|
Post by Hotman on Apr 22, 2016 17:42:35 GMT -5
Honestly what's all that wrong with the meme?! It's not anti trans its pointing out the SJW extreme hypocrisy Yep (except for knowing what sjw stands for) Social Justice Warrior... The perpetually outraged. Typically fake, transparent, hypocritical loudmouths. The chiuauas of the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Apr 22, 2016 18:32:17 GMT -5
She actually orange. Orange is a color, so why can't she be in the NAACP? whats the C stand for? Look it up, Einstein.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Apr 22, 2016 19:30:44 GMT -5
She actually orange. Orange is a color, so why can't she be in the NAACP? whats the C stand for? Look it up, Einstein. So you're saying...... wait for it..... orange is the new black?
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Apr 22, 2016 19:58:17 GMT -5
Orange is a color, so why can't she be in the NAACP? whats the C stand for? Look it up, Einstein. So you're saying...... wait for it..... orange is the new black? Oh snap!
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Apr 23, 2016 11:36:39 GMT -5
Now if a molester wants to dress up as a woman to get access to little girls then yeah thats a problem. But cant they do that now anyway? (If we take away the panties...only the criminal will have panties!) Also...my kids never went in to a public bathroom alone. T All that matters in the scheme of things is that this law is ripe for exploitation by pervs. (not throwing Transgenders in with them). It is happening already. Whether people want to admit it or not, the world is full of twisted, sick people to whom bathrooms are alluring in a sexual way...to deny it is naive. Ask any Special Victims Detective how they feel about this. Are you telling us you went into ladies public bathrooms with your daughter? I have a 10 year old, should I have to drag her into a mens room with me, or do I linger outside the ladies room hoping there are no predators inside? Heretofore, someone who looked like a man entering a ladies room would raise flags; Now, we to turn a blind eye, for fear of hurting the feelings of a transgender..and because it is legalized? When did their "feelings" trump our right to feel secure in our bathroom experiences? In this case, Schilling was dumb because of his own history...but what he posted was not a knock on transgenders, but more a commentary on the intolerance and demagoguery practiced by those who seek to impose their ethics and values on others. That, right there, is the part that seems to be overlooked more and more. The rights of the disadvantaged minority (pick the population) trump that of the majority from time to time (and rightfully so), so accommodations sometimes must be made. But this goes a step further by completely disregarding the rights of the majority by claiming it's discriminatory to care about your own views, rights and sense of security. One's civil rights only extend as far as they impede on another's. For some reason, that's being ignored in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Apr 24, 2016 9:05:37 GMT -5
All that matters in the scheme of things is that this law is ripe for exploitation by pervs. (not throwing Transgenders in with them). It is happening already. Whether people want to admit it or not, the world is full of twisted, sick people to whom bathrooms are alluring in a sexual way...to deny it is naive. Ask any Special Victims Detective how they feel about this. Are you telling us you went into ladies public bathrooms with your daughter? I have a 10 year old, should I have to drag her into a mens room with me, or do I linger outside the ladies room hoping there are no predators inside? Heretofore, someone who looked like a man entering a ladies room would raise flags; Now, we to turn a blind eye, for fear of hurting the feelings of a transgender..and because it is legalized? When did their "feelings" trump our right to feel secure in our bathroom experiences? In this case, Schilling was dumb because of his own history...but what he posted was not a knock on transgenders, but more a commentary on the intolerance and demagoguery practiced by those who seek to impose their ethics and values on others. That, right there, is the part that seems to be overlooked more and more. The rights of the disadvantaged minority (pick the population) trump that of the majority from time to time (and rightfully so), so accommodations sometimes must be made. But this goes a step further by completely disregarding the rights of the majority by claiming it's discriminatory to care about your own views, rights and sense of security. One's civil rights only extend as far as they impede on another's. For some reason, that's being ignored in this instance. one might say that in this case, the majority's rights are in tact (they can use the bathroom) and "sense of security" is vague at best, and changes from person to person. Some may feel less secure when muslim boards thier airplane but we don't deny him a seat. One might say they have invented a boogeyman, the male perv, dressed as a woman, to access the ladies room to commit crimes. But since when do we deny rights based on what a 3rd party might do? We don't stop the sale of fertilizer because someone can make a bomb with it. not to mention, this law now forces female to male trans to now use the ladies room. Picture that, a male trans with the right to be in the ladies room. Is the majority going to be pleased with that?
