Are all flat earthers also Genesis believers?

I really don't mean to memberate but Mom is gonna wake up and be mad at us.

Jura has principles, Shifter.
Apparently that's inconvenient. I'm not sure he shares your dream of a gay fascist utopia.

How about you start giving a damn about people?

You mean how divisive exposing people to toxins is.
If I expose you to phosgene, and you tut at me, should I just tell you to go fuck yourself?

If you want to poison yourself, poison yourself, not others.
If you don't want to be called scum, stop acting like it.

Quote from: disputeone on November 08, 2022, 04:26:10 AM

I really don't mean to memberate but Mom is gonna wake up and be mad at us.

Jura has principles, Shifter.
Apparently that's inconvenient. I'm not sure he shares your dream of a gay fascist utopia.

Jura can take the moral high ground on many issues. But there is no moral high ground to be had when people deliberately smoke in front of others that dont smoke. I fail to see what is positive about it. Is a smoker really going to call the ability to light up a cigarette in front of people who dont smoke some 'dear principle' to cling on to? The days of smoking being socially acceptable and/or cool is long past.

Most people have the courtesy to ask permission if they can smoke in front of others.

If someone came to your house or in your car and lit up a cig without asking you - is that rude yes/no?

Even when I have gone to peoples houses who are smokers, they know to ask if they can smoke in my presence. That's just good manners. I say given I'm on their turf to keep a window open and it's all good.

No, it means that its actions can show it to be bad, even if you want to pretend it is good.

And just how do you expect a fictitious being to be able to do anything to me?

Then stop with the childish insults, and just stop responding, and don't be surprised when I call out your BS.

Quote from: disputeone on November 08, 2022, 12:55:28 AM

Smoking is not assault.

Define assault.
Would spraying you with phosgene count as assault?

I can't see any reason that wilfully exposing people to toxins and carcinogens, just so you can smoke, shouldn't be counted in the general sense of the word. The legal definition would vary with jurisdiction.

Biologically speaking, humans are male or female (or in rare cases intersex). If you want to invent a bunch of meaningless labels to try to divide humanity and cause conflict, go ahead, but don't be surprised when not everyone agrees.

Jura has principles, Shifter.

I don’t blow smoke at people, I will if outside check which way the wind is blowing and allow for that, but when my ex neighbours asked me not to smoke in my garden as their kids want to play outside, well the relationship soured somewhat, and honestly I ceased to care about them.

Assault is physical violence.
2+2=4.

What is Ambiguous genitalia?

Do you really believe homosexuality is a choice?

Can't you understand that there can be a disconnect between physical orientation and mental orientation?

the people causing division are the ones who cannot come to terms with a complex reality.

Families undergo division and dissension when a child proclaims they are gay.  Societies undergo division and dissension when gays are brutally beaten and killed for nature's ambiguities.  What's your solution?  Sweep it all under the rug and pretend its all nonsense?

Unless someone is purposely blowing smoke in your face, it wouldn't be assault.

Have you sued all the people who drive to work or the truckers who distribute the goods that you can buy from the markets.

What about a neighbor who has a firepit or a wood or charcoal grill.

I don't want it to be good or bad. As I have said in many places, good and bad are relative terms. Whatever he is. He seems like a just God, and that means he's good to me. But your concept of "good" may mean something different.

Let me remind, you are who first start with calling me another name.

And with that you are just playing semantics.

The fact remains, you wanting to label it as good or just or anything else, doesn't mean I can't use it's actions to show that it is not.

Do you accept that I can be discussing your god, and using its actions to show that your claims about its character are false?

Are you referring to insults, where you started it in this thread by suggesting people who accept the RE worship Satan or the sun?

Or do you mean me calling you by your former name here, because you wanted to make a big deal about how you changed your name to wise?

Since there is no such thing as "my God", your behavior is undefined.

Hello guys.

This is İntikam, who saved islamics in Turkey while they are under heavy pressure caused by laics. At about same points, I'll teach you creating your own God who always will help you and lets you win the fight against rounders.

Quote from: wise on November 08, 2022, 09:31:29 PM

Since there is no such thing as "my God", your behavior is undefined.

Quote from: wise on January 13, 2017, 06:02:59 AM

Hello guys.

This is İntikam, who saved islamics in Turkey while they are under heavy pressure caused by laics. At about same points, I'll teach you creating your own God who always will help you and lets you win the fight against rounders.

