Parents call out unfairness as trans pitcher throws shutout in Minnesota softball state quarterfinals

[TimHauck 2,713]

6 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Stay on topic. My stance is not based on religion. And has nothing to do with this.  I posted my stance.

Your stance is based on “denying science.”  I don’t care if someone believes in God (I do) or that Jesus rose from the dead (I’m undecided), but those opinions deny science.

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

49 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

Stay on topic. My stance is not based on religion. And has nothing to do with this.  I posted my stance.

He can't.  He knows he's wrong so he keeps either moving goal posts, altering people's comments (and addresses those), or pretends that certain facts are in play when they're not.  He acts like a 10 year old.  Treat him as such.  Address the points and then when he goes off the deep end with his clenched fists, let him stew in his own misery while he pretends he's right.

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Your first link doesn't have anything of substance.

Your second link:  you still don't see that it is in the interest of Riley Gaines' cause to spread the word that men are not women, regardless of venue.  The belief that men can be women is why men are allowed to compete in women's sports.  HTH.

Awesome that you are still focusing on the real issue, though.   

Exactly.  He's pretending his opinions are facts.  He's not a serious person.

[TimHauck 2,713]

31 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Exactly.  He's pretending his opinions are facts.  He's not a serious person.

Sharing evidence of Riley Gaines’s past tweets are facts.  She is against trans people as a whole, not just in sports.  Do you disagree?

[TimHauck 2,713]

33 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

He can't.  He knows he's wrong so he keeps either moving goal posts, altering people's comments (and addresses those), or pretends that certain facts are in play when they're not.  He acts like a 10 year old.  Treat him as such.  Address the points and then when he goes off the deep end with his clenched fists, let him stew in his own misery while he pretends he's right.

Is it a fact that God is real?  Just trying to determine when it’s okay to deny science and when it’s not.

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Sharing evidence of Riley Gaines’s past tweets are facts.  She is against trans people as a whole, not just in sports.  Do you disagree?

Yes.  Because you're ignoring context.

[Maximum Overkill 1,891]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Sharing evidence of Riley Gaines’s past tweets are facts.  She is against trans people as a whole, not just in sports.  Do you disagree?

Who cares? Trannies are Mentally I'll Freaks  

[TimHauck 2,713]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Yes.  Because you're ignoring context.

What context?

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Is it a fact that God is real?  Just trying to determine when it’s okay to deny science and when it’s not.

I was speaking general, not specifics.  I don't believe in God, but I don't have issues with anyone who does nor do I think they're nuts, nor do I say they're wrong.

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

What context?

Gaines is talking about men in women sports, that's the context.  You're extending her view on men in sports to be her view on it globally.  Show me a non-sports related quote by Gaines about transgenders.

[TimHauck 2,713]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Gaines is talking about men in women sports, that's the context.  You're extending her view on men in sports to be her view on it globally.  Show me a non-sports related quote by Gaines about transgenders.

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1808256336922108415

[TimHauck 2,713]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I was speaking general, not specifics.  I don't believe in God, but I don't have issues with anyone who does nor do I think they're nuts, nor do I say they're wrong.

I don’t care either, and I believe in God, but I can acknowledge that believing in God denies science.

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1808256336922108415

... and you think that's her saying that she's against all transgender people? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t care either, and I believe in God, but I can acknowledge that believing in God denies science.

Science has proven that God never existed?

[TimHauck 2,713]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

... and you think that's her saying that she's against all transgender people? 

She’s saying they’re men, that being trans is not a real thing.

This was the other example I shared earlier.   She called being trans a “gimmick.”

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1861564050024329515
 

@jerryskids tried arguing that since the post she was replying to was deleted, that it lacked the full context.  But no context is needed to acknowledge that calling trans a gimmick means she’s against transgender people.  Although to your question Jerry, reading the comments, it’s pretty clear the original post was about Walmart supposedly no longer selling chest binders (so not about sports).  I’m guessing the post got deleted after many commenters pointed out that they were in fact still selling them.

Riley makes lots of posts about trans folks but not about sports.  For example she also retweets just about every story she sees of a trans person committing a crime.

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

35 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

She’s saying they’re men, that being trans is not a real thing.

This was the other example I shared earlier.   She called being trans a “gimmick.”

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1861564050024329515
 

@jerryskids tried arguing that since the post she was replying to was deleted, that it lacked the full context.  But no context is needed to acknowledge that calling trans a gimmick means she’s against transgender people.  Although to your question Jerry, reading the comments, it’s pretty clear the original post was about Walmart supposedly no longer selling chest binders (so not about sports).  I’m guessing the post got deleted after many commenters pointed out that they were in fact still selling them.

