# American Family Association



## Irish Pixie

an anti LGBT group is sending people, including men, into Target bathrooms to cause trouble.

"Now, in an interview on Breitbart News Daily, a conservative website, Sandy Rios, director of Government Affairs for the American Family Association, said the organization has sent men to Target to attempt entry into women's bathrooms. She did not mention the gender identity of these men."

"I think there's no question that when you say that there are no barriers in the bathroom and that if men or women feel like they are men or women, the (opposite) of however they are equipped, and you have no restrictions, the net effect will be that people will not be stopped," Rios said. "We've already had people testing this, going into Targets and men trying to go into bathrooms. There is absolutely no barrier."

Apparently the Target boycott wasn't accomplishing much so AFA (and others apparently there are a bunch of people acting like fools in Target bathrooms on Youtube) decided to cause trouble to bring attention to it. 

So it's not transgenders causing problems, it's anti transgenders. SMH

From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-target-restroom-policy-20160503-story.html


----------



## thericeguy

I said 100 pages ago thisvwas going to happen. This is being done wrong. Forcing bathroom and shower access in an effort to gain acceptance is backwards. With acceptance and education comes bathroom access. 

For every action, there is an equal opposite reaction. A push gets a shove. Next thing you know, guns are out. 

Bad idea socially. Worse idea politically. But why pay attention to me. I am just another bigot.


----------



## dixiegal62

"We believe that everyone â every team member, every guest, and every community â deserves to be protected from discrimination, and treated equally," 

Sounds like Target is getting what they want, unisex bathrooms.


----------



## Farmerga

Yup, just like we said, there will be no interview process to insure that those, claiming to be transgender are, in fact, transgender. 

Like we said, and were often accused of outlandish flights of fancy, you can't allow for one biological male to enter the women's restrooms, without allowing ALL males to enter said restrooms. 

That was one of those "unintended" consequences that everyone, except the most ideologically blind, could see coming from a mile away.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Equal rights for all.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Yup, just like we said, there will be no interview process to insure that those, claiming to be transgender are, in fact, transgender.
> 
> Like we said, and were often accused of outlandish flights of fancy, you can't allow for one biological male to enter the women's restrooms, without allowing ALL males to enter said restrooms.
> 
> That was one of those "unintended" consequences that everyone, except the most ideologically blind, could see coming from a mile away.


Seriously? An "interview process" to use a public bathroom? We're back to genital checkers again? :facepalm:

Do you agree with AFA that sending men into bathrooms *to start trouble* is a good thing?


----------



## dixiegal62

Why would anyone want to discriminate against men? Equal rights for all.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? An "interview process" to use a public bathroom? We're back to genital checkers again? :facepalm:
> 
> Do you agree with AFA that sending men into bathrooms to start trouble is a good thing?


Come on!! I said that there wouldn't be an interview process, so, therefore, no way to determine if those, claiming to be transgender are, in fact, transgender. This results in exactly what we have been saying, in effect, these new policies have made unisex restrooms. 

Yes what the AFA is doing is called legally exercising their 1st amendment rights and exposing the true magnitude of the mistakes made by Target.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Come on!! I said that there wouldn't be an interview process, so, therefore, no way to determine if those, claiming to be transgender are, in fact, transgender. This results in exactly what we have been saying, in effect, these new policies have made unisex restrooms.
> 
> Yes what the AFA is doing is called a legal exercising of their 1st amendment rights.


How do you make the determination without checking genitals? Can you explain?

OK. I'll wait with bated breath for your response to the same effect on the next BLM, pro choice, or other protest.


----------



## dixiegal62

I'm shocked that someone who was all about equal rights would now be complaining when people exercised their right to be treated equally. &#128521;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> *I said 100 pages ago thisvwas going to happen.* This is being done wrong. Forcing bathroom and shower access in an effort to gain acceptance is backwards. With acceptance and education comes bathroom access.
> 
> For every action, there is an equal opposite reaction. A push gets a shove. Next thing you know, guns are out.
> 
> Bad idea socially. Worse idea politically. But why pay attention to me. I am just another bigot.


You said the "christian" anti-most everything crowd would act like fools?

I missed that post.

But more and more I read less and less of the rambling



> American Family Association - Wikipedia, the free &#8230;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Family_Association
> The American Family Association (AFA) is a non-profit organization based in the United States that promotes fundamentalist Christian values.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Come on!! I said that there wouldn't be an interview process, so, therefore, no way to determine if those, claiming to be transgender are, in fact, transgender. This results in exactly what we have been saying, in effect, these new policies have made unisex restrooms.
> 
> Yes what the AFA is doing is called legally exercising their 1st amendment rights and exposing the true magnitude of the mistakes made by Target.


It's resulted in a bunch of "christians" acting like a bunch of bigoted idiots.
How many of them are perverts using it as an excuse themselves?

They are just generating free advertising for Target, and making fools of themselves


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? An "interview process" to use a public bathroom? We're back to genital checkers again? :facepalm:
> 
> Do you agree with AFA that sending men into bathrooms *to start trouble* is a good thing?


They are there to assert their right to pee in a public restroom. It is not a ladies room anymore. Just a restroom. 

I mentioned several times these things do not happen in a vaccuum. You used past history of no pervs in the bathroom to support your views. I pointed out you were using a scenario where a male perv had no easy access. 

I dont do what if is the replies I recall. Enjoy. When regular women have had enough, they will go shop elsewhere.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> Do you agree with AFA that sending men into bathrooms *to start trouble* is a good thing?


So, it was the AFA that started all this by demanding access to bathrooms by the opposite sex?
I could have sworn I heard that story completely different..................

Picking a fight isn't always fun when the other guy fights back, is it?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Or it could be they are just pro family. There isn't much worse to deal with than a mother or father protecting their family. Especially a mother.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> So, it was the AFA that started all this by demanding access to bathrooms by the opposite sex?
> I could have sworn I heard that story completely different..................
> 
> Picking a fight isn't always fun *when the other guy fights back*, is it?


They aren't "fighting back"

They are just showing their bigotry and hatred while using religion as a justification.


A week or two from now they will be forgotten and the laws will remain


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't "fighting back"
> 
> They are just showing their bigotry and hatred while using religion as a justification.
> 
> 
> A week or two from now they will be forgotten and the laws will remain


OMD! Who knows if the men AFA are sending into Target bathrooms are christian perverts? Did they go through an "interview process"? Since christianity is the most popular religion in the US it stands to reason that most perverts identify as christian...


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't "fighting back"
> 
> They are just showing their bigotry and hatred while using religion as a justification.



Naturally, you are correct.
There's no trouble at all. 


Also, no hatred or bigotry to be found, nope not that I can see............




Irish Pixie said:


> Do you agree with AFA that sending men into bathrooms *to start trouble* is a good thing?





Irish Pixie said:


> OMD! Who knows if the men AFA are sending into Target bathrooms are christian perverts? Did they go through an "interview process"? Since christianity is the most popular religion in the US it stands to reason that most perverts identify as christian...


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Or it could be they are just pro family. There isn't much worse to deal with than a mother or father protecting their family. Especially a mother.


National Geographic is fun to watch, right. Those momma wildebeast. Wow. Face down a pack of lions. C'mon junior. We are leaving.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> They aren't "fighting back"
> 
> They are just showing their bigotry and hatred while using religion as a justification.
> 
> 
> A week or two from now they will be forgotten and the laws will remain


Your just mad cause now that you have divided huge swaths of society, offended them by calling them insane and delusional, not involving them in the debate about how best to solve this issue, they have let fly a left hook. Seems things dont happen in a vaccuum. 

Worried the pressure on Target will get a policy change? I think it will get a new Board of Directors myself.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Or it could be they are just pro family. There isn't much worse to deal with than a mother or father protecting their family. Especially a mother.


What are they protecting their family from? As far as I know there hasn't been a single incident of a transgender person molesting a kid in a bathroom. The majority of pedophiles are white males. I'm going to assume that 75% (it's probably 99%+) of the men that AFA is sending into bathrooms to cause trouble are white. Based on this which group is more likely to contain someone that wants to hurt a kid?


----------



## FarmerKat

It's no different than an LGBT activist buying a cake, adding an offensive word on it and then claiming the store did it. 

The video in the linked article in the OP simply shows the man talking to a store manager and the signs on the restroom door. There was not anything showing that he actually attempted to enter the restroom and what happened if he did.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> *Your just mad* cause now that you have divided huge swaths of society, offended them by calling them insane and delusional, not involving them in the debate about how best to solve this issue, they have let fly a left hook. Seems things dont happen in a vaccuum.
> 
> Worried the pressure on Target will get a policy change? I think it will get a new Board of Directors myself.


LOL
I'm not mad about anything.
I think they look foolish

There is no need for debate on how to "solve the issue" beyond "mind your own business" and don't act like an idiot.

It makes no difference to me what Target does. I don't shop there anyway.

I don't think they will change their policy when the majority of their customers don't have a problem with things as they are.


----------



## Irish Pixie

FarmerKat said:


> It's no different than an LGBT activist buying a cake, adding an offensive word on it and then claiming the store did it.
> 
> The video in the linked article in the OP simply shows the man talking to a store manager and the signs on the restroom door. There was not anything showing that he actually attempted to enter the restroom and what happened if he did.


The pastor that did that at Whole Foods wasn't a LGBT activist he was a bottom feeder that wanted money. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/business/whole-foods-says-customer-faked-anti-gay-cake-slur.html

http://kxan.com/2016/04/20/pastor-sued-for-student-loan-debt-prior-to-whole-foods-cake-claim/


----------



## dixiegal62

I guess some want to discriminate against white males. &#128521;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

FarmerKat said:


> It's *no different* than an LGBT activist buying a cake, adding an offensive word on it and then claiming the store did it.
> 
> The video in the linked article in the OP simply shows the man talking to a store manager and the signs on the restroom door. There was not anything showing that he actually attempted to enter the restroom and what happened if he did.


It's totally different.
You're comparing a fraudulent act by an *individual* to a group effort to look silly.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's totally different.
> You're comparing a fraudulent act by an *individual* to a group effort to look silly.


They are pointing out in a graphic way, if you cant stop me you cant stop a perv. Something wr told you mamy times. You chose and still choose not to hear it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> They are pointing out in a graphic way, if you cant stop me you cant stop a perv.
> 
> Something wr told you mamy times. You chose and still choose not to hear it.


You've shown no evidence that "pervs" are a problem.
That last portion is just incoherent


----------



## arabian knight

thericeguy said:


> They are pointing out in a graphic way, if you cant stop me you cant stop a perv. Something wr told you mamy times. You chose and still choose not to hear it.


 And all this did was make it easier, and create a problem where there was NOT a problem before. Nice going.


----------



## dixiegal62

Targets policy is that anyone should use the facilities they are more comfortable with, nobody is breaking any rules.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> What are they protecting their family from? As far as I know there hasn't been a single incident of a transgender person molesting a kid in a bathroom. The majority of pedophiles are white males. I'm going to assume that 75% (it's probably 99%+) of the men that AFA is sending into bathrooms to cause trouble are white. Based on this which group is more likely to contain someone that wants to hurt a kid?


I think they are just protecting the "family values" which doesn't include anything about the whole gay, transgender, transvestite situation.


----------



## no really

You know this is probably going to work great for my friends. They are gay, married and have two kids, a boy and a girl. In some instances they were not comfortable with the little girl going to some public bathrooms alone. Now when they feel uneasy one of them can go in.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I think they are just protecting the "family values" which doesn't include anything about the whole gay, transgender, transvestite situation.


Don't most families have values? Don't most families protect their kids? This is simply raising a fuss because they can. 

According to yesterday's announcement from DOE and DOJ it's a done deal in schools- no discrimination against LGBT, unless the state wants to do without federal funding. Target is company that can do with their bathrooms what they wish, obviously. So the AFA protests mean nothing.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> As far as I know there hasn't been a single incident of a transgender person molesting a kid in a bathroom.


Well, duh. That's not the issue anyways. Never has been.



Bearfootfarm said:


> You've shown no evidence that "pervs" are a problem.


Uh. Did you guys forget about him?
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender:


> A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday....Justice John McMahon declared Christopher Hambrook &#8212; who claimed to be a transgender woman named Jessica &#8212; was a dangerous offender.


THIS is who we WERE trying to protect against. Now, we have NO WAY of legitimately keeping him out. Target and the AFA helped proved that.

Besides....

*It was never about transsexuals in the first place!!*

It is about (among other things) limiting the access of creeps like him^ to women and children.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Targets policy is that anyone should use the facilities they are more comfortable with, nobody is breaking any rules.


Their policy is their* customers *can use their facilities for legitimate reasons. 

One doesn't have to "break a rule" to look like a fool


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've shown no evidence that "pervs" are a problem.
> That last portion is just incoherent


What I have shown you repeatedly, is that perv, by societal norms, have not had access to the ladies room. You and yours have changed that. Logic dictates changes in inputs creates changes in output. You are seeing a new output to a new equation. Just as expected.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Their policy is their* customers *can use their facilities for legitimate reasons.
> 
> One doesn't have to "break a rule" to look like a fool


We have already redefined sex, gender, male, and female. Do we have to redefine "customer" now too?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Uh. Did you guys forget about him?
> http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender:
> 
> 
> THIS is who we WERE trying to protect against. Now, we have NO WAY of legitimately keeping him out. Target and the AFA helped proved that.
> 
> Besides....
> 
> *It was never about transsexuals in the first place!!*
> 
> It is about (among other things) limiting the access of creeps like him^ to women and children.


He was in Canada
The recent court rulings here had nothing to do with his charades.
They won't increase the problems, nor decrease them

Showing one instance in a country with 350 million people (and it wasn't even the right country) is meaningless, and pretending it's not about transgenders is disingenuous


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> We have already redefined sex, gender, male, and female. Do we have to redefine "customer" now too?


A "customer" isn't someone who came in *only* to make a political statement.



thericeguy said:


> What I have *shown you repeatedly*, is that perv, by societal norms, *have not had access* to the ladies room. You and yours have changed that. Logic dictates changes in inputs creates changes in output. You are seeing a new output to a new equation. Just as expected.


That's not been shown at all.
In fact the opposite has been shown

You've just stated it repeatedly while "showing" nothing at all, just as you did above


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> He was in Canada
> The recent court rulings here had nothing to do with his charades.
> They won't increase the problems, nor decrease them
> 
> Showing one instance in a country with 350 million people is meaningless, and pretending it's not about transgenders is disingenuous


And he isn't transgender, he is a sexual predator. So there are still no incidence of a transgender person assaulting anyone.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't most families have values? Don't most families protect their kids? This is simply raising a fuss because they can.
> 
> According to yesterday's announcement from DOE and DOJ it's a done deal in schools- no discrimination against LGBT, unless the state wants to do without federal funding. Target is company that can do with their bathrooms what they wish, obviously. So the AFA protests mean nothing.


Same story when told completely states that DoJ has decided it will not attempt to withhold funds while this goes thru the courts, where it belongs. I predicted that outcome as well.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't most families have values? Don't most families protect their kids? This is simply raising a fuss because they can.
> 
> According to yesterday's announcement from DOE and DOJ it's a done deal in schools- no discrimination against LGBT, unless the state wants to do without federal funding. Target is company that can do with their bathrooms what they wish, obviously. *So the AFA protests mean nothing.*


The will of the people mean nothing? LOL. Would it hurt your feelings if these "people" who dont matter managed to pass a constitutional amendment that said all transgender people would be forcibly incarcerated for their entire natural lives?

Would your precious SCOTUS be able to rule the constitution unconstitutional and not set off another civil war? You boldness will be your undoing.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> And he isn't transgender, he is a sexual predator. So there are still no incidence of a transgender person assaulting anyone.


:smack: :smack: :smack:

You're still not seeing the point here.

When ANYONE can have unquestioned access based on their claims (true or false), then ANYONE has access to EVERYONE once they get in the door, INCLUDING pervs who are taking advantage.

Nobody (well, myself at the very least) has EVER accused the trans community of being the problem. The problem is the open door policy.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't most families have values? Don't most families protect their kids? This is simply raising a fuss because they can.
> 
> According to yesterday's announcement from DOE and DOJ it's a done deal in schools- no discrimination against LGBT, unless the state wants to do without federal funding. Target is company that can do with their bathrooms what they wish, obviously. So the AFA protests mean nothing.


You know, that silly nuclear family idea. 
I don't value anything The Department of Education has to offer. 
And as far as The Government, I think laws are meant to be taken in lenient manner. Sometimes I lean this way, and some times another. The Government I guess we have is because that is what we deserve, people are catching on though.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> The will of the people mean nothing? LOL. Would it hurt your feelings if these "people" who dont matter managed to pass a constitutional amendment that said *all transgender people would be forcibly incarcerated for their entire natural lives?*
> 
> Would your precious SCOTUS be able to rule the constitution unconstitutional and not set off another civil war? *You boldness will be your undoing*.


The Nazi's had similar suggestions
Don't *assume* you'd win any "war" either


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> :smack: :smack: :smack:
> 
> *You're still not seeing the point here.*
> 
> When ANYONE can have unquestioned access based on their claims (true or false), then ANYONE has access to EVERYONE once they get in the door, INCLUDING pervs who are taking advantage.
> 
> Nobody (well, myself at the very least) has EVER accused the trans community of being the problem. The problem is the open door policy.


You're not *making* any point

You're pretending some silly laws were preventing sexual predators from doing what they do.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're not *making* any point
> 
> You're pretending some silly laws were preventing sexual predators from doing what they do.


No. I'm suggesting that the new silly laws are making it easier for them.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> The Nazi's had similar suggestions
> Don't *assume* you'd win any "war" either


When it comes to defending ones way of life, win or lose rarely enter the equation. But fighting guys in high heels might be easier than fighting Rambo.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't most families have values? Don't most families protect their kids? This is simply raising a fuss because they can.
> 
> According to yesterday's announcement from DOE and DOJ it's a done deal in schools- no discrimination against LGBT, unless the state wants to do without federal funding. Target is company that can do with their bathrooms what they wish, obviously. So the AFA protests mean nothing.


They also used the word changing rooms too. Most of those don't have stalls. At least the men's don't.


----------



## Bubba1358

This has been a most informative discussion for me.

I have a much better understanding of what the progressive camp is after with this issue, and the reasons for it. I disagree in so many ways, and it's been nice to flesh out why. Hopefully, the comments I've made on this topic (across however many threads this has overtaken) have at least caused some people to stop and think.

I'd like to offer a big thanks to Irish Pixie, Bearfootfarm, and painterswife to being sporting spokespersons for the Left. It's nice to get outside of my circle once in a while and hear other opinions. I appreciate your time and energy in championing this cause, even though I disagree with just about everything y'all have said.  As my dad used to say, I'd rather have someone be totally wrong and stick to their guns than have someone be all wishy-washy about everything.

May God bless you all.


----------



## arabian knight

Bubba1358 said:


> No. I'm suggesting that the new silly laws are making it easier for them.


Just what I said also.


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> And he isn't transgender, he is a sexual predator. So there are still no incidence of a transgender person assaulting anyone.


You are still missing his point. It's not about tg perverts. It's about hetero perverts posing as tg non perverts. 

Can we not discuss anything on here anymore without re wording it?


----------



## FarmerKat

no really said:


> You know this is probably going to work great for my friends. They are gay, married and have two kids, a boy and a girl. In some instances they were not comfortable with the little girl going to some public bathrooms alone. Now when they feel uneasy one of them can go in.


When a dad is alone with a young daughter ... Say 3-5 year old, one that may not be able to go into a bathroom by herself even if for the simple reason that she cannot reach the sink ... Should he take her to men's room or ladies' room? Or are you saying that a gay man can take a girl to a ladies' room but a straight man needs to take her to the men's room? 

We have young children (boy and a girl) and we take them to the restroom with us. If they go with dad, they are going to men's room. If they go with me, they are going to women's room. It never occurred to me that my daughter and I should go into the men's room if it is my son who needs to use the bathroom.



Irish Pixie said:


> According to yesterday's announcement from DOE and DOJ it's a done deal in schools- no discrimination against LGBT, unless the state wants to do without federal funding.


I think schools should figure out how to do without federal funding. The federal government is using $$ to basically black mail schools to do things they do not want to do. Testing, common core, boys and girls showering together, etc. But every time a state wants to do something that is against what the feds want, they dangle the "carrot" in front of them, everyone panics and they do as they say to get the money.


----------



## no really

FarmerKat said:


> When a dad is alone with a young daughter ... Say 3-5 year old, one that may not be able to go into a bathroom by herself even if for the simple reason that she cannot reach the sink ... Should he take her to men's room or ladies' room? Or are you saying that a gay man can take a girl to a ladies' room but a straight man needs to take her to the men's room?
> 
> We have young children (boy and a girl) and we take them to the restroom with us. If they go with dad, they are going to men's room. If they go with me, they are going to women's room. It never occurred to me that my daughter and I should go into the men's room if it is my son who needs to use the bathroom.
> 
> 
> 
> I think schools should figure out how to do without federal funding. The federal government is using $$ to basically black mail schools to do things they do not want to do. Testing, common core, boys and girls showering together, etc. But every time a state wants to do something that is against what the feds want, they dangle the "carrot" in front of them, everyone panics and they do as they say to get the money.


The girl is now 7 she absolutely refuses to go to the mens room. They travel a lot and air port restrooms are not safe for a child. When she was younger 4 or 5 she would not tell when she needed to go because she did not want to use the men's room. Basically what this law would do is give them a bit of leeway in making sure the bathrooms are clear and safe.

Gay or straight it shouldn't matter.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> They also used the word changing rooms too. Most of those don't have stalls. At least the men's don't.


So isn't that what the discussion should be about? Adding privacy curtains in locker rooms and showers rather than discriminating against a group of people? 

Both school districts (smaller rural schools) I went to had at least one private changing area in the locker room, and one had individual shower stalls with nothing on the front. Most women don't get naked in the locker room. Bras and panties stay on unless you're in the shower for most woman anyway. 

The issue I have is that the transgenders are being blamed, through no fault of their own, because people think that pedophiles _might_ get into areas they shouldn't. That doesn't justify taking the civil rights away from a group of people to me. Know where your kid is at all times- it's something that should be done anyway. I have three grandkids ages 6 months, 2 and 5 years I know where they are every minute we're out and I did the same when my girls were young.


----------



## FarmerKat

no really said:


> The girl is now 7 she absolutely refuses to go to the mens room. They travel a lot and air port restrooms are not safe for a child. When she was younger 4 or 5 she would not tell when she needed to go because she did not want to use the men's room. Basically what this law would do is give them a bit of leeway in making sure the bathrooms are clear and safe.
> 
> Gay or straight it shouldn't matter.


But would not the presence of other men in the ladies' room (who just may be dads taking their daughters) cause the same anxiety to her? 

I agree that at 7, a child is too young to go to a restroom by herself/himself in a busy place like an airport.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> This has been a most informative discussion for me.
> 
> I have a much better understanding of what the progressive camp is after with this issue, and the reasons for it. I disagree in so many ways, and it's been nice to flesh out why. Hopefully, the comments I've made on this topic (across however many threads this has overtaken) have at least caused some people to stop and think.
> 
> I'd like to offer a big thanks to Irish Pixie, Bearfootfarm, and painterswife to being sporting spokespersons for the Left. It's nice to get outside of my circle once in a while and hear other opinions. I appreciate your time and energy in championing this cause, even though I disagree with just about everything y'all have said.  As my dad used to say, I'd rather have someone be totally wrong and stick to their guns than have someone be all wishy-washy about everything.
> 
> *May God bless you all*.


A nice enough post until you had to add the zinger at the end. I don't believe in god, and I've made it well known so why add it?


