The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: FTL_Ian on August 31, 2005, 09:06:43 PM
-
hmm?
(http://freetalklive.com/images/bridget.jpg)
-
/me smacks dat ass.
-
If she hasn't had the surgery yet, that changes my mind. I think the surgery is the demarcation.
-
Go Bridget! :D
-
She/he looks like a lady... I vote go girl/guy
-
It's all in the DNA.
-
Here's a link to my rebuttal (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=2661.0) on the issue of what make's one a woman or not...
As for retaining my picture on the shrine. I think it's up to Ian, but I don't want to be the token shemale on the shrine unless most folks don't mind my mere presence. All in all, my solution for non-female persons to have a shrine or FTL fan photo page was to produce our own, as I stated in another thread about the issue of whether there should be a male listener shrine.
All in all, I don't mind the debate, because it's a necessary exercise for someone like myself when one like myself decides to move on and live his/her life.
-- Bridget
-
nothing personal, but I said "no".
just give transgenders their own special section on the shriners....
-
I second that motion.
-
I wouldn't mind a guys special section, girls like to see guys, just like guys like to see girls. She could have her picture both places
Chemical Gal
-
If Free Talk Live wants to keep its integrity as the reporters of truth...no.
-
I agree with Manwich that it is wrong. Ok, now if he has work done, that would be different. Then I would say yes. But as far as I can tell, he is 100% man and he looks like a man, too.
Oh, yes, I have been drinking. I love wine :D
-
I agree with Manwich that is is wrong. Ok, now is he has work done, that would be different. Then I would say yes. But as far as I can tell, he is 100% man and he looks like a man, too.
Oh, yes, I have been drinking. I love wine :D
There's more Vodka than piss in this bag!!!
:)
-- Bridget
-
First and foremost, it's Ian's decision. In The Future of Freedom Foundation, it's Jacob Hornberger's decision; in LewRockwell.com, it's Lew Rockwell's decison; and in Free Talk Live, it's Ian Bernard's decision. It's ultimately your decision. But, like me, your decision is based on what your listeners have to say, so I will lay my two-cents in.
Bridget, I read your rebuttal, and you have a well thought-out argument, and I agree totally with what you said. But I disagree with your verdict. The "club" (per se) is called "The Shrine of Female Listeners", and like you said, a "female" is biological. You stated in your next to last paragraph, "The solution to what I am is that I am a woman, but I happen to be male (not female)." If Ian could name it, "The Shrine of Women Listeners", you would have a stronger case. In Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, a female is, "an individual that bears young or produces eggs". Manwich and his "two X chromosomes" or Jason and his "period" (no pun intended) goes along better than you. Now, I really don't care what Ian decides, and I call you "she" and "her" out of respect. My name is Thomas, not Tom, and you would give me your respect by calling me by the correct name (however, my first name is not important to me, but Thomas is my name). But that's my argument, and my two-cents are up.
-
I can't exactly make up my mind on this issue. Part of me wants to say "No, it's a guy, take the picture down." But then again, the other part of me remembers that Bridget is a nice person, and if Bridget feels like a woman, it makes a difference. I'm torn, and I hate it. Damn.
-
In Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, a female is, "an individual that bears young or produces eggs".
Well dear Sir than I must tell Ian to take off my picture from the shrine as well as I am no FEMALE according the book: I was born without ovaries but with XX chromosomes! I am not able to BEAR and PRODUCE eggs!! but I can tell you that I am a WOMAN!
And my name is Sandrine although people call me Dring or San but that is not important as I was not born with it!!!
-
If Free Talk Live wants to keep its integrity as the reporters of truth...no.
oh trust me, they've never claimed that... :D
Manwhich especially: he has a "threshold" of truth... ie- if it's too difficult or hard to fathom, he turns his brain off (ie- 911 conspiracy)
-
NO
-
Ian you really stuffed up on this one, you should have listened to your buddy Manwich
Would you ever sleep with a trans? No?? Thats not very consistent is it? If you accept him or her as a woman, then why wouldnt you sleep with her?
I rest my case
-
very interesting point. well said.
I think when someone thinks of a woman, they think of a genuine/female right of the womb type of person... not a sexually confused individual.
-
Now this is a REAL controversey. Fuck all that politics! Interesting results so far.
-
Now, generally I'd be one to say yes - however Bridget has been an extreme bitch as of late.
Meh...I suppose she(?) might as well stay. But really, I'm torn - I'm not gonna vote because quite frankly I dont care.
-
I voted "NO", but I am thinking "Yes".
(anyone catch that one? It was difficult, I know.)
-
I think it shows those that voted No are fucking morons.
-- Bridget
-
Bridget is a chickz0r.
:o
-
I think it shows those that voted No are fucking morons.
-- Bridget
simmer now...
oh right. think like the transgender or you're a fucking moron. :roll:
no, it's normal to vote no, b/c a women is a women - not a man who thinks otherwise... like someone else said, it's deceptive to put them in there.
like I said, give them their own special area... they clearly aren't women.
-
She's got spunk, that's for sure. :shock: I just had a thought. A chick that probably could kick your ass! :lol:
WHOA.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/Lilifer/crapthread_daftwat.jpg)
-
She's got spunk, that's for sure. :shock: I just had a thought. A chick that probably could kick your ass! :lol:
WHOA.
"She's" got something, alright....
-
Go Manwich.
I don't understand why the 'period' issue is the strongest case, when you can't experience one unless you have the double-X...which was Manwich's point all along. Maybe it just put it in perspective.
Female is XX.
Maybe if it was called the "Shrine of FEMININE Listeners" ... MAYBE.
But alas, it is not.
VOTE=NO
-
Here again why be so upset over this, it isn't important at all. There are loads of women who have xx dna that you idiots wouldn't want to sleep with either. I mean look at the stupid, "they all look like publisher's clearing house winners" thread. Many trannys can't afford the op right away. And she used no deception or fraud in presenting herself. It would have been very easy to just present herself as a she and you wouldn't have been any the wiser. I say she should stay for her courage and honesty.
I usually agree with Manwich but not this time. So I won't jump on the Fire Manwich bandwagon, he more often than not is the voice of reason on many issues. This time he needs to just get over it.
I am more upset with the defacement of submitted photos on the shrine. Which is just another reason I wouldn't want to send in a photo of myself. That showes a total lack of integrety. Which is much more upsetting. Than someone having the courage to put themselves on the line.
-
There is a condition where women have three X chromosomes and are called super females. So you guys should say "At LEAST two X chromosomes." And I think there are even genetic disorders where some people have four X chromosomes, but I think it results in severe issues and death.
But I also think it's not nice to call a bunch of people morons because they don't agree with you.
And there is no "t" in Manwich. :P
You know, originally, the Shrine did not start out as a beauty contest, but I feel like there's some sort of skewed perception toward it. The hot girls are generally connotated as the coolest, etc. and that's not fair. And I hope other women don't feel the pressure to take their shirts off in their validation pictures, because then I think the purpose has mutated. :(
-
Great post, libertylover. I agree completely except for the part about Manwich. :P
-
I also think it's not nice to call a bunch of people morons because they don't agree with you.
You know, originally, the Shrine did not start out as a beauty contest, but I feel like there's some sort of skewed perception toward it. The hot girls are generally connotated as the coolest, etc. and that's not fair. And I hope other women don't feel the pressure to take their shirts off in their validation pictures, because then I think the purpose has mutated. :(
That is interesting when you have called people that you didn't agree with far worse things. I guess it would have been pc to say testerone junkies but I think I should have the right to call people out as lacking in intellegence on an issue when that is my perspective. Trust me no one holds back on calling me names when they disagree with me.
The shrine is the same sort of marketing tool that most radio stations use to boost the number of listeners. Men check out women and women check out other women. It is right up there with babys and puppies as a marketing tool. Women have more across the board appeal than men. This is why your top female model makes considerably more money than the top male model. You might ask why is that? But you too need to realize that while it is still currently true that dynamic is changing. Why because economic power is shifting. So some day it might be a marketing tool to have a male shrine, probably not in my life time.
As women gain more economic power. We become less dependent on trying to impress a male. We don't need men as much as providers any longer. With that independence comes power. You don't see as many young women with dried up old men anymore. You are however seeing an increase in the older woman, younger man relationship. And back to the reason why women use to look at other women more than they do now days. Women competed with eachother for limited number of provider males. Men desired certain astetics in women and women desired economic security. Now that more women aren't dependent on that economic security they can demand a higher astetic in males. With these changes feeling the pressure to look good is no longer just on women.
So Boys you would be well advised to get a GQ and start working on your looks. Because if you want to hitch your wagon and various other parts of your body to a sexy and sucessful woman. You are going to need more than just a good paying job.
However, I have been called out several times in that Free Talk Live is not all about marketing and you all don't feel the need to please everyone. With that in mind, I say again no fraud was involved and that should be a factor in favor of keeping her on.
-
There is a condition where women have three X chromosomes and are called super females. So you guys should say "At LEAST two X chromosomes." And I think there are even genetic disorders where some people have four X chromosomes, but I think it results in severe issues and death.
But I also think it's not nice to call a bunch of people morons because they don't agree with you.
And there is no "t" in Manwich. :P
You know, originally, the Shrine did not start out as a beauty contest, but I feel like there's some sort of skewed perception toward it. The hot girls are generally connotated as the coolest, etc. and that's not fair. And I hope other women don't feel the pressure to take their shirts off in their validation pictures, because then I think the purpose has mutated. :(
Stop being difficult, Lindsey.
-
Ugh...feminists.
-
Ugh guys carrying man purses while wearing fugly trucker caps and flip flops...[I saw that tuesday night during work... and I was like..... o_O;]. :)
-- Bridget
-
Here's a link to my rebuttal (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=2661.0) on the issue of what make's one a woman or not...
As for retaining my picture on the shrine. I think it's up to Ian, but I don't want to be the token shemale on the shrine unless most folks don't mind my mere presence. All in all, my solution for non-female persons to have a shrine or FTL fan photo page was to produce our own, as I stated in another thread about the issue of whether there should be a male listener shrine.
All in all, I don't mind the debate, because it's a necessary exercise for someone like myself when one like myself decides to move on and live his/her life.
-- Bridget
I was actually up in the air on this one. Gender discrimination and Gender roles are issues that I am VERY passionate about. By and large, I am opposed to people proscribing specific behavior because of a person's gender, up to and including what the person wants to be called by others (i.e. He, She, It, Bozo). But when I read your rebuttal it convinced me... to vote NO.
In your rebuttal you say:
Second, womanhood isn't the same as being female. Being female or male is a standard for human reproduction, but being a woman or a man has no biological bearing.
and
The solution to what I am is that I am a woman, but I happen to be male.
The reason this made up my mind is that you very specifically make a distinction between female (biological) and woman (Societal Label), and then go on to say that you are a woman who happens to be a male.
By your own argument you should not be allowed into the Shrine of FEMALE Listeners. When Ian opens a Shrine of Woman Listeners, I'll probably back you up on admittance :)
-
My interest is not retaining a picture on the shrine, but my interest is that what we think to be attributes of sex to be eliminated from the definition such as womanhood and manhood. I've told Ian numerous times since this contraversy that if gets too annoying just take the picture off. I was surprised that he even put it on since I thought he was in Manwich's camp of the XX requirement.
