There is not a better individual to lead America during these times than Kamala. Iran, Russia, N Korea and others will fully respect her and be scared of her. Her knowledge of economics will bring wealth to all and she will heal this nation as one.
![]()
There is not a better individual to lead America during these times than Kamala. Iran, Russia, N Korea and others will fully respect her and be scared of her. Her knowledge of economics will bring wealth to all and she will heal this nation as one.
![]()
"You want to stand up to the man? Try calling yourself a conservative. Say you want to get married, have kids, & teach them to pledge allegiance to our country." Hahahahahaha. Yeah, your pledging allegiance to them is the way to stand up to the man... Hahahahahahaha
Good. Prices will be dropping and unemployment rising. You should be happy. Most you guys on here have been wanting this for 4 years.
That's an inaccurate application though. He's saying that the definitions you're using to define what is a man or woman aren't precise enough, not that they don't exist. Exactly the issue in the initial paradox, that your referenced fallacy is a subset of.No, I am not doing what you think I am doing.
I am explaining to you that you have failed to establish that the sexes aren't distinct by the continuum fallacy. First you must establish that the ambiguity, the "overlap," you cite leads to a change in definition. It does not.
That is a continuum fallacy.
Continuum fallacyThe continuum fallacy (also known as the fallacy of the beard,[9][10] line-drawing fallacy, or decision-point fallacy[11]) is an informal fallacy related to the sorites paradox. Both fallacies cause one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity. The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states.
-edit-Except that isn't the argument. There isn't a continuum of states. Every collection of items isn't a continuum.
If you said "We only have apples in basket A" and "We only have pears in basket B", inspecting the baskets to see if that is true isn't committing a logical fallacy.
Only time McConnell was the Leader & had a Pub House & Pub Prez was under Trump. He couldn't ram anything through with Dims in power.
How many pages should a spending bill be?
Except that isn't the argument. There isn't a continuum of states. Every collection of items isn't a continuum.
If you said "We only have apples in basket A" and "We only have pears in basket B", inspecting the baskets to see if that is true isn't committing a logical fallacy.
-edit-
I'm going to put my posts this morning down to sitting here debating whether my lower back pain was a kidney stone coming on. After a couple of hours, I'm no longer in pain.
First, you mis-state the facts of the debate. First, I did not deny that some people define sexes by either the existence of gonads or ovaries. But it is a definition. It's akin to saying "All unmarried men are bachelors." If I remember the terms from almost 60 years ago, that's a synthetic statement. Not much use, but if you want to continue to argue from definitions, knock yourself out.
The foundational position of of that POV is that gender is biologically determined. So, the wider debate is whether or not that's always true. People certainly do tend to follow their birth genitals to find their sexuality. For most people that isn't much of a search. But utility and certainty are in conflict. Nature blurs things. Some people (1 in 4000) get a double dose. 1 of each. When it comes to definitions, Nature doesn't read dictionaries. And that's merely the question of plumbing. Apparently far more people than I imagined like Something Else. And that's from as far back as they remember. One would think that the party with a gender-fluid VP candidate would be more understanding.
Watching rightwingers claim The Big Lebowski is maybe worse than MLK. "It's like Lenin said, 'You look for the person who will benefit...'" "I am the walrus."
That's an inaccurate application though. He's saying that the definitions you're using to define what is a man or woman aren't precise enough, not that they don't exist. Exactly the issue in the initial paradox, that your referenced fallacy is a subset of.
Don't understand a bit of this. When were spending bills last done "historically"? BTW, House writes up all spending bills.Exactly. It’s even worse when he’s keeping the text of democrat bills secret and strong arming republicans to vote for democrat bills.
Spending bills should be done how they were historically done, not with secret multi thousand page pork filled omnibus.
-edit-
I'm going to put my posts this morning down to sitting here debating whether my lower back pain was a kidney stone coming on. After a couple of hours, I'm no longer in pain.
First, you mis-state the facts of the debate. First, I did not deny that some people define sexes by either the existence of gonads or ovaries. But it is a definition. It's akin to saying "All unmarried men are bachelors." If I remember the terms from almost 60 years ago, that's a synthetic statement. Not much use, but if you want to continue to argue from definitions, knock yourself out.
The foundational position of of that POV is that gender is biologically determined. So, the wider debate is whether or not that's always true. People certainly do tend to follow their birth genitals to find their sexuality. For most people that isn't much of a search. But utility and certainty are in conflict. Nature blurs things. Some people (1 in 4000) get a double dose. 1 of each. When it comes to definitions, Nature doesn't read dictionaries. And that's merely the question of plumbing. Apparently far more people than I imagined like Something Else. And that's from as far back as they remember. One would think that the party with a gender-fluid VP candidate would be more understanding.
