What would it take?

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Politics. Post political memes and quotations, and discuss your Political beliefs. If you don't want to see Politics being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. Discussions will be respectful. We recognize that political discussions can sometimes become incendiary and we will step in from time to time if it does in order to cool things down. Posts that use terms and descriptions of others such as "Wing Nuts", "Libtards", "Rethuglicans", DemocRATS", and others of a demeaning nature will be deleted. Keep discussions on point, centered on facts, and based on the principal that two individuals can come to different conclusions based on the same information and can disagree, but discuss those disagreements in an agreeable manner. Please contribute to the discussion, not try to tear down an individual because he disagrees with you. Make you comments be on the post, and not the person posting.
Post Reply
User avatar
Flynguy521
Reactions:
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:12 pm
Location: Tyler, TX
Hammock: Dream Hammock Custom
Tarp: UGQ Asym Multicam
Suspension: DIY 1" Webbing
Insulation: UGQ Custom
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#76

Post by Flynguy521 » Sun May 29, 2016 12:38 pm

I'll never vote democratic. Ever. The party is the spoiled birthday kid who demands everything of everyone else at their party and cries and whines when they don't get their way.

I'm still not sure if I'll vote for Trump or not.


"I aim to misbehave!" - Capt. Malcolm Reynolds


Hike, Like, and Subscribe!

https://www.youtube.com/c/AndyMartinezOutdoors

Hammock Trip Map

"I aim to misbehave!" - Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
Flynguy521
Reactions:
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 2:12 pm
Location: Tyler, TX
Hammock: Dream Hammock Custom
Tarp: UGQ Asym Multicam
Suspension: DIY 1" Webbing
Insulation: UGQ Custom
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#77

Post by Flynguy521 » Sun May 29, 2016 12:42 pm

sarge wrote:The critical difference between our opinions on the subject is that none of us have a problem with transgendered persons using the restroom, but you continue to make it about that.

We have all acknowledged that transgendered persons have been using the restrooms of thier choice for decades without problems.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its the perverts and sexual harassers that would use this new definition for other purposes.

Correct and accurate!


"I aim to misbehave!" - Capt. Malcolm Reynolds
Hike, Like, and Subscribe!

https://www.youtube.com/c/AndyMartinezOutdoors

Hammock Trip Map

"I aim to misbehave!" - Capt. Malcolm Reynolds

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#78

Post by sarge » Sun May 29, 2016 12:46 pm

One of the biggest reasons I don't vote for Democrats is their continued insistence that I beleieve something that I do not because it makes me look bad when my actual belief does not.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#79

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 1:42 pm

sarge wrote:The critical difference between our opinions on the subject is that none of us have a problem with transgendered persons using the restroom, but you continue to make it about that.

We have all acknowledged that transgendered persons have been using the restrooms of thier choice for decades without problems.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its the perverts and sexual harassers that would use this new definition for other purposes.
Your characterization does not capture some of Bills comments.

Even so, one critical difference is the same. Your guess is that the new situation would create a safety issue. My guess is that it would not. There are data on the issue from those states that made transgender a protected class years ago. I recommend that we learn from the data and act accordingly. Ya'll offer little more than figments of imagination as far as I can tell.

Of course you have no problem with transgender people. You've thrown their concerns under the bus. They have a problem with you. You think you know that they haven't been having problems; how do you know that is true? Data? Or more figments of imagination?

But be very clear on one thing. This isn't some government conspiracy; it isn't some manipulative Democrats. This policy is supported by many of your fellow citizens. It is supported by me. It reflects my American values.

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#80

Post by sarge » Sun May 29, 2016 1:49 pm

Wel then.

Lets just stake the safety of little girls and women on what Democrats call "A pretty good guess" that nothing will happen.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#81

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 2:25 pm

sarge wrote:The critical difference between our opinions on the subject is that none of us have a problem with transgendered persons using the restroom, but you continue to make it about that.

We have all acknowledged that transgendered persons have been using the restrooms of thier choice for decades without problems.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its the perverts and sexual harassers that would use this new definition for other purposes.
At least for me, there is one more difference. Greg points out that my fears for safety may be overblown, or may not, we won't know until these laws have been in force for a while. But that is not my only concern. My concern is the removal of taken for granted freedoms by an oppressive government run by liberal/leftists.