-- Bridget
-
My interest is not retaining a picture on the shrine, but my interest is that what we think to be attributes of sex to be eliminated from the definition such as womanhood and manhood. I've told Ian numerous times since this contraversy that if gets too annoying just take the picture off. I was surprised that he even put it on since I thought he was in Manwich's camp of the XX requirement.
-- Bridget
yes you want to make being a man or woman relative/contextual.
that is simply not the case. you can (and should) feel however you like, but you're either man or woman... it's not some subjective idea.
-
yes you want to make being a man or woman relative/contextual.
And this is not MALE/FEMALE, but you can't figure that out huh? Sorta like those folks that can't figure out meter and feet are not the same.
that is simply not the case. you can (and should) feel however you like, but you're either man or woman... it's not some subjective idea.
My identity is not subjective, nor are mental states, look up anything on Objectivist Epistomology and you might find your errors to be corrected.
-- Bridget
-
Ian is rarely in Manwich's camp. He's a silly, silly Manwich.
-
Ian is rarely in Manwich's camp. He's a silly, silly Manwich.
Okay, Bob Dole... Bob Dole endorses drugs that help with penile dysfunction! :)
-- Bridget
-
yes you want to make being a man or woman relative/contextual.
And this is not MALE/FEMALE, but you can't figure that out huh? Sorta like those folks that can't figure out meter and feet are not the same.
that is simply not the case. you can (and should) feel however you like, but you're either man or woman... it's not some subjective idea.
My identity is not subjective, nor are mental states, look up anything on Objectivist Epistomology and you might find your errors to be corrected.
-- Bridget
ok, so all these wackjobs who are convinced they're aliens from another planet or are elvis incarnate - must be so huh? I mean they personally are convinced, and that's certainly a fact? so that's all it takes then? I'm sorry, you that's obviously ignorant and wrong to think so...
Please. It's so laughable.
-
ok, so all these wackjobs who are convinced they're aliens from another planet or are elvis incarnate - must be so huh? I mean they personally are convinced, and that's certainly a fact? so that's all it takes then? I'm sorry, you that's obviously ignorant and wrong to think so...
Not the same since it deals with fundamental temporality issues due to the fact that the term is a broad term alien. Do you mean space alien? Illegal alien? Resident alien?
Also, how in the hell does this equivocate to a proven factual phenomenon that human identity is based on the modality of our biology? If you're asserting a Cartesian Mechanical view of the body then must be really daffy considering how seemingly undifferentiated cells developed into differentiated forms through chemical state changes[that means they deviated in time...]. So please get some cited sources and stop being a Platonic/Descartes boot-licker, k?
-- Bridget
-
I didn't vote, and I am not going to because I don't care.....
But if you leave bridget in the shrine, you should take 'transgender' out of the mouseover text. Then you can let people play the 'guess the transgender game'.
-
I still stand by Bridget and my statement several days ago...
If her ideas, support and views are accepted, then her picture is too.
-
I voted "no". Bridget cited several examples of birth defects which result in individuals having confused male/female biology. This is not the same as gender (masculine/feminine) displacement. Do you, Bridget, have one of these chromosomal aberrations? If not, then you shouldn't even breach that as an argument for your inclusion to the shrine. I am not a bleeding heart type that goes about being politically correct and worrying about everyone's "feelings". If you are born different, then you are going to face certain differences in your treatment. You are still human, and are entitled to normal human rights of life, liberty, and property. However, you cannot go through life expecting everyone to accomodate your special needs because it makes you feel good. If I'm hosting an ass kicking contest, then I can't be expected to make exceptions for the very small minority of people with only one leg. If it's a shrine of female listeners, then there is no reason why exceptions should be made for the very small minority of transgendered individuals or the even smaller minority of those born with sexual/chromosomal aberrations.
I have nothing against the transgendered. I have nothing against the one-legged.
-
...General Stuffage...
Dan, I never stated that I was pushing to have my picture retained, I stated that Ian can do what he wants. My argument in the other thread is about the particulars on what is falsely equivocated to sex as Manwich has done. I suggest you actually read what I posted rather than assuming, okay?
-- Bridget
-
The Womanwich SHOULD STAY it is the best photo on the shrine to date. :lol: :lol: :lol:
However, is she really an amp dues paying member? ROFL...
-
I voted "no". Bridget cited several examples of birth defects which result in individuals having confused male/female biology. This is not the same as gender (masculine/feminine) displacement. Do you, Bridget, have one of these chromosomal aberrations? If not, then you shouldn't even breach that as an argument for your inclusion to the shrine. I am not a bleeding heart type that goes about being politically correct and worrying about everyone's "feelings". If you are born different, then you are going to face certain differences in your treatment. You are still human, and are entitled to normal human rights of life, liberty, and property. However, you cannot go through life expecting everyone to accomodate your special needs because it makes you feel good. If I'm hosting an ass kicking contest, then I can't be expected to make exceptions for the very small minority of people with only one leg. If it's a shrine of female listeners, then there is no reason why exceptions should be made for the very small minority of transgendered individuals or the even smaller minority of those born with sexual/chromosomal aberrations.
I have nothing against the transgendered. I have nothing against the one-legged.
clap clap, buddy.
-
Someone mentioned this but I will put in my 2 cents.
This is the shrine of FEMALE listeners, not the shrine of "lady" "girl" "woman" listeners. All the discussion of whether Bridget is a "WOMAN" is irrelevant because the shrine IS of FEMALE listeners.
Female is defined as:
"Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young."
Bridget does not meet the standard. Nothing personally against Bridget, just going by the rules.
-
No chicks with dicks! :lol: Seriously. I don't care. It's only a picture. And judging by the ones you already have in that shrine -you're not exactly hurting your collection any by resorting to subcontracting out to transgenders. :P
-
I think I'm going to have to see the goods before I can make a decision.
-
I think I'm going to have to see the goods before I can make a decision.
you really would screw anything w/ a hole, wouldn't you?
-
As long as it was willing.
-
:lol: haha, "it".
-
What chu say, honeybuns?
-
Sick fuck.
-
Damn, that Womanwich is hot!
-
My very first post and it has to come in regards to this? Ouch!
My vote is yes, let her stay. She lives her life as a woman and considers herself to be a woman.
And those of you, including Manwhich, who describe her as a freek or sick need to get your heads out of your asses and join the rest of us in the 21st century. That's SO backwards thinking.
Chris
-
Please, the "it's the 21 st" century line is completely irrelevant and without base...
so normalcy is based on what century we're in?
hmm yeah... I guess racism was accepted 120 yrs ago... "c'mon man, it's the 19th century you're allowed to own & abuse black people"... give me a break :roll:
-
Isnt Manwich really a bit of a hypocrite? He wails and whines (and wails some more) that he doesnt want the Shrine of Female listener to be a "freak show". So what does he go and do? Adds himself in such a way that it's mocking the whole process. Isnt this all a self-fulfilled prophecy? Perhaps we would have never even gotten another transsexual person asking to join. So Manwich is the one (and the only one I really think) who made it a freak show. Oh sure it's all tongue-and-cheek, but it still doesnt changce the fact that I think he's cheapening the whole thing all by himself.
I vote yes to keep her in.
Although I can understand why some might vote no because she hasnt had the surgery yet. I hope to hell all of you would vote yes then to all post-operation transsexuals then. Otherwise you'll also be hypocrites. If someone has had the surgery I think you *should* let them in. If they havent
well. I'd still let them but I can see why they wouldnt.
Bridgett sees herself as a woman, and I will respect that. Its a hard pillar to stand on, especially since so many want to call you "freak" and knock you down. I'd just like to shake her hand because I think she's a stronger person then I. I dont know if I could publicly admit to someone something that would cause so much scorn if our situations were reversed.
Also is anyone else tired of Manwich saying she should go into a "Shrine Of Transvestites"? A transvestite is a *man* who wants to just dress like a woman, such as drag queens (Although that's an extreme example, not all transvestites are like that) Bridgett is a transsexual. They are a *woman* who was born a man. They are currently trying to correct that problem.
Please, the "it's the 21 st" century line is completely irrelevant and without base...
so normalcy is based on what century we're in?
hmm yeah... I guess racism was accepted 120 yrs ago... "c'mon man, it's the 19th century you're allowed to own & abuse black people"... give me a break :roll:
Oh "please" yourself. Its just an expression, meaning that we're in modern times, so we should be acting like it. Racism is a old as time, its because of progressive thinking that we finally realized how absurd it is to hate someone just because of the color of their skin.
-
I just want to put my vote firmly in the keep her column. Unfortunately due to my habit of working and missing FTL and listening to it all in a bunch whenever I get some tie off I didn't hear about this controversy til just now. But I certainly support Bridget.
-
For those of you who did not see Manwich's mean "Womanwich" pic, here it is:
http://freetalklive.com/images/womanwich.jpg
I have linked to it because of its disturbing nature.
-
I'm for keeping Bridget on the shrine, if for no other reason that it pisses off Brokor.
-
For those of you who did not see Manwich's mean "Womanwich" pic, here it is:
http://freetalklive.com/images/womanwich.jpg
I have linked to it because of its disturbing nature.
Oh my Lord. I hadn't seen that. It's quite disturbing. But nice sign... :lol:
-
I actually think it's a good new look for Manwich err... Womanwich.
-
Please, the "it's the 21 st" century line is completely irrelevant and without base...
so normalcy is based on what century we're in?
hmm yeah... I guess racism was accepted 120 yrs ago... "c'mon man, it's the 19th century you're allowed to own & abuse black people"... give me a break :roll:
Yes, it matters. It isn't the superficial "when" we are, but all of the context within which we exist that matters. The superficial "when" is just a label for that context.
-
Around and round we go. The question wasn't about Bridgets correctness in feeling that she is a woman. Each side already knows were they stand and neither side is going to change the other side's mind with their arguments. The bigger question is should Bridget stay on the Shrine?
It is a marketing question. Are there enough who feel that people should be free to consider themselves whatever they wish and want to keep her on the shrine. Or are there enough who are upset and feel it isn't right that she should be on the shrine. And will those who are upset buggeroff and discontinue supporting the show.
Ultimately, it is Ian's choice because he has ownership of the show. If he feels that Bridget doesn't generate enough attention he will most likely take the photo down. And sometimes negative attention can work for you. I bet because of this the shrine is getting way more hits than otherwise would be normal. So if you really think about it from a marketing perspective and your goal is to garner more attention to the show. Then you would have to say Bridget is the best thing that could have happened to the Shrine.. With of course WOMANWICH being a close 2nd.
BTW Womanwich you are bringing out those undiscovered latent lasbian tendencies, oh baby baby. :lol:
-
I'm for keeping Bridget on the shrine, if for no other reason that it pisses off Brokor.
haha, you bitch. :lol: Nah, I really don't care, like I said before. The shrine is aweful in my opinion. "Bridget", who I like to now call Gus, is just another face. Thankfully, we do not have to see more of Gus.
-
Nah, I really don't care, like I said before.
You seem to spend an awful lot of time and energy posting about it for something you don't care about...
