I have to say, I love these retards clowning on themselves.
I just wish we didn't have so many Science™ worshippers, who still think these people have anything of worth to say, or that it has any relation to actual science. No matter how clownish these people act, the core Believers will still think this backs up their side, because Science!™
And, nowhere once in this video does Neil even approach a vaguely scientific argument.
Also, the "pursuit of happiness" was probably the stupidest part, because it just assumes that other people have some obligation to go along with anything anyone wants. It's like the soy bike theft victim meme, on a societal level. I am under no obligation to say "you're a gorgeous, gorgeous woman, stunning and brave!" None. I fully support the "pursuit of happiness," but it's a personal and individual pursuit; leave me the fuck out of it. Me disagreeing with someone is not infringing on that. And, in fact, trying to make it essentially illegal for me to disagree is infringing on my basic rights, so fuck right off, Neil.
Question: if these views on the "Gender Spectrum" become accepted as part of the "consensus based morality" in the West, will you accept or reject this consensus view?
If the former, how can anyone else take any moral position you hold as anything but temporary? If the latter, then will you revisit your position that "consensus based morality" is feasible and/or desirable?
It was not a "gotcha" question at all: it was a genuine question. It's also not "my" holy book since I'm not a Christian (I would have called myself an atheist until about maybe a year ago, though it's been 7-8 years since I've been the "angry atheist" I used to be)
I asked a similar question to an IRL "rationalist" atheist friend of mine in maybe 2015 when he was describing how some of his opinions had changed as social views had. So I asked "well what if social views change in a way that conflict with something that's really important to you?" and he answered that he would probably change his views to conform.
Yeah that's what he said about 10 years prior to when I asked him that. Now he believes some things that are extremely irrational and is validated in those beliefs by other mutual IRL atheist friends.
He was a normal STEM rationalist atheist South Park lolbert type 20 years ago. University engineering departments were filled with them. Thought radlib activism was stupid because the people who were pushing it frankly weren't very smart. Hated Christians for much the same reasons. Big fan of Richard Dawkins. He wasn't radical, and he could've just done the whole "I still believe the same things I did 10 years ago; it's the whole rest of the world that went fucking crazy" thing a lot of people here did (and still do).
Around the 2015 timeframe he had changed. I mentioned Dawkins in passing because I knew he liked the guy and he laid into me about how much of an asshole Dawkins was. I'd make fun of these stupid feminist sorts expecting him to join in, and he'd defend them. I think that was one of the things that prompted me to ask him that question, because I noticed those changes in his personality.
I have to say, I love these retards clowning on themselves.
I just wish we didn't have so many Science™ worshippers, who still think these people have anything of worth to say, or that it has any relation to actual science. No matter how clownish these people act, the core Believers will still think this backs up their side, because Science!™
And, nowhere once in this video does Neil even approach a vaguely scientific argument.
Also, the "pursuit of happiness" was probably the stupidest part, because it just assumes that other people have some obligation to go along with anything anyone wants. It's like the soy bike theft victim meme, on a societal level. I am under no obligation to say "you're a gorgeous, gorgeous woman, stunning and brave!" None. I fully support the "pursuit of happiness," but it's a personal and individual pursuit; leave me the fuck out of it. Me disagreeing with someone is not infringing on that. And, in fact, trying to make it essentially illegal for me to disagree is infringing on my basic rights, so fuck right off, Neil.
Drunk? Much worse than that: he's irrelevant. Can't remember the last time anyone cared about Black Science Man.
smoked too much of degrasse
Question: if these views on the "Gender Spectrum" become accepted as part of the "consensus based morality" in the West, will you accept or reject this consensus view?
If the former, how can anyone else take any moral position you hold as anything but temporary? If the latter, then will you revisit your position that "consensus based morality" is feasible and/or desirable?
It was not a "gotcha" question at all: it was a genuine question. It's also not "my" holy book since I'm not a Christian (I would have called myself an atheist until about maybe a year ago, though it's been 7-8 years since I've been the "angry atheist" I used to be)
I asked a similar question to an IRL "rationalist" atheist friend of mine in maybe 2015 when he was describing how some of his opinions had changed as social views had. So I asked "well what if social views change in a way that conflict with something that's really important to you?" and he answered that he would probably change his views to conform.
Yeah that's what he said about 10 years prior to when I asked him that. Now he believes some things that are extremely irrational and is validated in those beliefs by other mutual IRL atheist friends.
He was a normal STEM rationalist atheist South Park lolbert type 20 years ago. University engineering departments were filled with them. Thought radlib activism was stupid because the people who were pushing it frankly weren't very smart. Hated Christians for much the same reasons. Big fan of Richard Dawkins. He wasn't radical, and he could've just done the whole "I still believe the same things I did 10 years ago; it's the whole rest of the world that went fucking crazy" thing a lot of people here did (and still do).
Around the 2015 timeframe he had changed. I mentioned Dawkins in passing because I knew he liked the guy and he laid into me about how much of an asshole Dawkins was. I'd make fun of these stupid feminist sorts expecting him to join in, and he'd defend them. I think that was one of the things that prompted me to ask him that question, because I noticed those changes in his personality.