So my position is: as a biological male, you do not have, and never have had, a right to take a shower in a public locker room with my wife or daughter if either I object, or they object. Now Greg seems to have no problem with a male stranger joining his wife or daughter as they attempt to shower up after swimming practice. I find that rather bizarre, but if he and the women in his life are fine with that, then that's fine. Maybe they can find some co-ed showers where all can have a good time together?

But that is not good enough for liberals like Greg. They desire the enslavement of their fellow citizens, that their fellow citizens be forced to bow to their will, since they know what is best for all. And if it has been- and remains- a basic human characteristic that 95+% of the female population desires some privacy when time to shower up at school, and prefer that male strangers not be allowed to stroll up beside them in the shower, well, for the liberals of the world, that majority just has to suck it up and deal with it. Because if they don't, some .3% of the population who are seriously confused about what gender they are might otherwise be offended, inconvenienced or get their feelings hurt. And providing them with their own facility will not suffice, thank you very much, you have to shower with these men and dang well like it, or some one is first going to want to know why you are so nosy about other peoples genitals, and then they are going to fine you $250,000 if you don't mouth the newly made up word "hir" at the appropriate time. You simply must jump through their hoops, or you are a hate filled bigot.

That's what it comes down to, these mentally ill folks wish to force the (still by a small margin maybe) majority of more traditional folks to allow men into women's locker rooms and be pleasant about it, while saying the PC words. They wish to enslave the majority by government force. But, as an additional concern, as your daughters learn to shower beside a naked male stranger who actually considers himself a woman and has no sexual desire for women, while being polite mind you, or even a sexually aroused male who does not truly consider himself a female but just decided to take advantage of his new privileges, maybe a few of your daughters get raped. So what? Suck it up, slaves. If you are going to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs. Deal with it. They of the leftist intelligentsia know what is good for you and we decree it. It will all be worth it if the .3% won't be inconvenienced, and forced to go to the bathrooms with all the other males. (all of the above applies to women using men's facilities, but there are "natural" - if I dare use such a word n today's world- additional safety concerns for men in women's locker rooms) But even if it turns out there are no safety concerns(yes, right), the concept that a woman has a right to take a shower ( or just urinate ) without a male stranger being present- that is out the window. Yes, I know, you thought you were free, but perverts rule the land now, and they will come after you if you insist on any traditional rights. So, I repeat: suck it up. Offer your daughters as a sacrifice to PC. It has been decreed from on high.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#82

Post by sarge » Sun May 29, 2016 2:32 pm

Let's not personalize this. While Greg is the resident Democrat/Liberal, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his motives are pure and that he has given this some thought.

Many Democrats and Liberals have a hard time seeing the unintended consquences of thier policies and proposals, especially thier effect on Liberty, but I do doubt that it is thier intent.

But I will add that, recently, it has been my experience that most Democrats/Liberals are unwilling to give others that same benefit of the doubt as it is perceived by some as "losing the argument" if they do so.
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#83

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 2:37 pm

GregD wrote:
sarge wrote:The critical difference between our opinions on the subject is that none of us have a problem with transgendered persons using the restroom, but you continue to make it about that.

We have all acknowledged that transgendered persons have been using the restrooms of thier choice for decades without problems.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its not the transgendered we have a problem with.

Its the perverts and sexual harassers that would use this new definition for other purposes.
Your characterization does not capture some of Bills comments.

Even so, one critical difference is the same. Your guess is that the new situation would create a safety issue. My guess is that it would not. There are data on the issue from those states that made transgender a protected class years ago. I recommend that we learn from the data and act accordingly. Ya'll offer little more than figments of imagination as far as I can tell.

Of course you have no problem with transgender people. You've thrown their concerns under the bus. They have a problem with you. You think you know that they haven't been having problems; how do you know that is true? Data? Or more figments of imagination?

