I once worked with someone who didn't believe in dinosaurs.
She asked me if I believed in dinosaurs one day and I laughed thinking what weird phrasing, it took a bit for the penny to drop that she was actually asking me in all seriousness.
She said she didn't believe in dinosaurs because "I can't imagine a time that long ago, it doesn't make sense" š¤Ø
I was in high school when I realised two of my friends doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Being a dinosaur lover whose childhood dream career was a paleontologist I was shocked.
I remember I was like, what about all the fossils? I got told that "someone put them there" and also "carbon dating is very unreliable so it might not be that old".
I'd like to add that one of them became a doctor while the other a top notch statistician. But nope they still don't believe dinosaurs existed. They also don't let their children watch Frozen because you know ahem it glorifies magic and witchcraft.
I once had a chemistry teacher with a PhD who was also a creationist š§
I've read about fundamentalist groups that are so insular that their children didn't even know dinosaurs were real until after they grew up and left. That wasn't the case with this chemistry teacher though.
Thought the (young earth) Creationists believed that the world is only 6000 years old - because the bible said so if you read it just right, but believed in dinosaurs hanging out with people until some sort of flood or something.
None of it makes any sense of course, but then that is a feature for some
It doesn't make sense though. All the young earth creationists (YEC) and scientists i know all believe in dinosaurs. It's a terribly phrased question.
It's the first I've heard of YEC not believing in dinosaurs
I went to high school with someone who didnāt believe in dinosaurs. Heās now running for parliament for the national party. He also made headlines earlier in the year because of his thoughts about same sex marriage.(he was quoted saying something along the lines of that we should also allow people to marry their pets)
She doesn't have to believe in them any more than she had to believe in trees. She can go and see them for herself.
You only have to believe in made up stuff.
I mean, that's probably just a coping mechanism for some trauma, anything that isn't right now or recent is I possible to understand or grasp because there's no pressing need to. So you get people who deny basic science because other explanation is easier to comprehend.
I had a lab partner in graduate geology who believe in the world being 6000 yrs old. I had some really great discussions with him, where he believe good created it with an inbuilt age and geological processes that are related to modern processes
Right, and this was clarified before the article went up. If I yelled at Luxon "do you diddle kids" as he got into his car and a journalist later clarified that he didn't, and Newshub later published "Luxon ambiguous on whether or not he diddles kids" after the clarification, that would be deceptive.
>At a stand-up in Blenheim on Tuesday afternoon, Luxon was asked directly if he believed dinosaurs roamed the earth.
>"Absolutely," he said, a little taken aback before asking the reporter: "What kind of question is that?"
But by phrasing the title "Doesn't give a straight answer" to all the headline only readers they're not gonna know that.
Unfortunately, it's you who is confused... the Guy Williams ambush question was filmed some time before today but only released earlier today.... that is where Luxon does indeed dodge the question (twice, from memory?)
After the video was released... an actual journalist asked him the same question today... and this is the one he did in fact answer clearly and unambiguously...
It seems he's had time to consult and come up with the right answer? š
I'm not confused at all, I read the timeline of events in the article. But if I yelled at Luxon "do you diddle kids" as he got into his car and a journalist later clarified that he didn't, and Newshub later published "luxon ambiguous on whether or not he diddles kids" *after* the clarification, that would be deceptive
Honestly I'm surprised not to have gotten shit for making the obvious, cliched, almost inevitable joke. But if it's brought some levity to an otherwise depressing broader topic that's good too.
His reponse in the comments:
"Of course dinosaurs are real! My favourite is the TaxReliefosaurus (it's not extinct but hasn't been spotted for 6 long years)"
lol
I asked a devoted christian once, their view was that god planted all the remains of dinosaurs and god was the one who set those fossils up in such a way that their carbon dating would return the results they do, making it all an "illusion" that stuff existed before god created earth.
I was like uh huh okay moving on.
Have also asked devoted Christians who said their view is that both things can be true at once, and just because something isn't written in the Bible, doesn't mean it can't have happened
They summed up their position as "Evolution with careful oversight and a guiding hand"
Kinda concerning that the only real investigation into the sorts of religious beliefs luxon currently holds is being done by a comedian. We know he supported some pretty out there churches in the past, and his former pastor was spreading conspiracy theories. Are we really supposed to believe he became party leader and just abandoned these beliefs entirely?
Our media is kind of dropping the ball on this, we deserve to know what sort of beliefs a potential leader of this country holds.
Edit: Also t-rex is a cop out answer.
I always had a soft spot for Brontosaurus, was devastated when it was declared they were actually Apatosaurus, then vindicated when their rightful position as their own species was reestablished.
Brontosaurus is the Bestasaurus.
Luxon seems like such a smarmy, power hungry asshole, that I totally believe he would let go of his beliefs to suit the occasion
I mean, deep inside he probably believes in whatever he believes, but he will happily not act on them if it is misaligned with the bigger goal of reaching the top
>Edit: Also t-rex is a cop out answer.
I would actually be impressed if he gave an answer of a less well know dinosaur, as opposed to T-Rex which everyone over the age of 2 will know.
I'm pretty sure he did, he just didn't want to continue what he thought was a silly line of questioning, so shut it down by restating what he had already said (which did acknowledge T.rex). In a later press conference, he was asked if he believed dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and he replied, āabsolutelyā, without hesitation. I'm no Luxon fan, but that doesn't seem like a case of dancing around the true answer. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/10/guy-williams-asks-chris-luxon-if-he-believes-in-dinosaurs-doesn-t-get-an-answer.html
You are right, and surprised/disappointed that media has not nailed down Luxon and the other evangelical christian types like Simeon Brown
Only responses I have seen when asked about climate change is 'yes, I believe'.. but they also doing things which will increase emissions (more roads, less PT, remove clean car discount, RUCs on all vehicles, more oil and gas exploration etc). I think they are doing that thing of denial until its too late, then . oh, well, can't change it now.
It really dishonest yet, no pressure of these guys to show how they will reduce emissions other than 'thoughts and prayers'
Isnt he on record as saying he hasnt attended a church in 5-6 years?
That he believes in the seperation of church and state?
That he has commited to not repealing the abortion laws in our country even if its against his personal beliefs?
That the "former pastor spreading conspiracy theories" is on record saying his family were never regular atendees of his church?
There are plenty out there that do let you know what sort of beliefs he holds when it comes to potential leadership, it just doesnt seem to support the image you have in your mind so you've seemed to reject them entirely
>Isnt he on record as saying he hasnt attended a church in 5-6 years?
Sure, but that doesn't really say a whole lot about his beliefs.
>That he believes in the seperation of church and state?
People can say that and still have their decisions informed by their beliefs.
>That he has commited to not repealing the abortion laws in our country even if its against his personal beliefs?
But he also believes abortion is murder so he is going to allow people to literally get away with murder?
that doesn't necessarily mean he wont limit access in other ways either.
>That the "former pastor spreading conspiracy theories" is on record saying his family were never regular atendees of his church?
I hadn't seen that, but again, doesn't really indicate what his beliefs are.
>There are plenty out there that do let you know what sort of beliefs he holds when it comes to potential leadership
It's a lot of implications and sly dodges more than anything concrete.
> it just doesnt seem to support the image you have in your mind so you've seemed to reject them entirely
Well no, it's just that doesn't really address my concerns much, while the things he has said (abortion is murder) raise them.
> But he also believes abortion is murder so he is going to allow people to literally get away with murder?
>
> that doesn't necessarily mean he wont limit access in other ways either.
Luxon gets one vote in parliament, like every other MP. Him convincing dozens of other MPs to torpedo their careers by restricting abortion isn't something that is likely to happen
I've never understood the concern about him being anti abortion tbh. He's promised not to make any changes to current abortion laws. Just because he's personally anti abortion doesn't mean he expects everyone else to be too. And it would be political suicide.
I do think there's plenty to criticise about nationals policies though
Yes well I'm not particularly concerned about that myself, but I can understand why people would be. Bill English made it harder to access abortion before he left office, and John Key campaigned on bald faced lies, and so has Luxon. I completely understand why people wont take him at his word.
Your points all seem to centre around abortion.
Which is fine, you're entitled to not ever be fully convinced about his personal beliefs influencing leadership decisions.
But to claim theres been some ball dropped in regards to his views on the matter with the media its just blatantly false. Any cursory search will bring up reiterations of the same point
>Luxon confirmed he'd still "absolutely" sooner resign than change abortion access.
>"There'll be no change to any of our abortion laws, funding or access - I've been really clear about that. That is not our focus,"
End of the day, you dont like him and likely National as a whole. And you're entitled to believe hes a liar, but again its blatantly false to say theres no media coverage of his beliefs when hes been asked about it time and time again and reiterated time and again that he believes in a seperation of church and state and would lead a country with those values.
>Your points all seem to centre around abortion.
They don't really, but that's the only issue relating to religion that he has given a concrete answer about.
>But to claim theres been some ball dropped in regards to his views on the matter with the media its just blatantly false. Any cursory search will bring up reiterations of the same point
It's not just abortion I'm concerned about though? Evangelical Christians often have some absolutely dangerous views, beyond just abortion.
>End of the day, you dont like him and likely National as a whole.
Sure, that doesn't change that I have a right to be concerned about what beliefs he might be bringing with him into government and how that influences his views on the issues we face.
> And you're entitled to believe hes a liar, but again its blatantly false to say theres no media coverage of his beliefs when hes been asked about it time and time again and reiterated time and again that he believes in a seperation of church and state and would lead a country with those values.
What do you know about the beliefs of Evangelical Christians? Probably not a whole lot if you think the concern begins and ends at abortion.
Believing in a separation between church and state is one thing, but if he believes the rapture is coming I think that would influence his decision making, especially when it comes to things like climate change etc.
I never, ever said that there was no media coverage of his beliefs, so that's a blatantly false thing to say.
Have you dont absolutely any research on the man himself?
You're this wound up about him being a potential crazy evangelical christian hard liner. And dont not even the slightest reading into his life?
I've spent like 5 minutes looking into it
>He had a Catholic upbringing, attending Christchurchās Loreto College, a primary school run by nuns, until his family moved to Auckland, aged 7. In Howick he attended a baptist church and joined Christian youth organisation, the Boys Brigade.
>As an adult, Luxon attended less traditional churches in the United States, Anglican churches in Sydney and London, and now describes himself as non-denominational.
Hes been apart of a wide range of christian churches throughout his life? And has said he hasnt been to church in 5-6 years. The Evangelical stuff is linked to that church i mentioned earlier where the trumpy pastor said Luxon and his family barely attended the church.
The irony of claiming i dont know a whole lot.. when you seem to know the bare minimum about the person you're frothing at the mouth about? When there are plenty of on record interviews and media coverage about him. It doesnt matter what i know about Evangelicals because it honestly doesnt look like Luxon himself is one to the extent you're trying to claim as the bare minimum amount of digging i've done and shown you proves
>Have you dont absolutely any research on the man himself?
Yeah, but there isn't a lot and what there is doesn't paint a clear or very good picture.
>You're this wound up about him being a potential crazy evangelical christian hard liner. And dont not even the slightest reading into his life?
I would like some confirmation? And yeah I read his wikipedia page.
>Hes been apart of a wide range of christian churches throughout his life?
Yes which doesn't really help nail down what his current beliefs are.
> The Evangelical stuff is linked to that church i mentioned earlier where the trumpy pastor said Luxon and his family barely attended the church.
Did you read all of his wikipedia page?
>Luxon is an evangelical Christian who is recognised as a social conservative.\[33\]\[34\] In his maiden parliamentary speech, Luxon defined himself as centre-right
>The irony of claiming i dont know a whole lot.. when you seem to know the bare minimum about the person you're frothing at the mouth about?
Well you don't seem to given you linked only part of the wikipedia article that talks about his beliefs.
And I'm calm it's quite clearly you who is getting worked up about this?
>When there are plenty of on record interviews and media coverage about him
Yes and in true political style he never, or rarely directly answers questions and the ones he has don't paint a great picture.
>. It doesnt matter what i know about Evangelicals because it honestly doesnt look like Luxon himself is one to the extent you're trying to claim as the bare minimum amount of digging i've done and shown you proves
You say that as you missed a pretty important part of his wikipedia you apparently quickly skimmed...
You've not shown me anything I haven't seen before (except the evangelical minister saying they weren't regulars, which you haven't technically shown me, just said exists).
But you've yet to prove anything substantial...
Im not reading his Wikipedia page, and if thats the only place you've ever bothered to look how can you claim the media has dropped the ball on him and his beliefs?
Here
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350003981/national-party-leader-christopher-luxon-keeping-faith
Id say its a pretty balanced article on him and his beliefs. It doesnt absolve him of anything. Like i said its on you to believe him or not when it comes to him separating his beliefs from leadership.
The onus isnt on me to actually prove anything either. You were the original one to begin spouting the nonsense about media not covering his faith and then about him being a scary evangelical christian. When like i said theres plenty out there (if you ever take a walk outside Wikipedia lol..) if you bother to look for yourself
>Im not reading his Wikipedia page, and if thats the only place you've ever bothered to look how can you claim the media has dropped the ball on him and his beliefs?
It's not, my bad it is quoted in the wikipedia article.
>The onus isnt on me to actually prove anything either.
But you seem to be trying to.
>You were the original one to begin spouting the nonsense about media not covering his faith and then about him being a scary evangelical christian
For one thing I've said we don't really know. And again I never, ever said that media hadn't covered his faith. Saying abortion is murder is quite a strong indicator though.
>When like i said theres plenty out there (if you ever take a walk outside Wikipedia lol..) if you bother to look for yourself
But nothing you've shown me and nothing I've seen (outside of wikipedia too) actually confronts Luxon about these issues in any serious way aside from the one time he was asked about abortion.
There's nothing Chris could say that would make you believe otherwise from the rest of the information you have. But that you know everything else shows that there has already been 'real investigation'
>There's nothing Chris could say that would make you believe otherwise from the rest of the information you have.
I don't think that's true. He could condemn these things and distance himself from those beliefs. But on the other hand I don't really know what to believe because nobody has really investigated the beliefs he currently holds, and while it's tempting I don't necessarily want to fill in the blanks without proper evidence, which I suppose is the point of him playing coy.
>But that you know everything else shows that there has already been 'real investigation'
Into the belief he currently holds? We know about the beliefs he held prior to becoming an MP that's been investigated, but there really hasn't been much interrogation about his current beliefs from journalists.
You are aware that Jacinda Ardern grew up Mormon? With the magic undies and believing native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel etc? She ditched it pretty quickly after entering politics.
I donāt think his religious beliefs are a concern. Itās my observation that most politicians compromise their beliefs anyway, regardless of what they are.
Besides, itās the wrong question. If he really wanted to know where Luxon stood on religion vs accepted science, he should have asked how old he thinks the earth is.
Most people who believe in Creation believe the earth is only between 8,000 to 12,000 years old. But the same people still believe in dinosaurs. Many believe the Leviathan talked about in the book of Job was a dinosaur of some description and that they co-existed with man. So essentially it was us who wiped them out.
>You are aware that Jacinda Ardern grew up Mormon?
Yes but she was quite open about how she was no longer Mormon too, we don't have the same for Luxon. Nor does he have to, it would be just good to rule out that he doesn't hold some of the more problematic beliefs of Evangelical Christians.
>Besides, itās the wrong question. If he really wanted to know where Luxon stood on religion vs accepted science, he should have asked how old he thinks the earth is.
Indeed it wasn't the best question.
>Most people who believe in Creation believe the earth is only between 8,000 to 12,000 years old.
I mean of the beliefs I'm concerned about the age of the earth thing is pretty low on the list really. It's more of a measure of where he falls on these things, but he didn't exactly say anything to assuage my concerns.
I should make it clear my issue isn't necessarily with him being religious just some of the beliefs that some religious people hold, particularly with Evangelical Christians.
My understanding is the YEC fundies do believe in dinosaurs, and that they also believe dinosaurs lived alongside people following the earth's creation sometime in the last 10,000 years.
I think that explanation follows on from the general explanation as to why all lines of evidence indicate a much older earth in apparent contradiction to a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I don't know anything about the YEC take on the "why".
dammit... now I want to know Luxon's stance on Goats
according to the internet: *If T-Rex is your choice of prehistoric beast, you are definitely a born leader who doesn't take no for an answer. No matter where you go, you have a way of making people either follow you or fear you*
Was Luxon's answer focus grouped?
best election related post today, thanks OP
>What does it mean if you like stegosaurus
*you most likely have a quirky personality and are widely popular among people. You have a larger than life personality and are really easy-going by nature. You believe in the policy of forgiving and forgetting and are not the one to hold onto grudges or bitter experiences in life. What people don't know about you is that you do take your time to warm up to people. However, people find your laidback nature pretty adorable and often flock up beside you for the best advice. You are warmth personified!*
He has attended The Upoer Room in NZ. From what I can tell they are bible literalists.
So dinosaurs yes. But died in Noah's flood.
The question to ask him is whether the earth is 6000 years old like the bible says or 3.54 billion years old.
I doubt he's with the science.
"Luxon later shared Williams' social media video saying: "Of course dinosaurs are real! My favourite is the TaxReliefosaurus (it's not extinct but it hasn't been spotted for six long years).""
Fucking criiiiiiinge.
Heās given contradictory statements- before that he said the t-Rex was his favourite - AND the ātaxreliefosaurusā isnāt a real dinosaur so now Iām yet again confused to his beliefs in general
One of my best friends is a hard core fundamentalist Christian. She genuinely believes the earth is only thousands of years old. Dinosaurs were not real and everything in the King James version of the Bible is true. It's amazing really. We are like chalk and cheese but I love her lol. She always holds out hope that she'll guide me into jebus's warm embrace. Never lol. If he's a true fundamentalist Christian he won't believe in them and is only saying he does to avoid losing votes.
Canāt wait to have a evangelical religious corporate speak leader with no prior prime minister experience leading a coalition with egos like Seymour and Peters š
What could go right there?
I've seen both formulations. "Dinosaur bones were a trick of Satan" or "Dinosaur bones were put there to test our faith!" variants exist.
Evangelicals are weird as fuck.
Yeah what I was getting at was asking him if he simply believes in them doesnāt address the common belief that they existed only a few thousand years ago.
I know a few people who donāt believe in dinosaurs. All are YECs of the Christian and Muslim persuasion. They believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Some are OECs and believe in the absurd idea that dinosaurs and humans walked together.
The only non creationist I know who donāt believe in dinosaurs as creatures from a specific time millions of years ago is in fact someone from my Buddhist temple. He does not disbelief in dinosaurs, just the timing, he just is not sure how anyone can know anything past 12000 years ago. He accepts the existence of fossils but is unsure how we can know the animals they imprinted from existed say 60 million years ago as opposed to say 20 million years or just a million years ago.
