The Picture

[Hound of Heaven]

Why pretend to want to be part of a party that you consistently characterize as controlled by random people you’ve plucked off of the internet based on weird YouTube videos that only attract the attention of folks such as yourself?

I’m not pretending to be a democrat, I’ve been a democrat for my entire life.

As a democrat who values common sense, I recognize that individuals can transition between being a democrat and a republican, and vice versa. As a democrat who values common sense, I recognize that science demonstrates a woman cannot become a man, and a man cannot become a woman. However, once a Democrat succumbs to the progressive woke ideology and begins to navigate daily life through that lens, common sense is set aside, and progressivism permits individuals to identify as whatever they wish.

According to the principles of woke ideology, an individual assigned male at birth may identify and transition to a female, while someone assigned female at birth may identify and transition to a male. Within certain progressive circles, there are individuals who view babies as comparable to a cancer tumor, drawing sustenance from the mother in a manner reminiscent of a disease. My point is that the Democratic Party will not win another election until they embrace common sense once more within the party. However, to achieve this, they must set aside the woke agenda and focus on a common sense approach.

Wokeism is dead.

[Kishkumen]

You're too intelligent to hold those views.

I am not sure you are intelligent enough to recognize that your views are not the absolute truth. Or, rather, I am not sure you are humble enough to recognize that your views are not the absolute truth.

Deep down, I believe you recognize that a clump of cells developing within a mother's womb is indeed a baby, irrespective of how long it has been there.

You must recognize that there are a lot of standard linguistic moves surrounding the phenomenon of pregnancy that would cut both ways. "You are going to have a baby" is not one that necessarily cuts in your favor.

My question to you is, has a clump of cells growing inside the womb of a human mother ever resulted in anything other than a human being? Could you provide an example, please?

That's just stupid. The potentiality for something to become one thing, its Aristotelian teleology, does not mean that it is that thing at every stage. A seed is not a mature plant.

Some issues, such as the one we are currently addressing, are simply undeniable truths. Allowing the progressive perspective to characterize a baby merely as a clump of cells lacking any human traits is a significant factor in Trump's presidency.

Some people, for lack of ability, or a failure to think things through, or a perhaps a simple stubborn refusal to do so, reduce complexity to something simplistic.

[canpakes]

Wokeism is dead.

That’s good news, right? Your fears over transgender folks need not rule your life any more, right? There’s no need for conservatives to make this the focus of their existence. Besides, have you seen the price of eggs? It’s insane.

Anyhow, you’re safe, now. Unless you like omelettes. ; )

someone assigned female at birth …

Oh, weird. Why would a doctor need to ‘assign’ someone female or male at birth?

science demonstrates …

Science demonstrates that it tends to steer clear of bowing to religiously-tainted ideologies, or needing to pander to irrational fears about people you will likely never meet, and whose existence will never impact your life in any negative way. Science is funny like that.

As example:

OU biologists: Science does not support rejection of transgender or nonbinary people

A. Bentz, A. Berkowitz, E. Bridge, C. Gordon, H. Ketchum, and K. Willis
April 24, 2022

There’s been a considerable amount of news lately over the question of what defines a woman. Sen. James Lankford and others have indicated that the answer to this question is simple, with the implication that anyone who hesitates to define “woman” is either undereducated or delusional.

Well, we are faculty members at the University of Oklahoma who teach anatomy and physiology. We hope we are offering a perspective that is both educated and grounded in reality when we state that a single, simple definition for “woman” is not tenable.

Take, for example, Madison Cawthorn’s definition of a woman (“XX chromosomes, no tallywacker”). Although it scores points for simplicity, this definition would not apply well to everyone. About 1.7% of people are intersex — according to "Sexing the Body" by Anne Fausto-Sterling — which means that their genitals are in between typically male and typically female and/or they have a mismatch between their chromosomes, gonads, and/or genitals. If you would like to acquaint yourself with one of these people, check out Emily Quinn’s TED talks.

Moreover, there is now evidence (see Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, Vol 122: pg 165-175) that most people's brains have some physical features that are more typically female and others that are more typically male, regardless of whether they consider themselves women, men or nonbinary, and regardless of whether they are cisgender or transgender. If our brains largely define who we are, and our brains are not binary, then defining “woman” is a tricky proposition.

Presumably, the primary targets of the “define woman” rhetoric are people who are transgender, nonbinary or intersex — those who may be psychologically aligned with a gender that does not agree with the sex assigned to them at birth. Many seek to undermine the legitimacy of these people by claiming that their identity is somehow a rejection of the science of biology, but this claim is misguided.

As biologists we try to shed light on complexity and variation, not to limit what is socially acceptable with regard to gender roles. We think that we speak for the vast majority of experts on human biology when we say that science DOES NOT support the rejection of transgender or nonbinary people; nor does it warrant any objection to them presenting their preferred gender in our society.

In her Supreme Court justice confirmation hearing, Ketanji Brown Jackson shied away from defining “woman,” stating, “I’m not a biologist.” We want to make it clear that an adequate definition is not so easy for professional biologists either.

A. Bentz, A. Berkowitz, E. Bridge, C. Gordon, H. Ketchum and K. Willis teach anatomy and physiology at the University of Oklahoma.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/opinion ... 356668001/

Your problem isn’t ‘progressives’. It’s much closer to you than that.