----------



## arabian knight

And this sure isn't good news for Target, They in Trouble.
Target CEO Defends Pro-Transgender Policy, *Stocks Crash Down Another $2 Billion*


> The CEO of retail giant Target is zig-zagging between the many customers who are angered by his decision to open single-sex bathrooms to the other sex, the gender-identity progressives who pushed for the disastrous transgender policy, and the *Wall Street stock-pickers who have chopped roughly $4.5 billion off the companyâs value*.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/12/target-ceo-says-reaction-bathroom-policy-just-like-first-used-blacks-ads-2/


----------



## no really

FarmerKat said:


> But would not the presence of other men in the ladies' room (who just may be dads taking their daughters) cause the same anxiety to her?
> 
> I agree that at 7, a child is too young to go to a restroom by herself/himself in a busy place like an airport.



Not so much being in there with her but nearby, look in and stand by the door. The way things are now a man standing near a women's bathroom is considered a threat and yes in some instances they are. But there are a lot of single Dad's and Dad's like my friends who simply because they are men suspect.


----------



## MO_cows

Irish Pixie said:


> A nice enough post until you had to add the zinger at the end. I don't believe in god, and I've made it well known so why add it?


It's not all about you! There were others named. I think it was a sincere gesture and not a "zinger" as you described. But if you choose to be offended by it that is your right. It takes a lot more than that to ruin my day.........


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

That's what Target got what it deserved for playing the PC card, they are in business to make money, not public policy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> That's what Target got what it deserved for playing the PC card, they are in business to make money, not public policy.


How dare they support what they believe in!


----------



## Irish Pixie

MO_cows said:


> It's not all about you! There were others named. I think it was a sincere gesture and not a "zinger" as you described. But if you choose to be offended by it that is your right. It takes a lot more than that to ruin my day.........


Who said it ruined my day? Now that is an assumption. It didn't even surprise me. I have no idea if it was sincere or not, but I do know for certain it wasn't directed at you. 

I can't speak for anyone else so I only mentioned myself.


----------



## dixiegal62

What is the difference between a man dressed like a man using the ladies room and a man dressed as a woman using it....none. If you really wanted equal rights in bathrooms then anyone can use any bathroom. Otherwise it's all just a bunch of bull hockey.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> The majority of pedophiles are white males.



Prove it.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> How dare they support what they believe in!


Tell that to cake makers.


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Prove it.


My apologizes, most child molesters are male but I can't prove they are white with a cite.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no idea if it was sincere or not, but I do know for certain it wasn't directed at you.


It was. And for the record, it was meant for everyone (hence the use of the word "all").

But just for you, Pixie, I give you my warmest wishes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> No. I'm suggesting that the new silly laws are *making it easier *for them.


Your suggestion has no supporting evidence.
It's still the same doors and their acts would still be as illegal

thericeguy:


> When it comes to defending ones way of life, win or lose rarely enter the equation. But fighting guys in high heels might be easier than fighting Rambo.


You seem to allude to violence quite often


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> They also used the word *changing rooms* too. Most of those don't have stalls. At least the men's don't.


Have you *ever* been in a store's "changing room" undressing with a stranger?
Every one I ever used was just barely large enough for one


----------



## thericeguy

FarmerKat said:


> I think schools should figure out how to do without federal funding. The federal government is using $$ to basically black mail schools to do things they do not want to do. Testing, common core, boys and girls showering together, etc. But every time a state wants to do something that is against what the feds want, they dangle the "carrot" in front of them, everyone panics and they do as they say to get the money.


How does it feel to know your state, my state, every state, would sell out the will of its people and the welfare of children for cash? I hope you see its not just the feds. 

When you take fed highway money, you have to build their way. Too often, 100% of your way is cheaper than 50% of their way. Bugger off feds.


----------



## no really

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> That's what Target got what it deserved for playing the PC card, they are in business to make money, not public policy.



I kinda think they were going for some free advertising and a bit of good will after the mess with the info hack. But it could be just a statement, getting on the bandwagon.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> This has been a most informative discussion for me.
> 
> *I have a much better understanding of what the progressive camp is after with this issue*, and the reasons for it. I disagree in so many ways, and it's been nice to flesh out why. Hopefully, the comments I've made on this topic (across however many threads this has overtaken) have at least caused some people to stop and think.
> 
> I'd like to offer a big thanks to Irish Pixie, Bearfootfarm, and painterswife to being sporting spokespersons for the Left. It's nice to get outside of my circle once in a while and hear other opinions. I appreciate your time and energy in championing this cause, even though I disagree with just about everything y'all have said.  As my dad used to say, I'd rather have someone be totally wrong and stick to their guns than have someone be all wishy-washy about everything.
> 
> May God bless you all.


I really don't think you do, based on the comments you've made and the misconceptions you still cling to


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> You are still missing his point. It's not about tg perverts. It's about hetero perverts posing as tg non perverts.
> 
> Can we not discuss anything on here anymore without re wording it?


No one reworded anything.

We've always known you think those who don't agree with you are perverts and mentally ill sinners.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your suggestion has no supporting evidence.
> It's still the same doors and their acts would still be as illegal
> 
> thericeguy:
> 
> You seem to allude to violence quite often


Can you look at human history, start to present, and see anything but persistent violence with occasional outbreaks of peace, with peace being relative. Ask someone in a "wrong" neighborhood if we have peace.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> My apologizes, most child molesters are male but I can't prove they are white with a cite.



Prove it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> That's what *Target got what it deserved* for playing the PC card, they are in business to make money, not public policy.


There's no real evidence the decline in the stock price is due solely to the policy.

Sears/K-mart is closing lots of stores, and JC Penny stocks are down just like many other retail businesses now.

They still haven't said they would change the policy back, and you one day will have to accept the fact that younger people control things now.

They are the customers who will be catered to by businesses


----------



## AmericanStand

By the way pixie which is it ? Child molesters or pedophiles ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MO_cows said:


> It's not all about you! There were others named. I think it was *a sincere gesture* and not a "zinger" as you described. But if you choose to be offended by it that is your right. It takes a lot more than that to ruin my day.........


I think not, but Bless your Heart for saying so


----------



## Irish Pixie

AmericanStand said:


> Prove it





AmericanStand said:


> By the way which is it ? Child molesters and pedophiles ?


Since you asked so nicely... No, I'm not wasting my time. If you want to know Google is your friend.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> How do you make the determination without checking genitals? Can you explain?
> 
> OK. I'll wait with bated breath for your response to the same effect on the next BLM, pro choice, or other protest.



hundreds of posts and dozens of pages and you still don't get it? If you allow one "group" to choose, you must allow ALL groups to choose. 

I challenge you to find a post of mine where I have ever hinted at wishing to deny any of those groups the right to peacefully protest. I wait, with bated breath for your response.

A transgender, who looks enough like the gender they wish to emulate, will not draw suspicion and, therefore, has no need for these new laws.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Can you look at human history, start to present, and see anything but persistent violence with occasional outbreaks of peace, with peace being relative. Ask someone in a "wrong" neighborhood if we have peace.


So you think violence is justified because it's happened before, but you're just tapping furiously at your phone


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> hundreds of posts and dozens of pages and you still don't get it? If you allow one "group" to choose, you must allow ALL groups to choose.
> 
> I challenge you to find a post of mine where I have ever hinted at wishing to deny any of those groups the right to peacefully protest. I wait, with bated breath for your response.


Where did I say anything about not allowing the AFA men in the bathroom at Target? Can you point it out, please? Thanks. 

Nope. I'm not going to search your posts. I'd rather watch paint dry.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you think violence is justified because it's happened before, but you're just tapping furiously at your phone


What does your signature line advocate?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Prove it.


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6WrPyIKg_U[/ame]



> according to FBI 80% of pedophiles are â¦
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6WrPyIKg_U
> BY DEVILS OPERATE ON THE PHYSICAL GODS OPERATE ON THE SPIRITUAL
> Feb 21, 2008 Â· according to FBI* 80% of pedophiles are nonhispanic white men*


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> hundreds of posts and dozens of pages and you still don't get it? If you allow one "group" to choose, you must allow ALL groups to choose.
> 
> I challenge you to find a post of mine where I have ever hinted at wishing to deny any of those groups the right to peacefully protest. I wait, with bated breath for your response.
> 
> A transgender, who looks enough like the gender they wish to emulate, will not draw suspicion and, therefore, has no need for these new laws.


There's also no need for the wailing and hand-wringing by those who see perverts everywhere


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> Since you asked so nicely... No, I'm not wasting my time. If you want to know Google is your friend.



I think you are incorrect. 
Furthermore I think you know you're incorrect and that's why you do not want to prove your statement. 
You know what that makes you even if I can't say it here. 

I am tired of every lamebrain moron in the world feeling like they can spout off their idiotic mind without any consequences. 
In person in the real world these people pay the consequences. 
Please note I am specifically not calling Pixie a moron or a lamebrain. I think she knows better. 
To attack an entire race and gender without any proof is wrong. 
The reason I asked whether Pixie meant molester or pedophile is because of the difference between them. She used both terms. And while the very definition of pedophile is biased against men molester is a far more neutral term.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> What does your signature line advocate?


Minding your own business



> Molon labe, meaning "come and take them" , is a classical expression of defiance





> deÂ·fiÂ·ance (d&#301;-f&#299;&#8242;&#601;ns)
> n.
> 1. The act or an example of defying; bold resistance to an opposing force or authority.
> 2. Intentionally contemptuous behavior or attitude; readiness to contend or resist.


Note the word "violence" is absent


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> Have you *ever* been in a store's "changing room" undressing with a stranger?
> Every one I ever used was just barely large enough for one


The dept of education is selling clothes now? come on bff, I expect you to keep on task better than that. 

I was responding to pixies post about the DOE. I don't care one whit what a privately owned store does or doesn't do.


----------



## Elevenpoint

arabian knight said:


> And this sure isn't good news for Target, They in Trouble.
> Target CEO Defends Pro-Transgender Policy, *Stocks Crash Down Another $2 Billion*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/05/12/target-ceo-says-reaction-bathroom-policy-just-like-first-used-blacks-ads-2/





Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no real evidence the decline in the stock price is due solely to the policy.
> 
> Sears/K-mart is closing lots of stores, and JC Penny stocks are down just like many other retail businesses now.
> 
> They still haven't said they would change the policy back, and you one day will have to accept the fact that younger people control things now.
> 
> They are the customers who will be catered to by businesses


Remember what I predicted a few weeks ago.
Then again, maybe socks aren't selling well since spring is here.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one reworded anything.
> 
> We've always known you think those who don't agree with you are perverts and mentally ill sinners.


Wow

You've always known I think those that don't agree with me after perverts? Even though I have never made one racist or bigoted statement on this forum?

Wow


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> I think you are incorrect.
> Furthermore I think you know you're incorrect and that's why you do not want to prove your statement.
> You know what that makes you even if I can't say it here.
> 
> I am tired of every *lamebrain moron* in the world feeling like they can spout off their* idiotic mind* without any consequences.
> In person in the real world these people pay the consequences.
> Please note I am specifically not calling Pixie a moron or a lamebrain. I think she knows better.
> To attack an entire race and gender without any proof is wrong.
> The reason I asked whether Pixie meant molester or pedophile is because of the difference between them. She used both terms. And while the very definition of pedophile is biased against men molester is a far more neutral term.


I posted the proof you asked for, and it shows you are incorrect
See post # 85


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> The dept of education is selling clothes now? come on bff, I expect you to keep on task better than that.
> 
> I was responding to pixies post about the DOE. I don't care one whit what a privately owned store does or doesn't do.


I thought you were talking about Target, the actual topic of the thread


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Where did I say anything about not allowing the AFA men in the bathroom at Target? Can you point it out, please? Thanks.
> 
> Nope. I'm not going to search your posts. I'd rather watch paint dry.


Then why are you complaining about the AFA sending men into the Target Restrooms.

It would be a waste of time for you to search my posts, because I have never advocated for the denial of anyone's right to peacefully protest.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Wow
> 
> You've always known I think those that don't agree with me after perverts? Even though I have never made one racist or bigoted statement on this forum?
> 
> Wow


I thought you said...



mreynolds said:


> You are still missing his point. It's not about tg *perverts*. It's about hetero *perverts* posing as tg non *perverts*.
> 
> Can we not discuss anything on here anymore without re wording it?


while you were *defending* the other guys that call them perverts.

Maybe you can understand my confusion? :shrug:


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's also no need for the wailing and hand-wringing by those who see perverts everywhere


One way to prevent roaches is to alter the environment so that it is not conducive to their needs. Those who advocate, for this, are plopping down a giant bag of garbage in a dark, warm, humid room.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Then why are you complaining about the AFA sending men into the Target Restrooms.
> 
> It would be a waste of time for you to search my posts, because I have never advocated for the denial of anyone's right to peacefully protest.


Where did anyone say they had no right to make total fools of themselves?
You're arguing against something that didn't happen (again)


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where did anyone say they had no right to make total fools of themselves?
> You're arguing against something that didn't happen (again)


I don't care to explain it to you. You wouldn't see it anyway and it is time for the weekend.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Then why are you complaining about the AFA sending men into the Target Restrooms.
> 
> It would be a waste of time for you to search my posts, because I have never advocated for the denial of anyone's right to peacefully protest.


AFA is only doing it to cause problems, in my opinion. Target can have any bathroom policy it wants as long as it doesn't discriminate.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> AFA is only doing it to cause problems, in my opinion. Target can have any bathroom policy it wants as long as it doesn't discriminate.


They are doing it to prove the same point that many on these boards have said all along, that these policies are a load of trouble waiting to happen. 

I simply hope it won't take a woman being sexually assaulted and suing the bejesis out of Target for them to understand.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> Minding your own business
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note the word "violence" is absent


You are soooo predictable. Lol. Come and take them! Means what to you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> You are soooo predictable. Lol. Come and take them! Means what to you?


I already answered that question.
I'm sorry you're still confused, but repetition won't change anything


----------



## JawjaBoy

When you get right down to it, the problem is this: 

When you throw open the doors, you have to open them to EVERYONE. Which means that intentional or not, there is now no barrier to keep those with evil intent out.


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> I already answered that question.
> I'm sorry you're still confused, but repetition won't change anything


There's no repetition, it means what it says. No confusion except maybe on your part. It is, afterall, your signature line! Embrace it!!!
It's a challenge, but you know this....


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no real evidence the decline in the stock price is due solely to the policy.
> 
> Sears/K-mart is closing lots of stores, and JC Penny stocks are down just like many other retail businesses now.
> 
> They still haven't said they would change the policy back, and you one day will have to accept the fact that younger people control things now.
> 
> They are the customers who will be catered to by businesses


Other than the fact the very next day after they made their decision public was when they their stock took a major hit. It wasn't the day Retail sales figures were released.

If what we have seen the last year is from younger people running things..God help us all. I don't see any improvement from my generation screwing things up like they have.


----------



## farmrbrown

JeffreyD said:


> What does your signature line advocate?





Bearfootfarm said:


> Minding your own business
> 
> Note the word "violence" is absent


Don't bother Jeff, it's like nailing spaghetti to the wall, lol.

Ever since the movie about the Spartans came out several years ago, the phrase Molon Labe is as well defined as the rebel phrase "Come get some".
We all know when, how and why it's used.

Even if the song "Santa Claus is coming to town" does have the word "Christmas" in it, we all know what time it is..........


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JawjaBoy said:


> When you get right down to it, the problem is this:
> 
> When you throw open the doors, you have to open them to EVERYONE. Which means that intentional or not, there is now* no barrier to keep those with evil intent out*.


There was never anything to keep them out.
To pretend otherwise is naive


----------



## greg273

mreynolds said:


> You are still missing his point. It's not about tg perverts. It's about hetero perverts posing as tg non perverts.
> 
> Can we not discuss anything on here anymore without re wording it?


 Nothing is stopping 'perverts' from walking into any ladies room, no matter what the law or store policy is. Criminals don't follow laws. 
And Targets policy referred to 'transgendered' people, not any and all men. 

If someone walks into a bathroom and causes a problem, they will be dealt with, just the same as its always been. 

As far as the 'American Family' loons sending people into Target stores to cause trouble, they are obviously a bunch of idiots, and probably perverts themselves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

JeffreyD said:


> *There's no repetition*, it means what it says. No confusion except maybe on your part. It is, afterall, your signature line! Embrace it!!!
> It's a challenge, but you know this....


You're right, I'm tired of repeating things when you just keep asking so I'll stop


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Other than the fact the very next day after they made their decision public was when they their stock took a major hit. It wasn't the day Retail sales figures were released.
> 
> If what we have seen the last year is from younger people running things..God help us all. I don't see any improvement from my generation screwing things up like they have.


It's gone up and down since that time

There's no evidence it was due solely to the announcement.
It will all blow over in a few weeks and the world will move on to the next big "catastrophe"


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> Nothing is stopping 'perverts' from walking into any ladies room, no matter what the law or store policy is. Criminals don't follow laws.
> And Targets policy referred to 'transgendered' people, not any and all men.
> 
> If someone walks into a bathroom and causes a problem, they will be dealt with, just the same as its always been.
> 
> As far as the 'American Family' loons sending people into Target stores to cause trouble, they are obviously a bunch of idiots, and probably perverts themselves.


Target's policy was not to discriminate against anyone.
Now we have that.
The old saying... careful what you wish for?
Saw it coming a mile away...no crying now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Target's policy was not to discriminate against anyone.
> Now we have that.
> The old saying... careful what you wish for?
> Saw it coming a mile away...*no crying now*.


Who's doing all the crying over it?
I thought y'all were all about "A business owner can do whatever he wants"


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who's doing all the crying over it?
> I thought y'all were all about "A business owner can do whatever he wants"[/QUOT
> Equal rights to all bathrooms for all.
> Let's not discriminate against anybody.


----------



## arabian knight

elevenpoint said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's doing all the crying over it?
> I thought y'all were all about "A business owner can do whatever he wants"[/QUOT
> Equal rights to all bathrooms for all.
> Let's not discriminate against anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> THREE bathrooms One for Women, One for Men, and one *? * for Whatever you THINK you are THEY then have there OWN so they can do and go in and out no matter what they THINK they are4 no matter what their Biological makeup is.
> Problem solved and everyone then IS treated The same no matter what sex you are, OR THINK YOU ARE, even if you are faking it. LOL
Click to expand...


----------



## JeffreyD

Bearfootfarm said:


> You're right, I'm tired of repeating things when you just keep asking so I'll stop


That would be fantastic, although you've said that before. Just can't help yourself can you! :hysterical:


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's gone up and down since that time
> 
> There's no evidence it was due solely to the announcement.
> It will all blow over in a few weeks and the world will move on to the next big "catastrophe"


Hope the shareholders have unwavering belief in that.
Imagine the big shareholders burning up the phone line to the board of directors lately.
Those would be interesting to listen in on.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Hope the shareholders have unwavering belief in that.
> Imagine the big shareholders burning up the phone line to the board of directors lately.
> Those would be interesting to listen in on.


Time will tell.
I doubt you'll see any change in the policy


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> elevenpoint said:
> 
> 
> 
> THREE bathrooms One for Women, One for Men, and one *? * for Whatever you THINK you are THEY then have there OWN so they can do and go in and out no matter what they THINK they are4 no matter what their Biological makeup is.
> Problem solved and *everyone then IS treated The same* no matter what sex you are, OR THINK YOU ARE, even if you are faking it. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone is being treated the same already.
> When's the last time you had to take a shower with a crowd of people?
> When's the last time you saw a transgender in the bathroom?
> You're ranting over a non-existent problem
Click to expand...


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> I thought you said...
> 
> 
> 
> while you were *defending* the other guys that call them perverts.
> 
> Maybe you can understand my confusion? :shrug:


I was defending a *statement *about what he said about hetero perverts. And somehow that made you boldly state publicly what you _have always known _about me.


----------



## AmericanStand

Bearfootfarm said:


> Who's doing all the crying over it?
> I thought y'all were all about "A business owner can do whatever he wants"



The "OWNERS" didn't make this choice hirelings over which they have very little control did.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mreynolds said:


> I was defending a *statement *about what he said about hetero perverts. And somehow that made you boldly state publicly what you _have always known _about me.


Ain't no getting out of that one, now is there?
And who is we anyway?


----------



## mreynolds

greg273 said:


> Nothing is stopping 'perverts' from walking into any ladies room, no matter what the law or store policy is. Criminals don't follow laws.
> And Targets policy referred to 'transgendered' people, not any and all men.
> 
> If someone walks into a bathroom and causes a problem, they will be dealt with, just the same as its always been.
> 
> As far as the 'American Family' loons sending people into Target stores to cause trouble, they are obviously a bunch of idiots, and probably perverts themselves.


Nothing is stopping them except they are men. They aren't supposed to be in there. Are weren't last week anyway. Now any pervert can simply pose as trangender and spend all day in there now if they want to.

Are me and a few others the only ones that can see this happening MORE than it does now with this law? Or are you and a few others trying to deflect the discussion because of an agenda?


----------



## mreynolds

elevenpoint said:


> Ain't no getting out of that one, now is there?
> And who is we anyway?


lol, I don't even remember for sure but I think it was Bubba that started the hetero pervs posing as trans non pervs just to gain access conversation.


A pervert is a sick and twisted person IMO.


But apparently he wont do this one deed.

From what I hear anyway.


----------



## Elevenpoint

mreynolds said:


> lol, I don't even remember for sure but I think it was Bubba that started the hetero pervs posing as trans non pervs just to gain access conversation.
> 
> 
> A pervert is a sick and twisted person IMO.
> 
> 
> But apparently he wont do this one deed.
> 
> From what I hear anyway.


Nope, meant you got labeled.
Quoting...We've always known...
Of course by the only true resident Christian, church, religion bashing bigots here.


----------



## greg273

mreynolds said:


> Nothing is stopping them except they are men. They aren't supposed to be in there. Are weren't last week anyway. Now any pervert can simply pose as trangender and spend all day in there now if they want to.
> 
> Are me and a few others the only ones that can see this happening MORE than it does now with this law?


 You're not 'seeing it', you're SPECULATING it might happen. And I have no doubt it will, but at about the same rate it does now, which is almost NEVER.

Anyone causing a disturbance in a public place is subject to arrest, that is true no matter what they call themselves or 'pose' as.


----------



## mreynolds

elevenpoint said:


> Nope, meant you got labeled.
> Quoting...We've always known...
> Of course by the only true resident Christian, church, religion bashing bigots here.


Yep, been labeled all my life. 

Still didn't interfere with my fishing today though.


----------



## no really

mreynolds said:


> Nothing is stopping them except they are men. They aren't supposed to be in there. Are weren't last week anyway. Now any pervert can simply pose as trangender and spend all day in there now if they want to.
> 
> Are me and a few others the only ones that can see this happening MORE than it does now with this law? Or are you and a few others trying to deflect the discussion because of an agenda?


You know you're not gonna get anywhere arguing with people that don't care about anything but not losing an argument. As a woman I would like for men that don't seem to be able to take seriously the crap women have to deal with to spend some time worrying about dealing with the perverts we do.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> I was defending a statement about what he said about hetero perverts. And somehow that made you boldly state publicly what you _have always known _about me.


What I* saw* was you calling people "perverts" while defending someone who had been calling them perverts. :shrug:



> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> Nope, meant you got* labeled.*
> Quoting...We've always known...
> Of course by the only true resident Christian, church, religion bashing bigots here.