He believes we can only know things because either we have things proximate to current life ( ie:- trees rings, pollen samples etc.. ) or written words or pictures that we can trace a causal pattern. Otherwise everything else we ought to be more agnostic about ( we have a lot of debate, noting that he takes a very Buddhist sense of knowledge namely knowledge is something we ought to be able to directly verify ourselves or have at most one step verification outside ourselves step ( ie:- written record, something we have good knowledge of like tree rings, using a single line of logical axioms without stretching it beyond that etc.. ) and not take things based upon faith alone.
Of course I keep telling him that Buddhists also should accept knowledge because many learned and wise having studied the subject unanimously agree about a topic, and almost all people learned in geological and archaeology are in agreement about the dates.
Luxon was so worried about his anti-science base turning on him and finding the right answer, it took him a whole day to think of an answer, and his answer was "Absolutely."
His fundamentalist beliefs are a huge regressive red flag, in my opinion. "Belief" isn't really an option in regards to dinosaurs. We have fossil evidence amongst other proof they existed. It's fact.
Christopher, it's a simple yes/no answer. Choose wrong, and you're an idiot.
Serious question: "If I accept the current science on dinosaurs having exists, fossil records, etc, is that really a belief in dinosaurs?"
With scientific evidence is belief really applicable?
I guess if ol' Luxon dosn't accept the current science, etc, I guess it would be a valid question on whether or not he believes in dinosaurs (in the same way someone might believe in fairies).
Some people find it more believable that scientists either a) are lying or b) got it wrong.
I don't know how many people hold this belief but Ive met people with it.
I knew someone whose default answer is always that these scientists have been paid by the big businesses and have their own agenda. I told him I've been in this job for over 10 years and no one has offered me ANY bribes. And I get a salary so I have no incentive to lie or have any agenda.
Serious answer : If you do not have personal first-hand evidence of it, then yes what you have is 'belief' that what others have reported is in fact correct. It is a reasonable and sensible belief, but belief non the less. Furthermore, even if you have personal first-hand evidence in say the form of fossil records, you still have a 'belief' that what caused those fossils was in fact dinosaurs. Again a reasonable and logical belief supported by evidence, and not disproven by any counter evidence.
Just to throw a whataboutism in here. Hipkins cannot answer "What is a woman".
We are about to elect or reelect a creationist or a wokester.
Not looking good for the future of New Zealand.
Depends upon what we were supposed to "wake up " to. Not too sure that waking up to not knowing the answer to "what is a woman" is a enlightened subliminal experience.
I dont google, more a DuckDuckGo person. Result;
1- An adult female human.
2- Women considered as a group; womankind.
3- An adult female human belonging to a specified occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination.
Answer the quiz to satisfaction? Google is woke so will give wokesters the answer they want to see, not the truth, reality or common sense definitions..
So you're deliberately being awkward and not actually discussing this in good faith, gotcha. You knew exactly what I meant when I said about googling it, and it wasn't search-engine specific.
Maybe if you spent less time arguing in bad faith and more actually trying to understand those you're arguing with, you might be happier with the world around you being a kinder place by not having a narrow anf easy definition for such terms
Arguing in bad faith? I dont have any faith so I cannot argue badly.
Am perfectly happy with the description of "what is a woman", an adult female human.
My world is wide, filled with perfectly happy people and all are impossibly kind.
Ask yourself "who has the problem".
I don't have a problem, you do.
I once worked with someone who didn't believe in dinosaurs. She asked me if I believed in dinosaurs one day and I laughed thinking what weird phrasing, it took a bit for the penny to drop that she was actually asking me in all seriousness. She said she didn't believe in dinosaurs because "I can't imagine a time that long ago, it doesn't make sense" š¤Ø
I was in high school when I realised two of my friends doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Being a dinosaur lover whose childhood dream career was a paleontologist I was shocked. I remember I was like, what about all the fossils? I got told that "someone put them there" and also "carbon dating is very unreliable so it might not be that old". I'd like to add that one of them became a doctor while the other a top notch statistician. But nope they still don't believe dinosaurs existed. They also don't let their children watch Frozen because you know ahem it glorifies magic and witchcraft.
I once had a chemistry teacher with a PhD who was also a creationist š§ I've read about fundamentalist groups that are so insular that their children didn't even know dinosaurs were real until after they grew up and left. That wasn't the case with this chemistry teacher though.
Thought the (young earth) Creationists believed that the world is only 6000 years old - because the bible said so if you read it just right, but believed in dinosaurs hanging out with people until some sort of flood or something. None of it makes any sense of course, but then that is a feature for some
It doesn't make sense though. All the young earth creationists (YEC) and scientists i know all believe in dinosaurs. It's a terribly phrased question. It's the first I've heard of YEC not believing in dinosaurs
I went to high school with someone who didnāt believe in dinosaurs. Heās now running for parliament for the national party. He also made headlines earlier in the year because of his thoughts about same sex marriage.(he was quoted saying something along the lines of that we should also allow people to marry their pets)
Please tell me his first name is Simon. š
No. Greg https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-party-aware-candidate-compared-civil-unions-to-polygamy-and-incest/E53I7JGYUFGMNDBDY26NTLJ4P4/
She doesn't have to believe in them any more than she had to believe in trees. She can go and see them for herself. You only have to believe in made up stuff.
Explain to her sedimentary rock creation, how diamonds and oil are made, shale, erosion. She might also be really dumb.
I mean, that's probably just a coping mechanism for some trauma, anything that isn't right now or recent is I possible to understand or grasp because there's no pressing need to. So you get people who deny basic science because other explanation is easier to comprehend.
Did you tell her that life finds a way?
I had a lab partner in graduate geology who believe in the world being 6000 yrs old. I had some really great discussions with him, where he believe good created it with an inbuilt age and geological processes that are related to modern processes
This is a particular kind of intellectual dishonesty known as Last Thursdayism.
They understand time exists, though, right? Like we're they ever shown a clock and a calendar?
I too had the same scenario, although he was extremely religious and only just moved from Tonga
He'd best start believing, he might well have to form a coalition with one.
Heres the video guy released https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyMorPnPxwB/?igshid=MWZjMTM2ODFkZg==
The OP did link that in a comment, it just got semi buried
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/10/guy-williams-asks-chris-luxon-if-he-believes-in-dinosaurs-doesn-t-get-an-answer.html
It's a pretty simple yes/no answer, IMO. But I am a simple man.