-
I don't think the shrine is going to help market the show in any way. Especially with our shrine. Like Ian says, it's really not a beauty contest. And our Publishers' Clearing House Winners just aren't gonna get that big affiliate... :lol:
-
I'm for keeping Bridget on the shrine, if for no other reason that it pisses off Brokor.
haha, you bitch. :lol: Nah, I really don't care, like I said before. The shrine is aweful in my opinion. "Bridget", who I like to now call Gus, is just another face. Thankfully, we do not have to see more of Gus.
lol... "Gus"
that's great.
-
I say get rid of the shrine. Its lame.
-
Shrine of Female Listeners.
Female - Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.
Bridgett - Cross dresser (very dedicated cross dresser)
These are the facts. I can't see how these inconvienient facts escape our diluded majority. But as usual the mamby pamby cry babies of the world would rather be nice than confront the painful truth. Go ahead the road to Hell is paved with your good intentions.
-
Bridgett - Cross dresser (very dedicated cross dresser)
I'm not a crossdresser, hun, I'm a transsexual. ^__^
-- Bridget
-
Transsexual would involve cutting off your genetals. You are not a transsexual.
-
# A person with the external genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics of one sex, but whose personal identification and psychosocial configuration is that of the opposite sex.
-
Brokor should hire himself out to beat some sense into these faggets!
-
Transsexual would involve cutting off your genetals. You are not a transsexual.
Nope, 'cause most transsexuals can't afford SRS. Also SRS is not cutting off genitals, moron.
-- Bridget
-
Gus is still a dude with mental problems. Case closed. And I know some gays. I have no problem with them personally.
-
Prove there are mental problems. Prove that mental states are subjective. And disprove Descartes' Maxim! HAHAHA you can't do it because you're a Post-Modernist Liberal TRASHBAG.
-- Bridget
-
I believe that your posts on this forum do more to prove what I say than anything to be quite honest. And I am not a Liberal, nor a Post-Modernist one. Honestly, where do you come up with this stuff? Are you reclusive? Ever get out much?
How do I make you feel when I post in retalliation against your silly propaganda?
Do you need to find identity?
-
Keep posting more of your conspiracy theories and I'll just keep pwning you.
Oh btw, you are a Post-Modernist by virtue of your statements about how mental states are subjective. ONLY POST MODERNISTS BELIEVE SUCH THINGS.
-- Bridget
-
Hey Gus...the moment you can prove one of my "conspiracy theories" wrong, I will stop replying to your bullshit arguments.
Something to chew on. ;)
-
Hey Gus...the moment you can prove one of my "conspiracy theories" wrong, I will stop replying to your bullshit arguments.
Something to chew on. ;)
Actually I can,
1. They're based on unsubstantiated claims.
2. They're convienately centered around religious cults which haven't been in existence at all or haven't been in existence in the last five centuries.
3. They're almost always based on quacked up physics.
4. They're almost always based on aliens manipulating us from the future or some other location we cannot prove or disprove.
5. Their originaters generally call everyone evil, bad, or Word-animals[Time Cube fuckwit]. :)
Conclusion, you have been pwned. Now go back to the shortbus, n00b.
-- Bridget
-
Nice try. No, no it wasn't. You weren't even close. Anyway...
Do you feel that this forum is a place for you to start multiple topics about your mental condition?
I mean, REALLY.[/size] Do you think that others want to read about your personal life and your illness?
-
Obsfucation! You evade the points I posted that showed your conspiracy shit is based on [*pulls out her media player and loads PnT...] BULLSHIT.
-- Bridget
-
I evaded nothing. And the word is "obfuscate".
Everything I post related to what you claim to be "conspiracy theories" is backed by fact in law or by credible references, and many times are nothing more than historical references. You need to point to one SPECIFIC claim that I make in order to disprove me. So far you have only made silly points about...well, I have no idea what you are talking about to be honest. Why am I typing to a mental patient?
I really must stop posting when you are here. :lol: Anyway. Try and prove my "theories" wrong. Then we can talk, Gus.
-
Everything I post related to what you claim to be "conspiracy theories" is backed by fact in law
Laws don't make things true. It's like saying that because you have x law therefore government has the right to do x. Sorry, doesn't gel.
or by credible references,
That are usually taken out of context or unrelated to the topic at hand.
and many times are nothing more than historical references.
Which are not based in objectivity and usually fraudulent like the quotes of Josesphus about 'Jesus.'
You need to point to one SPECIFIC claim that I make in order to disprove me.
You make false claims about how fires operate in compressed areas aka the WTC. Which, btw, you never refuted my statements. All my statements still stand.
-- Bridget pwns Brokor the bitch some more.
-
No. All of your statements are childish and include some silly little dig about a person, and has little or no credibility on these forums because of your demeanor. Additionally, I do believe that the video I posted in that topic pretty much put you and your sidekick, Shane to shame. Finally, we really should continue this discussion there, as this thread is not about the WTC and the demand for proof that the official story has any credibility.
-
And video on computers can be DOCTORED. Or have you forgotten the time stamp issue with the Beheading videos? Gee, you're such a fucking n00b. I can even CnP a video to look like anything. But you're a moron and probably think that CGI isn't possible on a PC[Dreamworks used PCs to make Shrek 1 and 2...GEE the wonder of PARALLEL COMPUTING].
You have been sk00led some more, bitch. Now bend over!
-- Bridget
-
:lol:
You got me. I made all the videos in my garage.
-
:lol:
You got me. I made all the videos in my garage.
Actually, most of the video can be editted to add artifacts from other videos. It's a common trick done for low budget shows. For example, in the new Doctor Who series, BBC had mucho stock film at their video library to splice as to give realism to their shows such as this one. In the episode Aliens of London, the alien ship as it landed was a combination of CGI, minitures, and stock video, especially the water landing in the Thames which was a combination of CGI ship and water, and stock video of an ocean wave which was altered in a computer to look like the murky waters of the Thames. :)
I just pwned you again. Please deposit soul in the box and leave.
-- Bridget
-
:lol:
Yup, you obviously win. It's all a lie, and the government loves you. :P
-
:lol:
Yup, you obviously win. It's all a lie, and the government loves you. :P
No, it's just that the government isn't all powerful to stop rogue elements. 9/11 proved the inability to secure large areas via government intervention. And it was also a practice in economic terrorism considering 1/6th the IT industry was literally in the two towers. I believe four companies were literally wiped off the IT map, owners, employees and all. It goes to show, whomever financed 9/11 knew the government was as blind as fuck.
-- Bridget
-
The government wants to show you that it is ineffective, this is why they offer a new form of government in the form of anti-terror. The Hegelian Principle is being used here yet again, and people are falling for it -hook, line, and sinker. They will welcome the police state and their enslavement with thunderous applause.
-
Nope, Hegel states that Government must be Man's God and thus be shown to be ALL POWERFUL. 9/11 refutes Hegel from the get go. You haven't read Hegel at all have you? Try studying his work on his Taoist inspired Historicism, but then again you don't know much about that do you?
-- Bridget
P.S.
Wiki-article on Hegel, kiddo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel
The State is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State.
Philosophy of Right, "The State", s. 258
-
Nope, Hegel states that Government must be Man's God and thus be shown to be ALL POWERFUL. 9/11 refutes Hegel from the get go. You haven't read Hegel at all have you? Try studying his work on his Taoist inspired Historicism, but then again you don't know much about that do you?
-- Bridget
P.S.
Wiki-article on Hegel, kiddo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel
The State is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality of the substantial will which it possesses in the particular self-consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness of its universality. This substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itself, in which freedom comes into its supreme right. On the other hand this final end has supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State.
Philosophy of Right, "The State", s. 258
The anti-terror governmental procedure is the "all powerful" government you speak of. It is being offered in exchange for the "old" and "outdated" system we have had. Hence the Patriot Act legislation. And yes, I have read and heard of Hegel. Your attempts have yet again been hindered.
-
Nope, my actions are not hindered since my assertion retains its truth. You just dodged the point at hand.
-- Bridget
-
I ignored nothing.
Why do I even try with you? I might as well visit a mental clinic and start talking to the weirdos in straight jackets...
-
Actually, I debate philosophy professors, kiddo, you're just a chew toy.
-- Bridget
-
Actually, I debate philosophy professors, kiddo, you're just a chew toy.
-- Bridget
:lol: I'm cringing.
Communists and Socialists do not frighten me. And you appear to be the one evading right now.
-
Nope, I'm not evading since you haven't asserted anything in the last post.
-- Bridget
-
/me shoots himself
-
/me shoots himself
WTF? How did you do the red texty thing?
-- Bridget
-
Do you know how to use commands in mirc?
-
Do you know how to use commands in mirc?
/me barfs all over Brokor's chins....
-- Bridget
-
Yup, that would be it :?
-
Should Bridget stay on the Shrine?
NO
-
/me exposes himself in public to a group of Japanese foreign exchange students.
-
Russ gets applauded for being unn00bish. ^__^
-- Bridget
-
Gotta be careful with them Japs man...they'll molest you.
-
Gotta be careful with them Japs man...they'll molest you.
Yea, I read from some friends in Japan that are women[TG and otherwise], they get groped on the subway all the time. o_O If any guy tried to even pet my leg IRL, they would be toast for sure.
-- Bridget
-
Yeah right, you know you'd like it.
-
/me shoots himself
Notice that he just shot himself, he didn't end it all.
Probably just choking his chicken and then "shot" himself. :P
-
Gotta be careful with them Japs man...they'll molest you.
Yea, I read from some friends in Japan that are women[TG and otherwise], they get groped on the subway all the time. o_O If any guy tried to even pet my leg IRL, they would be toast for sure.
-- Bridget
Yeah, they have those articles on Fark all the time. I wonder why Japanese people are so...crazed. Maybe it's something in the water... :lol:
-
Maybe it's because they're just fucked up.
-
Maybe it's the after effects of the bombs... :lol:
-
No.
-
"trans·sex·u·al Audio pronunciation of "transsexual" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trns-sksh-l)
n.
1. One who wishes to be considered by society as a member of the opposite sex"
yes... so there you have it, he wants to be seen as a women...
much like some elvis impersonators want to be seen as elvis.
put up an alternative shrine...
it's pathetic that FTL is being politically correct and bending over backwards for some confused individual.
-
"trans·sex·u·al Audio pronunciation of "transsexual" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trns-sksh-l)
n.
1. One who wishes to be considered by society as a member of the opposite sex"
yes... so there you have it, he wants to be seen as a women...
much like some elvis impersonators want to be seen as elvis.
put up an alternative shrine...
it's pathetic that FTL is being politically correct and bending over backwards for some confused individual.
It's nothing like the Elvis impersonators and you should know that. She is a woman, and as such she simply wants to be seen that way.
And I certainly don't see this as being "politically correct." I doubt that is Ian's motives behind putting her in the shrine at all. FTL is not the most politically correct show. They don't try to be offensive for the sake of being offensive like many shock jocks do, but they certainly won't dance around a topic or betray their beliefs about it in order to pander to the PC crowd. Puttng her in the shrine makes sense simly because she is a woman, she listens to the show, and she sent in a photo. That's all there should be to it.
-
Being politically correct would be moving her to her own little shrine.
-
He can think whatever he wants about himself... that's fine.
But physically, he IS still a man. It's that simple. It's irrefutable fact.