If you can label, so can I.
You use them more than I so you shouldn't get upset over them
You'll get over it, as I already have


----------



## Miss Kay

Oh boy, I'm taller than almost all women and most men so I'm not going anywhere near target until this thing dies down. All I need is some paranoid woman thinking I'm a Bruce Jenner or some conspiracy theorist thinking I'm trying to make a point. Some times people go in the bathroom just because they need to pee!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Nothing is stopping them except they are men. They aren't supposed to be in there. Are weren't last week anyway. *Now any pervert can simply pose as trangender and spend all day in there now if they want to.*
> 
> Are me and a few others the only ones that can see this happening MORE than it does now with this law? Or are you and a few others trying to deflect the discussion because of an agenda?


People keep repeating that with no evidence it really happens

16 states have had similar laws, some going back decades, but no one can show more than one or two examples of anyone doing anything at all.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no real evidence the decline in the stock price is due solely to the policy.


You're right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> You're right.


The price is higher now than it was about 6 months ago too

http://www.bing.com/search?q=target...=-1&sk=&cvid=74CB4CFB40734499816B8BCDEABF2D98


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Um..soooo what. It is obvious their price has dropped the last month..which is what the point being made is about.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Um..soooo what. It is obvious their price has dropped the last month..which is what the point being made is about.


My point is historically the price has risen and fallen, so blaming it *all* on one announcement is speculation.

Odds are it will go back up


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> What I* saw* was you calling people "perverts" while defending someone who had been calling them perverts. :shrug:
> 
> 
> If you can label, so can I.
> You use them more than I so you shouldn't get upset over them
> You'll get over it, as I already have


I called only perverts that. 

Not *any* transgender 

Not every heterosexual

Not every (or any in this case) gay, lesbian, bi, queer, questioning or any other letter on the acronym scale that grows daily.

We were only talking about true perverts that do exist that are heterosexual. 

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

I *NEVER* said anything about a transgender pervert. But for you to allude that absolutely none exist seems short sighted and very narrow minded. Be that as it may, *ONLY YOU BROUGHT UP TRANGENDER PERVERTS* in regards to my post.

I never did. Re-read my posts for better comprehension. 

Or are you saying there are no perverts around anymore?


----------



## mreynolds

greg273 said:


> You're not 'seeing it', you're SPECULATING it might happen. And I have no doubt it will, but at about the same rate it does now, which is almost NEVER.
> 
> Anyone causing a disturbance in a public place is subject to arrest, that is true no matter what they call themselves or 'pose' as.


No, you are not "seeing" it. 

Robbery happens at X percentage. So if Obama passes a law that we have to keep our doors unlocked "or else" you still think that percentage will stay the same as today?

If you do then we really have nothing else to discuss in this matter. 

Thank you for your insight.


----------



## thericeguy

They are outcome driven. In order for X to happen, A B C must be true. Any evidence contrary to the truth of A B or C must be rejected outright, or you risk losing desired effect X. 

It is a false debate. There is no debate. They do not care what you think, what you say, or what evidence you have. Unless it supports the desired outcome, it is rejected. 

I am convinced at this point they do not even care about transgender people.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> People keep repeating that with no evidence it really happens
> 
> 16 states have had similar laws, some going back decades, but no one can show more than one or two examples of anyone doing anything at all.


Ok, I'll bite. 

Are you SURE that's true or is this speculation? Have you looked it up?

What states have these laws? What are these laws?

I'll tell you what I have done to research this issue. I went to a transgender forum and read what they wrote. Wasn't hard to find the right thread either. Most said that they prefer to use the restroom of their anatomy up until they started to have the operations to change sex. They said they didn't feel comfortable using their actual sex's restrooms until the change was in progress. 

Reason why was they didn't want to make anyone uncomfortable in their own private space. Seems like the transgender is more considerate than the progressives. 

_WHAT _have you done to look into the issue except [try and] cut people down? 

Tunnel vision is not in my vocabulary. I try and prove *myself* wrong before I go and accuse others of being something I know nothing about. 

Good day BFF.


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> My point is historically the price has risen and fallen, so blaming it *all* on one announcement is speculation.
> 
> Odds are it will go back up


 That is what some business analysts are saying as well...



> Sales may drop for at least short period, according to YouGov BrandIndex, a firm that measures consumer perceptions of major brands on a daily basis.
> Before the boycott, 42% of consumers considered buying from Target the next time they shop at a department store. In the last couple weeks, that share has fallen to 36%, according to YouGov data provided to Business Insider.
> Consumer perception of the brand has also dropped sharply. It's at its lowest point in two years.
> Despite the drop, Target is still in "positive" perception territory. In other words, there are still more people who think positively about Target than negatively.
> "There's a very large group out there that supports Target's decision," says crisis management expert Kevin Dinino, CEO of San Diego-based KCD PR.
> He pointed out that nearly 80 million people shop at Target's stores every month, so "at worst, we are talking about a group of 1.2 million shoppers â or 1.5% of Target's customers â who are disenfranchised."
> Investors also don't seem too concerned about a long-term sales impact.
> Target's share price has lost 9% of its value in the last month, but it's up 3% so far this year.





> Ultimately, access to goods will outweigh moral outrage for many consumers, says Larry Chiagouris, a professor of marketing at Pace Universityâs Lubin School of Business in New York.
> "The boycott is not going to last very long," Chiagouris told Business Insider. "There is a big difference between signing a petition compared to not taking advantage of a big sale at target. People will always take advantage of the sale."


 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/target-boycott-reached-boiling-point-140049014.html
In other words, they're morally outraged, but ya know, bedding is 50% off... Time will tell.


----------



## mreynolds

no really said:


> You know you're not gonna get anywhere arguing with people that don't care about anything but not losing an argument. As a woman I would like for men that don't seem to be able to take seriously the crap women have to deal with to spend some time worrying about dealing with the perverts we do.




Unfortunately I do understand that by way of accident. Ten years ago I was a member of an online game and was asked to open another account as a "spy" account. I thought well ok hey I am well known here so I will open a female account so it will throw suspicion off somewhat. 

That was a mistake. I wont repeat on here some of the PMs I got from some of the guys on that game. It was terrible and I was ashamed of men in general. I told my wife about it and showed her some of the PMs.

And she laughed and said "try and be a woman for more than a week and it gets worse." 

I cant imagine worse but she said its true. 

THATS why I am upset by this law. My granddaughter has her Quincenera this November so yes, I am livid to think about a potential pervert in her locker room. I KNOW they are out there. ANY excuse is good for them.


----------



## no really

mreynolds said:


> Unfortunately I do understand that by way of accident. Ten years ago I was a member of an online game and was asked to open another account as a "spy" account. I thought well ok hey I am well known here so I will open a female account so it will throw suspicion off somewhat.
> 
> That was a mistake. I wont repeat on here some of the PMs I got from some of the guys on that game. It was terrible and I was ashamed of men in general. I told my wife about it and showed her some of the PMs.
> 
> And she laughed and said "try and be a woman for more than a week and it gets worse."
> 
> I cant imagine worse but she said its true.
> 
> THATS why I am upset by this law. My granddaughter has her Quincenera this November so yes, I am livid to think about a potential pervert in her locker room. I KNOW they are out there. ANY excuse is good for them.


I get so disgusted by the crap that is out there and I am equally disgusted by the people that seem to shrug it off. That kind of attitude diminishes women and girls, it contributes to the problem of not reporting abuse. 

Congratulations on your granddaughters Quincenera. Give her the strength to be vocal and strong. My Dad told me when I felt uncomfortable with a situation to voice it loud and clear, never let anyone ignore my concerns.


----------



## no really

Some interesting reading

The Need for Response to Sexual Assault in Middle and High School

The campaign to end college sexual assault is going strong. Yet in middle and high schools across the country, parents and educators are ill informed, allowing sexual assault to go unaddressed. What is happening to our schools? Why is there such a lack of awareness in public schools about how to handle sexual assault cases?

http://www.breakthecycle.org/blog/need-response-sexual-assault-middle-and-high-school

&#8203;Federally funded colleges are required to report sexual assault statistics under the Clery Act (though the number of such incidents is often downplayed by schools)&#8203;. There is no equivalent data collection requirement&#8203; for high schools, but CDC data has revealed that 30 percent of female rape victims were first raped between the ages of 11 to 17. According to Justice Department statistics, nearly 20 percent of girls between the ages of 14 and 17 have been victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, and another 1990 study shows that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18. In an additional study using CDC data, released this week, 1 in 5 high school women and 1 in 10 high school men reported experiencing dating violence. 

In general, most rapes go unreported and, of the 32 percent that are reported to the police, only 2 percent lead to a felony conviction, according to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. Nearly 2,200 &#8203;minors are arrested for rape each year, and 9,200 more for other sex offenses.

Mandatory reporting laws require K-12 teachers and administrators to report to the police any sexual assault allegations told to them by a student. College officials are under no such requirement â though some states are trying to change that â and while universities have their own investigative and disciplinary protocols in accordance with Title IX&#8203;&#8203;, many colleges have been accused of being biased against victims. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...schools-are-failing-victims-of-sexual-assault


----------



## mreynolds

no really said:


> I get so disgusted by the crap that is out there and I am equally disgusted by the people that seem to shrug it off. That kind of attitude diminishes women and girls, it contributes to the problem of not reporting abuse.
> 
> Congratulations on your granddaughters Quincenera. Give her the strength to be vocal and strong. My Dad told me when I felt uncomfortable with a situation to voice it loud and clear, never let anyone ignore my concerns.


I think that most men don't realize it. I didn't. Notice its some of the men who are trying to allude that it wont be a big deal in the locker rooms after the law is put into effect. They say I have no proof. *I* don't but I bet a bunch of women do. 

Thanks on the best wishes for GD. This will be my first one. But it seems to be a big deal for her daddy. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> What I* saw* was you calling people "perverts" while defending someone who had been calling them perverts. :shrug:
> 
> 
> If you can label, so can I.
> You use them more than I so you shouldn't get upset over them
> You'll get over it, as I already have


My label is human beings, however if any person wants to affix a special designation upon themself to gain special status I doubt I will recognize that.


----------



## joebill

The next group of males to make fools of themselves will, of course, be middle school students buying a pack of gum and hanging out at target, waiting for some girl they know to head for the john, or maybe some girl they DON"T know. Are they perverts? well, they are male, 13 years old, not well supervised.......you tell me. If they could get by with it, they'd do the same thing in school instead of drilling holes through the partition between the girl's locker room and the boy's.

10 % are honest and honorable to the very core. 10% are ROTTEN to the core. 80% are as honest and honorable as you force them to be. You can easily suspend their honesty and honor by suspending the rules. I have empirical evidence, as I was 13 only 57 years ago, and can count to 10, so I know what percentage of my schoolmates would have jumped at the opportunity. I was maybe not so very honorable, but I was terrified of my parents, so i would have passed.

The middle school perverts will only be the first in line. Next will come the street gangs, the domestic terrorists, the TRUE perverts, the wino who wants to SLEEP in the ladies room, and uses the lack of rules to threaten a lawsuit for discrimination,......I have no idea who will bring up the rear, but it will be interesting to find out. 

Will they look like fools? OF COURSE! Did that stop "occupy wall street" or "black lives matter"? NOPE. Nobody ever lost a cent betting against the intellegence of the American public who feel obligated to give every idiot his time in the sun.

Everybody, barr none, knows that it is a stupid idea to give males access to women's rest rooms, and no good can come of it. The ones who REALLY look like fools are the ones who feel obligated to defend it. When if fails miserabley, they will claim it is the fault of those who are not prepared to behave responsibly, which is true, but the real culprits are those who could not predict that the irresponsable ones are in the driver's seat these days. 

I'm no genius, but I am smart enough to understand that relying upon the decency of the American public when the American government is discounting the value of decency is a fool's errand.......Joe


----------



## Shine

joebill said:


> I'm no genius, but I am smart enough to understand that relying upon the decency of the American public when the American government is discounting the value of decency is a fool's errand.......Joe


Welp... far as I am concerned - this is the proverbial head on the nail and JoeBill drove it home in one shot...

Well spoken, well spoken.


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> The next group of males to make fools of themselves will, of course, be middle school students buying a pack of gum and hanging out at target, waiting for some girl they know to head for the john, or maybe some girl they DON"T know. Are they perverts? well, they are male, 13 years old, not well supervised.......you tell me. If they could get by with it, they'd do the same thing in school instead of drilling holes through the partition between the girl's locker room and the boy's.
> 
> 10 % are honest and honorable to the very core. 10% are ROTTEN to the core. 80% are as honest and honorable as you force them to be. You can easily suspend their honesty and honor by suspending the rules. I have empirical evidence, as I was 13 only 57 years ago, and can count to 10, so I know what percentage of my schoolmates would have jumped at the opportunity. I was maybe not so very honorable, but I was terrified of my parents, so i would have passed.
> 
> The middle school perverts will only be the first in line. Next will come the street gangs, the domestic terrorists, the TRUE perverts, the wino who wants to SLEEP in the ladies room, and uses the lack of rules to threaten a lawsuit for discrimination,......I have no idea who will bring up the rear, but it will be interesting to find out.
> 
> Will they look like fools? OF COURSE! Did that stop "occupy wall street" or "black lives matter"? NOPE. Nobody ever lost a cent betting against the intellegence of the American public who feel obligated to give every idiot his time in the sun.
> 
> Everybody, barr none, knows that it is a stupid idea to give males access to women's rest rooms, and no good can come of it. The ones who REALLY look like fools are the ones who feel obligated to defend it. When if fails miserabley, they will claim it is the fault of those who are not prepared to behave responsibly, which is true, but the real culprits are those who could not predict that the irresponsable ones are in the driver's seat these days.
> 
> I'm no genius, but I am smart enough to understand that relying upon the decency of the American public when the American government is discounting the value of decency is a fool's errand.......Joe


Wouldn't it be easier to just teach boys that it's wrong to rape? That girls aren't there play things? That girls are human beings too? Or wouldn't they understand that because "boys will be boys"? :flame: 

Target's policy is transgenders in the bathroom not unisex bathrooms, BTW.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just teach boys that it's wrong to rape? That girls aren't there play things? That girls are human beings too? Or wouldn't they understand that because "boys will be boys"? :flame:
> 
> Target's policy is transgenders in the bathroom not unisex bathrooms, BTW.


Hmmm, let me remember how it goes. You nor anyone else gets to tell anyone what their gender is. How accurately of a quote was that?

To be transgender means you say you are transgender.


----------



## joebill

A good part of our society very MUCH wants to teach boys to respect girls. They have an uphill fight on their hands when the government consits of folks like the Clintons, though, and gives then leeway to girl's restrooms.

You cannot dispense with traditional morality, take every action possible to destroy marriage and the family and then be truly astounded when children take that as permission or even encouragement to behave like animals. 

Respect for girls is a part of the traditional morality that kept us young animals in check 60 years ago. If morality and respect for women matter to you at all, you either seek to preserve it or you seek to destroy it. It can't be neither and it can't be both.

Telling women that they can be replaced in marraige by another man and giving men access to women's bathrooms is NOT respecting women, and aparently kids understand that better than adults do. Traditional values became traditional because of traditional morality, and you can't throw out one without destroying the other.

Karl Marx understood this VERY well, which is why his "fellow travelers" seek to destroy both traditional values AND morality and replace both with a supreme "power of state" that decides right and wrong for everyone. When/if that happens, do you honestly think that respect for women will increase?.....don't make me laugh..

One final thing, if a trans-whatever wants to go out in public where it might need to hit the john, it could make an exception and wear clothing appropriate to it's equipment and use the same john it has been using all it's life.......Joe


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just teach boys that it's wrong to rape? That girls aren't there play things? That girls are human beings too? Or wouldn't they understand that because "boys will be boys"? :flame:
> 
> Target's policy is transgenders in the bathroom not unisex bathrooms, BTW.


I think I see the problem with mis communication now. I see some people talking about rapist and molesters. Some others are just taking about pain old run of the mill perverts. There is a difference as a pervert generally doesn't touch you physically but can do some damage emotionally. 

No, I don't think there will be an increase in rape but I do think there will be easier access for perverts to pose as something harmless just to get access.


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just teach boys that it's wrong to rape? That girls aren't there play things? That girls are human beings too? Or wouldn't they understand that because "boys will be boys"? :flame:
> 
> Target's policy is transgenders in the bathroom not unisex bathrooms, BTW.


Would you deny the sum of human history to get that which you desire?


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> A good part of our society very MUCH wants to teach boys to respect girls. They have an uphill fight on their hands when the government consits of folks like the Clintons, though, and gives then leeway to girl's restrooms.
> 
> You cannot dispense with traditional morality, take every action possible to destroy marriage and the family and then be truly astounded when children take that as permission or even encouragement to behave like animals.
> 
> Respect for girls is a part of the traditional morality that kept us young animals in check 60 years ago. If morality and respect for women matter to you at all, you either seek to preserve it or you seek to destroy it. It can't be neither and it can't be both.
> 
> Telling women that they can be replaced in marraige by another man and giving men access to women's bathrooms is NOT respecting women, and aparently kids understand that better than adults do. Traditional values became traditional because of traditional morality, and you can't throw out one without destroying the other.
> 
> Karl Marx understood this VERY well, which is why his "fellow travelers" seek to destroy both traditional values AND morality and replace both with a supreme "power of state" that decides right and wrong for everyone. When/if that happens, do you honestly think that respect for women will increase?.....don't make me laugh..
> 
> One final thing, if a trans-whatever wants to go out in public where it might need to hit the john, it could make an exception and wear clothing appropriate to it's equipment and use the same john it has been using all it's life.......Joe


So rape is something new since the Clintons and the backsliding of "morality"? Dang. I thought it had been around since the dawn of man. 

Rape will stop when men stop forcing women to have sex. It has nothing to morality, it has everything to do with power, control, and violence. If you think it's about anything else you're making excuses for it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> I think I see the problem with mis communication now. I see some people talking about rapist and molesters. Some others are just taking about pain old run of the mill perverts. There is a difference as a pervert generally doesn't touch you physically but can do some damage emotionally.
> 
> No, I don't think there will be an increase in rape but I do think there will be easier access for perverts to pose as something harmless just to get access.


To me it's not about rape in a well lit, well used public bathroom, and there won't be any more risk than there has been. I just didn't like the OP's rather off hand remark about. 

I also don't think there is going to be an increase in perverts for the same reason, at least in a women's bathroom. The stalls provide privacy and woman don't come out until everything is covered up. Women should be aware of the surroundings at all times. The perverts, if you're talking about pedophiles, have been in the men's bathroom forever as most of them are white men.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> To me it's not about rape in a well lit, well used public bathroom, and there won't be any more risk than there has been. I just didn't like the OP's rather off hand remark about.
> 
> I also don't think there is going to be an increase in perverts for the same reason, at least in a women's bathroom. The stalls provide privacy and woman don't come out until everything is covered up. Women should be aware of the surroundings at all times. The perverts, if you're talking about pedophiles, have been in the men's bathroom forever as most of them are white men.


Yes, and I would like to keep them there. This is getting reasonable. What went wrong?


----------



## mreynolds

Irish Pixie said:


> To me it's not about rape in a well lit, well used public bathroom, and there won't be any more risk than there has been. I just didn't like the OP's rather off hand remark about.
> 
> I also don't think there is going to be an increase in perverts for the same reason, at least in a women's bathroom. The stalls provide privacy and woman don't come out until everything is covered up. Women should be aware of the surroundings at all times. The perverts, if you're talking about pedophiles, have been in the men's bathroom forever as most of them are white men.


Well to me a pedophile is a rapist and/or molester. A pervert is that guy that posts pics online of ex girl friends or other photos taken of people they don't know without consent. Or that person that gives the visual massage thinking he is "turning" someone on with it. Or just maybe the one that makes you get a cold shiver down your back and you cant figure out why. Or the obvious ones that drop a line in Kroger thinking that you will just drop everything just to be with them one time. 

There are some female perverts too so I have experienced some of this in limited quantities. Half my close friends are female so I hear the stories. I have no delusions that most are male. 

I also believe that rapist and/or molesters used to be former perverts but not all perverts become the former. 

I hope anyway. 

Be that as it may, I still don't care what a privately owned company does with their rules or regs. I do care about those school locker rooms.


----------



## mreynolds

thericeguy said:


> Yes, and I would like to keep them there. This is getting reasonable. What went wrong?


Indefinitely? :spinsmiley:


----------



## greg273

Transgendered people have been using the restroom of thier choice basically forever, and will continue to do so. Unless some zealous genital-checker is going to stand outside restrooms and scope out peoples junk, any laws to the contrary are going be essentially unenforceable.


----------



## coolrunnin

greg273 said:


> Transgendered people have been using the restroom of thier choice basically forever, and will continue to do so. Unless some zealous genital-checker is going to stand outside restrooms and scope out peoples junk, any laws to the contrary are going be essentially unenforceable.


Exactly, my biggest fear is when these zealots loose in court they will start legislating specifications that are going to cost everybody a ton of money, when there was no need and no problem.


----------



## mreynolds

greg273 said:


> Transgendered people have been using the restroom of thier choice basically forever, and will continue to do so. Unless some zealous genital-checker is going to stand outside restrooms and scope out peoples junk, any laws to the contrary are going be essentially unenforceable.


I think we are all in agreement of that fact. But, there hasn't been people with the wrong anatomy in the school locker rooms and showers yet that I know of. Not with Executive permission anyway. 

But there will be now "or else".


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> So rape is something new since the Clintons and the backsliding of "morality"? Dang. I thought it had been around since the dawn of man.
> 
> Rape will stop when men stop forcing women to have sex. Really? so it doesn't matter if they do it to boys? I might have guessed.
> It has nothing to morality, Well, maybe, but I seriously doubt if you can call to mind a moral rapist
> it has everything to do with power, control, and violence. If you think it's about anything else you're making excuses for it.


 Whatever it is about, you seem to believe that we can erradicate it by telling folks to "play nice", and I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. If you think I am making excuses for rapists, then you are completely out of touch. I am claiming that it is a fact of life and neither I nor you nor anybody else knows how to eliminate it except for shooting people the first time they do it, which I would probably favor, but society at large would not tolerate, especially the liberals.

Nope, nothing new about rape, but it DID create some new horizons when a sex act got named "monica" on the streets and kids were converted to the much spouted claim that "it's not sex" because even the president was doing it with his intern.

In point of fact, it seems it was so harmless that the first lady did everything in her power to destroy any woman who called public attention to her husband's behaviour in the matter.

You seem to be claiming that if it is not rape, it really doesn't matter at all if some guy is playing "free willy" in the women's room while my grandaughter is in there, and I happen to disagree.

Whatever it is that makes it so very important to you that men can cozy into the women's john at will, please understand that is is equally important to my wife, daughters, grandaughters, that they cannot. Important enough that some of them may leave on a gurney........Joe


----------



## greg273

joebill said:


> You seem to be claiming that if it is not rape, it really doesn't matter at all if some guy is playing "free willy" in the women's room while my grandaughter is in there


 That is not what anyone claimed. 
And for your information, there is ZERO,NOTHING, NADA stopping 'Joe Perv' from creeping into the ladies room now. Making a law that some feminized transsexual quasi-man can use the ladies room is a far cry from saying 'all dudes can use the ladies room'. 
This may shock you, but there have probably been transsexual men in the ladies room with your granddaughter on a few occasions. THEY are not the problem, and any pervos that creep into the ladies room are going to be arrested. And no, saying 'they identified as a woman' is not going to fly as a defense if its obviously not true.


----------



## greg273

mreynolds said:


> I think we are all in agreement of that fact. But, there hasn't been people with the wrong anatomy in the school locker rooms and showers yet that I know of. Not with Executive permission anyway.
> 
> But there will be now "or else".


