Reply
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
453
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

453 Views
Message 1 of 136

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:



@I'm sorry to be contentious Tx,....BUT.  On 05/12/17 at 8:19AM in response to ap you wrote:

 

"As far as I've heard, there has only been one virgin birth in all time and that was without any action on the part of any human."

 

 


And are you not being contentious, even couldn't it be said engaging in nitpicking?

 

Yes, I am and i said I was sorry to be contentious.  What I said was true....everiy bit of it.

I just will not be misrepresented by anyone, anyplace anytime for anything.  I hope we....that's you and I...have the rules clearly defined.

 

 

You would note that this was in reply to Alferd's attempting to bring in bacteria and other organisms to counter my contention that just because a man that thought he was a woman couldn't give birth in any circumstance.  He was attempting to go completely around by bringing in simple organisms. 

 

Well...what I got out of that exchange was that 'beliefs' were not grounds for indulging in unwarranted generalities, that simple organisms are life too, and that some, not all, life simply is not bi-sexual. 

 

So like the other posts, some is going way out in left [pun intended] field to win a discussion? 

 

See...the original discussion about dna being a determinant of sorts really has nothing whatsoever to do with 'left' or 'right' or 'belief' or 'respect' or 'disrespect'.  Neither does religion or 'virgin birth' as you pointed out AFTER you first raised it.  I agree.  So now you continue the charade with a 'pun' that ventures into the political when you didn't need to do that at all.  Why you wanna do that way?

 

 

And play gotcha?  I'm surprised since our other discussions has been more dignified.

 

No 'gotcha'.  Just the truth of it.  You know how I am about that kind of thing...part of my training, I guess.

 

Is there a reason this discussion should be continued?

 

No....I don't think so.  I've made the point I intended to make in the first place and the one you made it necessary for me to make for whatever reason you thought necessary.  Beats me why this should be necessary, so it does.  Oh...and i'm not surprised by that.  Dignity is better, I agree.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
453
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
468
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

468 Views
Message 2 of 136

@umbarch64 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:






I hate to butt in.....but [pun intended] alferd, I don't think you have incontrovertible evidence that a being believed or assumed to exist at all made anything at all....and that includes Tx.

Not meaning to be contrarious or anything....just sayin'.

 



Of course there is no incontrovertible evidence of such a being.

I was facetiously engaging in snark.

I have no incontrovertible evidence.

Neither does TxGrandpa2 - or anyone else, for that matter...

 

 




I know that and I knew you knew that............I was being facetious too....


Thought so.

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
468
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
469
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

469 Views
Message 3 of 136

@umbarch64 wrote:



@I'm sorry to be contentious Tx,....BUT.  On 05/12/17 at 8:19AM in response to ap you wrote:

 

"As far as I've heard, there has only been one virgin birth in all time and that was without any action on the part of any human."

 

 


And are you not being contentious, even couldn't it be said engaging in nitpicking?  You would note that this was in reply to Alferd's attempting to bring in bacteria and other organisms to counter my contention that just because a man that thought he was a woman couldn't give birth in any circumstance.  He was attempting to go completely around by bringing in simple organisms.

 

So like the other posts, some is going way out in left [pun intended] field to win a discussion?  And play gotcha?  I'm surprised since our other discussions has been more dignified.

 

Is there a reason this discussion should be continued?


“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”. . . FDR
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
469
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
480
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

480 Views
Message 4 of 136

@Snoopy48 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:



Then why did you bring it into the discussion?


I didn't.   Another poster brought that in.  Have you read the previous posts?


I refer you to post 76 in this thread. 

 

That was the first post mentioning virgin birth.

 

That post was made by TxGrandpa2.


 

Imagine that....

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
480
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
483
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

483 Views
Message 5 of 136

@alferdpacker wrote:






I hate to butt in.....but [pun intended] alferd, I don't think you have incontrovertible evidence that a being believed or assumed to exist at all made anything at all....and that includes Tx.

Not meaning to be contrarious or anything....just sayin'.

 



Of course there is no incontrovertible evidence of such a being.

I was facetiously engaging in snark.

I have no incontrovertible evidence.

Neither does TxGrandpa2 - or anyone else, for that matter...

