Bill Nye the "sex junk" guy
- Thread starter CommuterBob
- Start date
Just means you haven't publicly humiliated him quite as many times.
Source: he still can't answer my question or admit that he was wrong.
Where is the science to support more than two genders? Where are the facts? Science supports male and female. Science and evolution support the only reason there is male and female is to procreate. I'm going to be called a bigot, what else is new, but anything outside of male or female genetically is not normal. Anything outside of XX or XY is no different than Down syndrome, a cleft palate, conjoined twins, missing limbs, etc, etc ,etc. It's a genetic defect. Anything outside of male or female is an abnormality or deformation. Just the facts and science. If it weren't a genetic defect the overwhelming majority of humans would have extra chromosomes and multiple sex organs.
As much as I appreciate your opinion on gender science (which I value somewhere between the opinion of a Wal Mart greeter and a Paleolithic Hunter gatherer). I just have to point out that you (just like 85) have not answered my direct call out to the collective bull shit that you constantly spew. So could you either
A) answer my question while providing proof to back up your claim
B) Admit you were wrong and at least make an attempt to stop posting bullshit since you've been called out.
Male and female is not an opinion. It fact backed by science.
I'm not reading this entire thread. What was your question?
I'm not reading this entire thread. What was your question?
Nailed it, but not for what you're arguing for. That's the issue at hand is how you classify the "defects" because they're still human.
I'm willing to bet he routinely rubs one out to the chicks with sticks. It's very well known that rednecks fancy the hermies.
Last edited:
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
I think your premise is right but I'll go a step further. The emergence of anything, when looked at from an evolutionary standpoint, requires a defect. Could we be on the road to being asexual beings? Possibly. Or maybe we're going to be multi-sexual (more than 2 sexes). Who knows. But it requires multiple defects over a long period of time to occur.
At the current moment, sex is based on how we participate in reproduction. Science can uncover sub categories within the two sexes, but until they uncover a defect that has an evolutionary effect (asexual or multisexual) they're just self contained within the current reproductive system and not a new sex.
It certainly implies that there are 2 sexes. And the funny thing is that the SJWs scientifically cannot dispute this, so they will surely mandate an entirely new acronym soon. Something along the lines of Queer Non-Binary Trans-gender Entities (QNTE).
I give it 24 months before the SJWs and culture warriors on the left have idiots convinced that gender is merely a daily state of being. Someone can wake up one morning as an alpha male and wake up the next as a shy non binary subgenre.
How long are you going to ignore my question? You keep spewing bullshit and then when you get called out you just ignore it and hope it goes away. Just admit you were wrong, everyone here knows it.
I know you're a self absorbed supremely arrogant person, so this may shock you, but I did not follow every one of your posts where you've been obsessing over me answering one of your very important questions.
So why don't you just repeat this question, that isn't nearly as important as you're making it out to be, so I can answer it and give you the self satisfaction you're seeking?
I have been quoting you every single time you have posted in this thread with your absolute nonsense claim, asking you to explain yourself. You've ignored me every time, and now you are playing the stupid card.
Boldmovecotton.jpg
But I'll spoon feed it to you since you obviously require it.
I claimed that a 100% free market economy with no environmental regulations would lead to wide scale pollution like china. You disagreed without providing any proof or references. I called you out asking how you think your scenario could possibly occur. You have ignored me since.
Cue your inevitable goal post moving where you claim that I'm fake news, since just like your idol Trump you are incapable of admitting that you were wrong even when then entire world has mountains of evidence claiming otherwise.
Last edited:
You are like the WC's version of the old, extremely out of touch slightly racist and quite senile yet lovable grandpa that we all have.
Except no one loves you.
Rofl at you coming back and saying a Communist country that owns most of the businesses is a 100% free market yet again. I was giving you some credit and just assumed I missed your question, I didn't think you were stupid enough to try and argue that China is a free market.
Look, I don't expect you to be able to keep up, so I realize I'm wasting my time, but I'll try to explain one more time.
China has next to zero environmental laws, just like a 100% free market economy would. This results in massive pollution, since their are no laws requiring expensive clean up. Follow along yet?
Now since you were stupid enough to stick your head back in here, please support your claim that a 100% free market economy would not result in massive pollution/environmental harm.
Since I know you can't support your claim, you will probably resort to changing your position/calling me a liar like 85 will, since both of you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.
You've been dodging my simple question for a few days now, but I'm sure another night will be all it takes to come up with an answer.
