API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Oct 31st, 2019
234
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 24.84 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. News
  2. updated 5 hours ago
  3. What high crimes and/or misdemeanors were committed by Trump to even have this vote to begin with? Anyone?
  4.  
  5.  
  6. TheUnderOver
  7. updated 5 hours ago
  8. Reply to @news: Primarily: Allegedly soliciting foreign interference in a domestic election using public dollars.
  9.  
  10. In addition, violations of:
  11. 52 U.S. Code §30121
  12.  
  13. The Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution
  14.  
  15. Criminal statutes Title 18 USC Sections 241, 371, 1956,1957, 1001, 792-798
  16.  
  17. Love the downvotes for honestly answering a question you guys thought was rhetorical :)
  18.  
  19.  
  20. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  21. 5 hours ago
  22. Reply to @TheUnderOver: except, according to the transcript, he was referring to the 2016 election which Ukraine admitted interfering in.
  23. Trump was already rich when elected, no need to use the office to enrich himself.
  24.  
  25.  
  26. News
  27. 5 hours ago
  28. Reply to @TheUnderOver: So you're saying Trump asking Ukraine to look into real crimes being committed is a crime?
  29.  
  30.  
  31. TheUnderOver
  32. 5 hours ago
  33. Reply to @news: No, I'm saying doing so for political gain in an election is a plainly impeachable offense.
  34.  
  35.  
  36. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  37. 5 hours ago
  38. Reply to @TheUnderOver: what election? We're still waiting for the primary.
  39. The only election referred to in the conversation was 2016, which Ukraine admitted interfering in.
  40. You don't think that should be investigated?
  41.  
  42.  
  43. TheUnderOver
  44. 5 hours ago
  45. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: You're referring to a debunked conspiracy theory that's still being perpetuated by our president, and isn't even the primary concern of the transcript. I'm not going to entertain that with a response.
  46.  
  47.  
  48. News
  49. updated 5 hours ago
  50. Reply to @TheUnderOver: There was no intent for political gain. He knows they were doing dirt in Ukraine while pointing the finger at him. It's ok for the extremist left to harass a sitting president for political gain. Yet he points out potential crimes and he's the bad guy? You can't make this stuff up.
  51.  
  52.  
  53. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  54. 5 hours ago
  55. Reply to @TheUnderOver: except the Ukraine apologized for interfering in January of 2017, just before the inauguration.
  56.  
  57.  
  58. Twn12
  59. 5 hours ago
  60. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  61.  
  62. "I'm not going to entertain that with a response."
  63.  
  64. I can't refute what you say so I will call it a "debunked conspiracy theory ".
  65.  
  66.  
  67. TheUnderOver
  68. 5 hours ago
  69. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: You need to be more specific in what you're talking about. The conspiracy theory is that Ukraine is still housing DNC servers, which is what Trump asked them to look into.
  70.  
  71.  
  72. TheUnderOver
  73. 5 hours ago
  74. Reply to @twn12: Jesus christ people, is it that hard to do a little independent research?
  75.  
  76.  
  77. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  78. 4 hours ago
  79. Reply to @TheUnderOver: It seems you don't "entertain" anything that doesn't agree with what you've already determined.
  80.  
  81.  
  82. TheUnderOver
  83. 4 hours ago
  84. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Here's lots of reading on it, since it's a lot more than can be explained here:
  85.  
  86. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_corruption_conspiracy_theory
  87.  
  88. Oh but wait, you don't trust Wikipedia despite the fact that it's heavily sourced. Surely you can tell me which parts are incorrect, instead of making a sweeping accusation about its legitimacy?
  89.  
  90.  
  91. Twn12
  92. 4 hours ago
  93. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  94.  
  95. "Jesus christ people, is it that hard to do a little independent research?"
  96.  
  97. After not being able to refute, and called on it, you double down..
  98.  
  99. Like todays 'rulres" hearings, where Dems don't talk about the rules but go on about the crimes Trump committed..
  100.  
  101.  
  102. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  103. 4 hours ago
  104. Reply to @TheUnderOver: why would anyone trust an information source that can be edited by pretty much anyone?
  105.  
  106.  
  107. TheUnderOver
  108. updated 4 hours ago
  109. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: And there it is. Like clockwork.
  110.  
  111. Tell me what's incorrect. Tell me which sources are wrong.
  112.  
  113. Or better yet, can you find me a well-sourced article that supports your view on the matter?
  114.  
  115.  
  116. Twn12
  117. 4 hours ago
  118. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  119.  
