Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Moonbox last won the day on June 22

Moonbox had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About Moonbox

  • Rank
    Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Go Leafs Go!

Recent Profile Visitors

13,789 profile views
  1. It's not a competition. If you want to start a productive and intelligent conversation on a topic, and hear other people's thoughts on it, it's best to clearly state your thoughts and provide some background reasoning and support. You would agree, I hope? I've had a similar experience. I took one poli sci course in university, and only went to a single lecture. The professor was useless and boring, and it ended up being a bird course where I just read the textbook and aced the tests and essays. What are we actually talking about here though, other than a bunch of random stuff and experiences? I don't have a profile picture.
  2. When you write posts like your OP, explain what points you're trying to make and provide citations. Listing a bunch of bullet points and then asking for thoughts is not going to result in much of a debate. It's like: -Cheese tastes good -Most of the cheese in Canada comes from Quebec -Dairy Board Thoughts???
  3. Why is the belief that trans women aren't women unfair? It's not just a value opinion. There are pretty straightforward, objective biological differences. The only value judgment here is whether or not you choose to accept the expanded/updated definition of "woman". The people who don't, however, will have their views and language and opinions policed. You only have make one small adjustment to the language, however, to see how absurd the argument is. Add a prefix or an adjective to the word "woman" and are you still violating someone's human dignity? Forstater should have said a biological man can never become a cisgender woman? Of course her meaning and intention haven't changed, but how to the Courts enforce that sort of more nuanced language? Much of the Court's reasoning falls apart with these tweaks. Your comment on "evil" Christians is just silly moral equivalency. In some senses yes, but then in many no. Women and Men are equal in the eyes of the Law, of course, but they're not the same. That's not an opinion. It wasn't a workplace issue. It was her tweeting. If you care to understand it more, you can see exactly what she wrote and how it all went down here: https://medium.com/@MForstater/i-lost-my-job-for-speaking-up-about-womens-rights-2af2186ae84 This is censorship, and it's an overreach.
  4. I'm pretty sure you don't know much about what the political and intellectual environment in Nero's Rome. While you may actually have a worthwhile point to discuss somewhere, you're hardly making a case for it with this sort of silly rhetoric.
  5. To be fair, you asked for a cite and then followed up with a "zinger" about alt-right conspiracies. You are are a better poster than this, so I'd humbly recommend you at least hold yourself to the standard you're asking other people to.
  6. She wasn't using it at work. She was tweeting. Though I don't support her opinion, I do think it's remarkable that she lost her job for what amounts to disagreeing with the new and changing definitions of "woman/man". Like Peterson, she didn't feel she should/could be compelled to use terminology she didn't agree with. This was a precedent-setting case and it serves as a warning to anyone who'd speak out against or question new gender definitions, while emboldening those who wield terms like transphobia as a weapon to muzzle and punish opposing viewpoints. Though hardly academic, I found this article from the BBC interesting. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947 It's celebrity Big-Brother, so take that for what you will, but the article is about one of the contestants (rapper Ginuwine) explaining that he wouldn't date a transgender woman. Some of the responses (on Twitter and elsewhere) for his viewpoint were: "If you have a sexual preference that discriminates against transgender men or transgender women, you are transphobic. This is fact." and "What Ginuwine said was that of an ignorant person who has not been with a trans woman before. It was more of an ignorance, fed by a media that often depicts trans women in a sensationalised way, with strong bone structure and husky low-baritone voices," Miss SaHHara says. "The majority of straight men are worried about what society thinks of them if they date a trans woman," she says. "Toxic masculinity makes them violent and rude about their attraction." and then my favorite, from a Columbia University professor/doctor: "There are hormonal sweet spots where trans women can transition and be effectively indistinguishable at a certain level from cisgender women," Dr Timmins says. "So being unwilling to date on the basis of someone being trans, rather than on the basis of individual stimuli is something I would personally call transphobic." As I said before, there are precious few instances where the distinction between cis and transgender women even matters, but where it does, the current environment of public discourse is not conductive to a fair or even civil debate. Even something as personal as specific sexual preference is subject to public attack from transgender advocates and academics. I'd argue that calling someone transphobic and ignorant on the basis of their personal sexual preferences is itself discriminatory and demeaning, but Professor Timmins didn''t face censure or discipline. The irony and double-standards are obvious, I think.
  7. People complain about being attacked on twitter etc because it happens all the time...everywhere. I know that if I tried to make the arguments I'm making here on facebook or twitter, I'd be skewered. If you don't believe me on that, I dare you to try for yourself...or to even ask if it's something that should be debated. It's extremely naive, I think, to downplay this sort of censorship as the far-right crying wolf. You and I have reviewed a multitude of examples and have talked about how Jordan Peterson's research funding was pulled or how WLU made a mess out of the Lindsay Shephard affair. We've talked about Martina Navartalova (who's only recanted her rhetoric on transgender "cheaters" as far I've read) and the complaint in Connecticut (which is being criticized as dangerous and discriminatory). I can keep giving you more. Look up Maya Forstater, who was fired for saying that men cannot change into women. That leads to the next point, which is whether trans women are women. To say that they are, you're accepting that "woman" is gender identity concept, rather than a biological distinction. It used to just mean a person with two X chromosomes (or as JK Rowling would say, people who menstruate). The latter definition, however, is "not worthy of respect in democratic society" (as per Forstater case ruling) and publicly holding that belief can, according to British courts, legally get you fired. There you have a common law precedent of the sort of censorship that I, at least, find troubling.
