|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Why can't Leftists tell the difference between a socially determined attitude and a natural fact. Anxiety over sharing a bathroom with someone with a different number of X chromosomes is a socially determined attitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
There's no way for me to have lost such an argument with an idiot atheist Leftist. An interesting hypothesis, but as you often lose arguments with me, either it is false or I am not an idiot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Where did I say "abomination?" Seriously?
Message 91quote: Message 100quote: Message 83quote: When little girls would rather wet their pants than go into a bathroom with boys you are in the wrong to force it on them. What about 'little boys' who would rather wet their pants than go to into a bathroom with boys? Are you wrong to force it on them? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
I listened to Horowitz's speech. It's, sadly, a textbook example of ignoring empirical reality to suit political agenda. Nothing new there, and I was hoping for so much more.
Anyway, now maybe you can explain why: - You (presumably) think it's okay for American revolutionaries in 1775 and beyond to use violence against the state, but Black Panthers in the 60s are branded as "thugs" for resisting state-sanctioned violence with violence. - You think it's okay for Trump to launch his entire campaign by painting undocumented immigrants as rapists and criminals, which flies in the face of reality. - You think that national security is better preserved by banning or instituting "extreme vetting" of Muslim refugees instead of putting in place extreme vetting for all males, regardless of religious identity or national origin. The "national security" argument for barring or limiting Muslim refugees is egregious nonsense because the predominant predictor of violence is the gender of an individual, and not religion or national origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Faith writes:
quote: And exactly how is that an issue of going to the bathroom? Is there something you're trying to tell us, Faith? Are you one of those sexual perverts who looks at the genitalia of other people in the bathroom? Because last time I checked, there were privacy devices in bathrooms to prevent that. You would have to go out of your way to actually see another person's genitalia in a bathroom. The stalls have doors and walls for a reason. There are partitions between the urinals for a reason. So since you seem to have first hand experience of seeing other people's genitalia when in the bathroom, what on earth were you doing? How did you manage to not get arrested? Remember: More Republican congresscritters have been arrested for sex crimes in bathrooms than transgender people have. And since you seem to think it's so cut-and-dried, let me ask for your sage advice: An XY individual with testosterone resistance wants to go to the bathroom. The gonads are differentiated testicles, but they are internal to the body. The external genitalia is of a vagina, but there is no uterus or cervix and the vagina ends blindly because of this. There is some breast growth. Where does this person go to the bathroom? The person is chromosomally male. Any genetic test would indicate male. But, this person has no external sign of being male. Oh, wait...I realize I made an assumption: I assumed that you would allow this person to go to a public restroom at all. This person is now forced to use the women's bathroom:
This 14-year-old is now forced to use the men's bathroom:
Why do you want that little girl in the men's room, Faith?
quote: Assuming that, one has to wonder why you want to force women into the men's room. Remember: A trans woman is a woman. Therefore, she belongs in the women's bathroom. But you want to forcer her into the men's room. All because you have an obsession with her genitalia which you seem to be admitting you go out of your way to see when in the bathroom.Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The term in the Bible, not my term then. When you say I called it an abomination it of course implied that I called it an abomination. I was pondering what it meant that the Bible did, as of course you know, Mod.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What I want is an admission that the LGBTQ agenda to change bathroom use has serious problems that need to be addressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Anyway, now maybe you can explain why: - You (presumably) think it's okay for American revolutionaries in 1775 and beyond to use violence against the state, but Black Panthers in the 60s are branded as "thugs" for resisting state-sanctioned violence with violence. Wow, you ARE a Leftie and a half. There was of course no state sanctioned violence. And the American Revolutionaries did no violence whatever in "resisting" the tyranny of Britain, unless you call throwing a lot of tea into the ocean violence. You can't justify Black Panther thuggery, it's criminal, period. However, you are describing a condition of war. If they are at war with the US, then the US can send troops against them. War isn't "okay," you have to fight it and you might lose. Britain came over to fight us, remember? We luckily won. If the Black Panthers want to declare war and go the same route I think they need a better cause than the one they have, but that's their problem, not mine. Let them declare war and take their chances.
You think it's okay for Trump to launch his entire campaign by painting undocumented immigrants as rapists and criminals, which flies in the face of reality. What a screaming lie. That is not what he did and you know it.
- You think that national security is better preserved by banning or instituting "extreme vetting" of Muslim refugees instead of putting in place extreme vetting for all males, regardless of religious identity or national origin. Lies and lunacy both. The problem isn't people, as I've said many times, it's the IDEOLOGY. Islam is the threat to national security. We could welcome in thousands of Arabs if they weren't Muslims, if they were Christians or even atheists, and especially if they are well educated. They would be an asset to the nation, men or women. Like a typical leftie to you everything is about people, like about race, and you project it on everybody else and you can't think about ideas or merit which is what it is really all about. But perhaps you're just very young and recently indoctrinated in the universities.
The "national security" argument for barring or limiting Muslim refugees is egregious nonsense because the predominant predictor of violence is the gender of an individual, and not religion or national origin. You are some kind of joke. I'm just sorry American universities have turned out such ignorant people. ABE: What I think is desperately needed in this country is a counter-university system that actually teaches people how to think instead of indoctrinating them in ridiculous political stupidities. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What I want is an admission that the LGBTQ agenda to change bathroom use has serious problems that need to be addressed. It has no problems, Faith, and nor is it a change. You think that up until now this guy has been going in the ladies' room like conservatives want him to but now suddenly he's gotten all bolshy and is demanding to go in the gents'? Other way round, Faith. He has of course been using the gents' all this time, which caused absolutely no "serious problems" to anyone, and now suddenly conservatives are demanding that he should be compelled by law to use the ladies' room, to his distress and quite possibly that of the other patrons.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There is no problem, as far as I know, if someone can pass for the sex that belongs in the bathroom of choice. Duh. that is not the problem I'm talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There is no problem, as far as I know, if someone can pass for the sex that belongs in the bathroom of choice. So, you think the new laws being imposed by conservatives are stupid? Good.
Duh. that is not the problem I'm talking about. Well, that's the problem your fellow-conservatives are all trying to fix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
No, there are real problems that need addressing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, there are real problems that need addressing. Namely? What bad things have happened as a result of the absence of dumb conservative bathroom laws?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If a person can't get away with using the bathroom of choice and freaks out little kids or other human beings, there is a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If a person can't get away with using the bathroom of choice and freaks out little kids or other human beings, there is a problem. I asked "what bad things have happened" for want of these dumb laws, not "what bad things can you imagine". So, can you point me to an actual problem rather than ifs and buts? Just one instance? C'mon, when liberals want more gun control, they can point to at least one instance of someone being shot. Maybe even more! And yet that doesn't convince you for some reason. But conservatives want us to adopt rules and regulations which would prevent something of which there are apparently no instances. Given the obvious disadvantages of such laws, explained upthread, I would be reluctant to impose them to prevent something which has never actually occurred. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024