  120. Wikipedia.?..
  121.  
  122. "Jesus christ people, is it that hard to do a little independent research?"
  123.  
  124.  
  125. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  126. 4 hours ago
  127. Reply to @TheUnderOver: Your desired narrative simply doesn't make any sense.
  128. Why would anyone have to ask the Ukraine for dirt on Biden who isn't even a Presidential candidate?
  129. When this latest stunt fails, what will your next tactic be to try to undo an election that didn't go the way you wanted it?
  130.  
  131.  
  132. TheUnderOver
  133. 4 hours ago
  134. Reply to @twn12: Okay, find me a well-sourced article that supports your view.
  135.  
  136.  
  137. TheUnderOver
  138. 4 hours ago
  139. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Can you state anything or source anything instead of asking questions?
  140.  
  141.  
  142. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  143. 4 hours ago
  144. Reply to @TheUnderOver: there is no point in discussing any sources with you.
  145. Any that don't go along with what you've already determined you will simply call partisan, or right-wing. What is the point?
  146.  
  147.  
  148. Twn12
  149. 4 hours ago
  150. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  151.  
  152. "Okay, find me a well-sourced article that supports your view."
  153.  
  154. "You're referring to a debunked conspiracy theory "
  155.  
  156. Waiting on the person that made this claim to provide a realistic source....
  157.  
  158.  
  159. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  160. 4 hours ago
  161. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I ask questions to try to get you to ask them of yourself.
  162. You've already determined Trump is guilty, there is no source I can reference that will ever change your mind of that.
  163.  
  164.  
  165. TheUnderOver
  166. 4 hours ago
  167. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: The point is that you are just saying things, they could be ANYTHING, but unless you actually throw out sources, it means absolutely nothing. I've provided a well-sourced article and asked you to point out what's wrong. Can you do the same?
  168.  
  169.  
  170. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  171. 4 hours ago
  172. Reply to @TheUnderOver: and you're not just saying things?
  173.  
  174.  
  175. TheUnderOver
  176. 4 hours ago
  177. Reply to @twn12: That article has 32 sources. You're questioning the legitimacy of every single one of them?
  178.  
  179.  
  180. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  181. 4 hours ago
  182. Reply to @TheUnderOver: but you only consider your sources "well sourced" because they agree with what you've already determined!
  183.  
  184.  
  185. TheUnderOver
  186. 4 hours ago
  187. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: I'm sourcing the things I'm saying! Wow, this isn't hard to understand.
  188.  
  189. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  190. 4 hours ago
  191. Reply to @TheUnderOver: What exactly makes any one of your "sources" reliable?
  192.  
  193.  
  194. TheUnderOver
  195. 4 hours ago
  196. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: You don't understand how it works, do you? This is actually crazy.
  197.  
  198. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
  199.  
  200. Wikipedia has strict standard on what it considers reliable sources. You disagree with these rules?
  201.  
  202.  
  203. TheUnderOver
  204. 4 hours ago
  205. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Again, find me a source of your own. I'm still waiting.
  206.  
  207.  
  208. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  209. 4 hours ago
  210. Reply to @TheUnderOver: You believe the same narrative pushed and lied about by the majority of the msm for the last two years. Give me one good reason to trust a single one of them?
  211.  
  212.  
  213. TheUnderOver
  214. 4 hours ago
  215. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: I believe the narrative that's most reliable.
  216.  
  217.  
  218. Twn12
  219. 4 hours ago
  220. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  221.  
  222. "That article has 32 sources. You're questioning the legitimacy of every single one of them?"
  223.  
  224. NYTimes
  225.  
  226. WaPo
  227.  
  228. NBC
  229.  
  230. Didn't the DOJ point to PRESS REPORTS of some dossier to say it was credible?
  231.  
  232.  
  233. TheUnderOver
  234. 4 hours ago
  235. Reply to @twn12: All I'm asking for is a source that debunks Wikipedia's narrative of events.
  236.  
  237.  
  238. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  239. 4 hours ago
  240. Reply to @TheUnderOver: reliable in what way exactly? The same sources you claim to be "reliable" pushed the false narrative of "collusion" for 2+ years. What gives them any credibility now?
  241.  
  242.  
  243. TheUnderOver
  244. 4 hours ago
  245. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: It's all spelled out in their rules. Read them.
  246.  
  247.  
  248. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  249. 4 hours ago
  250. Reply to @TheUnderOver: simple common sense debunks your narrative.
  251.  
  252.  