But be very clear on one thing. This isn't some government conspiracy; it isn't some manipulative Democrats. This policy is supported by many of your fellow citizens. It is supported by me. It reflects my American values.
That is true ( i.e. "Your characterization does not capture some of Bills comments" ), because this must be added for me: I do not have a problem with the transgendered! UNTIL the transgendered ( and their demented supporters ) start forcing themselves on my wife/daughters/grand daughters. At the point where a biological male says he is a woman and forces himself into women's private areas, then I have a problem with that transgendered person( and with his/her supporters ).

Plus as I made clear in my previous post, it matters not if there is data that this will present a danger to women. That is an additional and even more important concern. But all that matters- or rather all that should be needed- is that these women have a right to shower without a naked male stranger joining them. Or that they DON'T WANT a male stranger joining them in the bathroom! Why is that right being taken away from them? Their right to privacy overwhelms any concern for the feelings of the .3% and their supporters. Why do you liberals wish to oppress women and take away their right to privacy?
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#84

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 2:50 pm

sarge wrote:Wel then.

Lets just stake the safety of little girls and women on what Democrats call "A pretty good guess" that nothing will happen.
Sure. The left will be all for that. If there are a few rapes, maybe we can work something out then to address the safety concerns of women? Because, just speaking of the odds, it does seem that very few rapists or just peepers/iPhone video makers will see an opportunity in this? It will most likely never occur to those types. It's worth the gamble I guess. Gosh, what was I thinking?

http://mynorthwest.com/188993/man-caugh ... cker-room/
Off Topic
According to the law: “If another person expresses concern or discomfort about a person who uses a facility that is consistent with the person’s gender expression or gender identity, the person expressing discomfort should be directed to a separate or gender-neutral facility, if available.”
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#85

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 2:51 pm

BillyBob66 wrote:It will all be worth it if the .3% won't be inconvenienced, and forced to go to the bathrooms with all the other males.
Matthew 25:40, if you believe in that sort of thing. I don't, but I concur with this particular sentiment.

Like the Republican Gov of Kentucky who found a non-confrontational solution to marriage licensing, why can't we agree to change the design of public facilities to provide adequate privacy and safety for everyone?

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#86

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 3:00 pm

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /80501904/
Off Topic
"This didn’t seem like a transgender issue to staff – someone who was “identifying” as a woman," Takami said in a statement. "We have guidelines that allow transgender individuals to use restrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. We want everyone to feel comfortable in our facilities."

"Really bizarre," MaryAnne Sato said. "I can't imagine why they would want to do that anyway!"
;) Gee, I can't imagine why he would want to do such a thing either, can you? I am just baffled! ;)
Off Topic
It's also a first for Seattle Parks and Recreation. Employees report that the man made no verbal or physical attempt to identify as a woman, yet he still cited a new rule that allows bathroom choice based on gender identification.

The issue drew protesters from both sides to Olympia on Monday. Opponents claim the rule opens up bathrooms to voyeurs but supporters say that's an unrealistic fear.

No one was arrested in this case and police weren't called, even though the man returned a second time while young girls were changing for swim practice.

"Sort of works against the point they're trying to make. They're causing people to feel exposed and vulnerable with the intention of reducing people feeling exposed and vulnerable," said pool regular Aldan Shank.
I am shocked, shocked I tell you! What kind of primitive would have ever expected such a thing to happen, even in their most bizarre imaginations? But at least, while these young girls were exposed to a horny young male in a place where they had always expected some privacy and protection by their parents, school teachers and governments, at least the concerns of the .3% are being seen to! And at least we now have plenty of American citizens who think this kind of approach is moral, rational and also protects the rights of these young girls. At least we are not discriminating, or at least not towards the favored groups,that's the main thing!
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: What would it take?

#87

Post by GregD » Sun May 29, 2016 3:16 pm

At least that is a data point. Representative of what, I'm not sure, other than the need for practices to catch up with policy changes. Not relevant to high school situations.

Vote your conscience. I'll vote mine.

User avatar
Scuba
Site Admin
Reactions:
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: San Antonio
Hammock: DreamHammock
Tarp: UGQ WD or Hanger
Suspension: Varies
Insulation: UGQ40 HG20

Re: What would it take?