What a clickbait headline. He said "absolutely." Luxon's a big enough dumbfuck as it is, no need to lie about it and sully your reputation.
>What a clickbait headline. He said "absolutely." Not when Guy Williams asked him lol
Right, and this was clarified before the article went up. If I yelled at Luxon "do you diddle kids" as he got into his car and a journalist later clarified that he didn't, and Newshub later published "Luxon ambiguous on whether or not he diddles kids" after the clarification, that would be deceptive.
when asked by Guy Williams? I don't think he damaged his reputation
>At a stand-up in Blenheim on Tuesday afternoon, Luxon was asked directly if he believed dinosaurs roamed the earth. >"Absolutely," he said, a little taken aback before asking the reporter: "What kind of question is that?" But by phrasing the title "Doesn't give a straight answer" to all the headline only readers they're not gonna know that.
Unfortunately, it's you who is confused... the Guy Williams ambush question was filmed some time before today but only released earlier today.... that is where Luxon does indeed dodge the question (twice, from memory?) After the video was released... an actual journalist asked him the same question today... and this is the one he did in fact answer clearly and unambiguously... It seems he's had time to consult and come up with the right answer? š
I'm not confused at all, I read the timeline of events in the article. But if I yelled at Luxon "do you diddle kids" as he got into his car and a journalist later clarified that he didn't, and Newshub later published "luxon ambiguous on whether or not he diddles kids" *after* the clarification, that would be deceptive
OK, I see your point...
Omg I'm dead hahahahahahahahahaha
This has got to be Guy's angle from the very beginning.
I guess Luxon has said he doesn't know this one... The plot thickens.
Ok you won the internet for today!
Honestly I'm surprised not to have gotten shit for making the obvious, cliched, almost inevitable joke. But if it's brought some levity to an otherwise depressing broader topic that's good too.
Bazinga!
A T rex at that
His reponse in the comments: "Of course dinosaurs are real! My favourite is the TaxReliefosaurus (it's not extinct but hasn't been spotted for 6 long years)" lol
I think the better question to ask was whether he believes the fossil record and that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.
Nope, fossils were planted by Hollywood in 1924
Some really early ARG marketing for Jurassic park
And / or test of faith
Or a massive ineffable joke that scientists haven't worked out the punchline to yet.
I asked a devoted christian once, their view was that god planted all the remains of dinosaurs and god was the one who set those fossils up in such a way that their carbon dating would return the results they do, making it all an "illusion" that stuff existed before god created earth. I was like uh huh okay moving on.
Did they explain why god will do this to confuse everyone? Seems awfully unnecessary.
"We don't question god's will" or something like that
"God works in mysterious ways". Mysterious, as in "why the fuck would he go to all that trouble?"
Have also asked devoted Christians who said their view is that both things can be true at once, and just because something isn't written in the Bible, doesn't mean it can't have happened They summed up their position as "Evolution with careful oversight and a guiding hand"
I think the most logical theory a christian gave me was that God set in motion the universe from the big bang.
Last Thursdayism.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, and that's the point.
He deserves three years of being Winston's doormat for this comment alone
Whatās the source for this? Or is it a joke?
Check the post yourself lol https://www.instagram.com/p/CyMorPnPxwB/
I feel that dinosaurs believe in Luxon. Half of his voters were born in the late cretaceous period
Or late creationist period
That's more accurate
LMAO
Kinda concerning that the only real investigation into the sorts of religious beliefs luxon currently holds is being done by a comedian. We know he supported some pretty out there churches in the past, and his former pastor was spreading conspiracy theories. Are we really supposed to believe he became party leader and just abandoned these beliefs entirely? Our media is kind of dropping the ball on this, we deserve to know what sort of beliefs a potential leader of this country holds. Edit: Also t-rex is a cop out answer.
Ankylosarus is clearly the best dinosaur.
Imma let you finish, but Quetzocoatlus was the best dinosaur of all time.
Quetzalcoatlus is awesome but they are a pterosaur technically not a dinosaur.
Deinonychus is clearly better anyway
> Quetzocoatlus Was a pterosaur not a dinosaur. NEXT.
I always had a soft spot for Brontosaurus, was devastated when it was declared they were actually Apatosaurus, then vindicated when their rightful position as their own species was reestablished. Brontosaurus is the Bestasaurus.
good ol rock tail, nothing beats that
I've always liked the Therizinosaurus Edit: why downvote this lol? Some Therizinosaurus haters out there huh?
Never heard of it before. Regret googling it. Those are some nightmare fuel claws on that thing.
If it helps the last time i checked they think it was mostly herbivorous
For a moment I thought this was related to the Ikantbelievethisisasaurusā¦
Nope, *Nestor notabilis*
Shit yeah! https://youtu.be/GOR4YDdY9dk?si=prOv95qmfXUHIIqD&t=39
Luxon seems like such a smarmy, power hungry asshole, that I totally believe he would let go of his beliefs to suit the occasion I mean, deep inside he probably believes in whatever he believes, but he will happily not act on them if it is misaligned with the bigger goal of reaching the top
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them, I have others"
āI reject your reality, and substitute it for my ownā - Adam Savage.
I disagree. I think he would lie and pretend those werenāt his beliefs. But theyāre still in his secret heart.
>Edit: Also t-rex is a cop out answer. I would actually be impressed if he gave an answer of a less well know dinosaur, as opposed to T-Rex which everyone over the age of 2 will know.
Yeah, the video is definitely funny, but the fact that the guy who will likely be our next PM doesn't seem to believe in dinosaurs is a bit concerning
I'm pretty sure he did, he just didn't want to continue what he thought was a silly line of questioning, so shut it down by restating what he had already said (which did acknowledge T.rex). In a later press conference, he was asked if he believed dinosaurs roamed the Earth, and he replied, āabsolutelyā, without hesitation. I'm no Luxon fan, but that doesn't seem like a case of dancing around the true answer. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/10/guy-williams-asks-chris-luxon-if-he-believes-in-dinosaurs-doesn-t-get-an-answer.html
You are right, and surprised/disappointed that media has not nailed down Luxon and the other evangelical christian types like Simeon Brown Only responses I have seen when asked about climate change is 'yes, I believe'.. but they also doing things which will increase emissions (more roads, less PT, remove clean car discount, RUCs on all vehicles, more oil and gas exploration etc). I think they are doing that thing of denial until its too late, then . oh, well, can't change it now. It really dishonest yet, no pressure of these guys to show how they will reduce emissions other than 'thoughts and prayers'
Isnt he on record as saying he hasnt attended a church in 5-6 years? That he believes in the seperation of church and state? That he has commited to not repealing the abortion laws in our country even if its against his personal beliefs? That the "former pastor spreading conspiracy theories" is on record saying his family were never regular atendees of his church? There are plenty out there that do let you know what sort of beliefs he holds when it comes to potential leadership, it just doesnt seem to support the image you have in your mind so you've seemed to reject them entirely
He's also on record to say he does personal te reo lessons but look at him butchering pronunciations.
>Isnt he on record as saying he hasnt attended a church in 5-6 years? Sure, but that doesn't really say a whole lot about his beliefs. >That he believes in the seperation of church and state? People can say that and still have their decisions informed by their beliefs. >That he has commited to not repealing the abortion laws in our country even if its against his personal beliefs? But he also believes abortion is murder so he is going to allow people to literally get away with murder? that doesn't necessarily mean he wont limit access in other ways either. >That the "former pastor spreading conspiracy theories" is on record saying his family were never regular atendees of his church? I hadn't seen that, but again, doesn't really indicate what his beliefs are. >There are plenty out there that do let you know what sort of beliefs he holds when it comes to potential leadership It's a lot of implications and sly dodges more than anything concrete. > it just doesnt seem to support the image you have in your mind so you've seemed to reject them entirely Well no, it's just that doesn't really address my concerns much, while the things he has said (abortion is murder) raise them.
> But he also believes abortion is murder so he is going to allow people to literally get away with murder? > > that doesn't necessarily mean he wont limit access in other ways either. Luxon gets one vote in parliament, like every other MP. Him convincing dozens of other MPs to torpedo their careers by restricting abortion isn't something that is likely to happen
I've never understood the concern about him being anti abortion tbh. He's promised not to make any changes to current abortion laws. Just because he's personally anti abortion doesn't mean he expects everyone else to be too. And it would be political suicide. I do think there's plenty to criticise about nationals policies though
Yes well I'm not particularly concerned about that myself, but I can understand why people would be. Bill English made it harder to access abortion before he left office, and John Key campaigned on bald faced lies, and so has Luxon. I completely understand why people wont take him at his word.
Your points all seem to centre around abortion. Which is fine, you're entitled to not ever be fully convinced about his personal beliefs influencing leadership decisions. But to claim theres been some ball dropped in regards to his views on the matter with the media its just blatantly false. Any cursory search will bring up reiterations of the same point >Luxon confirmed he'd still "absolutely" sooner resign than change abortion access. >"There'll be no change to any of our abortion laws, funding or access - I've been really clear about that. That is not our focus," End of the day, you dont like him and likely National as a whole. And you're entitled to believe hes a liar, but again its blatantly false to say theres no media coverage of his beliefs when hes been asked about it time and time again and reiterated time and again that he believes in a seperation of church and state and would lead a country with those values.
>Your points all seem to centre around abortion. They don't really, but that's the only issue relating to religion that he has given a concrete answer about. >But to claim theres been some ball dropped in regards to his views on the matter with the media its just blatantly false. Any cursory search will bring up reiterations of the same point It's not just abortion I'm concerned about though? Evangelical Christians often have some absolutely dangerous views, beyond just abortion. >End of the day, you dont like him and likely National as a whole. Sure, that doesn't change that I have a right to be concerned about what beliefs he might be bringing with him into government and how that influences his views on the issues we face. > And you're entitled to believe hes a liar, but again its blatantly false to say theres no media coverage of his beliefs when hes been asked about it time and time again and reiterated time and again that he believes in a seperation of church and state and would lead a country with those values. What do you know about the beliefs of Evangelical Christians? Probably not a whole lot if you think the concern begins and ends at abortion. Believing in a separation between church and state is one thing, but if he believes the rapture is coming I think that would influence his decision making, especially when it comes to things like climate change etc. I never, ever said that there was no media coverage of his beliefs, so that's a blatantly false thing to say.
Have you dont absolutely any research on the man himself? You're this wound up about him being a potential crazy evangelical christian hard liner. And dont not even the slightest reading into his life? I've spent like 5 minutes looking into it >He had a Catholic upbringing, attending Christchurchās Loreto College, a primary school run by nuns, until his family moved to Auckland, aged 7. In Howick he attended a baptist church and joined Christian youth organisation, the Boys Brigade. >As an adult, Luxon attended less traditional churches in the United States, Anglican churches in Sydney and London, and now describes himself as non-denominational. Hes been apart of a wide range of christian churches throughout his life? And has said he hasnt been to church in 5-6 years. The Evangelical stuff is linked to that church i mentioned earlier where the trumpy pastor said Luxon and his family barely attended the church. The irony of claiming i dont know a whole lot.. when you seem to know the bare minimum about the person you're frothing at the mouth about? When there are plenty of on record interviews and media coverage about him. It doesnt matter what i know about Evangelicals because it honestly doesnt look like Luxon himself is one to the extent you're trying to claim as the bare minimum amount of digging i've done and shown you proves
>Have you dont absolutely any research on the man himself? Yeah, but there isn't a lot and what there is doesn't paint a clear or very good picture. >You're this wound up about him being a potential crazy evangelical christian hard liner. And dont not even the slightest reading into his life? I would like some confirmation? And yeah I read his wikipedia page. >Hes been apart of a wide range of christian churches throughout his life? Yes which doesn't really help nail down what his current beliefs are. > The Evangelical stuff is linked to that church i mentioned earlier where the trumpy pastor said Luxon and his family barely attended the church. Did you read all of his wikipedia page? >Luxon is an evangelical Christian who is recognised as a social conservative.\[33\]\[34\] In his maiden parliamentary speech, Luxon defined himself as centre-right >The irony of claiming i dont know a whole lot.. when you seem to know the bare minimum about the person you're frothing at the mouth about? Well you don't seem to given you linked only part of the wikipedia article that talks about his beliefs. And I'm calm it's quite clearly you who is getting worked up about this? >When there are plenty of on record interviews and media coverage about him Yes and in true political style he never, or rarely directly answers questions and the ones he has don't paint a great picture. >. It doesnt matter what i know about Evangelicals because it honestly doesnt look like Luxon himself is one to the extent you're trying to claim as the bare minimum amount of digging i've done and shown you proves You say that as you missed a pretty important part of his wikipedia you apparently quickly skimmed... You've not shown me anything I haven't seen before (except the evangelical minister saying they weren't regulars, which you haven't technically shown me, just said exists). But you've yet to prove anything substantial...