  253. TheUnderOver
  254. 4 hours ago
  255. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: "Simple common sense" is just another way of saying "it's just how I feel". I shouldn't have to tell you that the facts don't care about your feelings.
  256.  
  257.  
  258. Twn12
  259. 4 hours ago
  260. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  261.  
  262. "All I'm asking for is a source that debunks Wikipedia's narrative of events"
  263.  
  264. Debunk Wiki or WaPo, NYTime and NBC?
  265.  
  266. You made a statement of fact and point to wiki (wapo NBC nytimes) for your facts..
  267.  
  268. Try an unbiased source...
  269.  
  270.  
  271. News
  272. 4 hours ago
  273. Reply to @twn12: Investigate Biden and his corrupt son.
  274.  
  275.  
  276. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  277. 4 hours ago
  278. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I agree, the facts don't care about your feelings.
  279.  
  280.  
  281. TheUnderOver
  282. 4 hours ago
  283. Reply to @twn12: The genetic fallacy is strong with you, isn't it? Instead of making a sweeping accusation that what they're saying is incorrect, tell me HOW it's incorrect or find me similarly reliable sources that negate it. I'm STILL waiting.
  284.  
  285.  
  286. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  287. 4 hours ago
  288. Reply to @TheUnderOver: the transcript was released, why do you believe what others, who didn't even hear the call firsthand, have to say about it over the transcript?
  289.  
  290.  
  291. Twn12
  292. 4 hours ago
  293. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  294.  
  295. still waiting for unbiased source for your initial post..
  296.  
  297. Sorry, the grey lady, wapo and NBC are not unbiased..
  298.  
  299.  
  300. TheUnderOver
  301. 4 hours ago
  302. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Well lucky for you, we actually have someone who listened in give us testimony.
  303.  
  304. Also, stay on topic. Where's your argument that the conspiracy theory is true, or sources that negate Wikipedia's narrative?
  305.  
  306.  
  307. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  308. 4 hours ago
  309. Reply to @TheUnderOver: what "conspiracy theory" exactly?
  310.  
  311.  
  312. TheUnderOver
  313. 4 hours ago
  314. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: The theory... That there's a conspiracy... Even if you believe it's true, it's still a conspiracy theory.
  315.  
  316.  
  317. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  318. 4 hours ago
  319. Reply to @TheUnderOver: you seem to consider anything that doesn't agree with what you've already determined to be a "conspiracy theory".
  320.  
  321.  
  322. Twn12
  323. 4 hours ago
  324. Reply to @TheUnderOver:
  325.  
  326. my response is waiting moderation. We will need to suspend this until such time our friends in Canada allow it to proceed.
  327.  
  328.  
  329. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  330. 4 hours ago
  331. Reply to @TheUnderOver: what you are choosing to believe is only a theory. Does that make it a conspiracy theory too?
  332.  
  333.  
  334. TheUnderOver
  335. updated 4 hours ago
  336. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: What I am "choosing to believe" is backed up by reliable sources. I don't know how much better I can explain it.
  337.  
  338. What is your theory being backed up by?
  339.  
  340.  
  341. TheUnderOver
  342. updated 4 hours ago
  343. Reply to @twn12: Okay then, email it to me:
  344.  
  345. yocesep142 [at] mailseo [dot] net
  346.  
  347. Or give me an easily searchable keyword/phrase.
  348.  
  349.  
  350. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  351. 4 hours ago
  352. Reply to @TheUnderOver: you're talking in circles. Your "sources" have proven to be unreliable in the past about very important matters. What makes them "reliable" this time?
  353.  
  354.  
  355. Time To Go
  356. 4 hours ago
  357. Reply to @TheUnderOver: Ok now prove it. Under the rule of law.
  358.  
  359.  
  360. TheUnderOver
  361. 4 hours ago
  362. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Again....... It's spelled out in Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources. They don't give sweeping authorization to certain websites, they have rules regarding individual sources on a case-by-case basis. It's not some sham.
  363.  
  364. And still again (for like the 8th time maybe?), where are you getting your facts from? "Common sense" doesn't count.
  365.  
  366.  
  367. Time To Go
  368. 4 hours ago
  369. Reply to @TheUnderOver: You want to prove a negative? That’s an old game.
  370.  
  371.  
  372. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  373. 4 hours ago
  374. Reply to @TheUnderOver: so an unreliable source spells out they're reliable. Ok. I think I got it now.
  375.  
  376.  
  377. Time To Go
  378. 4 hours ago
  379. Reply to @TheUnderOver: The proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not upon the charged to prove innocence.