#88

Post by Scuba » Sun May 29, 2016 3:18 pm

Quick reminder. Take a breath and read what you wrote before you hit the submit button. Civility is the key
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all." - Gen James Mattis, USMC RET.
Owner/Administrator HammockHangers.net

User avatar
sarge
Reactions:
Posts: 2068
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 10:14 am
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:
Contact:

Re: What would it take?

#89

Post by sarge » Sun May 29, 2016 3:28 pm

Matthew 25:40New International Version (NIV)

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
I totally agree, and this is my motivation.

Knowing that transgendered people have been using the restrooms of thier choice for decades without harming anyone, mainly because their only purpose there is to use it as it was intended, I can then turn to the next group of "least", which would be little girls and women and doing what I can to insure they have a safe space where they can remove thier clothing without a cell phone video of them doing it showing up on the internet, or worse because we now allow men into their bathrooms.

And lets be precise in our language here. You don't want "transgender only" bathrooms because that would stigmatize people. What you want is "Gender Nuetral" bathrooms that men and women can use at thier whim.

Because you have come up with nothing that would insure that only transgendered people will be using those bathrooms, and the only thing that would work would be a person at the door checking IDs issued by the government. You'd need that because the only way to tell if someone is truly a transitioning transgender is through fairly stringent psychological examination. Your average store clerk isn't able to do that, which opens any business up to "opportunity litigation".
You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me. ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
My You Tube Channel

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 729
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: What would it take?

#90

Post by BillyBob66 » Sun May 29, 2016 3:34 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:It will all be worth it if the .3% won't be inconvenienced, and forced to go to the bathrooms with all the other males.
Matthew 25:40, if you believe in that sort of thing. I don't, but I concur with this particular sentiment.

Like the Republican Gov of Kentucky who found a non-confrontational solution to marriage licensing, why can't we agree to change the design of public facilities to provide adequate privacy and safety for everyone?
We can't because that is not what is desired. What is desired is that the tradition minded bow to the liberal changes. And that the transgendered not be embarrassed or inconvenienced or questioned, they go where they want to go. Public facilities such as you describe would not accomplish any of that, so it has not even been considered.

But yes, if you have to accommodate the .3%- who have some how gotten by all these decades or more with things as they are- then what you are saying would be a lot smarter.

As for Matthew 25:40, I know you don't believe it or even understand it, so it might be silly of you to try and use it against those who do believe it. Many ( NOT ALL!) think the context is that at the return of Christ, He holds the gentile nations accountable for how they have treated His brothers in the flesh, the Jews(think Holocaust for example). The passage starts with the return of Christ and His gathering of all nations. "32 All the nations will be gathered before Him". The Greek word being translated "nations" here is often translated "Gentile", as in
"Matthew 6:32King James Bible(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." and Matthew 12: 21"AND IN HIS NAME THE GENTILES WILL HOPE." And often in the Bible, Israel is contrasted to "the nations", meaning all the other nations.

Hence, "31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him;" all the nations(Gentiles?) other than Israel are gathered, and judged for how they have treated the Jew, Jesus' brothers. Which has not been very good, so most are punished.

But even if you take a more traditional view that it is emphasizing how Christians should be kind and loving and visit those in jail and giving someone something to drink or clothing the naked (all of which many Christians do), are you equating this with allowing a naked male stranger to shower with our wives or daughters? Well, yeah, I guess one does have to wonder how Jesus, who said that all of the Law is Holy and who never committed sin, and who told the woman taken in adultery to go and sin no more, you might still scratch your head over how Jesus would have felt about forcing innocent young Jewish ( or Gentile girls for that matter) girl- even female children- being forced to shower with naked male strangers.

Gee, I may have to think real hard on that one. What about you, apparently you think He would be all for these new laws. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say He would find it not so good, maybe even sinful. And that while He might judge some for not helping His brother Jews imprisoned by Gentiles ( like Auschwitz ), or even for not visiting Gentiles in jail or clothing the naked and feeding the starving, I don't think He would object to separate bathing facilities for men and women. But that's just me, call me crazy.
Last edited by BillyBob66 on Sun May 29, 2016 3:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest