Durham investigation (Update: Sussman acquitted) (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    7,313
    Reaction score
    3,404
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    It looks like the first shoe has dropped with the Durham investigation with the Clinesmith plea deal. Clinesmith wasn't a low level FBI employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

    He worked with Strzok to arrange sending an FBI agent into Trump-Flynn briefing, was on the Mueller team, he took part in the Papadopoulos interviews, and he participated in the FISA process.



    From the NYT article:
    20200814_153906.jpg


    I wonder who else knew about the lies?



     
    It’s odd to me that while one side is trying to strip away women’s rights...
    Someone using "women's rights" when referring to the reproductive rights of chromosomal/biological females is not odd and it's easily understood if one has a genuine interest in understanding people, instead of trying to score "gotcha" points against them.

    Yes, people who genuinely accept that gender is in fact not the same as chromosomal/biological sex, sometimes use the word "women's rights" when referring to the reproductive rights of chromosomal/biological sex females.

    They do that because the concept, that gender and chromosomal/biological sex are the same, has been drilled into our brains for decades, so our neural pathways are still conditioned to sometimes think or say woman when we think or talk about people born with XX chromosomes or biological females.

    They say "women's rights." because of reflexive and habitual word usage, similar to muscle memory. It's not because they are being inconsistent, disingenuous or hypocritical in their thoughts or intentions. The habitual word usage is reinforced by the fact that the term and concept of "women's rights" has been around for decades longer than our recent understanding and accepting of the fact that gender and chromosomal/biological sex are not the same and not determined by the same factors.

    It's easily self-evident that when MT15 and others say "women's rights" in direct reference to the stripping away of reproductive rights they are talking about chromosomal/biological females. They use the words "women's rights," reflexively as a result of years of mental and neural conditioning. It's self-evident, because at this point in time only people with XX chromosomes or biological females can get pregnant or have abortions.

    The fact that they use the words "women's rights" reflexively only proves that it takes time and effort to change our word usage habits, just like it does for all of our habits. Anyone who's ever known someone that changed their name after years of knowing them by a different name knows what I'm talking about. I have a friend that everyone called Benjie in high school and college. After college, he asked everyone to call him Ben instead. That was 30 years ago and I still slip up at times and refer to him as Benjie.

    Any habitual usage of the word woman when referring to people with XX chromosomes or biological females, does not change the fact that chromosomal/biological sex and gender are two separate things determined by different factors, so there's no actual "gotcha" there.

    People are naturally and understandably reluctant to answer questions from someone who doesn't seem to be asking a question in good faith, especially when that person seems to be trying to set a semantic "gotcha" trap. It has nothing to do with a person not being able to give a definitive answer. It has everything to do with it seeming like the person asking the question is playing games, so the other person doesn't answer them, because they don't want to play someone else's silly and childish games.
     
    Last edited:
    If nobody is trying to change the description of what a woman is, then it should be pretty easy for you to answer.

    Do both sides agree on the definition of what a woman is? I don’t think so, but maybe (once again) I am wrong. It’s odd to me that while one side is trying to strip away women’s rights, the other is looking to change the description of what a woman is, or not giving a definitive answer as to what a woman is.

    I’m not above anyone or anything. I just get drawn to the hypocrisy like a moth to the flame. Don’t ever change MT, I wouldn’t come back otherwise.

    Perhaps you could provide the definition first? Because it has never been based on chromosomes, genes or hormones. There have always been exceptions and there always will be… because nature is messy and in most contexts we’re talking about social implications and not biological ones.

    You’ll get a lot of resistance to the question because it appears that some people are trying to reduce the definition of a woman to merely someone that a man wants to have sex with and produce babies and stays in the kitchen
     
    Last edited:
    Perhaps you could provide the definition first? Because it has never been based on chromosomes, genes or hormones. There have always been exceptions and there always will be… because nature is messy and in most contexts we’re talking about social implications and not biological ones.

    You’ll get a lot of resistance to the question because it appears that some people are trying to reduce the definition of a woman to merely someone that a man wants to have sex with and produce babies and stays in the kitchen
    Some folks are trying to expand the definition of a woman to something more than someone who a man wants to have sex with, and someone who produces babies, so what I’m trying to figure out is, what is a woman.
     
    Someone using "women's rights" when referring to the reproductive rights of chromosomal/biological females is not odd and it's easily understood if one has a genuine interest in understanding people, instead of trying to score "gotcha" points against them.

    Yes, people who genuinely accept that gender is in fact not the same as chromosomal/biological sex, sometimes use the word "women's rights" when referring to the reproductive rights of chromosomal/biological sex females.

    They do that because the concept, that gender and chromosomal/biological sex are the same, has been drilled into our brains for decades, so our neural pathways are still conditioned to sometimes think or say woman when we think or talk about people born with XX chromosomes or biological females.

    They say "women's rights." because of reflexive and habitual word usage, similar to muscle memory. It's not because they are being inconsistent, disingenuous or hypocritical in their thoughts or intentions. The habitual word usage is reinforced by the fact that the term and concept of "women's rights" has been around for decades longer than our recent understanding and accepting of the fact that gender and chromosomal/biological sex are not the same and not determined by the same factors.

    It's easily self-evident that when MT15 and others say "women's rights" in direct reference to the stripping away of reproductive rights they are talking about chromosomal/biological females. They use the words "women's rights," reflexively as a result of years of mental and neural conditioning. It's self-evident, because at this point in time only people with XX chromosomes or biological females can get pregnant or have abortions.

    The fact that they use the words "women's rights" reflexively only proves that it takes time and effort to change our word usage habits, just like it does for all of our habits. Anyone who's ever known someone that changed their name after years of knowing them by a different name knows what I'm talking about. I have a friend that everyone called Benjie in high school and college. After college, he asked everyone to call him Ben instead. That was 30 years ago and I still slip up at times and refer to him as Benjie.

    Any habitual usage of the word woman when referring to people with XX chromosomes or biological females, does not change the fact that chromosomal/biological sex and gender are two separate things determined by different factors, so there's no actual "gotcha" there.

    People are naturally and understandably reluctant to answer questions from someone who doesn't seem to be asking a question in good faith, especially when that person seems to be trying to set a semantic "gotcha" trap. It has nothing to do with a person not being able to give a definitive answer. It has everything to do with it seeming like the person asking the question is playing games, so the other person doesn't answer them, because they don't want to play someone else's silly and childish games.
    At the end of the day I support women’s rights. I see no reason why the government should have any say in what a woman does with her body. For that reason I have a have difficulties supporting the Republican Party.

    I am fine with someone identifying with whatever sex they feel they most closely identify with. If you were born a female and identify as a male (or if you were born a male and identify as a female), good for you.
     
    Some folks are trying to expand the definition of a woman to something more than someone who a man wants to have sex with, and someone who produces babies, so what I’m trying to figure out is, what is a woman.

    It’s a question without an answer. Try. If you try to give a precise definition, there’s a pretty decent chance I can find you and exception that you’d agree should be treated as a woman.

    If your statement is that some people are trying to treat some people as a woman who would not have been treated as a woman 40 years ago, then yes, that is happening.

    But the question “what is a woman” is a disingenuous question because you’re afraid to provide a definition yourself because you know scientifically there are always exceptions and if you try to do it socially you’ll resort to sexist stereotypes

    If you think this is in the same ball park as trying to restrict birth control, deny elections and promote armed insurrections, then I don’t know what to tell you
     
    It’s a question without an answer. Try. If you try to give a precise definition, there’s a pretty decent chance I can find you and exception that you’d agree should be treated as a woman.

    If your statement is that some people are trying to treat some people as a woman who would not have been treated as a woman 40 years ago, then yes, that is happening.

    But the question “what is a woman” is a disingenuous question because you’re afraid to provide a definition yourself because you know scientifically there are always exceptions and if you try to do it socially you’ll resort to sexist stereotypes

    If you think this is in the same ball park as trying to restrict birth control, deny elections and promote armed insurrections, then I don’t know what to tell you
    What is fried chicken?
     
    What is fried chicken?

    A food dish made up of chicken that has been fried? I don’t see the relevance

    So why don’t you try to answer the question.. what is a woman?

    Because we have had women with a Y chromosome, or the SRY gene, or with high testosterone. We’ve had intersex women born with a penis. Without a uterus… and so on.
     
    And yes, I’m playing semantic games because the question itself is a semantic game.

    But again, I don’t contest that some people are trying to treat different people as women than have been traditionally treated as women. And the flip side for men…

    I do think there is a tremendous difference in impact in scale and severity and intent than anything the most reactionary republicans are doing by actual law.
     
    Some folks are trying to expand the definition of a woman to something more than someone who a man wants to have sex with, and someone who produces babies, so what I’m trying to figure out is, what is a woman.

    Is this your definition of a woman?
     
    A food dish made up of chicken that has been fried? I don’t see the relevance

    So why don’t you try to answer the question.. what is a woman?

    Because we have had women with a Y chromosome, or the SRY gene, or with high testosterone. We’ve had intersex women born with a penis. Without a uterus… and so on.
    Fried chicken is fried chicken. There is a restaurant around the office which offers a “fried chicken” substitute. Folks around the office go crazy for it, and I am sure it is fine, but it doesn’t use chicken. It uses tofu, or something item which gives people the impression that they are eating fried chicken.

    It might say that it’s fried chicken, and sure people can acknowledge that it’s fried chicken, but who are we fooling? It isn’t chicken.
    Is this your definition of a woman?
    my definition of a woman falls in line with the traditional definition of a woman, like what your definition of a woman is I suppose. Like your mom, she is what we would consider a woman, right?
    It’s a question without an answer. Try. If you try to give a precise definition, there’s a pretty decent chance I can find you and exception that you’d agree should be treated as a woman.

    If your statement is that some people are trying to treat some people as a woman who would not have been treated as a woman 40 years ago, then yes, that is happening.

    But the question “what is a woman” is a disingenuous question because you’re afraid to provide a definition yourself because you know scientifically there are always exceptions and if you try to do it socially you’ll resort to sexist stereotypes

    If you think this is in the same ball park as trying to restrict birth control, deny elections and promote armed insurrections, then I don’t know what to tell you
    The person that birthed you was a woman, right? That’s a woman to me. What’s your definition of a woman?
     
    I got to the bottom of my popcorn box, so:

    Language is changing and evolving, and specific to locations and groups within locations.

    On this board, "woman" means a person who identifies as a woman. Circular logic, but there it is. There is a similar definition for "Republican" and "Democrat, so there is precedence for such circular reasoning.

    Outside this board, for most Americans, "woman" means an adult human biological female.
     
    What is a woman?
    You can’t tell me either so you may as well shut up. I’m not inclined to elaborate because it’s a troll, first of all, and it would take some sincere effort, which you are definitely not worth.

    So far, your definition consists of - “your momma” basically. Sort of reductive, but I totally believe that’s your reference point for this.
     
    You can’t tell me either so you may as well shut up. I’m not inclined to elaborate because it’s a troll, first of all, and it would take some sincere effort, which you are definitely not worth.

    So far, your definition consists of - “your momma” basically. Sort of reductive, but I totally believe that’s your reference point for this.
    Was your mom not a woman? Go on.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom