You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Since you support certain things on the fringe going mainstream, may I ask where you draw the line? When society has reached a point that boys are wearing dresses, "genderfluid", etc. it is not blurring the line...it's erasing it. Once the line is erased, what's next on tap? Is it not the "land of the free" to you until literally anyone can do literally anything?
The definition of mainstream always changes over time, and it always irks some people when it does. Lots of things that were shocking 30 years ago are absolutely completely normal today. You can debate on whether or not those change are for the better, but that debate is always going to be subjective. So no, I don't think there's a hard line that persists throughout time, there's only a line (and a fuzzy one at that) that defines what is currently acceptable. The only objective metric I can think of is that you're free to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't impact anyone who's unwilling to participate. In other words rape will always be objectively bad, but consenting sodomy is not.
I don't have children but people worrying about the safety of their children isn't a "straw man".
Worrying about the safety of your children isn't a straw man, but saying that one of the problems of gender fluidity is that you can't know whether a person using the bathroom with your 12 year old daughter is a man or woman is the very definition of a straw man. The argument is designed to distract you away from the fact that even today you can't tell sexual orientation by looks, and it has always been that way. I wouldn't have wanted Michael Jackson in a boy's bathroom knowing his tendencies, but I wouldn't generalize that into a law that forbids male pop singers with high pitched voices from using the men's room either.
Pedophiles are always a problem, no matter which gender they are or look like.
I never said they weren't.
Boy, talk about a straw man...
I know you didn't, I was trying to get ahead of you in the discussion and I shouldn't have put words in your mouth. I apologize for that. But the 'bathroom' argument is the most popular argument used to defend the discriminatory legislation they're trying to put in place in certain states and I assumed that's what you were referring to when you mentioned 'bathroom problems' in your original post. I shouldn't have assumed 
.
But you still haven't raised a single real issue that arises from giving transgenders the freedom to use the bathroom of their choice. The only thing you've raised is that it bothers you that they're doing it "in your face" and that your aunt now wears cheeky T-shirts with social justice warrior slogans on them. Is that really reason enough for you to limit these people's rights? I get that you don't like it, I wouldn't either. I do not get why that should be a factor in deciding where they can take a piss though.
Look, I'm against positive discrimination, I feel strongly that the whole third wave feminism movement, the atheist-plus movement, the black lives matter movement, etc... are extremely counter productive as well as sexist, racist and bigoted. I mock them, I revile their rhetoric and I think they're doing real damage to our society. I also think that they should have the utter and complete freedom to feel, think and say what they like. No matter how distasteful I might think it is, they have the right to offend me.
Look at it from a different angle. I think most would agree that the nazi school of thought is one of the most dangerous in the world, and yet holocaust denial is not illegal in the US. I'm sure we'll all agree that a lot of people are offended and concerned by those thoughts and the way these people dress; and probably won't feel safe if they end up in the same bathroom with a bunch of skinheads. Yet, there are no laws against piercings, shaving your head, getting swastika tattoos and dressing up in Nazi uniforms. That's what the "land of the free" is supposed to be about, yet somehow when it comes to people's private parts or their sex lives half the country feels like this shit needs to be regulated, their freedom of speech and self-expression limited? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Here's what I struggle with: why is it okay to put one group into a situation where they are uncomfortable to take another group out of a situation where they are uncomfortable? Why do we automatically (and unfairly) label people as bigots and/or racists if they have a different opinion than you do?
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Here's what I struggle with: why is it okay to put one group into a situation where they are uncomfortable to take another group out of a situation where they are uncomfortable? Why do we automatically (and unfairly) label people as bigots and/or racists if they have a different opinion than you do?
Because 'not having to feel uncomfortable' is not an inalienable right, having the freedom to express yourself is. I feel uncomfortable around people that wear bolo ties and cowboy hats, still no reason to ban them.
*edit* and for the record, I am not calling anyone racist or bigoted, I really do understand that feeling uncomfortable with certain things is a perfectly acceptable and natural reaction. It just doesn't give you the right to stop other people from doing what they want to do.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Actually that's exactly what it does. Society gets to choose what is acceptable otherwise there would be no laws. For example killing someone could be completely comfortable for someone. Does that mean they can do it when they want to?