It's not the Shrine of "if you're convinced your a woman - we'll put you here" listeners. It's the Shrine of Female listeners.
Just give them their own shrine... miscellaneous or whatever...
-
Being politically correct would be moving her to her own little shrine.
no, it is welcoming all beliefs or lifestyles as "normal" (ie- keeping him in the shrine) - that's being PC.
-
So then why doesn't Ian and Manwich ask for everyone to be agnostic to atheist in their beliefs since both do not profess a strict religious adherence? Would you be angry if they stated you couldn't be on the shrine if you were a Christian, Muslim, or Jew? Your so-called 'normal' lifestyle shit is not only retarded it's down right fucking facist. What happens if one of the female shriners is a lesbian? What about if a butch lesbian gets on the shrine? What happens if a shriner happens to be intersexed? I guess you'll call them freaks as well, but then again, Grey, you are a pathetic little christian trashbag.
-- Bridget
-
He can think whatever he wants about himself... that's fine.
But physically, he IS still a man. It's that simple. It's irrefutable fact.
It's not the Shrine of "if you're convinced your a woman - we'll put you here" listeners. It's the Shrine of Female listeners.
Just give them their own shrine... miscellaneous or whatever...
No, physically she still has a penis and a Y chromosone. She is a woman. I suppose I can see how you can not understand that distinction, since like most of everyone your actual gender and your physical gender are the same, but she is clearly a woman. I could never see her as any differently.
-
(http://dana.hobi.ru/photo/titles/danamag07.jpg)
Ohhhh Trannies are sOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo evil... Look, one of my kind is trying to be a singer, which btw, she is now internationally recognized.
-- Bridget
-
So then why doesn't Ian and Manwich ask for everyone to be agnostic to atheist in their beliefs since both do not profess a strict religious adherence? Would you be angry if they stated you couldn't be on the shrine if you were a Christian, Muslim, or Jew? Your so-called 'normal' lifestyle shit is not only retarded it's down right fucking facist. What happens if one of the female shriners is a lesbian? What about if a butch lesbian gets on the shrine? What happens if a shriner happens to be intersexed? I guess you'll call them freaks as well, but then again, Grey, you are a pathetic little christian trashbag.
-- Bridget
holy shit, their political stance or belief in God doesn't have any relevance, period. And of course, they have the right to put anyone in there they want too... it's their own making. But the whole point of this thread is to offer your views, so that's what I'm doing.
The point is, the Shrine is to harbour, physically real, 100% genuine women. Not a cross dresser, or a transsexual, or a transvestite... or whatever...
The requirements are so cut and dry (or at least, they used to be).
And furthermore, does your immature, un-educated, childish, incessant name-calling another symptom or your mental condition? or is it exclusive? or is that simply b/c you don't like anyone disagreeing w/ your views? (ps: rhetorical question - just something to ponder)
-
the Shrine is to harbour, physically real, 100% genuine women.
Really? I thought it was just to show that women(And Bridget is a woman, wether you admit it or not) listened to the show?
-
Ohhhh Trannies are sOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo evil... Look, one of my kind is trying to be a singer, which btw, she is now internationally recognized.
-- Bridget
did I say they're "evil". No, I did not. I said they're abnormal. (not to mention horrendously fugly).
heh... "int'l recognized"... uh huh... *yawn*... I will just take your word for it.
yes yes... she's "famous"... whoopee... a bunch of people think she's great... and that's relevant, how? Keeping in mind Hitler and Saddam are both "internationally recognized" as well... I think you know as well as I, that mass-knowledge doesn't equate normalcy or legitimacy.
PS... don't get your panties/tighty whities in too much of a bunch, I'm just showing how subjective beliefs are faulty and easily disassembled. ... and plus, it's just fun to debate (pwn you) ;)
-
Objective reasoning and even common sense escapes some people. The moment you bring up morality and decency, they jump down your throat.
It's amazing what the world is coming to.
-
Morality and decency to me is adhering to the NAP "rule".
-
Objective reasoning and even common sense escapes some people. The moment you bring up morality and decency, they jump down your throat.
It's amazing what the world is coming to.
That's exactly it... once you hit that nerve (ie- questioning the very fiber of a person's nature/soul - or especially if you show it to be abnormal)... you will obviously get nothing but name-calling and general idiocy.
-
the Shrine is to harbour, physically real, 100% genuine women.
Really? I thought it was just to show that women(And Bridget is a woman, wether you admit it or not) listened to the show?
-
the Shrine is to harbour, physically real, 100% genuine women.
Really? I thought it was just to show that women(And Bridget is a woman, wether you admit it or not) listened to the show?
Is he now?
...and round and round and rooound we go.....
-
Then I'll fly you both over here, rent you two a room, and you can fuck "her" if s/he's a woman. No charge, but I get to sit in the corner and watch whilst smoking a cigar.
-
Fuck that, I want to be the one smoking the cigar.
Don't worry, BJ -I can pimp you out to some wonderful Latino men that frequent the nightclub. :lol:
-
I don't do Puerto Rican. Their cocks are too huge.
-
Then I'll fly you both over here, rent you two a room, and you can fuck "her" if s/he's a woman. No charge, but I get to sit in the corner and watch whilst smoking a cigar.
no deal.
-
Not you, finger boy.
-
you're one of them. stay back.
-
(http://www.chezcomics.com/comics-resources-information-pages/marvel-comics-information-resources/marvel-superhero-film-movies-tv-shows/Blade/blade-vampire-slayer.gif)
Always be prepared to deal out punishment to the consumer zombies and buttbandits. Eh...and vampires.
-
Mmm.
-
"Is that supposed to be tactical?!"
8)
-
All of this reminds me that EclecticBuddha wanted to dress up as a woman and be on the shrine, and nobody wanted him on it...
-
Oh, btw, Grey you keep using statistics terms as moral terms.
First, state how being yourself is immoral? This isn't a trick question of saying being a murderer, rapist, filanderer and such is okay, but rather what is the moral issue of being, considering being isn't doing....
Second, you just want to call transgendered people 'fugly' because you probably NEVER met a transsexual or transgendered until ME. So please stop with the bullshit.
Also, equivocating Dana with Hitler is like equivocating Rush with the author of the Turner Diaries, so stop being obsurd and follow the logic of the argument.
The argument still stands, wo/man and fe/male are not the same, you lost. Now eat your humble pie, Jeebus sucker. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Silly Christians, Moral Absolutism doesn't work in the real world....
-- Bridget
-
Oh, btw, Grey you keep using statistics terms as moral terms.
First, state how being yourself is immoral? This isn't a trick question of saying being a murderer, rapist, filanderer and such is okay, but rather what is the moral issue of being, considering being isn't doing....
seriously, what did you say?? you make no sense. "first state how being immoral is yourself"?!!
Actually, I'm not sure I even want that clarified - b/c from past experience, whenever someone debates w/ you - you end up childish-ly name-calling and such.... it'd be pointless and exhausting.
Second, you just want to call transgendered people 'fugly' because you probably NEVER met a transsexual or transgendered until ME. So please stop with the bullshit.
That picture you posted of that mangirl was indeed fugly. I mean, when they actually try and look attractive by attempting to be seductive or whatever - it just looks pathetic and yes, ugly. It's like if a really fat girl tries to slip into a thong or bikini... look how you must, but dear God, (saying this to any really overweigh woman): stop living in denial, you are not a 115 lb women. Likewise, transgenders are just transvestites...
you aren't going to attract straight men. Well that's just it I suppose, they're going after gay ones..... enjoy....
Also, equivocating Dana with Hitler is like equivocating Rush with the author of the Turner Diaries, so stop being obsurd and follow the logic of the argument.
you missed the point - that just b/c someone is convinced w/ what you're doing is right or just - doesn't make it so...
The argument still stands, wo/man and fe/male are not the same, you lost. Now eat your humble pie, Jeebus sucker. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Silly Christians, Moral Absolutism doesn't work in the real world....
-- Bridget
*ding ding ding*... you hit it right on the head! thank you!! :D
that's exactly why we have all this pain and suffering in the world - everyone doesn't follow moral absolutism...
There is a natural law, and when not followed, you get chaos.
when you're a subject moralist - it's easy to justify the genocide of any one group - b/c well, "it's for the greater good"... or they're "less human"... or whatever....
hmmm maybe I should try this subjective moralism... "gee, I think I don't like people that are different than me. they don't look normal, so I'm going to punch them all in the face".... yeah... sure... that works for me... I mean, morals are subjective, right?
That's exactly the fallacy and problem you run into when you have such a distorted world view.
-
That picture you posted of that mangirl was indeed fugly. I mean, when they actually try and look attractive by attempting to be seductive or whatever - it just looks pathetic and yes, ugly. It's like if a really fat girl tries to slip into a thong or bikini... look how you must, but dear God, (saying this to any really overweigh woman): stop living in denial, you are not a 115 lb women. Likewise, transgenders are just transvestites...
you aren't going to attract straight men. Well that's just it I suppose, they're going after gay ones..... enjoy....
Sorry, babe, but men can't tell until they're told. So, not only are you being a jerk, you're really bad at it too.
*ding ding ding*... you hit it right on the head! thank you!! :D
that's exactly why we have all this pain and suffering in the world - everyone doesn't follow moral absolutism...
Nope, it's due to people believing there is moral absolutism, look at how each side of a war has hallucinations of angels fighting the demons of their 'enemy' and also how everyone from the Germany Army to George W Bush say God is on their side[For the germans they put it on their belt buckles Gott Min Uns]. Moral absolutism leads to statism, which leads to tyranny. Where as moral objectivism[the objectivication of personal values as virtues and consequences] leads to critical thinking, self-ownership, and liberty.
There is a natural law, and when not followed, you get chaos.
No, you get chaos when you impose moral absolutism. Also, natural law is not evident. Non-human animals do not behave morally as they do not have rational faculties. Non-human animals have instincts and thusly are excluded from the assertion of so-called natural law, which is an excuse to evade reason, individualism, and liberty.
when you're a subject moralist - it's easy to justify the genocide of any one group - b/c well, "it's for the greater good"... or they're "less human"... or whatever....
Sorry, I'm an objectivist when it comes to morals. There are rights and wrongs, but are soley appended to the situation. Greater Good infers an absolute morality, and has been the warcry of many a Christian in causes against liberty. Rights and wrongs come from one's values, the consequences of those values, and the success/failure dichotomy that results. I suggest you read the virtue of selfishness by Ayn Rand, it might straighten out your head.
hmmm maybe I should try this subjective moralism... "gee, I think I don't like people that are different than me. they don't look normal, so I'm going to punch them all in the face".... yeah... sure... that works for me... I mean, morals are subjective, right?
Nope, I never stated morals were subjective. You state that morals are subjective.
Also, I don't have a distorted worldview. It's based on Nature in that all existents are part of it. I suggest you look up Mises' work on Praxeology, Rand's Objectivist Morality, and Locke's view of human 'perfectibility.'
-- Bridget
-
*yawn*... yup...
ok, so in conclusion: when someone tries to be something they're not they either look foolish or ugly (transvestites, big girls in bikinis, etc...)
the reason we have all this suffering in the world is b/c everyone has their own set of morality... everyone makes up their own rules...
imagine trying to play soccer where everyone would have their own set of rules...
player A"well I think it's better if we allow punching..."
player B "well I think it isn't... we should allow kicks to the crotch"
player C "you're both wrong... body tackling is fine though"
heh.. yeah... chaos, anyone?
