Search Results for 'amazon'

How does ”reality prove” what is considered feminine or masculine? Men used to wear pantyhoses and dresses, was this some kind of false reality? Or could it be that society evolved and changed and that is now considered feminine? How exactly is it an objective reality that only females should paint their nails or wear makeup?

You are conflating, quite intentionally I am sure, the realities of sex with fashion and personality.

If you are born with a penis you are a man.  If you are born with the hardware to produce life you are a woman.  Period, full stop.  What you wear, how you choose to adorn yourself or the specifics of what you like or don’t like has NO bearing on your sex.

Now, as intelligent beings, we have the power of observation.  We can clearly see the world over that certain traits typically are associated with men and some with woman.  We tag them masculine or feminine based on observation and not assignment.  This does not mean their cannot be outliers, differences,  and these things that might be outside the norm do not change your sex.

This idea that everything is a social constructs is obnoxiously shortsighted and it is used for manipulation.  Because logically, if everything is a social construct then people are just identical cogs in a machine, a very communist ideal.  And it also gives activists ,such as yourself, license to bang the drum of “let’s change it all as we see fit” because it’s tethered to nothing but societal pressure.  This pours gas on the moral relativism fire that is currently tearing western society apart (which is the goal).

It doesn’t help, because you are biologically a gazelle and that is the only thing the lions see when they meet you.

Exactly, so “misgendering” is total nonsense. Glad we agree.

Yes, and if a person is described to you as someone who used to play with dolls, wears makeup, likes to wear a dress you would assume the person is a female because those are feminine traits, signaling of a female gender. But that person could be a man biologically, which is sex.

Well, we were speaking of children so you gear changed.  Your hypothetical is not real.  No one talks about people that way.  Why?  Because one of the first things mentioned about anyone in any conversation when you are being introduced to the idea of that person is whether they are male or female.  No one describes their traits in that way.    But let’s entertain it.  If someone said that to me, I would assume probably a woman.  Why? Because that  is observable reality. No different than if I was told this person gave birth or could dead lift 500lbs.  If I was introduced to this hypothetical person and I saw he was a man in a dress.  Then I would know it was an outlier situation and that is just what he liked to do.

You can only be a man or woman “biologically” that’s a redundant term user to fool people into accepting the idea there is more than 1 type of man or woman.  There is not.  It matters not what you lop off or glue on.  Under the hood, still the same.

I am inserting here a smarmy joke about religion, but that is another discussion for another time as it is irrelevant to this topic

I can respect that.  But I would be remiss in my duties as someone who understands God exists to not mention having a relationship with God and religion are not only 2 very different things, sometimes they are antithetical to one another.   But to your point, if we were talking about legislating or somehow forcing people to behave as if God exists such they HAD to act a certain way, it’s the same problem and the same encroachment on freedom.  My freedom stops at the doorstep of your freedom regardless of the topic.

well I certainly don’t want anyone to get bullied for expressing traits of the opposite gender, so adding that to title IX sounds good to me.

Bullying was already wrong.  Assault, harassment and other such things already illegal.  Being ugly to someone at work already heavily frowned upon and that being systemic already a legal offense.  So all you are doing is lapping up the tiny bit of pandering milk the Biden admin left out for you so you stay on their planation.

But as far as I know, you don’t get criminalized for not calling someone with cat pronouns or some shit like that. Correct me if I am wrong. And to be clear, I do not want it to become a punishable crime to call someone with wrong pronouns, that would be absurd.

I appreciate you being open to being incorrect and or additional info. That’s the difference between a conversation and an argument. And now I will inform you that you are entirely incorrect.  New York and California have laws and guidance on this and others might as well but those 2 I know for sure.   Outside of the US it’s far worse.  In the UK for example.  If you post a few tweets or whatever social media posts that are not illegal but considered “hateful”, the police show up at your door.  This was a very public thing recently when Scotland enshrined a new “Hate Crime” law and JK Rowling, who is hard left, but considered a “transphobe” was already being reported.  She publicly said to their police, “arrest me”.  They did not.  She pulled a Trump on them essentially and they backed down.  This is also a law federally in Canada.  The infamous Bill C-16.  This was the first one and this is what brought Jordan Peterson out of the shadows talking publicly about how if made law the government can force you to say and do things against your will and it won’t stop there.