  8. Well...I think we're going to see far more than Trump against China in the coming years. Even Trudeau has abandoned his demure-kitten diplomacy with China. India has gone from considering China an important strategic partner to their biggest and most immediate adversary, as has most of the South China Sea. If I were you I'd expect things to get much worse before they get better.
  9. 1) You're being trite. Not only are you anonymous here, nobody would take someone calling you a cuck as anything but an insult from a someone who was angry with you. 2) Nobody's denying the existence of trans women, and if they are then we can laugh at them. What's being disputed is that trans women are the same thing as biological women. There are precious few instances where the distinction really matters, but where it does there are objective arguments to be made against it. 3) It's not just elite sports. There's a lawsuit in Connecticut where 3 high school students are suing the state over Transgender athletes, where two trans women have won 15 state titles in 2 years. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/14/us/transgender-athletes-connecticut-lawsuit/index.html Your bogeyman argument is pretty silly, at least in respect to whatever conversation you and I are having. I don't see why I need to frame and qualify the people who are denouncing and labeling individuals offering dissenting viewpoints, especially by what would end up being an arbitrary category. I have provided examples of the phenomenon and can continue to, so eventually you either have to acknowledge that this sort of censorship is happening or try to refute it. Additionally, I'd argue that there's a fairly clear political divide on this sort of issue, and would suggest that a Jefferson City Republican is far less likely to support transgender definitions than a Portland Democrat. Would you disagree?
  10. No he didn't. He said a bunch of vague nonsense in a 2016 interview and avoided clarifying when given the opportunity. Wikileaks later made an explicit statement saying that they were not implying that Seth Rich was there source, or that his murder was connected to their publications, but that didn't stop all the morons who were happy to make up their own facts and run with the story. It takes a special kind of intellect to call that "evidence". I'm not vouching for CNN or NBC, nor am I vouching for CTV or CBC. What I did do is refer to Fox News as a worthless clown show and that Rebel Media is even worse. All that ranting and carrying on and you're pretty much arguing with yourself. You're so caught up in your own nonsense that you can't even follow the debate you're participating in. Instead, you make up opinions and positions to argue against and then brag to nobody in particular about how you're "destroying" them. All of this is built on a foundation of absolutely stunning ignorance. Thanks for the laughs. I'm done with your foolishness.
  11. 1) You're being semantic. Nobody ever loses the ability to disagree, so if you're going to argue this point then you're assuming the OP is utter nonsense and you're arguing against utter nonsense. 2) Again, I think you're being disingenuous here. You getting trolled on an internet forum is hardly the same thing as being publicly declared as a racist, misogynistic or "transphobic" for disagreeing with the cause of the day. JK Rowling's attempt at distinguishing a "biological" woman from a trans woman is the sort of example we're talking about. Writers, actors, celebrities etc have all piled on and she's being called "hateful" now because she doesn't agree with the LGBT's vague definition of "woman". 3) She apologized for the original statement (probably for the rhetoric, and hopefully for the claims that there are men who are deliberately getting hormone therapy to beat women in sports) but then doubled down on her conclusion later that the she doesn't think it's fair for them to participate in women's sports. Again, this is another woman being labeled as "transphobic" for that. 4) That's what we're doing here, isn't it? I do agree that the alt-right and their mooks are using the issue, but that's probably because it's a complaint that they can more easily articulate. Keep in mind, of course, that not EVERYTHING the far right opines for is wrong. On this topic, they actually have facts and science on their side, and will find broader support than their typically poorly-educated white male base. This is low-hanging fruit where they can actually demonstrate that the nebulous "left" is overreaching.
  12. Except it wasn't just a conspiracy "theory". When you claim you have evidence supporting the theory (but actually don't), then by definition that's a lie. The theory has been debunked because not a shred of supporting evidence has been unearthed and we therefore have no reason to believe any of it. This is as clear an example as we need of your ability to re-shape reality to suit your comical world views. You were talking about cognitive dissonance earlier, and I thought that was pretty funny. You're a shining exemplar of the concept. Wait...what!? I never said anything even remotely to that effect. Go back and read my post because I made it explicitly clear that fool Hannity didn't start the conspiracy theory. I could not have been any clearer on that. The extent of your nonsense and your ability to befuddle yourself are starting to get pretty boring at this point. It was funny for awhile, but I'm barely even reading your posts anymore. It's largely incoherent ranting and not worth responding to.
  13. Instead I'd maybe just check out the late night shows. They can sum it up for you, and at least it will be funny.
  14. I gave you the Seth Rich conspiracy. You argued against it and now you're saying...what? That I never brought up Seth Rich or...something? Oookay. He can't be in the drive-thru lane passed out drunk without being at the drive-thru. What you're trying to say here is categorically absurd. What part of that is a lie? Do you know what lying actually means? I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh at you or cry for you at this point. Except it started at Fox with an "investigative report" (quotations for mockery purposes) by Malia Zimmerman, referring to "evidence" that Seth Rich had provided the emails to WikiLeaks. There was no evidence, of course, but that didn't stop Fox and Friends from running the story, or for the world's dumbest news personality from jumping all over it (that's Hannity btw). You're making this worse for yourself every time you reply.
  15. As you ignore any information that doesn't conform to your reality. Another brilliant "NO YOU!" So...did Brooks not fall asleep in his car outside of Wendys? Did he not get shot running from police? Oops! You can't even differentiate between editorial bias and outright lying. This is too easy.
  • Create New...