Riley makes lots of posts about trans folks but not about sports.  For example she also retweets just about every story she sees of a trans person committing a crime.

So in your opinion, Gaines is making that point solely about transgender people and not to back up her point about men in women's sports?

[iam90sbaby 2,559]

42 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

She’s saying they’re men, that being trans is not a real thing.

This was the other example I shared earlier.   She called being trans a “gimmick.”

https://x.com/Riley_Gaines_/status/1861564050024329515
 

@jerryskids tried arguing that since the post she was replying to was deleted, that it lacked the full context.  But no context is needed to acknowledge that calling trans a gimmick means she’s against transgender people.  Although to your question Jerry, reading the comments, it’s pretty clear the original post was about Walmart supposedly no longer selling chest binders (so not about sports).  I’m guessing the post got deleted after many commenters pointed out that they were in fact still selling them.

Riley makes lots of posts about trans folks but not about sports.  For example she also retweets just about every story she sees of a trans person committing a crime.

Trans isn't a real thing. Its fake. They are crossdressers.

[MDC 7,262]

4 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Trans isn't a real thing. Its fake. They are crossdressers.

Like JD Vance?

[iam90sbaby 2,559]

Just now, MDC said:

Like JD Vance?

Wow, good one MDC! /s

[TimHauck 2,713]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So in your opinion, Gaines is making that point solely about transgender people and not to back up her point about men in women's sports?

Correct.  I don’t think she makes hateful posts about trans folks unrelated to sports just to back up her point about sports.   I’m sure she thinks it helps that argument, but I don’t think it’s the primary reason she does it.

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Correct.  I don’t think she makes hateful posts about trans folks unrelated to sports just to back up her point about sports.   I’m sure she thinks it helps that argument, but I don’t think it’s the primary reason she does it.

Ok, so you're saying that because she doesn't act or say things the way you think she should, she's in the wrong.  Ironic that you're calling her a bigot.

[seafoam1 2,909]

10 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Ok, so you're saying that because she doesn't act or say things the way you think she should, she's in the wrong.  Ironic that you're calling her a bigot.

To be fair, both tims call every normal a bigot. It would be out of character for them not to. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,517]

9 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

To be fair, both tims call every normal a bigot. It would be out of character for them not to. 

True.

[TimHauck 2,713]

29 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Ok, so you're saying that because she doesn't act or say things the way you think she should, she's in the wrong.  Ironic that you're calling her a bigot.

That has nothing to do with what I just said, but yes I do think she’s a bigot, not because “she doesn’t say things the way I think she should,” because her words have shown she doesn’t like trans folks in general, not just the trans folks that play in womens sports.

And honestly, as I think about it more, no I truly don’t think her negative comments about trans folks in situations that have nothing to do with sports actually help her argument.  Because if her ultimate goal is for all states to pass legislation to ban biological males in women’s sports, the people she should be targeting with her messaging are the Dem politicians (as most regular folk already agree with her).   And to do that, she should focus on facts and data, not just inflammatory rage bait.  As I said earlier, most of what she’s doing now is just riling up the people that already agree with her.  It has helped her get rich though, which I think was her bigger objective.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,212]

🪖

[TimHauck 2,713]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

That has nothing to do with what I just said, but yes I do think she’s a bigot, not because “she doesn’t say things the way I think she should,” because her words have shown she doesn’t like trans folks in general, not just the trans folks that play in womens sports.

And honestly, as I think about it more, no I truly don’t think her negative comments about trans folks in situations that have nothing to do with sports actually help her argument.  Because if her ultimate goal is for all states to pass legislation to ban biological males in women’s sports, the people she should be targeting with her messaging are the Dem politicians (as most regular folk already agree with her).   And to do that, she should focus on facts and data, not just inflammatory rage bait.  As I said earlier, most of what she’s doing now is just riling up the people that already agree with her.  It has helped her get rich though, which I think was her bigger objective.

@jerryskids, was also thinking of our conversation with the second paragraph 

[seafoam1 2,909]

25 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That has nothing to do with what I just said, but yes I do think she’s a bigot, not because “she doesn’t say things the way I think she should,” because her words have shown she doesn’t like trans folks in general, not just the trans folks that play in womens sports.

And honestly, as I think about it more, no I truly don’t think her negative comments about trans folks in situations that have nothing to do with sports actually help her argument.  Because if her ultimate goal is for all states to pass legislation to ban biological males in women’s sports, the people she should be targeting with her messaging are the Dem politicians (as most regular folk already agree with her).   And to do that, she should focus on facts and data, not just inflammatory rage bait.  As I said earlier, most of what she’s doing now is just riling up the people that already agree with her.  It has helped her get rich though, which I think was her bigger objective.