And you might ask yourself, how often used could this be?  Enough for Lawyers to advertise it and speak about it and somehow they did so before the magical changes to title IX.

https://www.breslinlawgroup.com/blog/2023/10/2/is-misgendering-a-violation-of-state-or-federal-law

So I al happy we agree such legislation is a negative thing.  But I am shocked that you cannot root out the cause and effect.  This did not just start, it’s been going on and anyone should have been able to see where it was headed.  The logical conclusion of this, if it keeps going, is the government now has the power to write law to compel speech and action.   If you don’t see how these things are linked and where they go then I am not at all surprised you hear “slippery slope” and think “RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA!”.

there are many ways to be respectful. You can use pronouns when said person is in proximity, for example if you refer that person to a third person with you.

You know as well as I do how that is presented but its not how it’s used as I described so again, it’s social engineering nonsense and nothing more.  I WILL NOT cede reality to anyone and I don’t care if you find it disrespectful or not.  Not having a grasp on reality is a you problem, not a me problem.  Expecting someone else to accept who you want to be when you cannot accept who you are is illogical and harmful to that person.  Indulging people in fantasies is not respect and it is not compassion.  It’s quite the opposite.

That’s very fat pride accepting of you. I would encourage people to be what they feel most comfortable being. If a person is fat but wants to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, I would say go to the gym and don’t stay miserable if you feel bad being as you are.

Fat pride is as illogical and harmful as is the gender nonsense.  You cannot be anything than what you are.  I see you buy fully into this thought process that if I think I am something, I am that something.  Yet somehow an intelligent creator seems silly to you?  And NO ONE is up in arms or talking about what people wish to consider themselves.  People have their hair bristled up because they are being forced to say and do things to go along with someone else’s perception of themselves.  But how very activist of you to conflate those 2 things.

I would rephrase it as ”I want the world to accept me the way I feel most comfortable in”.

See this is what makes me upset at this ideology.  You (collective you) say things that sound compassionate and it makes people feel moral when they say it.  The reality is if they were ACTUALLY compassionate they would scratch beyond the self aggrandizing platitudes and understand that indulging in fantasies not only hurts people but in this case it greatly harms society.   You have young girls en masse latching onto this and doing things they regret to themselves in droves.  This is not compassion.  This is selfishness and in total indifference to the welfare of others.

by who? Pedophiles? And how much progress has it made? If pedophilia ever becomes more normalized and is actually getting momentum then I will stand next to you fighting against it with all my might, but I don’t see it happening.

I would sincerely hope we could fight together on many other things as well but I appreciate your point.  And if you don’t see pedophilia being pushed (in the long and short term) then you are either not at all paying attention or you are lying.  And yes, it is the pedophiles pushing it.  Particularly the pedophiles who have hijacked parts of the “gay movement” and that to a large degree is how that’s all getting conflated which is not a coincidence. Pedophiles are trying to shield themselves under the gay umbrella. They are referring to pedophilia as another sexuality and trying to wash it clean with terms like “MAP” and “virtuous pedophile”.  The unsettling part is, arguments used for normalizing homosexuality also work for pedophilia until you hit age of consent.

I am not sure how you don’t see this.  There have been articles, new stories and so on.  One in particular by Todd Nickerson on Salon that got so much backlash they removed it.  But of course, the internet is forever.  http://archive[DOT]is/ttVNy

This is being pushed from the edges consistently and eventually the edges will be the middle.  It’s a hard push to sexualize children.  Why do you think people are so against the drag queen thing around kids?  There are countless videos of that stuff show young kids sexual things.  The infamous story/pcis of the kids at a drag show with a large neon/LED sign on the stage saying “It’s not gonna lick itself”.  So if you do not see all this, then you need to diversity your news sources.

