Youtube comments of Aaron Rosenberg (@aaronrosenberg6633).

  1. 372
  2. 284
  3. 184
  4. 157
  5. 72
  6. 70
  7. 44
  8. 40
  9. 40
  10. 39
  11. 38
  12. 38
  13. 37
  14. 33
  15. 32
  16. 32
  17. 31
  18. 28
  19. 28
  20. 26
  21. 26
  22. 25
  23. 25
  24. 24
  25. 23
  26. 23
  27. 22
  28. 21
  29. 21
  30. 21
  31. 20
  32. 20
  33. 19
  34. 18
  35. 17
  36. 17
  37. 16
  38. 16
  39. 16
  40. 16
  41. 15
  42. 15
  43. 15
  44. 15
  45. 15
  46. 14
  47. 14
  48. 13
  49. 13
  50. 13
  51. 12
  52. 12
  53. 12
  54. 12
  55. 12
  56. 12
  57. 12
  58. 12
  59. 12
  60. 12
  61. 12
  62. 11
  63. 11
  64. 11
  65. 11
  66. 11
  67. 11
  68. 11
  69. 10
  70. 10
  71. 10
  72. 10
  73. 10
  74. 10
  75. 10
  76. 9
  77. 9
  78. 9
  79. 9
  80. 9
  81. 8
  82. 8
  83. 8
  84. 8
  85. 8
  86. 8
  87. 8
  88. 8
  89. 8
  90.  @Vic2point0  "What makes their identities valid? Can you provide an objective definition for "man" or "woman"? " Regarding gender, no, I cannot. Can you? Our identities are shaped in our brains. That's what makes them valid. It's my observation that while gender is mostly a social construct, there may be some biological contributor. If someone tells me they don't identify as a he or a she, or that they identify as a gender that does not match their birth-assigned gender, I am in no position to refute them. Neither are you. Deciding to label them as something with which they do not identify would paint me as someone who's insecure, apathetic. I may not understand what it feels like to be them, but that doesn't matter, and if I know what's good for me, I'll reach for empathy. "Well, it's not about anyone's personal expectations or comfort level;" Your post does seem to indicate a level of discomfort. "your worldview should be coherent before you expect anyone to buy into it." That's a loaded assertion, and it reeks of a certain inhumane callousness and selfishness, though ironically, it's logically incoherent. What it seems like you're saying is, "I refuse to validate your gender identity because gender identity is not yet fully understood." Historically, try applying your assertion to any population of people with differences from the norm: left-handedness, homosexuality, red hair, autism, bipolarity, ADHD, albinism. I group these together because they are all states of being which were at some point (or still are) subject to derision and hostility. You get to learn from history if you want to ! "As for people's brains being wired to identify as another gender, even if we grant that as an explanation for their beliefs, that doesn't make their beliefs true." Is your gender identity a "belief?" Or is it just who you are? I imagine it's convenient to label someone else's gender identity a b"belief" in order to invalidate it, the same way people label homosexuality a "lifestyle" just to invalidate it. No. "Empathy does not entail agreement. Don't you have empathy for people with schizophrenia? I'd imagine you do, but still don't agree with their beliefs. Agreement isn't even a talking point. Schizophrenia is not a "belief." There is nothing to "agree" with. But imagine responding to people with schizophrenia with, "Gotta love how even the 'experts' can't come up with an objective definition for 'schizophrenia', yet they insist we follow them anyway." The Mayo Clinic says, "It's not known what causes schizophrenia, but researchers believe that a combination of genetics, brain chemistry and environment contributes to development of the disorder." Yeah? Well tough! The experts' conclusions aren't coherent enough, and I refuse to acknowledge that schizophrenia is valid. ← That's what you're saying.
