ABC survey: One Nation supporters most open to science

Another day another result from the ABC’s Australia Talks “survey.” The national broadcaster is still pretending Australia Talks is a scientific audit of “more than 54,000 Australians.” It is, in fact – as whistleblower Gerard Henderson has shown – an entirely in-house poll of dedicated left-wing ABC viewers. Resultantly, all of its findings are close to worthless as measures of national opinion. But that doesn’t mean they don’t tell us something about the oddball beliefs of leftists. Today’s instalment purports to measure the “national” response to the question, Are there more than two genders? The figures are very interesting:



The results clearly show that the more left-wing an ABC viewer is, the more likely he or she is to reject scientific truth for ideological reasons. This has useful applications for understanding how some Australians see a whole raft of nationally important topics, starting with ‘climate change.’ Other stubbonly truth-proof subjects like the “gender pay gap,” domestic violence in Aboriginal townships, the comparative health benefits of traditionally parented families, the moral status of foetuses and the guilt of Cardinal George Pell would likely show similar imperviousness to reality in the same cohorts. This is truly disturbing.

This entry was posted in Fake News, Media, Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

172 Responses to ABC survey: One Nation supporters most open to science

  1. Wilrex

    If they take my input as gospel, they will find their results somewhat skewered.
    Rubbish in ,rubbish out.

  2. stackja

    Why don’t leftists subscribe to the ABC. Or they prefer OPM, so they don’t need to spend their money on something other than latte and wine?

  3. Pyrmonter

    ‘Australia Talks’ has the same problem as the famous Literary Digest polling of the 1940s, but …

    It may surprise CL, but the ABC does have coalition-voting, even LDP-voting, listeners and viewers. They are likely a smaller share of the audience than Greens (or, at least, the ABC pitches its programming on the premise that they’re a smaller share), but they do exist. They have even been known to haunt the Cat from time to time, as evidenced by the participation in the Q&A threads …

  4. FelixKruell

    I suspect most of the people answering the poll don’t even realise that ‘gender’ has been redefined to mean something other than what they think…(i.e biological sex)

    In a traditional sense, of course there are more than two genders…they’re just very very very rare.

  5. NuThink

    Perhaps they are confusing gender with agenda – of which the left have many.

  6. RobK

    Especially with multiple-choice-answered questions, framing the question can guide the answer. Interpretation is tricky partly because not all respondents use the same definition of the words in the question.

  7. The BigBlueCat

    The last thing “Australia Talks” is a survey. And even if it could remotely be considered a survey, then we need to understand how bias was being controlled – bias in the questioning, bias in the respondents’ answers, bias in the results interpretation, researcher bias, confirmation bias, selection bias, etc.

    Of course, none of this is evident, so at best “Australia Talks” could be classified as a Reality TV Show, and we all know what they’re like. But of course, the luvvies at the ABC probably think it is wholly representative of Australian’s views, and public policy should reflect what they “found”.

  8. 2dogs

    On the question of gender, where it is binary, the SJWs argue that there is a spectrum; but on race, where there is a spectrum, they argue it is binary.

    Whatever suits their agenda.

  9. Mother Lode

    If the ABC were privatised, not only would leftists have to either pay for it, or put up with icky private sector ads, but the special status of the ABC, its privileged portrayal and its being treated as the ‘broadcaster of record’ would be undermined.

    We have seen how deferential pollies are to the smallest post-anal chyme that the ABC disgorges from its butt.

    If the ABC lost this peculiar status and long habitual aura, who knows. A politician might feel free to disagree with them, since they would be just one channel among many.

    They might even suggest AGW and identity politics is all ABC shit.

  10. Mother Lode

    A politician might feel free to disagree with them, since they would be just one channel among many.

    Perhaps to be slightly clearer, straying from orthodoxy is currently denounced by the ABC and has the supposed imprimatur of the ABC as the agency the government pays for.

    Take this away and they are a bunch of 50 year old undergrads.

  11. Mother Lode

    I suspect most of the people answering the poll don’t even realise that ‘gender’ has been redefined to mean something other than what they think…(i.e biological sex)

    The meanings of ordinary words are not subject to government whim.

    They can’t tell us that bread is now to be called cyanide and therefore deemed no longer fit for consumption.

    Gender means what it has already meant. If politicians wish to introduce a new meaning and speak to itself in this bizarre new idiom it has nothing to do with us. If anything it means they are moving further away from the citizens than they already had – not that it seems to worry them overmuch. But then they are near uniformly self-obsessed power hungry opportunists.

  12. FelixKruell

    Motger Lode:

    The meanings of ordinary words are not subject to government whim.

    They can be, unfortunately. But rarely.

    But more importantly, the ordinary meaning of words are the subject of the whim of our schools, universities and other institutions. Collectively, they have the potential to change our language.

  13. Dr afred Lenin

    The abc is for would be snobs and full of up themselxes snobs ,the females are airhead socialist twats and the “males”up themselves wankers ,privatise it .let them pay their own propaganda bills .
    As for genders there are two ,female and male .anything else is psycho rubbish .
    In the Romance languages every thing has a male or female gender no neuters ,wonder how they handle this globalist bullshit “gender “crap,? We are lucky we can call the perverts IT .
    “It says Its a woman ,yeah right “.

  14. Iampeter

    But that doesn’t mean they don’t tell us something about the oddball beliefs of leftists.

    Are you a rational atheist CL?
    Because if not, you’re not in a position to be calling anyone out for “oddball beliefs.”

    Religious conservatives have absolutely no leg to stand on in fighting about how many genders there are.

  15. Mother Lode

    They can be, unfortunately. But rarely.

    Point is that for ordinary people there are two genders.

    The algal bloom-like proliferation of new ones means nothing to most people except as an algebraic cypher in the arguments of the elites.

    To the rest of us they have nothing corresponding in reality – it is all gobbledygook.

    When a man in a skirt and fishnets insists that he needs tampons because he has periods.

    And the ordinary folk will keep using the words with the original meaning because the biological meaning of gender still signifies something.

  16. Boambee John

    In the Romance languages every thing has a male or female gender no neuters ,wonder how they handle this globalist bullshit “gender “crap,? We are lucky we can call the perverts IT .

    Dr Fred

    Not an expert, but my vague understanding is that German (admittedly not a romance language) has male, female and neuter words. Die, das, der, springs to mind??

  17. C.L.

    Iampeter, I don’t claim science can prove God’s existence.
    I claim that it proves there are only two genders.
    Your analogy fails.

  18. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter
    #3216456, posted on November 20, 2019 at 1:07 pm
    But that doesn’t mean they don’t tell us something about the oddball beliefs of leftists.

    Are you a rational atheist CL?
    Because if not, you’re not in a position to be calling anyone out for “oddball beliefs.”

    Religious conservatives have absolutely no leg to stand on in fighting about how many genders there are.

    Seriously? Are you suggesting that only rational atheists are capable of understanding something about the oddball leftist beliefs?

    And why can’t “religious conservatives” have a rational view on how many genders there are? Is your assumption that “religious conservatives” can’t have a rational conversation on anything? Isn’t that “identity politics” you’re playing here?

  19. Iampeter

    Iampeter, I don’t claim science can prove God’s existence.
    I claim that it proves there are only two genders.
    Your analogy fails.

    Neither the existence of god nor the number of genders are questions of science.

    So, not only would you be a hypocrite for trying to criticize these peoples “oddball” beliefs, but you don’t know where to begin criticizing them anyway, thanks to your fundamental beliefs being religious.

  20. Iampeter

    Seriously? Are you suggesting that only rational atheists are capable of understanding something about the oddball leftist beliefs?

    I’m saying only “rational atheists” (the second word being redundant) can challenge oddball beliefs in a consistent and logical manner.

    And why can’t “religious conservatives” have a rational view on how many genders there are?

    They could. Just not consistently with their other beliefs. This will leave them open to at best, being called hypocrites. At worst, as in the case of CL in his last post, they actually can’t have rational views on how many genders there are. Because their irrational beliefs regarding very fundamental questions prevents them from thinking rationally about other questions.

    Basically I’m saying that both consistency and logical are important to any viewpoint you hold.

    This shouldn’t be at all contentious.

  21. Mother Lode

    Neither the existence of god nor the number of genders are questions of science.

    So, what does ‘gender’ mean? What does it signify?

  22. JC

    Plodes

    Are there two or more genders?

  23. Shy Ted

    According to the graph the Greens voters are the most deluded. Colour me surprised.

  24. FelixKruell

    Mother load:

    Point is that for ordinary people there are two genders.

    Yes. But for a very small minority there are other genders. We should do all we can to respect them, without changing how society as a whole refers to the two dominant genders.

    When a man in a skirt and fishnets insists that he needs tampons because he has periods.

    That’s an entirely separate issue – that’s someone with one biological sex claiming a different gender. They can (in theory) do that whilst maintaining there are only 2 genders.

  25. Iampeter

    So, what does ‘gender’ mean? What does it signify?

    It’s an abstract concept we use to describe observable concretes.
    In a nutshell, the problem with the attempt to create millions of genders is that these concepts don’t describe anything that we can concretely observed that isn’t already covered by the concepts “male” and “female.”
    In fact, it works to obliterate these concepts which we are using to identify concrete facts of reality.
    Anything that works in opposition to concepts that actually describe concrete reality should be opposed because rejecting reality is death to rational beings. Sooner or later.

    You can see why religious people don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate.

