Trans is short for transgender. Being transgender is not identifying with the gender assigned at birth, so I don’t see the issue with the foreword.

They talk big words and say nothing. It’s an argument method where they attempt to look good/smart and goad other people into looking angry. In this particular case, they want you to reply angrily and say “Look how intolerant they are to me, and I was just pointing out how intolerant they really were!”

What you’re talking about is something bigger than simple novelty. It kinda sounds like depression, and that’s a lot harder to fight against than breaking routine. I mean, breaking routine helps me a little bit, but it’s certainly not the cure.

But if you want to argue there’s only a limited number of things to do for free, you can spin that the other way, too. There is only a limited number of things to buy. I dunno, that kinda makes me feel better, but I’m weird like that.

I think I’m gonna keep badmouthing CEOs, thank you very much.

Not all new things cost money. You can walk a new way to the same places. You can find new books at the library or online. You can just do things you already do in a different way, and that can be novelty.

Unlike the current system, where healthcare becomes completely out of reach of normal people.

Nudity is also not inherently sexual. You can be naked for reasons outside of having sex, such as cleaning yourself, using the bathroom, changing outfits, sunbathing, relaxing, etc. None of those are inherently sexual.

Wearing drag is not sexual either. It’s been a thing for centuries, and that’s just the easily identifiable stuff.

Wearing kink gear is not inherently sexual, though I can understand that you don’t recognize that because it has connotations. But you can wear it without it being a sexual act.

“Expressing” sexuality is purposefully vague. Is kissing expressing sexuality? Is holding hands? Children do those. That would be an expression of your sexual orientation. You aren’t really making any sense.

Making everything sexual for children while not even acknowledging the sickness of it.

Same shit said about gay people.

Being gay isn’t sexual. Being straight isn’t sexual. Being trans isn’t sexual. Someone saying they are a girl is not sexual. Someone saying they are a boy is not sexual.

You see how none of this relates to sex?

The real answer is that a lot of people don’t really understand being trans. A lot of people used to the same way about gay and lesbian people. Conservatives tried to rally hard against gay and lesbian people, but that proved unpopular. Trans people don’t have that same protection. So, they’ll go after it until people finally get it.

Conservatives only have identity politics.

Additionally, I called him childish because he was mocking others, and I pointed that out to him with his own quote.

He was not arguing in good faith, and to believe otherwise is to, frankly, underestimate him.

I did answer his questions. He didn’t like the answers. They weren’t either-or question, and it can, indeed, be answered with answers he doesn’t like, because those questions were leading.

Hey, yo, I got one! I once argued with FS about something where he continuously attempted to goad me, argued disingenuously, and acted childishly, and when I rightfully called him out on all of that, he removed my comment. It was a rather small abuse of power, but I have seen him act righteously indignant, especially when he is called out for acting like a child. He does not differentiate this from a personal attack, especially when he was very much responsible for escalating several interactions he has with others.

I don’t think it is (or at least it isn’t fully), based on the guy’s post history.

Be careful what you wish for, or they will find the one woman trained in medicine who wants to sterilize people using logic derived from eugenics.

By that logic, forcing any name on a child is selfish, so they should pick their own name, since they are the ones that would have it. Although, in that case, temporary names would probably be a thing, so I don’t really see the issue (or you could use other cultural naming conventions like that, but that is one that exists.)

Unless your argument is nonconformity is selfish? I personally think some people will find a reason to make fun of another person, but nominative determination does have its appeal if you don’t believe that.

All names were unique at some point, but that’s a moot point. Eventually they will either become more popular or less popular.

How is it a stupid name? Are rarer names stupid? It’s just a name, if a very uncommon one, and it’s not even particularly hard to spell or pronounce, nor is it without thought. Combination names can sometimes produce odd results, so this one feels fairly mild.

Are you arguing that variants of names meaning blessing shouldn’t exist, or are you just against a new name? Because every name was new at one point, and lots of new names are variants of older ones.

Eh, the kid could have worse, and it seems pretty fitting for the name’s origins.

If you think of children as blessings, and want to change an existing name a little – in this case, Jessica – it makes sense. The first recorded instance of Jessica is from Shakespeare, who could’ve changed the biblical Iesca (Jeska) to Jessica by mixing Jesse into it (or making Jesse into a woman’s name… or other potential origins like the word jess being turned into a name.) And you consider Bless to be a name (though rather unpopular), so it wouldn’t even be particularly odd for the name.

You keep going in circles. Whose safety? The fact that it is related to the bottom line DIRECTLY contradicts yourself, that safety is only a concern as related to the money, because the money is the only concern, and that money flows to the owner.

You can call my acumen bad, but I’m just using historically very successful businesses and their complete and utter neglect for worker, consumer, and environmental safety.

You did.

I tend to disagree with this, not that it’s entirely incorrect, but I think quality can’t be disregarded; can the product be made safely is another factor

Meritocracy was shown to be related to the ability to generate capital because capital is economic power and allows you to concentrate more power. Quality didn’t factor in because consumers buy bad products. Safety didn’t factor in because consumers buy unsafe products. The best childcare workers aren’t paid more than an average software developer because it’s not meritocratic for workers.

Exploding sugar mills are an example and literally not the crux of my argument. The same could be said about giving your workers coal lung or mesothelioma, but it’s easier to envision. You refuse to acknowledge that worker safety is not a concern unless it affects the amount of capital generated, and NONE of it is nepotism. Can you rebut that, or are you essentially ragequitting because you were wrong?