Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
| Welcome to Our Hoosier Board! Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions. Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful. Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine! Cheers, sirbrianwilson Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Mississippi & NC religious freedom laws | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 6 2016, 01:24 PM (2,708 Views) | |
| brumdog44 | May 21 2016, 09:49 PM Post #436 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
It's not just their judgement call.....because under your 'no law', they should still be allowed to use the bathroom and put the onus on the others in the bathroom to make that call. By your 'no law', it also means that the ability of a transgender to use the bathroom should be directly proportional to their ability to look like a member of the opposite sex. Can't say I agree with that logic. If the reasoning is sound for transgenders to use the opposite bathroom, the solidity of whether that reasoning should be based on the fairness and justice it shows. If a person should be allowed to go into the bathroom of their gender identity, it would seem that the logic falls apart when you exclude those who lack the ability to 'look the part' even when dressing like a member of the opposite sex. In terms of the rest that you wrote, it's really irrelevant to me because it's not something that I believe our disagreements are focused on. The cat is out of the bag and the issue is already at hand. I've seen the number of students in a small population who now claim that they wish to use a bathroom of the opposite sex go from zero to four within two weeks of the North Carolina ruling to now six. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | May 22 2016, 08:48 AM Post #437 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
You're going to have to pardon my confusion here. You're saying not having a law excludes people who don't "look the part"? But having a law that says you have to look like that gender doesn't? I thought the entire criticism of my "no law" argument is that anybody could just go in any bathroom regardless of what they look like? |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | May 22 2016, 08:50 AM Post #438 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
You should really try reading, like, anything I've posted.
Mark it down. Aaron admits he's anti-trans. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | May 22 2016, 01:52 PM Post #439 |
![]()
Coach
|
Lol. Where did I say I was anti-trans? |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| brumdog44 | May 22 2016, 05:08 PM Post #440 |
![]()
The guy picked last in gym class
|
That isn't a criticism I've offered. My criticism is that once the legal barrier was broken -- whether it was for or against -- you can't go backwards. And whether or not a law existed prior doesn't mean there weren't issues before. I think that it's a false assumption. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | May 22 2016, 07:25 PM Post #441 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Ah ok. I gotcha now. I spent so many damn posts arguing with aaron about the "no law" model that I just assumed you didn't like it for the same reason. Your point is a fair criticism. Not sure I still agree with the law the way you've suggested it, but I'll admit that I don't know of many better options. So I'll keep my mind open about it. |
| |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | May 22 2016, 07:28 PM Post #442 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
I was being facetious, but do you really not see it? You're more handsome than I am = me also saying I'm handsome |
| |
![]() |
|
| Mr Gray | May 24 2016, 09:39 AM Post #443 |
![]()
Coach
|
Well the heading says "Boycott, laws perpetuate the myth that transgender people are predators." This is a straw man or maybe more of a red herring. This has not been the primary issue in the opposition.....I have said it repeatedly as have many politicians and talking heads. I am not concerned about transgender "predators"....I'm concerned about predators taking advantage of the transgender law. The article goes on to say "To hear the supporters of such laws tell it, the nation’s restrooms are under siege. They paint dark pictures of perverts and predators out to molest children by posing as the opposite sex to gain access" Again...this is a HUGE MISS. Under laws like the one on Charlotte that started all of this, a pervert wouldn't have to pose as the opposite sex to gain access......they can just walk right in and simply claim that they identify as that sex. it then says this: "When South Carolina was considering an anti-transgender bathroom bill in April, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott wrote to the legislature: “In the 41 years I have been in law enforcement in South Carolina, I have never heard of a transgender person attacking or otherwise bothering someone in a restroom. This is a non-issue.” In fact, there is plenty of evidence that transgender people are the ones most at risk to be mocked, assaulted and even murdered." - Again a HUGE MISS for the same reasons. and finally: "Would potty police check birth certificates at the door? People have taken to social media at places such as Twitter’s #wejustneedtopee to show pictures of themselves looking very much like the gender they now identify with and wondering whether lawmakers would really want them to use their former restrooms." Again...as I have said repeatedly, if you look and act as a certain gender, there really will be no issue with using that bathroom...law or not. Opposing the Charlotte law (as NC did), isn't the same as opposing transgenders going into a different bathroom....and this article completely distorts that reality. Dreach, as much as we've been discussing this, I'm really shocked that you see this article as hitting the nail on the head. |
![]() The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism. | |
![]() |
|
| dreachon | May 24 2016, 11:19 AM Post #444 |
|
Creative Title Here
|
Well I saw it has hitting the nail on the head because it wasn't advocating for either law, but instead for no law, which I had been saying for a while. As for the straw man, while you have not been arguing several of the points which you highlighted in the article (which i commend), that doesn't mean no one has brought up those issues. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
7:53 PM Jul 10
|










7:53 PM Jul 10