Liberal Forum

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 4:07 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 4:07 pm

I don't expect you lefties to follow the logic, this is way over your head. But at least make an effort. 

If you claim non-binary, then that is a category in of itself. Therefore, we have two categories: binary and non-binary.

Since we are back to two groups, it is still binary.

Binary is having two parts. So non-binary is some freak with less than two or more than two parts. Less than two parts is 0 or 1 part. 1 part would be one sex. Binary would be a hermaphrodite. More than 2 parts would be circus freak material.   

Non-binary in a gender sense is a silly phrase made up by pre-pubescent minded liberals. No such thing.

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 4:43 pm

Focus: Ready? 

Now that you morons introduced a new category, we have...well, you guessed it, a new category: non-binary. 

We used to have two categories: male and female, thus binary. 

You dopes decided to go outside of that and make it non-binary.  By default, that puts Male/female into one category.

So, the two categories are now: 1. binary and 2. non-binary. Which is still back to two categories.

Which would be 3. Male. Female. Other. Non binary.
 

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 5:30 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 5:30 pm

But non-binary is not one, it's a spectrum

So is binary. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. you logic is like comparing vegetation with animal life. Plants roots are in the soil, animals' roots are in their cellular presence while occupying the moment same as vegetation, only mobile.

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 4:36 pm

Non-binary, by definition, implies more than 2...

Binary is defined by 2.

Not that you would understand...

But you should know why you can't by now.

****! ****!
Binary is two parts. Anything more OR less is non-binary. And there is no such word as non-binary in gender parlance, aside from freak libs like who grind out their own words on an hourly basis.

DeplorablePatriot » 28 Nov 2022, 8:15 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 8:15 pm

****! ****!
Binary is two parts. Anything more OR less is non-binary. And there is no such word as non-binary in gender parlance, aside from freak libs like who grind out their own words on an hourly basis.

Technically you are correct.

Perhaps even figuratively. 

If non-binary is represented by Pat



it could be said to represent a "unisex"...

If so, however, you must expand the "binary" to include bi and homo.

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 6:47 pm

Not that you are all that sharp, but do you have any idea how **** stupid @Vegas  is?

I try to be cordial to an idiot at least once a day. I'd almost forgotten...

It's kind of late, sir. Good to see you posting.  Have a nice evening.   

Neo » 28 Nov 2022, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 7:11 pm

Which would be 3. Male. Female. Other. Non binary.

No. You can't make option 3 to include the other options, otherwise it's the same option. 

Let's think about it. Before, binary = male or female. That's two categories. Now take the negation of this: non-binary = not male and not female. 

So, now we have either you are either male or female - or - you are not male nor female. Binary or non-binary. That's two. If they say non-binary, then they are trying to take a spectrum between the two, which includes male and female, by default. 

 

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 6:47 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 6:47 pm

Not that you are all that sharp, but do you have any idea how **** stupid @Vegas  is?

You would have no idea how to understand the concepts of infinity. None. 

DeezerShoove » 28 Nov 2022, 6:36 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 6:36 pm

There's a netflix movie about infinity that would drive him crazy then...

One of the concepts went like this:

infinity + 1 = infinity.
Infinity x 2 = infinity.

There is a part of mathematics that specializes in infinity, called set theory. George Cantor, a mathematician from the 1800s came up with it. There are different types of infinity. It is possible for one type of infinity to be larger than another type. 

For example, 
If you take the whole numbers {0, 1, 2,3 ,4 ,5...} it will go on to infinity. However, if you take just the even numbers, that too goes on to infinity. Which is larger? There are an infinite number of primes, which would be less than the infinite number of even numbers, etc...

There are an infinite number of numbers between two consecutive whole numbers. It's pretty cool. 

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 8:40 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 8:40 pm

If so, however, you must expand the "binary" to include bi and homo.

Ok Einstein. You literally just proved my OP. You dumb mother ****.  Think hard...if you can.

Ready? Homosexuality is included in the definition of bisexuality. Therefore, you cannot separate them into two different categories and call it binary. 

It's possible to have homosexuality while excluding bisexuality, but you cannot have bisexuality while excluding homosexuality. 

My OP is the same concept. 



Nod...

 

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 10:42 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:42 pm

Ok Einstein. You literally just proved my OP. You dumb mother ****.  Think hard...if you can.

Ready? Homosexuality is included in the definition of bisexuality. Therefore, you cannot separate them into two different categories and call it binary. 

It's possible to have homosexuality while excluding bisexuality, but you cannot have bisexuality while excluding homosexuality. 

My OP is the same concept. 

Nod...

No.

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 10:49 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:49 pm

No.

Yes. 

Once again, you prove that you don't have the IQ to refute anything. 

And **** your upcoming copout. 

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 10:51 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:51 pm

Yes. 

Once again, you prove that you don't have the IQ to refute anything. 

And **** your upcoming copout.

No.

Because you're a moron.

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 10:53 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:53 pm

No.

Because you're a moron.

Yes. 

As always, he can't refute it. 

100% accuracy. 