  26. stackja

    Tag team inventing specious.

  27. struth

    I’m saying only “rational atheists” (the second word being redundant) can challenge oddball beliefs in a consistent and logical manner

    FMD.
    The left are non Christian as you see it?
    Only Conservatives are Christian?
    Here’s an observable point……………………..you are a complete fucking wanker.
    Most of the people who believe the world is about to end from Climate Change are on the left and non religious.
    You’re just sad, and also go and see someone about that envious chip on your shoulder you have against happy people.

  28. Ubique

    For Liberal and One Nation voters, how does the ABC derive numbers like 42 or 71 percent when only 10 people of each voting persuasion were in the sample set? It’s most unlikely there were any more.

  29. struth

    Iampoyda, civilisationally, and religiously ignorant.
    Ahistoric meathead dribbling shit.

    The Atheist left are all in for Climate change.
    Gullible twats taken in by Antonio Guterres mob.
    Challenging oddball beliefs in a consistent and logical manner???!!!
    More like running in fear toward something, anything to believe in, to give their empty lives meaning.
    The global warming death cult.

  30. JC

    Iampeter
    #3216538, posted on November 20, 2019 at 2:31 pm

    So, what does ‘gender’ mean? What does it signify?

    It’s an abstract concept we use to describe observable concretes.
    In a nutshell, the problem with the attempt to create millions of genders is that these concepts don’t describe anything that we can concretely observed that isn’t already covered by the concepts “male” and “female.”
    In fact, it works to obliterate these concepts which we are using to identify concrete facts of reality.
    Anything that works in opposition to concepts that actually describe concrete reality should be opposed because rejecting reality is death to rational beings. Sooner or later.

    You can see why religious people don’t have a leg to stand on in this debate.

    It’s an abstract concept we use to describe observable concretes.

    I get it, so you believe there are more than two genders. Is that right, plodes? Is this where you’re heading?

  31. JC

    The Bobbsey twins are back.

    Yes. But for a very small minority there are other genders. We should do all we can to respect them, without changing how society as a whole refers to the two dominant genders.

    When a man in a skirt and fishnets insists that he needs tampons because he has periods.

    That’s an entirely separate issue – that’s someone with one biological sex claiming a different gender. They can (in theory) do that whilst maintaining there are only 2 genders.

    Okay, so at least you openly state that in your opinion there are more than two genders. Your twin, Plodes Bobbsey, doesn’t want to state his position and is hiding behind the old “abstract concept” . The sneering little coward.

    You two imbeciles are a laugh a minute.

  32. Mother Lode

    Yes. But for a very small minority there are other genders.

    Probably a good idea to clarify what gender is. If we are talking penis and vagina (and most people do) then it is weird for people to be talking about there being more than two (well, you can be a hermaphrodite of course, but I don’t think the ABC is focusing on that). If you think it is about what a person tells themselves about themselves (which is what the identity politics nonsense is about) then deciding to call that gender is kids playing a game where they exchange one word for another. If my friends* and I decided we were going to tall people ‘overs’ and short people ‘unders’ does that make it part of the language? The fact the ABC plays this game, on public money, and claiming to be representing all of Australian is just wrong.

    We should do all we can to respect them, without changing how society as a whole refers to the two dominant genders.

    Why should I?

    Let them label the various mental disorders according to what is actually happening to them. But taking an established concept, mutating it so they can pretend their issues are as real as ‘male’ and ‘female’, with no apparent concern that doing so would take away the means by which people communicate fundamental ideas, is not something that engenders respect.

    Do they have an innie or an outtie. There is your gender. Whether they think they ought to have the opposite suite of bits, or like wiping sandpaper over their scrotum, or are aroused by power points is another sort of thing.

    *People who like each other without wanting to run their lives or get something out of them.

  33. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Okay, so at least you openly state that in your opinion there are more than two genders.

    Of course I do. It’s a scientific fact. Do you disagree? Or are you hiding behind abstract concepts too?

  34. Iampeter

    I get it, so you believe there are more than two genders. Is that right, plodes? Is this where you’re heading?

    Only a true Catallaxy imbecile could read what I wrote there and conclude that I think there are more than two genders.

    With one post you’ve managed to outdo even struth’s unhinged ravings. Well done sir.

  35. Iampeter

    Of course I do. It’s a scientific fact. Do you disagree? Or are you hiding behind abstract concepts too?

    There are only two genders and it’s not a question of science, it’s a far simpler question of observation and abstract thinking.

    If you think there are more than two genders what are you even describing that isn’t already described by male and female?

  36. struth

    There are only two genders.

    You obviously have two dicks, as you can’t be that silly playing with one.
    You are still male.
    Extra large clit, so you wanna be a boy, still female chromosomes .

    Male and female chromosomes.

    Let’s count the chromosomes shall we?
    Don’t worry, you won’t need to take your shoes off.

  37. struth

    Yes. But for a very small minority there are other genders. We should do all we can to respect them, without changing how society as a whole refers to the two dominant genders.

    Good Lord.

  38. JC

    Only a true Catallaxy imbecile could read what I wrote there and conclude that I think there are more than two genders.

    Of course you do, plodes. I demanded you state your position like the other bobbsey instead of skirting around avoiding being tied down until I got it out of you.

    Look, you leftwing ignoramus scumbag, you don’t fool anyone by pretending you aren’t a leftwing goon. You’re not fooling anyone. Body dysmorphia is a mental abnormality, which is obviously something you can most certainly relate to.

  39. JC

    Good Lord.

    Plodes and Feels are the Bobbsey twins.

  40. JC

    Let’s count the chromosomes shall we?

    Feels and Plodes easch have three Xs.

  41. struth

    Iampoyda.
    Have you ever thought about letting the love of Jesus Christ into your life?

    Jesus loves you.
    He loves us all.
    Even fuckwits.

  42. Leigh Lowe

    Did the ABC also have a question about gender “pay gaps”?
    Because, you know, that could get awkward.

  43. Iampeter

    I demanded you state your position like the other bobbsey instead of skirting around avoiding being tied down until I got it out of you.

    I didn’t skirt around anything, you’re just an imbecile who has no idea what’s going on and has no business on this blog. Or any blog really. You just need to get help.

    Look, you leftwing ignoramus scumbag, you don’t fool anyone by pretending you aren’t a leftwing goon. You’re not fooling anyone.

    This is a description of you buddy. Now get outta here. Stop derailing threads with your mindless, spittle-fleck rants.

  44. FelixKruell

    Iampeter:

    If you think there are more than two genders what are you even describing that isn’t already described by male and female?

    Note I’m using ‘gender’ in the more traditional sense, as biological sex. Biological sex is not binary, not everyone is male or female (although the vast majority are)

  45. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Male and female chromosomes.

    Let’s count the chromosomes shall we?

    Feel free to. There’s XX. There’s XY. There’s XXY. There’s XYY.

    That’s 4 already…not so ‘binary’ after all…

  46. struth

    You seem to be confused Iampoyda…..let Jesus into your life, so you can

    challenge oddball beliefs in a consistent and logical manner

  47. struth

    There’s XXXX and if you have too many, you’ll end up as thick as you

  48. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Bobbsey twins.

    You seem a little ‘obsessed’ (to put it mildly) with the Bobbsey twins…humour those of us who aren’t 80+ years old and tell us who the hell they are?

  49. struth

    Have you thought about letting Jesus into you life as well, Felix.
    Worth a shot, hey?

    He’s a good bloke, dictated a best seller, don’t you know.

  50. JC

    <blockquote>I didn’t skirt around anything, you’re just an imbecile who has no idea what’s going on and has no business on this blog. Or any blog really. You just need to get help.

    Tell you what dickface. Let’s take a vote on that. If you lose, which you will, you’re out of here forever. You’re the most obnoxious sack of shit that ever hung around here. In fact, if I took a bet and figured out where/what blogs you post, I’d bet you’ve been arsed out of every single one. You’re a loon, a bigoted piece of shit who is in no position to judge anyone. Hand back you ipad to the orderly and have him lock the door this time. You’re done.

  51. JC

    Note I’m using ‘gender’ in the more traditional sense, as biological sex. Biological sex is not binary, not everyone is male or female (although the vast majority are)

    Lol

  52. struth

    humour those of us who aren’t 80+ years old and tell us who the hell they are?

    Don’t worry about that.
    You need to be getting stuck into the bible.

  53. Leigh Lowe

    If I had a dollar for the number of genders there are, I would have two dollars and a bunch of worthless counterfeits.

  54. Iampeter

    Tell you what dickface. Let’s take a vote on that. If you lose, which you will, you’re out of here forever. You’re the most obnoxious sack of shit that ever hung around here.

    That’s hardly a fair test. Because there’s no moderation the Cat is absolutely overrun by raving nut jobs like you. Some even had the gall to call for me to be moderated recently, while you engage in the very behavior they project onto me and no one says anything.
    In other words, no one gives a shit about a vote by slimy, dishonest, morons and crackpots.
    I’m just going to proceed to ignore your worthless rants.

  55. Mother Lode

    Jesus loves you.

    You know that is hate speech, right?

  56. JC

    Leigh, the term gender is a leftwing thing these days. It gives them the fluidity cover. It’s just better and more accurate to suggest there are two sexes. That’s it.