 The one person in question has been referred to as a female for years, plays on womens sports teams, and is pretty much 99% female at this point. I guess you think that person should get naked with the boys, whom she is actually attracted to. Thats pretty weird also, and surely won't cause any problems or assualts to occur, right? 
I don't claim to have the answers, its a strange situation all the way around.


----------



## joebill

In closing, Pixie, I simply do not think that you have accepted the depth of depravity the human animal is capable of sinking to, after he OR she has detected a ***** in society's armor.

Pretend, just for a moment, you wanted to do as much damage to the human condition as possible and not go to jail. I PROMISE you, that is what is in our future, and this new set of rules makes it that much more simple to accomplish. Think I'm crazy? mark the date and repost in three years.......Joe


----------



## mreynolds

greg273 said:


> The one person in question has been referred to as a female for years, plays on womens sports teams, and is pretty much 99% female at this point. I guess you think that person should get naked with the boys, whom she is actually attracted to. Thats pretty weird also, and surely won't cause any problems or assualts to occur, right?
> I don't claim to have the answers, its a strange situation all the way around.


I apologize as I have absolutely no idea who you are talking about with "this one person in question". I have never singled any one person out in this conversation. I really don't know how to follow your line of debate with this. BFF just likes to call names when his philosophy is questioned by someone but you seem to get sidetracked. Or maybe its me? 

Maybe I missed something you said? 

What I am talking about is transgender that identify as women but still have male anatomy while they are in high school using the showers with high school girls. Namely my soon to be 15 yo granddaughter. But also all girls. Your daughter or granddaughter even. Obama says they will be able to do so unless they want their funding cut. 

Here's the way I was taught to look at the POTUS and congressmen. They work for *US*. *WE* pay their salary. It irks me that he will just give a directive and threaten on an issue that has been solved for thousands of years anyway. You may have missed my previous post about me going to a transgender forum and reading what they wrote about the issue. Most said they prefer to use the bathroom of their anatomy up until they start the actual physical and medical change. I don't think the transgender people need the non transgender people who know absolutely nothing about what they go through daily telling them what they need to start doing from now on. 

I agree, it _is _a strange situation. One that warrants a little thought and consideration.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> That is not what anyone claimed.
> And for your information, there is ZERO,NOTHING, NADA stopping 'Joe Perv' from creeping into the ladies room now. Making a law that some feminized transsexual quasi-man can use the ladies room is a far cry from saying 'all dudes can use the ladies room'.
> This may shock you, but there have probably been transsexual men in the ladies room with your granddaughter on a few occasions. THEY are not the problem, and any pervos that creep into the ladies room are going to be arrested. *And no, saying 'they identified as a woman' is not going to fly as a defense if its obviously not true.*


I find it rather hillarious for you to fall back to "obvious" facts to defend a claim that men can be women. I'd say this whole debate revolves around things that are the opposite of obvious.


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Whatever it is about, you seem to believe that we can erradicate it by telling folks to "play nice", and I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. If you think I am making excuses for rapists, then you are completely out of touch. I am claiming that it is a fact of life and neither I nor you nor anybody else knows how to eliminate it except for shooting people the first time they do it, which I would probably favor, but society at large would not tolerate, especially the liberals.
> 
> Nope, nothing new about rape, but it DID create some new horizons when a sex act got named "monica" on the streets and kids were converted to the much spouted claim that "it's not sex" because even the president was doing it with his intern.
> 
> In point of fact, it seems it was so harmless that the first lady did everything in her power to destroy any woman who called public attention to her husband's behaviour in the matter.
> 
> You seem to be claiming that if it is not rape, it really doesn't matter at all if some guy is playing "free willy" in the women's room while my grandaughter is in there, and I happen to disagree.
> 
> Whatever it is that makes it so very important to you that men can cozy into the women's john at will, please understand that is is equally important to my wife, daughters, grandaughters, that they cannot. Important enough that some of them may leave on a gurney........Joe


Sigh. I simply don't care what _consenting_ adults do in private. They may like "monica" they may like anal sex, they may like rough sex. If someone in a marriage or relationship has an affair it's between those two people, no one else. Absolutely none of anyone else's business. What does this have to do with the topic? Just so you can bash politicians you don't like? Affairs have been going on long before the Clinton and will continue. 

Boys have to be taught that girls can't be played with, taken advantage of, or forced to have any type of sex. Do you realize that simply touching a woman in private areas is sexual assault? Many men don't because they aren't taught that woman aren't to be touched without permission. So your original scenario of three boys following a girl into a bathroom is a perfect example of that fact. Boys need to be taught from a very young age that it's not OK.

Stating that I think that boys should be raped was a pathetic attempt to discredit me. No one should be raped. Period. 

Who would come out of the bathroom on a gurney, and why? Your post is so confusing and garbled.


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> In closing, Pixie, I simply do not think that you have accepted the depth of depravity the human animal is capable of sinking to, after he OR she has detected a ***** in society's armor.
> 
> Pretend, just for a moment, you wanted to do as much damage to the human condition as possible and not go to jail. I PROMISE you, that is what is in our future, and this new set of rules makes it that much more simple to accomplish. Think I'm crazy? mark the date and repost in three years.......Joe


My opinion is that discrimination does much more damage to the human condition than allowing a transgender woman to use the woman's bathroom.

All of the threats of violence and wild predictions are very similar to what the country when through during desegregation. "My child will never use a bathroom with a black person!" Sound familiar?


----------



## thericeguy

When I was in college, the dorm system did one of their educational things. They invited a policeman to come speak. I will summarize what he said. 

Humans are the only animal that doesn't listen to their instincts. A woman in a parking garage waiting for the elevator. The door opens and inside is a man. She gets an instant uncomfortable feeling for no obvious reason. She rationalizes away the fear. Nothing bad will happen. It's just a guy. You are being silly. And the next day we (cop speaking) find her partially nude body face down in a park. 

Any other creature would flee. We, those who object, are being told to rationalize our fears away. It will be OK. Nothing bad will happen. 

I see a parallel.


----------



## Farmerga

greg273 said:


> That is not what anyone claimed.
> And for your information, there is ZERO,NOTHING, NADA stopping 'Joe Perv' from creeping into the ladies room now. Making a law that some feminized transsexual quasi-man can use the ladies room is a far cry from saying 'all dudes can use the ladies room'.
> This may shock you, but there have probably been transsexual men in the ladies room with your granddaughter on a few occasions. THEY are not the problem, and any pervos that creep into the ladies room are going to be arrested. And no, saying 'they identified as a woman' is not going to fly as a defense if its obviously not true.


Until one transgendered person, who is not that far on the scale of transformation, is hassled for entering the RR of his/her preferred gender. Then we will see all barriers fall. We will hear the cries of the "offended" when this particular transgender is said to look too "manish" to enter the women's restroom: "Who are you to say what another feels?"

When we get shell shocked from being called "bigots" for daring to question the validity of one's transgendered claims, no one will say boo about Big Bubba Perv walking into the women's RR.


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> My opinion is that discrimination does much more damage to the human condition than allowing a transgender woman to use the woman's bathroom.
> 
> 
> And my opinion is that (as previously illustrated in a recent post by THERICEGUY) REASONABLE discrimination is often what keeps us alive. If you have never walked or driven into an area and had it made abundantly clear that you did not belong there, I'd be surprised, and when you left, you were practicing discrimination. If your daughter brought home a guy who obviously was stoned or in some other way made you feel creepy or that he would be really bad for her and you ran him off and forbade her to date him, you were practicing discrimination.
> 
> Transgenders have been labeled by experts as suffering from a sexual mental diesease, from which 75 to 80% recover. I pity them, but I don't humor them. I don't even consider them the main problem.
> 
> I consider the main problems to be, first, that the same crowd who screams at Christians for trying to "dictate morality" upwards, chooses to "dictate morality" downwards by not even law, but emperial edict.
> 
> The second part of the main problem is that once you establish a "special class" of people, everyone who wants to be "special" and have "special rights" will fall all over themselves claiming to be part of that class. Impossible to prove that the guy in the women's shower is not just "feeling girly" today.
> 
> Do you feel that somebody refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is practicing discrimination that is somehow harmfull to the human condition? That they should be fined so severely that they lose their livelyhood?
> 
> If I decided that my life's work should be a waiter in a high-end restraunt, but came down with one of my periodic bouts of psoriasis and looked ( as I sometimes do) like the mayor of a leper colony, I daresay that "discriminating "people might get up and leave, and who could blame them? Certainly not me! I recognise that there are times and places where I do not belong. It's called not forcing others to participate in MY problem.
> 
> I made silver jewelry for a time, in a location where "indian jewelry" was popular. After the third shop told me that my eyes were the wrong color to make indian jewelry, I chuckled and agreed and passed out my stock as gifts and went back to making tools. GASP! I was "discriminated against!" but it was a perfectly reasonable and proper discrimination. Happens all the time to everybody over one thing or another, as it should.
> 
> Just as it is perfectly reasonable to expect not to find men in the women's shower, and perfectly reasonable and proper for people not to have an "alternate morality"forced on them by the folks they hire to run their government, NOT THEIR LIVES.....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Irish Pixie said:
> 
> 
> 
> My opinion is that discrimination does much more damage to the human condition than allowing a transgender woman to use the woman's bathroom.
> 
> 
> And my opinion is that (as previously illustrated in a recent post by THERICEGUY) REASONABLE discrimination is often what keeps us alive. If you have never walked or driven into an area and had it made abundantly clear that you did not belong there, I'd be surprised, and when you left, you were practicing discrimination. If your daughter brought home a guy who obviously was stoned or in some other way made you feel creepy or that he would be really bad for her and you ran him off and forbade her to date him, you were practicing discrimination.
> 
> Transgenders have been labeled by experts as suffering from a sexual mental diesease, from which 75 to 80% recover. I pity them, but I don't humor them. I don't even consider them the main problem.
> 
> I consider the main problems to be, first, that the same crowd who screams at Christians for trying to "dictate morality" upwards, chooses to "dictate morality" downwards by not even law, but emperial edict.
> 
> The second part of the main problem is that once you establish a "special class" of people, everyone who wants to be "special" and have "special rights" will fall all over themselves claiming to be part of that class. Impossible to prove that the guy in the women's shower is not just "feeling girly" today.
> 
> Do you feel that somebody refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding is practicing discrimination that is somehow harmfull to the human condition? That they should be fined so severely that they lose their livelyhood?
> 
> If I decided that my life's work should be a waiter in a high-end restraunt, but came down with one of my periodic bouts of psoriasis and looked ( as I sometimes do) like the mayor of a leper colony, I daresay that "discriminating "people might get up and leave, and who could blame them? Certainly not me! I recognise that there are times and places where I do not belong. It's called not forcing others to participate in MY problem.
> 
> I made silver jewelry for a time, in a location where "indian jewelry" was popular. After the third shop told me that my eyes were the wrong color to make indian jewelry, I chuckled and agreed and passed out my stock as gifts and went back to making tools. GASP! I was "discriminated against!" but it was a perfectly reasonable and proper discrimination. Happens all the time to everybody over one thing or another, as it should.
> 
> Just as it is perfectly reasonable to expect not to find men in the women's shower, and perfectly reasonable and proper for people not to have an "alternate morality"forced on them by the folks they hire to run their government, NOT THEIR LIVES.....Joe
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made groups of people _protected_ because ugly people wouldn't treat them as equals. What is going to happen now is that ugly people will again be forced not to discriminate against LGBT. It's sad that nothing has been learned in over 50 years. Decent human beings aren't racist or bigoted.
> 
> A woman using her intuition based on what she's learned (men will sexually assault because many haven't been taught that women are equals) isn't discrimination. It's common sense.
> 
> Believe it or not, some of the most ugly people I've ever encountered identified as christian. These type of people are part of the reason I no longer believe in god. Many christians are no more moral than alley cats, and many atheists/agnostic/nonbelievers are very moral people. And you do realize that if transgenderism is a delusion so is the belief that there is an imaginary, not able to be proven entity that runs people's lives, right? Just sayin'.
> 
> We are never going to agree on much of anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> joebill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made groups of people _protected_ because ugly people wouldn't treat them as equals. What is going to happen now is that ugly people will again be forced not to discriminate against LGBT. It's sad that nothing has been learned in over 50 years. Decent human beings aren't racist or bigoted.
> 
> A woman using her intuition based on what she's learned (men will sexually assault because many haven't been taught that women are equals) isn't discrimination. It's common sense.
> 
> Believe it or not, some of the most ugly people I've ever encountered identified as christian. These type of people are part of the reason I no longer believe in god. Many christians are no more moral than alley cats, and many atheists/agnostic/nonbelievers are very moral people. And you do realize that if transgenderism is a delusion so is the belief that there is an imaginary, not able to be proven entity that runs people's lives, right? Just sayin'.
> 
> We are never going to agree on much of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Murder exists simply because we, as a society, failed to educate everyone that killing others is wrong? Wow, humanity is saved. Lets add that, and many other things to school, them we can dismiss the police and save lots of money. Eventually close prisons too. Utopia for all.
Click to expand...


----------



## joebill

The civil rights act of 1964, was, for the most part, correct and proper. It laid out that any restraunt available to whites was also available to blacks. Lots of other stuff, but that was the gist of it. it applied to housing, employment, motels, schools, armed services. And, yes, RESTROOMS. It was about equality. I also remember the silly seperate drinking fountains.

It did NOT provide that a specific GROUP of black men could use the same restrooms as whites, but ALL black men could. This empirical edict IS discriminatory against men who lack a certain delusion, specifically that they are, somehow, women. I am sure that there is a very large segment of the population, even larger than the trans-whatever population, who REALLY want to get into the girl's restroom at school, because they are punks and lowlifes, and if this rule is followed to it's letter, they are being discriminated against, AND, if you truly believe in equality for all, it is the punks and lowlifes who most need your compasion, and for you to defend thier equal rights to the girl's restroom.

See how absolutely ridiculous it gets? Any incursion into our culture comes ready-packaged with those who will take it to the most outrageous extreme that can pop into their head, and they will push it far beyond sane limits every time.

I don't know if you are old enough to rememmber the 1960's or not, but they have damaged the black family beyond anything we could have believed was possible. I don't know how we could have done it any other way, and it had to be done, but all of a sudden, people took it to mean that a black man or woman could not be fired from any job, even if they never did any work. SO much damage to the black family, because it didn't stop with the simple law, and simple equality wasn't enough for liberals. 

Again, you seem to believe that sex offenders and other punks and lowlifes simply have not had a proper raising and that you could cure them with a good old fashioned talking to, and I'm sure that there are institutions that would welcome your input on a trail basis, and IF you can show some positive results on some truly tough cases, I'd be happy to cover a portion of your wages during your probationary period, but I'd have to have some really convincing proof that you had cured those lads, when the best medical, mental health and scientific minds can't seem to come up with a cure.

Passing a law never ended any discrimination other than on the surface, and ALWAYS increased it below the surface. The 1964 law was the beginning point where those who only needed an opportunity to prove themselves got started, and MANY of them did just that and I salute them, each and every one, but many didn't, and won't, and nobody can help them but themselves.

By the way, I am very happy that since the passing of the civil rights law of 1964, there is no more racial discrimination..........RIGHT?

If a man does away his traditional way of living
and throws away his good customs, he had
better first make sure that he has something
of value to replace them
Basuto proverb

Even Martin Luther King wanted his children to bre judged "by the content of their character".......he didn't say not to judge them at all.....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> The civil rights act of 1964, was, for the most part, correct and proper. It laid out that any restraunt available to whites was also available to blacks. Lots of other stuff, but that was the gist of it. it applied to housing, employment, motels, schools, armed services. And, yes, RESTROOMS. It was about equality. I also remember the silly seperate drinking fountains.
> 
> It did NOT provide that a specific GROUP of black men could use the same restrooms as whites, but ALL black men could. This empirical edict IS discriminatory against men who lack a certain delusion, specifically that they are, somehow, women. I am sure that there is a very large segment of the population, even larger than the trans-whatever population, who REALLY want to get into the girl's restroom at school, because they are punks and lowlifes, and if this rule is followed to it's letter, they are being discriminated against, AND, if you truly believe in equality for all, it is the punks and lowlifes who most need your compasion, and for you to defend thier equal rights to the girl's restroom.
> 
> See how absolutely ridiculous it gets? Any incursion into our culture comes ready-packaged with those who will take it to the most outrageous extreme that can pop into their head, and they will push it far beyond sane limits every time.
> 
> I don't know if you are old enough to rememmber the 1960's or not, but they have damaged the black family beyond anything we could have believed was possible. I don't know how we could have done it any other way, and it had to be done, but all of a sudden, people took it to mean that a black man or woman could not be fired from any job, even if they never did any work. SO much damage to the black family, because it didn't stop with the simple law, and simple equality wasn't enough for liberals.
> 
> Again, you seem to believe that sex offenders and other punks and lowlifes simply have not had a proper raising and that you could cure them with a good old fashioned talking to, and I'm sure that there are institutions that would welcome your input on a trail basis, and IF you can show some positive results on some truly tough cases, I'd be happy to cover a portion of your wages during your probationary period, but I'd have to have some really convincing proof that you had cured those lads, when the best medical, mental health and scientific minds can't seem to come up with a cure.
> 
> Passing a law never ended any discrimination other than on the surface, and ALWAYS increased it below the surface. The 1964 law was the beginning point where those who only needed an opportunity to prove themselves got started, and MANY of them did just that and I salute them, each and every one, but many didn't, and won't, and nobody can help them but themselves.
> 
> By the way, I am very happy that since the passing of the civil rights law of 1964, there is no more racial discrimination..........RIGHT?
> 
> If a man does away his traditional way of living
> and throws away his good customs, he had
> better first make sure that he has something
> of value to replace them
> Basuto proverb
> 
> Even Martin Luther King wanted his children to bre judged "by the content of their character".......he didn't say not to judge them at all.....Joe


Where did I ever say that all ills could be cured by a "good talking to"? Can you point it out please? 

What I said was that the pervasive culture of making excuses for boys that are "distracted" by girls in whatever clothing, that boys will be boys, that when he hurts or teases you it just means he likes you. Society still makes excuses for when boys/men assault women- she was drunk, she shouldn't have been there, why was she out at night, or my favorite, "What was she wearing?" This is why there is still sexual assault because parts of society _still_ make excuses.

Transgender women are woman, period. They aren't a specific group of woman, they are women. Same for transgender men. 

You will never understand either of the above concepts. I'd rather not discuss anything else with you. It makes my stomach upset.


----------



## joebill

You aked;

"Where did I ever say that all ills could be cured by a "good talking to"? Can you point it out please? "

Previously, you had stated;

"A woman using her intuition based on what she's learned (men will sexually assault because many haven't been taught that women are equals) isn't discrimination. It's common sense."

and;
Wouldn't it be easier to just teach boys that it's wrong to rape? That girls aren't there play things? That girls are human beings too? Or wouldn't they understand that because "boys will be boys"? 


Indicating society is somehow remiss in failing to teach them that, and you could do better. If that is, indeed, the case, my offer stands to sponser a portion of your salary and serve as a funraiser for your cause, IF you can prove that you can cure sexual deviants by "telling them" or "teaching them" things.

I'm sorry that you have indigestion, but it is not me giving it to you. It is you forcing yourself to defend absolutely indefensable statements that do not stand the tests of logic, no matter how much they soothe the emotions.

It's not particularly fun for me to give you a hard time either, but part of the way we get into these silly messes is that intellegent people let wacky statements stand instead of taking them to their logical conclusions because they are afraid of the PC police, or don't want to be thought of as "mean".

If we don't get over that, we may lose our culture and our country, and I think my children and grandchildren AND great gandson deserve MUCH better.....Joe












A woman using her intuition based on what she's learned (men will sexually assault because many haven't been taught that women are equals) isn't discrimination. It's common sense.


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> You aked;
> 
> "Where did I ever say that all ills could be cured by a "good talking to"? Can you point it out please? "
> 
> Previously, you had stated;
> 
> "A woman using her intuition based on what she's learned (men will sexually assault because many haven't been taught that women are equals) isn't discrimination. It's common sense."
> 
> and;
> Wouldn't it be easier to just teach boys that it's wrong to rape? That girls aren't there play things? That girls are human beings too? Or wouldn't they understand that because "boys will be boys"?
> 
> 
> Indicating society is somehow remiss in failing to teach them that, and you could do better. If that is, indeed, the case, my offer stands to sponser a portion of your salary and serve as a funraiser for your cause, IF you can prove that you can cure sexual deviants by "telling them" or "teaching them" things.
> 
> I'm sorry that you have indigestion, but it is not me giving it to you. It is you forcing yourself to defend absolutely indefensable statements that do not stand the tests of logic, no matter how much they soothe the emotions.
> 
> It's not particularly fun for me to give you a hard time either, but part of the way we get into these silly messes is that intellegent people let wacky statements stand instead of taking them to their logical conclusions because they are afraid of the PC police, or don't want to be thought of as "mean".
> 
> If we don't get over that, we may lose our culture and our country, and I think my children and grandchildren AND great gandson deserve MUCH better.....Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman using her intuition based on what she's learned (men will sexually assault because many haven't been taught that women are equals) isn't discrimination. It's common sense.


Your post is totally nonsensical, can you try again?


----------



## thericeguy

Too many big words joebill. I understood it. Nice post.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Too many big words joebill. I understood it. Nice post.


So you're a sexual assault apologist as well?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> When I was in college, the dorm system did one of their educational things. They invited a policeman to come speak. I will summarize what he said.
> 
> Humans are the only animal that doesn't listen to their instincts. A woman in a parking garage waiting for the elevator. The door opens and inside is a man. She gets an instant uncomfortable feeling for no obvious reason. She rationalizes away the fear. Nothing bad will happen. It's just a guy. You are being silly. And the next day we (cop speaking) find her partially nude body face down in a park.
> 
> Any other creature would flee. We, those who object, are being told to rationalize our fears away. It will be OK. Nothing bad will happen.
> 
> I see a parallel.


Not really. Lots of animals freeze and don't move.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Not really. Lots of animals freeze and don't move.


You would have to take that up with the cop. He might still be alive. It was a long time ago. It was UTA early 90s if it helps your seatch finding him.

I dont recall anyone in the room shaking their head no, and ssying it was all wrong and should get in the elevator. Maybe you would.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Too many big words joebill. I understood it. Nice post.


 What 'big words'?? This may come as a shock to you, but when someone disagrees with you , it doesn't mean they are stupid. Quite the opposite, in many instances.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You would have to take that up with the cop. He might still be alive. It was a long time ago. It was UTA early 90s if it helps your seatch finding him.
> 
> I dont recall anyone in the room shaking their head no, and ssying it was all wrong and should get in the elevator. Maybe you would.


I was commenting on your statement about animals. It was incorrect.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> an anti LGBT group is sending people, including men, into Target bathrooms to cause trouble.
> 
> "Now, in an interview on Breitbart News Daily, a conservative website, Sandy Rios, director of Government Affairs for the American Family Association, said the organization has sent men to Target to attempt entry into women's bathrooms. She did not mention the gender identity of these men."
> 
> "I think there's no question that when you say that there are no barriers in the bathroom and that if men or women feel like they are men or women, the (opposite) of however they are equipped, and you have no restrictions, the net effect will be that people will not be stopped," Rios said. "We've already had people testing this, going into Targets and men trying to go into bathrooms. There is absolutely no barrier."
> 
> Apparently the Target boycott wasn't accomplishing much so AFA (and others apparently there are a bunch of people acting like fools in Target bathrooms on Youtube) decided to cause trouble to bring attention to it.
> 
> 
> What kind of problems? If the problem is a crime they should be arrested if not them wouldn't be a violation of a man's rights if you didn't allow him to enter the bathroom he wanted?
> 
> BTW, AFAIK its not illegal to act like a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> So it's not transgenders causing problems, it's anti transgenders. SMH


 But doesn't Target say it is fine with people using the bathroom they wish? I guess these non-transgenders just feel like using the women's room. 