...likewise w/ the real world.
the end.
sincerely,
Chris. ;)
-
the reason we have all this suffering in the world is b/c everyone has their own set of morality... everyone makes up their own rules...
No...it's because everyone wants to push their rules onto others, ergo the suffering. You don't need a divine king or law giver to ensure happiness, you just need a sharp mind and a quick body. Your morality is based on fear, my morality is based on reason and freedom. Your morality calls for harm against those that do not adhere to it, mine calls for simple defense against harm. Your morality calls for the killing of those who are different, mine calls for the reasoning with those who are different. Your morality is based on monolithy, mine is based on plurality.
imagine trying to play soccer where everyone would have their own set of rules...
player A"well I think it's better if we allow punching..."
player B "well I think it isn't... we should allow kicks to the crotch"
player C "you're both wrong... body tackling is fine though"
heh.. yeah... chaos, anyone?
This happens all the time between kids, do they kill each other for not agreeing on the rules? No, they argue it out, sometimes they yell, sometimes they smack each other around until they figure out how stupid it was to assert a universal ideal of the rules and that simply playing the game is far superior. Also, are there rules stopping people who are contracted together from killing each other? No, because there is no means to stop a killing except self-defense. All other actions are based on revenge.
Until then, study some Praxeology and Objectivist Ethics, you might grow a brain.
In reason and liberty, Bridget Attis Herbrechtsmeier
-
imagine trying to play soccer where everyone would have their own set of rules...
player A"well I think it's better if we allow punching..."
player B "well I think it isn't... we should allow kicks to the crotch"
player C "you're both wrong... body tackling is fine though"
heh.. yeah... chaos, anyone?
This happens all the time between kids, do they kill each other for not agreeing on the rules? No, they argue it out, sometimes they yell, sometimes they smack each other around until they figure out how stupid it was to assert a universal ideal of the rules and that simply playing the game is far superior. Also, are there rules stopping people who are contracted together from killing each other? No, because there is no means to stop a killing except self-defense. All other actions are based on revenge.
Until then, study some Praxeology and Objectivist Ethics, you might grow a brain.
In reason and liberty, Bridget Attis Herbrechtsmeier
Guess what: They can't "simply play the game" until they ALL agree on some basic, rules, period.
Again, likewise w/ the real world.
you're right...some people want to push their morality on others... thank you AGAIN for proving my point. If someone forces someone else to do something they are infringing upon that person's right. (unless of course that person is stopping said person from harming another) So what is happening?? They aren't following the idea objective law of not being personally infringed upon b/c they are forcing somonee else do their own will (ie- they haven't agreed w/ the absolute law of morality).
and again, to conclude... if you want to play soccer, read the rules - or at least, make up your own version, but make sure everyone else agrees to the rules as well - otherwise you'll end up w/ a brawl. Likewise w/ society: until we start to agree in some basic rules (morals) can we then and only then begin to have a just society.
-
Guess what: They can't "simply play the game" until they ALL agree on some basic, rules, period.
Not true, most children don't even agree who's turn it is, but still play. Ergo, no laws or rules involved.
you're right...some people want to push their morality on others... thank you AGAIN for proving my point. If someone forces someone else to do something they are infringing upon that person's right. (unless of course that person is stopping said person from harming another) So what is happening?? They aren't following the idea objective law of not being personally infringed upon b/c they are forcing somonee else do their own will (ie- they haven't agreed w/ the absolute law of morality).
Nope, no absolute law of morality at play due to the fact that all rules are tentative, and that not everyone agrees to the same rules. That means morality is objective in that there are right and wrong attributes, but in itself not applicable to the same issues at all times.
For example, the act of force. Killing is considered wrong by most people, but why? Why isn't killing a fish to feed yourself wrong? Why isn't killing in self-defense wrong? The answer is that the wrongness of the situation is based on the idea of whether one owns one's self. Therefore killing a fish to eat isn't wrong since the fish has no rational faculties, and it's not wrong to kill in self-defense since the action is in defense of life.
Another example is fraud. Why is fraud[theft] wrong? The simple answer is that it's wrong since it deals with the issue of self-ownership. The act of self-ownership is the act of controlling one's self, thus controlling other things is another form of ownership. Therefore, stealing another's 'thing' that which s/he possesses is morally wrong since s/he owns that thing by the act of controlling it.
In each case, there is no absolute coefficient except self-ownership. Self-ownership doesn't have to be agreed upon since it is an AXIOM that all humans can understand. Moral systems not predicated on self-ownership are doomed to failure since such systems do not regard humans as sovereigns. Moral systems that don't assert a universal ideal and accepts rational axioms as such are poised to succeed since it doesn't place any more requirements other than self-ownership, which humans by default AFFIRM.
Now, show me where this is absolute and show me where being a transsexual violates any morality.
-- Bridget
-
ok, we agree morality is objective - you just think it should be applied differently at times... I disagree...there we go. I think it's contradictory, arbitrary and thus chaotic to apply it differently at any given times.
And wait now, did I actually say it's immoral to be a transsexual?? Remember: I did say, I don't care how someone else looks or acts, so long as it doesn't negatively affect me.
Now then, if you want to argue from a theistic POV - we have an entirely different ball of wax.... but well, considering the wide gap in our belief systems - I don't think that would be very productive.
In this world, I think it's fine and great people want to look like a man when they're really a woman or vice versa... just don't expect me to accept it as "normal". It's not. I won't harm you for it, but I certainly won't consider a transvestite/transgender to be anything other than what they are: someone in disguise. No offense intended, that's just how I feel.
-
Nuff said.
-- Bridget
-
Indeed.
-
I second that.
And I will only add that I personally have no problem with beating up the transexuals and humiliating them in public.
-
I second that.
And I will only add that I personally have no problem with beating up the transexuals and humiliating them in public.
lol :lol:
hehe... ummm.... well, unless of course we're provoked (ie- hit on by said weirdos)
ahhh relax Gus, we're just poking fun. good times.
-
I second that.
And I will only add that I personally have no problem with beating up the transexuals and humiliating them in public.
lol :lol:
hehe... ummm.... well, unless of course we're provoked (ie- hit on by said weirdos)
ahhh relax Gus, we're just poking fun. good times.
Uhhh ...... where to begin?
1) I appreciate Ian's candor. Really.... the polite pronouns alone warrant kudos.
2) Fire Manwich ;) - ok ok .... I like manwich; Just not in this matter. As for the rest of you wingnuts .....
3) Dudes.... wtf? This is not the FREE-TALK-Live board? I vote yes for Bridgett. Not for menstrual reasons; Not because I think that I'd like to see the FTL shrine girls in bikinis; 2 words -- Individual Liberty. Do you REALLY think that biology is so sufficiently explained by something as simple as a binary? Your faith in the medical and scientific community is waaaay to high. I presume you place the same blind faith in the theory of the ozone hole, or the ideology of Marx.
My impression of this program and it's listeners was that of open and free thinking people. The only 2 principled people I've really seen thus far in this thread are Ian and Bridgett (there are others, but mostly these 2). I vote YES for Bridgett. Ian, I have great respect for your program, but I am honestly surprised by what I have read so far.
Mel
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller"
-
heh ahh noob... keep reading over this BBS my friend - before you make any rash decisions. ;)
Just b/c someone wants to be seen as something they're not - that doesn't mean they will be seen that way. We're all about freedom of expression - but that doesn't equate freedom of acceptance. You accept he's a woman, that's fine... I don't. It's quite simple.
and, welcome.
btw, nice quote - one of the more profound ones out there.
-
N00b ... ahh .... yes. I suppose true to this board :) Trust me ... i'm not a n00b .... I'm at least long enough in the tooth to comment on this thread ;) I've been commenting on boards since it involved 300 bps modems :)
To be sure ... I did read MANY other threads before responding.
Thanks for the compliment on the quote. It's sort or a credoo these days.
My point is ..... to what end do you not acccept Bridgett as a female? If you were running a business, and she walked in ....would you giver here the same treatment ... or would you gladly accept her money and do business with her? This is in part my point.
Melissa
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
-
hey, I've been doing this since they ol dial up modem BBS days (10 years ago)...
annnyway... this isn't a pissing contest, so...
well, if you aren't indeed a noob, I'd strongly suggest that you not leave your quote right within the body of your text since:
A. it's already your footnoted quote
B. It takes up unnecessary space.
Anyway, great question:
My point is that I don't accept her as a female based purely on the idea that only females should be in the Shrine. Now I understand you didn't read all my posts in here about here, but had you - you would have seen that I don't care what he is, or who he thinks he is - he doesn't meet the very simple requirement of making the cut for the Shrine.
Are you kidding? Would I deny her business into my shop?? Hell no... I don't care what anyone looked like, believed, or whatever... so long as they aren't trying to steal my products or harm my other customers - they can be whomever they want. Or think whatever they want .... etc...
I wasn't trying to argue he's somehow less human, I'm trying to argue he shouldn't be in the Shrine b/c he's simply not female. That's it.
-
1) Got it about the quote ... Thanks.
2) So yes ... the question is fundamentally about what the shrine is. Naturally as a businessperson, you are smart enough to realize that excluding the glbt folks would be detrimental.
I'll re-read the 11 pages of posts. Just to be sure I've not missed anything here. I'm just surprised at the sophomoric direction that some of the conversation has taken ... perhaps I can write it off as a "guy" thing?
Melissa.
P.S. Thanks for playing so late ;
-
no problem...
yes, exactly... this discussion just went much deeper than what was intended...of course this is a BBS, so it's usually a question of knowing when to quit - not if they'll be enough responses to warrant any kind of decent conversation. :D
it's quite a silly thing - the Shrine that is... but the question was asked, so it's been answered...
well yeah, when guys are promised a multitude of female pics they're certainly not interested in seeing transgenders... ok, so yeah, a "guy" thing, I guess.
anyway, yes it is late. and I have to get up early - I am off.
-
Peace-out .... I'm still re-reading. More to follow.
Mel.
-
My point is ..... to what end do you not acccept Bridgett as a female? If you were running a business, and she walked in ....would you giver here the same treatment ... or would you gladly accept her money and do business with her? This is in part my point.
Melissa
Well, Melissa. I personally would throw the psycho out of my club. In fact, I have done this with many of the local freaks and bums. But, if I did not know she was a he, I wouldn't care. If I found out, I would keep an eye on her/him just to be sure. If he/she came in dressed like a flaming retard, then out on the street it goes.
And identifying Gus is very difficult. Can you tell that I am an asshole? ;) Only to the ones who are sick in the head and are a danger to others. In my OPINION, they all are. But this is what we get after 70 plus years of psychological warfare.
-
Looks like you've been PsyOpped yourself.
-
Looks like you've been PsyOpped yourself.
I am fighting to restore my republic, asshole.
If you don't know that by now, then go hump a dog or something. What? Not getting any "urges"? :lol: Well, if "nature" is making men "want" to become more like women, then surely a few might have bestiality tendencies... :roll:
I kid, obviously. Have a great day, BJ. You homo. ;)
-
Yes, the republic aka The Empire!! All Hail Emperor Brokor aka Darth Idiotious!. ^__^
-- Bridget
-
You're not important to me, Gus. You are slime. Dregs of the coffeemaker.