    Having said that, there are also a range of mental illnesses that surround this hugely complex idea of two sexes. 🙂

  57. Iampeter

    Note I’m using ‘gender’ in the more traditional sense, as biological sex. Biological sex is not binary, not everyone is male or female (although the vast majority are)

    Yea I seriously don’t know what any of that means.
    If there are more than two genders, then you have identified repeating, observable concretes that merit a gender category of their own.
    What are those concretes you’ve observed?

    If you can’t name them, then you need to concede that there aren’t more than two genders.

  58. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Have you thought about letting Jesus into you life as well, Felix.
    Worth a shot, hey?

    I think I’ve heard of him. Is he one of the Bobbsey twins?

  59. FelixKruell

    Iampeter:

    If there are more than two genders, then you have identified repeating, observable concretes that merit a gender category of their own.

    Sure – it depends on whether you’re using the transitional definition of gender or not. If you are, then the chromosomal types I listed above at the examples of other genders.

    If not, try hermaphrodite, female pseudohermaphrodites (individuals who have ovaries and some male genitalia but lack testes), and male pseudohermaphrodites (individuals who have testes and some female genitalia but lack ovaries).

    All repeating, observable concretes that merit a gender category of their own.

  60. JC

    That’s hardly a fair test.

    Of course it isn’t because you would arsed kicked out of here in a NY second. Even you realize that, which is why you’re suggesting it isn’t fair.

    A vote couldn’t be more fair, you intellectual areswipe.

    Because there’s no moderation the Cat is absolutely overrun by raving nut jobs like you.

    Lie 102,348.5. Of course there’s moderation here. Lots of people have been thrown out of here over the years.
    You so fucking dishonest, you would prefer to tell a lie when the truth is perfectly plausible, you sneering little bore.

    Some even had the gall to call for me to be moderated recently, while you engage in the very behavior they project onto me and no one says anything.

    I thought a hyper rationalist like you wouldn’t find the idea of people expressing opinion to be objectionable. But here you are wishing me to me moderated out, while you’re objecting to the same being levelled at you. And you have the gall to suggest people here are hypocrites. You intellectual areswipe of a lunatic.

    In other words, no one gives a shit about a vote by slimy, dishonest, morons and crackpots.

    Lol.

    I’m just going to proceed to ignore your worthless rants.

    You know you won’t. That’s because you can’t help it because you know deep down everything I say that’s mocking you is true, which is why you react so badly.

    In a just world you deserve a good and thorough hiding to an inch of your life.

  61. Stimpson J. Cat

    Tell you what dickface. Let’s take a vote on that. If you lose, which you will, you’re out of here forever. You’re the most obnoxious sack of shit that ever hung around here.

    Iampeter definitely deserves to be chastised for using the words “concrete”, “concretes”, and “concretely”.
    If he’s Italian it may be permissible,
    but definitely a fine of some sort.
    Standards Must Be Maintained.

  62. JC

    Iampeter definitely deserves to be chastised for using the words “concrete”, “concretes”, and “concretely”.

    You’re being “unfair” . If all you had to look at was a concrete cell for most of the day, you would be unsparing too. Plodes is a hyper rationalist. He tells you and the orderly 48 times a day. Leave him alone.

  63. JC

    One other thing plodes. Promising to ignore me never works. Felix Bobbsey made that very solemn promise and two minutes later he was back to lying again because, like you, he just can’t help himself.

    Out of the two, I probably would kick his arse out the door before you though. That’s because your twin (Felix Bobbsey) is so passive aggressive, which is quite possibly the worst trait in a male human. That doesn’t mean I’m walking back the idea you should thrown out of here with a decent beating.

  64. Stimpson J. Cat

    All repeating, observable concretes that merit a gender category of their own.

    Felix don’t encourage Peter please.

  65. JC

    Stimpson J. Cat
    #3216644, posted on November 20, 2019 at 4:09 pm

    All repeating, observable concretes that merit a gender category of their own.

    Felix don’t encourage Peter please.

    I wish both these imbeciles were concreted.

  66. The BigBlueCat

    I’m saying only “rational atheists” (the second word being redundant) can challenge oddball beliefs in a consistent and logical manner.

    I doubt that’s true – your view of “oddball” might not be shared by others, be they atheists or not. “Oddball” is a relative concept – what’s oddball to you may not be oddball to someone else, irrespective of your view of the rationality of the matter at hand – their position may be equally rational, or even prove your position to be irrational.

    They could. Just not consistently with their other beliefs. This will leave them open to at best, being called hypocrites. At worst, as in the case of CL in his last post, they actually can’t have rational views on how many genders there are. Because their irrational beliefs regarding very fundamental questions prevents them from thinking rationally about other questions.

    Basically I’m saying that both consistency and logical are important to any viewpoint you hold.

    This shouldn’t be at all contentious.

    Surely that depends on their specific beliefs and whether or not they can mount a cogent argument. And “open to at best, being called hypocrites” – doesn’t that depend on their actual behaviours when compared to their understanding and critique of others? Again, you propose a critical and unfounded behavioural “identity” based on your beliefs without analysing or understanding what individuals in that “identity” actually believe or how they behave. Surely you are applying “identity politics” to a group you happen to disdain because of their beliefs.

    I should also point out that there are many eminent thinkers who would align with a religion and an understanding of a deity (of course there are also many who don’t) – does that mean, in your way of thinking, those who ascribe to a religion are incapable of thinking rationally about other questions? Surely this another bad assumption on your part, based purely on “identity politics”? How about areas such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry? Do you assume that if, say, a Professor in Physics is a deist, they ipso facto cannot think rationally? From your previous statements, it seems you do.

  67. struth

    All repeating, observable concretes that merit a gender category of their own.

    These are called disorders.
    They are not other Genders.

    Here’s some basics for you.

    You can pack multiple Y and X’s into a cell.
    Pack away to your heart’s content.
    Go ahead.
    But the person is a male.
    If no Y chromosome is present and fifty bloody X’s are in the cell, it’s a female.
    However, the odd time there is an extra sex chromosome in the cell makes no difference to the sex or the testosterone levels or length of schlong.
    Most of the cell are not these sexual chromosomes.
    Buy I Repeat…..xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxY a male.
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx a female.
    XYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY a male. etc.
    I was taught this basic biology in year eight.

  68. Iampeter

    If not, try hermaphrodite, female pseudohermaphrodites (individuals who have ovaries and some male genitalia but lack testes), and male pseudohermaphrodites (individuals who have testes and some female genitalia but lack ovaries).

    But those are disabilities and don’t change the fact that there are only two genders. This is a category error.
    Even in your own response, e.g. “individuals who have ovaries and some male genitalia but lack testes.”

    You’re still referencing two genders to describe a person who has this issue.

  69. Iampeter

    Jesus loves you.

    You know that is hate speech, right?

    It’s not hate speech. It’s the same thing as saying there are more than two genders.

  70. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    I was merely doing what you instructed:

    Male and female chromosomes.

    Let’s count the chromosomes shall we?

    Now you don’t want me to count the chromosomes? You can’t keep your test consistent over a single hour….

  71. Stimpson J. Cat

    Oh God is Iampeter an Atheist?
    That literally explains everything.
    Is he Vegan as well?

    Atheism Confirmed!!!

  72. struth

    It’s not hate speech. It’s the same thing as saying there are more than two genders.

    Embrace the lord.
    Let his light open your heart and find true happiness.
    Ya fucken idiot.

  73. FelixKruell

    Iampeter:

    But those are disabilities and don’t change the fact that there are only two genders. This is a category error.
    Even in your own response, e.g. “individuals who have ovaries and some male genitalia but lack testes.” You’re still referencing two genders to describe a person who has this issue.

    The fact that it references the ‘normal ‘genders doesn’t stop it being a separate gender category. We often describe male characteristics by reference to female ones, and vice versa.

    You asked for observable, repeatable concretes. These ‘disabilities’ meet that test.

  74. struth

    Now you don’t want me to count the chromosomes? You can’t keep your test consistent over a single hour….

    Classic Felix twist.
    I never said I don’t want you to count the chromosomes.
    Where did I say that?
    Count away good budgie, it should keep you quite for a while.

  75. struth

    Felix, you wanker, people with those disorders will have either female cells or male cells with either XX or XY chromosomes.
    What about this is so hard for you?

  76. Iampeter

    I doubt that’s true – your view of “oddball” might not be shared by others, be they atheists or not. “Oddball” is a relative concept – what’s oddball to you may not be oddball to someone else, irrespective of your view of the rationality of the matter at hand – their position may be equally rational, or even prove your position to be irrational.

    If anything can be anything then you can’t know what’s true or not anyway. This is word soup.

    Everything else in your post was already directly answered in the very post you’re responding to.

  77. Infidel Tiger

    This is excellent.

    We now have supposedly normal people arguing there are 37 genders.

  78. Tel

    There’s three genders:
    der – masculine.
    die – feminine.
    das – neutral.

  79. Iampeter

    You asked for observable, repeatable concretes. These ‘disabilities’ meet that test.

    Not for a new gender category it doesn’t. It’s a disability not a gender. A disability that we use the existing two genders to describe. Because there are only two genders.

    Sorry Felix, I like you even if I disagree with you and I wish more posters here were like you, but you’re simply wrong on this one.

  80. stackja

    Petering out can’t stay away from creating it.

  81. Tel

    Felix, you wanker, people with those disorders will have either female cells or male cells with either XX or XY chromosomes.
    What about this is so hard for you?

    That’s biological sex, which is related to reproduction, not gender.

    There’s also a bunch of unusual biological situations like tripled up chromosomes, and malformed hormonal receptors that can cause someone who would normally be a male to start looking like a female. In biology a huge number of things are possible, but only a fairly small number are probable.

  82. JC

    There’s also a bunch of unusual biological situations like tripled up chromosomes, and malformed hormonal receptors that can cause someone who would normally be a male to start looking like a female.

    You’re describing disorders.

  83. struth

    That’s biological sex, which is related to reproduction, not gender.

    There is no such thing as non biological gender.

    That’s correctly termed a mental health issue.

    Stop trying to be cool.

  84. struth

    There’s also a bunch of unusual biological situations like tripled up chromosomes, and malformed hormonal receptors that can cause someone who would normally be a male to start looking like a female. In biology a huge number of things are possible, but only a fairly small number are probable.

    That has nothing to do with Chromosomes.

    Tripled up chromosomes make no difference…….the cell is either male or female.

    Different disorders can travel via parents.
    The father must give the y chromosome and cells can deform.
    This rarely happens but when it does the number of Chromosomes in the cell count for nothing.
    It’s either all xxx or xxxyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyxxyy…….what ever you wishful thinkers like.

    Two different chromosomes than the Male has the sexual disorder.
    Same xx and the female has the sexual disorder.

    A while ago SOME people believed that extra aggressive inmates in prisons were that way inclinded because some were found to have an extra Y chromosome, making them more male, more aggressive.
    This is bullshit and has been proven so.
    Number of chromosomes irrelevant.
    Type of Chromosome, relevant.

    Oh, and scull size and shape for criminality has also been disproven.

  85. Ivan Denisovich

    That’s 4 already…not so ‘binary’ after all…

    The American College of Paediatricians, December 2018:

    Sex is not a spectrum; congenital disorders are not additional sexes. The final result of sex development in humans is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. “Intersex” is a term that encompasses a variety of congenital disorders of sex development that result in sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex chromosomes and appearance. These disorders occur in less than 0.02 percent of all births.

    v, vi

    A spectrum is defined as “a continuous distribution” or a distribution in which “no specific outcome is more likely than others.”

    vi Clearly, the existence of rare disorders of sex development do not constitute a sex spectrum.
    As evolutionary biologist Dr. Colin Wright of University of California, Santa Barbara
    recently penned, “The claim that classifying people’s sex upon anatomy and genetics ‘has no basis in science’ has itself no basis in reality, as any method exhibiting a predictive accuracy of over 99.98 percent would place it among the most precise methods in all the life sciences.”

    vi
    The use of congenital disorders to advance the myth that there are a multitude of human sexes which exist on a spectrum is ideological and political activism, not science.

  86. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Felix, you wanker, people with those disorders will have either female cells or male cells with either XX or XY chromosomes.

    And you believe the cells are ‘male cells’ or ‘female cells’ because….

  87. FelixKruell

    Iampeter:

    Sorry Felix, I like you even if I disagree with you and I wish more posters here were like you, but you’re simply wrong on this one.

    Let me ask a question in response – what defines gender to you? Chromosomes, genitalia, physical characteristics, or something else?

    Other than the ‘something else’, none of those things listed are binary. I’ve given lots of examples.

    I guess it comes down to whether you think the things falling outside the binary on those things are ‘disabilities’ or constitute a separate gender.

  88. FelixKruell

    Ivan:

    A spectrum is defined as “a continuous distribution” or a distribution in which “no specific outcome is more likely than others.”

    I agree it’s not a spectrum. But that’s doesn’t mean it’s binary. The fact that 0.02% of people fall outside of male or female prove that it’s not binary.

  89. struth

    And you believe the cells are ‘male cells’ or ‘female cells’ because

    You’re not real fuckin’ bright are you.
    The answer is above.
    I hope you’re young like Iampoyda, or there really would be something to be worried about.

  90. Roger

    The fact that 0.02% of people fall outside of male or female prove that it’s not binary.

    That’s a lot of weight you’re placing on a very small percentage, especially when many of those within that category are simply sexually indeterminate or identify as either male or female.

  91. Chris

    There is no such thing as non biological gender.

    That’s correctly termed a mental health issue.

    A man in a dress is a man.
    In a dress.
    If you wish to indulge yourself in pretending about gender, I will courteously call you by your preferred pronoun.
    But your mental illness does not alter everyone else’s reality.

  92. struth

    I agree it’s not a spectrum. But that’s doesn’t mean it’s binary. The fact that 0.02% of people fall outside of male or female prove that it’s not binary.

    Fuck me…seriously.
    NOBODY falls outside of male of female.
    Some men have sexual deformities or under development, or like me, over development. blah blah, and some women do.
    Chromosomes will tell you what sex they are.
    This is how I know about this stuff.
    It’s quite embarrassing really but they couldn’t work out how I had such a large penis, and did all sorts of tests.
    In the end I decided on penis reduction surgery and got them to take it down to a manageable 12 inches.
    No one really needs more than that.

  93. Ivan Denisovich

    The fact that 0.02% of people fall outside of male or female prove that it’s not binary

    They’re quite clear on this:

    congenital disorders are not additional sexes. The final result of sex development in humans is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. “Intersex” is a term that encompasses a variety of congenital disorders of sex development that result in sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex chromosomes and appearance. These disorders occur in less than 0.02 percent of all births.

  94. struth

    They said they’d work on girth once they’ve had a rest.

  95. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    You’re not real fuckin’ bright are you.
    The answer is above.

    There’s a lot of crap above. Why don’t you tell me which particular bit I should be paying attention to?

  96. struth

    Two different chromosomes than the Male has the sexual disorder.
    Same xx and the female has the sexual disorder.

    There’s a simple bit for you, that sort of covers it.
    I can play your game, sunshine.

  97. I see what the ABC seeks.

    An ABC web site with an acquit button and a hang button.
    Everybody gets to participate.

  98. FelixKruell

    Ivan:

    congenital disorders are not additional sexes. The final result of sex development in humans is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. “Intersex” is a term that encompasses a variety of congenital disorders of sex development that result in sex ambiguity and/or a mismatch between sex chromosomes and appearance. These disorders occur in less than 0.02 percent of all births.

    They provide no basis for their first sentence. Their second sentence makes clear that’s it’s not binary. They seem to be relying on how rare it is to conclude that it’s not an additional sex. A pretty poor reason.

  99. struth

    Honestly, after yesterday, Felix, I feel like charging you tuition fees.

  100. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    There’s a simple bit for you, that sort of covers it.

    Except it doesn’t. These cells have XXY or XYY chromosomes. So what makes them male or female cells?

  101. struth

    NOBODY falls outside of male of female.

    Chromosomes will tell you what sex they are.

    They provide no basis for their first sentence. Their second sentence makes clear that’s it’s not binary. They seem to be relying on how rare it is to conclude that it’s not an additional sex. A pretty poor reason.

    No, god, how hard does it have to be?
    You are either female or male with .o2 percent of men and women having some genital type disorder.

    Now that thing poking out our collar is a penis.
    It’s a male genital.
    It’s not supposed to be sitting on you shoulders but if yyou are unsure what sex you ae, get a check up.
    They’ll check you cells for the presence of a Y chromosome.
    It’s that simple.
    Believe in the science, lefties,………………all medical professionals and scientists agree, the science is settled.

  102. struth

    Except it doesn’t. These cells have XXY or XYY chromosomes. So what makes them male or female cells

    Trolling doesn’t work on me.
    Because I enjoy it.

    Read above.

  103. struth

    Ae you young, Felix?
    This is where you need to go back and smack your biology teacher in the chops for making you look like the dunce you are in the grown ups world.
    Making you into a brain dead little socialist at the expense of an education.
    You should be fuming

  104. Ivan Denisovich

    Their second sentence makes clear that’s it’s not binary.

    How so?

  105. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Chromosomes will tell you what sex they are.

    So chromosomes tell you what sex they are. But some cells don’t have male or female chromosomes…in which case they’re…what exactly?

    You seem unable to answer this simple question. The volume of your personal abuse just goes up…which is always a sure fire sign you’re losing.

  106. Chris

    They seem to be relying on how rare it is to conclude that it’s not an additional sex. A pretty poor reason.

    A failure of the reproductive mechanism at the cellular level is not a sex. It’s a failure of sex.

  107. Tel

    But some cells don’t have male or female chromosomes…in which case they’re…what exactly?

    Bacteria?

  108. struth

    So chromosomes tell you what sex they are. But some cells don’t have male or female chromosomes…in which case they’re…what exactly?

    You seem unable to answer this simple question. The volume of your personal abuse just goes up…which is always a sure fire sign you’re losing.

    I’ve already answered it, that might be why.

    This should cost you a slab , honestly, you should have learned this in school.

    If there is a Y chromosome present, it’s male.

    If just X female.

    I don’t know how to make this simpler for you,…… and the cells without chromosomes in them are called sleeper cells, and they are harder to work out who is male of female, but the female is usually the one wearing the black sack.

  109. Stimpson J. Cat

    But some cells don’t have male or female chromosomes…in which case they’re…what exactly?

    Mutants.
    You know, X-Men.
    Go read some comics Jesus Christ man now hard is it!?

  110. JC

    They provide no basis for their first sentence. Their second sentence makes clear that’s it’s not binary. They seem to be relying on how rare it is to conclude that it’s not an additional sex. A pretty poor reason.