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Apr 24, 2016 11:58:59 GMT -5
That, right there, is the part that seems to be overlooked more and more. The rights of the disadvantaged minority (pick the population) trump that of the majority from time to time (and rightfully so), so accommodations sometimes must be made. But this goes a step further by completely disregarding the rights of the majority by claiming it's discriminatory to care about your own views, rights and sense of security. One's civil rights only extend as far as they impede on another's. For some reason, that's being ignored in this instance. one might say that in this case, the majority's rights are in tact (they can use the bathroom) and "sense of security" is vague at best, and changes from person to person. Some may feel less secure when muslim boards thier airplane but we don't deny him a seat. One might say they have invented a boogeyman, the male perv, dressed as a woman, to access the ladies room to commit crimes. But since when do we deny rights based on what a 3rd party might do? We don't stop the sale of fertilizer because someone can make a bomb with it. not to mention, this law now forces female to male trans to now use the ladies room. Picture that, a male trans with the right to be in the ladies room. Is the majority going to be pleased with that? You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be; again, your civil rights end where they impeded upon mine. That's not discriminatory behavior, that's the law. That this is about a perceived discrimination on the part of a minority group kind of refutes the examples you put forth as well. The "correct solution" would have been to require gender-neutral bathrooms in places where only gender specific ones exist. But that's too hard, easier to get a few lobbyists and lawyers to fuel a narrative in the media which will drive policy. Again, my rights = (X) rights. If accommodations can be made for X without inconveniencing/impeding me, that's fair and appropriate. Otherwise, it's unjust, even if I'm "not oppressed" or in the majority.
|
|
|
Post by flushingjet on Apr 24, 2016 14:53:45 GMT -5
It's ironic that now princes symbol is being slapped on wc doors he shuffles off this mortal coil
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Apr 24, 2016 15:00:55 GMT -5
one might say that in this case, the majority's rights are in tact (they can use the bathroom) and "sense of security" is vague at best, and changes from person to person. Some may feel less secure when muslim boards thier airplane but we don't deny him a seat. One might say they have invented a boogeyman, the male perv, dressed as a woman, to access the ladies room to commit crimes. But since when do we deny rights based on what a 3rd party might do? We don't stop the sale of fertilizer because someone can make a bomb with it. not to mention, this law now forces female to male trans to now use the ladies room. Picture that, a male trans with the right to be in the ladies room. Is the majority going to be pleased with that? You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be; again, your civil rights end where they impeded upon mine. That's not discriminatory behavior, that's the law. That this is about a perceived discrimination on the part of a minority group kind of refutes the examples you put forth as well. The "correct solution" would have been to require gender-neutral bathrooms in places where only gender specific ones exist. But that's too hard, easier to get a few lobbyists and lawyers to fuel a narrative in the media which will drive policy. Again, my rights = (X) rights. If accommodations can be made for X without inconveniencing/impeding me, that's fair and appropriate. Otherwise, it's unjust, even if I'm "not oppressed" or in the majority. i can't see how its inconveniencing/impeding you in any manner. Correct me if I'm wrong. and I'm simplifying, if you look like a man use the men's room, if you look like a woman use the ladies room. Funny thing is before NC made this an issue....it wasn't an issue. it's a tiny part of an overall bill used to describing agents LGBTQ. We all peed next to transgenders and the word kept spinning. If NC hadn't introduced the legislation none of this is an issue. Transgenders were minding there own business. The weren't making this an issue. They were just peeing.
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Apr 24, 2016 15:20:12 GMT -5
It's ironic that now princes symbol is being slapped on wc doors he shuffles off this mortal coil can I get a translation of that?
|
|
|
Post by flushingjet on Apr 24, 2016 16:53:58 GMT -5
It's ironic that now princes symbol is being slapped on wc doors he shuffles off this mortal coil can I get a translation of that? You could always crack open a browser yo'self but Sure, It's; It is Ironic; a situation that is strange or funny because things happen in a way that seems to be the opposite of what you expected Now ; at the present time Prince's; belonging to Prince Rogers Nelson (June 7, 1958 – April 21, 2016) who was an American singer, songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer Symbol; a letter, group of letters, character, or picture that is used instead of a word or group of words; in this case is being slapped on; is affixed or placed on wc doors; on entryways to toilets (water closets, an enclosed room or compartment containing a toilet bowl fitted with a mechanism for flushing) he; Prince shuffles off this mortal coil; dies; from Shakespeare's Hamlet, a explanation here www.shmoop.com/shakespeare-quotes/mortal-coil/meaning-then.htmlthe comment in its entirety likens the symbol above with the freak symbol being jammed up everyone normal's ass, needlessly; A wry innuendo indeed but some people be like:
|
|
|
Post by Hotman on Apr 24, 2016 17:29:43 GMT -5
I can't be reading all that.