Quote from: Stash on November 08, 2022, 09:38:57 PM

Quote from: wise on November 08, 2022, 09:31:29 PM

Since there is no such thing as "my God", your behavior is undefined.

Quote from: wise on January 13, 2017, 06:02:59 AM

Hello guys.

This is İntikam, who saved islamics in Turkey while they are under heavy pressure caused by laics. At about same points, I'll teach you creating your own God who always will help you and lets you win the fight against rounders.

Oh, the devil's advocate is on the scene once again. The two are completely different issues. One talks about defining a God yourself and contributing to your self-development. The issue here is the real God.

No, I am not playing anything.

Since there is no such thing as "my God"

Since what you are talking about is not my God, I take no offence here.
...
No, I said you were created by your God. It's your own claim that my God created you.

In order for what we were discussing to be my God, we should have been talking about my God.

No insult here but yours.

The fact that people do not know what they believe does not change the fact that they believe in something.

I'm talking about how you showing the real face of you changing my name in my comments.

So because they dared to ask you to not expose their children to toxins and carcinogens, you just displayed how little you care about people.

I might be a insufferable prick, but at least I care about people to not willingly expose them to toxins just to have some pathetic enjoyment.

Oh, so what you were saying back then is to create your own un-real God?

You most certainly are.

Just believe your god is X doesn't mean I can't use its actions, the actions you believe it committed, to show it is not X.

You either accept that, or discussion is pointless.

Do you believe in a god? If so, it is your god.

Even if other people believe in it as well, it is still your god.

Saying there is just one god so it is not your god is just extreme arrogance, where you want to pretend everyone believes in the same god, which just happens to be your god.

Not everyone believes in your god, plenty of people believe in a different god, and plenty don't believe in any god.

And there is no reason to think any god is real.

You were also quite happy to accept talking about it before.

You not liking the fact that your actions are insulting doesn't magically mean they are not insulting.

You mean like you believing in an evil god?

Just how would they beleive it and not know?

Like I said, that is because you decided to boast about the fact that your username is wise, which in no way reflects if you are wise or not.

So I decided to go back to your old name.

If you want, you can freely admit that your username does not mean you are wise, nor do you have that username because you are wise, nor does it indicate anyone (other than yourself) thinks you are wise; and agree that you will never do such an unwise thing again.

Then I will go back to leaving your name (but not status/intellect) as wise.

But at least I didn't make your name a lie, while you seem to have just continued to do that time and time again.

Gotta give it to JackBlack - if you smoke around others - it is not simply the height of being inconsiderate but it is an assault. Which is criminal.

While we have lots of 'no smoking' areas, another area that should be non smoking is anywhere that is around other people. Do your filthy habit in your own time and space and keep that shit away from people who weren't dumb enough to waste their money and destroy their health and wellbeing on that toxic shit

Also I dont understand this 'it must be okay because it's natural' argument.

Asbestos is also natural. Natural doesn't mean it is safer.

Quote from: disputeone on November 08, 2022, 04:26:10 AM

I really don't mean to memberate but Mom is gonna wake up and be mad at us.

Jura has principles, Shifter.
Apparently that's inconvenient. I'm not sure he shares your dream of a gay fascist utopia.

Jura can take the moral high ground on many issues. But there is no moral high ground to be had when people deliberately smoke in front of others that dont smoke. I fail to see what is positive about it. Is a smoker really going to call the ability to light up a cigarette in front of people who dont smoke some 'dear principle' to cling on to? The days of smoking being socially acceptable and/or cool is long past.

Most people have the courtesy to ask permission if they can smoke in front of others.

If someone came to your house or in your car and lit up a cig without asking you - is that rude yes/no?

Even when I have gone to peoples houses who are smokers, they know to ask if they can smoke in my presence. That's just good manners. I say given I'm on their turf to keep a window open and it's all good.

Quote from: Wolvaccine on November 08, 2022, 04:40:12 AM

Quote from: disputeone on November 08, 2022, 04:26:10 AM

I really don't mean to memberate but Mom is gonna wake up and be mad at us.

Jura has principles, Shifter.
Apparently that's inconvenient. I'm not sure he shares your dream of a gay fascist utopia.

Jura can take the moral high ground on many issues. But there is no moral high ground to be had when people deliberately smoke in front of others that dont smoke. I fail to see what is positive about it. Is a smoker really going to call the ability to light up a cigarette in front of people who dont smoke some 'dear principle' to cling on to? The days of smoking being socially acceptable and/or cool is long past.