    “They”, is the The American College of Paediatricians. Felix Bobbsey should write to them and set these anti science guys on the correct course.

  111. Rococo Liberal

    but the female is usually the one wearing the black sack.

    Comedy gold

  112. struth

    He’s a kid with his mates thinking “I’ve got a live one here”
    Been to uni and educated beyond intelligence.
    Firm believer in it’s own superiority, and as we’ve proved yesterday and today, totally unwarranted.
    But with that sort of attitude, I have fun keeping them going, if I have the time of course.

  113. Rococo Liberal

    take it down to a manageable 12 inches.

    So you have 12 inches but you don’t use it as a rule

  114. Davey Boy

    The cnuts at the ABC have dropped Cate McGregor because, in Cate’s own words, Cate identifies as an old-school transsexual (“like Carlotta”, for those that remember) and not transgender. Cate believes that there are only two genders, and that there exists a goose-stepping cabal of trans activists embedded within and funded by Dick Ears Andrews Victorian government-for-life, who seek to identify and punish such heresy.

  115. JC

    Anyway, back to the original story. so their ABC, canvases it’s own viewers and thinks we will fall for that trick.

    It’s basically a propaganda operation. They did this because, deep down in the dungeon, their ABC realizes just how much the Right despises them.

    By presenting a dishonest poll, they’re attempting to present the lie they are in the mainstream of punter thinking. FMD, they’re deplorable.

  116. struth

    It’s basically a propaganda operation. They did this because, deep down in the dungeon, their ABC realizes just how much the Right despises them.

    That they quote everything Bolt utters, that they know every non descript right wing org or think tank, That [email protected] host muttered about the Spectator when her guests were calling for the killing of men, the left’s total fear has always been the rise of the decent folk in retaliation.
    The left are without a doubt, mostly women and beta males, and despite a handful of union thugs, fear and envy form their politics

  117. 2dogs

    The question of intersex conditions is misleading in this debate.

    Overwhelmingly, those who actually do have an intersex condition identify within the gender binary. Those with AIS, for example, almost exclusively identify as women, despite having a Y chromosome.

    It isn’t those with such conditions pushing the 57 genders nonsense, seeking to identify as something other than male or female. It is coming mainly from those with an agenda to push.

  118. The BigBlueCat

    If anything can be anything then you can’t know what’s true or not anyway. This is word soup.

    That’s not what I’ve said. You made a categorical statement regarding “rational atheists” as the only ones capable of understanding … I challenged that by showing that “oddball” is relative, but you show how irrational you are by obfusticating. Typical. My position is that “oddball” isn’t necessarily an absence of understanding. You think it is. Whatever!

    Everything else in your post was already directly answered in the very post you’re responding to.

    No, you didn’t answer anything – you are ignoring what I posted. Clearly you think “religious conservatives” aren’t capable of any rational thought. I argued your position is preposterous and you are engaging in “identity politics”. You don’t see “religious conservatives” as being capable of consistency or logic. I contend they are. But not always – same as “rational atheists” are not always capable of consistency and logic.

    You haven’t engaged the proposition – you just said:

    Basically I’m saying that both consistency and logical are important to any viewpoint you hold.

    (which is true) but you don’t see “religious conservatives” as possessing those qualities. And that’s the bit where your personal bias fails you.

  119. Tel

    If not, try hermaphrodite, female pseudohermaphrodites (individuals who have ovaries and some male genitalia but lack testes), and male pseudohermaphrodites (individuals who have testes and some female genitalia but lack ovaries).

    Has there ever been a recorded case of a human who was both mother to a child and father to a child, possibly some years apart? From what I’ve read it’s impossible in humans (willing to be corrected), although it does happen often in fish and amphibians that they start female and then later in life become male. My understanding is that humans simply cannot develop both ovaries and testes.

    I understand that you can have the appearance of multiple genitalia but in terms of actual functionality it’s one or the other (or possibly nothing works and reproduction is impossible). You might for example have a woman with a largish appendage that looks a bit penis shaped … so I’m told it happens to girls who hang around the gym too often … but that’s not really hermaphrodite.

  120. Iampeter

    Anyway, back to the original story.

    Yea everyone, the raving crackpot that’s being derailing the thread all afternoon wants us to get back on topic.

    You made a categorical statement regarding “rational atheists” as the only ones capable of understanding … I challenged that by showing that “oddball” is relative

    That’s not what I said and you didn’t demonstrate oddball is relative.
    You’re random assertions are the very thing you’re trying to accuse me of doing.

    but you don’t see “religious conservatives” as possessing those qualities. And that’s the bit where your personal bias fails you.

    That’s not what I said. What I said is in my post and not the straw men you’re erecting because you have no counter to my actual positions.

  121. JC

    And that’s the bit where your personal bias fails you.

    If only that was his only fault. The imbecile came on here thinking he was bringing in a fresh set of ideas while sneering at everyone else. As though the bullshit he was posting had never been discussed here before in the 20 odd years this blog has been operating. He’s close to being the biggest wanker whose ever visited. Up there with Laserjet8600 and a few others. In fact I’m putting him in the laserjet 8600 category. His twin, Felix Bobbsey, is just a passive aggressive doofus. This version had the temerity to lie about what he even wrote two comments ago.

  122. JC

    That’s not what I said

    Yes you did, you dishonest arswipe. You’ve been sneering at religious types since you set paws here.

    This is another one who lies about what he’s stated or strongly implied since he’s been here.

    Two dishonest arseholes you could never meet. A total waste of cells.

  123. JC

    Has there ever been a recorded case of a human who was both mother to a child and father to a child,

    There was once a claim that I read a long time ago there has been cases where a women become pregnant without male insemination/ sperm. Supposedly, it can occur once every 3 or 4 billion births. They produce the insemination internally. I don’t vouch if this is true though.

  124. The BigBlueCat

    That’s not what I said and you didn’t demonstrate oddball is relative.
    You’re random assertions are the very thing you’re trying to accuse me of doing.

    I’m not accusing you of a random assertion, just a biased one.

    An example of “oddball” would be when the prevailing view was that the Earth is flat – it took an “oddball” (relative term) to demonstrate that the Earth isn’t flat. Yet the “rational ones” tried to prove “flatness” by observation (look out the window – it’s flat!).

    But here is what you said:

    Are you a rational atheist CL?
    Because if not, you’re not in a position to be calling anyone out for “oddball beliefs.”

    From your perspective, if CL is not a “rational atheist” he is not in a position to be calling out “oddball beliefs”. That is if he is neither “rational” or “atheist” he cannot call out “oddball”. Your implication is that if someone is not a “rational atheist” then “oddball beliefs” follows.

    And then:

    Religious conservatives have absolutely no leg to stand on in fighting about how many genders there are.

    Really? Because of “oddball beliefs”? Or a reasoned analysis of understanding physical sexual characteristics and how this has traditionally defined gender? But to be clear – you would classify me as a “religious conservative”, but I fully accept that some/many people can and do define their gender separate from their physical sexual characteristics. The question becomes if I think they are delusional or not, and whether or not I (or the rest of the community) should share in their delusions (if that is the view), or be forced by law (say) to use their preferred pronouns.

    The vast majority of people’s sex is defined by XX and XY chromosomes. But in choosing to deny their sexual plumbing and identify as something else (ie. a gender not consistent with their sex characteristics) is a choice I’m ok for them to make, but I should not be forced by law (or pressure) to accept. Comments arguing additional genders on additional chromosomal combinations are interesting but are red herring arguments – they are clear and known chromosomal problems that go beyond gender identification.

    Gender is how people identify – people identifying a gender different from their physical sexual characteristics is a modern phenomenon, and it seems something that can be conditioned and/or taught.

  125. struth

    There was once a claim that I read a long time ago there has been cases where a women become pregnant without male insemination/ sperm

    Her name was Mary?

    Get some god interya ,Iampoyda.
    Ya angry heathen.

  126. JC

    Nice carving there Blue Cat. In fact we should have this turkey for Thanksgiving.

    Are you a rational atheist CL?
    ……you’re not in a position to be calling anyone out for “oddball beliefs.”

    and then later on: The denial

    That’s not what I said and you didn’t demonstrate oddball is relative.
    You’re random assertions are the very thing you’re trying to accuse me of doing.

    That’s not what I said. What I said is in my post and not the straw men you’re erecting because you have no counter to my actual positions.

    The icing on the cake:

    Here he is sneering at everyone here.

    In other words, no one gives a shit about a vote by slimy, dishonest, morons and crackpots.
    I’m just going to proceed to ignore your worthless rants.

    … and promising to ignore my comments:

    and then just a short while later.

    Yea everyone, the raving crackpot that’s being derailing the thread all afternoon wants us to get back on topic.

    “Everyone” is everyone here whom he accuses of being slimy, dishonest, morons and crackpots

    …and then doesn’t ignore me.

    As I said, this turkey is on the roast for Thanksgiving.

  127. Iampeter

    An example of “oddball” would be when the prevailing view was that the Earth is flat – it took an “oddball” (relative term) to demonstrate that the Earth isn’t flat. Yet the “rational ones” tried to prove “flatness” by observation (look out the window – it’s flat!).

    The fact that the world is round was proved by observation by rational people. Those that were advocating it was flat were ignoring observation and not being rational. You’ve got everything backwards.

    From your perspective, if CL is not a “rational atheist” he is not in a position to be calling out “oddball beliefs”.

    That’s not “from my perspective,” that’s a fact. What do you find confusing about it?