This is a good example of the law of unforeseen circumstances. When Target decided to allow men to use the women's room it didn't think about the possibility of someone taking advantage of that decision. 

There will be more and more problems like this if things keep going this way. As I have pointed out you have limited choices. You can either have a rule saying use the bathroom that fits your physical gender, have a rule saying you can use whatever bathroom you wish or you are going to have to have an enforceable standard of who can use which bathroom which will have to be set by and enforced by someone. 

IMO, laws allowing TGs to use PUBLIC bathroom use are not needed. In most cases you can't tell TG from a non-TG w/o a physical check or a visual inspection of their neither regions. The odds are we all have been in a public bathroom with a TG at one time or another and never knew it.

Locker rooms and school bathrooms are a different story. In locker rooms you have people undressing, in effect, in public. This means 1) you WILL be able to tell you are undressing in front of a man and 2) it is a bigger draw for those who want to use the TG rules to allow them to watch the other gender undress.

School bathrooms are a different story altogether. First you have the fact in a school a large number of people are going to know who the TGs are leading possibly to making them feel uncomfortable using the bathroom with someone of the opposite gender. Second, unlike a public restroom if the thought of possibly using the restroom with a person of the opposite gender makes you uncomfortable you can not just leave the building and find another bathroom.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Seriously? An "interview process" to use a public bathroom? We're back to genital checkers again? :facepalm:
> 
> Do you agree with AFA that sending men into bathrooms *to start trouble* is a good thing?


Again what trouble are they causing? Are their actions illegal?

As for agreeing with them, I may not agree with them nor their actions but I have to support their right to LEGALLY protest. 

Turn it around, how would you feel if a TG was 'starting trouble' in a bathroom to bring attention to their cause?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> What are they protecting their family from? As far as I know there hasn't been a single incident of a transgender person molesting a kid in a bathroom. The majority of pedophiles are white males. I'm going to assume that 75% (it's probably 99%+) of the men that AFA is sending into bathrooms to cause trouble are white. Based on this which group is more likely to contain someone that wants to hurt a kid?


They are protecting their families from people who now have the legal right to go into a public rest room of the opposite gender. This means if a man in a dress hanging out in the women's room the business nor law enforcement can do nothing about it because all he has to do is say he's TG. If you think a bunch of people acting foolish is the only thing this policy is going to bring out you have a much higher require for human kind than I do.

Its hard enough for businesses and law enforcement to deal with same gender child molesters in bathrooms and now you want open up the women's room as a hunting ground for the rest. . .


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> What 'big words'?? This may come as a shock to you, but when someone disagrees with you , it doesn't mean they are stupid. Quite the opposite, in many instances.


When someone comes away from a simple well worded comment with "i didnt understand a single word. Nothing. Nada. Zip", what conclusion dhould I draw? They forgot how to read?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> You've shown no evidence that "pervs" are a problem.
> That last portion is just incoherent


If you think bathroom assaults on children are not a problem google it and see how many news stories pop up. While I don't know of any studies I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of "light" sexual assaults (a quick fondle, voyeurism, etc) which never get reported. 

Right now if a business or the cops find a man wearing a dress in the ladies room they have the right and power to question him and/or make him leave. If this keeps on all he will have to do is say "Transgender" and he's free to do as he wishes.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> If you think bathroom assaults on children are not a problem google it and see how many news stories pop up. While I don't know of any studies I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of "light" sexual assaults (a quick fondle, voyeurism, etc) which never get reported.
> 
> Right now if a business or the cops find a man wearing a dress in the ladies room they have the right and power to question him and/or make him leave. If this keeps on all he will have to do is say "Transgender" and he's free to do as he wishes.


They know all this. The goal is not TG in restrooms. It is the destruction of a way of life.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Don't most families have values? Don't most families protect their kids? This is simply raising a fuss because they can.
> 
> According to yesterday's announcement from DOE and DOJ it's a done deal in schools- no discrimination against LGBT, unless the state wants to do without federal funding. Target is company that can do with their bathrooms what they wish, obviously. So the AFA protests mean nothing.


And what are the federal standards for someone to be a federally protected TG and are there any limits? Can a girl show up one day with a short hair cut and say she's now a boy and walk into the boy's locker room?

Can a guy put on a skirt, say he's a girl and demand to be allowed to participate in the girl's track events?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> A "customer" isn't someone who came in *only* to make a political statement.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not been shown at all.
> In fact the opposite has been shown
> 
> You've just stated it repeatedly while "showing" nothing at all, just as you did above


So they buy a pack of gum they get the right to make a political statement?


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> And what are the federal standards for someone to be a federally protected TG and are there any limits? Can a girl show up one day with a short hair cut and say she's now a boy and walk into the boy's locker room?
> 
> Can a guy put on a skirt, say he's a girl and demand to be allowed to participate in the girl's track events?


I dont think bathrooms have a dress code. No need to change anything at all. Dude in steel toe boots, jeans, button down shirt, and a Stetson. Hi ladies. I am a girl.


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> Your post is totally nonsensical, can you try again?


Your inability or more likely unwillingness to understand it does not make it nonsensical. I would estimate that better than 90% of those who read it understood it just fine.

Claiming that anyone is an apologist for rapists is failing to recognise that while I'd just as soon shoot them as look at them, shooting them is against the law in most cases and medical science does not seem to be able to cure them. The main difference between them and trans-whatevers are;


A. I don't think the trans-whatevers need shooting because they are not hurting anyone but themselves most of the time.

B. A high percentage of trans-whatevers get well, while rapists hardly ever do.

but the fact is, both are suffering from a mental illness, one is just largely harmless while the other often causes the death of innocents and regularly ruins lives.

The fact that you empathise with the one group and detest the other means that you are discriminating against a group of people......as well you should. Pretty simple....right? So discrimination is as discrimination does. Depends on what or who is being discriminated against.

Let me know when you cure your first violent rapist, because I stand ready to salute you.......Joe


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> And he isn't transgender, he is a sexual predator. So there are still no incidence of a transgender person assaulting anyone.


Well now you have kicked over a big can of worms. Frist off who gave you the power to judge if he is TG or not and what standards so you use?

The second is once you start allowing people to "identify" however they feel you have opened a legal Pandora's box. I couldn't get the link to work so I don't know the details but maybe he isn't a sexual predator, as you so harshly judge him, maybe he's just someone who "identifies" in a way that goes against "social norms". Usually these guys are after underaged girls so maybe he is just a 40 y.o. male who identifies as a 13 y.o. gay female. You would not call a 13 y.o. girl who tried to have sex with another 13 y.o. female a sexual predator would you?


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> My apologizes, most child molesters are male but I can't prove they are white with a cite.


I can't find a cite but the last I saw molesters tended to have the same age/gender profile as serial killers white, male between 25 and 35


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Your inability or more likely unwillingness to understand it does not make it nonsensical. I would estimate that better than 90% of those who read it understood it just fine.
> 
> Claiming that anyone is an apologist for rapists is failing to recognise that while I'd just as soon shoot them as look at them, shooting them is against the law in most cases and medical science does not seem to be able to cure them. The main difference between them and trans-whatevers are;
> 
> 
> A. I don't think the trans-whatevers need shooting because they are not hurting anyone but themselves most of the time.
> 
> B. A high percentage of trans-whatevers get well, while rapists hardly ever do.
> 
> but the fact is, both are suffering from a mental illness, one is just largely harmless while the other often causes the death of innocents and regularly ruins lives.
> 
> The fact that you empathise with the one group and detest the other means that you are discriminating against a group of people......as well you should. Pretty simple....right? So discrimination is as discrimination does. Depends on what or who is being discriminated against.
> 
> Let me know when you cure your first violent rapist, because I stand ready to salute you.......Joe


Thanks for blatantly stating exactly what kind of a person you are. It's always good to know what you're dealing with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> If you think bathroom assaults on children are not a problem google it and see how many news stories pop up. While I don't know of any studies I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of "light" sexual assaults (a quick fondle, voyeurism, etc) which never get reported.
> 
> Right now if a business or the cops find a man wearing a dress in the ladies room they have the right and power to question him and/or make him leave. If this keeps on all he will have to do is say "Transgender" and *he's free to do as he wishes*.


Show your evidence that links them *to these laws*
You just keep repeating the same tired rhetoric and speculating about illegal acts that will still be illegal

From what I've seen, kids are at more risk at church than in a public or school restroom


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show your evidence that links them *to these laws*
> You just keep repeating the same tired rhetoric and speculating about illegal acts that will still be illegal
> 
> From what I've seen, kids are at more risk at church than in a public or school restroom


Indecent exposure? Public nuisance? Public Disturbance? Need more?


----------



## arabian knight

Ya there is plenty of them on the books and many people do get in trouble with the law because of it. And I can see a Huge Increase in court cases just because of less then 1 tenth of 1 Percent just HAVE to be treated SPECIAL.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Indecent exposure? Public nuisance? Public Disturbance? Need more?


They don't apply to the context of the question.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Ya there is plenty of them on the books and many people do get in trouble with the law because of it. And *I can see a Huge Increase in court cases* just because of less then 1 tenth of 1 Percent just HAVE to be treated SPECIAL.


Then *show some examples* of increased crime rates in the 16 states which have had similar laws for years


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't apply to the context of the question.


They are the tools as DA would use to punish an offender. Tis not laws they fear. Its getting prosecuted. 100% relevant


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show your evidence that links them *to these laws*
> You just keep repeating the same tired rhetoric and speculating about illegal acts that will still be illegal
> 
> From what I've seen, kids are at more risk at church than in a public or school restroom


These laws haven't been in effect to show a link. But a basic understanding of human nature will tell you giving a molester easier access to those he prefers to molest puts those people in greater danger.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't apply to the context of the question.


You don't think someone who gets a thrill showing his pride and joy to unsuspecting women would not think this law is a boon? You don't think they would use this law to. . .oh I have to say it, beat the wrap by claiming he is TG and the woman just overreacted?


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks for blatantly stating exactly what kind of a person you are. It's always good to know what you're dealing with.


Yes, I am a guy who believes that trans-whatevers regularly get well and rapists usjually only get well in the grave, but killing rapists is not leagal and so there is not much I can do about them except encourage leo's to jail them at every opportunity. Shrinks agree, for the most part.

You, on the other hand seem to believe you can re-educate rapists and trans-whatevers don't need curing, in spite of the fact that that condition increases the likely hood of suicide by a factor of 20. Oh, yeah, you also believe that in spite of detesting rapists and wisely avoiding them at all costs, you really don't think you are "discriminating against them" even though any woman with a brain would do so.

Did I miss anything? I'm sure you will think of something....Joe


----------



## greg273

Bearfootfarm said:


> Then *show some examples* of increased crime rates in the 16 states which have had similar laws for years


 Oh, someone will come up with an example or two, but this non-stop perv fest they keep yammering about is mostly in their heads. Like a lot of their overblown fears.


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks for blatantly stating exactly what kind of a person you are. It's always good to know what you're dealing with.


WHAT not WHO? Sounds like you are discriminating against me...........Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Yes, I am a guy who believes that trans-whatevers regularly get well and rapists usjually only get well in the grave, but killing rapists is not leagal and so there is not much I can do about them except encourage leo's to jail them at every opportunity. Shrinks agree, for the most part.
> 
> You, on the other hand seem to believe you can re-educate rapists and trans-whatevers don't need curing, in spite of the fact that that condition increases the likely hood of suicide by a factor of 20. Oh, yeah, you also believe that in spite of detesting rapists and wisely avoiding them at all costs, you really don't think you are "discriminating against them" even though any woman with a brain would do so.
> 
> Did I miss anything? I'm sure you will think of something....Joe


Please quote where I have ever said that rapists can be rehabilitated. If you can't find it you're lying about what I've said. 

BTW, I was raped when I was 12. I don't support rapists and think they should be castrated. I do think that if people that that support/excuse "boys will be boys" and "What was she wearing?" would instead raise boys to become men who respect women the world would be a better place. 

People (it's not just men, there are a subset of women that support "what was she wearing?") that support or excuse sexual assault are so wrapped up in their own ignorance that they can't see that it's wrong. To add insult to injury, most are also bigots, racists, and justify their actions with religion. 

Have the day you deserve.


----------



## joebill

First, like most of us, I'm likely to have a far BETTER day than I deserve. Being aware of that helps keep things in perspective.

Second, I am VERY sorry for what you have gone through and I hope that you will or have availed yourself of the help that is available to imporve your life. It can't be easy, and I make no claim to even begin understand your perspective.

I may be able, however, to explain part of the businress about "what was she wearing?" People do this out of fear, and trying to convince themselves that they are NOT next, or their wife or daughter. The idea that a total innocent can be vicimized at the drop of a hat (THEM, in their own mind) terrifies them, and they try to find some reason why it happened to you that cannot apply to themselves or their loved ones. Fact is, the victim is never at fault, it CAN happen to them, and trying to fool themselves into believing otherwise is a fool's errand. Never stops them from trying, though.

I see the difference, now between what you were saying and what I was hearing. You spoke about "teaching" or "telling" boys how not to treat women, and seem to believe in a "prehabilitation" but not "rehabilitation", as in nipping the tendancy in the bud at an early age.

i have never observed a family who had a "boys will be boys" attitude about rape, but am willing to accept that they might exist in rare cases. I know Teddy Kennedy acted like he didn't know any better. I think those attitudes, when they exist, exist through the person's entire personality, as though they believe they deserve anything they want.

I know that in my generation, rape was considered to be hardly any different than murder, in terms of degree of criminality, and I, personally, have NEVER heared anyone in my age group seeking to justify it. This is, in large part, why my generation detests the increasing loss of our culture and believes that no good can come of it. 

Castration has been tried as a cure, but offers little promise. Expecially, now that the testostorone drugs are available to do the same things as the missing parts. It seems to me that castrtation is like catching a mad bomber who blows people up and taking away his toolbox and supplies and turning him loose.

As for religion, no doubt it has not been of any practical use to you, and for that I am sorry, but I can tell you for certain that a LOT of crimes of all sorts never get committed because people believe that they will be held accountable, either here or in the hereafter.

Also, a belief in God helps many people, myself included, deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it was. It is an unfortunate fact that Christianity is a belief system, not a behaviour pattern, and to profess Christianity is to profess that nobody will ever live up to the doctrine, but each is obligated to try. I have said that poorly, but it's the best I can do.

I can tell you are an intellegent person, but I can also tell that your anger is overpowering your logic, and I am not helping. 

Everybody has to live in this world that some are so intent on altering, and to many of us, it is obvious that these directives from Washington are NOT designed to make anyone's life better, but rather to destroy our culture and substitute ironclad state supremecy, and the people are only the tools to be used. It would be easier to let it happen, but absolutely it would be wrong. 

I wish you well, and since there is no God in your universe, you cannot posibly be offended when I say that me and mine will pray for you.....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> First, like most of us, I'm likely to have a far BETTER day than I deserve. Being aware of that helps keep things in perspective.
> 
> Second, I am VERY sorry for what you have gone through and I hope that you will or have availed yourself of the help that is available to imporve your life. It can't be easy, and I make no claim to even begin understand your perspective.
> 
> I may be able, however, to explain part of the businress about "what was she wearing?" People do this out of fear, and trying to convince themselves that they are NOT next, or their wife or daughter. The idea that a total innocent can be vicimized at the drop of a hat (THEM, in their own mind) terrifies them, and they try to find some reason why it happened to you that cannot apply to themselves or their loved ones. Fact is, the victim is never at fault, it CAN happen to them, and trying to fool themselves into believing otherwise is a fool's errand. Never stops them from trying, though.
> 
> I see the difference, now between what you were saying and what I was hearing. You spoke about "teaching" or "telling" boys how not to treat women, and seem to believe in a "prehabilitation" but not "rehabilitation", as in nipping the tendancy in the bud at an early age.
> 
> i have never observed a family who had a "boys will be boys" attitude about rape, but am willing to accept that they might exist in rare cases. I know Teddy Kennedy acted like he didn't know any better. I think those attitudes, when they exist, exist through the person's entire personality, as though they believe they deserve anything they want.
> 
> I know that in my generation, rape was considered to be hardly any different than murder, in terms of degree of criminality, and I, personally, have NEVER heared anyone in my age group seeking to justify it. This is, in large part, why my generation detests the increasing loss of our culture and believes that no good can come of it.
> 
> Castration has been tried as a cure, but offers little promise. Expecially, now that the testostorone drugs are available to do the same things as the missing parts. It seems to me that castrtation is like catching a mad bomber who blows people up and taking away his toolbox and supplies and turning him loose.
> 
> As for religion, no doubt it has not been of any practical use to you, and for that I am sorry, but I can tell you for certain that a LOT of crimes of all sorts never get committed because people believe that they will be held accountable, either here or in the hereafter.
> 
> Also, a belief in God helps many people, myself included, deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it was. It is an unfortunate fact that Christianity is a belief system, not a behaviour pattern, and to profess Christianity is to profess that nobody will ever live up to the doctrine, but each is obligated to try. I have said that poorly, but it's the best I can do.
> 
> I can tell you are an intellegent person, but I can also tell that your anger is overpowering your logic, and I am not helping.
> 
> Everybody has to live in this world that some are so intent on altering, and to many of us, it is obvious that these directives from Washington are NOT designed to make anyone's life better, but rather to destroy our culture and substitute ironclad state supremecy, and the people are only the tools to be used. It would be easier to let it happen, but absolutely it would be wrong.
> 
> I wish you well, and since there is no God in your universe, you cannot posibly be offended when I say that me and mine will pray for you.....Joe


Is your faith so small and lacking that you feel the need to harass me about my lack of faith? I'm sorry that you feel your faith so little...

This quote is nearly perfect: The Warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong. Paul Coelho


----------



## arabian knight

As school in WI. Baraboo school gets it right 

*St. John's Lutheran School in Baraboo advises homosexuals and transgenders to keep out. *


> St. Johnâs Principal Craig Breitkreutz said about a letter he wrote to parents in February.
> 
> In the letter, Breitkreutz outlined new rules that required parents to provide a birth certificate and sign a parent handbook agreement prior to enrollment.
> 
> The birth certificate allows the school to know the childâs born gender, and the handbook agreement â which apparently was recommended by the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod â* lists discretions for which a student can be disciplined and expelled, including homosexuality.*


http://www.wiscnews.com/baraboonewsrepublic/news/local/article_935d7201-c28b-55b0-9618-789cc770f27f.html


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Is your faith so small and lacking that you feel the need to harass me about my lack of faith? I'm sorry that you feel your faith so little...
> 
> This quote is nearly perfect: The Warrior who trusts his path doesn't need to prove the other way is wrong. Paul Coelho


But what kind of warrior would let another take a path he knows is the wrong one? If you have a favorite sports team do you not 'advertise' it by wearing team clothing or having a bumper sticker? If someone says that their favorite team is the best do you not rebut them? 

If you do that with a sports team why would you not expect a person who believes in a faith to do less?


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> But what kind of warrior would let another take a path he knows is the wrong one? If you have a favorite sports team do you not 'advertise' it by wearing team clothing or having a bumper sticker? If someone says that their favorite team is the best do you not rebut them?
> 
> If you do that with a sports team why would you not expect a person who believes in a faith to do less?


It is socially acceptable to be a sports fanatic and to bash Christians. Idolotry. You know.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> But what kind of warrior would let another take a path he knows is the wrong one? If you have a favorite sports team do you not 'advertise' it by wearing team clothing or having a bumper sticker? If someone says that their favorite team is the best do you not rebut them?
> 
> If you do that with a sports team why would you not expect a person who believes in a faith to do less?


No one has the right to harass someone else with their religion. Why would you want to force your belief on someone that obviously isn't interested? 

I believe there is a no prophetizing rule on HT as well.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> They are the tools as DA would use to punish an offender. Tis not laws they fear. Its getting prosecuted. *100% relevant*


No, they are not, in this context.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> These laws haven't been in effect to show a link. But a basic understanding of human nature will tell you giving a molester easier access to those he prefers to molest puts those people in greater danger.


Sure they have, some for decades


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by watcher View Post
> But what kind of warrior would let another take a path he knows is the wrong one? If you have a favorite sports team do you not 'advertise' it by wearing team clothing or having a bumper sticker? If someone says that their favorite team is the best do you not rebut them?
> 
> If you do that with a sports team why would you not expect a person who believes in a faith to do less?


So you're a cheerleader for ISIS and those with the same mindset

You don't get to dictate anyone's "path" other than your own


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> You don't think someone who gets a thrill showing his pride and joy to unsuspecting women would not think this law is a boon? You don't think they would use this law to. . .oh I have to say it, beat the wrap by claiming he is TG and the woman just overreacted?


Your questions have nothing to do with the comment quoted, and have already been answered more than once


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> No one has the right to harass someone else with their religion. Why would you want to force your belief on someone that obviously isn't interested?
> 
> I believe there is a no prophetizing rule on HT as well.




I believe the word you are seeking is proselytizeing, and I did not do that. You were the one who repeatedly brought up religion in a negative context, and I simply offered an opinion counter to yours. Don't want to discuss a subject? don't introduce it into the conversation.

If you believe that my intent was to harrass you with that opinion, I can catagorically tell you that you are mistaken, and that for some reason you see threats where they do not exist. 

I have no desire to cause you any kind of problems, and am powerless to do so anyway, but that does not mean that I have to agree with your opinions or support your desires if I believe that they are detrimental to our nation. AND, I DO!

Real life is not the place where the victim gets to decide everyone's fate and future, especially, when EVERYBODY did not do you harm. I would expect you to advocate for your own best interests, as you percieve them, but also would expect to be allowed to do the same, and in my opinion, my best interests paralell those of the nation and it's people, because while I don't have that many years left, my children, grandchildren, etc., do.

Once again, I wish you well, believe it or not, but that does not include me wishing you get everyting you want at the expense of our culture, our constitution, our nation and it's people....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> I believe the word you are seeking is proselytizeing, and I did not do that. You were the one who repeatedly brought up religion in a negative context, and I simply offered an opinion counter to yours. Don't want to discuss a subject? don't introduce it into the conversation.
> 
> If you believe that my intent was to harrass you with that opinion, I can catagorically tell you that you are mistaken, and that for some reason you see threats where they do not exist.
> 
> I have no desire to cause you any kind of problems, and am powerless to do so anyway, but that does not mean that I have to agree with your opinions or support your desires if I believe that they are detrimental to our nation. AND, I DO!
> 
> Real life is not the place where the victim gets to decide everyone's fate and future, especially, when EVERYBODY did not do you harm. I would expect you to advocate for your own best interests, as you percieve them, but also would expect to be allowed to do the same, and in my opinion, my best interests paralell those of the nation and it's people, because while I don't have that many years left, my children, grandchildren, etc., do.
> 
> Once again, I wish you well, believe it or not, but that does not include me wishing you get everyting you want at the expense of our culture, our constitution, our nation and it's people....Joe


Thanks, it was proselytizeing, and that is exactly what you did. Perhaps the condescending air that you have makes it hard for you to realize that you're harassing someone with your religion? I don't know, and I don't really care. 

I don't like religion. I'd like christians better if they actually followed the teachings of christ, but most just don't. They hate really, really well but most seemed to have completely missed the teachings of tolerance and compassion.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, they are not, in this context.


Yes, they are in any context. Without statute, a DA can just go home. They enforce law. You keep claiming changing laws and norms does nothing. It strips the DA of tools to prosecute pervs. Prosecution is the only thing they fear, and even that is not strong enough to protect people.


----------



## mreynolds

If transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing then Christians should allowed to use the forum of their choosing.

If a transgender that identifies as a woman can disrobe in a woman's locker room then shouldn't a Christian be able to voice their opinion to non Christians in public?

Are we trying to be all inclusive or only selective inclusion?


----------



## thericeguy

mreynolds said:


> If transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing then Christians should allowed to use the forum of their choosing.
> 
> If a transgender that identifies as a woman can disrobe in a woman's locker room then shouldn't a Christian be able to voice their opinion to non Christians in public?
> 
> Are we trying to be all inclusive or only selective inclusion?


This forum is private property. None of us have rights here. Only priveledges.


----------



## mreynolds

thericeguy said:


> This forum is private property. None of us have rights here. Only priveledges.


TouchÃ©. 


*But what if..... *


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> TouchÃ©.
> 
> 
> *But what if..... *


Noooooo. :hair


----------



## joebill

I have no problem with moderators limiting discussion in any way that is practiced equally amongst "combatants", and IF I don't feel it is practiced equally, i still have no right to complain, because I am here voluntarily.

It DOES seem to me that a "no recruiting" rule should apply to atheism the same as it does to any other belief system, but it certainly is NOT my call, because it certainly is NOT my forum.

One of the very bright spots about owning your own business is you get to run it your own way and for your own reasons, and are not obligated to justify or explain yourself. I always insisted on that right in my own businesses and assert that it is 100% correct here...Joe


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks, it was proselytizeing, and that is exactly what you did. Perhaps the condescending air that you have makes it hard for you to realize that you're harassing someone with your religion? I don't know, and I don't really care.
> 
> I don't like religion. I'd like christians better if they actually followed the teachings of christ, but most just don't. They hate really, really well but most seemed to have completely missed the teachings of tolerance and compassion.


Nope, your wrong about Christians. You have a thought Christians should roll over and say nothing.. mistaking meekness for weakness. Here's a few thoughts:
The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easy to the discerning.
A mocker resents correction, he will not consult the wise.
Price goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
A fool's lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating.
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.
How about...better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs, than a fool in his folly.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> Thanks, it was proselytizeing, and that is exactly what you did. Perhaps the condescending air that you have makes it hard for you to realize that you're harassing someone with your religion? I don't know, and I don't really care.
> 
> I don't like religion. I'd like christians better if they actually followed the teachings of christ, but most just don't. They hate really, really well but most seemed to have completely missed the teachings of tolerance and compassion.





elevenpoint said:


> Nope, your wrong about Christians. You have a thought Christians should roll over and say nothing.. mistaking meekness for weakness. Here's a few thoughts:
> The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easy to the discerning.
> A mocker resents correction, he will not consult the wise.
> Price goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
> A fool's lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating.
> A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.
> How about...better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs, than a fool in his folly.


Another christian of so little faith that they feel the need to mock my lack of it. 

Thank you for proving my point.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Another christian of so little faith that they feel the need to mock my lack of it.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point.


Prove your point of how foolish you are and your crew mocking Christians to no end.
You and your crew are the biggest bigots here, constantly ripping Christians, church, any religion. Do you understand what a bigot is?


----------



## Elevenpoint

You are against discrimination unless it does not fall in the parameters of your agenda, women's rights are paramount unless it is men dressed as women in the ladies room...then no regard or respect for any other women. You have no idea what you stand for, endless accusations against others for the same and worse behavior that you don't want to be accountable for....hypocrisy at its best.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> *Yes, they are* in any context. Without statute, a DA can just go home. They enforce law. You keep claiming changing laws and norms does nothing. It strips the DA of tools to prosecute pervs. Prosecution is the only thing they fear, and even that is not strong enough to protect people.


You can repeat that endlessly if you think it will change anything, but it won't.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> If transgender people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choosing then Christians should allowed to use the forum of their choosing.
> 
> If a transgender that identifies as a woman can disrobe in a woman's locker room then shouldn't a Christian be able to voice their opinion to non Christians in public?
> 
> Are we trying to be all inclusive or only selective inclusion?


Feel free to voice any opinion you wish, but don't whine and call it an "attack" if someone disagrees.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Nope, your wrong about Christians. You have a thought Christians should roll over and say nothing.. mistaking meekness for weakness. Here's a few thoughts:
> The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easy to the discerning.
> A mocker resents correction, he will not consult the wise.
> Price goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
> A fool's lips bring him strife, and his mouth invites a beating.
> A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.
> *How about..*.better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs, than a fool in his folly.


How about:
"It takes you a lot of words to say nothing meaningful at all"


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can repeat that endlessly if you think it will change anything, but it won't.


Yes, they are.


----------



## joebill

I have noticed this phenomonon before, and it is quite interesting. It consists of ripping those who profess Christianity endlessly and leveling all kinds of accusations and creating steriotypes until some of them say things that can be interpreted as "unchristian" and then lambasting them with it.

The whole point is making them back water.

One of the classic names for that which we oppose is "the great accuser", and it is very effective, because obviously, none of us ever feel we measure up to what we profess.

Useless to try and explain that one cannot "judge Christ by the company he keeps"..........Joe


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> No one has the right to harass someone else with their religion. Why would you want to force your belief on someone that obviously isn't interested?
> 
> I believe there is a no prophetizing rule on HT as well.


I don't force it on anyone. As I have pointed out Christianity is one of the few religions which specifically says if someone does not want to hear the message you are to just walk away. It also is a religion which is based on freewill, you are free to accept or deny.

Someone telling you they think your belief system is wrong and theirs is right is no different than someone telling you they think your composting system is wrong and theirs is right. They are not trying to "force" you to "convert" to their composting system.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bearfootfarm said:


> How about:
> "It takes you a lot of words to say nothing meaningful at all"


It can't mean anything to you, you are your own god.
That's what happens, you want to be God, find out you can't be, so become your own god.
One problem...your wisdom is His foolishness.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> I don't force it on anyone. As I have pointed out Christianity is one of the few religions which specifically says if someone does not want to hear the message you are to just walk away. It also is a religion which is based on freewill, you are free to accept or deny.
> 
> Someone telling you they think your belief system is wrong and theirs is right is no different than someone telling you they think your composting system is wrong and theirs is right. They are not trying to "force" you to "convert" to their composting system.


But you are speaking with someone known to say Christian churches force attendance and has suggested given the chance would pass laws to force attendance.

They do not just reject. They actively spread untrue statements to try and get others to reject. Almost resembles cultish fansticism.


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you're a cheerleader for ISIS and those with the same mindset
> 
> You don't get to dictate anyone's "path" other than your own


You are wrong in the first and correct in the second. Christianity believes you have freewill IOW you are free to choose to accept or deny. Christianity also is one of the few religions which has as a tenet telling its believers if a non-believer doesn't want to hear about Christ the believer is to just walk away. 

But what does religion have to do with this case?


----------



## watcher

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your questions have nothing to do with the comment quoted, and have already been answered more than once


I haven't seen anyone say they think making it harder to arrest and prosecute someone is a good idea.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Another christian of so little faith that they feel the need to mock my lack of it.
> 
> Thank you for proving my point.


If someone told you they didn't believe in putting children in car seats and didn't use one with their child what would you do?


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> If someone told you they didn't believe in putting children in car seats and didn't use one with their child what would you do?


They are just going to say that is illegal. Seen it too many times.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> But you are speaking with someone known to say Christian churches force attendance and has suggested given the chance would pass laws to force attendance.
> 
> They do not just reject. They actively spread untrue statements to try and get others to reject. Almost resembles cultish fansticism.


No problem for me after all there are groups calling themselves Christian churches who and people who call themselves Christians who would actually do such thing.

This is why I post what I do, telling what the Bible tells Christians to do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

watcher said:


> I don't force it on anyone. As I have pointed out Christianity is one of the few religions which specifically says if someone does not want to hear the message you are to just walk away. It also is a religion which is based on freewill, you are free to accept or deny.
> 
> Someone telling you they think your belief system is wrong and theirs is right is no different than someone telling you they think your composting system is wrong and theirs is right. They are not trying to "force" you to "convert" to their composting system.


Sure you did when you said that you _must_ tell people which path they have to take. 

Here in the good ol USA the standard is we have is freedom *of* religion and *from* religion. 

If you (collective religious) don't want me to point out your ill mannered preaching simply don't preach to me. Don't say you'll pray for me, don't quote the bible to me, I don't like it and I will give my opinion regarding religion back to you. It's a very easy concept to understand.

I have as much right to my opinion as any of you do, despite the fact that it is diametrically opposed to yours. I rarely bring up religion, and when I do it is usually to point out the hypocrisy of one sect/cult/ brand being better than all the others. It's not, it's just not. 

Any questions?


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> But you are speaking with someone known to say Christian churches force attendance and has suggested given the chance would pass laws to force attendance.
> 
> They do not just reject. They actively spread untrue statements to try and get others to reject. Almost resembles cultish fansticism.


There was a less than stellar minded politician in Arizona that tried to get legislation passed that would make church attendance compulsory. It didn't pass, that pesky separation of church and state thang.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...church-attendance-mandatory-article-1.2164602

BTW, where did I say that christian churches force attendance? Can you point that out? Thanks. Do I really need to tell you again not to lie about what I've said?


----------



## joebill

Freedom FROM religion is pretty tough to achieve, and it is certainly not a law. You have asurance that you do not have to participate, and any other way would be ridiculous, but there are those who believe they should not have to drive down a street and see a church, and that is not going to happen either.

You certainly DO have a right to your opinion, and I can't think of anyone who said otherwise, nor can I find a record of anyone trying to prevent you from expressing it.

Nobody finds atheism very frightening.......Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Freedom FROM religion is pretty tough to achieve, and it is certainly not a law. You have asurance that you do not have to participate, and any other way would be ridiculous, but there are those who believe they should not have to drive down a street and see a church, and that is not going to happen either.
> 
> You certainly DO have a right to your opinion, and I can't think of anyone who said otherwise, nor can I find a record of anyone trying to prevent you from expressing it.
> 
> Nobody finds atheism very frightening.......Joe


Nope. "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."

So what is law for you is also law for me. 

https://www.aclu.org/your-right-religious-freedom

Why don't we (as individuals/forum members/nation) compromise? Don't preach at me and I won't question your faith because you harass me with it. Deal? It's pretty simple.

I believe you had "tattle to the mods" post about how the non christians/atheists shouldn't be able to talk about religion. I seem to recall that... Wait, here it is:



joebill said:


> I have no problem with moderators limiting discussion in any way that is practiced equally amongst "combatants", and IF I don't feel it is practiced equally, i still have no right to complain, because I am here voluntarily.
> 
> *It DOES seem to me that a "no recruiting" rule should apply to atheism the same as it does to any other belief system*, but it certainly is NOT my call, because it certainly is NOT my forum.
> 
> One of the very bright spots about owning your own business is you get to run it your own way and for your own reasons, and are not obligated to justify or explain yourself. I always insisted on that right in my own businesses and assert that it is 100% correct here...Joe


(emphasis mine) What did you mean by the statement I bolded?


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> How about:
> "It takes you a lot of words to say nothing meaningful at all"


http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/537625-ht-rules-approved-members.html

:nono:


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> There was a less than stellar minded politician in Arizona that tried to get legislation passed that would make church attendance compulsory. It didn't pass, that pesky separation of church and state thang.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...church-attendance-mandatory-article-1.2164602
> 
> BTW, where did I say that christian churches force attendance? Can you point that out? Thanks. Do I really need to tell you again not to lie about what I've said?


If I went out there and found 1 atheist who murdered a Christian just for being a Christian, would it be fair to then claim that all atheists are Christian murderers and call them that publicly?

The law didn't pass because reasonable people voted against it. I would be willing to bet money many Christians voted against it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> If I went out there and found 1 atheist who murdered a Christian just for being a Christian, would it be fair to then claim that all atheists are Christian murderers and call them that publicly?
> 
> The law didn't pass because reasonable people voted against it. I would be willing to bet money many Christians voted against it.


Yup, cuz it's unconstitutional and should never have been put forth to begin with? Dang.

OK. Can you explain your first statement? What is it in reference to? A specific post, or just another diversion?


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. "The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice his or her own religion, or no religion at all."
> 
> So what is law for you is also law for me.
> 
> Actually what the constitution says is that laws cannot force you to accept a religion, not prevent me THE FREE EXERCIZE THEREOF. ACLU likes to leave that part out.
> 
> https://www.aclu.org/your-right-religious-freedom
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we (as individuals/forum members/nation) compromise? Don't preach at me and I won't question your faith because you harass me with it. Deal? It's pretty simple.
> 
> I believe you had "tattle to the mods" post about how the non christians/atheists shouldn't be able to talk about religion. I seem to recall that... Wait, here it is:
> 
> 
> 
> (emphasis mine) What did you mean by the statement I bolded?


OK, since you asked, I meant that I'm perfectly willing to follow any rules set forth about religion and conveying my thoughts on it, and it would seem that IF that is, indeed a rule, you should do the same. Turns out, as far as I can tell, there ARE no rules about it, except the one you made up. Maybe I missed it, doesn't matter.

Nobody here has expressed as forcefull and overbearing opinions about the subject as you, but you claim to be the one injured and intimidated. When the argument slows and starts to die out, you have to revive it with multiple posts asserting your rights are being violated.

Obviously, your belief system has made you gloriously happy and content and well adjusted to live in this world as it is,so I certainly do not want to tamper with it,; so as soon as you stop slinging insults against Cristians, I will cease to reply.....Have a nice day.......Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> OK, since you asked, I meant that I'm perfectly willing to follow any rules set forth about religion and conveying my thoughts on it, and it would seem that IF that is, indeed a rule, you should do the same. Turns out, as far as I can tell, there ARE no rules about it, except the one you made up. Maybe I missed it, doesn't matter.
> 
> Nobody here has expressed as forcefull and overbearing opinions about the subject as you, but you claim to be the one injured and intimidated. When the argument slows and starts to die out, you have to revive it with multiple posts asserting your rights are being violated.
> 
> Obviously, your belief system has made you gloriously happy and content and well adjusted to live in this world as it is,so I certainly do not want to tamper with it,; so as soon as you stop slinging insults against Cristians, I will cease to reply.....Have a nice day.......Joe


Please don't attribute things to me that you've made up in some bizarre fantasy. I'm not personally intimidated, injured, nor have my rights been violated by preaching christians on the internet. You may not like my opinion on religion and christians but I don't like yours on a large number of things. I think we'll both live through it.

Respond or don't respond it's no skin off my nose...


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, cuz it's unconstitutional and should never have been put forth to begin with? Dang.
> 
> OK. Can you explain your first statement? What is it in reference to? A specific post, or just another diversion?


You found 1 Christian politician who did something, then expanded that will to all Christians. We all want mandatory church attendance. See the correlation now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/537625-ht-rules-approved-members.html
> 
> :nono:


Which specific rule are you referring to?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which specific rule are you referring to?


No bears allowed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm View Post
> Your questions have nothing to do with the comment quoted, and have already been answered more than once





watcher said:


> I haven't seen anyone say they think making it harder to arrest and prosecute someone is a good idea.


Again, your statement has nothing to do with what was quoted or what was said before.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> You found 1 Christian politician who did something, then expanded that will to all Christians. We all want mandatory church attendance. See the correlation now?


If you recall (please go back and check) we were discussing your hysteria that sharia law would soon be running the United States. And I said something to the effect of if christians had their way we'd already have a variation and linked a intellectually challenged Republican politician from AZ that actually created a law that would make church mandatory.

So based on this information you are trying to say that I commented on one christian saying something stupid into all christians want mandatory church. Did that stretch hurt? I hope you warmed up first.

Diverting attention away from what I actually said and trying to make a mountain out of mole by putting words in my mouth again. This wasn't a well crafted diversion, I can't even give it a one out of five. Disappointing.

Can you answer my question? "BTW, where did I say that christian churches force attendance? Can you point that out? Thanks. Do I really need to tell you again not to lie about what I've said?"


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which specific rule are you referring to?


Be nice. No insults.


----------



## mreynolds

Txsteader said:


> Be nice. No insults.


One he likes to preach about but not practice.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Be nice. No insults.


There were no insults
It was an opinion based on observation
If you're going to start labeling *all* real "insults" you will be quite busy and your buddies will be upset



> Originally Posted by elevenpoint View Post
> Nope, meant you got labeled.
> Quoting...We've always known...
> Of course by the only true resident Christian, church, religion bashing bigots here.


----------



## TraderBob

Is it bad I pray for the collapse every night? bwahahahahahaha


----------



## Elevenpoint

Bigot means any prejudiced, closed minded person that is intolerant or hateful toward people of a different group especially racial or religious.
Recently you labeled the Catholic Church a hate group.
Guaranteed you will post something insulting every day that is related to religion. If the shoe fits, wear it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> There were no insults
> It was an opinion based on observation
> If you're going to start labeling *all* real "insults" you will be quite busy and your buddies will be upset


Isn't it odd that the perceived insults only come from those that disagree with them? Their cronies are never labeled as insulting, even when they blatantly are.


----------



## dixiegal62

I figure I'll start believing a man is really a woman when the non religious members here start believing in God. &#128521;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Isn't it odd that the perceived insults only come from those that disagree with them? Their cronies are never labeled as insulting, even when they blatantly are.


Yeah, they get mad if someone points out the truth, so they all go into attack mode and start the spin.

They can't just be honest and admit they do all the same things

Some will even have a hissy fit when you call them something they called themselves with pride.
(But they will call me a "liar" for using the same words)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> I figure I'll start believing a man is really a woman when the non religious members here start believing in God. &#128521;


No one has said you're required to believe anything.
You're just not allowed to discriminate against those who do believe if you operate a "public" business or school


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one has said you're required to believe anything.
> You're just not allowed to discriminate against those who do believe if you operate a "public" business or school


If I owned a public business I'd close the public bathrooms and not deal with the issue at all. 

As for discrimination I have never said a harsh words towards any of the alternative lifestyles. Ive never insulted their beliefs or called them names, I dont agree with them but I respect their right to be who they are. I've also never tried to force my religious beliefs on anyone. There is a lot of preaching going on around here and it ain't all coming from Christians, for being so against having another's beliefs shoved in someone's face many here sure do it. Alot! It might be against the rules to avanglize religion here but it clearly isn't to preach up atheism.... most of it is humorous because they don't even seem to realize they are really doing what they claim to hate so much.


----------



## arabian knight

Yes I believe that will happen to many of these places. After all How Many ACTUALLY go to to the bathroom while SHOPPING? Sure there are some emergencies situations, but 99.9% people Go in Shop and Go Home~! They Do Not NEED to have a Bathroom Open to the Public~!!!!!!!
The ONLY place that bathrooms should need to be in in restaurants so people can go in and wash etc. before a meal. Airport places like that. But a Store. Phoey


----------



## painterswife

No need to close public bathrooms. Only those that can't handle someone of the opposite sex in the next stall have a problem.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> There were no insults
> It was an opinion based on observation


Ah. I'll have to remember that one for future use. 

Thanks.


----------



## D-BOONE

arabian knight said:


> Yes I believe that will happen to many of these places. After all How Many ACTUALLY go to to the bathroom while SHOPPING? Sure there are some emergencies situations, but 99.9% people Go in Shop and Go Home~! They Do Not NEED to have a Bathroom Open to the Public~!!!!!!!
> The ONLY place that bathrooms should need to be in in restaurants so people can go in and wash etc. before a meal. Airport places like that. But a Store. Phoey
> 
> When I travel to town its hour and a half drive and usually apot of coffee later the first place I hit is walmart restroom. if they close the restroom maybe theyll let me pee in their dumpster


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> No need to close public bathrooms. Only those that can't handle someone of the opposite sex in the next stall have a problem.


How many do you figure that might be? I'm guessing there are more than a few business owners who will do just that, or put in 1 or 2 private bathrooms and let people stand in line. I guess the next step will be to force business owners to have public bathrooms.


----------



## painterswife

dixiegal62 said:


> How many do you figure that might be? I'm guessing there are more than a few business owners who will do just that, or put in 1 or 2 private bathrooms and let people stand in line. I guess the next step will be to force business owners to have public bathrooms.


Bathrooms help businesses make money. Force is not needed now.


----------



## coolrunnin

It's a bathroom I'm thinking most are going to be don't ask don't tell, unless they want to make some sort of a statement.

Statements tend to be dangerous to business, you tend to alienate a percentage of your customer base.


----------



## thericeguy

coolrunnin said:


> It's a bathroom I'm thinking most are going to be don't ask don't tell, unless they want to make some sort of a statement.
> 
> Statements tend to be dangerous to business, you tend to alienate a percentage of your customer base.


Laws will be passed. Then all you have to do is decide what state to live in.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Laws will be passed. Then all you have to do is decide what state to live in.


Unconstitutional laws get struck down.


----------



## coolrunnin

thericeguy said:


> Laws will be passed. Then all you have to do is decide what state to live in.


I'm more worried about laws being passed like we have for ADA everybody gets to spend a lot of money for a non issue.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Unconstitutional laws get struck down.


Penis right. Vagina left. You lose.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Penis right. Vagina left. You lose.


Nope, the 14th Amendment that has already been used to support gay rights in US v. Windsor. You (collective you) will lose. 

What diversion will you use on this one? Please make it a good one cuz I need a diversion from ironing.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Penis right. Vagina left. You lose.


Statements like that don't count to much with regards to the constitution and laws.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Statements like that don't count to much with regards to the constitution and laws.


To too two. 1/3 chance.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> To too two. 1/3 chance.


Grammar police now? You should check the rules on that. Not nice.

ETA: You should apologize.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> Grammar police now? You should check the rules on that. Not nice.
> 
> ETA: You should apologize.


Not TOO worried. His posts are riddled with mistakes. His judging of others about this is hilarious .


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Grammar police now? You should check the rules on that. Not nice.
> 
> ETA: You should apologize.


Naw. Someone who says my religious beliefs makes me insane can suffer thru some factual 100% accurate grammar lessons. Just trying to help. You know me.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Naw. Someone who says my religioud beliefs makes me insane can suffer thru some factual 100% accurate grammar lessons. Just trying to help. You know me.


Are you telling lies again? I have never posted anything of the sort. You continue to post insults and lies about other posters.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Naw. Someone who says my religioud beliefs makes me insane can suffer thru some factual 100% accurate grammar lessons. Just trying to help. You know me.


I never said that, you're lying and putting words in my mouth again. That's not nice either. You should apologize to me now.


----------



## barnbilder

dixiegal62 said:


> If I owned a public business I'd close the public bathrooms and not deal with the issue at all.
> 
> As for discrimination I have never said a harsh words towards any of the alternative lifestyles. Ive never insulted their beliefs or called them names, I dont agree with them but I respect their right to be who they are. I've also never tried to force my religious beliefs on anyone. There is a lot of preaching going on around here and it ain't all coming from Christians, for being so against having another's beliefs shoved in someone's face many here sure do it. Alot! It might be against the rules to avanglize religion here but it clearly isn't to preach up atheism.... most of it is humorous because they don't even seem to realize they are really doing what they claim to hate so much.


We have the advantage of reading every argument that they can possibly make, beforehand.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Pot. Kettle. Black. LOL Yer a hoot.


Thank you.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> If I owned a public business I'd close the public bathrooms and not deal with the issue at all.
> 
> As for discrimination I have never said a harsh words towards any of the alternative lifestyles. Ive never insulted their beliefs or called them names, I dont agree with them but I respect their right to be who they are. I've also never tried to force my religious beliefs on anyone. There is a lot of preaching going on around here and it ain't all coming from Christians, for being so against having another's beliefs shoved in someone's face many here sure do it. Alot! It might be against the rules to avanglize religion here but it clearly isn't to preach up atheism.... most of it is humorous because they don't even seem to realize they are really doing what they claim to hate so much.


