Issuepedia:Filing Room/to file/2019

From Issuepedia
< Issuepedia:Filing Room‎ | to file
Revision as of 13:01, 9 August 2019 by Woozle (talk | contribs) (09 (Fri))
Jump to navigation Jump to search



04 (Fri)

    • comment: "First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa. Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that shit."﻿

07 (Mon)

09 (Wed)

10 (Thu)

11 (Fri)

13 (Sun)

15 (Tue)

16 (Wed)

20 (Sun)

21 (Mon)

23 (Wed)

28 (Mon)

29 (Tue)

31 (Thu)


01 (Fri)

02 (Sat)

03 (Sun)

04 (Mon)

05 (Tue)

06 (Wed)

09 (Sat)

10 (Sun)

14 (Thu)

15 (Fri)

17 (Sun)

18 (Mon)

19 (Tue)

20 (Wed)

23 (Sat)

26 (Tue)

27 (Wed)


3 (Sun)

4 (Mon)

5 (Tue)

6 (Wed)

7 (Thu)

8 (Fri)

9 (Sat)

10 (Sun)

12 (Tue)

13 (Wed)

14 (Thu)

15 (Fri)

18 (Mon)

19 (Tue)

20 (Wed)

  • Pope Francis on gender (in Amoris Laetitia):

23 (Sat)

26 (Tue)

27 (Wed)

29 (Fri)

30 (Sat)


5 (Fri)

7 (Sun)

9 (Tue)

10 (Wed)

11 (Thu)

13 (Sat)

14 (Sun)

15 (Mon)

18 (Thu)

20 (Sat)

21 (Sun)

22 (Mon)

23 (Tue)

26 (Fri)

27 (Sat)

28 (Sun)

30 (Tue)


01 (Wed)

03 (Fri)

04 (Sat)

06 (Mon)

07 (Tue)

11 (Sat)

14 (Tue)

15 (Wed)

18 (Sat)

19 (Sun)

20 (Mon)

21 (Tue)

22 (Wed)

25 (Sat)

26 (Sun)

28 (Tue)

I think the problem here is that there is... a Spectrum of Understanding, when it comes to political matters like war.

At one end, there are those of us who understand how incredibly wasteful and stupid it is. We have always rejected it. Most of us are probably even aware that modern warfare is really just a tool that the powerful use in their efforts to collect and retain power, and not something that benefits us at all.

At the other end, of course, are people who respond positively on a gut level to words like "America", "freedom", "patriotism", "soldier", and so on -- and these are the people who buy into the "protect our freedom"-style of emotional appeal.

I suppose it's possible that an argument like the one in that article might get through to a few of them, but (a) it seems aimed more at people like us who question our beliefs, and (b) will it sway enough, even if all of them were somehow exposed to it?

29 (Wed)

31 (Fri)


1 (Sat)

3 (Mon)

4 (Tue)

5 (Wed)

6 (Thu)

8 (Sat)

10 (Mon)

13 (Thu)

16 (Sun)

17 (Mon)

19 (Wed)

20 (Thu)

21 (Fri)

24 (Mon)

27 (Thu)

29 (Sat)

30 (Sun)


02 (Tue)

04 (Thu)

07 (Sun)

08 (Mon)

09 (Tue)

10 (Wed)

12 (Fri)

15 (Mon)

17 (Wed)

18 (Thu)

19 (Fri)

23 (Tue)

24 (Wed)

25 (Thu)

28 (Sun)

29 (Mon)

30 (Tue)


01 (Thu)

03 (Sat)

05 (Mon)

06 (Tue)

08 (Thu)

09 (Fri)