    8
  91. 8
  92. 8
  93. 8
  94. 7
  95. 7
  96. 7
  97. 7
  98. 7
  99. 7
  100. 7
  101. 7
  102. 7
  103. 7
  104. 7
  105. 7
  106. 7
  107. 7
  108. 7
  109. 7
  110. 7
  111. 6
  112. 6
  113. 6
  114. 6
  115. 6
  116. 6
  117. 6
  118. 6
  119. 6
  120. 6
  121. 6
  122. 5
  123. 5
  124. 5
  125. 5
  126. 5
  127. 5
  128. 5
  129. 5
  130. 5
  131. 5
  132. 5
  133. 5
  134. 5
  135. 5
  136. 5
  137. 5
  138. 5
  139. 5
  140. 5
  141. 5
  142. 5
  143. 5
  144. 5
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 4
  155. 4
  156. 4
  157. 4
  158. 4
  159. 4
  160. 4
  161. 4
  162. 4
  163. 4
  164. 4
  165. 4
  166. 4
  167. 4
  168. 4
  169. 4
  170. 4
  171. 4
  172. 4
  173. 4
  174. 4
  175. 4
  176. 4
  177. 4
  178. 4
  179. 4
  180. 4
  181. 4
  182. 4
  183. 4
  184. 4
  185. 4
  186. 4
  187. 4
  188. 4
  189. 4
  190. 4
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. Nasloxieh Rorsxez "You keep saying its a normal occurrence in nature. So is rape, pedophilia and cannibalism." And you keep trotting out that tired old canard, which you yourself don't seem to understand only refutes your own point. These are all natural, just like heterosexuality is, just like homosexuality is. You're only attempting to make a connection between harm and homosexuality, which you fail at. So you cannot label homosexuality unnatural, for the thousandth time, you moron. Nor can you label it immoral, since it harms nobody.  "If we adhered to what the animal kingdom does, there wouldn't be such a huge disparity between what differentiates us humans and other animals in both a moral and intellectual level." What a nonsensical word salad. "Also, im not religious and transgenderism can be classified as a mental illness/disorder." It's only a disorder until the person comes to terms with their true gender identity, which is wired into the brain and not necessarily always expressed by outward appearance or genitalia.  "More specifically, gender dysphoria. Sayings transgenderism is "natural" is preposterous." What is preposterous is believing you have some edge of fiat on what's natural for other people. You obviously lead an indoctrinated/sheltered life which has precluded developing any faculty of empathy. "It contradicts biology" It is biology, dimwit.  " and there are no analogies to make to justify it being "natural"." We don't need analogies. We have science. 
    3
  204. 3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324. 2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. "Nobody is saying it's a zero sum game." You are: "At least talk about LGBTQ rights or charity or something" Zero-sum game: a situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it. Dividing up the budget is a zero-sum game. You are implying that by focusing on her topic, she is taking away from "LGBTQ rights or charity or something." "Even with research you need to prove beneficence of a hypothesis." How does this mean anything in the context of this dialogue? "I also agree with the TED motto. But the talk failed to state any idea." Here are a few for you, in case you missed them: • It's possible to build bridges between past and present identities. • In doing so, she can spread a message of hope to the "others who don't belong" in her homeland that they are not alone. • She can joyfully reconcile her rural roots—including pride of ancestry/homeland/native tongue—with her queer identity. "Rather it was all about how she chose to do nothing different but be herself." Being herself in the above sense is indeed very different for her. Did you miss the part about "what got lost" both in translation and in transition? This is how she's changed. "She deserves a blog perhaps..not the TED platform." Yeah, not your place to decide, thankfully. Different people benefit differently, if at all, from different TED talks. There's a tendency for folks like you to complain about it when you feel you don't benefit, rather than simply bypassing it. "No articulation what so ever just eloquent tip toeing around the topic of being transgender and tribal." Good think I did your homework for you. Next time, do your own work, or perhaps just skip the video. I've a feeling that there's something more to this that you're not sharing, but we obviously can't know what that is. "All I am saying is take your damn topic and idea and make simpletons like me understand how this benefits any other person in society" Lots of people have major challenges reconciling their various identities into a healthy whole, whether those identities co-exist or are more separated by time and space. It can be done, though. For those with such a challenge, this video can be very helpful. For you, maybe not so much. That's no reason to complain.
