NOM

This post is a placeholder for Newme to share their controversial topics. These topics may or may not belong in other sub-forums and threads.

Please, Newme, rather than clog up other threads with such discussion, let's discuss these issues here. We can share facts, sources, and citations to come to a more thorough, better understanding on these issues.

Which issue is most significant to you? Which one would you like to address first?

After that, would you like me to make the first claim, or would you prefer to start?

Jeffret,
Simply look at both of our post histories: it is YOU who have followed me into threads and brought up stuff that has no relevance to the thread title.

I was thinking about asking you to just stop following me around the forum. I’d appreciate if you would stop. Thanks.

Newme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:43 pm Jeffret,
Simply look at both of our post histories: it is YOU who have followed me into threads and brought up stuff that has no relevance to the thread title.

I was thinking about asking you to just stop following me around the forum. I’d appreciate if you would stop. Thanks.

Um, you're trying to limit what topics I can respond on?

Is it simply a matter that you want to be able to spew your hate without opposition?

From viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2263&start=40#p27618:

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:14 pm NewMe- there's an excellent National Geographic edition in the last couple of years all about the science of gender.

The January 2017 issue. There is also a TV episode / video associated with it that I haven't been able to figure out how to access yet. The magazine is probably available at your local library. I picked up a copy.

So far it looks pretty interesting. Being the National Geographic, it focuses on the sociological and anthropological aspects. It has some pretty interesting stuff, though, across a variety of cultures. It's interesting to see the cultural variations.

The lead-in editorial comment is titled, "What if all could thrive?" I think that's the key issue at stake here. Can we accept a world where all can thrive or by some necessity, do we need to limit it so that only some can thrive? In my opinion, we should pursue approaches that best allow all to thrive.

In one article in the issue, author Robin Marantz Herrig writes,

Many of us learned in high school biology that sex chromosomes determine a baby's sex, full stop: XX means it's a girl; XY means it's a boy.
But on occasion, XX and XY don't tell the whole story.

The issue contains photos and quotes from kids around the world. One photo-essay involves asking the kids what is the best or worst thing about being a boy or a girl. For Lopeyok Kagete of Kaputir, Kenya it's pretty simple, "The good thing about being a boy is the penis."

Newme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:43 pm Jeffret,
Simply look at both of our post histories: it is YOU who have followed me into threads and brought up stuff that has no relevance to the thread title.

I was thinking about asking you to just stop following me around the forum. I’d appreciate if you would stop. Thanks.

Newme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:43 pm Jeffret,
Simply look at both of our post histories: it is YOU who have followed me into threads and brought up stuff that has no relevance to the thread title.

I was thinking about asking you to just stop following me around the forum. I’d appreciate if you would stop. Thanks.

Jeffret is not the only one who has been trying to correct some of your outdated information. And he has said that he cannot in good conscience let some of the things you say go unchallenged as if they really are "facts". Neither can I. I have no illusion that I can get you to change your mind, because you are choosing to find articles that fit with what you feel and not check the information for accuracy. So, if you don't want some of us challenging your thinking, then what is your suggestion? I care too much about this website, and about accurate information to just leave your opinion alone as if I agree, and you have good information on your side.

You could either stop saying things that are so far right as to be off the reality map, or we can keep them all in one place, or we can follow you around and correct the record. I don't mind far right stuff. My DH is a republican, and we have our political differences. But the only time we argue is if he gets data from "fake news" sources, or starts quoting things that my education in psychology says is false. I won't let false information stand as if it is true.

(See original post at viewtopic.php?p=27736#p27732)

Newme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:20 pm Also, please quote exactly what I stated about those with homosexual preferences that was factually incorrect. You can’t. You are simply trying to put me down for stating facts you don’t like.

I accept the challenge!

Would you like to pick a specific claim to address? Or would you like me to pick one?

We could start with this one "homosexual preferences". Would you like to start there or on a different claim?

I'm beginning to think you don't really dare try to defend your claims.

(See original post at viewtopic.php?p=27736#p27735)

Newme wrote: ↑Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:22 pm Christian Artists Must Make Same-Sex Wedding Invitations, Arizona Judge Rules
https://www.christianpost.com/news/evan ... es-204643/

Homosexual “rights” are destroying others’ rights:
https://youtu.be/WECjvFrXQwI

Good, Christians should have to obey the law just as everyone else does. Christians shouldn't get special privilege to avoid obeying laws, just because they don't like the law or the people affected by it.

The video is a load of crap.

Gay rights are only destroying others' rights, if you think you have a right to demand how others behave. That's not an actual right that you have, though. You don't get to force other people to behave the way you want, just because you feel that is your right. What these people are demanding is special rights to control others and make them adhere to their beliefs. There is a reason that approach is fast falling out of favor in most of society.

But on occasion, XX and XY don't tell the whole story.

Especially when the four nucleotides cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine like to arrange themselves in different orders. Give a nucleotide a pancake and they will then ask for a phosphate group!

Moderator note: in fairness we've decided to also lock this thread. The splinter conversation was moved to its own topic.