  380.  
  381.  
  382. TheUnderOver
  383. 4 hours ago
  384. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Look dude, even if you think it's unreliable (when it isn't), you should be able to point out to me WHAT'S wrong, or point me to a source that PROVES it wrong. You've failed to do either in the course of this entire conversation despite repeated requests to do so.
  385.  
  386.  
  387. Time To Go
  388. 4 hours ago
  389. Reply to @TheUnderOver: and fits your narrative
  390.  
  391.  
  392. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  393. 4 hours ago
  394. Reply to @TheUnderOver: but why isn't it? Because you say so, or because they've proven themselves to be routinely reliable in the past and therefore have credibility?
  395.  
  396.  
  397. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  398. 4 hours ago
  399. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I've already explained to you why I will not discuss "sources" with you.
  400. Would you like me to try to explain again?
  401.  
  402.  
  403. TheUnderOver
  404. 4 hours ago
  405. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: I'm just curious where you're getting the idea that the conspiracy theory is correct. You must have gotten it from somewhere, right?
  406.  
  407.  
  408. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  409. 4 hours ago
  410. Reply to @TheUnderOver: What is it exactly that you consider to be a "conspiracy" theory?
  411. It is a fact that the Ukraine apologized, in January of 2017, before the inauguration, for interfering in the Trump campaign.
  412.  
  413.  
  414. TheUnderOver
  415. 4 hours ago
  416. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: "It is a fact that the Ukraine apologized, in January of 2017, before the inauguration, for interfering in the Trump campaign."
  417.  
  418. And where are you getting this "fact" from? There are many other facets to this theory that you must have gotten from somewhere, in addition.
  419.  
  420.  
  421. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  422. 4 hours ago
  423. Reply to @TheUnderOver: you are more than welcome to search for the information on your own.
  424.  
  425. What reason would I have for providing you sources when you have repeatedly, in the past, denied sources as being unreliable because they don't agree with what you've already determined to be true?
  426.  
  427.  
  428. TheUnderOver
  429. 4 hours ago
  430. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: I've denied sources you've provided in the past because they don't pass basic tests of reliability in the first place. Please, enlighten me on your great reliable sources.
  431.  
  432.  
  433. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  434. 4 hours ago
  435. Reply to @TheUnderOver: Lets try this one more time.
  436. With you as the source, you have proven time and time again to dismiss sources you don't agree with. Therefore, it is irrelevant to provide you them now, or in the future, as it can safely be assumed you will simply dismiss them as you have in the past.
  437. That being the case, I present you, instead, with information. If you would like to look it up on your own, or question it, that is entirely up to you.
  438.  
  439.  
  440. TheUnderOver
  441. 4 hours ago
  442. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: I don't dismiss them because I don't agree with them. I dismiss them because they don't pass basic tests of reliability. You make claims, I try to find reliable sources that repeat those claims, and I come up short. It doesn't have to do with the substance of the claim itself despite your repeated attempts to claim it as so.
  443.  
  444. https://www.google.com/search?q=what%20makes%20a%20source%20reliable%20and%20credible
  445.  
  446. I know you have trouble separating your feelings from facts, but do some reading and maybe you'll come to understand the world a little better.
  447.  
  448.  
  449. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  450. 4 hours ago
  451. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I have no problem separating feelings from facts, do you?
  452.  
  453. Do you think men can m-nstruate?
  454.  
  455.  
  456. TheUnderOver
  457. 4 hours ago
  458. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Stay on topic, please.
  459.  
  460.  
  461. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  462. 4 hours ago
  463. Reply to @TheUnderOver: please answer the question so I can better determine the type of person I am dealing with. Its a simple question.
  464.  
  465.  
  466. TheUnderOver
  467. 3 hours ago
  468. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Trans men do menstruate because they generally still have the parts in place that make it happen.
  469.  
  470. But, you don't think trans men exist. You think they're still women, because of their chromosomes. Despite the fact that this goes against our current understanding (in the worlds of psychology, sociology, medicine, etc) of how gender works. You think that we had it right before Leftists hijacked the world of science. Did I get all that right?
  471.  
  472. I know you disagree with me. This isn't news. Now let's get back on topic, huh? Where are your sources?
  473.  
  474.  
  475. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  476. 3 hours ago
  477. Reply to @TheUnderOver: Really, the only appropriate response to that question is "no, of course not, that is absurd".
  478.  
  479. Of course trans-men exist, please don't tell me what I think.
  480. That they exist isn't relevant to the question
  481. You said my emotions were determining reality when, in fact, you have shown yourself to be exactly that.
  482.  