    Really? Because of “oddball beliefs”?

    Yes.

  128. Old Lefty

    Anyone who knows any history knows that mediaeval theologians did not repeat not believe the world is flat. Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas quite clearly say it is round.

    But no amount of evidence will move religiophobic bigots.

    How times change. When the Judean Liberation Front activist in Monty Python’s Life of Brian ranted about men having the right to give birth, the audience in 1979 thought it was just surrealist Python humour.

  129. JC

    Sharks, reptiles and some amphibians do that (parthenogenesis).

  130. max

    “The Greeks assigned conscious purposes to the material actors of the cosmos; thus Aristotle explained the circular motion of celestial bodies in terms of their affection for such a pattern.
    Wisdom 11:21, in which God is said to have “ordered all things by measure, number, weight.”

    This point, according to Jaki, not only lent support to Christians in late antiquity who upheld the rationality of the universe, but also inspired Christians a millennium later who, at the beginnings of modern science, had embarked on quantitative inquiry as a way of understanding the universe.

    the idea of a rational, orderly universe—enormously fruitful and indeed indispensable for the progress of science

    Of all the ancient cultures analyzed by Jaki, the Greeks came closest to—but ultimately fell well short of—the development of modern science. The Greeks assigned conscious purposes to the material actors of the cosmos; thus Aristotle explained the circular motion of celestial bodies in terms of their affection for such a pattern.

    Aristotle claimed that an object that was twice as heavy as another object would fall twice as fast if both were dropped from the same height. Simple introspection led him to that conclusion, but it is not true, as anyone can easily verify. Yet although Aristotle collected much empirical data over the course of his various investigations, he persisted in believing that natural philosophy could be based on purely rational, as opposed to strictly empirical, investigation. For him, the eternal universe was a necessary universe, and its physical principles could be attained through an intellectual process divorced from experience.

    “Strictly speaking, …there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’. . . a philosophy, a ‘faith,’ must always be there first, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist. . . . It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science.”

    Jean Buridan was compelled by his religious beliefs to reject the Aristotelian idea that the universe itself was eternal.
    And if the universe itself was not eternal, then the celestial motion whose eternity Aristotle also posited had to be conceived of in some other way. In other words, if the planets had begun to exist at a particular moment in time, then planetary motion must also have begun at a particular moment in time.
    Here, in a nutshell, are the ideas of momentum and inertial motion.
    once the belief in creation ex nihilo had become “a widely shared cultural consensus during the Christian Middle Ages, it became almost natural that there should arise the idea of inertial motion.”
    Insofar as that broad creedal or theological consensus is the work of Christianity,” Jaki contends, “science is not Western, but Christian.”
    The Buridan impetus theory developed one of the most important thought experiments in the history of science, namely the so-called ‘tunnel-experiment’, so important because it brought oscillatory and pendulum motion within the pale of dynamical analysis and understanding in the science of motion for the very first time and thereby also established one of the important principles of classical mechanics.”

  131. max

    “Many Catholic scholars had simply assumed that there could be no serious contradiction between the truths of the faith and the best of ancient philosophy. But contradictions there were, as these new texts made increasingly evident. Aristotle had posited an eternal universe, whereas the Church taught that God had created the world at a moment in time, out of nothing. Aristotle also denied the possibility of a vacuum.
    Still other problematic statements could be found within Aristotle’s corpus of work and would have to be confronted.
    They believed that Aristotle’s views, such as the eternity of the earth, were the certain results of sound reasoning, and that no fault could be found in the logical process that led to them. Yet these views contradicted divine revelation.

    Saint Thomas Aquinas, who deeply respected Aristotle, feared that a conservative reaction to the errors of the Averroists might lead to the abandonment of The Philosopher (as he referred to Aristotle) altogether. In his famous synthesis, Saint Thomas demonstrated that faith and reason were complementary and could not contradict each other. Any apparent contradictions that arose indicated errors in one’s understanding either of religion or of philosophy.

    Even the Condemnations of 1277, however, had a positive effect on the development of science. Pierre Duhem, one of the great twentieth-century historians of science, went so far as to argue that these condemnations represented the beginning of modern science. What Duhem and more recent scholars like A. C. Crombie and Edward Grant have suggested is that the condemnations forced thinkers to break out of the intellectual confinement that Aristotelian presuppositions had fastened upon them, and to think about the physical world in new ways. By condemning certain aspects of Aristotelian physical theory, they began to break Western scholars of the habit of relying so heavily on Aristotle, and gave them an opportunity to begin thinking in ways that departed from ancient assumptions.

    Aristotle denied the possibility of a vacuum, and thinkers in the High Mid- dle Ages typically followed him in this view. After the condemnations were issued, scholars were now required to concede that the all-powerful God could indeed create a vacuum. This opened new and exciting scientific possibilities.

    the Aristotelian proposition that “the motions of the sky result from an intellective soul.” A condemnation of that statement was of great importance, since it denied that the heavenly bodies possessed souls and were in some way alive— a standard cosmological belief that had enjoyed currency since antiquity. Although we can find Church fathers who condemned this idea as incompatible with the faith, a great many Christian thinkers had adopted Aristotle’s view and conceived of the planetary spheres as being propelled by intellectual substances of some kind.”

  132. JC

    The fact that the world is round was proved by observation by rational people. Those that were advocating it was flat were ignoring observation and not being rational. You’ve got everything backwards.

    This bigoted turkey was attempting to imply that somehow religion had something to do with people believing the earth was flat. However, this would have zero to do with religion. Why would Christianity be impinged on if the earth as flat or a sphere? He doesn’t say.

    Get the brush out as this turkey needs to be basted.

  133. The BigBlueCat

    The fact that the world is round was proved by observation by rational people. Those that were advocating it was flat were ignoring observation and not being rational. You’ve got everything backwards.

    The point I was making is that the prevailing view (flat Earth) was not considered “oddball” but a round Earth was. Of course we both know that the world was proven round by observation and mathematics – that’s not the point I was making. Max has pointed out that Augustine and other early philosophers and theologians (who pre-dated the mathematic proof of a round Earth) also understood the Earth to be round, and how faith and reason should not be considered contradictory. But you would consider them as “religious conservatives”. It’s how “oddball” is a matter of relative perception, not necessarily a matter of fact.

    That’s not “from my perspective,” that’s a fact. What do you find confusing about it?

    From your perspective only, it’s a “fact” – of that I am not confused at all. C.L has proven himself to be able to reach rational conclusions.

  134. The BigBlueCat

    Correction … not Augstine, Aquinas.

  135. Iampeter

    It’s how “oddball” is a matter of relative perception, not necessarily a matter of fact.

    There was nothing relative about the way I used oddball, which was the same way CL used oddball, in this thread.
    Since you can’t seem to get this, you have no ability to fight people who think there are more than two genders. All they have to do is point out that “genders” is a matter of relative perception and you lose.

    You’ve proved the point I was making in my first post that without thinking skills you can’t fight these people.
    CL also proved it by trying to suggest this was a question of science and the other screaming idiots in this thread proved it too.

    This is another issue the left is going to win and conservatives are going to help them do so, as they always do, through sheer idiocy and incompetence.

  136. The only point you’ve made Peter is that you are unlikable and disagree with everyone else.

    I like Objectivist philosophy too, but unlike you, I’m only somewhat of an autistic arsewipe.

  137. Iampeter

    The only point you’ve made Peter is that you are unlikable and disagree with everyone else.

    Yes, yes, the raving imbeciles like JC and yourself are the ones that are likeable and not just randomly disagreeing because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

    HAAHAHAHAHA XD

    Keep on projecting and self deluding. It’s all you’ve got…

  138. Iampeter

    I M Ploder is of course Mr Congeniality.

    Clearly JC and yourself are the real deft social operators and intellectual giants. Not at all a bunch of triggered, socially inept, cranks and raving imbeciles, that would be banned on any other forum. Clearly.

    Not everyone can be as brilliant as you guys.

  139. A compliment?

    That’s why we call you Mr Congeniality.

  140. The BigBlueCat

    There was nothing relative about the way I used oddball, which was the same way CL used oddball, in this thread.

    It depends on what side you’re on, doesn’t it??? That’s my point. It’s relative. You claim CL is “oddball” because “conservative religion” … that’s identity politics there, done and dusted. C.L can equally call you “oddball” because of the identity politics you’ve just played. Why can you not see this?

    Since you can’t seem to get this, you have no ability to fight people who think there are more than two genders. All they have to do is point out that “genders” is a matter of relative perception and you lose.

    I don’t see it as my job to “fight them” … why should I? I have the freedom to accept or deny their claims. My position is that there are 2 genders that align to their primary physical sexual characteristics – any other viewpoint I consider a delusion. The left will claim science supports multi-genderism because “studies”. How does that comport with “rational atheist”? As I said before, I recognise that people do identify their gender outside of their primary physical sexual characteristics – but that is not my reality, it is their delusion.

    This is another issue the left is going to win and conservatives are going to help them do so, as they always do, through sheer idiocy and incompetence.

    You’re probably right – the politics of popularity will win out. But you have no solution other than to say others have no solution. You have offered nothing! As usual.

  141. Iampeter

    It depends on what side you’re on, doesn’t it??? That’s my point. It’s relative.

    What’s relative about the use of the term oddball by CL and me in this thread?

    You claim CL is “oddball” because “conservative religion” … that’s identity politics there, done and dusted.

