CtevenSrowder wrote: » They didn't do anything wrong. Why do you think they did? It's a World Cup. Did Germany do anything wrong when they beat Saudi Arabia 9-0 back in 2002, or Germany beating Brazil 7-1 at Brazils home World Cup. Lad, with respect, I don't think you've a clue about sports.
Gruffalox wrote: » But what does your username indicate ODB? Mine is because I wanted loads of other names and all of them were taken and I was just putting in random words at the end and when it accepted i couldn't even remember what I put in and I was like ffs when it said Welcome to Boards Gruffalox But is suppose it means I am a mythical hairy monster... My God! It fits perfectly!
LLMMLL wrote: » It's the only way to understand how people use language. To actually observe how people use it.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Do you imagine the staff working in the UK prison services are thick or something? I know men do obviously, but do you? Do you imagine everyone is equally as thick that they cannot see when someone is taking the piss and have their No moment as you suggested earlier? What would that figure have to do with the legislation anyway? It’s a matter for the prison services to sort out. The figure for people who abuse the law has nothing to do with the figures for people who avail of their rights for their intended purpose. “Time to do away with marriage legislation for everyone , some people were found to be abusing it” :rolleyes:
Gentlemanne wrote: » I'm fairly sure you guys totally agree on how to deal with trans people and how to conduct discourse about them. So its not completely random is it
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'm not so sure that the second point is true in all cases. Just to be clear, there was no question about what anyone was 'allowed' to reference. The questions were about the relevance of the references, and the lack of consistency in the narrow focus on a very small set of issues while ignoring the much larger, much more prevalent issues that have much larger impact on the community that you're supposed to be protecting.
LLMMLL wrote: » The UK has self ID? Are you sure?
Gruffalox wrote: » They are not incredibly rare. 1 in 10 male travelers in UK prisons seek to abuse self ID to try and avoid male wings. Thats official figures My focus on this issue is awkward for the people who wish I would shut up, I will give you that. Tough sh1t.
LLMMLL wrote: » It's also the complete ignoring of evidence from this jurisdiction. The evidence from other jurisdictions is that issues that arise from self id are INCREDIBLY rare. So rare that they don't even arise in a population of 5 million people.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Again, just to be clear, there was no question of 'you cannot care/speak about' anything. The simple question was raised about the apparent laser like focus on one particular very narrow issue. It's a bit like obsessing with the paper cut on your right hand after your left arm has been amputated. It misses the point slightly.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » I don't know his views on everything. Considering he's an American Conservative I imagine we disagree on abortion, gun ownership, health care, maybe same sex marriage I dunno, cost of education, level of taxation and I don't know what else.
Gruffalox wrote: » That is a rehash of the watery oul guff that you cannot care/speak about x, y or z unless you care/speak about all the things. As Bob recently sang quoting Walt.. "I contain multitudes."
FVP3 wrote: » No. its not a working table. If you create a television made of soup, pins and bubblegum that doesnt work or look like a television, that is also not a television. Words clearly have meaning, or nobody would understand anybody.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » Surely you realise we are both being facetious. The point is ones username is irrelevant to the discussion and their political views.
Gruffalox wrote: » Plus to have reference to somewhere outside your own postal code area is actually allowed.
Gruffalox wrote: » We might not be super strong but we can do this...dun dun dun :cool:https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1279105121364799488
Gruffalox wrote: » We might not be super strong but we can do this...dun dun dun :cool:
Quantum Erasure wrote: » and this, comparing young adult men, women, and elite female athletes
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I don't know why we're talking it about tbh, you brought it up. Why would you ask me why we're talking about something that you brought up? I suppose the difference that you might be missing is that I'm not taking life lessons from the experiences to Andy Renko and applying them to Ireland. It's a while since I've rewatched Hill St Blues, but my memories were that he wasn't racist. So it looks like you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: » NO. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME VIEWS OF THE GUY WHOSE NAME YOU JUMBLED UP FOR YOUR USERNAME. THAT’S THE RULE.
CtevenSrowder wrote: » The comparison between women and women does not matter. The comparison that matters is between men and women. And you can absolutely talk of the average amongst those who are elite. Elite male sportsmen are superior (on average) then elite female sportspeople. The only sport I'm aware that this is may not be the case is ultra long distance running, think I read that somewhere but I'd have to check.
Gruffalox wrote: » Why are we even talking about someone from some unknown obscure place in the world that is not Ireland? You really had to dredge around to get that foreign username, didn't ya, didn't ya?
CtevenSrowder wrote: » 'I'm not racist, I've a black friend'. Sounds racist to me.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Would this be a good time for you to meet my partner, Bobby Hill? Both of them are fictional characters, btw - unlike the charming Mr Crowder.