Canem Malum,

Are you ever capable of addressing someone’s arguments instead of dishing out insults by calling them Marxists?

Your second post reads like an irrelevant word salad dished up by Jordan Peterson. You still don’t understand what Marxism is, either.

What you fail to grasp is that the telos of human existence is not claimed to be found in the shallow waters of enforced equity, but in the transcendent striving towards the actualisation of the Jungian self, where the chaos of the unknown is integrated with the order of tradition, thus paving the path to genuine individuation.

In the pursuit of ideologically driven identity constructs, we find ourselves entangled in a web of postmodern neo-Marxist deconstructions, rather than fostering individual sovereignty. We subjugate the very archetypal hierarchies that underpin the metaphysical substrate of Western civilisation.

Yeah… think about it.

--

Indyvidual,

Saying that the concept of a ‘social construct’ has been “designed to take focus totally off merit” makes no sense at all. Do you think you earned being born a biological male?

I take it you also believe that cash is worthless, because the value we place on it is also a social construct.

No one conjured up the idea of social constructs. They have existed for as long as social species have existed. It is only our awareness and labeling of them as such that has been a relatively recent development.

The same bloke who accuses me of thinking all the trans-malarkey is caused by "the Jews" also complains..."Are you ever capable of addressing someone’s arguments instead of dishing out insults..."

Self-reflection isn't an item with this chap. Nor is integrity. Speaking of which....he 'quotes' me as saying "But it enables sex offenders". Making up quotes is a sure sign that the argument, let alone any sense of logic, is lost.

Then he introduces issues of rape, which no one had mentioned before or since.

But the best bit is his claim that "Feminism and the transgender rights movements share common goals". I guess he's never heard of the people derisively called TERFs. (Well best to not be aware of things that might disturb the narrative).

TERF - Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists. These are feminists (usually lesbians) who don't buy the whole ideology that trans-women are real women. They reject the claim that's its transphobic for a lesbian to not want to have a relationship (or relations) with a 'women' who has a dick. They most definitely don't share the same goals. But JD, as usual, thinks that hm just asserting it is the same as it being so.

Earlier I asked JD "Is a person who has a vagina between his legs which is a attached to a uterus, a small adam's apple and scares where his tits had been removed, male or female in the biological world and the gendered world? I look forward to your obfuscation."

Well at least he didn't obfuscate - he just ran a mile. Why? Because there is no honest answer to that question that doesn't put a lie to his claims.

John Daysh,
Your last post is nothing more than a flailing attempt to appear relevant. It's not working. You simply can not smoke-screen the fact that the majority of Academia are nothing more than a frivolous waste of our funding & nothing less than an insidious community intent on derailing all that is based on common sense ! The only reason largely useless Academia is still reproducing is the fact that those who keep everything rolling are too busy working & don't have the time to waste on these parasites ! Academia wrongly & immorally tries to portray itself as being the foundation of useful knowledge, that is not so. Useful Scholars & professionals are unfairly lumped into the same waste basket that is Academia !

mhaze,

There was no hypocrisy on my part there, because I actually engage with the arguments of others. I also didn’t accuse you of “thinking all the trans-malarkey is caused by "the Jews,"” if you’d care to read what I actually said.

I didn’t quote you as saying, "But it enables sex offenders," I was preempting what you’d say in response. But I think you knew that much; you’re just back to your predictable MO of trying to discredit your opponent when you’ve run out of arguments.

Hence the discussion on rape. Keep up.

Yes, I’ve heard of the term TERF, but that doesn’t negate my point about feminism and the transgender rights movements share common goals.

//Well at least he didn't obfuscate - he just ran a mile. Why? Because there is no honest answer to that question that doesn't put a lie to his claims.//

No, I didn’t run. I’ll answer your question now if you’d like?

“Is a person who has a vagina between his legs which is a attached to a uterus, a small adam's apple and scares where his tits had been removed, male or female in the biological world and the gendered world?” - mhaze

Biologically, the person would be classified as female due to the presence of a vagina and uterus, despite having undergone masculinising treatments like breast removal and developing a small Adam's apple. In the “gendered world,” gender identity is determined by how the person self-identifies. Therefore, they should be considered male if we live in a society that respects the need for individuals to be treated with dignity and respect.

Simple. No obfuscation required (or personal attacks, for that matter). You should try it sometime.

--

Indyvidual,

That didn't address what I said at all. How about you start by telling me exactly why I was wrong?

John Daysh is on a par with the two Marxists. Respond to his nonsense, and he will never shut up.

Speaking of dishing out insults only...

ttbn,

Instead of engaging in petty personal attacks, perhaps you could help your friends out by explaining why I'm wrong?

http://j.gifs.com/vb20nr.gif