It's up to Elizabeth's parents to forgive, not you. You don't know if she's a good person and good people don;t murder nine year old children in thrill kills.
Yeah she'll be out...in 2054. Just another 31 short years to go.

Perhaps an even better question is why do you try to put me in such a small box?


Also, **** you! They ****ing hopped her up on prozac right before the whole thing happened.

How I don't know about this amazes me. Would have been out of the country at the time of the murder but I know people from that general area.

No you didn't answer
Yeah, you are indeed weird. Ed Kemper is a pos who murdered 10 people including a 15 year old kid and so was Manson.

Having Bustamante as your avatar makes you a creepy weirdo, you put yourself in such a small box.


No **** you, advocating for thrill killers and identifying with serial killers such as Ed Kemper. I'm not interested in your slavish defence of Bustamante, probably because you wanna bang her. You really should see a qualified psychiatrist. Not a psychologist, you're...gonna need some drugs.

Dude I watch Frasier like every day, I've been seeing not one, but two!

Oh! Oh! I don’t know pain! I don’t know pain! I have no depth of pain! I have no depth of suffering! I don’t know ridicule! I don’t know all the bad things! I haven’t been punished by you all my life since I was ten years old! I been in every reform school you got across the country! I used to lay down and have to get my ass whipped ‘till I couldn’t walk, tell me about some pain! Yeah!

I repeat, WTF are you even talking about?

No, there's no slippery slope to people identifying as dogs and "demanding dog rights citing our constitutions".

I'm getting the definite impression that you're among the unfortunate group whose thinking was rather dramatically affected by Covid, and as a result now you just uncritically gobble up whatever the latest thing is that the right wing outrage machine is churning your way. There's no way a rational, logical person (which I think you pride yourself on being) sees transgender people and is concerned that if we allow this, next we will be inundated with people identifying as dogs and claiming special rights.

Hey maybe you should put me on a shitload of prozac! Nothing bad ever comes from that, right???

It's the exact same **** from the marriage equality debates where people would say what's next, you can marry your dog?!?!?

I know but you don't know what marxism is right?

The rational logical people that understand what marxism is, understand this to be a marxist ideology. This thread is about trans rights, and the way that we are supposed to give credit to subjective definitions in this regard.

To the person that feels they understand marxism, this is marxist. It generalizes and applies to all sorts of categories, any category you can think of. So for example, with Jordan Peterson, whom as I understand this is part of his domain of expertise, its even worse than a slippery slopes, its all the same.

You might say **** JP but thats not really attending to the point he is making.

He is saying he has studied marx and the implications of marxism, this is marxism, and this is bad. We want to put that up against someone that has studied marxism, and either says this isn't marxism, or that this is marxism but its good.

Annnnnd here we go with Marxism again. Can't address the points being made? Call the topic Marxism!

It doesn't matter what you call it, the idea that accepting transgender people is a slippery slope to people identifying as dogs and "demanding dog rights citing our constitutions" is absolutely ****ing absurd, so much so that I feel pretty silly even having to say it.

No. If we agree that marrying your dog is silly, and that identifying as a dog is silly then we agree.

But again why would being a trans woman, grant you all of the social rights that a woman would have.

If woman get free tampons, why would that extend to a trans woman?

Why would we sort bathrooms based on gender and not sex/body parts?

Why separate sports based on woman-ness and not body types?

Ur strawmanning

vile corpse, I have Infernal Machine by Joe Coleman on vinyl and I obsessively listen to it, tell me how awful I am!

It means that the idea that someone that simply identifies as a woman is thus legally to be afforded what a woman is generally socially offered extends beyond sex without further distinction. Its a general viewpoint. We can call it whatever we want for simplicity. I call it marxist.

But you already have all the pluralities of genders and made up ones. Or you think thats not part of the argument? We can just agree that stuff is silly.

I think you both (CV & LirvA) have made your points, time to move on IMO.

It doesn't matter what you call it, the idea that accepting transgender people is a slippery slope to people identifying as dogs and "demanding dog rights citing our constitutions" is absolutely ****ing absurd, so much so that I feel pretty silly even having to say it.

vile corpse derailed, not me!

lmao!

It's definitely not Marxism. Marxism deals with class and only class.

Lets be clear, its the idea that someone that identifies as a woman, is thus and therefore, in any legal or social aspect a woman. That ideology absolutely extends, without further distinction, towards being a dog.

They are both absurd and abuses of state power against a free population. As would forcing the belief that 2 + 2 != 4

The constitutional framework of the great democracy's are supposed to protect against this kind of an abuse of power.

You can't partially break this intent.

But if you mean for a general tolerance/protects of peoples beliefs about themselves, thats part of the intended nature of the frameworks of governance of a democracy.

Ya. But look at twitter, look at what it was fueling. Is black lives matter about race? Its not. Its psuedo race war. Who instigates BLM? People like Yoel Roth. He wants to see the system crash.

Its not the good definition of Marxism. Its the one where you convince the peasants to rise up, and destroy theory own democracy. The pejorative definition of it.

We need that distinction to carry both marxists and anti-marxsists forward in dialogue together. (neat huh?)

Are dogs and humans the same thing?

Are cis women and trans women both human?

The issue of course is that dogs and humans are real categories whereas "woman" is a made up category that has no basis in reality.

That would be highlighting the difference in the situation but there is a similarity if we want to be able to state that a trans woman is a woman and should be afforded all that a woman is afforded.

a dog isn't a human; a trans woman isn't a female

breaking the right side is the same as breaking the left in this regard.

depending on how you define these words. but our choice of definition doesn't determine reality, only our ability to express and communicate it in a shared manner.

'how do you define a woman'.

its a ruse.

the answer is that the definition of words always depends on context.