I care not what you say or do.
-
Good, cause it's those who you find 'inferior' who usually knock you down from your pedistal.
-- Bridget
-
Actually, you couldn't knock if you tried. Women tap. :lol:
Homo. Stop trolling me. Sorry I pised you off, and continue to do so, but you are a fool. Nobody here likes your transtesticle garbage that you are spewing, and it is all you are about, nothing more. We found you out only a day or two from your start here.
And I thought you actually had potential at first. I now realize you are only a bag of hot air. And quite vindictive, too. Tell me, do you fantasize about killing me? :lol: Would you like to "beat me up"? And I don't mean in the gay sense. I know that BonerJoe is gonna jump all over this post now...
-
Sorry, babe, but I use cars and other motorized devices to knock down idiots like you.
-- Bridget
-
:lol: Well, take care anyway. I am finished with arguing with you for now.
-
... oh man.. you have two HAVE to go on springer - oh actually no, that'd just end up in a brawl and there wouldn't be much of a match...
Crossfire, instead...
-
In a free society you shouldn't care about, sex, color, crede, sexual preference, sexual favored position, age, body mass index, or whether they sing in a shower badly, pray to strange statues in their basement, or run naked through their house shouting viva la Republic* . (Not enough room to post all the variables that totally annoy people about other people.)
The bottom line: Does it do real financial or physical harm to yourself? If the answer is NO then the argument over whether or not, scientific proof or not is totally irrelevant. No fraud was committed and as I have stated before she has actually helped the show with this attention. She isn't asking for a government hand out to get an operation. She isn't trying to force her way into your private business but simply asking to be accepted. You can agree or not, that is your right. There no need to constantly slam a person for who they feel that they are and who is doing you no real harm. By slaming a persons own concept of who they are you are the one that is doing the harm.
Those against are revealing their own fears not based in the reality of what is presented with the topic question. Should Bridget Stay on the Shrine? It is a preference question not a question based on what you think of her personal lifestyle choice. It is not a question about how you have been fooled in the past and how that made you angry. It is not a scientific question on the merits of her individual case. It is not a question of how someone might be a fraud in the future hypothetical world you weave in your own mind and how that will make you angry. In fact if you succeed you will be making an enviornment where fraud is more likely to occure. So just get over it and let people be free to be what makes them happy.
-
I know - it's such a simple question... but this has been blown into something much too huge....
whether he's human or not? or more or less equal...? those are moot to the whole situation - and the answers are obvious anyway... sheesh. (hint: yes, a human like you or me). Whether he's in there or not has no relevance or changes the fact he's still a person - get w/ it people.
he's a man but thinks he's a woman... it's not about being "nice" (or at least, I thought so...I guess I can't blame Ian for not wanting to offend... but still, it seems so PC by doing so)...it's about posting pics of females. plain and simple. He is not a woman.
the end.
-
My point is ..... to what end do you not acccept Bridgett as a female? If you were running a business, and she walked in ....would you giver here the same treatment ... or would you gladly accept her money and do business with her? This is in part my point.
It depends on what sort of business it is. If I were running a grocery store, then of course I would take her money. Her gender has absolutely no bearing in that context.
What if you were running a health spa, though? A health spa where part of the treatment included getting naked in a sauna. You have seperate saunas for men and women, and the women are under the impression that they are disrobing only in front of other women. Would you just let her into that room then? Don't you think at least some of the other women would have a problem with the biological facts in that situation?
So you have to considered whether or not gender matters in the context. I ABSOLUTELY would not take her money if I was violating the trust of my other clients.
-
Don't they have to be sleeping together to go on Springer?
-
Voted no...you still have your short sword down there.... I could not in good conscience call a person with there Johnson still in tact a woman. Although most differences between man and woman can never be changed, the brain. The mind's of women and men work different.
-
Well, I pointed out the Brain sex studies that state transsexuals do have brains like that of genetic females. Thusly, that makes such people no different than females being exposed to a steroid.
-- Bridget
-
remember, this is just meant to be based on purely physical means (the female shriner pics)... not how you feel...
-
So Brain sex isn't physical/material? Hah, whatever, dude.
-- Bridget
-
heh here we go again....
ok... no... actually, let's not...
like I've said, thoughts are intangible and although your own are indeed very real to yourself - as are mine - neither are tangible.... but the shriner place is something based on the shallow, physical idea that actual born-females have their pics in their... so who cares, really.
-
heh here we go again....
ok... no... actually, let's not...
like I've said, thoughts are intangible and although your own are indeed very real to yourself - as are mine - neither are tangible.... but the shriner place is something based on the shallow, physical idea that actual born-females have their pics in their... so who cares, really.
No thoughts are tangible as they are formed in the body as part of the brain and nervous system. Period and end of story.
-- Bridget
-
This conversation gives a whole new meaning to the term "mindfuck".
-
This conversation gives a whole new meaning to the term "mindfuck".
Is that a for everyone? ;)
-- Bridget is mindfucked ;)
-
/me weeps.
-
he's a man but thinks he's a woman... it's not about being "nice" (or at least, I thought so...I guess I can't blame Ian for not wanting to offend... but still, it seems so PC by doing so)...it's about posting pics of females. plain and simple. He is not a woman.
the end.
AGREED.
-
Well, I pointed out the Brain sex studies that state transsexuals do have brains like that of genetic females. Thusly, that makes such people no different than females being exposed to a steroid.
-- Bridget
First of all, if you are going to make such outrageous claims, the least you can do is provide links. Where are these studies? And WHO did them? Pay special attention to who funded them. I want to know, as do all others with any decency and an education. Besides, why should we extend any courtesy to you when you and others such as yourself extend none toward the "conspiracy theorists" of these boards who have proven their weight in gold ten times over as far as I am concerned. Minus Awakenfree, of course. But that's another ball game. You would probably like him.
Anyway. Show me the (money) proof, Gus.
-
Because you asked for it here is a link of a scientific study of human brain sex determination.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/501420/
I will restate this in an easier to read version.
Should Bridget Stay on the Shrine? It is a preference question not a question based on what you think of her personal lifestyle choice. It is not a scientific question on the merits of her individual case. It is not a question of how someone might be a fraud in the future and how that will make you angry. This isn't a health club bathroom it is just a picture on the web.
In fact if you succeed in disallowing her to express herself openly as a tranny. You will be making an environment where fraud is more likely to occure. If trannys are so upsetting to you. One would think that you would want to know up front who is and who isn't one right away. Because alot of trannys can pass unless they told you the difference.
And just because something might be PC doesn't automatically make it a bad thing. Medical Marijuana is PC but not a bad thing. You have to look at an issue a little deeper than just dismissing it as PC.
Another link to gender and gender identification in a medical essay. They are in the Tampa area maybe a guess spot potential down the road? http://hermaphrodite.arriba.net/multi.htm
-
heh here we go again....
ok... no... actually, let's not...
like I've said, thoughts are intangible and although your own are indeed very real to yourself - as are mine - neither are tangible.... but the shriner place is something based on the shallow, physical idea that actual born-females have their pics in their... so who cares, really.
No thoughts are tangible as they are formed in the body as part of the brain and nervous system. Period and end of story.
-- Bridget
a fart is more tangible than a thought... you can directly hear, smell...and if you're unlucky, see it. It can be measured on physical terms. Again, thoughts certainly can not be gauged by any of these methods... I'm not talking about where they're formed, I'm talking about them specifically. Thoughts themselves are just that... ideas...opinons... all conjured up in your head.
I mean, c'mon, that is grade school science - remember making those volcanoes w/ red dye, paper mache, vinegar and baking soda?? these were all physical ingredients... what do you think the teacher would say if billy said "can I just think to add those things, will that be good enough?"... um, no sorry, billy. They won't be, b/c thoughts are intangible. You must physically, w/ your hands, add and mix them. Can you directly touch or pick up a thought? uh, no.
Look it up (in a science not philosophy book). You'll be sorrily mistaken.
-
Hah, fart.
-
Can you directly touch or pick up a thought? uh, no.
Great logic genius, so atoms are intangible too then, ey?
-
First off, why even bother with the picture? If this is all about principle, should it really matter how feminine Bridget looks? Do we start excluding validated Shriner-wannabes because they aren't pretty enough?
Second, it's called the shrine of FEMALE listeners. Now, perhaps by calling it that, Ian meant for it to be inclusive enough for folks like Bridget. However, I think it's fairly obvious that the commonly accepted meaning of FEMALE means, in general, just what Manwich said: two X chromosomes.
I also think that it's obvious that it DOESN'T mean men (especially those who are genetically and physiologically male) who dress and act like women.
Bluntly, by allowing Bridget in, you change the Shrine to something else. The title "Shrine of Female Listeners" is no longer accurate in the minds of most of the viewers. Basically, it's now a lie.
(Please save the "but femininity really means..." arguments. While Bridget is free to feel, believe, and act as he chooses, no amount of hormone implants or surgery can make him female. Can he live as a female? Yes. And he can go right on ahead with that. Can he actually, physically ever BE a female? Only if you're delusional--or have a transmogrifier--or just can't grasp the basic concept of male and female as accepted by the vast majority of societies. Truth doesn't bend, folks. If he has one X and one Y, he's a man. Period.)
-Wayne
-
Can you directly touch or pick up a thought? uh, no.
Great logic genius, so atoms are intangible too then, ey?
:roll: you must just be going facetious on me, b/c that is one of the most assinine things I've read in awhile.
...listen you fool, Atoms are TANGIBLE b/c their properties can be gauged using physical means. NOT the case w/ a thought.
seriously people, if you can't even get the most basic principles and facts of science down - then don't even bother.
-
Can you directly touch or pick up a thought? uh, no.
Great logic genius, so atoms are intangible too then, ey?
:roll: you must just be going facetious on me, b/c that is one of the most assinine things I've read in awhile.
...listen you fool, Atoms are TANGIBLE b/c their properties can be gauged using physical means. NOT the case w/ a thought.
seriously people, if you can't even get the most basic principles and facts of science down - then don't even bother.
Are there atoms of color? No, but it's tangible as are thoughts in the same matter. A structural coefficient of a system, ergo their physical existence. You have been pwned YET AGAIN. Study some Objectivist Epistomology and then come back.
-- Bridget
-
While Bridget is cool, Bridget is not female. I voted no.
-
How am I not a female? I stated the brain sex issue. I think you should read the data again. Science is yielding a conclusion in favor of me.
-- Bridget
-
Then cut your dick off?!
-
I'm sad to see that this is so close! Come on we're supposed to be live-and-let-live LIBERTARIANS!!
And you guys are getting way too technical ie
--What chromosomes do you have?
--Do you have a penis?
--Do you have breasts?
--Do you like other men?
Look, if I see someone walking down the street in a dress and makeup and looks outwardly like a female, then they are treated as a female. I don't stop and inspect their private parts or interrogate them. If Bridget appears to be a female, then she fits in on the shrine of other female listeners. If he were to stick out from all the others, then he wouldn't belong.
-
I'm sad to see that this is so close! Come on we're supposed to be live-and-let-live LIBERTARIANS!!
And you guys are getting way too technical ie
--What chromosomes do you have?
