LukeAlmighty 🇨🇿 @LukeAlmighty@gameliberty.club

@hachi
Oh, nice slogan you got there. Let me respond with a slogan too.

We must protect the childern. End of story.

@Snidely_Whiplash @Aldo2
Yes, that is their claim as far as I understand it.
So, was the allegory a good one?

FUCK!!!
arcane might not be a perfect story wise, but the characters are all so fucking sexy...

@ChristiJunior @Aldo2
Yeah, he is special

@Aldo2
Wow... you are so insanely retarded, that even when I spell out the analogy to you, you still are incapable to grasp the concept

@Aldo2
Clothes and food were analogy for men and women. I am really sorry, if your kindergarten failed you in this respect.

@Aldo2
No, you didn't even define your position, and keep on sperging out about people not accepting your unsaid definition in all the examples you believe in including all the implications you believe in, but not the logical extent.

So, once again you gave proven, that a good faith conversation with troon supporters is not possible.

@Aldo2
And I am seriously starting to question your legal status of self governing individual, if you can neither understand the concept of an analogy, or the concept of protecting yourself from buch of people who hate your existence.

@Aldo2
Well, you wanted to have the gender =/= sex debate, so I had it.

If sex is what you are, and gender is how you identity, and it can be different based on what you look like, then a food's sex would be food. But, it tried to look like clothing, it's gender would change to clothing.

And since we treat people based on the gender, and not sex, you would have to treat the shoe cake as a shoe. That is the entire logic of sex =/= gender.

@Aldo2
On other topics, you say "this cake looks like a shoe". You don't say "this cake is a shoe", and you definitely don't behave as if the cake was unironically a shoe. Why? Because the inert properties of the cake make it useless as a shoe.

So, why do you think gender =/= sex is an argument for that guy is a women and treat it as one, but taste =/= wearableness is an argument for wear the cake?

@Aldo2
You must understand already, that the point of gender =/= sex argument means, that if you spend enough effort truly trying to look and behave as the category you don't belong in, (shoe), you should be treated as a part of that category as default.

That was your argument, not mine. I just illustrated it on a topic, where I know advanced mimicry is in fact possible.

@Aldo2
Thank you
You have no idea jist how a big of a compliment it unironically is.

Back to the topic. Will you wear the shoe?

@Aldo2
Yes. A shoe is meant to be worn, and a cake is meant to be eaten.

But what about cake, that REALLY deep down KNOWS it's a shoe?

@Aldo2
It doesn't want you to believe it to be a shoe. It just want's you to wear it.

@Aldo2
Of course it wasn't created as a shoe, but why are you not behaving as if it were one?

@Aldo2
Ok, you cannot use a cake as a shoe...

Why? It definitely looks like a shoe to me.

@Aldo2
So, you would put this mixture of egg, sugar and wheat on your foot beofre going to work?

Interesting...

@Aldo2
Ok, if you want to play this game:
Is this a boot, or is it a cake? Would you eat it, or would you leave it on a floor next to your other boots for a few days, and then put your foot in it and walk with it through a forrest?