|
|
|
Post by Jetworks on Apr 24, 2016 18:55:35 GMT -5
You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be; again, your civil rights end where they impeded upon mine. That's not discriminatory behavior, that's the law. That this is about a perceived discrimination on the part of a minority group kind of refutes the examples you put forth as well. The "correct solution" would have been to require gender-neutral bathrooms in places where only gender specific ones exist. But that's too hard, easier to get a few lobbyists and lawyers to fuel a narrative in the media which will drive policy. Again, my rights = (X) rights. If accommodations can be made for X without inconveniencing/impeding me, that's fair and appropriate. Otherwise, it's unjust, even if I'm "not oppressed" or in the majority. i can't see how its inconveniencing/impeding you in any manner. Correct me if I'm wrong. and I'm simplifying, if you look like a man use the men's room, if you look like a woman use the ladies room. Funny thing is before NC made this an issue....it wasn't an issue. it's a tiny part of an overall bill used to describing agents LGBTQ. We all peed next to transgenders and the word kept spinning. If NC hadn't introduced the legislation none of this is an issue. Transgenders were minding there own business. The weren't making this an issue. They were just peeing. You're completely missing the point. Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing you aren't trolling me at this point, but I'll keep at it nonetheless. i can't see how its inconveniencing/impeding you in any manner. It's impeding on my rights by forcing me to accept the possibility of peeing next to a person of another GENDER, not next to a person who FEELS they are another gender. That's significant. and I'm simplifying, if you look like a man use the men's room, if you look like a woman use the ladies room. It's not about LOOKING like someone, it's BEING someone. And when you really do simplify this, as is the case in the restroom, you LOOK and ARE who you are, get it? So really, you should use the restroom of who you look like without clothes on, not who you dress up as. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. I mean, I walk into work everyday and get called "doctor" by plenty of patients, but I'm a nurse. I don't try to hide that fact, nor do I let the belief persist on their part through any deception, unsaid or otherwise. Legalities aside, it's immoral. Just because I LOOK like a doctor shouldn't change that, even if it's convenient to ignore it at the time. We all peed next to transgenders and the word kept spinning. If NC hadn't introduced the legislation none of this is an issue. Transgenders were minding there own business. The weren't making this an issue. They were just peeing. We peed next to transgenders, presumably, of the same gender. If a West Village Halloween parade walked into the bathroom when I was in there and proceeded to all hit the urinals, couldn't care less. All of them pop a squat? I have an issue with that, which is all this should be about. No morals, no holier than thous, no judgements; I should not have to share private space with the opposite sex in a bathroom. Civil liberties and such. Think this is complicated? Imagine the horrors of folding in HIPAA into this when trying to room a transgender person with a patient of the same sex with which they identify. Yea.
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Apr 24, 2016 19:00:49 GMT -5
How bout just bathrooms for everybody? No men's room, no woman's room. Just a bathroom.
Everybody poops.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Apr 24, 2016 19:53:54 GMT -5
i can't see how its inconveniencing/impeding you in any manner. Correct me if I'm wrong. and I'm simplifying, if you look like a man use the men's room, if you look like a woman use the ladies room. Funny thing is before NC made this an issue....it wasn't an issue. it's a tiny part of an overall bill used to describing agents LGBTQ. We all peed next to transgenders and the word kept spinning. If NC hadn't introduced the legislation none of this is an issue. Transgenders were minding there own business. The weren't making this an issue. They were just peeing. You're completely missing the point. Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing you aren't trolling me at this point, but I'll keep at it nonetheless. i can't see how its inconveniencing/impeding you in any manner. It's impeding on my rights by forcing me to accept the possibility of peeing next to a person of another GENDER, not next to a person who FEELS they are another gender. That's significant. and I'm simplifying, if you look like a man use the men's room, if you look like a woman use the ladies room. It's not about LOOKING like someone, it's BEING someone. And when you really do simplify this, as is the case in the restroom, you LOOK and ARE who you are, get it? So really, you should use the restroom of who you look like without clothes on, not who you dress up as. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. I mean, I walk into work everyday and get called "doctor" by plenty of patients, but I'm a nurse. I don't try to hide that fact, nor do I let the belief persist on their part through any deception, unsaid or otherwise. Legalities aside, it's immoral. Just because I LOOK like a doctor shouldn't change that, even if it's convenient to ignore it at the time. We all peed next to transgenders and the word kept spinning. If NC hadn't introduced the legislation none of this is an issue. Transgenders were minding there own business. The weren't making this an issue. They were just peeing. We peed next to transgenders, presumably, of the same gender. If a West Village Halloween parade walked into the bathroom when I was in there and proceeded to all hit the urinals, couldn't care less. All of them pop a squat? I have an issue with that, which is all this should be about. No morals, no holier than thous, no judgements; I should not have to share private space with the opposite sex in a bathroom. Civil liberties and such. Think this is complicated? Imagine the horrors of folding in HIPAA into this when trying to room a transgender person with a patient of the same sex with which they identify. Yea. I really am trying to understand, I respect your opinions. I think it's just an honest difference of opinion. I think I know you well enough to know you aren't making a moral argument. Im not seeing the big deal of using the facilities with someone with differing gender, whether in feelings or biology. do you really care who is in the adjacent stall? Was it a concern a month ago? and no one has yet to adress the issue of female to male transgenders forced to use the ladies room. Talk about unintended consequences. also....are we going to be checking IDs at restrooms now? THe whole thing is unworkable.
|
|