Right. They design the whole rocket, spend years to build the rocket exactly according to the design doc, then the rocket explodes on the launchpad and they have to start all over.
How many transgender athletes are there? Of the very few there are, how many dominate?
You likely don't know, otherwise you'd have no issues at all with them. And if you do know, and you still have a problem, then your issue is one of bigotry and not protection.
For reference, there have been more female athletes sexually assaulted by coaches and other male identifying staff by a large margin than there have been medal placing transgender athletes. I'm sure you can find a few examples of transgender athletes placing in the top three, but unless you're completely stupid, then you know that's fallacious thinking to ignore the whole data set by cherry picking non representative samples.
You're basically for something that's not a problem in any measurable way, but not against things that are actually harming women. And I get it, you can be against both, but that doesn't change that transgender athletes are not a problem in any rational, real way. But to enforce a non-transgender policy will necessarily require putting women through very invasive examinations and tests that open them to even more sexual assault.
Now imagine being such a piece of shit against someone you've never met, who's not hurting anyone, that you don't want them to play sports against their peers. And then being so idiotic and emotionally irrational to say that they are not the victim of your idiotic bigotry.
I always thought it was because he's fat, so he leans forward to hide his huge belly. Works pretty well from the front where most pictures of him are taken.
I know it's that stupid. But it doesn't matter that it's stupid. They're going to use it when they see fit and they have captured the whole legal system to use at their discretion to enact it no matter how stupid it is.
They're fascists, they're only going to enforce it when they want to hurt someone they don't like or when it benefits them. They don't give a shit about precedence or conviction or morality or anything other than what serves them in the moment. They have captured the courts, and both houses, and the presidency. Consistency or hypocrisy don't matter to them. They'll use whatever justification works in the moment and turn on a dime if it serves them.
It's far, far less than Israel has killed. Before Oct 7th, it was about ten to one Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed. Now it's much much worse and getting worse everyday. Or does that not matter?
Now, can we say Hamas is bad? Of course we can, but by whatever metrics we use to call out Hamas as being bad, Israel is at least ten times worse.
You can't bring in the amount of children Hamas has killed, and at the same time ignore that Is real has killed way more, and expect people to take you seriously. And if you want to try to play the "who shot first" game, that was also Israel, forcing its way into the land that they now occupy. And every square inch they have invaded since.
Wait until they read the second one "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water"
Pushing back against my rudeness? You think what I'm doing is rude and what you're doing is OK because you think I was rude.
Because when someone is trying to do something nice for you, you don't smack their hand way.
I didn't smack your hand away, I made a joke based on your odd assumption. If you only wanted to be nice, why are you pushing me at all? When I try to do something nice, and the person receiving it doesn't like it, I apologize, because I did something to them. That they didn't like. That is the polite thing to do. The nice thing.
Trying to brow beat the other person into appreciating what you did or worse, to get them to apologize to you for not liking what you did is not nice. It's controlling behavior. It's bad behavior. You are behaving badly and rudely. No amount of ridiculously irrational ramblings is going to change that.
instead of inquiring further to what I was trying to convey
I already knew what you were trying to convey, I was not the one ignoring the other. Which most would agree is rude behavior.
Well, when you start[...]
Hey, I don't care. I was just offering up some friendly advice about how to interact with others. Act how ever you feel you need to. It just looks to me like you're missing the mark on what you claim to want to do. By all means, keep messing up, it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
And truly, I would say that you are the one who is not listening.
I'm sure you would say that. I'm sure that in your head I'm the bad guy and you're some kind of crusader whipping me into submission for having the gall to respond differently to you than how you wanted me to.
And yes, I am fun at parties. Not sure why you think otherwise from a small sample of our interacting. It's kind of irrational.
You want the right to act as you want with others without them being able to tell you when you are acting poorly. Gotcha.
Well this doesn't make any sense. Do you want to read what I try that again?
Honestly, you were being rude
I wasn't. I have nothing to apologize for. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think there is any winning in an Internet argument. I honestly thought this was just some weird exchange and not an argument at all.
If you think it's a waste of time, and you're not getting entertainment out of it like I am, then why am did you keep replying?
One person has to start the expansion though, it just doesn't manifest on its own.
Sure, and like I already said, the others should be onboard with you. If however, like I did, push back against it and provide the reason for the push back, then it's bad form to keep pushing. You haven't even addressed the reason for the push back.
One person's forcing is just another person's expanding, and shouldn't be responded to rudely.
The first time is not forcing. Continually pushing and pushing is forcing.
So the content I got from your replies is basically a person is only allowed to respond exactly to what was said, cannot leverage from that and expand on it like any other normal conversation between people, cannot be helpful if the other person is not in need of it, and if they do so they're just plain 'wrong' for doing so.
Not anywhere near what I said. I said it doesn't make me feel better, and yet you persisted. That's not good behavior.
If you want to talk with someone rather than at them, then yes, you have to accept and adapt to what the other parties are telling either directly, through their actions, or even in hints. I'm telling you directly and that doesn't seem to work.
You prefer to talk at me rather than with me where only your desires and intentions matter. I don't see why you bother talking with anyone if that's what you do, because a wall is just as good as a conversation partner as one you don't listen to.
You must be really fun at parties.
Yes actually. For one, I don't force the conversations after someone lets me know they're not interested in it. Tends to put people at ease when they feel that their boundaries are respected.
Right. They design the whole rocket, spend years to build the rocket exactly according to the design doc, then the rocket explodes on the launchpad and they have to start all over.