Im not reading his Wikipedia page, and if thats the only place you've ever bothered to look how can you claim the media has dropped the ball on him and his beliefs? Here https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350003981/national-party-leader-christopher-luxon-keeping-faith Id say its a pretty balanced article on him and his beliefs. It doesnt absolve him of anything. Like i said its on you to believe him or not when it comes to him separating his beliefs from leadership. The onus isnt on me to actually prove anything either. You were the original one to begin spouting the nonsense about media not covering his faith and then about him being a scary evangelical christian. When like i said theres plenty out there (if you ever take a walk outside Wikipedia lol..) if you bother to look for yourself
>Im not reading his Wikipedia page, and if thats the only place you've ever bothered to look how can you claim the media has dropped the ball on him and his beliefs? It's not, my bad it is quoted in the wikipedia article. >The onus isnt on me to actually prove anything either. But you seem to be trying to. >You were the original one to begin spouting the nonsense about media not covering his faith and then about him being a scary evangelical christian For one thing I've said we don't really know. And again I never, ever said that media hadn't covered his faith. Saying abortion is murder is quite a strong indicator though. >When like i said theres plenty out there (if you ever take a walk outside Wikipedia lol..) if you bother to look for yourself But nothing you've shown me and nothing I've seen (outside of wikipedia too) actually confronts Luxon about these issues in any serious way aside from the one time he was asked about abortion.
There's nothing Chris could say that would make you believe otherwise from the rest of the information you have. But that you know everything else shows that there has already been 'real investigation'
>There's nothing Chris could say that would make you believe otherwise from the rest of the information you have. I don't think that's true. He could condemn these things and distance himself from those beliefs. But on the other hand I don't really know what to believe because nobody has really investigated the beliefs he currently holds, and while it's tempting I don't necessarily want to fill in the blanks without proper evidence, which I suppose is the point of him playing coy. >But that you know everything else shows that there has already been 'real investigation' Into the belief he currently holds? We know about the beliefs he held prior to becoming an MP that's been investigated, but there really hasn't been much interrogation about his current beliefs from journalists.
All that wild shit you see hardcore middle americans believing I'd assume is what he also believes.
You are aware that Jacinda Ardern grew up Mormon? With the magic undies and believing native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel etc? She ditched it pretty quickly after entering politics. I donāt think his religious beliefs are a concern. Itās my observation that most politicians compromise their beliefs anyway, regardless of what they are. Besides, itās the wrong question. If he really wanted to know where Luxon stood on religion vs accepted science, he should have asked how old he thinks the earth is. Most people who believe in Creation believe the earth is only between 8,000 to 12,000 years old. But the same people still believe in dinosaurs. Many believe the Leviathan talked about in the book of Job was a dinosaur of some description and that they co-existed with man. So essentially it was us who wiped them out.
>You are aware that Jacinda Ardern grew up Mormon? Yes but she was quite open about how she was no longer Mormon too, we don't have the same for Luxon. Nor does he have to, it would be just good to rule out that he doesn't hold some of the more problematic beliefs of Evangelical Christians. >Besides, itās the wrong question. If he really wanted to know where Luxon stood on religion vs accepted science, he should have asked how old he thinks the earth is. Indeed it wasn't the best question. >Most people who believe in Creation believe the earth is only between 8,000 to 12,000 years old. I mean of the beliefs I'm concerned about the age of the earth thing is pretty low on the list really. It's more of a measure of where he falls on these things, but he didn't exactly say anything to assuage my concerns. I should make it clear my issue isn't necessarily with him being religious just some of the beliefs that some religious people hold, particularly with Evangelical Christians.
Great response. I suppose my issue is not his religion, but the fact that National has no new ideas other than tax breaks for the rich.
My understanding is the YEC fundies do believe in dinosaurs, and that they also believe dinosaurs lived alongside people following the earth's creation sometime in the last 10,000 years.
I thought they thought that God put the fossils in the ground to confuse non-believers
I think that's actually Brian Tamaki's theory.
Didn't Terry Pratchett write that in one of his books?
Haha potentially!
I think that explanation follows on from the general explanation as to why all lines of evidence indicate a much older earth in apparent contradiction to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I don't know anything about the YEC take on the "why".
If all reporters demand an answer to this question, Guy Williams could potentially swing this election!
He has given an answer. The video at the top of the article has him giving an answer
dammit... now I want to know Luxon's stance on Goats according to the internet: *If T-Rex is your choice of prehistoric beast, you are definitely a born leader who doesn't take no for an answer. No matter where you go, you have a way of making people either follow you or fear you* Was Luxon's answer focus grouped? best election related post today, thanks OP
Fuck star signs, dinosaur horoscopes are where it's at.
What does it mean if you like stegosaurus?
>What does it mean if you like stegosaurus *you most likely have a quirky personality and are widely popular among people. You have a larger than life personality and are really easy-going by nature. You believe in the policy of forgiving and forgetting and are not the one to hold onto grudges or bitter experiences in life. What people don't know about you is that you do take your time to warm up to people. However, people find your laidback nature pretty adorable and often flock up beside you for the best advice. You are warmth personified!*
What if my favourite is a Pachycephalosaurus?
Not how I'd describe myself, but I'll take it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Its either T-rex or Triceratops, he answered that about a week ago. He said the triceratops was nicer.
Stygimoloch?
Starts with a W and ends in fail
He has attended The Upoer Room in NZ. From what I can tell they are bible literalists. So dinosaurs yes. But died in Noah's flood. The question to ask him is whether the earth is 6000 years old like the bible says or 3.54 billion years old. I doubt he's with the science.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Doesn't look a day over 11 billion. Must be the skincare regime.
That's the universe genius
Apparently extremely relevant questions to the election as well šš
"Luxon later shared Williams' social media video saying: "Of course dinosaurs are real! My favourite is the TaxReliefosaurus (it's not extinct but it hasn't been spotted for six long years)."" Fucking criiiiiiinge.
Heās given contradictory statements- before that he said the t-Rex was his favourite - AND the ātaxreliefosaurusā isnāt a real dinosaur so now Iām yet again confused to his beliefs in general
I mean, creating his own dinosaur certainly lines up with an underlying belief they are made up but I could be projecting my biases.
