lol
Precedent relies on something actually happening to set the precedent. That's what... precedent is.ROFL
It's a little thing called precedent.
Whereas what you're whining about literally never happened.
Because nobody is saying they are. The emos themselves aren't.Then why should we not accept and automatically believe all emos are suicidally depressed?
Sorry, you're trying to argue that self-describing one's own gender is analogous to... assuming someone is depressed when they don't say they are? It's hard to follow your flimsy lines of reason sometimes.
Uh-huh, and I believe that they are emos. And since there's absolutely no membership criteria to be an emo, you can hardly moan about that.You said people know their self better than some random right? They have chosen to identify themselves as Emos right?
You're the one ascribing additional shit to them, because you seemingly cannot distinguish between NB, trans, emo, and depressed.
The answer your question they're gender identities derived from the sexes be that on a neurological, genetic or phenotypical way. They can be identified, they can be defined as what they are.
Even if you were just talking about biological sex, this sentence is laughably scientifically ignorant. "Genetic or phenotypical" lol.
Wah wah stuff is complicated.Most of the 137+ non-binary genders have no such ways to define them other than how a person feel and most have no obvious associated indicators to identify them or signifiers.
Literally all of this blather is just seeking to equate bestiality with same sex marriage and mixed race relationships.No.
Unless you are calling the a beast due to my heritage.
To clarify (as you either intentionally or unintentionally didn't get the point). Time moves forward who is to say you and I may not be entirely wrong on this issue too? That future generations will look back and think how backwards and primitive we are?
Also you'd better watch this damn clip it took me a whole 5 minutes to track it down just for this occasion
No you're just making a logical leap there to try and score cheap points rather than addressing my argument.
No I'm not. I'm posing the question to you.
What if you and I are wrong?
I know my reasons and they consist of much more than what you brought up but what if your point is proved wrong?
You added a bunch of extra distraction and sophistry to obscure the fact that's the comparison you're making, because you're too chickenshit to openly point to it.
But that's the core. The same tired, lazy argument the segregationists and homophobic Bible-thumpers used: "if you support X what's stopping support for Y completely different thing?"