Or in a more relevant comparison a perv can go into a woman's bathroom and claim to identify as a woman and that's okay as long as they don't assault someone? It's fine to make the women uncomfortable in that case to protect the small amount of transgender people? It's not ok to make a transgender person uncomfortable by giving them a separate bathroom to use but it's okay to make everyone else uncomfortable so they aren't?
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Hahaha Caitlyn Jenner is going to go back to being a man. He couldn't go through with the surgery.
I am with James and Buzz that it is getting a little out of control. I mean there have been gays and trans genders for a long ass time. Why all this shit is getting so much attention now is a little absurd. All this discussion is a bit silly when we have many bigger problems going on.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Since 1968 1,500,000 people have died from gun shots in the United States.
Since 1973 there have been 50,000,000 abortions in the United States.
The liberals have a huge problem with the first item, yet the second item they won't budge at all and limit late term abortions.
I see some hypocrisy here and I know this may ruffle some feathers but 50 million is a shocking number.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Actually that's exactly what it does. Society gets to choose what is acceptable otherwise there would be no laws. For example killing someone could be completely comfortable for someone. Does that mean they can do it when they want to?
Bad example, killing someone singles out a specific person and does a bit more than just "hurt their feelings". James' niece necking with another girl has zero real impact on him.
Or in a more relevant comparison a perv can go into a woman's bathroom and claim to identify as a woman and that's okay as long as they don't assault someone?
Lesbians can do that today... what's the difference?
It's fine to make the women uncomfortable in that case to protect the small amount of transgender people? It's not ok to make a transgender person uncomfortable by giving them a separate bathroom to use but it's okay to make everyone else uncomfortable so they aren't?
It's not about protecting a specific group, it's about not forcing ones own morality upon the rest of society. What I'm saying is that I don't necessarily care any more or less about transgenders than I do about other people, and I don't care if either of those get offended. But neither should be protected from being offended by the law because that would limit everyones freedom of expression. Society's norms change over time because we have the freedom to challenge the status quo, and that's a good thing, and I will argue in favor of it every single time.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I am with James and Buzz that it is getting a little out of control. I mean there have been gays and trans genders for a long ass time. Why all this shit is getting so much attention now is a little absurd. All this discussion is a bit silly when we have many bigger problems going on.
Sounds like you're actually on the left on this one: congress (state or federal) should be spending their time on important things, not coming up with stupid-ass bathroom rules.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Since 1968 1,500,000 people have died from gun shots in the United States.
Since 1973 there have been 50,000,000 abortions in the United States.
The liberals have a huge problem with the first item, yet the second item they won't budge at all and limit late term abortions.
I see some hypocrisy here and I know this may ruffle some feathers but 50 million is a shocking number.
Entirely different topic. You're falling into the trap of looking at this as an "us vs them" thing, this isn't a fuckin' football match and you ain't rooting for the home team. I think in reality you're a lot more center-left than you yourself probably think, based on your posts, but you don't want to associate with those insane 'libtards'. That's the sort of thinking that has created this entire mess and gotten the country to the point where there's a presidential election in which both candidates have the highest disapproval ratings ever. You got two of the most reviled, hated people running for president! Time to wake up and smell the polarization.
As to the issue you raise: I'm against late term abortion as well, anything after week 24 should be considered illegal because that's the point at which the fetus starts showing brain activity and therefore should be considered a human being. At that point, the mother can no longer make the decision to terminate the pregnancy because it impacts the life of another human being. However, some argue that the term should be extended to the point where the baby can live outside of the womb (that's typically around 30 weeks).
The number you raise is staggering indeed, and comparatively MUCH higher than in other westernized countries in the world. That's due to the religious right's penchant to tell people what they can and can't do in the bathroom. It is no secret that the vast majority of late term abortions occur in red states (or any abortions really).
But I'll tell you something, I'm willing to bet that if the GOP would accept stricter gun regulations (like real background checks, and limitations on the types of weapons one can buy) the Democrats would be happy limit late term abortions to something more reasonable (like 24-30 weeks). The sad state of affairs is that politicians on neither side are willing to truly negotiate about these things.
