By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

EricHiggin said:
o_O.Q said:

you're laughing at me because i sweap floors for a living?

lol exactly



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"It's not context sensitive."

as an example taken from google

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
  • a particular area of science.

    plural noun: sciences

    "veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject."
google defines science initially as an activity and then as a body of knowledge because the two together are what science is
science is not only information but its also a method of collecting and evaluating information and I'm honestly surprised to see people attempting to claim otherwise
without making this distinction you'd have to also acknowledge the bible as science would you not? since that is itself a body of information... the distinction lies in processes science applies in gathering that information

It's right there in your own definition.  Again, use it as a verb in a sentence.  Go on. 

yeah I suppose I made a mistake like two pages ago and said it was a verb, but obviously you understand my intent

you can't separate science from the activities we undertake to gather that information and depending on the context we understand science as either the actions used to gather information or the resulting information itself

do you have anything to add with regards to the other parts of the conversation?

how are the definitions for sexes becoming more concrete when authoritative sources are literally telling you to disregard them entirely?



o_O.Q said:

do you have anything to add with regards to the other parts of the conversation?

how are the definitions for sexes becoming more concrete when authoritative sources are literally telling you to disregard them entirely?

What authoritative sources are suggesting we disregard sex based classifications?  I just checked all of your links. I didn't see a single authoritative source suggesting we do that.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

do you have anything to add with regards to the other parts of the conversation?

how are the definitions for sexes becoming more concrete when authoritative sources are literally telling you to disregard them entirely?

What authoritative sources are suggesting we disregard sex based classifications?  I just checked all of your links. I didn't see a single authoritative source suggesting we do that.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

"A move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned."

https://www.evolutionsociety.org/news/display/2018/10/30/letter-re-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

" Moreover, models predict that variation should exist within the categories that HHS proposes as "male" and “female”, indicating that sex should be more accurately viewed as a continuum."

can you explain for me how a continuum is specific?

should I look for more sources? I gathered these in a couple minutes, fairly sure I'd have ten easily if I spent a bit more time

I don't think all scientists in these fields are onboard with this agenda, but there is clearly an agenda at work here



o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

What authoritative sources are suggesting we disregard sex based classifications?  I just checked all of your links. I didn't see a single authoritative source suggesting we do that.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

"A move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned."

https://www.evolutionsociety.org/news/display/2018/10/30/letter-re-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

" Moreover, models predict that variation should exist within the categories that HHS proposes as "male" and “female”, indicating that sex should be more accurately viewed as a continuum."

can you explain for me how a continuum is specific?

should I look for more sources? I gathered these in a couple minutes, fairly sure I'd have ten easily if I spent a bit more time

I don't think all scientists in these fields are onboard with this agenda, but there is clearly an agenda at work here

So you didn't read the article from Nature, did you?  What they want abandoned is a government plan to bind sex with gender. 

From your article: "The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. "

It's almost like I just said that a dew minutes ago too.  Remember this?

4). I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are.  Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits.

And yes, a continuum is more specific than just blanket terms that have very little specificity. Better stated, we now address the specifics of biological sex rather than the superficial.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Does anyone find it ironic that we are literally living in an era where some people are claiming that it is impossible to distinguish what a male human is from what a female human is, but it is the religious people that are irrational?
I mean I could totally believe that Moses parted a sea with a stick before I believe someone in good faith is trying to argue that we cannot distinguish males from females

Hey you cheap garbage troll - this is the tenth time you're whining about gender identity.

Are you just looking for any thread where you're not banned yet? Try 8chan.



SpokenTruth said:

1). We don't disregard sex.  If anything, we're more specific about it than ever before.

2). But what science is behind such a belief?  With regards to the sex being more than 2, that's at least based on scientific information.

3). Realistic...? How does the physics work to part a 5 mile segment (narrowest portion) of the Gulf of Suez?

4). I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are.  Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits.

5). It's not context sensitive.  I just wrote it out in dialog.  Did any of that sound contextually correct?  Go ahead, use science in a sentence as a verb.

