The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[If my soul was made of stone]

Dolezal-esque appropriators are just mental ill people, but honestly it far easier to defend transracial people than transgender people, race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

Dolezal-esque appropriators are just mental ill people, but honestly it far easier to defend transracial people than transgender people, race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

Wow, that whole post is... something.

[John Dule]

race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

The rest of the comment aside, do you disagree with this?

[Diabolical Materialism]

race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

The rest of the comment aside, do you disagree with this?

How would you measure the degree to which something is "more a social construct" than something else?

[John Dule]

race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

The rest of the comment aside, do you disagree with this?

How would you measure the degree to which something is "more a social construct" than something else?

Gender roles are clearly based on the natural biological differences between the sexes. Do you think that racial roles in our society are the product of natural biological differences between the races?

[ꙮ]

You have no more of a "right" to watch pornography than you have a "right" to own slaves.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

The rest of the comment aside, do you disagree with this?

How would you measure the degree to which something is "more a social construct" than something else?

Gender roles are clearly based on the natural biological differences between the sexes. Do you think that racial roles in our society are the product of natural biological differences between the races?

The idea that gender roles are biologically determined is heavily overblown.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions

The biological fact is that we males are only needed as sex objects.

[John Dule]

race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

The rest of the comment aside, do you disagree with this?

How would you measure the degree to which something is "more a social construct" than something else?

Gender roles are clearly based on the natural biological differences between the sexes. Do you think that racial roles in our society are the product of natural biological differences between the races?

The idea that gender roles are biologically determined is heavily overblown.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions

The biological fact is that we males are only needed as sex objects.

Answer me this: Are you seriously prepared to argue that the differences between white and black people in our society are just as rooted in biology as the differences between men and women are? Because that is the only argument that would actually refute what I was saying.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

The rest of the comment aside, do you disagree with this?

How would you measure the degree to which something is "more a social construct" than something else?

Gender roles are clearly based on the natural biological differences between the sexes. Do you think that racial roles in our society are the product of natural biological differences between the races?

The idea that gender roles are biologically determined is heavily overblown.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions

The biological fact is that we males are only needed as sex objects.

There's a difference between "based in" and "determined by."  Being based in biological sex differences doesn't mean it's the only thing it's based in, and doesn't erase the societal-specific adaptation of these differences that lead to wide variation. But the impact of sex differences shows up in cross-cultural trends.

https://twitter.com/Scientific_Bird/status/1328680587742351361?s=20

[Badger]

race is far more a social construct than gender is. 

The rest of the comment aside, do you disagree with this?

How would you measure the degree to which something is "more a social construct" than something else?

Gender roles are clearly based on the natural biological differences between the sexes. Do you think that racial roles in our society are the product of natural biological differences between the races?

The idea that gender roles are biologically determined is heavily overblown.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/prehistoric-female-hunter-discovery-upends-gender-role-assumptions

The biological fact is that we males are only needed as sex objects.

There's a difference between "based in" and "determined by."  Being based in biological sex differences doesn't mean it's the only thing it's based in, and doesn't erase the societal-specific adaptation of these differences that lead to wide variation. But the impact of sex differences shows up in cross-cultural trends.

https://twitter.com/Scientific_Bird/status/1328680587742351361?s=20

Affected instrument construction is almost universally a male task is very interesting. I wonder why that is?

[President Johnson]

Good. We live in America. We have prisons. We do not live in 1790s France.

1790s France was better.

[Left Wing]

Democrats routinely defend things far worse than that solely because their candidates have a (D) next to their name (see: the Clintons, Menendez, Cuomo, etc.) and are pretty proud of it, so yeah, while such comments might be inappropriate, "the people of TX-13" are right not to draw the line at an incident that wouldn’t even trigger a 'do I draw the line here?' response among your average Democratic voter. The GOP would be a lot better off if it was emulating the Democrats more often than not when it comes to these things, but we all know that they won’t.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

Democrats routinely defend things far worse than that solely because their candidates have a (D) next to their name (see: the Clintons, Menendez, Cuomo, etc.) and are pretty proud of it, so yeah, while such comments might be inappropriate, "the people of TX-13" are right not to draw the line at an incident that wouldn’t even trigger a 'do I draw the line here?' response among your average Democratic voter. The GOP would be a lot better off if it was emulating the Democrats more often than not when it comes to these things, but we all know that they won’t.

Every morning I fall out of bed in my hurry to defend Bill Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, and Bob Menéndez, three well known progressive scions.

[Hammy]

It was likely created in a lab, maybe as an experiment,

Imagine unironically thinking this about Covid.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

It was likely created in a lab, maybe as an experiment,

Imagine unironically thinking this about Covid.

The Biden administration thinks there is a chance of this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/u-s-still-hasn-t-completely-ruled-out-lab-accident-n1258032

This is not a far-right take.

[Hammy]

It was likely created in a lab, maybe as an experiment,

Imagine unironically thinking this about Covid.

The Biden administration thinks there is a chance of this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/u-s-still-hasn-t-completely-ruled-out-lab-accident-n1258032

This is not a far-right take.

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

U.S. officials haven't shown any evidence pointing to a lab escape, and scientists call the scenario unlikely.

[Donerail]

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

Is it "a hot far-left take" to believe that a bat bit a pangolin that infected a person? There is no direct evidence for either of these scenarios and I am unsure why you are ascribing an ideological position to one or the other.

[Hammy]

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

Is it "a hot far-left take" to believe that a bat bit a pangolin that infected a person? There is no direct evidence for either of these scenarios and I am unsure why you are ascribing an ideological position to one or the other.

Thank you for posting your absurd and ignorant take directly into the thread, makes things easier.

The notion that the virus was created in a lab is an unfounded conspiracy theory that is being spread by right wing pundits and media in order to both seek to punish China (or to them, anyone who "looks" Chinese) and ascribe blame, so they can point to someone and say "look its their fault" as well as remove any responsibility from themselves in stopping the spread.

The origin from a pangolin is theory, but at least based on there being some degree of evidence that it originated in a food market, and is not being used to spread any sort of political stance.

So yes, one of these talking points is absolutely, undeniably, an ideologically-driven talking point.

[Donerail]

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

Is it "a hot far-left take" to believe that a bat bit a pangolin that infected a person? There is no direct evidence for either of these scenarios and I am unsure why you are ascribing an ideological position to one or the other.

Thank you for posting your absurd and ignorant take directly into the thread, makes things easier.

The notion that the virus was created in a lab is an unfounded conspiracy theory that is being spread by right wing pundits and media in order to both seek to punish China (or to them, anyone who "looks" Chinese) and ascribe blame, so they can point to someone and say "look its their fault" as well as remove any responsibility from themselves in stopping the spread.

The origin from a pangolin is theory, but at least based on there being some degree of evidence that it originated in a food market, and is not being used to spread any sort of political stance.

So yes, one of these talking points is absolutely, undeniably, an ideologically-driven talking point.

You're just regurgitating labels without making an argument. Whether or not the virus was created in a lab is a factual question. People will marshal assortments of facts in service of their agendas, but either it was or it wasn't. There is no direct evidence — as you admit — for either theory, but facts, by themselves, cannot be "far-right." Arbitrarily deciding that a lab origin can be ruled out, because it'd be politically inconvenient for you if it were true, is very, very stupid.

[Hammy]

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

Is it "a hot far-left take" to believe that a bat bit a pangolin that infected a person? There is no direct evidence for either of these scenarios and I am unsure why you are ascribing an ideological position to one or the other.

Thank you for posting your absurd and ignorant take directly into the thread, makes things easier.

The notion that the virus was created in a lab is an unfounded conspiracy theory that is being spread by right wing pundits and media in order to both seek to punish China (or to them, anyone who "looks" Chinese) and ascribe blame, so they can point to someone and say "look its their fault" as well as remove any responsibility from themselves in stopping the spread.

The origin from a pangolin is theory, but at least based on there being some degree of evidence that it originated in a food market, and is not being used to spread any sort of political stance.

So yes, one of these talking points is absolutely, undeniably, an ideologically-driven talking point.

You're just regurgitating labels without making an argument. Whether or not the virus was created in a lab is a factual question. People will marshal assortments of facts in service of their agendas, but either it was or it wasn't. There is no direct evidence — as you admit — for either theory, but facts, by themselves, cannot be "far-right." Arbitrarily deciding that a lab origin can be ruled out, because it'd be politically inconvenient for you if it were true, is very, very stupid.

There are no facts that it originated in a lab, and the scientific and medical communities have pointed out that it's highly unlikely. The problem is that takes like yours are treating a conspiracy theory that was created solely for propaganda purposes, not only as a rational thought, but as something that is factual or grounded in reality.