Most people have the courtesy to ask permission if they can smoke in front of others.

If someone came to your house or in your car and lit up a cig without asking you - is that rude yes/no?

Even when I have gone to peoples houses who are smokers, they know to ask if they can smoke in my presence. That's just good manners. I say given I'm on their turf to keep a window open and it's all good.

When you eat sugar and breathes in my face, sugar particles in her breath do not endanger me, since sugar does not smell, does it? Oh, so we're not talking about the fact that sugar isn't forbidden, even though it's harmful, but cigarette is a problem.

People who have too much sugar in their urine when we go swimming put my life at risk more than my smoke puts your life. If there is someone who does not smoke at home or in the car, others should not smoke anyway, this is not a health issue, it is a requirement of etiquette and respect. But for me, when one person tells the other that he is uncomfortable with cigarette smoke outdoor, it is no different from a sugar example. You're reducing my oxygen by breathing, that's bullshit.

Make sure smokers don't die. If we were dying we wouldn't be drinking. And there is no reason for something that does not "directly" affect us to harm others "indirectly".

So many words..... Zero coherence.

If you want, I can write an article about the benefits of smoking. Oh, if that's what you want.

Quote from: wise on November 09, 2022, 04:31:45 AM

If you want, I can write an article about the benefits of smoking. Oh, if that's what you want.

Sure lets hear it. Should be a good laugh. Put it in its own thread though

Can't you understand that there can be a disconnect between physical orientation and mental orientation?

Can't you understand that the trans community is treating the 2 as the same, by acting like someone's mental orientation should dictate how they should be treated based upon their physical orientation, such as which bathrooms (segregated based upon physical orientation) they can enter, which pronouns (dictated based upon physical orientation) they are labelled by, which sporting events (segregated based upon physical orientation) they can compete in and so on?
Can't you understand that the entire appeal to mental orientation just serves to further divide people and label people as "not a real man/woman" for not fitting into blatantly sexist stereotypes?

• Do nothing, tell them they must live with the disconnect between the physical and the mental/emotional.
• Change the physical to coincide with the mental/emotional.
• Change the mental/emotional to coincide with the physical.

Are you suggesting a homosexual male isn't a real man, because they don't fit the "mental orientation" of a "real man"?

the people causing division are the ones who cannot come to terms with a complex reality.

No, the people causing division are the ones who want to pretend that there is a mental sex, and that people should be treated differently based upon their sex, and demand everyone treat these special people who want to claim their mental and physical sex are different as their mental sex, and getting all angry when people say they should be treated based upon their physical sex.

If these people promoting it actually wanted to stop division they would be trying to destroy the whole idea of an orientation which just serves to divide, and instead trying to embrace everyone, and remove sex based segregation or roles.

Quote from: ecco on November 08, 2022, 07:49:55 AM

Families undergo division and dissension when a child proclaims they are gay.  Societies undergo division and dissension when gays are brutally beaten and killed for nature's ambiguities.  What's your solution?  Sweep it all under the rug and pretend its all nonsense?

As above, stop trying to enforce sex based stereotypes and segregation which just serves to divide.

Emphasizing a lie as "absolutely" does not change the fact that it is a lie.

Just believe I believe a God doesn't make that God mine. He is still God of everything.

If you keep quiet, the discussion will make more sense.

Pure BS. According to your logic, everyone who believes in God has a separate God.

Isn't he the God of all?

Your God is the devil.

If other people believe in the same God that I believe in, it means that we believe in God, not that they believe in my God.

Which god do you believe in

Yes, we talked about your God all along.

Just like you do not know.

Your thoughts on this matter reveal the fact that my name is wise

Clearly, what lame thoughts you call me by another name is something that doesn't interest me

So I have to do what you or your Satan want so that the Devil who tells you not to get vaccinated tells you to call me by my name?

Smoking is an addiction - a vice - a bad habit.

As for smoking being the cause for an assault complaint, yeah, maybe if the smoker blows the smoke directly and intentionally into someone's face (common assault), or lights up a cigarette inside a car with other passengers, and all the windows wound up.

Otherwise, your passive smoking in an open space being grounds for an assault complaint is pushing shit uphill.

There are three options:

• Do nothing, tell them they must live with the disconnect between the physical and the mental/emotional.
• Change the physical to coincide with the mental/emotional.
• Change the mental/emotional to coincide with the physical.