No science, just tradition. That's what he was taught as a kid and he lacks the mental capacity to be malleable, change, or update his views on things. A defining trait of those unwilling to catch up with the modern science: Unwillingness to adapt. AS far as some people are concerned, All this newfangled evidence and experience and updated science is not actual science, it's just an SJW agenda and it needs to be resisted at all cost. Tradition over progress. That's the conservative way! 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II, Rock Band 4

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

"A move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned."

https://www.evolutionsociety.org/news/display/2018/10/30/letter-re-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender/

" Moreover, models predict that variation should exist within the categories that HHS proposes as "male" and “female”, indicating that sex should be more accurately viewed as a continuum."

can you explain for me how a continuum is specific?

should I look for more sources? I gathered these in a couple minutes, fairly sure I'd have ten easily if I spent a bit more time

I don't think all scientists in these fields are onboard with this agenda, but there is clearly an agenda at work here

So you didn't read the article from Nature, did you?  What they want abandoned is a government plan to bind sex with gender. 

From your article: "The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. "

It's almost like I just said that a dew minutes ago too.  Remember this?

4). I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are.  Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits.

And yes, a continuum is more specific than just blanket terms that have very little specificity. Better stated, we now address the specifics of biological sex rather than the superficial.

"What they want abandoned is a government plan to bind sex with gender. "

yes of course and their reasoning for that is not only that sex and gender are separate but primarily that biological classifications should not be made with regards to sex

"A move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned."

can you address this?

"It's almost like I just said that a dew minutes ago too.  Remember this?"

look dude your first comment in this very thread to me shows you calling male and female genders, and you have the gall to keep posting this nonsense about me not understanding this bullshit? Me not agreeing with you does not mean I do not understand this, these ideas are ridiculously easy to understand, which is ironic since its proponents of these ideas like you who constantly trip over them when trying to convince people that they are coherent

"Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits."

can you quote me saying otherwise at any point in this conversation? if not can we drop the strawman?

"yes, a continuum is more specific than just blanket terms that have very little specificity. Better stated, we now address the specifics of biological sex rather than the superficial."

good, the beginnings of an actual argument, so this is how a continuum is defined and keep in mind that this does not address those who argue that these classifications should just be done away with altogether

"a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct."

can you explain for me what elements form this continuum?



Runa216 said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). We don't disregard sex.  If anything, we're more specific about it than ever before.

2). But what science is behind such a belief?  With regards to the sex being more than 2, that's at least based on scientific information.

3). Realistic...? How does the physics work to part a 5 mile segment (narrowest portion) of the Gulf of Suez?

4). I'm not confusing sex with gender, you are.  Sex is a biological factor based primarily around sex chromosomes. Gender is based on behavioral and sociocultural traits.

5). It's not context sensitive.  I just wrote it out in dialog.  Did any of that sound contextually correct?  Go ahead, use science in a sentence as a verb.

No science, just tradition. That's what he was taught as a kid and he lacks the mental capacity to be malleable, change, or update his views on things. A defining trait of those unwilling to catch up with the modern science: Unwillingness to adapt. AS far as some people are concerned, All this newfangled evidence and experience and updated science is not actual science, it's just an SJW agenda and it needs to be resisted at all cost. Tradition over progress. That's the conservative way! 

" All this newfangled evidence and experience and updated science is not actual science"

so you agree then with this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

"A move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned."

can you explain why?

what do you think I'm arguing against exactly?



Moren said:
o_O.Q said:
Does anyone find it ironic that we are literally living in an era where some people are claiming that it is impossible to distinguish what a male human is from what a female human is, but it is the religious people that are irrational?
I mean I could totally believe that Moses parted a sea with a stick before I believe someone in good faith is trying to argue that we cannot distinguish males from females

Hey you cheap garbage troll - this is the tenth time you're whining about gender identity.

Are you just looking for any thread where you're not banned yet? Try 8chan.

Do you really think its healthy for your position to silence any person who raises what could be potential problems? You think I'm a troll simply because we disagree and as a result you want me silenced lol that's something else dude

Something that just occurred to me though is how would you even know that I was banned to begin with? Oh... I get it...

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 01 April 2020