[Donerail]

You're just regurgitating labels without making an argument. Whether or not the virus was created in a lab is a factual question. People will marshal assortments of facts in service of their agendas, but either it was or it wasn't. There is no direct evidence — as you admit — for either theory, but facts, by themselves, cannot be "far-right." Arbitrarily deciding that a lab origin can be ruled out, because it'd be politically inconvenient for you if it were true, is very, very stupid.

There are no facts that it originated in a lab, and the scientific and medical communities have pointed out that it's highly unlikely. The problem is that takes like yours are treating a conspiracy theory that was created solely for propaganda purposes, not only as a rational thought, but as something that is factual or grounded in reality.

There is no scientific consensus on this question and even the most ardent advocates of that view will, if pressed, admit there is no direct evidence in support of either theory. Stop trying to support your position with a consensus that doesn't exist — and, if you're so confident that the evidence supports your view, maybe try explaining why instead of resorting to the lazy label of conspiracy?

[Badger]

It's a hot far-right take and the government is continuing to milk it for propaganda. In case you missed the sub-headline of your own link:

Is it "a hot far-left take" to believe that a bat bit a pangolin that infected a person? There is no direct evidence for either of these scenarios and I am unsure why you are ascribing an ideological position to one or the other.

Thank you for posting your absurd and ignorant take directly into the thread, makes things easier.

The notion that the virus was created in a lab is an unfounded conspiracy theory that is being spread by right wing pundits and media in order to both seek to punish China (or to them, anyone who "looks" Chinese) and ascribe blame, so they can point to someone and say "look its their fault" as well as remove any responsibility from themselves in stopping the spread.

The origin from a pangolin is theory, but at least based on there being some degree of evidence that it originated in a food market, and is not being used to spread any sort of political stance.

So yes, one of these talking points is absolutely, undeniably, an ideologically-driven talking point.

You're just regurgitating labels without making an argument. Whether or not the virus was created in a lab is a factual question. People will marshal assortments of facts in service of their agendas, but either it was or it wasn't. There is no direct evidence — as you admit — for either theory, but facts, by themselves, cannot be "far-right." Arbitrarily deciding that a lab origin can be ruled out, because it'd be politically inconvenient for you if it were true, is very, very stupid.

Whether or not Gulf Coastal elitist was hatched from a spawn of Cobra eggs is a factual question. But either he was or if he wasn't. There's no direct evidence for or against this Theory, but facts by themselves something something something politically inconvenient something.

Am I doing this right?

[Donerail]

Whether or not Gulf Coastal elitist was hatched from a spawn of Cobra eggs is a factual question. But either he was or if he wasn't. There's no direct evidence for or against this Theory, but facts by themselves something something something politically inconvenient something.

Am I doing this right?

Last post was deleted by fascist mods (hi jdb! luv u) so I'll play nice for a bit: do you sincerely believe, as you're suggesting, that this is equally as realistic a scenario as someone in a laboratory messing up? That it's completely beyond the realm of reality to believe that someone dropped a vial, someone labeled something wrong, someone put their mask on without sealing it properly? Why do you think it's so implausible that an accident happened here?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Whether or not Gulf Coastal elitist was hatched from a spawn of Cobra eggs is a factual question. But either he was or if he wasn't. There's no direct evidence for or against this Theory, but facts by themselves something something something politically inconvenient something.

Am I doing this right?

Last post was deleted by fascist mods (hi jdb! luv u) so I'll play nice for a bit: do you sincerely believe, as you're suggesting, that this is equally as realistic a scenario as someone in a laboratory messing up? That it's completely beyond the realm of reality to believe that someone dropped a vial, someone labeled something wrong, someone put their mask on without sealing it properly? Why do you think it's so implausible that an accident happened here?

I’m not even a mod on this board  That said, if you don’t want your posts deleted, then don’t make personal attacks, especially ones that blatantly OTT.  You seem to hate my guts for reasons that remain a mystery to me and that’s fine, but you still have to follow TOS just like everyone else.  

I’m very much not looking to get in a pissing match over this, but since you mentioned me by name in your post; I felt like at least some sort of response was warranted.  However, I’m happy to leave it at that.

[Donerail]

I’m not even a mod on this board   That said, if you don’t want your posts deleted, then don’t make personal attacks, especially ones that blatantly OTT.

Rich coming from you.

You seem to hate my guts for reasons that remain a mystery to me and that’s fine, but you still have to follow TOS just like everyone else.

Don't play dumb, it's not cute.