Good. Prices will be dropping and unemployment rising. You should be happy. Most you guys on here have been wanting this for 4 years.
OK, then why wouldn't she sit on a Delaware beach?Well, because it's her f***ing JOB. I'm not talking about campaigning. I'm talking about performing the day to day tasks of the Oval Office, and she IS POTUS at this point.
Don't understand a bit of this. When were spending bills last done "historically"?
Why are you faulting Mitch for this given all spending bills must originate in the House? You do understand that, right? Practices of the last 30+ years aren't historical? Even old man me thinks 30 years is a long enough time to be historical.I know you don’t understand. Probably have to go back to the 90s. The past couple decades it seems like everything has been emergency continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills, not separate, timely appropriations bills.
Because they are allergic to transparency.I think Kamala needs to hold a press conference, to address the middle east and the economy.
I'm actually being serious. Why isn't the WH getting on this?
Heh.I get told here my posts are AI pretty frequently. I take it as a compliment.
I would assume Blinken is the acting Pres right now as Kamala is doing everything but VP work right now and Biden is coasting into the last 5 months.I think Kamala needs to hold a press conference, to address the middle east and the economy.
I'm actually being serious. Why isn't the WH getting on this?
Why are you faulting Mitch for this given all spending bills must originate in the House? You do understand that, right? Practices of the last 30+ years aren't historical? Even old man me thinks 30 years is a long enough time to be historical.
Well, he already “cured” the economy, right?I would assume Blinken is the acting Pres right now as Kamala is doing everything but VP work right now and Biden is coasting into the last 5 months.
I like Blinken, he seems he is the middle for the most part. He can hold a PC and answer questions like a normal person compared to both sides currently.
Those definitions are just a model to describe biology though. Models are approximations that cover generalities. The issue at hand is one of specifics that transcend those general models. Not every person is XX with female genitalia or XY with male genitalia. Most people are, so those categories are useful. But that doesn't mean the labels dictate reality. They're just labels. Reality is reality. And there are many more sex realities for humans than just two. As illustrated by these boxers.Sex is clearly defined scientifically; believe it or not.
That's just marxist "reasoning," and is prima facia absurd, unscientific.Those definitions are just a model to describe biology though. Models are approximations that cover generalities. The issue at hand is one of specifics that transcend those general models. Not every person is XX with female genitalia or XY with male genitalia. Most people are, so those categories are useful. But that doesn't mean the labels dictate reality. They're just labels. Reality is reality. And there are many more sex realities for humans than just two. As illustrated by these boxers.
You're still making a junior high debate argument from definition. The idea that scientists don't acknowledge inter-sex states is fatuous. I was informed by a scientist of the 1-4000 incidence of births with two sex states just the other day.It is definitively the argument. You are claiming the sexes are not distinct because there exists a mix of characteristics between them. Your claim (the "evidence" you give in support of it) is the continuum fallacy, not your (mis)understanding of what is meant by a.continuum of states or your example you use in objection.
But never mind that for a second. For illustrative purposes, let's piggyback on your example there. What you are actually arguing, unwittingly or willfully, is that if upon inspection you found a Pear in basket A, it must be an Apple because someone told you we only have Apples in basket A. Or, since you found a Pear in basket A amoungst all those Apples, then that basket must really be basket B! That is your "logic."
Oh, and your argument against me that there isn't a continuum of states is itself logically fallacious, a straw man. I never said every collection of items is a continuum; the existence of such has no bearing whatsoever on your committal of the continuum fallacy to make your argument." anywya. It is also wholly inconsistent with the "reasoning" that got you people here, namely gender (which was/is dishonestly used interchangeably with sex) is a specturm (continuum) according to Gender Theory, which is itself psuedo-scientific and riddled with fallacy .
No, I've misstated nothing and these are separate issues.
My point is you are not holding yourself to the same standard you expect of others, of Trmp, of whomever. IF you are going to criticize others for logically fallacious arguments, then yours must be air-tight. They are not. They never are.
I was clear from the get-go that that was the only thing I was willing to discuss with you, not the intricacies of whose politicians are bigger liars or of how nature blurs things or whatever else. Science defines biological male vs female clearly and unequivocally, and it is from that basis and that basis alone certain things, like these Olympic fights, must be adjudicated. Everything else is just social and cultural norms that the vast majority of people don't have any issue with, believe it or not. The vast majroity of american conservatives I meet are actually "live and let live." You are blurring the lines between those two, not nature or the political other's opinion.
What was/is your alternative? Shut the government down?You’re right. Mitch can do no wrong. He has nothing to do with the way spending bills have gotten through the senate. Have a great day.