No one is "preaching atheism"
No one has accused you of anything.

Not all businesses can close the restrooms, so what you "would do" makes no difference


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Naw. Someone who says my religious beliefs makes me insane can suffer thru some factual 100% accurate grammar lessons. Just trying to help. *You know me*.


Yes, we do


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is "preaching atheism"
> No one has accused you of anything.
> 
> Not all businesses can close the restrooms, so what you "would do" makes no difference


How does one preach atheism? I'm curious. LOL


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Yup. Its all I do. Post lies. Funny how someone necroed a thread from 3 years ago recently. You seemed to resemble a Summers Eve product even then. And was called that. Hate much?


Curious what thread you are taking about.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is "preaching atheism"
> No one has accused you of anything.
> 
> Not all businesses can close the restrooms, so what you "would do" makes no difference


What we can do is give due process of law. 
A legitimately elected govt passes a law. Due process. 
Penis right. Vagina left. Thank you. 
The constitution does not protect fantasy. Period. 

Think I am wrong? Look at the legal restrictions to abortion in the states. This will be a walk in the park. 

Once your cause costs Democrats the election, I hope they dump you. Good luck joining up with the communist party to get some laws passed.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Curious what thread you are taking about.


As told by your side often, go find it. I dont work for you.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> As told by your side often, go find it. I dont work for you.


So you make accusations but won't back them up.


----------



## barnbilder

thericeguy said:


> As told by your side often, go find it. I dont work for you.


Are you factoring in taxes?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> So you make accusations but won't back them up.


Yes. I learned from 3 people thats how its done. Have a nice day.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> So you make accusations but won't back them up.


All. The. Time.


----------



## thericeguy

barnbilder said:


> Are you factoring in taxes?


I cant do much about that except defund the govt by refusing to engage in taxable activity. I do that a lot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> What we can do is give due process of law.
> A legitimately elected govt passes a law. Due process.
> Penis right. Vagina left. Thank you.
> The constitution does not protect fantasy. Period.
> 
> *Think I am wrong?* Look at the legal restrictions to abortion in the states. This will be a walk in the park.
> 
> Once your cause costs Democrats the election, I hope they dump you. Good luck joining up with the communist party to get some laws passed.


Yes, I think you're wrong most of the time
Thanks for asking!



> The constitution does not protect fantasy. Period.


Actually it does, in the 1st Amendment


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Yes. I learned from 3 people thats how its done. Have a nice day.


No, no, no. It's have the day you deserve.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> All. The. Time.


Its called character assassination. You appear to know all about that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Naw. Someone who says my religious beliefs makes me insane can suffer thru some factual 100% accurate *grammar lessons*. Just trying to help. You know me.


A typo is a *spelling* error, not a grammatical error.
You're becoming too childish to make responding interesting anymore though


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> A typo is a *spelling* error, not a grammatical error.
> You're becoming too childish to make responding interesting anymore though


Yet you responded.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> A typo is a *spelling* error, not a grammatical error.
> You're becoming too childish to make responding interesting anymore though


I agree wholeheartedly. I really needed a diversion (preferably rational) during my break from ironing. Color me disappointed.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. I really needed a diversion (preferably rational) during my break from ironing. Color me disappointed.


I love to iron it's soothing.


----------



## Irish Pixie

coolrunnin said:


> I love to iron it's soothing.


I really don't mind, plus it's an excuse to watch something stupid on TV, but I'm going on the third hour. I had to get out the summer clothes cuz I'm going to visit my baby in Virginia next week.  Plus I needed sandals and capris so I can get a pedicure tomorrow with my oldest daughter and granddaughter. Girls spa and shopping day.


----------



## coolrunnin

Irish Pixie said:


> I really don't mind, plus it's an excuse to watch something stupid on TV, but I'm going on the third hour. I had to get out the summer clothes cuz I'm going to visit my baby in Virginia next week.  Plus I needed sandals and capris so I can get a pedicure tomorrow with my oldest daughter and granddaughter. Girls spa and shopping day.


Okay 3 hrs. I'm going to have to break up some, you are so right.

Now go back to ironing, it'll soothe ya from being on here....


----------



## thericeguy

Ahh, king crab legs, battered fried shrimp, baked flounder, fried mushrooms, fried broccoli, and hush puppies. It is so great to not spend all your income on therapists to try and figure out how you can be a girl with a penis.


----------



## barnbilder

So the first amendment covers fantasy? The people responsible for the constitution didn't feel that way, as evidenced by their musings on the subject of spirituality. I thought we were supposed to take the constitution as a contemporary piece, you know, 2A means muskets, not ARs?


----------



## arabian knight

barnbilder said:


> So the first amendment covers fantasy? The people responsible for the constitution didn't feel that way, as evidenced by their musings on the subject of spirituality. I thought we were supposed to take the constitution as a contemporary piece, you know, 2A means muskets, not ARs?


 Well to those that say the 14th amendment also covers bathrooms and the way they are signed. Now THERE is a Fantasy.
They Are Living a fantasy if that is what they think the 14th protects. So I guess to some the 1st amendment does protect A fantasy. LOL &#129297;


----------



## coolrunnin

barnbilder said:


> So the first amendment covers fantasy? The people responsible for the constitution didn't feel that way, as evidenced by their musings on the subject of spirituality. I thought we were supposed to take the constitution as a contemporary piece, you know, 2A means muskets, not ARs?


One persons fantasy is another person's vision.


----------



## barnbilder

I'm wondering, now that gay marriage is the law of the land, and after all of these wonderful legal precedents become established, thanks to the leftist progressives crusading for the less than one percent of the population that makes up the transgender community, when are the folks from NAMBLA going to want in on the action?


----------



## thericeguy

barnbilder said:


> I'm wondering, now that gay marriage is the law of the land, and after all of these wonderful legal precedents become established, thanks to the leftist progressives crusading for the less than one percent of the population that makes up the transgender community, when are the folks from NAMBLA going to want in on the action?


Man Boy Love Society used to be a political ally of the gay/trans community, until they figured out it was hurting the cause. Discrimination isnt so bad after all. They dumped them.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> There were no insults
> It was an opinion based on observation
> If you're going to start labeling *all* real "insults" you will be quite busy and your buddies will be upset


It was me you called a bigot. Not Elevenpoint. 

Post 74

Remember? 

And I don't even get involved in the anti/pro Christian threads. But you alluded to the fact that you know me and what I am. 

Didn't report it so its still there. I like that it is really.


----------



## thericeguy

mreynolds said:


> It was me you called a bigot. Not Elevenpoint.
> 
> Post 74
> 
> Remember?
> 
> And I don't even get involved in the anti/pro Christian threads. But you alluded to the fact that you know me and what I am.
> 
> Didn't report it so its still there. I like that it is really.


You know how some homophobes are scared to "catch it"? I think I see a few folks here absolutely terrified to catch God. Keep that thing away from me. It makes me LOL to watch them run around hollering bigot and discriminator.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree wholeheartedly. I really needed a diversion (preferably rational) during my break from ironing. Color me disappointed.


He also obviously was confused by my use of the the word "anymore".


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> It was me you *called a bigot*. Not Elevenpoint.
> 
> Post 74
> 
> Remember?
> 
> And I don't even get involved in the anti/pro Christian threads. But you alluded to the fact that you know me and what I am.
> 
> Didn't report it so its still there. I like that it is really.


No, I never used that term at all.

Post #74


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by mreynolds View Post
> You are still missing his point. It's not about tg perverts. It's about hetero perverts posing as tg non perverts.
> 
> *Can we not discuss anything on here anymore without re wording it?*
> 
> Bearfootfarm:
> No one reworded anything.
> 
> We've always known you think those who don't agree with you are perverts and mentally ill sinners.


Ironically it appears you are* rewording* my post which quoted you complaining about *rewording* 

You're comparing apples and oranges by mentioning elevenpoint other than the fact he used the word bigot more than once I believe. Otherwise the posts are not related in any way.


----------



## mreynolds

What do you call this? 

_We've always known you think those who don't agree with you are perverts and mentally ill sinners. _

You said that *YOU* and others have always known that if someone doesn't agree with me then* I* think they are perverts. 

That is bigotry. And slice it anyway you can use whatever red herring you want and that's what it says. 

I have never seen you admit you were wrong or out of line or anything on this forum. So you will take this and try and make it look like it is my fault. 

Again

That's ok with me. That's on you. You said it so you own it.


----------



## thericeguy

Just read a news article that the Texas Attorney General has sent a letter to all Texas school districts telling them they do not have to comply with the demands from Obama if they do not want to, and that his office was prepared to defend them and file any lawsuits needed for their defense. 

Blow it out your tailpipe Obama.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> an anti LGBT group is sending people, including men, into Target bathrooms to cause trouble.
> 
> "Now, in an interview on Breitbart News Daily, a conservative website, Sandy Rios, director of Government Affairs for the American Family Association, said the organization has sent men to Target to attempt entry into women's bathrooms. She did not mention the gender identity of these men."
> 
> "I think there's no question that when you say that there are no barriers in the bathroom and that if men or women feel like they are men or women, the (opposite) of however they are equipped, and you have no restrictions, the net effect will be that people will not be stopped," Rios said. "We've already had people testing this, going into Targets and men trying to go into bathrooms. There is absolutely no barrier."
> 
> Apparently the Target boycott wasn't accomplishing much so AFA (and others apparently there are a bunch of people acting like fools in Target bathrooms on Youtube) decided to cause trouble to bring attention to it.
> 
> So it's not transgenders causing problems, it's anti transgenders. SMH
> 
> From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-target-restroom-policy-20160503-story.html


Oh great. So instead of waiting for the natural perverts to take advantage of the situation, they'll just create their own perverts for the situation. They must have been reading all our threads. (Yes, I'm giving us way too much credit.)


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Ahh, king crab legs, battered fried shrimp, baked flounder, fried mushrooms, fried broccoli, and hush puppies. It is so great to not spend all your income on therapists to try and figure out how you can be a girl with a penis.


It is certainly convenient to be normal.



thericeguy said:


> Man Boy Love Society used to be a political ally of the gay/trans community, until they figured out it was hurting the cause. Discrimination isnt so bad after all. They dumped them.


Do you have a link?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Do you have a link?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

Look under History tab. It will tell you exactly when and why the homosexual movement dumped the pedophile group as an ally. It may give you new insight into their claims bad men are not trying to touch your daughter in the bathroom. As I said, discrimination isnt so bad after all.

I fully expect in a few more years, maybe a decade or two, the alliance will reform. Just gotta get the mule a few more miles down the road first.


----------



## Irish Pixie

barnbilder said:


> I'm wondering, now that gay marriage is the law of the land, and after all of these wonderful legal precedents become established, thanks to the leftist progressives crusading for the less than one percent of the population that makes up the transgender community, when are the folks from NAMBLA going to want in on the action?


In my opinion, only the truly ignorant don't realize that the majority of pedophiles are white, straight, men. They may actually want it to be otherwise because it suits their agenda, and the fact that they are hysterical over transgender women using the women's bathroom when male pedophiles have been in the men's bathroom for centuries. I guess they don't care as much about little boys than they do about seeing a transgender woman wash her hands and touch up her makeup. That's sad, really sad. 

Pedophilia is illegal, and always will be.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Just read a news article that the Texas Attorney General has sent a letter to all Texas school districts telling them they do not have to comply with the demands from Obama if they do not want to, and that his office was prepared to defend them and file any lawsuits needed for their defense.
> 
> Blow it out your tailpipe Obama.


Texas is going to tear apart their education system like they did women's healthcare so they can continue to deny constitutional rights to it's citizens? Will kids have to travel 6+ hours for an education like women do for effective birth control and legal abortion?

With the increase of births to low income women, no federal medicaid money, multiple lawsuits on abortion rights, and now another fight with the federal government over education I hope Texans are ready to hunker down and pay more in taxes to support the mess you seem to wholeheartedly support.


----------



## arabian knight

Oh boloney, that is the oldest trick in the book lie about it, and then blow it up way out of proportion~!


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Pedophilia is illegal, and always will be.


Legalness is a representation of current morality. Pederasty, though mostly non-sexual, was legal in ancient Greece. Who knows if we'll be able to justify it in another century or so? It's highly unlikely, given the simple reason it nearly always results in trauma.


----------



## joebill

Heritagefarm said:


> Legalness is a representation of current morality. Pederasty, though mostly non-sexual, was legal in ancient Greece. Who knows if we'll be able to justify it in another century or so? It's highly unlikely, given the simple reason it nearly always results in trauma.


No "leagalness" or legality is the result of our government deciding a couple of decades ago that "you cannot legislate morality". Having accomplished that, they now want to claim that our laws DO represent our morality. Tinhorn tricks like that are why the establishment of BOTH parties are currently feeling the pinch and will be for the forseeable future.

The goal, obviously, was to replace morality with the dictates of an all-powerfull state, and to a lot of folks that sounds just great until it, inevitably, goes to the dogs, as in the soviet union and currently Venusuala.

Never stops some folks from belireving they can do it better, though.....Joe


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> Texas is going to tear apart their education system like they did women's healthcare so they can continue to deny constitutional rights to it's citizens? Will kids have to travel 6+ hours for an education like women do for effective birth control and legal abortion?
> 
> With the increase of births to low income women, no federal medicaid money, multiple lawsuits on abortion rights, and now another fight with the federal government over education I hope Texans are ready to hunker down and pay more in taxes to support the mess you seem to wholeheartedly support.


Yeah, that's why Texas has far more people leaving the toher states and moving there than anywhere else.

From 2005 to 2013, an estimated 5.9 million people moved to Texas, and 4.8 million of those came from one of the other 49 states.

They do sell "effective birth control" there almost everywhere, and the majority of folks certainly do not select a home by the easy availability of abortions, I am happy to say.....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Yeah, that's why Texas has far more people leaving the toher states and moving there than anywhere else.
> 
> From 2005 to 2013, an estimated 5.9 million people moved to Texas, and 4.8 million of those came from one of the other 49 states.
> 
> They do sell "effective birth control" there almost everywhere, and the majority of folks certainly do not select a home by the easy availability of abortions, I am happy to say.....Joe


What does your first two sentences have to do with my post? 

Effective birth control:










The most effective, implants and IUDs, are mainly available at clinics that Texas has made inaccessible to many women. So, using less effective birth control means more pregnancies, less accessible abortion means either more births or DIY abortion. Women have a much greater chance of dying during a DIY abortion, does that matter to you (collective anti abortionists) at all?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Texas is going to tear apart their education system like they did women's healthcare so they can continue to deny constitutional rights to it's citizens? Will kids have to travel 6+ hours for an education like women do for effective birth control and legal abortion?
> 
> With the increase of births to low income women, no federal medicaid money, multiple lawsuits on abortion rights, and now another fight with the federal government over education I hope Texans are ready to hunker down and pay more in taxes to support the mess you seem to wholeheartedly support.


Its very sweet indeed. Who lives 6 hrs from a CVS? Who cant get birth control within a 6 hr drive? You made that up.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Its very sweet indeed. Who lives 6 hrs from a CVS? Who cant get birth control within a 6 hr drive? You made that up.


Nope. Look at the effectiveness ratings on the chart I have already provided. Which methods of birth control are most effective? There are (the last time I checked) 10 clinics in TX that provide the most effective birth control methods and abortion. 

"As of June 9, 2015, the Fifth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of HB2 except as applied to Whole Woman&#8217;s Health McAllen. This leaves 10 clinics. The only cities that have clinics now are Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, and McAllen."

http://fundtexaschoice.org/resources/texas-abortion-clinic-map/

ETA: Does it bother you that TX women are resorting to DIY abortions, and that they have a much higher chance of dying because of it?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> In my opinion, only the truly ignorant don't realize that the majority of pedophiles are white, straight, men. They may actually want it to be otherwise because it suits their agenda, and the fact that they are hysterical over transgender women using the women's bathroom when male pedophiles have been in the men's bathroom for centuries. I guess they don't care as much about little boys than they do about seeing a transgender woman wash her hands and touch up her makeup. That's sad, really sad.
> 
> *Pedophilia is illegal, and always will be.*


In North Carolina, it is illegal for anatomical males to pee in a womans room. By your logic, it is no longer a matter of discrimination. It is illegal.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope. Look at the effectiveness ratings on the chart I have already provided. Which methods of birth control are most effective? There are (the last time I checked) 10 clinics in TX that provide the most effective birth control methods and abortion.
> 
> "As of June 9, 2015, the Fifth Circuit has upheld the constitutionality of HB2 except as applied to Whole Woman&#8217;s Health McAllen. This leaves 10 clinics. The only cities that have clinics now are Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, and McAllen."
> 
> http://fundtexaschoice.org/resources/texas-abortion-clinic-map/
> 
> ETA: Does it bother you that TX women are resorting to DIY abortions, and that they have a much higher chance of dying because of it?


Thats a shame, but we are working as HARD as we can on those 10 clinics. Just need more time. No, that would not bother me. Turnabout in the death ratio seems fair to me. Those who lack tje good sense to avoid pregnancy by the numerous methods available to them or the additional sense to deal with that pregnancy thru the methods available to them, well. Maybe they just are not rational good thinking people.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> In North Carolina, it is illegal for anatomical males to pee in a womans room. By your logic, it is no longer a matter of discrimination. It is illegal.


You don't understand what pedophilia, or rather I hope you are choosing to be deliberately dense. Or is yet another diversion? 

"Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.[1][2] Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,[3] criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.[1] A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, but adolescents must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.[1][2]"

More reading available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Do you understand now?


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> What does your first two sentences have to do with my post?
> 
> Effective birth control:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most effective, implants and IUDs, are mainly available at clinics that Texas has made inaccessible to many women. So, using less effective birth control means more pregnancies, less accessible abortion means either more births or DIY abortion. Women have a much greater chance of dying during a DIY abortion, does that matter to you (collective anti abortionists) at all?


Back to personal responsibility. Texas dept of health has clinics that provide a full range of birth control. I'm sure there are other clinics in rural areas the same as where I live. I doubt you can find an OB/GYN that does not offer birth control.
All of these options do have a one thing in common, they do not provide abortion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Thats a shame, but we are working as HARD as we can on those 10 clinics. Just need more time.


The battle is in the courts now so they'll all be open again soon. Abortion is legal no matter how much TX wants to control it's women. 

You didn't answer my question, you probably just didn't notice it, but here it is again: Does it bother you that TX women are resorting to DIY abortions, and that they have a much higher chance of dying because of it?


----------



## thericeguy

Can we get back to the history of the pedophile group and the political alliance with the homosexual group, and how when that alliance threatened political power for homosexuals, the alliance was dumped. Why? You often mention how horrible pedophiles are and how it has always been illegal, yes the LGBT groups were lobbying to change that less than 2 decades ago, just like your lobbying for bathrooms and showers now. 

This highlights the real problem. The LGBT leadership has no morality. It desires policies that follow people being allowed to do anything they want with anyone they want. Hiding behind banner cries or discrimination and rights like cowards, their true goal is a society of hedonism.


----------



## thericeguy

All this is a warped untruth. You get all forms of birth control from your doctor. The 6 hr junk is just that; junk. Where you get an abortion has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. Warpred mistruth.

Why did it quote the wrong person? Grrrr. I fid not click to quote this. Quoting removed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Can we get back to the history of the pedophile group and the political alliance with the homosexual group, and how when that alliance threatened political power for homosexuals, the alliance was dumped. Why? You often mention how horrible pedophiles are and how it has always been illegal, yes the LGBT groups were lobbying to change that less than 2 decades ago, just like your lobbying for bathrooms and showers now.
> 
> This highlihhts the teal problem. The LGBT leadership has no morality. It desires policies that follow people being allowed to do anything they want with anyone they want. Hiding behind banner cries or discrimination and rights like cowards, their true goal is a society of hedonism.


I'm sure you'd like to divert away from the discussion at hand, and you can do anything you'd like. I have no idea why a LGBT group would ally itself with NAMBLA. It's probably something along the lines of any group that ever associated with the KKK thinking it was a good thing. :shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> All this is a warped untruth. You get all forms of birth control from your doctor. The 6 hr junk is just that; junk. Where you get an abortion has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. Warpred mistruth.
> 
> Why did it quote the wrong person? Grrrr. I fid not click to quote this. Quoting removed.


What socioeconomic group uses clinics? Low income. What clinics provide free birth control, std treatment, cancer screenings, etc. to low income people? Planned Parenthood.


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> What does your first two sentences have to do with my post?
> 
> Effective birth control:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most effective, implants and IUDs, are mainly available at clinics that Texas has made inaccessible to many women. So, using less effective birth control means more pregnancies, less accessible abortion means either more births or DIY abortion. Women have a much greater chance of dying during a DIY abortion, does that matter to you (collective anti abortionists) at all?


What the two sentences have to do with your post is that while liberals everywhere claim Texas is a hellhole because of the things that seem to matter most to you, when someebody decides to uproot his or her family and move, on average, there is just noplace in the nation that they'd rather be!

That tells us that in the minds of the majority of folks, your concerns are somewhere south of petty, and that a whole lot of people would just as soon not have an abortion clinic next door. Anybody whose life cannot be complete without one has lots of other places they can live, and/or no passport required to visit elsewhere. Those who cannot swing a bus ticket to another state might want to consider sleeping alone. It's done all the time. There are folks waiting in line to pay expenses and adopt babies, so it's not like there are no options.

See, there really is supposed to be some point where bad decisions visit the folks who made them. If not, then we have to provide free Liposuction clinics for those who won't stop overeating.

If there are no abortion clinics in Texas, do you think perhaps that it's because texans don't want them there for the most part? Makes sense to me, and nobody forces anybody to live there, at least since the emancipation proclomation. 

I don't know who drew your cartoon and it doesn't really matter, but when folks start complaining about their lives, I really never EVER heard somebody say that the chief complaint was their birth control pill was not reliable.

Only complaint I ever heard was that they thught somebody else should pay for them, and that applies to everyting from bread to toilet paper for some folks.....Joe


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I'm sure you'd like to divert away from the discussion at hand, and you can do anything you'd like. I have no idea why a LGBT group would ally itself with NAMBLA. It's probably something along the lines of any group that ever associated with the KKK thinking it was a good thing. :shrug:


Actually, I am focusing on *THE* issue. Pointing out to folks just who is demanding these rights, and crying discrimination, and what their history is. We are not talking about some distant eta long ago in a galaxy far away. 

Had the United Natiins not pressured the removal of pedophiles, the alliance would stand today, and we all would be hearing how we discriminate against men when we tell them they cant have sex with 9 year old boys, how this has been accepted behaviour for thousands of years, and all us religious nutjobs need to mind our own business. 

You dumped them not because it is wrong. You dumped them for your own agenda gain. An agenda that, once entrenched and accepted, will once again support pedophiles.


----------



## mreynolds

I will try and explain this one more time. I know a girl that got an abortion last winter. Here was the process for her. 

She went to a clinic. No the clinic didn't say PP on the sign but it was a clinic for many other things also. She got a referral to get an abortion. She had a friend drive her two hours to Houston and got the abortion. 

One trip. 

it wasn't hard at all. Don't believe the hype you read from the media.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> What socioeconomic group uses clinics? Low income. What clinics provide free birth control, std treatment, cancer screenings, etc. to low income people? Planned Parenthood.


If those very people USED tjose services, why would they need the abortions? You cant control peoples poor choices.


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> What socioeconomic group uses clinics? Low income. What clinics provide free birth control, std treatment, cancer screenings, etc. to low income people? Planned Parenthood.


