Forum Replies Created
-
I love how Bucks makes comments about impossibility of debate, when his own straw manning, word twisting and putting words into others’ mouths makes it impossible to have any kind of sensible debate with him, frankly.
There is a reason I haven’t made any comment on responsibility of migrants coming here, besides it being irrelevant to my criticism of how humans have been treated while on these shores. It’s because there’s not a cat in Hell’s chance Bucks will accurately represent my views. It will be more straw manning and twisting, as can be seen above with bringing this part up in a separate point and accusations of how others must think the UK to be horrible as a whole because there’s an element to critique. It’s frankly impossible to debate with someone who refuses to understand what you’re saying and makes out you’re some straw man.
3 users thanked author for this post.
Always the victim, it’s never your fault.
Yes, Bucks, I am missing the point that migrants and refugees shouldn’t be treated humanely. I made no comment on France in my post you took exception to. It was solely about people being crammed into horrible conditions with disease. Regardless of whether they have a right to be here, that the home secretary has allowed when she has other options.
Yes, Bucks, it’s self-righteous to care about how people are treated. The real issue is criticising those who call them invaders or think places with diphtheria are too good for the likes of them. The real problem is being critical of themand hurting their precious feelings.
Frankly, I am not missing the point, because of why they are here or France’s responsibility has sod all to do with my original point. We should be treating them humanely, regardless.
I could go into this, but it’s pointless, because you will only misrepresent and gaslight, as you have demonstrated yet again.
2 users thanked author for this post.
My comment wasn’t about the UK being horrible or whatever. I don’t know why you think I give a damn about being called a usual suspect by you, since you display the very behaviour you criticise others for.
You quite clearly took exception to me making what should be an inane comment about how these people have been treated badly. If you found my comment ridiculous it means you think it’s ridiculous to criticise humans living in squalor, when it’s preventable, it’s ridiculous to call them human, you misunderstood my intention or are twisting my words yet again. There are no other possibilities.
I wasn’t saying anyone arguing against immigration is evil, xenophobic, racist or whatever straw man you want to throw at me. I was making a specific point about the treatment of people who have crossed the channel once arrived. Like it or not, they should be treated humanely.
If you make a comment which makes it seem like you think it’s ridiculous to say humans should be treated humanely, then don’t start complaining when my opinion is not positive and I make scathing comments. I couldn’t give a damn about being politically correct about someone who told me it’s ridiculous to be concerned about welfare of humans. It could be you misunderstanding, but you can’t blame someone for calling you out for what is a deeply inhumane implication; that it’s ridiculous to want acceptable living standards for refugees, migrants or whoever.
None of this means I think the UK is horrible or beyond redemption. I just think we can treat these people better and that this is a stain on our record. I have gone through wh the UK has some great points previously. I am not doing so again, because someone who has to demonise others remotely to the left of Reagan understands (and probably won’t anyway, because it doesn’t suit their agenda).
Stop moaning that people have a different opinion to you. I am allowed to criticise Braverman’s disgusting language and lack of care to others. This is not the real crime. Disregard to others and how they live is.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Yes, Bucks, it’s ridiculous to complain about people with preventable diseases in terrible conditions.
Perhaps I should call them invading hordes, and you might not call critics ridiculous.
I wasn’t aware that the French were responsible for how people are treated in the UK.
I made no comment on this other than how they are being treated, but please jump to assumptions based on your straw men. It shows your tribal nature and why it’s pointless me bothering to give a fuller answer.
1 user thanked author for this post.
A woman is whatever she wants to be.
God made man in his own image and also gave us free will,therefore we can be what we like.
The gotcha nature of gutter politics in such personal questions is exactly where bigots make themselves look stupid.Most of us are not qualified to know what is happening in the minds of transgender people and its ridiculous to try understand.I do know using vulnerable people to make a crass political point in Parliament is peak Tory caringThis is a circular definition which does not make sense. The implications are problematic and sexist too. Eddie Izzard says he’s a woman because sometimes he feels he has a girl mode. In other words, he’s a woman because he has feminine stereotypes. This is reductive and sexist.
Not only this, allowing self-id creates problematic situations, because humans are a sexed species, just like every other mammal. Men and women require different health responses, there is disparity in sport which goes beyond just hormones, and women have had spaces of their own to avoid potential male violence. There is no evidence that transgender identified men pose less risk than any other man. Sexual crimes have risen by 11% in Scotland with gender neutral changing rooms, there are reports of girls skipping the restrooms in school to avoid boys, female rape and sexual assault victims are being made out to be bigoted for wanting female only staff to be with them when they are vulnerable. Some have implied it’s bigoted for lesbians to have an aversion to penis, where Stonewall hosted a workshop on how to overcome the ‘cotton ceiling’ so lesbians can consider dating transwomen.
I could think of many more conflicts of rights, but in all cases the only harm to transpeople through saying no are hurt feelings from being made out to not be their preferred gender identity. Meanwhile, the implications of saying yes is far more serious for women here.
I am all for treating others with equity and fairness, but that doesn’t mean every activist group’s demands are reasonable, and I don’t think the demands from transactivists are reasonable a lot of the time. There is no consideration to women, homosexuals or any others as to what they want. Worse, they make out it’s bigotry to focus on anything other than what they want, and any acquiescence is sacrilege.
Gender non-conformity is perfectly fine by me. However, gender non-conformity doesn’t make you the opposite sex. Man and woman are sexed terms, so no man can become a woman based on inner feelings. We’re no different to other mammals, and are a sexed species. It’s anti-scientific to suggest otherwise and making out men can become women, and vice versa, is only humouring people.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Knowing what biological sex is should be a minimum for anyone in politics, like knowing the age of the Earth. Somehow it seems to baffle some in a mistaken belief it’s being kind. It isn’t so kind to the women who get told they’re bigoted for not sharing their spaces, which includes rape shelters, with men who say they’re women. It’s sheer entitlement.
This isn’t to say that dysphoric people shouldn’t be treated unsympathetically, but treating people with kid gloves over a belief isn’t going to work when there’s a conflict with reality.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Adult human female. Next
1 user thanked author for this post.
