It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dove Soap Ad Features Transgender Mom, Facebook Censors Critics

page: 11
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So you want the whole of English speaking world to listen to you and accept your definition? Definitions change all the time. Keep up with the times.




posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Teikiatsu

When i was younger the common slippery slope argument of "what next, are people going to want to legalize sex with animals?", which is a ridiculous question.

But I think that "transpecies" is something that is burgeoning. I have no idea why, i have no read anything relating to the psychology of it. I saw a bit on facebook about it. And know a lady whose kid is weird like that too (shes a racoon, i think). My youngest son knows her (and hates her for her weirdness....he's a bit of a jerk though, for what its worth). It is fairly uncanny to be faced with absurd notions cum reality.

Technology will likely blur the gap, with depersonalization probably being the end result. We will no longer need to worry about gender and species if we don't really have a home in meatspace to begin with.


I keep telling people they need to come up with new words instead of repurposing ones that exist. That's not winning the argument, it's moving the goalposts.

Even better, just use masculine and feminine. Or 'body image'. Or 'personal feeling'. Language matters. Allowing pop culture to redefine words makes 'literally' become 'figuratively'.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

LOL ... now the Dictionaries are "fake news."

This just doesn't stop, does it?

I bet if you go back to the OED from 1920 you'd get yet a different definition.

Also, see the fallacy of 'appeal to definition.'



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So you want the whole of English speaking world to listen to you and accept your definition? Definitions change all the time. Keep up with the times.


I want them to learn real vocabulary instead of letting social media destroy our ability to communicate.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

LOL ... now the Dictionaries are "fake news."

This just doesn't stop, does it?

I bet if you go back to the OED from 1920 you'd get yet a different definition.


Go find one, we'll see.



Also, see the fallacy of 'appeal to definition.'


Strawman



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

If it helps, its always been this way. Its why we can barely understand things that Shakespeare said. Like believing "Wherefore art thou, Romeo?" is asking where he is, rather than why he must be him.

Language is "living". So much so that some of our ancestors have had languages die out without us knowing of them. Language is living and organic. Even if you want to fix it at some point in 1982 (are you using that year because of Tootsie's release?)



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

LOL ... now the Dictionaries are "fake news."

This just doesn't stop, does it?

I bet if you go back to the OED from 1920 you'd get yet a different definition.


Go find one, we'll see.



Also, see the fallacy of 'appeal to definition.'


Strawman


Strawman? You just quoted a dictionary to support the claims of your argument. That's the DEFINITION of the fallacy, LOL.

As far as what the OED definition of gender is ... is irrelevant. What you think the word means ... is irrelevant.

You can call gender identity whatever you want ... and that's your personal definition ... it doesn't mean anything to anyone else.


edit on 18-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Strawman

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Strawman

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


It's what some folks use when they don't like the fact that someone else called them out on their faulty reasoning.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You just created your own argument to attack. Strawman.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Strawman

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


When was the last time I used the term? And you intend to use a fictional movie to prove a point?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Gryphon66

You just created your own argument to attack. Strawman.


Did you or did you not just support your argument with a citation from your personal American Heritage Dictionary c. 1986?

Yes or no?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Teikiatsu

If it helps, its always been this way. Its why we can barely understand things that Shakespeare said. Like believing "Wherefore art thou, Romeo?" is asking where he is, rather than why he must be him.

Language is "living". So much so that some of our ancestors have had languages die out without us knowing of them. Language is living and organic. Even if you want to fix it at some point in 1982 (are you using that year because of Tootsie's release?)


Shakespeare was at least willing to create new words and terms when he needed to express an idea instead of redefining the existing grammar.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You mistakenly called it a strawman. It isn't. He just showed how your logic is faulty and you resorted to using that word.
Sorry.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Another hint: gender was historically an etymological term.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Gryphon66

You just created your own argument to attack. Strawman.


Did you or did you not just support your argument with a citation from your personal American Heritage Dictionary c. 1986?

Yes or no?


No, I didn't ;P

And I reject your attempt at calling it a fallacy because the social justice definition is based in pop culture and psychobabble, not realty.

And are you going to call Deaf Alien out with your argument as well? Note who started the definition waving.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutonomousMeatPuppet

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

The Right: Ivanka may be Trump's chief advisor and a warmonger but that doesn't give you the right to boycott her company.

Also the Right: Dove published an ad with a transgender person it. DEATH TO DOVE AND EVERY COMPANY ASSOCIATED WITH IT!!!!


Boycotting Ivanka due to her being born related to Trump is absolutely petty.

Dove, purposefully engaging in something controversial, will own the results wether good or bad.


If a company decides to either promote or attempt to "make normal" something that isn't "normal", they are welcome to do so. They pay to put it on TV and people see it without a choice to skip it. In short...they force their voice into our homes. They are allowed to do that. The same people they present this to are then welcome to not like it and decide to "voice" their opinions. The only way to voice our opinions to a big company is with our wallets.

We have briefly discussed this and Dove and Hellman's Mayo are off the shopping list. There are other brands available.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Gryphon66

You just created your own argument to attack. Strawman.


Did you or did you not just support your argument with a citation from your personal American Heritage Dictionary c. 1986?

Yes or no?


No, I didn't ;P

And I reject your attempt at calling it a fallacy because the social justice definition is based in pop culture and psychobabble, not realty.

And are you going to call Deaf Alien out with your argument as well? Note who started the definition waving.


And what does pop culture and psychobabble exactly encompass?

The irony is thick within this post. Psychobabble.... project, much?



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: SeaWorthy

In other words since there are few TGs who regretted the decision ALL of them must secretly regret it or will regret later.


From what I read it is a large percent with many problems even among those who do not wish to change back. Pretty sad to be encouraged to do something so difficult before getting plenty of psychological help and time to be sure.



posted on Apr, 18 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Another hint: gender was historically an etymological term.


Were those root words based in how a person feels about their body image?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join