[Hound of Heaven]

You're too intelligent to hold those views.

I am not sure you are intelligent enough to recognize that your views are not the absolute truth. Or, rather, I am not sure you are humble enough to recognize that your views are not the absolute truth.

Deep down, I believe you recognize that a clump of cells developing within a mother's womb is indeed a baby, irrespective of how long it has been there.

You must recognize that there are a lot of standard linguistic moves surrounding the phenomenon of pregnancy that would cut both ways. "You are going to have a baby" is not one that necessarily cuts in your favor.

My question to you is, has a clump of cells growing inside the womb of a human mother ever resulted in anything other than a human being? Could you provide an example, please?

That's just stupid. The potentiality for something to become one thing, its Aristotelian teleology, does not mean that it is that thing at every stage. A seed is not a mature plant.

Some issues, such as the one we are currently addressing, are simply undeniable truths. Allowing the progressive perspective to characterize a baby merely as a clump of cells lacking any human traits is a significant factor in Trump's presidency.

Some people, for lack of ability, or a failure to think things through, or a perhaps a simple stubborn refusal to do so, reduce complexity to something simplistic.

A significant number of Progressives perceive the fetus developing within a mother's womb as a parasite. When progressives with these views feel encouraged to express them publicly, they are ensuring that Democrats will struggle to secure significant victories in important elections moving forward.

It is utterly nonsensical to think of a baby as a parasite, such a belief goes against all reason. Here’s a bit of practical advice for you! A parasite usually belongs to a different species than the host it depends on for survival. When discussing a parasitic relationship, it refers to an entity existing in a place where it does not belong. When discussing a baby in the womb, it is important to recognize that the baby is precisely where he or she is meant to be.

Moreover, it is quite ironic that many progressives today perceive socialism not as a burden on society, yet they consider a baby to be a burden on the mother. This illustrates how disconnected progressives have permitted their misguided narrative to evolve into a fantastical, almost naïve belief system that disregards or fails to recognize the significance of facts.

I believe that progressivism will ultimately undermine the Democrat party if we don't take action to address it

[canpakes]

… a fantastical, almost naïve belief system that disregards or fails to recognize the significance of facts.

Are you describing your angst over the existence of opposing viewpoints, or your imagined assumptions on what people think if they don’t accept your beliefs in general?

[Doctor Steuss]

When I look at that picture, I am confused by the saber-rattling of merit-based hiring.

[canpakes]

When I look at that picture, I am confused by the saber-rattling of merit-based hiring.

I see a fortune ready to be made in bronzer futures.

[Kishkumen]

A significant number of Progressives perceive the fetus developing within a mother's womb as a parasite. When progressives with these views feel encouraged to express them publicly, they are ensuring that Democrats will struggle to secure significant victories in important elections moving forward.

It is utterly nonsensical to think of a baby as a parasite, such a belief goes against all reason. Here’s a bit of practical advice for you! A parasite usually belongs to a different species than the host it depends on for survival. When discussing a parasitic relationship, it refers to an entity existing in a place where it does not belong. When discussing a baby in the womb, it is important to recognize that the baby is precisely where he or she is meant to be.

Moreover, it is quite ironic that many progressives today perceive socialism not as a burden on society, yet they consider a baby to be a burden on the mother. This illustrates how disconnected progressives have permitted their misguided narrative to evolve into a fantastical, almost naïve belief system that disregards or fails to recognize the significance of facts.

I believe that progressivism will ultimately undermine the Democrat party if we don't take action to address it

How many so-called "Progressives" do you think hold that view? Care to provide some kind of number and back that up with some evidence? I mean, I could say that a "significant number" of Trump voters are fascists, but there is so much wiggle room in the phrase "significant number" that I wonder how meaningful the phrase actually is.

Also, I don't know why your "practical advice" is aimed at me. Are you ascribing to me the belief that a fetus is a parasite? I haven't said one word to you about my beliefs regarding the fetus. My position entirely rests on the ability of reasonable people to have disagreements, not on my own particular views of what a fetus is.

[Kishkumen]

It is utterly nonsensical to think of a baby as a parasite, such a belief goes against all reason.

The real richness of this point is that Trumpists apply the term parasite to people who work in our government or use federal programs. Seems to me to be just as stupid, if not stupider, than calling a fetus a parasite.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-parasite-class/

“We’re called parasites in the press. There’s a lot of fearmongering about what we do. What we do is ensure states are protecting children with disabilities,” one employee at the department, who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, told the Guardian. “This used to be a bipartisan issue. I don’t understand why it still isn’t a bipartisan issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ment-Trump

[canpakes]

A significant number of Progressives perceive …

How many so-called "Progressives" do you think hold that view? Care to provide some kind of number and back that up with some evidence?

You may be waiting a while. At best, you may eventually be presented some obscure reference to a rando making the claim, which will be what Hound uses to proclaim knowledge of how folks who aren’t anti-abortion supposedly ‘perceive’ things.

As usual, the purpose of propaganda is not discussion.

The real richness of this point is that Trumpists apply the term parasite to people who work in our government or use federal programs. Seems to me to be just as stupid, if not stupider, than calling a fetus a parasite.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-parasite-class/

Hey, now. You’re talking about the man that Hound is holding up as a model for the rest of us.