8 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I'm sure you studied the scientific study closely in the 7 minutes since it was posted.  

You posted a link yesterday...as there was no link on today’s post when I quoted it (hence no link in my response),  I assumed you meant that one...

 

Waited till I responded before adding the link did you?

I posted an article which you dismissed because you didn't like the source. You did not even mention the study in your scholarly  critique. I only linked directly to the study a few minutes ago. You should not comment on things you haven't read.

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I posted an article which you dismissed because you didn't like the source. You did not even mention the study. I only linked directly to the study a few minutes ago.

There was no link on the post when I replied to it. 

 

Then after i replied, it appeared. 

 

Funny that...

11 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I posted an article which you dismissed because you didn't like the source. You did not even mention the study in your scholarly  critique. I only linked directly to the study a few minutes ago. You should not comment on things you haven't read.

Now having looked at the start of the article...and before I read further...let me just check something. 

 

This is a different article is it, because it looks remarkably similar to the one I did read yesterday. 

 

I went to “New Atlantis” magazine site to do so yesterday. 

A conspiracy... I see.

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

A conspiracy... I see.

Look at my response. 

 

No link. 

 

I didn’t edit it out. 

 

So where was it?

 

Added it when you edited your post did you?  

 

Not got the courage to admit you forgot to add it?

I added it almost immediately - before you claimed to have clicked on it and formed your opinion.  

9 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

I added it almost immediately - before you claimed to have clicked on it and formed your opinion.  

Not before I replied you didn’t... 

 

Otherwise, it would have been in my reply. 

 

I don't edit others posts. 

 

And as there was no link when I replied I assumed you were referring to yesterday’s link. 

 

On that point...

 

The article appears to be the same one I read yesterday. 

On 19 juin 2018 at 8:35 AM, DM07 said:

No it doesn't!

You clearly have no grasp of what it means, when you say "what you are born as,  is what you are", because you completely neglect that there is not only a physical side to someone but also a psychological one!

When will you people finally understand, that "being gay" or "being transgender" is as much not a choice as "being black" or "being white"?!

It's not a lifestyle like "being Punk" or "living in Bangkok"- it actually is, what you are!

And the fact, that many people fight it or are scared to commit to it in public, is because of people like you, who don't understand or don't give #$@%!

 

Like another poster said: if you don't want a ladyboy or a gay or a woman or whatever to work for you, make some $4!t up, about "sorry...got another, more qualified person" or just politely decline, without any reason!

That is still discrimination, but at lest you are not so dumb to openly admit it!

There is nothing dumb about admiting the truth or being straight forward about how you feel about things. It's the world that is sick that's why more and more people think that way. There is no more room for honesty and truth everything is about petting people the right way and not offending them which slowly but surely turns us into oversensitive hypocrites.

 I have respect for people who say things the way they are (though becoming a very rare breed) the employer has all my respect for his honesty twords that LB. 

again it is all about preference if it's your buisness and you prefer not to work with this or that type of person it should be your right to choose accordingly.

On 6/22/2018 at 9:22 AM, DM07 said:

...and obviously, you can't turn a bigoted knucklehead into a thinker!

 

Again: "choose" is the term in question!

They don't "choose" anything!

You don't "choose" to be white or black or heterosexual!

Also you don't "choose" to identify as a woman, if you are transgender!

 

A lot of them do it for the money and the good ones end up very wealthy

Making far money than the average somchai in the villages 

Anyone who us still posting on this thread after 30 pages has an unhealthy interest in transgenders. 

As a sidenote, I got banned for 30 days on Facebook for referring to then as trannies and chicks with dicks. I thought it excessive.

 

9 minutes ago, soistalker said:

Anyone who us still posting on this thread after 30 pages has an unhealthy interest in transgenders. 

As a sidenote, I got banned for 30 days on Facebook for referring to then as trannies and chicks with dicks. I thought it excessive.

 

What was excessive, the dicks or the ban? 

2 hours ago, soistalker said:

Anyone who us still posting on this thread after 30 pages has an unhealthy interest in transgenders. 

As a sidenote, I got banned for 30 days on Facebook for referring to then as trannies and chicks with dicks. I thought it excessive.

 

Yep can't say anything anymore I got banned on a certain site (cough cough) for using the term "homo's" now that is excessive.

1 hour ago, Voodoochile said:

Yep can't say anything anymore I got banned on a certain site (cough cough) for using the term "homo's" now that is excessive.

It's ridiculous.  Even my gook wife agrees with me. And don't even bring up the subject with the guys at the weekly Hitler youth rallies.