    That is not identity politics.
    Identity politics is believing the state should take action based on collectives that people belong to, instead of using political theory.
    Pointing out that religious belief is irrational is not “identity politics” in any shape or form.
    You should learn what terms mean before throwing them around.

    My position is that there are 2 genders that align to their primary physical sexual characteristics – any other viewpoint I consider a delusion.

    Yea but according to you that’s just your perspective…

  142. old bloke

    struth
    #3216668, posted on November 20, 2019 at 4:25 pm

    Embrace the lord.
    Let his light open your heart and find true happiness.
    Ya fucken idiot.

    This world needs more Struths.

  143. The BigBlueCat

    Your definition of “identity politics” is a pretty weak definition to argue from. Identity politics isn’t just “believing the state should take action based on collectives that people belong to, instead of using political theory.” You’re arguing from a definition of “identity politics” you made up. Identity p0litics is much broader than “believing the state should take action based on collectives”. Suggest you look here for a better definition.

    Pointing out that religious belief is irrational is not “identity politics” in any shape or form.
    You should learn what terms mean before throwing them around.

    My assertion isn’t that pointing out irrational belief is “identity politics” – my assertion is that you have used “religious conservative” as an argument for “oddball” and therefore making the inference that “religious conservative” perspectives can be quickly dismissed as “oddball”. You were using the “religious conservative” identity to make a concerted attack on people in that group. You backtracked in a subsequent post, but your initial post made it clear what your instinct is. You are claiming that belonging to the group of “religious conservative” means “oddball” (plus you’ve used other terms like “crackpot”), and that is clearly fallacious.

    Your original assertion was:

    Religious conservatives have absolutely no leg to stand on in fighting about how many genders there are.

    Yet you believe there are only 2 genders. Surely “religious conservatives” (a term you haven’t defined, but let’s for argument’s sake say these are the principle mono-theistic religions such as Catholicism, Orthodox Christian, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Islam, Judaism, etc) would by-and-large claim the same? And by what logic? Well, from the “religious conservatives” perspective, that might be because their religious texts inform them, and from a social perspective, they principally deal and identify with the typical gender binary identities that align with the individuals’ sex. It would seem that “religious conservatives” are more likely to agree with your assertion that there are only 2 genders than not.

    But you and C.L. agree on gender and sex, yet you attack him. Why? “Religious conservative” maybe? Sounds a bit bigoted to me. And wrong if you consider your views on gender and sex are more likely to align with “religious conservatives” than not.

  144. The BigBlueCat

    My position is that there are 2 genders that align to their primary physical sexual characteristics – any other viewpoint I consider a delusion.

    Yea but according to you that’s just your perspective…

    Yes, it is. Yours too … point being? Oh I see, you think you have objective truth on your side …… really? Prove it.

  145. Iampeter

    Yes, it is. Yours too … point being? Oh I see, you think you have objective truth on your side …… really? Prove it.

    I did:

    In a nutshell, the problem with the attempt to create millions of genders is that these concepts don’t describe anything that we can concretely observed that isn’t already covered by the concepts “male” and “female.”

    But if you don’t believe in objective truth why even bother arguing with anyone about anything?

  146. The BigBlueCat

    I did:

    Bwahahahahaha You provided no proof at all. You just asserted.

    But if you don’t believe in objective truth why even bother arguing with anyone about anything?

    I do believe in objective truth. As I said, I reserve the right not to accept anyone’s gender identity (subjective) if it doesn’t align with their physical sexual characteristics (objective). I don’t have to accept their subjective truth. I do accept the objective truth of their physical sexual characteristics.

    My assertion was that your argument based on “oddball” was a relative argument … and certainly not an objective one. You still haven’t explained why you criticised C.L. when you agree with his position on sex and gender. Your only reasoning is still “religious conservative” and “oddball”, which in the light of ypour recent comments even you can’t agree with.

  147. Old Lefty

    Dawkins’ pig-ignorance leads him to sneer at Aquinas, but if he bothered to read him he would find the thought that our strongest desires are hunger, thirst and the s3xual urge. Why? Because hunger and thirst have to do with the continued life of the individual, and s3x with the continued life of the species. Impeccable evolutionary logic, yet Dawkins announces his theory that it’s all about survival as if it were some astonishing new discovery on his part.

    You may have noted also that Aquinas’s assertion of the intrinsic link between s3x and reproduction derives from reasoned reflection on biology (on which his teacher, Albert the Great, did pioneering work), and does not depend on the authority of sacred texts. By contrast, contemporary gender theory, which tries to erase our animal nature, is Cartesian dualism on steroids. My dear grandmother, who spent most of her 93 years on a cattle farm, would observe calmly that homosexuality was just not natural.

  148. Iampeter

    Bwahahahahaha You provided no proof at all. You just asserted.

    So then you DO think there are more than two genders?

    I do believe in objective truth.

    Then you need to either agree that I am objectively correct that there are only two genders or prove to me objectively that there are more than two…

    My assertion was that your argument based on “oddball” was a relative argument … and certainly not an objective one.

    Yes. It was just an assertion. You keep making it for some reason and I’ve repeatedly asked you to back it up, which if you could’ve done, you would’ve done.

    You still haven’t explained why you criticised C.L.

    This has been explained a few times now in this thread. Posts #3216499 and post #3216502 for example.

    Your only reasoning is still “religious conservative” and “oddball”, which in the light of ypour recent comments even you can’t agree with.

    That is not my only reasoning, as has already been explained, but even if it was it should be perfectly sufficient.

  149. The BigBlueCat

    So then you DO think there are more than two genders?

    No … you’re making that up. I think that someone, say, who is physically a man and identifies as a woman, doesn’t make it true and I shouldn’t be required to indulge their delusions. But people do make these identity shifts, which although I consider it a delusion, they make the shift anyway. Never in a real sense, only in their subjective sense.

    I never made the claim that, say, males can be actually females, but equally (as gender is a social construct and not an expression of physical sexual characteristics) I reckon people can (and clearly do) call themselves whatever they like; it doesn’t mean it’s true or in any way represent objective reality if their gender, sexuality and physical apparatus (including primary chromosomal genetics) don’t align, and it shouldn’t mean I or anyone else have to indulge in their claims of gender. Clear enough?

    Then you need to either agree that I am objectively correct that there are only two genders or prove to me objectively that there are more than two…

    Social science will tell you that there are up to 33 genders (maybe more) – but I don’t believe that is true because they not only conflate sexuality into the equation, but synthetics such as “gender reassignment” (ie. surgical operations on the physical sexual characteristics), “non-genderism” (which is a denial of gender, not an actual non-gender), “trans-genderism” (the so-called transition from one gender to another) among many other artificial genders that they say lie on a spectrum. But never-the-less, people do identify as these genders (falsely it seems) because of “feelings”, which means they are more than likely mentally/emotionally disconnected as it doesn’t match their “apparatus” or genetics. But social science claims that gender identity is separate from sex, and that cis-gender is only a traditional, normative gender. I find it interesting that for the most part, the variety of genders expressed by social science are variations of male- and female-oriented genders unaligned to physical sexual characteristics, but mostly their sexual preferences.

    I am not claiming to be a social scientist or sex / gender expert – you might claim otherwise for yourself, but I do subscribe to a position that men can’t actually be women and women can’t actually be men in a physical sense. But people can (and clearly do) identify with a gender that doesn’t comply with their physical attributes – even if you or I can objectively prove that their sex and gender don’t match.

    But if you haven’t considered any of this in formulating your own views, then good luck! All I can say is that’s it’s a wacky world out there – all sorts of weirdos.

    But here’s what you said in your first post on this thread:

    Are you a rational atheist CL?
    Because if not, you’re not in a position to be calling anyone out for “oddball beliefs.”

    Religious conservatives have absolutely no leg to stand on in fighting about how many genders there are.

    I challenged you on “rational atheist” and your view that if one is not a “rational atheist” then they have no basis for calling out anyone for “oddball beliefs”. My position is that “oddball” is relative (ie. subjective) since “rational” (as you use it in your statement) does not belong to atheists alone, and “oddball” is merely an epithet thrown at someone whose views you do not accept or understand (therefore it is subjective and relative). What you call “oddball” might actually be objectively true – “oddball” is therefore a subjective word in the context which you used it.

    The other point I make is that “religious conservatives” (which for argument’s sake I have defined for you, since you didn’t) are far more likely to support sex / gender alignment (ie. sexual male = gender male), which is what you have been recently posting, because again you left your position open in your first post. I might add that “religious conservatives” have a track record of calling out mismatched sex / gender / sexuality alignments – for instance, the radical Isl*mists throw them off buildings, Ancient Judaism would stone them, historically Catholics would burn them, Southern Baptists would ostracise them, etc. Judeo-Christian teaching does not include genders other than male and female ( eg. “man and woman He made them” – Genesis 1:27)

    So, in your original post, I challenged you on two clearly false statements that you have made. But you keep going on about your perfect reasoning. You provided none.

  150. Iampeter

    No … you’re making that up.

    So then I was stating an objective truth, when I said there were only two genders and demonstrated how we know this. It was not an “assertion” as you just said in a previous post with a lot of laughing.
    You can’t have it both ways.

    My position is that “oddball” is relative (ie. subjective) since “rational” (as you use it in your statement) does not belong to atheists alone

    That doesn’t explain how my use of the term “oddball” is relative or subjective. You can drop the word “atheist” if you want. I even went so far as to point out it was redundant in a post.

    and “oddball” is merely an epithet thrown at someone whose views you do not accept or understand

    Why are you directing this comment at me? Why not at CL whose entire post is about using the term “oddball” as merely an epithet thrown at someone whose views CL does not accept or understand?

    So, in your original post, I challenged you on two clearly false statements that you have made. But you keep going on about your perfect reasoning. You provided none.

    What part of the statement that people with oddball beliefs are hypocrites for calling out other people with oddball beliefs is “clearly false?”
    What part of the statement that people whose oddball beliefs go to the very fundamentals of thinking may have trouble making logical arguments on the subject anyway is “clearly false?”
    Especially since that second point was proven almost immediately by CL responding and suggesting the question of genders is about “science.”

    You seem to have been hung-up on the term “rational atheist” without ever understanding what I was actually saying.

  151. JC

    You seem to have been hung-up on the term “rational atheist” without ever understanding what I was actually saying.

    As though there’s even a smidgen of any rational thinking in you, you angry sneering irrational loon.

    Don’t make us laugh.

  152. Mr Congeniality really making the case for normal people to not hope for an afterlife.

    Rational people always criticise and then never give a solution or their alternative idea.

    Of course. They’re not cockhead trolls at all.

  153. JC

    We’re heading into turkey week, Frank. This turkey has been basted and roasted to perfection now. Blue Cat has taken over the carving arrangements.

  154. Iampeter

    As though there’s even a smidgen of any rational thinking in you, you angry sneering irrational loon.

    Don’t make us laugh.

    BAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA XD

  155. I would like to rationally engage I Am Peter and Felix in a rationally rational discussion of time series statistical modelling.

    What do you think of Beenstock, Polder and Reigenwertz, I Am Peter?

    I am betting that I will be told I don’t know what I am talking about, then will never receive a reply as to why I am wrong; even though my position isn’t even stated.

    Thanks, Mr Congeniality.

  156. JC

    Plodes Bobbsey.

    Neither the existence of god nor the number of genders are questions of science.

    And then, almost immediately.

    Only a true Catallaxy imbecile could read what I wrote there and conclude that I think there are more than two genders.

    Hand in your iPad to the orderly. Now! as you’re done here.

  157. Iampeter

    And JC pulls ahead of BigBlue for champion moron in this thread. I mean…that post…there’s no words…
    Can BigBlue catch-up and regain his leading position?
    Who will claim the coveted prize of certified imbecile?

    Stay tuned!

  158. The BigBlueCat

    Can BigBlue catch-up and regain his leading position?
    Who will claim the coveted prize of certified imbecile?

    I think you have already claimed the prize, Iampeter. Do you want us to take a vote?

    For the record, you believe “atheist” is redundant because you think only atheists can be rational. Right? In this, you follow people like Dawkins who made the same sort of claim.

    And for the record, I made it clear what I think of more than 2 genders and gender alignment to sex. Clearly you cannot read, or only read what you want. Thereby proving who the champion moron is.

    I revisited your original post for clarity in what you were conveying – 1) an attack on CL based on rationality, and 2) an attack on “religious conservatives” holding “oddball beliefs”. I demonstrated how both of your suppositions were wrong. You have always had the opportunity to clarify your original post – instead you keep saying how I have it wrong, but you have not been succinct in pointing out precisely where I am wrong on either of the two points. Instead, you have doubled down and finally resorted to name-calling (always the refuge of the unintelligent).

    All you needed do was admit that your words were imprecise and clarified. You didn’t. Instead you went full retard. Now, let’s have that vote!

  159. Iampeter

    For the record, you believe “atheist” is redundant because you think only atheists can be rational. Right?

    No, it was just to make it clear exactly which oddball beliefs of religious conservatives makes it so they don’t have a leg to stand on with regards to this issue.

    And for the record, I made it clear what I think of more than 2 genders and gender alignment to sex.

    I said there were only two genders and you laughed it off as being a mere assertion. So you must think there are more than two genders.

    I revisited your original post for clarity in what you were conveying – 1) an attack on CL based on rationality, and 2) an attack on “religious conservatives” holding “oddball beliefs”. I demonstrated how both of your suppositions were wrong.

    Neither of those were my “suppositions.”
    My points are exactly as I spelled them out to you in the very post you’re responding to.
    At no point have you understood what you’re even arguing against in this thread. Not even when it’s spelled out for you.

    All you needed do was admit that your words were imprecise and clarified. You didn’t. Instead you went full retard.

    And now you’re just projecting.

  160. The BigBlueCat

    No, it was just to make it clear exactly which oddball beliefs of religious conservatives makes it so they don’t have a leg to stand on with regards to this issue.

    You failed. I pointed out that “religious conservatives” are more likely to agree with you regarding 2 genders. Does that make your position “oddball”?

    I said there were only two genders and you laughed it off as being a mere assertion. So you must think there are more than two genders.

    No, I pointed out that social science would disagree with you, and those involved with that endeavour also consider themselves to be rational because of “science”. You and I may disagree that their results are useful as I think a man who thinks himself to be a woman is deluded – your only claim is that there are 2 genders. Social scientists would take the 2 gender position as oddball as they will claim they have scientific research on their side. You are clearly blind to the fact the “oddball” is a descriptor and is used subjectively. Is that simple enough for you?

    Neither of those were my “suppositions.”
    My points are exactly as I spelled them out to you in the very post you’re responding to.
    At no point have you understood what you’re even arguing against in this thread. Not even when it’s spelled out for you.

    So you state that what you said are not suppositions – ergo you think them as fact (either that or a lie). I took your comments at face value and you have confirmed that is what you meant. I dispelled those “facts” – “oddball” is a relative term and rational can be considered “oddball” depending on who is evaluating the statement (especially when “oddball” is used as an adjective), and that “religious conservatives” would more likely agree with you regarding 2 genders than not, thereby demonstrating they do have a leg to stand on. In my experience, they will use the same logic as yours (and mine) in terms of what can be observed of physical sexual characteristics including chromosomes.

    I demonstrated how irrational your statements were … and in refusing to acknowledge that, you prove how irrational you are. Want to dig an even deeper hole for yourself?

    And now you’re just projecting.

    What I am doing is proving the self-declared rational atheist is irrational when it comes to the point he made in his first post on this thread. He then proceeded to get annoyed, angry and even more irrational. Just goes to show, huh!

  161. Iampeter

    I pointed out that “religious conservatives” are more likely to agree with you regarding 2 genders. Does that make your position “oddball”?

    I’m not disputing that they might agree with me.

    Is that simple enough for you?

    Is that a joke?

    So you state that what you said are not suppositions – ergo you think them as fact (either that or a lie).

    Facepalm. No. I’ve stated that my points are not even remotely what you think they are.
    The fact that they are not suppositions is secondary.

    Once again, you’ve not understood what’s being said and have gone on an irrelevant tangent to keep arguing things no one is arguing with you.

  162. The BigBlueCat

    rational
    /ˈraʃ(ə)n(ə)l/
    Learn to pronounce
    adjective
    adjective: rational
    1.
    based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

    Based on the above definition of rationality from Dictionary.com, your initial post on this thread does not exhibit any of these qualities as I have proven, and I see you agree with certain points I have made.

    By definition, if someone has a logical and reasoned conclusion, they would be considered rational. By challenging your statements I have demonstrated that they should not be considered objectively true. If they are not objectively true, then either you are irrational (and likely to have made the statements you did based on an emotional response), or your logic and reasoning is faulty. Take your pick.

    Once again, you’ve not understood what’s being said and have gone on an irrelevant tangent to keep arguing things no one is arguing with you.

    I’ve understood it very well, despite your claim to the contrary. See the above. All of it. Including comments from others.

    BTW – I think CL is being very emotive and subjective when he terms “the oddball beliefs of leftists” – although to be fair he’s not saying they oddball because they are leftists – he is expressing a relative and subjective description because he considers his position to be the right one – leftists, on the other hand, might consider his position oddball. But you just cannot fathom that, thinking “oddball beliefs” is an objective statement. But there’s no need to call him out on that – we agree with him. So should you. Your intent was to attack CL and to denigrate “religious conservatives”. By my reasoning, you have failed.

    Now for that vote, unless you want to keep digging that hole you’re in.

  163. Iampeter

    BigBlue, you continue to demonstrate that you haven’t understood the initial post you’ve spent all thread responding to.
    I even spelled it out for you in post #3241742 even though it is so basic that it shouldn’t need any clarification.

    Regardless you keep posting walls of text that have nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

  164. The BigBlueCat

    No, you just refuse to acknowledge your post was deficient. We all understand perfectly what you said and why. And your post #3241742 was less than helpful. You are all piss and wind!

  165. Iampeter

    No, you just refuse to acknowledge your post was deficient.

    It’s too simple to be deficient. CL understood and responded accordingly.

    And your post #3241742 was less than helpful.

    Nothing is going to help you mate. Like all too many windbags here, you have no business here.

  166. The BigBlueCat

    It’s too simple to be deficient. CL understood and responded accordingly.

    Is that because you’re simple????

    C.L.
    #3216465, posted on November 20, 2019 at 1:13 pm
    Iampeter, I don’t claim science can prove God’s existence.
    I claim that it proves there are only two genders.
    Your analogy fails.

    CL understood it enough to claim you failed! Glad you see that he “responded accordingly”.

    Keep digging that hole buddy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.