 

 




I know that and I knew you knew that............I was being facetious too....

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
483
Views
Highlighted
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
487
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

487 Views
Message 6 of 136

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

 

...I assure you that conception can indeed occur without copulation or intercourse

 


--

Of course that still includes a male donor.  But can a male who feels there is a woman trapped inside conceive?  Doubtful.  I notice that there has been a great deal of posts all around that topic, but none directly addessing it.

 


I agree....trouble is I didn't bring the matter of virgin births into the discussion...you did.


Not as such.  But still that even though someone feels he is a woman trapped inside a man's body, it is not necessarily he's a woman.  Even with surgical manipulation, he still  hasn't the functions of a woman.  That's what I mentioned, not virgin births.  So can you and your kudoist prove that such a person could give birth?

 

And why continue to bring this back up as it has been pretty well hashed out by those taking it off in all directions?  It had pretty well slipped to the back burner.


@I'm sorry to be contentious Tx,....BUT.  On 05/12/17 at 8:19AM in response to ap you wrote:

 

"As far as I've heard, there has only been one virgin birth in all time and that was without any action on the part of any human."

 

I looked back in the previous posts and that was the first instance of virgin birth being mentioned on this topic that I saw.  I took it you had a point to make in regard to virgin births relative to the topic under discussion.  You brought it up.  I merely pointed out that what you said is not accurate and why.  The 'discussion' 'evolved' from there. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
487
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
489
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

489 Views
Message 7 of 136

@umbarch64 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:


The 100 Trillion bacteria and other assorted organisms in your gut have never had gender - and they continue to reproduce just fine - if they didn't you wouldn't be able to stay alive...

 

Say - that means that in your gut alone, considerably more asexual reproduction occurs every month than has occurred between humans wordwide in the last century... 

 

God made you that way...










I hate to butt in.....but [pun intended] alferd, I don't think you have incontrovertible evidence that a being believed or assumed to exist at all made anything at all....and that includes Tx.

Not meaning to be contrarious or anything....just sayin'.

 



Of course there is no incontrovertible evidence of such a being.

I was facetiously engaging in snark.

I have no incontrovertible evidence.

Neither does TxGrandpa2 - or anyone else, for that matter...

 

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
489
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
498
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

498 Views
Message 8 of 136

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Snoopy48 wrote:



Then why did you bring it into the discussion?


I didn't.   Another poster brought that in.  Have you read the previous posts?


I refer you to post 76 in this thread. 

 

That was the first post mentioning virgin birth.

 

That post was made by TxGrandpa2.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
498
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
512
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

512 Views
Message 9 of 136

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Centristsin2010 wrote:

 

Have a good day Alferd.


LMAO!  Hilarious.


More nervous laughing?  And losing bodily parts?  Shame.

 

Sadly, you missed the point.  I'll try again...

 

I have no doubt that you didn't understand what I posted.  If not report me to the moderator for violating the guidelines. 

LMAO!  Hilarious.



 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
512
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
517
Views

Re: SHOCKING NEW DNA STUDY

517 Views
Message 10 of 136

@umbarch64 wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

 

...I assure you that conception can indeed occur without copulation or intercourse

 


--

Of course that still includes a male donor.  But can a male who feels there is a woman trapped inside conceive?  Doubtful.  I notice that there has been a great deal of posts all around that topic, but none directly addessing it.

 


I agree....trouble is I didn't bring the matter of virgin births into the discussion...you did.


Not as such.  But still that even though someone feels he is a woman trapped inside a man's body, it is not necessarily he's a woman.  Even with surgical manipulation, he still  hasn't the functions of a woman.  That's what I mentioned, not virgin births.  So can you and your kudoist prove that such a person could give birth?

 

And why continue to bring this back up as it has been pretty well hashed out by those taking it off in all directions?  It had pretty well slipped to the back burner.


“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”. . . FDR
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
517
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Ask the Expert: What advice do you need to better manage your stress and anxiety?

Clinical Psychologists Barry Jacobs and Julie Mayer will answer your questions on how to cope with the major life change, anxiety, and sadness we are all facing these days. Ask a question now and tune in live on May 27, 3-5 p.m. ET.

Top Authors