    2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. BariumCobaltNitrog3n "It bothers me to hear people complain about how bad their life is/was when others with the same issues just deal with it and move on." Every indication in the video is that Safwat Saleem dealt with it and moved on. That's why he's doing the talk. Hearing stories about how people overcame their problems is not the same thing as hearing someone complain. So I'm left believing that you have a personal problem that you're unable or unwilling to discuss. "He points out that being on the stage was difficult," So? Seems you have difficulty with just about anything anybody would say about anything being difficult. Again, this is your problem. Stop projecting. "Any other TED speaker saying that would be an aside." It's relevant to his history and his struggle. He came out on top. You are the whiner here, not him. "Also, his talk wasn't specifically about Technology, Entertainment or Design...", Read TED's website at http://www.ted.com/about/our-organization: "TED began in 1984 as a conference where Technology, Entertainment and Design converged, and today covers almost all topics..." "...but how difficult it is to be him." Nope. Seems the true issue here is how difficult it is to be you. He discussed how he was able to switch perspective and overcome his his difficulties. That seems to be a common thread among all TED talks: fixing problems. You have a personal bias here, but I can't know what it is. Next time, before you begin whining, check yourself. "Do you stutter? Why the White Knight?" I do not. I only have cultivated a faculty of empathy. This takes no "White Knight" mentality. It only takes answering higher calling of humanity. Try it.
    1
  491. 1
  492. BariumCobaltNitrog3n "haha hardly. No and no." Funny..."Get a life" suggests otherwise. "You have not hit a nerve, and reflection does not cause pain, unless you are referring to yourself." Ooh, ouch. Such tables turned. "You know nothing about me" What I know is what you've shared, which is not nothing. It's true that that I don't know your deepest secrets, which are likely what's causing your attitude problem. But I already mentioned that. "... and yet continue to insult me while patting yourself on the back for being such a caring person." For someone seeking victims in victors, you sure play the victim to a T. "You're a bully" Nah, bullies threaten harm. You're simply having your ideas scrutinized, being held to task. Your ego seems pretty fragile. If calling you out on your twaddle makes me into a bully in your eyes, you must not do very well. " and a hypocrite who rages at people with different opinions than your own." And what of your own original post - your "opinion?" Do you believe that all opinions carry equal weight? They do not. Yours is baseless and reveals a corrupt sensibility. Your use of the term "rage"is interesting. Why, I wonder, would you conflate a nonsensical tirade with the simple task of holding you accountable for your "opinion?" " If you truly had empathy, you would treat others, whose opinions you don't share, with dignity and respect." I treat all people with respect. But their opinions are not afforded the same. If you have an unsupportable position, it will be examined and ridiculed if it cannot be substantiated. If that hurts your feelings, I guess it's time for you to regroup. To restate, I've noticed and am interested in this bizarre phenomenon where people seem to require and thus insert victims where none exist. You have not provided any satisfactory response to this. "Not this condescending, smarmy bile you think is so clever. Spanky? You are confused." Make no mistake. You are playing the part of a Spanky. It's obvious the deflection you are mustering to deflect from accountability for your inane comments. Regardless of what you say next, you will think twice next time. "Try saying something reasonable and heartfelt once in your life." Fabricating what you cannot know seems to fit with the personality who posted the original comment. "Be nice to people, say kind things, get a life" Uh-oh...more deflection. And the irony, too. " of honor and maturity, reflect on those you have insulted for no reason." Oh, I do. You, Spanky, are being insulted for a very good reason, however. And on some level, you know that. You're only digging in your heels. "That is what I mean when I say get a life, you pathetic little weasel." Cornered, the prey lashes out. "You ARE an idiot, but not the charming savant kind of idiot, just an ordinary common fool." Unable to fend, he snarls, grimaces and spews vitriol.
    1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. Facundo Dilota "There is no consensus about climate change and their causes, no matter what some people says." You're a science denier, then. Here is one link - http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/weight-of-the-evidence.html#.Vz3Q5JMrIo9 Some details may be "still in debate," but there is no denying that the problem is real. Do you also deny evolution? I have a weird feeling you do. "There are so many variables still in debate... i can not take nothing for sure." Bullshit. There's lots you can be sure of. Wenhong Li, an atmospheric scientist at Duke University: “Our understanding of the mechanisms that drive the climate system is far from perfect,” Li says. But she adds that the statistical evidence presented in her research is powerful and should not be ignored. She likens it to the statistical correlations between smoking and lung cancer, which were clear long before the mechanisms of carcinogenesis were clearly understood. “In both cases, the statistical data can give you important information that can help to avoid risk,” she says. Willful ignorance means you don't have worry, though, doesn't it? "That´s why i was expecting some king of explanation, and not only a declaration of principles." Read this: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/climate-scientist-benjamin-santer.html#.Vz3SHpMrIo8 "Maybe is my fault, maybe i am not accepting the truth of the majority, but i still think that science is not democratic and has to be explained." The explanations are out there. While the hard science can be difficult for some to grasp, what is not difficult is to understand that multiple branches of science converge upon the same truth. "Thank you for the talk. This subject is over for me." You're running away from reality.