  483. Thank you for the clarification.
  484.  
  485.  
  486. TheUnderOver
  487. 3 hours ago
  488. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: So you do think trans men exist? Are you saying they DON'T menstruate? I'm confused, you're making it sound like you agree with me.
  489.  
  490.  
  491. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  492. 3 hours ago
  493. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I believe I said they exist, I was clear on that.
  494. That they exist isn't relevant.
  495.  
  496. A person's feelings do not determine reality.
  497. They can call themselves a man, but if they have a monthly cycle, they are female.
  498.  
  499.  
  500. TheUnderOver
  501. 3 hours ago
  502. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Okay, now that you've demonstrated you have no understanding of how to independently check your own feelings for validity, can we get back to my request for sources?
  503.  
  504.  
  505. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  506. 3 hours ago
  507. Reply to @TheUnderOver: actually, I have proven the opposite to be the truth.
  508. You have proven you determine reality based on your feelings.
  509. Why should I entertain further discussion with such an absurdity?
  510.  
  511.  
  512. TheUnderOver
  513. 3 hours ago
  514. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Look man, I get that you believe being trans doesn't change your gender. That's an opinion you hold, which is fine. But it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You don't have to look very far to prove that.
  515.  
  516.  
  517. TheUnderOver
  518. 3 hours ago
  519. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
  520. https://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/
  521. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gender
  522. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363.php
  523.  
  524. What's absurd is that you seem to be immune to reason.
  525.  
  526.  
  527. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  528. 3 hours ago
  529. Reply to @TheUnderOver: How many genders are there?
  530.  
  531.  
  532. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  533. 3 hours ago
  534. Reply to @TheUnderOver: its not a belief, its a fact.
  535. Until very recently, the term g-nder was synonymous with s x.
  536. Why was that changed?
  537. I went to medical school, I assure you, it does hold up to scrutiny.
  538. Are you saying science was incorrect about something as basic as this until recent history?
  539.  
  540.  
  541. TheUnderOver
  542. 3 hours ago
  543. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: How many types of pizza are there?
  544.  
  545. It's just as absurd of a question without a definitive answer.
  546.  
  547. Science learns from itself. It evolves as we learn more. That's why our understanding changed. We've learned a lot in the last several years, though you seem to be very behind and resisting this better understanding for some reason.
  548.  
  549.  
  550. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  551. updated 3 hours ago
  552. Reply to @TheUnderOver: So you're saying a majority of the worlds population, including scientists and doctors were incorrect until 5-10 years ago?
  553.  
  554. I can tell you that biological fact have not changed in the last 5-10 years.
  555.  
  556. So you're saying that feelings do not determine reality, but they do in this case?
  557.  
  558.  
  559. TheUnderOver
  560. 3 hours ago
  561. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: We've been working on this for much longer than 5-10 years ago, and many scientists understood how this worked much before that as well. Within the past 5-10 years is when it has finally reached the public consciousness.
  562.  
  563. What I can tell is that you've refused to read anything scientific on the subject in the past 20 (or more, if I had to guess) years, or you just do a really great job of self-selecting the articles that you believe in.
  564.  
  565.  
  566. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  567. updated 3 hours ago
  568. Reply to @TheUnderOver: how many arms and legs do humans have?
  569. how about hands?
  570.  
  571. Are we taught 2 of each because that is the general norm, or are we going to change that as well because there are occasional genetic abnormalities?
  572.  
  573. In seems you, again, are the one being very selective here.
  574.  
  575.  
  576. TheUnderOver
  577. 3 hours ago
  578. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Faulty analogy. You still clearly do not understand what "gender" means. Do I need to re-paste all of the links I provided above?
  579.  
  580. Why are you so resistant to basic reason?
  581.  
  582.  
  583. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  584. 3 hours ago
  585. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I can assure you, every cell of your body, if checked scientifically, will say you are either m-le or f-male, unless you have a rare disorder in which case every cell will indicate that as well.
  586. 0
  587. 0
  588. REPLY TO @DR.-AX9, ESQ., PHD:
  589.  
  590.  
  591. 3 hours ago
  592. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Yes, and that is your chromosomal se x, not necessarily your gender.
  593.  
  594. Again, look up what gender means! This isn't hard! I'm sorry that you disagree (based on your feelings) but that's where we're at.
  595.  
  596.  
  597. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  598. 3 hours ago
  599. Reply to @TheUnderOver: As previously stated, the term g-nder was synonymous with s x until very recently. (about 5-10 years).