Which do you favor?  Which is a realistic approach?

Please don't try to assign meanings to my words that you know aren't there.

I'm the one arguing for inclusion.  You're the one trying to convince yourself that trans feelings are not worthy of inclusion and should be hidden and dismissed.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 09, 2022, 03:58:20 AM

Smoking is an addiction - a vice - a bad habit.

So is paedophilia.
That doesn't provide grounds to make it legal, or provide grounds to allow you to harm others.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 09, 2022, 03:58:20 AM

As for smoking being the cause for an assault complaint, yeah, maybe if the smoker blows the smoke directly and intentionally into someone's face (common assault), or lights up a cigarette inside a car with other passengers, and all the windows wound up.

Otherwise, your passive smoking in an open space being grounds for an assault complaint is pushing shit uphill.

So if I fill a super soaker with acid and spray it straight up and it splashes people and causes acid burns, is that grounds for assault?
Because that's equivalent.

I find no requirement for intent in assault. The closest I find in the act for my area is when it is assault with intent to do something else.
Looking at Wikipedia (and elsewhere), it has common assault requires it to be intentional or reckless.
I would say dumping a bunch of toxic fumes into the atmosphere, in close proximity to people or where people are likely to be going constitutes a reckless act and thus would full under the definition of common assault.

Quote from: ecco on November 09, 2022, 08:08:36 AM

There are three options:

• Do nothing, tell them they must live with the disconnect between the physical and the mental/emotional.
• Change the physical to coincide with the mental/emotional.
• Change the mental/emotional to coincide with the physical.

Which do you favor?  Which is a realistic approach?

Or option 4, try to have them separate the mental/emotion from the physical, try to recognise why they feel this way and treat that. Try to have them accept themselves for who they are, rather than trying to have them change who they are to suit things heavily influenced by blatant sexism in society.
But most importantly, target society itself to try to remove sex based stereotypes and other forms of blatant sexism like sex based segregation and sex based pronouns.
Once they reach that point, what difference does it make?

You wouldn't have to have debates about what bathroom/changeroom/whatever they can go into, because they wouldn't be segregated.
You wouldn't have to have debates about which sporting events they can compete in, because they wouldn't be segregated (but the use of hormones could still be an issue).
You wouldn't have to have debates about which pronouns to use, because they wouldn't be based on sex.
You wouldn't have to have debates about what clothes they can or should wear, because anyone could wear whatever clothes they please.

The only time it would possibly cause issues are for medical issues which are intrinsically going to be different anyway; and for the gathering of statistics/checking for discrimination, which if done properly would already be putting them in a separate category.

Additionally, which is the more realistic/decent approach; try to have them accept themselves for who they are, or try and demand the entire world accepts them for who they are not, trying to shame and silence who don't agree, falsely accuse them of bigotry and so on?

If you would like another comparison, consider an anorexic person.
What should they do?

If you would like a more ridiculous comparison, what if someone identified as a different race, or a different species?

Quote from: ecco on November 09, 2022, 08:08:36 AM

Please don't try to assign meanings to my words that you know aren't there.

I am pointing out the sexist stereotypes which underpin your comments, and pointing out what they can cause.

It also fits quite well considering in some locations (e.g. Iran), homosexuals are forced to undergo sex reassignment surgery.
And that the same medical methodology used to try and justify a M2F trans person not being male or a F2M trans person not being male, can be used equally well (which really is quite poorly) to claim male homosexuals aren't male and female homosexuals aren't female.

The sole distinction is in how the person identified, where the male homosexual identifies as male, while

Quote from: ecco on November 09, 2022, 08:08:36 AM

I'm the one arguing for inclusion.  You're the one trying to convince yourself that trans feelings are not worthy of inclusion and should be hidden and dismissed.

No, you are not.
You are arguing for exclusion and segregation, under the guise of inclusion.
I think it shouldn't matter how someone identifies, they should be treated the same, because sex should not dictate how you treat people.
You instead are promoting a blatantly sexist world where there is a particular way men should be treated and a particular way women should be treated and that these are different.

Do you know a big driving factor of homosexuals and trans people being assaulted? For them not acting like a "real man" or "real woman", due to blatant sexist stereotypes you are supporting.

You are opposing a world where people are treated equally (and I mean equally, not that "equal but different" BS), rather than being treated differently based upon their sex or "gender identity"