    1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. Again, he is not saying, "I am totally right about this." Why would you confuse Webb with, say, a preacher? He is only offering his viewpoint, albeit based on lots of research and some deep considerations. "You think our research and technology is hard-core. What makes you so certain that it is?" We have created standards for research. The scientific method is one of these. The peer review process is another. Scientific process creates testable models and by nature employs a high dose of skepticism in drawing conclusions. "I have no proof that aliens exist. But I've studied history. And history says that we've always misinterpreted what we think we are looking at." History says no such thing. If that were the case—that science is always misinterpreting—there would be no progress at all; nothing would work. What you seem to be saying here is that because scientists are sometimes wrong, we should never trust them, and therefore we can believe what ever we want without relying on the evidence that science produces. "The more logical approach to this problem is to think that, most likely, we are not looking at this correctly." Scientific research already does this. That's why it's so rigorous. It posits every possible scenario as to why it might be wrong, and tests those. "I believe that we don't understand a majority of the universe. So how can we start making judgments about what it really is?" Again, this seems like a "What the bleep do we know" sort of position to take. As if we should never begin to try to understand. Good thing that scientists don't think like you. We would never have sent out those rovers to Mars.
    1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. "I'm not implying anything for the LGBTQ community based on her topic." Nor did I say you were. You do seem to be complaining into the void about something, though. "Sorry stopped taking your "breakdown" after that seriously.." You'll have to point out to me where "that" is, since I can't find it anywhere in my response. "If you do not understand something when I put it in an hypothesis framework, dont try to argue with it." Let me turn the tables right back around for you: If you do not understand a video's message, don't draw false conclusions and then complain that "this talk was literally nothing..no beneficence to society" while posing a red herring. "If your feelings are hurt because I didn't like this talk, cant help you." We both know my feelings aren't hurt. Your initial post, however, would indicate that yours are. "Arguing with me isn't magically going to make her topic any relevant." If, after gaining understanding of the topic, it's still irrelevant to you, remember - it's just irrelevant to you (which is kind of a shame, but whatever). If you'd rather not have the cauliflower, don't eat it. Don't whine when others do. "The logical fallacy that you choose to argue on that there must be something wrong with me for me to find this topic uninteresting or idea as irrelevant makes me wonder about your argumentative and debating skills. Personal attacks won't get you anywhere." I don't think there's anything wrong with you to find this topic uninteresting (that is, assuming you understood it). I indeed think there's something wrong with reacting disdainfully (as you did) because of that. "Yes, read my response. I didn't have to accuse you of anything to counter your point. That's how adults argue." I'm sorry, but you didn't counter anything. This is one reason why I do "breakdowns." It may seem tedious, but it's a way to address ideas one by one. You explaining how "adults argue" is rather ironic. "If you are proud of your scholastic aptitude it will explain your responses to every comment on this video--> See what I did there? Accusing someone of something needs evidence. Just because I hurt your feelings by not liking this video doesnt give you a default higher moral ground." Predicating anything on "hurting my feelings" is a straw man fallacy. My conclusion was "that there's something more to this that you're not sharing, but we obviously can't know what that is." How's that for adult? And it's shown by your next comment.... "This video is crap according to some people..you also dont have to be against LGBTQ to not like it." Every video is crap to some people. Cauliflower taste like crap to some people. But they only need abstain from eating it and giving dirty looks to those who do. "I have always been for gay rights and always will be." Huzzah! "So yeah..bye. Ego driven arguing on social media is bad- learn to respect opinions and maybe someone will respect you." I'm not seeking your respect, Spanky. And not all opinions are deserving of equal respect, as they are definitely not all created equal. "And by the way. The way you're desperately trying to comment on this video to everyone actually points to the fact that you are the one that thinks this is a zero sum game." Desperately trying? No, sorry. Just addressing similar ignorance to yours, and with some amount of satisfaction. Perhaps the desperation is yours, then? You must be projecting. Lastly, you are apparently unaware of what I mean by a "zero-sum game." You ought to stop attempting this table-turning. It's not working for you.
