Funny joke.
I would also like to make it known that you, who claim not to be transphobic and not motivated by transphobia, labelled an above post that contains an explicit transphobic slur "useful".
Sooner or later, the mask always slips.
Also, the below is an excellent example of exactly...
People that are explicit examples of contradictions of a rule render it NOT A RULE. If there are women who produce eggs and women who don't produce eggs, then "women produce eggs" is NOT A RULE.
How don't you get this?
I acknowledge you FEEL that way, but it's obviously not a fact.
Can't help...
You literally just admitted that it wasn't, because you acknowledged that there ARE women who don't produce eggs.
How do you not understand this yet? What are you not getting?
That's a good argument to support the assertion "some women produce eggs, but others do not", but it is completely...
That's not possible, according to your rule. Remember, your rule is "women produce eggs". So, if they don't produce eggs, they aren't a woman, correct?
Or do you want to just admit your rule isn't actually a rule?
Oh yeah, totally a rule. A rule that you've already admitted doesn't accurately apply and doesn't work.
You keep repeating this as if you haven't already acknowledged that this isn't accurate, since you've admitted that there are men who don't produce sperm and women who don't produce eggs...
You're right. You only have my word for it that the first Chechan war, the second Chechan war, the Russian invasion of Georgia, the Russian separatist annexation of the Donbas, the Russian annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine happened.
I am literally the only person who has ever...
Not a big fan of reading, are you? Since I've never said or implied that. My argument has clearly always been just that the rule that YOU are using obviously isn't actually a rule.
"The rule is that all British people wear bowler hats."
"So, there are no British people who don't wear bowler...
SOOOO emotional. Totally.
No.
You really don't understand the argument I'm making, do you? Do I need to dumb it down even more? Because I feel I've explained my position is a way a toddler could understand it.
Maybe, for someone who doesn't understand sociology, biology, anthropology or...
No, you pointed to a definition that explicitly contradicted you.
Stop using fallacies unless you understand them. Especially when you use them to avoid dealing with actual arguments, like in this case.
Lemme guess: that's an ad hominem, right?
Sounds like an emotional argument to me.
Except some don't, and you still call them women. So this is false.
Except some don't, and you still call them men. So this is false.
Yes it does. That's literally what a rule means.
"It is a rule that all swans are white."
"What about black swans...
Nope, they're both personal assessments about someone else. Therefore, by your logic, ad hominems.
Both false. The former can be just as justified as the latter. Both are personal accusations.
Except it's not, even by the definition YOU provided.
No, you're not. It doesn't fit the definition...
You've already acknowledged it is not, since you wouldn't say a person who doesn't produce eggs isn't necessarily a woman.
Have you really failed to consider your own position this hard that you don't even understand what your own statements mean?
No, that's YOUR assertion, since you believe...
So you acknowledge that "producing eggs" is not a DEFINING TRAIT of women, because you don't say that a person who can't produce eggs isn't necessarily a woman. So to say "the rule is that women produce ova/eggs" is false.
Why can't you just say that? Do you really, really want the world to be...
Except they DID address your argument and position, and they didn't irrelevantly attack you. The accusation "you don't know what you're talking about" isn't an irrelevant aspect of your personality, it's a relevant accusation to the claims being made.
And ad hominem is when it is IRRELEVANT to...
Good point. It, too, looks "surprisingly uniform".
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296924/ukraine-war-casualties-daily/
Guess we should doubt casualty numbers from the United Nations High Commission now, too.