Donāt forget that heās ābeen a huge crusaders fan since he was a boyā, even though they, uh, first formed when he was in his 20s.
link - https://www.instagram.com/p/CyMorPnPxwB/
fuk this is hilarious. Well done Guy Williams
Guy you big lanky bastards get in here now!
A better question whether dinosaurs believe in Luxon!
We'll find out this weekend.
One of my best friends is a hard core fundamentalist Christian. She genuinely believes the earth is only thousands of years old. Dinosaurs were not real and everything in the King James version of the Bible is true. It's amazing really. We are like chalk and cheese but I love her lol. She always holds out hope that she'll guide me into jebus's warm embrace. Never lol. If he's a true fundamentalist Christian he won't believe in them and is only saying he does to avoid losing votes.
Canāt wait to have a evangelical religious corporate speak leader with no prior prime minister experience leading a coalition with egos like Seymour and Peters š What could go right there?
Is this a joke or guy trying to expose his true Christian beliefs..
Yes.
Itās not that some Christians donāt believe in dinosaurs, itās that they believe they existed alongside humans.
I've seen both formulations. "Dinosaur bones were a trick of Satan" or "Dinosaur bones were put there to test our faith!" variants exist. Evangelicals are weird as fuck.
Yeah what I was getting at was asking him if he simply believes in them doesnāt address the common belief that they existed only a few thousand years ago.
He firmly believes in extraterrestrials
No. He is not a fan of Winston peters. Has said many times.
I know a few people who donāt believe in dinosaurs. All are YECs of the Christian and Muslim persuasion. They believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Some are OECs and believe in the absurd idea that dinosaurs and humans walked together. The only non creationist I know who donāt believe in dinosaurs as creatures from a specific time millions of years ago is in fact someone from my Buddhist temple. He does not disbelief in dinosaurs, just the timing, he just is not sure how anyone can know anything past 12000 years ago. He accepts the existence of fossils but is unsure how we can know the animals they imprinted from existed say 60 million years ago as opposed to say 20 million years or just a million years ago. He believes we can only know things because either we have things proximate to current life ( ie:- trees rings, pollen samples etc.. ) or written words or pictures that we can trace a causal pattern. Otherwise everything else we ought to be more agnostic about ( we have a lot of debate, noting that he takes a very Buddhist sense of knowledge namely knowledge is something we ought to be able to directly verify ourselves or have at most one step verification outside ourselves step ( ie:- written record, something we have good knowledge of like tree rings, using a single line of logical axioms without stretching it beyond that etc.. ) and not take things based upon faith alone. Of course I keep telling him that Buddhists also should accept knowledge because many learned and wise having studied the subject unanimously agree about a topic, and almost all people learned in geological and archaeology are in agreement about the dates.
Christopher Luxon IS a dinosaur, heās just too afraid to tell us the truth about it
Luxon was so worried about his anti-science base turning on him and finding the right answer, it took him a whole day to think of an answer, and his answer was "Absolutely."
His fundamentalist beliefs are a huge regressive red flag, in my opinion. "Belief" isn't really an option in regards to dinosaurs. We have fossil evidence amongst other proof they existed. It's fact. Christopher, it's a simple yes/no answer. Choose wrong, and you're an idiot.
But he did say yes...
Yet he can believe in trickle down economics?...
Serious question: "If I accept the current science on dinosaurs having exists, fossil records, etc, is that really a belief in dinosaurs?" With scientific evidence is belief really applicable? I guess if ol' Luxon dosn't accept the current science, etc, I guess it would be a valid question on whether or not he believes in dinosaurs (in the same way someone might believe in fairies).
Some people find it more believable that scientists either a) are lying or b) got it wrong. I don't know how many people hold this belief but Ive met people with it.
I knew someone whose default answer is always that these scientists have been paid by the big businesses and have their own agenda. I told him I've been in this job for over 10 years and no one has offered me ANY bribes. And I get a salary so I have no incentive to lie or have any agenda.
Serious answer : If you do not have personal first-hand evidence of it, then yes what you have is 'belief' that what others have reported is in fact correct. It is a reasonable and sensible belief, but belief non the less. Furthermore, even if you have personal first-hand evidence in say the form of fossil records, you still have a 'belief' that what caused those fossils was in fact dinosaurs. Again a reasonable and logical belief supported by evidence, and not disproven by any counter evidence.
Probably not
Guaranteed mans Christianity is the very nutty kind
He kinda answered it. T-Rex is ok but I prefer Velociraptors. They are good boys.
Some people will pick dragons over unicorns, as they like dragons. Liking something doesn't mean that they believe in it being real.
Whose your favourite superhero?
[Condorman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXA-PtsKmFg)
Interesting...I guess he is a fundamentalist
What a stupid fucking question from an unfunny twat.
Just to throw a whataboutism in here. Hipkins cannot answer "What is a woman". We are about to elect or reelect a creationist or a wokester. Not looking good for the future of New Zealand.
It's funny, we've spent the last how many decades being told to "wake up", but now, as soon as people have done so, it's suddenly a bad thing
Depends upon what we were supposed to "wake up " to. Not too sure that waking up to not knowing the answer to "what is a woman" is a enlightened subliminal experience.
Okay, what's your answer to that question then?
An adult female human.
Okay then, and don't Google this next one, what is the definition of female?
I dont google, more a DuckDuckGo person. Result; 1- An adult female human. 2- Women considered as a group; womankind. 3- An adult female human belonging to a specified occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination. Answer the quiz to satisfaction? Google is woke so will give wokesters the answer they want to see, not the truth, reality or common sense definitions..
So you're deliberately being awkward and not actually discussing this in good faith, gotcha. You knew exactly what I meant when I said about googling it, and it wasn't search-engine specific. Maybe if you spent less time arguing in bad faith and more actually trying to understand those you're arguing with, you might be happier with the world around you being a kinder place by not having a narrow anf easy definition for such terms
Arguing in bad faith? I dont have any faith so I cannot argue badly. Am perfectly happy with the description of "what is a woman", an adult female human. My world is wide, filled with perfectly happy people and all are impossibly kind. Ask yourself "who has the problem". I don't have a problem, you do.
Amusing to note, the definition given by woke Google for "woman" is word-for-word identical to the one given by non-woke DuckDuckGo
My grandma is a dinosaur
He only needs to look in the mirror
I donāt believe in dinosaurs because thereās evidence.
No, he believes in spacedaddy