    1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. "For more than 100 years now, atheists have been obsessed with proving that humans are descended from apes." Atheists are simply people who don't believe any any god(s). In fact many evolution scientists, including Darwin, were theists. "There are no depths to which they will not sink to render their thesis more plausible as this shocking video shows." This scientist is revealing her finds and proclaiming that it's still a mystery, yet you call this "sinking to the depths." Sounds like your terrified of science. "The original idea was to “prove” that God does not exist although many of their successors deny this as the evidence from genetics increasingly makes obvious that creation of the universe is an infinitely organised phenomenon" No, the original idea of science is to not do disprove god, though a few scientists have attempted that. One such exception is Victor Stenbger's book "God: The Failed Hypothesis." Give it a read someday. "So the evolutionary biologists and palaeontologists have evolved a history that is as absurd as that of institutional religion," Trying to conflate religion and science is how theists try to insult science, but just end up insulting religion. Ironic, huh? "So speciation equals Noah’s Ark, for example, a common ancestor is, of course Adam and Eve, and natural selection God’s covenant with Abraham" Nobody has ever had anything to show for any god. You speak as if that work has been accomplished on your behalf. Despite millennia of desperate assertions, that work remains. Don't be lazy, now. "It’s all lies lies and more lies. Sick people desperate for credibility obsessed with their own superiority, endlessly preaching to the converted who bask in the glory of their own contempt for “religitards” science." Fixed that last little bit for you, and you have yourself nicely described. Tell me where superstition gets you again...
    1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. 1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. 1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. 1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. "oh dear God youre trying to tell me how to spell with a phones keyboard." No excuse. "hey everyone we got a keyboard warrior over here!" Is that what you label people who can spell? "and actually you can look it up, homosexual men are more likely to get HIV with unprotected sex if its occasional to them." And why would homosexual men take more risks with their lives? I don't think you understood this part: Homophobia make the lives of gay people miserable, and then homophobes point to that misery as a symptom of homosexuality rather than one of homophobia. Do you understand then that saying gay men are more likely to contract HIV is only pointing a finger at homophobia, thus yourself, as the ultimate cause? "also, youre putting more than two quotation marks when youre quoting, stop it, its triggering me." Nope. It's my way of addressing you point by point. "and great thanks for asking no im not a child?." Okay, so you're just under-educated. " "homophobia ruins lives, ect ect" again. boo hoo, deportation ruins lives, racism ruins lives, home incomes ruin lives, daca production is currently ruining lives." All true. Do you have a point? Or are you simply asserting that those who points out that institutionalized racism, homophobia, and poverty are wrong should just shut up? "it takes so much for you people to realize you guys arent as important as you want to feel," LOL. How important do we want to feel? Does fighting discrimination and violence against us mean we want to feel important ? You have a fucked-up spin you enjoy putting on things in order to paint LGBT people—obviously your enemy—as bad people. LGBT people are as important as anybody else. That's what equality is about. "we people have more things to care about besides some gays online bitching about someone not liking them for what they do," Then go bitch about something else. Obviously, you've got a bone to pick here or you'd have SFTU already, wouldn't you have? It's not a zero-sum game. Do you know what that means? It means that other problems in the world don't negate this one. "if anyones the child its whoever that makes a big deal about it," So you don't enjoy it when people complain about inequality, but when you constantly whine that they should shut up, they're the child. Interesting. " grow the fuck up, this earth isnt meant to be sunshine and rainbows." People who work to make it better are to be commended. They've probably saved your life 1,000 times over and you don't even know it. There is something wrong when your sense of superiority feels threatened if those you've held as inferior win equality. You really have no idea how immature you are, do you?