  600. Why was it re-defined exactly?
  601.  
  602.  
  603. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  604. 3 hours ago
  605. Reply to @TheUnderOver: the only one basing their reality of feelings here is you, this conversation is proof of that.
  606.  
  607. I do thank you, sincerely, for your clarification on this subject.
  608.  
  609.  
  610. TheUnderOver
  611. 3 hours ago
  612. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: I already answered that question.
  613.  
  614.  
  615. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  616. 3 hours ago
  617. Reply to @TheUnderOver: You said it was because we learned more.
  618. But then if we learned more, why was just the term g-nder redefined and not s x if the terms were synonymous?
  619.  
  620.  
  621. TheUnderOver
  622. 3 hours ago
  623. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: You are clearly immune to listening to basic reason and you are demonstrating that right now since you keep re-asking questions that I've already clearly answered. And not understanding the fact that science advances.
  624.  
  625.  
  626. TheUnderOver
  627. updated 3 hours ago
  628. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: What? Because we chose to label them that way. That's how language works.
  629.  
  630.  
  631. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  632. 3 hours ago
  633. Reply to @TheUnderOver: but now you're changing what the labels mean.
  634.  
  635.  
  636. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  637. 3 hours ago
  638. Reply to @TheUnderOver: But science doesn't advance when it comes to climate change, right?
  639. What we know now is correct and we need to drastically change our worldwide economies because of it, right?
  640.  
  641. It seems you are discussing feelings and not science.
  642.  
  643. Someones feelings are not explainable by science.
  644.  
  645.  
  646. TheUnderOver
  647. 3 hours ago
  648. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: Hooooly crap dude. You, straight up, do not understand what science is or what it means. And you are VERY CLEARLY relying on your own feelings to form your opinions. This isn't even hard to suss out.
  649.  
  650.  
  651. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  652. 3 hours ago
  653. Reply to @TheUnderOver: And evolution is "settled science" too, right?
  654. We haven't learned anything new since Darwin, who in fact doubted his own theory.
  655. Since then we've learned about the existence of genetic code which is a language, and language implies intelligence.
  656.  
  657. You see, you are the one very selective in what you want to believe.
  658. Perhaps its because of your "education"? I doubt this is all something you came up with.
  659. I'll bet a lot of people who go through higher-education come out this way.
  660.  
  661.  
  662. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  663. 3 hours ago
  664. Reply to @TheUnderOver: Science is actually pretty easy to understand.
  665. Its very black and white. Its either correct or incorrect at its most basic level.
  666. Binary would be a good way to describe it.
  667.  
  668. What is difficult to understand are feelings and how some people, like you, believe they determine reality. I do try to understand as I'm an excellent abstract thinker.
  669.  
  670. As for feelings, you have proven yourself to be the only one in this conversation relying on them to determine reality.
  671.  
  672.  
  673. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  674. 3 hours ago
  675. Reply to @TheUnderOver: Archaeologists are considered to be scientists, right?
  676.  
  677. Tell me, why, when they make a discovery of the remains of someone from years ago do they make a determination of them having been either m-le or f-male?
  678.  
  679. Are they relying on feelings or science?
  680.  
  681.  
  682. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  683. updated 2 hours ago
  684. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I have another question for you.
  685. I already have a very nice life, but thank you.
  686.  
  687. If science is always learning new things, how can anything be called "settled science"?
  688.  
  689.  
  690. TheUnderOver
  691. 3 hours ago
  692. Reply to @Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD: You're genuinely a lost cause. I can't say I didn't try, but I really didn't believe there were people THIS immune to basic reason in today's society. It's disappointing, but I guess it won't be long until mindsets like yours are truly a thing of the past. Have a nice life.
  693.  
  694.  
  695. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  696. 2 hours ago
  697. Reply to @TheUnderOver: I agree, I am very disappointed.
  698. I have heard exactly no "basic reasoning" from you.
  699.  
  700. Can you please tell me how something can be called "settled science" if we're always learning new things?
  701.  
  702.  
  703. Dr.-AX9, Esq., PhD
  704. 2 hours ago
  705. Reply to @TheUnderOver: At least we can agree, we both feel each other is a lost cause.
  706. However, one of us is correct and the other has been indoctrinated by an ideology that seems to embrace disorder and chaos.
  707. I'll let you decide which that is.
  708.  
  709. "basic reason" would argue there are 2 s x es.
  710. Chaos would redefine terminology and allow feelings to determine reality.
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!