--Do you have a penis?
--Do you have breasts?
--Do you like other men?
Look, if I see someone walking down the street in a dress and makeup and looks outwardly like a female, then they are treated as a female. I don't stop and inspect their private parts or interrogate them. If Bridget appears to be a female, then she fits in on the shrine of other female listeners. If he were to stick out from all the others, then he wouldn't belong.
I'm sorry if I get very mean at times too in this thread and the other thread about this issue. I just got a really hot head on this issue. o_O
-- Bridget
-
Because you asked for it here is a link of a scientific study of human brain sex determination.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/501420/
I will restate this in an easier to read version.
Should Bridget Stay on the Shrine? It is a preference question not a question based on what you think of her personal lifestyle choice. It is not a scientific question on the merits of her individual case. It is not a question of how someone might be a fraud in the future and how that will make you angry. This isn't a health club bathroom it is just a picture on the web.
In fact if you succeed in disallowing her to express herself openly as a tranny. You will be making an environment where fraud is more likely to occure. If trannys are so upsetting to you. One would think that you would want to know up front who is and who isn't one right away. Because alot of trannys can pass unless they told you the difference.
And just because something might be PC doesn't automatically make it a bad thing. Medical Marijuana is PC but not a bad thing. You have to look at an issue a little deeper than just dismissing it as PC.
Another link to gender and gender identification in a medical essay. They are in the Tampa area maybe a guess spot potential down the road? http://hermaphrodite.arriba.net/multi.htm
Those studies were done by UCLA, and none of the findings were absolute, only hypothetical. Additionally, two thirds of all UCLA funding comes from the Federal Government: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:cPzVMMceND8J:viterbi.usc.edu/assets/022/12932.pdf+%22UCLA+funding%22&hl=en&client=firefox-a
You are being lied to.
-
And so does all the research at CERN and other firms on unrelated sciences. You just want to say it's a lie because YOU want to, it fits your worldview quite nicely.
The fact remains the post-mortem inspections have a p factor of .05, which is the minimally requirement to even get published. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is no vast conspiracy. There are no Illuminati. There is no 'Black' Lodge controlling everything.
Next, you'll say intersexed conditions are some sort of demonic or magick issue rather than simple genetics.
Brokor, please realize that your assertions are not based in science, they are based in psychological want to seek for an enemy and to call those who may be your ally as an enemy as well.
-- Bridget
-
Actually, you cannot deny that there was a man named Adam Weishaupt. He just so happens to be the founder of illuminated freemasonry. You cannot deny history, you transexual mentally ill despot.
And whomever controls the MONEY, controls everything. THIS is why I look at the funding. Your entire delusion is manufactured to control you. I am the alarm clock. Go on and keep hitting the snooze button.
I DON'T CARE.
-
Brokor
Most scientific research in the United States has funding from the government. You would be hard pressed to find any medical research on any subject by accredited sources that didn't have a grant or two from some governing body. And the two sighted sources (of which you only targeted the UCLA one) are not valid just because you say so. However, the numerous conspiracy theories web sites are some how more valid because someone cooked them up in their basements, without any government funding?
Still you ignore the real issue concerning the topic. And dive down into a non relevant debate as I have pointed out several times prior. It is so sad that you live with so much hate, fear and intolerance.
-
Most scientific research in the United States has funding from the government.
True. Does this then make said research true? Does the majority of what happens automatically set the precedence of truth?
You are being lied to. Wake up. And STOP ASSUMING THAT I HATE PEOPLE. I hate nobody, you fucking shitbag.
-
You need to wake up because basement conspiracy theorists aren't any more truthful or untruthful than government scientific studies. I didn't say that just because they have some government funding that was proof of their truthfulness. But by the same token you can't automatically lable it a lie just because of their funding either.
And still you ignore the real issue. If you live with so much hate, fear and intolorance. Wouldn't you prefer there to be no fraud on the shrine? Because trannys can pass and often do. If you send them underground you create the likelyhood of fraud.
-
Libertylover: STOP making accusations. I have no HATE, I certainly do not FEAR a homosexual, and I have no intolerance for intelligent people. Now, read carefully: http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=2751.0 And kindly shut the fuck up.
I am not a "basement conspiracy theorist", and I would like you to stop assuming these things. You had better pay attention to the facts instead of making blanket accusations and labelling people as something they are not. Now, I told you that government is FUNDING your reality, and until you prove otherwise, you can take a flying sugary frosted FUCK off the end of my penis.
And lighten up.
-
That is the image you project especially with your base language and automatic assumptions that everything the government funds is a big lie. I am not so naive as to not question everything reguardless of the source government or otherwise. I blame too many Xfiles marthons for your lack of a firm footing in reality.
As far as I remember you are the one that started labeling people. Freak ring any bells???
-
Sorry, but that is the image you project especially with your base language and automatic assumptions that everything the government funds is a big lie. I am not so naive as to not question everything reguardless of the source government or otherwise. I blame too many Xfiles marthons for your lack of a firm footing in reality.
As far as I remember you are the one that started labeling people. Freak ring any bells???
I am an asshole by nature. Some call me crazy. But that does not make me wrong.
Apology accepted.
-
Hey at least you have a firm grasp on your true nature. And that wasn't an apology as much an observation.
-
I blame Manwich.
-
Well, the vote has swung to the negative side, and I have removed Bridget from the Shrine. Great controversey, guys!
Thanks to Bridget for being a great sport. Any future TG submissions will have to be sent in as though you actually are a woman, as if Bridget had done that, no one would have thought otherwise, not even Manwich.
-
How am I not a female? I stated the brain sex issue. I think you should read the data again. Science is yielding a conclusion in favor of me.
-- Bridget
As I said earlier in this thread. You answered this in your rebuttal. Here are YOUR OWN WORDS:
Second, womanhood isn't the same as being female. Being female or male is a standard for human reproduction, but being a woman or a man has no biological bearing.
and
The solution to what I am is that I am a woman, but I happen to be male.
-
I'm sad to see that this is so close! Come on we're supposed to be live-and-let-live LIBERTARIANS!!
And you guys are getting way too technical ie
--What chromosomes do you have?
--Do you have a penis?
--Do you have breasts?
--Do you like other men?
Look, if I see someone walking down the street in a dress and makeup and looks outwardly like a female, then they are treated as a female. I don't stop and inspect their private parts or interrogate them. If Bridget appears to be a female, then she fits in on the shrine of other female listeners. If he were to stick out from all the others, then he wouldn't belong.
This is not a live-and-let-live issue. No one here is saying that she can't call herself female, or woman, or SIMBA THE DEATHBUNNY for that matter. If someone was restricting her rights in that manner it would be a live-and-let-live matter and I think almost everyone here would back her up.
This, however, is an issue of whether or not FTL should include her photo in the Shrine of Female Listeners. Frankly, FTL is Ian's business and he has the right to include or exclude her. In fact, he has the right to include or exclude anyone... even if they are unarguably female. Ian has made a decision, and that decision is to put it to a vote. This is a vote about his business practices, not Bridget's rights, and therefore it is most certainly not a live-and-let-live issue.
-
I didn't vote. But here are my thoughts.
"Bridget" isn't a female.
I thought that the point of the "Shrine" was to promote the fact that FTL has female listeners to potential radio stations, because (apparently) talk radio has few female listeners.
I don't think that a radio station manager would be all that impressed with the "Shrine of gender abigious peoples" as he would the shrine of female listeners.
So why didn't I vote?
I really don't care.
I don't usually look at the shrine unless I am involved in a discussion with a shriner, then I go just because I am curious as to what they look like.
I would be just as satisfied with a "Shrine of Listeners" as with a "Shrine of Female Listeners" just so I could satisfy my curiosioty as to what these people look like, so this is really a non-issue for me.
But, if you do let "Bridget" stay, I think its only fair that you let yamguy in too, after all, he asked first.
(http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/2233/yamgal1tk.jpg)
-
Never advocated it as a rights issue. Always said it was a preference and business issue. You quoted someone else and tried to imply it was my point as well.
All of this has been based on opinion nothing more or less. With arguments attempted to sway opinion. Outside of the live and let live implied rights portion of the spicynujac quote the rest of his argument is valid. In that you treat people in the way that you preceive them. I don't think most people inspect a person's genitalia before they decide how they will act around that person. (Yes, I know the smartass brigade is going to chime in.)
My argument that when you won't accept someone who is open about who they are. You are more likely to get fraud in the future. A point that seems to have left skid marks across the tops of most posters heads. Also pointed out that the controversy and curiousty factor actually helped to the boost the show. These are my opinions and reflect how I voted nothing more. The last point being a valid reason to bring back Womanwich.
-
Sooooooooooooooo fuckable.
-
Can you directly touch or pick up a thought? uh, no.
Great logic genius, so atoms are intangible too then, ey?
:roll: you must just be going facetious on me, b/c that is one of the most assinine things I've read in awhile.
...listen you fool, Atoms are TANGIBLE b/c their properties can be gauged using physical means. NOT the case w/ a thought.
seriously people, if you can't even get the most basic principles and facts of science down - then don't even bother.
Are there atoms of color? No, but it's tangible as are thoughts in the same matter. A structural coefficient of a system, ergo their physical existence. You have been pwned YET AGAIN. Study some Objectivist Epistomology and then come back.
-- Bridget
objectivist epistomology?!? hahah how about you study a gr. six SCIENCE BOOK!?!??
The fact that atoms have no colour have NO BEARING on the fact that they're real!! Get it straight. You can measure an atom's properties in the real world using physical means. THAT is what make them tangible and real. That is NOT the case w/ thoughts.
My good God, you are just dying to hold onto anything to somehow justify your miscontrued and completely false perception of what is real.
You know, I could respect your notion that you think your female, but when can't even agree w/ basic, fundamental science, you just look foolish.
-
You didn't get it did you, moron? Color is a measurable attribute of matter. And when I said ATOMS of COLOR, I'm making the abstract statement that all real things are made of matter. What the problem with your argument is that whatever isn't made of matter 1-to-1 you regard it as non-existent, yet such non-material objects exist all around you. Color, sound waves, life, etc. All these things are on a scale different from atoms and matter. Your assertion by stating thoughts are not objective is like saying color is not objective on the basis of immateriality. Now, you have to prove the subjectivity of COLOR, because it's not subject, moron.
And that is why I stated Objectivist Epistomology, but it seems you cannot accept the reality that attributes themselves do not have to be atomic[made of matter directly]. I want you to prove that concepts, morality, self-ownership, and etc are not real. Realness is not based on mere concreteness, it's based on measurability through both reason and perception. Yet you forget this sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easily.
In the end, you lose, Grey, you lose big time.
-- Bridget
-
>1 paragraph.
-
You are a guy who thinks he is a woman.
You didn't get it did you, moron?
Why do you believe you are a woman?
Color is a measurable attribute of matter.
Oh, I see. :roll: so, are you for real or just joking?
I'm making the abstract statement that all real things are made of matter.
Ah, yes. Matter. So, the fact that you have a penis is besides the point? Not material, I suppose?
All these things are on a scale different from atoms and matter.
So, make up your mind. Your penis isn't made of matter, but your decision to be a woman is?
Now, you have to prove the subjectivity of COLOR, because it's not subject, moron.
So if you were black, you would also be white? :lol: Not important, I guess?
And that is why I stated Objectivist Epistomology,
Uh....ok. :roll:
I want you to prove that concepts, morality, self-ownership, and etc are not real.
So what is real? Is the sun real? I suppose it's not made of real "matter"....
Realness is not based on mere concreteness,
I guess it means whatever you say it means. Otherwise, nobody will ever get you to shut your HUGE PIEHOLE.
-
I think you're just jealous that s/he has a bigger dick then you.
-
So what is real? Is the sun real? I suppose it's not made of real "matter"....
It's made of hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, carbon, aluminum, copper, and many other elements. Sounds like matter to me.
-
So what is real? Is the sun real? I suppose it's not made of real "matter"....
It's made of hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, carbon, aluminum, copper, and many other elements. Sounds like matter to me.
That was my point.
-
Did you know that icecream is cold?
-
Did you know that icecream is cold?
OH MY GOD LIKE *&!*!& !! ASSFAGGOT! !(!&!!! HOW COULD YOU SAY SUCH A THING!! Gaaaaaaa! :lol: PWNED!
Like totalyl PWNED, like massively completely PWNED!! :lol:
-
It's spelled Owned.
-
Pwned.
-
http://petmeats.com/playme.mp3
-
WTF? :?
-
Viddy well.
-
good show, me droog.
That gets me in the mood for some ultra-violence.
-
I think if this "Bridget" believes she is a woman, then there is no doubt that she should stay.
Just my 2 cents
-
Being very late to the controversy, I found myself having to vote No. I wasn't really sure for a while, but Womanwich finally convinced me.
-
http://petmeats.com/playme.mp3
I'm surprised at the depth of bonerjoe's comment. Walter(now Wendy) Carlos arranged this synth version of the choral movement from Beethoven's 9th Symphony that bonerjoe posted for the movie A Clockwork Orange. S(he) is also a transexual. H(er/is) album The Well Tempered Synthesizer is worth checking out, as she is one of the pioneers of synth music, and even helped Robert Moog develop the first commercially available synthesizer.
-
Yes.
Heres my two cents, plus a nickle for your troubles. For all you dimwits, that equals seven cents. But, its not seven pennies, it is a sum total of value. Bridget considers herself to be a woman, and that is the sum total of opinions worth any value in this conversation.
Your opinion is of no value, nor is mine, in her identity. In fact, it was pretty ballsy (pun intended) to disclose this information for the purpose of an interesting discussion. However, there is no clause in FTL's acceptance policy, other than "female" and "verified". They verify by a sign, which she supplied. If they wish to dispute the scientific identification of the Shriners, they should do it across the board. Bridget willingly provided the info, but didnt have to. Either way, you still must take her word, only in this case it is her word that dropped the hammer on this whole discussion in the first place. So, logic dictates if her word is the verification of her gender, why not accept it ? She says shes a woman, accept her word on it. The scientific argument is worthless in this case.
The verification process is to eliminate jokes and pranks. I doubt very much she considers this to be a joke.
I would argue the opposite side of the coin if we were talking about identifying a person for legal purposes, like a murder trial or some other more serious subject, but that concept does not apply in this situation.
...And now that I've spoken my mind with a slight measure of class, I would also like to say a big Fuck You to the assholes who believe they are supportive of individual liberties, yet held an opinion opposite of mine. Its a victimless scenario, there is no possible backlash in this topic (or most of the other situations which could arise in transgender) which would infringe on any other person.
Edit- One thing did occour to me, which I failed to mention... This is FTL's forum, so they can do whatever they want. It really wasn't part of the argument I constructed, because it seems very obvious to me and I overlooked it. They dont have to offer a reason for their actions, they own their property, and can use it as they see fit. I don't have an opinion at all on what they should do in that respect. But, if it were mine, I would allow the photo.
-
ugh. just let this thing die.
but allow me to sum this up (for all the newbies, such as yourself)
the point isn't whether it's violating someone's rights (we both agree no rights are being denied either way). It's ironic b/c your koom-by-ya/include everyone-no-matter-what take sounds very non-libertarian in nature, (however maybe you don't claim to be a libertarian either) and more along the lines of the PC trash that socialists try and push. Ah, but I digress. Take no offense.
the point is to create a special area, for certain individuals, and it's a priviledge to be classed under based on their physical gender (and it doesnt' matter if they have a mental delusion which results in them thinking so).
Why not just make another special shrine for transgenders, witches, pixies or people who think they're the re-incarnation of Elvis? Leave the Female shrine to actual Females, not people w/ delusions.
-
Go Bridget.
BTW, I saw Corpse Bride last night.
Why would you want to go up there when people are dying to get down here? A classic line :shock:
-
The music was terrible.
-
The music was terrible.
Yo Mama!
-
ugh. just let this thing die.
but allow me to sum this up (for all the newbies, such as yourself)
the point isn't whether it's violating someone's rights (we both agree no rights are being denied either way). It's ironic b/c your koom-by-ya/include everyone-no-matter-what take sounds very non-libertarian in nature, (however maybe you don't claim to be a libertarian either) and more along the lines of the PC trash that socialists try and push. Ah, but I digress. Take no offense.
the point is to create a special area, for certain individuals, and it's a priviledge to be classed under based on their physical gender (and it doesnt' matter if they have a mental delusion which results in them thinking so).
Why not just make another special shrine for transgenders, witches, pixies or people who think they're the re-incarnation of Elvis? Leave the Female shrine to actual Females, not people w/ delusions.
Well, lets see here... The socially conservative Mr. Grey is going to tell me a few things about how life should work. Step one, open the comments with a jab at the length of time I've spent here. Listen here skippy, just because you have a year under your belt doesn't take my breath away. In fact, it makes me laugh at you, because in your little unformed mind, a year on a BBS means something? It means you have time on your hands, and you use it here. That is all. It's not like I was born under the porch a few months ago, the 34 years I've spent on Earth are what count. Three thousand posts arent worth shit if all they contain is limp wristed comments and imaginary conspiracies. So, get your head out of your ass, you are suffocating.
Next, the topic of individuals. It seems to me, you have drawn this black and white picture of socialism versus individualism. Your question of my political opinions is valid, and a pretty interesting coincidence actually, because I dont really follow one specific political pattern, but the best pieces out of all of them. I will probably never accurately lable it, nor do I need to. However, I do happen to be an individualist, which is the core of my political and social beliefs. You, sir, are an egotist. I can see your confusion. I can see it in your thoughts and comments. You ooze it. An individualist can take his mind and place it into the situation of other individuals, thereby accepting all individuals as human and deserving of equal treatment. Not RIGHTS, treatment. It does NOT mean you have to "koom-bay-ya" as you so eloquently put it. This is why people like yourself say "that wouldnt happen to me!" about unusual situations, because those situations probably wouldnt happen to a 29 year old white male living above poverty in Canada. (or whatever you happen to be)
So, the question really seems to be, in your opinion about creating a "special place" for "different people". You don't own the board, Ian does. And you don't own Bridget's body, Bridget does. Therefore, the matter is between them, and their agreement, or conflict. Not you, not me. I think that sounds extremely Libertarian, but I didn't manufacture it for that purpose. I also happen to think saying "lets create a special place for people who are different by my standards" sounds very un-libertarian, and also very un-individualistic. My vote for allowing her to stay is based on individualism, and also on the rules set forth by FTL.
-
Well hey there Bill - some interesting comments.
Well, lets see here... The socially conservative Mr. Grey is going to tell me a few things about how life should work. Step one, open the comments with a jab at the length of time I've spent here. Listen here skippy, just because you have a year under your belt doesn't take my breath away. In fact, it makes me laugh at you, because in your little unformed mind, a year on a BBS means something? It means you have time on your hands, and you use it here. That is all. It's not like I was born under the porch a few months ago, the 34 years I've spent on Earth are what count. Three thousand posts arent worth shit if all they contain is limp wristed comments and imaginary conspiracies. So, get your head out of your ass, you are suffocating.
Actually, if you'll notice by the lapse in my reply, I really have no time anymore. I try and come on here at least once every couple weeks, and I enjoy replying to msg's like this...
"head out of my ass"? ohhh touchy touchy there Billy-boy - I just think it's silly that anyone feels that just b/c they think they belong to any given group they therefore are entitled to be so - that is foolish. But hey, who cares, right? if anyone want to allow anyone into their group for any reason, so be it. The point of this thread is to put in your 2 cents. (like what I'm doing now).
Next, the topic of individuals. It seems to me, you have drawn this black and white picture of socialism versus individualism. Your question of my political opinions is valid, and a pretty interesting coincidence actually, because I dont really follow one specific political pattern, but the best pieces out of all of them. I will probably never accurately lable it, nor do I need to. However, I do happen to be an individualist, which is the core of my political and social beliefs. You, sir, are an egotist. I can see your confusion. I can see it in your thoughts and comments. You ooze it. An individualist can take his mind and place it into the situation of other individuals, thereby accepting all individuals as human and deserving of equal treatment. Not RIGHTS, treatment. It does NOT mean you have to "koom-bay-ya" as you so eloquently put it. This is why people like yourself say "that wouldnt happen to me!" about unusual situations, because those situations probably wouldnt happen to a 29 year old white male living above poverty in Canada. (or whatever you happen to be)
*yawn*, yes... and? oh, I'm an ego-ist? What? b/c I don't automatically think anyone should automatically be recognized b/c they think so? Well, yeah, I'm not PC, no kidding.
What?? Now you're making rash generalizations - "that wouldn't happen to me" what're you talking about??? um yes, I think I'm invincible and more important than anyone else. Please. :roll: Dude, the point is, it's up to whoever created this "special group" as to who gains membership.
So, the question really seems to be, in your opinion about creating a "special place" for "different people". You don't own the board, Ian does. And you don't own Bridget's body, Bridget does. Therefore, the matter is between them, and their agreement, or conflict. Not you, not me. I think that sounds extremely Libertarian, but I didn't manufacture it for that purpose. I also happen to think saying "lets create a special place for people who are different by my standards" sounds very un-libertarian, and also very un-individualistic. My vote for allowing her to stay is based on individualism, and also on the rules set forth by FTL.
You seem to be suggesting that I want to brush all different people away, under the doormat. ugh. again, please... this is what I'm talking about this, koom-bye-yah, PC attitude. Everyone thinks they have a right to be accepted into every group they deem worthy of their membership. Sorry, that's not the case. I'm a white male, yes, I have no right being a member of, let's say, the transgender society of north america (or whatever). (well, any group, really). Yeah, I know, people want to be accepted, and hey, I know personally rejection sucks. But that's life.
But no, you're absolutely wrong - having the freedom to create a group and having the freedom to decide who is allowed in for WHATEVER reason is absolutely, 100%, freedom-based, and very pro-libertarian. So you don't identify yourself as a Lib either, but in this manner, I don't think I'm taking anything but that kind of position. Who said I'm trying to actually force Ian or Bridget to do anything? What a silly waste of time. If Ian wants to start posting pics of Jem and The Holograms in their, so what. It's his property. Likewise if he wants to post racist jew gay pornography, again, it's his right - but those too would be dumb ideas too, given it goes against the very purpose of the room. (which, I remind you, is to post pics of females).