They might use it as a shield but the moment they get caught they are going to be in jail. I could use a similar line of thought about molesting priests, but I think it is crucial to keep them separated and not mix just because they are trying to utilize the surrounding.

You keep whipping out religion as if like a vampire under the shadow of a Crucifix I will recoil.  I won’t.  You are barking up the wrong tree.

They use it as a shield.  It works.  And not they don’t arrested so long as they are using the shield.  How many “drag queens” have been arrested for doing/showing sexual things to kids?  If it is a reasonable thought to believe that someone would join the Priesthood to gain access to children, is it not also a reasonable thought someone would become a drag queen for the same reason at this stage of things?  And yes, the Priest is no different than the “drag queen”.  In fact, I consider the priest even more morally reprehensible because he not offends God while pretending to teach people about him and just leads people astray. Leading children astray is one of the few times in the New Testament where it gets real dark, real fast.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” –Matthew 18:6, the speaker is Jesus himself

consent is key, which is what separates pedophilia from sexual orientations. 

Again, the arguments for sexual orientations fits for pedophilia.  As I see it the ONLY logical (not moral) separation is consent. But again man, draw it out to the logical conclusions.  If a child can be sexually aware enough to “select” his or her sex, then consent to sex is the next stop on that train.  And you might want to look at the thousands of children coming across the border and check into how they disappear and ponder the circumstances and where they end up.

Regarding gender affirming care for minors, in most places it is treated like cosmetic surgeries, meaning it is not for minors. 

“gender affirming care” is a propaganda phrase and I reject it.  This is only a construct if you play the mental game of “I believe therefore it is”.  If you remove that illogical fallacy that ceases to exist.  There is no reason to affirm what you are.  Adults can do as they please so long as I am not paying for it. Children?  Hell no that is monstrous.

Regarding minors with serious gender dysphoria, I am having a really high treshold for that because minors really should be protected from making wrong choices as they can not consent.

You are lapping up the propaganda as if you are a stray cat who has a saucer of fresh milk placed in front of them.  Stop assuming what you see is correct or true.  Stop exchanging your authority for the authority of others because they request you do so.

Gender Dysphoria is VERY rare.  So it would stand that in minors even more rare or almost nonexistent if we think pre-puberty.  And while you do have some internally confused kids out there, they generally work it out (80%+ I think I have seen) on their own discovering that they are simply gay.  This phenomenon of gay=trans in kids is referred to (by gay groups) as “transing away the gay”.

The exception that some are fighting for is if someone has serious gender dysphoria, a surgery is treated like any medical (not cosmetic) surgery.

Children SHOULD NOT have surgeries on their private parts in this context.  FULL STOP.  PERIOD.  Again, this is more propaganda.  If we open the door to “well it’s OK in serious cases”, then “serious” get redefined.  And this has already happened and you have some hospitals already doing this in the US.  And yes, for minors.  And yes in large numbers.

My opinion of this is still unclear, honestly. I believe cosmetic surgeries should be restricted for minors, therefore a minor should not be able to ”select their sex”.

My opinion is clear as day as I am sure you see.  Is that because I heard someone say something or because someone told me to be against it?  No, it’s because I take in information from all corners and I stew on it myself and work through the assertions and the claims in my own head.

And we agree, NO cosmetic surgery minors and that minors cannot “select their sex”.  We agree 1000% percent.

But if I can see data on minors with gender dysphoria overcoming and living a happy life rather than depression or even suicide from gender dysphoria then I absolutely choose a happy minor over a dead minor, as in any health emergency operation for a minor. But there needs to be absolutely strong evidence for that, until then I will stay with my belief that minors should not have access to gender affirming care.

