"science and Ben Sharpie" hahahahahaha well that's your first mistake because Sharpie doesn't even understand the science. Hun, you DON'T know what you're saying.
Sex is determined by the SRY gene. The SRY gene is a gene that initiates the transformation into male genitalia and it binds the Y chromosome, meaning that it only binds with your chromosomes of you're XY or XYY or other combinations containing Y. However, it doesn't always bind, meaning there are women with XY chromosomes whose SRY gene failed to bind.
Ben's argument is "your pronouns reflect your chromosomes" but just this case already, or the cases like XYY, XXX, XXY and so on prove him wrong. Should there be separate pronouns for every combination? No, that's bs. Also, the scientific discipline of genetics was invented long after pronouns in language. Humans have for millennia been using pronouns based on what you look and act like, not their genes. So why can't we call trans women she since they look and act like women?

Feminists =/= TERFs

You're barking up the wrong tree here, mate. I never said my mood swings or the other possible issues I listed were representative of all women. If they were, contraceptives would be out of business by now. I'm just saying that the other guest's generalization is bs because contraceptives don't work for every woman, whereas condoms are pretty much universal (yes, there are also latex-free alternatives). It should be the responsibility of both to keep that in check, yes. But let's be real, is that really how it usually is?

Not every woman is suited for hormonal BC. When I was on mine, for the first two months I got really bad mood swings and depression, then it luckily stabilized and as a nice side effect also cleared up my acne.
But not everybody's that fortunate, some people start gaining weight uncontrollably, some get mood swings, some get digestive issues (if we're talking about the pills specifically), some get constant yeast infections. There's a LOT of potential side effects with hormonal BC, including for example blood clots which can be deadly, so women with a high blood pressure must be extra careful.
If a man is aware of the fact that his girlfriend can't have hormonal BC for any of these reasons but still chooses to have sex without a condom because "it doesn't feel as good", then it's 100% on him.

(cont.) However, the apathy of the majority is what lets these selfish assholes get away with their terrible behavior. This, I think, has been, is, and always will be true, the majority of people just don't really care.
I think you raise a very interesting point with the apathy of ignoring and apathy of participating, I've never thought of that.
This might be TMI but I'm a broke college student so I used to buy clothes from budget stores but one day my conscience just kicked me in the ass with the realization of how bad the working conditions are for the people who make budget clothing. So I thought maybe expensive, high end brands have better conditions. I did a bit of research and turns out that no, even the stuff that costs thousands of dollars by Prada, Gucci etc is made in the very same sweatshops. It almost felt like I couldn't win, that I participate one way or another. So I just said "fuck it" and started shopping at thrift shops, and my conscience has been clear ever since.

Agreed, it's a thing to ponder. I personally don't believe in evil as a standalone concept, just that there are differences between what most people aka society wants, and what an individual wants. For example, when somebody's fucked up mentally and enjoys seeing people suffer, they're considered evil by society when they decide to act upon that desire and hurt someone. Similarly, when someone decides to get rich by selling blood diamonds and creating a monopoly, driving the price up and aggressively eliminating competition, they're not really doing it because they want to be a Disney villain. They're doing it to enrich themselves but the way they're doing it goes against what most people want, so it could be considered evil, or if not evil at least incredibly selfish.
But I think most people aren't really like that, most people at least consider the welfare of others when deciding whether to do something.

Sometimes you just gotta not care to save your mental health, honestly. I'll drink to that too. (well, I'm drinking energy drinks because I'm studying for an exam, but that counts, right?)
That said though, cases like this one make me think of the quote "The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

Yesss I didn't know he had any fans here on fs, he's awesome.

@garlog I don't think I was moving the goal post. The principle of anti-monopoly laws should apply to everything is what I was trying to say, we can't make an exception for diamonds just because not that many people buy them. Making that exception sets a dangerous precedent for more convenient exceptions and more people making ridiculous amounts of money with a borderline fraudulent scheme.

Having a monopoly on something means you control the price of an item, and can artificially increase it, which is happening with diamonds obviously. While you might argue that it's a luxury item and people don't have to buy it (which I agree with, and I never would've bought one myself), having proper monopoly laws is extremely important because of the potential for non-luxury items to be exploited that way.

Which they would've been if it wasn't for the monopoly.

C'mon most people aren't that smart. They're too easily influenced by ad campaigns which was exactly the case with diamonds/engagement rings.

Yeah it's a 2 year old convo, I'd rather just let it be

>Pokethebear
>Logic
Choose one.

He shows images of two species of squirrels who got differentiated because they lived on different sides of a canyon and then doesn't even conclude what that means, he just says "guess that means they're related to rabbits and bananas, har har!" how is that an argument, let alone a coherent one? And he just keeps going like that, either mocking scientists or saying "all fish are from the biblical kind of fish" or "cauliflower and cabbage are from the same biblical kind of plant". He keeps using a concept he himself admitted he can't define. If I ever tried that stuff in a college essay, I'd fail the subject on the spot. If you wanna be taken seriously you can't work with vague terms like that, let alone try to use them as proof of something while at the same time admitting you don't even know what they mean. This guy is so full of shit I almost can't believe my ears when listening to him. And btw con man doesn't always have to be tied to money. Maybe he's in it for the ego boost.

Actually, out of curiosity I watched his "Best Arguments for evolution" video, and first off it could barely be called a lecture, he's just speaking in front of a monitor, unhinged stream of consciousness style (and in fact when I searched for lectures by him specifically, I only found very few very old videos so it seems that he doesn't really do lectures a lot, or at least not in video form). He didn't have a single cohesive argument in there. He says that evolution isn't real but "Biblical kind" totally is, that's why a lion and tiger can produce a liger but a lion can't bang a wolf and produce a catdog. He admits he can't explain what a Biblical kind even is but mocks scientists for explaining what evolution is. He keeps insulting Charles Darwin but it seems he never really read the Origins of Species because his knowledge of Darwin's theory is incredibly shallow, a middle schooler could probably debunk it.

I see it now, yeah you're right it is a bit weird. Still a good job though, I couldn't do a painting even half as good if I tried my darndest.

But it wouldn't be a luxury item if they didn't have a monopoly.

No honey he's what's called a con man

Cause she's not the centerpiece here ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)