This must be hard for you. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,002]

5 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Your stance is based on “denying science.”  I don’t care if someone believes in God (I do) or that Jesus rose from the dead (I’m undecided), but those opinions deny science.

WTF are you talking about?  JFC, you're dense.  YOUR stance is based on denying science, not mine.  Nice try, though, but the science is clear on this - men XX, women XY and gender and sex are tied to biology despite what your propaganda tells you. 

[TimHauck 2,713]

17 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

WTF are you talking about?  JFC, you're dense.  YOUR stance is based on denying science, not mine.  Nice try, though, but the science is clear on this - men XX, women XY and gender and sex are tied to biology despite what your propaganda tells you. 

Is the existence of God consistent with what we know about science?  I’m pointing out that it’s inconsistent to think trans folks are fake “because science” but to simultaneously believe in God.

[Maximum Overkill 1,891]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Is the existence of God consistent with what we know about science?  I’m pointing out that it’s inconsistent to think trans folks are fake “because science” but to simultaneously believe in God.

Science, like the one that tells you that a Boy is a girl and a girl is a boy? And that Men can get pregnant?? 

[seafoam1 2,909]

20 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

WTF are you talking about?  JFC, you're dense.  YOUR stance is based on denying science, not mine.  Nice try, though, but the science is clear on this - men XX, women XY and gender and sex are tied to biology despite what your propaganda tells you. 

He doesn't realize that if God created this world, God also created science. timmy is trying to say that if God exists, then science doesn't. 

It's not worth it when there is absolutely zero logic coming from that dude. But then again, that's the calling card of a liberal. Logic goes out the window. Next up, he'll say logic doesn't exist if you believe in God. 

[TimHauck 2,713]

1 minute ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Science, like the one that tells you that a Boy is a girl and a girl is a boy? And that Men can get pregnant?? 

And that some dude rose from the dead and that there’s an almighty being that has been alive for thousands of years

[jerryskids 6,699]

46 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

@jerryskids, was also thinking of our conversation with the second grade paragraph 

Personally, I agree with you regarding approach.  As I've done here recently, I concede that some people truly believe they are the opposite sex.  But that doesn't mean that the biological males should be able to compete with biological females.

That being said, none of this addresses Riley's motivations for her comments.  

[seafoam1 2,909]

1 minute ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Science, like the one that tells you that a Boy is a girl and a girl is a boy? And that Men can get pregnant?? 

Imagine a woman not knowing what a woman is. Oh wait, liberals put one on the supreme court. 

[TimHauck 2,713]

Just now, jerryskids said:

 

That being said, none of this addresses Riley's motivations for her comments.  

$$$

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,002]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Is the existence of God consistent with what we know about science?  I’m pointing out that it’s inconsistent to think trans folks are fake “because science” but to simultaneously believe in God.

I have ZERO idea what you're talking about here. I never brought God into this.  You did as some kind of goal-post moving "gotcha" or something.  I'm not playing your game.  I stated my thoughts above.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,212]

3 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

I have ZERO idea what you're talking about here. I never brought God into this.  You did as some kind of goal-post moving "gotcha" or something.  I'm not playing your game.  I stated my thoughts above.

My man, hack thought football helmets were made of metal. You’re not dealing with the smartest person here. Just mock him from time to time. 

[jerryskids 6,699]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

And that some dude rose from the dead and that there’s an almighty being that has been alive for thousands of years

Thousands of years?  Time is much more complex than that.  We know it is not a constant:  Einstein showed us it slows down with velocity and gravity, that we know of.  An almighty being is likely not constrained with the human experience of time.

Science!

On a coincidental note, tomorrow afternoon I'm taking a class entitled "Science and Faith in Conflict."  I'm interested in what direction they take it.   

[TimHauck 2,713]

Just now, jerryskids said:

On a coincidental note, tomorrow afternoon I'm taking a class entitled "Science and Faith in Conflict."  I'm interested in what direction they take it.   

Ha, this sounds interesting.  Let us know how it is

[jerryskids 6,699]

7 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Ha, this sounds interesting.  Let us know how it is

Here is the description:

Quote

The relationship between science and faith is often perceived as conflicting, especially when it comes to evolution and creationism. In this participatory, interactive class, we will discuss the logic of why some scientists claim that faith is anti-science, and the basis for why some religions prefer to ignore science when it runs counter to their beliefs. Together, we will explore: is it possible to be both scientific and religious? Is this conflict more a perception than reality?

Such discussions usually conclude that they do NOT conflict, in my experience.  But I always enjoy a good metaphysics discussion.