1. More cowardice. 

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 10:54 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:54 pm

Yes. 

As always, he can't refute it. 

100% accuracy. 

1. More cowardice.

You have never refuted that you are a moron.

Blackvegetable » 28 Nov 2022, 10:56 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:56 pm

You have never refuted that you are a moron.

So still no rebuttal. I win again. You got curb stomped, as always. 

You have never proved that I was a moron. 

You, on the other hand:   

Presidents don't drop out of the rankings because they die.

1. Still wont refute my media comment...obviously that's your next move. Predictable piece of ****. 

 

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 10:25 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:25 pm

No. You can't make option 3 to include the other options, otherwise it's the same option. 

Let's think about it. Before, binary = male or female. That's two categories. Now take the negation of this: non-binary = not male and not female. 

So, now we have either you are either male or female - or - you are not male nor female. Binary or non-binary. That's two. If they say non-binary, then they are trying to take a spectrum between the two, which includes male and female, by default. 

 

plant or animal binary code. predator or prey binary code. everyone thinks outside series parallel existing and then defines existence as linear, literal, figurative, relative truths per talking point divide of the kinetic whole where all conversations are about protecting ideas of anything else is possible.

Humanity is an arena of ideas where conversations are done to win hearts, minds, bodies, souls for generations forward to honor idealists until extinction happens.

What is compounding but series parallel events never same total sum present that includes all binary spontaneously happening simultaneously here on a universal scale including each reproduction alive never same form shaped since a fertilized cell.

What is an extinction event in real time? never a 5th generation added again. Origins of a species evolve into 1 of 16 great great grandparents that added 1 of 8 great grandparent generation, then came along the 4 grandparent generation, leaving 2 parenting generation giving birth to 5th generation of great great grandchildren of original 16 between the 5 generation gaps left alive now in the atmosphere here.

Notice the binary code compounding doesn't leave any missing links possible or there wouldn't be a 5th generation gap anymore.

Life evolves this uncomplicated in real time. Reasonable doubt has always been the great Satan in this species regardless the vernacular tribalism practiced throughout history.

Eternal Hell has always been manifested destiny by laws typecasting people by race, creed, color, national origin, gender bias, political leaning, spiritual conviction, social ranking, economic status, historical figure, people willing to sacrifice everything for a better tomorrow, and those executed for not picking sides.

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 10:58 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:58 pm

So still no rebuttal. I win again. You got curb stomped, as always. 

You have never proved that I was a moron. 

You, on the other hand:   

1. Still wont refute my media comment...obviously that's your next move. Predictable piece of ****.

You're lying.

Your moron.....in your own words.

https://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=70970
 

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 4:07 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 4:07 pm

I don't expect you lefties to follow the logic, this is way over your head. But at least make an effort. 

If you claim non-binary, then that is a category in of itself. Therefore, we have two categories: binary and non-binary.

Since we are back to two groups, it is still binary.

There is a logical argument to be made along those lines, Vegas. 

However, let's look at this another way.  Numerically, there is a Binary number system and non-binary number systems, indicating there are actually many different number systems.   Just because there is a binary number system and non-binary number systems does not mean there are only two types of number systems.  The logical fallacy is diverting attention away from what we are actually discussing is the broader context, i.e. "number systems".  Outside of the binary number system, there may be many different number systems.  Follow me so far?

Now, the Leftists claim there are more than two genders/sexes (yes, the terms are historically synonymous).  The logical error the Leftists make is assigning the terms "binary" and "non-binary" to something other than a number system, i.e. Homo Sapiens.  The term simply does not seamlessly carry over from a classification of a particular number system to a biological species, Homo Sapiens, as they would lead you to believe.

In the context of the species called Homo Sapiens, the question is "Can there possibly be more than one sex/gender within this species"?  The answer to that is yes, but, it would be very rare such a being would not likely be capable of joining with another of the species to produce viable offspring.  In discussing species, we would call that a mutation, a defect or an aberration from what is biologically necessary to perpetuate the species.  Many such aberrations (not necessarily sex/gender related), in the absence of modern medical intervention, would quickly die after birth, or be of no consequence to the species as a whole.

So, while I like what you have done with logic, I still view it as a "piggy-back" off of the Leftist attempt to illogically conflate a number system with a biological species.

 
 

Vegas » 28 Nov 2022, 10:31 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Nov 2022, 10:31 pm

There is a part of mathematics that specializes in infinity, called set theory. George Cantor, a mathematician from the 1800s came up with it. There are different types of infinity. It is possible for one type of infinity to be larger than another type. 

For example, 
If you take the whole numbers {0, 1, 2,3 ,4 ,5...} it will go on to infinity. However, if you take just the even numbers, that too goes on to infinity. Which is larger? There are an infinite number of primes, which would be less than the infinite number of even numbers, etc...

There are an infinite number of numbers between two consecutive whole numbers. It's pretty cool.

Conceiving that one infinity can be of a different size than the other is self-deception.
One has to already conclude infinity has a boundary for this to make any sense.

I lean toward my previous post concept. You can't change the value of infinity.