Great explanation on why you keep trying to be liked instead of being right.
Glad you will never understand that simple concept.
I understand your point but I think your view is too narrow.
I accept your claim that China has no environmental laws, I honestly haven't researched it to know. However, you're taking a big leap in saying that means it represents a 100% free market. Environmental impact is the result of production, which is strongly centralized/controlled in China.
No I agree with you, I obviously never claimed that china was a free market economy. If you read my post I claimed that the outcomes would be similar. China's zero environmental policies and complete lack of workers rights laws is similar to a 100% free market economy. Of course their political system is totally different, but that was not the topic.
Ah, I follow your logic. Environmental regulations add to production cost. If regulations didn't exist, companies would most certainly take the cheapest option in order to stay competitive. Resulting in lower production cost but likely a higher environmental impact.
Only rebuttal I can come up with is there are other factors that shape the market which could affect the outcome. Societal pressure being one. I can't say it would have enough of an effect to drastically change the result but it would certainly be a talking point.
Last edited:
China is nearly 100% controlled by the government. That is the complete opposite of a free market. In free markets consumers are allowed to choose what they buy, who they buy it from and what they pay and companies are allowed to expand, choose what to manufacture, etc. That is not the case in China.
Will TIME magazine try and remove that cover and articles like Bill Nye did?Everyone remember this break thru Time Magazine cover from Jan 1992?
Hey as much as I appreciate this middle school level overview of China economic policy, no one asked for it. No one was claiming that China == free market, only you and 85 would be stupid enough to think something like. What is possible is that two completely separate philosophies (100% free market and Chinese complete lack of regard for the environment) can have the same result (wide scale pollution).
Good question...
In 1992, most people LAUGHED at this cover...like "no duh Time Mag". Now, some think you are whatever you want to be and can change it on a daily basis.
God damnit I give up. You actually are too stupid to understand that two completely different process can result in the same outcome.
What the hell are you even arguing then??????
Your premise was that "unchecked" capitalism will result in the endless pollution of earth or something. Yet here you are admitting that a country in which the government has absolute control over the economic conditions, and has established a Centrally Planned economy (hint: the opposite of free market capitalism), has ended in a result that is exactly the same as your hypothesis for what would happen under "100% free market capitalism".
4 days and the best you can come up with is a red herring?
I'm not going to lie, I really did not expect much from you, but this is just getting sad.
This coming from a guy who can't even articulate what you're arguing for. Or against.
Maybe you should hire Bill Nye to help you. If he's not busy filming his next Daily Kos segment.
I have literally asked you 3 times in this thread to explain your statement of how a 100% free market economy would not lead to over pollution. It's not my fault you are too dense to come up with an answer to support your position.
I used to think you were just delaying and avoiding the question, but maybe you actually are handicapped. Or is that really your tactic? Pretending to be stupid? At this point it's getting difficult to discern.
You said a China is a 100% free market and any 100% free market would have the same environmental/social results as China. How do you answer a question that is completely insane?
I have identified the problem here, your lack of intelligence has resulted in you misinterpreting my post. Please quote where I said China is a free market economy. This is only a 2.5 page thread, won't take you long.
You are going to look feverishly, and since I did not say that, you are going to come up empty, and then resort to posting that your time is too valuable to look through this thread to actually support your argument , and then think you won the conversation.
Bob, I can promise you that I know just a teensy bit more about china than you. I know that the trailer park sign building business has a strong tradition of studying Chinese TTPs in detail, but I think I have you beat on this one.
For being a super smart guy you sure dicked this up.
I never said what you are asserting. In fact you were responding to Bob initially. I jumped on your comments tying China to free market capitalism, which you still haven't walked back.
We do not have a 100% free market economy and never have, and never will. There have always been some forms of regulation on economic activity and we all know there's too much goddamn regulation in markets now. Your decision to use "100% free market economy" tells me that you don't actually understand economics; if you did, you would have never used that as an example, since you'd know that it's possible in theory textbooks only.
Wow, you are actually dumber than I thought. You do know there is a quote feature, and I just quoted you saying there is too much regulation on a market, and if china had less regulation they'd be cleaner. You actually think that regulation is why china is the world's ashtray.
I think I should probably stop making you look foolish at this point, because you look like one of those people that could snap and hunt me down or something.
Yawn.
You don't want to end up like China do you? A 100% free market is how you end up like China.
Yeap, that is definitely not a comparison between a free market and China. Keep the insults rolling though, it is a sign of great intelligence.
Similar threads