You won’t find that data because it does not exist.  And even considering the paradigm of  “if we don’t cut his man business off he will kill himself” is nonsense.  This is more propaganda.  It’s a thought trap scaring parents into these surgeries threatening them with the death of their child.  It is emotional blackmail. And now you have places like California where a child WILL BE and HAS taken away from their parents by the state because the child requests transition in one form or another and the parents refuse.  Do you not see the autonomy being assigned to children?  Do you not think consent is not next to go?

I do not fall into these moral quagmires. I consider and or reject assertions I can personally observe that conflict with reality. (I saw this with the COVID vaccine nonsense, not immediately I was scared like everyone else at first and I actually saw COVID coming before most as I was keeping tabs on it in China)  I do not accept without test and thought words and or info from “experts”.  Authority is like offense.  No one can force it upon you, you have to accept it.

As to all this gender stuff in general.  I implore you to read about 2 things.  John Money, where the modern trans nonsense is rooted that ended up with 2 dead people.  You will CLEARLY see that your assertions of “society defines gender traits” is very wrong.

You should also read about the lobotomy.  At the time heralded as a way to help mentally ill people and it was OK to destroy part of their brain because “science”.   As I understand it, that is the previous time we treated mental illness with surgery. I do know of some experimental surgery for SERIOUS depression which involved an implant but you catch my drift I am sure.

I also refer you to this book written by an experienced professional in that specific field.

https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Trans-Nation-Psychiatrists-Madness/dp/B0CDJCSX2W/ref=sr_1_5?sr=8-5

• This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Vknid.

It is true, and funny, too, but it has always kind of been that way. The “1 Percent” is there for a reason. It’s been like that.

No this is not true.  The current situation where .5 out of 10 shows made, might not induce uncontrollable vomiting is a relatively new situation.

When Netflix was still a content aggregator, the studios made shows/movies and put them on cable and Netflix.  Then the studios ripped all their content from Netflix because they thought they could be Netflix.  No one realized no one studio had enough content to keep people subscribed.  And that point Netflix would make any script regardless of how bad it might be because they desperately needed content.  That is how we arrived at the current paradigm.

The good news (kinda) is that it will all fall back to 1 or 2 aggregators.  Amazon will be it as I mentioned previously.

@DragonLady

You make a great point there.  I have seen a number of instances where a good quality Blu-Ray looks better than a poorly made 4K disc.  It just depends on how things were originally recorded and handled post filming.

Now I NEVER buy/rent animated films in 4K.  It’s a useless endeavor as animation (drawn or otherwise) does not have that kind of detail.  Now I say never.  I have 1, “The Transformers The Movie” from 1986. I thought it was kinda sarcastic and nostalgic to have it in 4K.

The overall thing here folks don’t realize is the movie watch from Amazon or Netflix (or wherever) is technically 1080p or 4K as it is in the required resolution.  But those streamed titles generally look nothing like what’s on the disc.  They compress the heck out of movies to save space and bandwidth.  That is as expected so that streaming works well.  But it should be kept in mind that’s not at all what a disc looks like.

For example,  a 4K movie from a streaming platform is generally about 15-20GB in total size.  The same movie on a disc would be 50-90GB.  Now file size alone is not a measure of quality or detail but with that sort of discrepancy you can so there is a huge difference.

The other thing about physical beyond just not having to hope your platform keeps a title around, is it cannot be edited.  Titles are being edited retroactively to scrub out and change “offensive” things.  I like possessing titles so that cannot happen and I don’t have to worry about if Amazon or Netflix or whoever deicides to no longer have that movie on their platform.

There is much to be said for possessing media in physical or digital format. If you posses it, it cannot be edited nor can your “license” for it be removed.

It makes me happy to see older titles getting 4K love.  Although often they are stinky and the upscaling is bad.  But sometimes they come off gorgeous. It depends on the source recording often.  I have “Unforgiven” in 4k. That’s from 1992.  In 4k it is wonderfully pretty as there are many awesome backgrounds.  That’s probably because Eastwood had it recorded at the highest quality at the time.