Reactionary Radical Eliminationists vs. Trans

So!! To recap for any noobs.....

They really aren't.

You really don't.

You really don't.

It really doesn't.

It isn't. Not even a little.

That is a pretty good summation of @Uncle Albert 's points.

If history holds true he will be along to tell everyone how stupid you are for misinterpreting his points and then pretty much say those exact same things.

Thanks for beating him up. My foot is tired of kicking him. Your foot is like Chun Li, and he is the fucking car being destroyed.

Weird that you assume everything someone says is a lie. Now I have to assume you’re lying with your every post.

Watch out dicky, I don't think stanklips is going to be your friend anymore now that you didn't love her boyfriend while he has tried to shit all over you.

It is a little late for that shit @Jenee .

Have fun arguing with sock puppets. None of that has anything to do with me.

You are so predictable.

I "assume" nothing.
Only two on that list are "lies".
Sports and kids.
UA hates sports. Period. He's said so.
He has no kids because he hates kids. He's said so.
The end.

He also said opposite of most on your list. In fact, with each statement, you called him a liar.

So, you are calling him a liar.

For whatever reasons, you chose to not believe the words he typed on an internet message board.

You think he’s lying and hates black people.

But you think he’s telling the truth when he says he hates kids.

It’s like you’re behaving the same way you despise religious people - you believe what you wish to believe and dismiss what you choose not to believe.

You are a hypocrite.

You are a wacko.

Examples? I mean, you aren't a parent and I am, 4 times over. I have quadruple your experience, and I've never seen anything you're describing.

Again, examples? I live in the most liberal county in Florida. Never seen anything remotely like what you're describing.

I never said it does. I just said you are obligated to validate their right to exist. You can have whatever smooth-brained opinions you like.

You might as well be calling me human.

I am a wacko.

That fact doesn’t mean I’m wrong. It’s true and you know it’s true.

She is not wacko. She is obviously Dr. Scratch and sniff the stank off of UA.

THE END of the facts you have. The rest are self-serving fabrications to make yourself feel clever.

I'm not repeating my entire post history for your lazy ass.

And you are dead wrong about me being obligated to validate anyone. The one and only inherent obligation I have towards others is to refrain from interfering with them exercising their rights. Anything beyond that is voluntary.

Once the next thread-page turns, you'll think we have amnesia, and spout exactly those points.
Even knowing I'm ready for it. You can't help yourself.

You'll distort it to mean something other than what I said.

For someone whose posts all read like copy/paste, that's quite the pot calling the kettle black.

Surprise! That is validation!
But you don't actually seem to understand what that means.

Yeah, okay, Captain Perfect.
The reason everyone who runs afoul of you (but Jenee) loathes you is they're jealous of your awesomeness.
They just can't handle how "real" you are.

OK, so we're playing the "alternative definitions" game.

No, "refrain" means NOT taking the action. NOT infringing. Me declining to play make believe to placate some dude in a dress has absolutely no bearing on his rights.

Arguing with imaginary characters again. Seek help.

"It's skin off my nose!!! ".

Check!

Interfering would be telling teachers they aren't allowed to acknowledge the existence of such people. So that's a big goose egg for you on that one, sorry.
No one is asking you for anything else.

Once again, you're hitting all the bullshitter notes.

There is a vast, irrefutable difference between saying they exist, and saying "They exist, and here is what you are required to think/say/do about it."

Fucking sell me another one.

No, you’ve clearly bought all the bullshit that’s available for sale.

So why shouldn't classrooms acknowledge they exist? Does that count as telling people what to think about it?
Your responses are nonsensical.

I see a lot of this sort of transference in my job... by "go on about" my piety (heh), you mean I can actually describe multiple tasks with a recognizable effect vs the four or five involved in your loading a machine that does all the skilled stuff after you load it? 'cause other than enjoying the challenge (and fat pay cheque) the only moral assessments about it come from you.

curious as to why you facetiously characterize my workplace as "totally not a prison diversion program"? are you suggesting that the homeless should be imprisoned for being homeless? that mentally ill folks should just be locked away so you don't have to see'em?

Like I've said before, you truly do remind me of a few of the less sympathetic tenants and drop in members-that is to say, the bottom level fenny dealers. Especially with bullshit phrases like "asserting some kind of unconditional collectivist obligation" to describe a basic functional society. It's a pretty way of saying you'll take but not give back, and nothing more.

to be fair, it's one specific person who's hardly got a reputation for intellectual (or any other sort of) honesty...

It’s more about the way he presents his arguments as well as how someone else’s perceptions about what that person is saying.

UA has never said he dislikes gays or trans or black people. He has made arguments that injustices inflicted on those communities does not require an opposite reaction from him. Nor is he required to say something “nice”. But, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen anyway. He’s just saying he’s not required to do so.

Which, I can see how others would take that to mean as it has been taken here. But, what Diacanu did in his post is outright call UA a liar after he expressly laid out his thoughts on the matter.

I suppose this is why it’s difficult for anyone here to give a straight answer to anything. Some other asshat will call you a liar.

I appreciate you coming to the aid of your husband.
However, who you describe is not really how he presents himself. Although I am inclined to believe you. I get the feeling most of UA's posts are performative outrage for the lols. I can picture you two yukking it up over dinner.
But the arguments he presents here are, well, terrible. He'd get shredded in any debate tournament because he can't move beyond emotional appeals. Now, that makes sense if he's just putting on a show, but then don't be surprised when everyone dogpiles on his ridiculous, contradictory statements.

I was just offering my opinion of the posts. Not anything about the content of the posts. Regardless of how you take that post, it doesn’t change the fact that something someone posted was immediately called out as lying.

If you suspect the person to whom you’re speaking is lying, why carry on?