    1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. 1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. 1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. 1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. " "Their problems are because of men" is a objectively wrong statement there I denied it." I said that many of their problems are because of men. Are you attempting to change my meaning? "Your subjective view of the world isn't a infallible." Did I claim it was? What a juvenile thing to say. "Because you didn't substantiate your claim I am not going to either." You would to well to first substantiate yourself as either JTA TII or rahn 45. Did you forget to use the correct youtube account? You want me to substantiate my statement that many of women's problems are because of men? Yeah, no. You've got some reading to do. Start with the entirety of U.S. history alone. "Both men and women were oppressed by scarcity(lack of resource) and needing to survive." That's a non-sequitur and it's irrelevant in this context. "Men oppress women is arrogant statement that suggest men have ability control the world they never have and never would probably, get off your god-complex." Control the world? Are you 8? You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing and not really because you have anything to say. Men have historically controlled women in the U.S. Women were only allowed to vote in the 1920s. "And there is empathy gap extended between genders for example in Britain most common reason for male death between 20-50 is suicide if this was the case for women there would be a massive uproar about it but in comparison it's treated like a side issue that we might come around to address." This is a can of worms that is also, strangely, irrelevant to our topic. You're posing a hypothetical scenario to deny that women have been traditionally oppressed by men. But also, are you afraid of punctuation? Entire paragraphs beg for it. "A human can be only guilty for their intentions because that's only thing a person can control." This looks lovely in writing, but is actually meaningless. "For instant cultural-behavioral indoctrination could lead to person like you to post the above comment which might cultivate negative behavior towards men thus hurting men , are you sure you are not guilty of being anti-man?" Yes, Spanky, I'm sure. You've fabricated a convenient world for yourself where nothing can be known, and therefore, nothing is true. Except what you say, of course.
    1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. 1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908.  @FakeAFSongLyrics  "I choose to be asexual so yes it is a lifestyle." Incorrect. Being asexual is not a lifestyle. No sexual orientation—including no orientation—is a lifestyle or a choice. "For any Christian to just accept homosexuality as not being sinful would be wrong." Thanks for clarifying the position of Christianity. I know there are many Christians who would disagree with you, but honestly, religion—a/k/a superstition—is not a valid context. "By not trying to show them the error of their ways, a Christian would be showing hate by not trying to save their soul from Hell." And this is how your religion has usurped not only your capacity for logic and reason, but your sense of morality. This is how religion has poisoned your mind. YOur religion permits you to call hate "love" and think you're a good person. I disabuse you of that notion. "Everyone is tempted in different ways and have different weaknesses." Your mythology leads you to call homosexuality, and sexuality in general, a "weakness." But your religion—your superstitious indoctrination—is the true weakness. It's divided you against humanity, which is your highest calling, and a calling you've apparently not heard. "Some have no homosexual temptations while others have strong urges." As probability would predict. And some people have no heterosexual temptations, while others have strong urges. You've made no point here. "Through Jesus, one can overcome all temptations however." Incorrect. Simply repeating this will not make it so. Squinting really hard may make one believe it's true, because squinting really hard allows your mind to get fuzzy. "Without God, where would your sense of ethics come from?" Without god, my sense of ethics comes from a developed faculty of empathy combined with an evolved faculty of morality. Morality and ethics are a messy conundrum. That does not mean there is nothing that cannot be known. It's clear that your god has blinded you to humanity, and has stunted your intellectual curiosity. It's also probable that your god hates all the same people you hate. How convenient. "If you don’t believe in God, why are your beliefs regarding this subject superior to mine?" Because I don't lie to myself that I know things that I cannot possibly know. I don't rely on superstition to justify my very personal opinions. You have zero to show for your god-who-hates-all-the-same-people-you-hate. The work of showing such a deity is real still remains for you, despite centuries of brash, desperate assertions to the contrary. Thus, the words from self-appointed mouthpieces for figment-deities, plus a shiny quarter, will still only buy a gum ball from the supermarket dispenser. As you chew your gum ball, consider how lazy it is to justify your own, very personal, ignorance and hatred with a fallacious appeal to a supernatural skydaddy. And not just intellectual lazy, but cowardly. Try standing on your own two feet.
    1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. ago 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  942. ago 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. 1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1