Hadn't you heard? it's all free, now! Obama said so!

Obviously that was a joke, just like evertything else he said about Obama care, but in reality ALL that is available to low income women in all the Western states i have ever lived, and for free. Small town clinics have the walls plastered with flyers about all the free services of that sort, and if they held up better in the sunshine I could redo my roof with all the frree condoms they throw around.

The only free services Planned Parenthood performs that might not be available is Abortion, and that is so far from free it is laughable to call it that. the American taxpayer pays for it in spades, mostly against his will and against the law.....Joe


----------



## thericeguy

mreynolds said:


> I will try and explain this one more time. I know a girl that got an abortion last winter. Here was the process for her.
> 
> She went to a clinic. No the clinic didn't say PP on the sign but it was a clinic for many other things also. She got a referral to get an abortion. She had a friend drive her two hours to Houston and got the abortion.
> 
> One trip.
> 
> it wasn't hard at all. Don't believe the hype you read from the media.


Wonder if they told her about the risks to her reproductive tract a future health? Wonder if the would be father was consulted? 

This next part not directed at quotee. 

The way it works, a wife can abort a husbands child, or a prostitute can carry to term and collect support for 18 years. Dont even think about using the word "fair" in this debate.


----------



## no really

mreynolds said:


> I will try and explain this one more time. I know a girl that got an abortion last winter. Here was the process for her.
> 
> She went to a clinic. No the clinic didn't say PP on the sign but it was a clinic for many other things also. She got a referral to get an abortion. She had a friend drive her two hours to Houston and got the abortion.
> 
> One trip.
> 
> it wasn't hard at all. Don't believe the hype you read from the media.


I live in one of the least populated areas in Texas, we have a clinic not PP. This clinic does the same thing and women can get free or reduced cost birth control.

They also help provide transport for abortion services and have for as long as I can remember.


----------



## thericeguy

no really said:


> I live in one of the least populated areas in Texas, we have a clinic not PP. This clinic does the same thing and women can get free or reduced cost birth control.
> 
> They also help provide transport for abortion services and have for as long as I can remember.


Excellent post. People need to understand the fabricated nature of their story. It is a house of cards built around the desire to have a nation that values nothing. Where everything is "tolerated" for the all mighty goal of tolerance itself. Reject the untruths told to you by those who would ally themselves with pedophiles.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> I have no idea why a LGBT group would ally itself with NAMBLA. It's probably something along the lines of any group that ever associated with the KKK thinking it was a good thing. :shrug:





thericeguy said:


> Can we get back to the history of the pedophile group and the political alliance with the homosexual group, and how when that alliance threatened political power for homosexuals, the alliance was dumped. Why? You often mention how horrible pedophiles are and how it has always been illegal, yes the LGBT groups were lobbying to change that less than 2 decades ago, just like your lobbying for bathrooms and showers now.
> 
> *This highlights the real problem. The LGBT leadership has no morality. It desires policies that follow people being allowed to do anything they want with anyone they want. Hiding behind banner cries or discrimination and rights like cowards, their true goal is a society of hedonism.*




The answer seemed simple enough to me. :shrug:
I think the comment about the KKK indicates it was obvious to all, despite the feigned ignorance.


----------



## barnbilder

Tisk tisk, I can't believe the hate and bigotry I am hearing preached against the good people of NAMBLA, whose only fault is the sexual orientation they were born with, now treated like an affliction, by those using hurtful words like "mental disorder". Who are you to judge someone's sexual preference? Laws, laws are made to be changed, have you not heard the change slogan before? And to suggest that it would be harmful to the children, please, you are repressing their sexuality, and that is the cause of all of this in the first place, a bunch of children raised as intolerant prudes hampering the free expression of love, man. 

See what happens when we tear down social norms? And then AMGLA will want in.


----------



## greg273

barnbilder said:


> Tisk tisk, I can't believe the hate and bigotry I am hearing preached against the good people of NAMBLA, whose only fault is the sexual orientation they were born with, now treated like an affliction, by those using hurtful words like "mental disorder". Who are you to judge someone's sexual preference?.


 Sorry barnbuilder, but pedophilia harms others, and as such, will remain a crime. Perhaps you can lobby your congressman to get that changed, but I doubt it will work.


----------



## thericeguy

It is a never ending quest for "progressivism" through personal enlightenment. At least that is what they say. They detail the high road of fairness, freedom, and equality. 

Careful examination of the facts reveals a very ugly reality. A low road leading straight into a bottomless pit.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Sorry barnbuilder, but pedophilia harms others, and as such, will remain a crime. Perhaps you can lobby your congressman to get that changed, but I doubt it will work.


I suspect barn will leave that lobbying to the LGBT group, just as they were doing less than 20 years ago.


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> Excellent post. People need to understand the fabricated nature of their story. It is a house of cards built around the desire to have a nation that values nothing. Where everything is "tolerated" for the all mighty goal of tolerance itself. Reject the untruths told to you by those who would ally themselves with pedophiles.


This could be considered off topic, but an important reminder to all posters.
Maybe it will be a "sticky" one day, LOL.

Telling lies is not an actual violation of HT rules.
Calling someone who does this, a liar however, is.

The real victim?

*TRUTH*


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> I suspect barn will leave that lobbying to the LGBT group, just as they were doing less than 20 years ago.


 What 'LGBT group' was lobbying to legalize pedophilia?


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> What 'LGBT group' was lobbying to legalize pedophilia?


The list of groups and leaders were in this link, see for yourself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> What 'LGBT group' was lobbying to legalize pedophilia?


Why dont you scroll back to my post anout the alliance between the homosexual community and the Man Boy Love group. Its an interesting wiki history. You may not understand just who is leading your cause.

Pay close attention when it talks about the long intertwined history of homosexuality and pedophilia, and argues by the pedophiles themselves they are one and the same.


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> The list of groups and leaders were in this link, see for yourself.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association


 Sounds like the pedophiles were trying to join the Gay folks, not the other way around. And from your link, they distanced themselves quite awhile ago.
So again, what LGBT group is trying to legalize pedophilia?


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Sounds like the pedophiles were trying to join the Gay folks, not the other way around. And from your link, they distanced themselves quite awhile ago.
> So again, what LGBT group is trying to legalize pedophilia?


I figured as much. Blind faith, just like religion. Might be hope for your soul yet. The ONLY reason they dumped pedophiles is it jeaprdized their own acceptance and political power. It was not because pedophilia was objectionable on moral grounds. Had there been no objection from others, we would see men in the gay parades proudly walking hand in hand with their 8 and 9 year old boytoys today. The leadership of the LGBT community exposed their beliefs in this association. Given the political opportunity, they would take up arms with them again to fight for "rights". Maybe right after shoving girls with penises at us. 

Just wanted you to know what YOU are supporting. Do you think they will care what you think about pedophilia when that day comes? They dont care what I think about transgender "rights" today. 

Cant put the genie back in the bottle.


----------



## joebill

greg273 said:


> Sorry barnbuilder, but pedophilia harms others, and as such, will remain a crime. Perhaps you can lobby your congressman to get that changed, but I doubt it will work.


Conversely, abortion does not?

Aside from children being exterminated, legally, days before natural birth, many mothers never truly recover from what they have done, often under pressure from others.

While some late term abortions have been banned, the ban certainly was not favored by any on the left, and it would be overturned if they could do it.

Harm to children certainly does not have a record of being a factor that precludes a law being passed or saluted as the greatest thing ever.

Margret Sanger started PP, and here are a few quotes from her lips'

1. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.

2. We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

3. Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babiesâ¦ and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permitâ¦
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

4. Give dysgenic groups [people with âbad genesâ] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.

5. Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.

6. We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the ***** is through a religious appeal. We donât want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the ***** population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/...m-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/


I don't think the goals have really changed much, except for sucking up a lot of taxpayer money to enritch the program and people in it.


----------



## Elevenpoint

joebill said:


> Conversely, abortion does not?
> 
> Aside from children being exterminated, legally, days before natural birth, many mothers never truly recover from what they have done, often under pressure from others.
> 
> While some late term abortions have been banned, the ban certainly was not favored by any on the left, and it would be overturned if they could do it.
> 
> Harm to children certainly does not have a record of being a factor that precludes a law being passed or saluted as the greatest thing ever.
> 
> Margret Sanger started PP, and here are a few quotes from her lips'
> 
> 1. The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.
> 
> 2. We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.
> 
> 3. Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babiesâ¦ and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
> Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permitâ¦
> Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
> 
> 4. Give dysgenic groups [people with âbad genesâ] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization.
> 
> 5. Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.
> 
> 6. We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the ***** is through a religious appeal. We donât want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the ***** population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
> 
> http://www.lifenews.com/2013/03/11/...m-planned-parenthood-founder-margaret-sanger/
> 
> 
> I don't think the goals have really changed much, except for sucking up a lot of taxpayer money to enritch the program and people in it.


Oh boy, now we got a can of worms opened, but I'm going fishing today and will have to check in later.:whistlin:


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> Sounds like the pedophiles were trying to join the Gay folks, not the other way around. And from your link, they distanced themselves quite awhile ago.
> So again, what LGBT group is trying to legalize pedophilia?


The documentation I thought was fairly obvious as to their past association and motivations.
What you are asking proof of now, is probably not possible. That is the essence of deception. 
One is fooled into thinking one thing while the hidden agenda is going on. And the "proof" isn't apparent.............until it is too late.

If you attempt to expose the truth at any point prior to it's revelation, it can and will be denied at all cost.

(See the post at the top of this page for How-To guide in that process, an excellent example BTW)


----------



## mreynolds

thericeguy said:


> Wonder if they told her about the risks to her reproductive tract a future health? Wonder if the would be father was consulted?
> 
> This next part not directed at quotee.
> 
> The way it works, a wife can abort a husbands child, or a prostitute can carry to term and collect support for 18 years. Dont even think about using the word "fair" in this debate.


I cant say for sure but I am sure that she heard from either the clinic or the abortion center. Probably both. She had said the would be father was informed but not sure that he was for sure. Don't know him. 

But since you brought it up, I was once one of those fathers not consulted. I found out well after the fact that I had a child and she aborted it. I went to a lawyer and tried to see what my rights are and turns out I have none. Thanks to a SC case _PP vs Casey_ I have none and never did. Not even to be notified of the abortion.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> What does your first two sentences have to do with my post?
> 
> The most effective, implants and IUDs, are mainly available at clinics that Texas has made inaccessible to many women. So, using less effective birth control means more pregnancies, less accessible abortion means either more births or DIY abortion. Women have a much greater chance of dying during a DIY abortion, does that matter to you (collective anti abortionists) at all?


Can't women use their Obamacare coverage for free birth control from a gynecologist?


----------



## Elevenpoint

thericeguy said:


> Why dont you scroll back to my post anout the alliance between the homosexual community and the Man Boy Love group. Its an interesting wiki history. You may not understand just who is leading your cause.
> 
> Pay close attention when it talks about the long intertwined history of homosexuality and pedophilia, and argues by the pedophiles themselves they are one and the same.


Looks like this group believes they are homosexuals also, it has been going on forever, and the only problem is that up until a certain age it is against the law.


----------



## thericeguy

mreynolds said:


> I cant say for sure but I am sure that she heard from either the clinic or the abortion center. Probably both. She had said the would be father was informed but not sure that he was for sure. Don't know him.
> 
> But since you brought it up, I was once one of those fathers not consulted. I found out well after the fact that I had a child and she aborted it. I went to a lawyer and tried to see what my rights are and turns out I have none. Thanks to a SC case _PP vs Casey_ I have none and never did. Not even to be notified of the abortion.


Which I why I said dont even bring the word fair into the debate. While some men are gaining back some equality in the form of child custody, it still remains largely true that a man must have video of his ex wife snorting cocaine while having sex with a goat as the child plays with knives in the background to even have a 30% shot at custody.


----------



## AmericanStand

Irish Pixie said:


> Wouldn't it be easier to just teach boys that it's wrong to rape? That girls aren't there play things? That girls are human beings too? Or wouldn't they understand that because "boys will be boys"? :flame:
> 
> .



Nope. 

Or we wouldn't have the problem. 
We could discuss the reason for that but the answer to your question is simply NO.


----------



## thericeguy

elevenpoint said:


> Looks like this group believes they are homosexuals also, it has been going on forever, and the only problem is that up until a certain age it is against the law.


That is a good summary of the belief. Now you look the enemy in the eye. The one who would destroy you. Obama can keep his education money. I will resist the progression of this regression until I draw my last breath.


----------



## Elevenpoint

thericeguy said:


> That is a good summary of the belief. Now you look the enemy in the eye. The one who would destroy you. Obama can keep his education money. I will resist the progression of this regression until I draw my last breath.


But I've been told when I brought up the issue that men with boys is homosexuality at its core that it is not true.


----------



## thericeguy

elevenpoint said:


> But I've been told when I brought up the issue that men with boys is homosexuality at its core that it is not true.


Just point them to the beliefs of the actual pedophiles as evidenced in the wiki link. Deception is the tool in play. I will expose it at any turn.


----------



## oneraddad

thericeguy said:


> Which I why I said dont even bring the word fair into the debate. While some men are gaining back some equality in the form of child custody, it still remains largely true that a man must have video of his ex wife snorting cocaine while having sex with a goat as the child plays with knives in the background to even have a 30% shot at custody.


My kids didn't have a bad parent, their Mom just retired from the city fire/police dispatch after 28 years. But from the 3rd grade on I had physical custody of the 3 children that lived with me until they went off to college. I was no one special just a State employee that managed a few guys and ran heavy equipment. So it's not that hard for men to have custody.


----------



## thericeguy

oneraddad said:


> My kids didn't have a bad parent, their Mom just retired from the city fire/police dispatch after 28 years. But from the 3rd grade on I had physical custody of the 3 children that lived with me until they went off to college. I was no one special just a State employee that managed a few guys and ran heavy equipment. So it's not that hard for men to have custody.


Your individual experience does not indicate the experience of many or a majority. 

If a billionaire gave the same speech to you anout how easy it was for them to become a billionaire, would you agree?

I was just an average student and wrote some software. Anyone can do it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Can't women use their Obamacare coverage for free birth control from a gynecologist?


*If *they have one available.
For many, the closest clinic is Planned Parenthood
If they are on Medicaid, many Dr's won't accept them at all


----------



## barnbilder

How could anyone, in support of gay and transgender equality, make the claim that this could harm children? What proof is there? What is a child? Children can fight for their country at 18, can drink at 21, age of consent is a very subjective thing. In some cultures, 12 years old is old enough. If you make the argument that this sort of thing could harm a child, when clearly no pregnancy would be involved, the only possible harm would be to their fragile psyches. If harming children's psyche is a legitimate concern, then what about transgender adoption? Statistically they do tend to become abusers, but that is just a lifestyle choice. Statistically it would raise their suicide rate, but that is also true of people that have gender reassignment surgery, so obviously not a valid argument.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by mreynolds View Post
> I will try and explain this one more time. I know a girl that got an abortion last winter. Here was the process for her.
> 
> She went to a clinic. No the clinic didn't say PP on the sign but it was a clinic for many other things also. She got a referral to get an abortion. She had a friend drive her two hours to Houston and got the abortion.
> 
> *One trip. *
> 
> it wasn't hard at all. Don't believe the hype you read from the media.


It's not "one trip" if she saw 2 Dr's on different days and then had to drive 4 hours total.
You can't get an abortion in TX in "one trip" because the law requires at least 2 visits

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/texas-abortion-law/


----------



## barnbilder

If you are concerned about harming children, it would appear statistically, that entertaining the idea of transgenderness is harmful to children. Being transgender clearly raises suicide rates, and 70 to 80 percent of children that experience gender confusion, lose those feelings spontaneously. Except when you make a big deal about it.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/mic...atrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change


----------



## barnbilder

Of course I'm sure you can find a dozen websites, written, ironically, by people that happened to NOT be a former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins, coming up with all kinds of arguments proving that the conclusions of this, and another Swedish study spanning decades of data, are flawed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

barnbilder said:


> Of course I'm sure you can find a dozen websites, written, ironically, by people that happened to NOT be a former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins, coming up with all kinds of arguments proving that the conclusions of this, and another Swedish study spanning decades of data, are flawed.


McHugh has been done to death.

Reality is the actual suicide attempt figures are less than half what he says they are.

All that has been posted already

His name keeps coming up much like Seralini's rats in a GMO rant


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> I figured as much. Blind faith, just like religion. Might be hope for your soul yet. The ONLY reason they dumped pedophiles is it jeaprdized their own acceptance and political power. It was not because pedophilia was objectionable on moral grounds. Had there been no objection from others, we would see men in the gay parades proudly walking hand in hand with their 8 and 9 year old boytoys today. The leadership of the LGBT community exposed their beliefs in this association. Given the political opportunity, they would take up arms with them again to fight for "rights". Maybe right after shoving girls with penises at us.
> 
> Just wanted you to know what YOU are supporting. Do you think they will care what you think about pedophilia when that day comes? They dont care what I think about transgender "rights" today.
> 
> Cant put the genie back in the bottle.


Animal "lover" groups have tried to ally with the gay rights movement. They've been shunned completely. Animals cannot consent, and children are emotionally and sometimes physically traumatized as a result. Despite my earlier post, there is no way either of these practices will become legal.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> McHugh has been done to death.
> 
> Reality is the actual suicide attempt figures are less than half what he says they are.
> 
> All that has been posted already
> 
> His name keeps coming up much like Seralini's rats in a GMO rant


Whats new coming up for others is the long history of the ties between pedophiles snd homosexuals.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Whats new coming up for others is the long history of the ties between pedophiles snd homosexuals.


The history between heterosexuals and pedophiles is longer. Get another strawman this one is failing you big time.


----------



## barnbilder

Bearfootfarm said:


> McHugh has been done to death.
> 
> Reality is the actual suicide attempt figures are less than half what he says they are.
> 
> All that has been posted already
> 
> His name keeps coming up much like Seralini's rats in a GMO rant


So, in your opinion, the former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins is a nutjob. What about the folks that did this study in Sweden, using the great data they collected thanks to their socialized medicine system?
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885


----------



## farmrbrown

barnbilder said:


> So, in your opinion, the former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins is a nutjob. What about the folks that did this study in Sweden, using the great data they collected thanks to their socialized medicine system?
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885


Don't bother telling the truth to the children of "the father of all lies".


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Don't bother telling the truth to the children of "the father of all lies".


Your religious slurs only serve to give people a lower image of Christians.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Your religious slurs only serve to give people a lower image of Christians.


You are right. I have abstained from injecting my religious summary for this vety reason. 

Painter, how is s grown man advocating sex with a 9 year old boy more closely related to a heterosexual than a homosexual?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You are right. I have abstained from injecting my religious summary for this vety reason.
> 
> Painter, how is s grown man advocating sex with a 9 year old boy more closely related to a heterosexual than a homosexual?


It is no different than a heterosexual man advocating sex with a 9 year old girl. The only difference is that one group is more vocall in trying to get it legalized.


----------



## TraderBob

If a man EVER walks alone into a women's bathroom where my daughter is, or my wife is, IT won't be walking out under IT's own power.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "one trip" if she saw 2 Dr's on different days and then had to drive 4 hours total.
> You can't get an abortion in TX in "one trip" because the law requires at least 2 visits
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/texas-abortion-law/


What's your point. She did her two visits. 

Two hour drive in Texas is nothing. People do that to go to Macy's to buy clothes here. 

Since we are on "undue" hardship on patients. (that's what women who want abortions are after all) lets talk about how with the Obama admin now people who are on Medicare now have to make the same two hour trip that used to take 15 minutes just to get certain care? People like my MIL and father and mother. Wasn't that way 8 years ago. Who is responsible for that?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> It is no different than a heterosexual man advocating sex with a 9 year old girl. The only difference is that one group is more vocall in trying to get it legalized.


Which group is that?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Abortion has been legal for 43 years, there is nothing that anyone can do to stop a woman from having a legal abortion, period. 

I suggest that each individual make up *her* own mind on if *she* wants to terminate *her* pregnancy. Her body, her choice. It is absolutely none of anyone else's business.


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion has been legal for 43 years, there is nothing that anyone can do to stop a woman from having a legal abortion, period.
> 
> I suggest that each individual make up *her* own mind on if *she* wants to terminate *her* pregnancy. Her body, her choice. It is absolutely none of anyone else's business.


Margret sanger, founder of planned parenthood, seemed to think it was her business. She even wanted to hire black ministers to help her sell the program and counter any "rebellious members" of the group who had figured out what was going on.

Yes, it remains legal, with increasing restrictions, and nobody knows what the future will bring. I daresay it will make it to the supreme court again sometime in the future, and attitudes seem to change back and forth, so we will see.

If there is nothing anybody can do, why are you complaining about Texas?....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Margret sanger, founder of planned parenthood, seemed to think it was her business. She even wanted to hire black ministers to help her sell the program and counter any "rebellious members" of the group who had figured out what was going on.
> 
> Yes, it remains legal, with increasing restrictions, and nobody knows what the future will bring. I daresay it will make it to the supreme court again sometime in the future, and attitudes seem to change back and forth, so we will see.
> 
> If there is nothing anybody can do, why are you complaining about Texas?....Joe


Sanger is dead, she's been dead for years, and she wasn't a proponent of abortion. She was a proponent of birth control. Try reading something about her that doesn't come from an anti abortion website, just a suggestion. 

The mess in Texas is in the courts now, and time will tell. I think the hardship will be found unconstitutional but that's just my opinion.

Do you really think that the right for a woman to control her own body will ever be taken away? It would be like bringing back slavery. Good luck with that.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Abortion has been legal for 43 years, there is nothing that anyone can do to stop a woman from having a legal abortion, period.
> 
> I suggest that each individual make up *her* own mind on if *she* wants to terminate *her* pregnancy. Her body, her choice. It is absolutely none of anyone else's business.


Dont ask me to give you $600/mo to support YOUR choice them. It might have been good, but not that good.


----------



## barnbilder

Oh what a wonderful 43 years. The fruits of devaluing human life are playing out superbly.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Sanger is dead, she's been dead for years, and she wasn't a proponent of abortion. She was a proponent of birth control. Try reading something about her that doesn't come from an anti abortion website, just a suggestion.
> 
> The mess in Texas is in the courts now, and time will tell. I think the hardship will be found unconstitutional but that's just my opinion.
> 
> Do you really think that the right for a woman to control her own body will ever be taken away? It would be like bringing back slavery. Good luck with that.


Thank you for the well wishes. We are trying. Your prayers might come in handy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Thank you for the well wishes. We are trying. Your prayers might come in handy.


I'm sorry about your faith. It must be a hard thing to lose.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Dont ask me to give you $600/mo to support YOUR choice them. It might have been good, but not that good.


I've asked you for nothing. I don't answer for all women, if you don't want to pay child support on your child don't make one. Each person is 100% responsibility for their own birth control.


----------



## painterswife

Irish Pixie said:


> That does seem to be a hard concept for some to get their head around.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Dont ask me to give you $600/mo to support YOUR choice them. It might have been good, but not that good.


That would be a vote in favor of abortion, because then your tax dollars won't go to support her because she had too many kids.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

barnbilder said:


> So, in your opinion, the former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins is a nutjob. What about the folks that did this study in Sweden, using the great data they collected thanks to their socialized medicine system?
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885


He's highly biased.

His credentials don't make him immune to prejudice

The study was a relatively small sample that overstates attempted suicides according to more current data


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Don't bother telling the truth to the children of "the father of all lies".


Says the self proclaimed deceptive con man


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> *What's your point*. She did her two visits.
> 
> Two hour drive in Texas is nothing. People do that to go to Macy's to buy clothes here.
> 
> Since we are on "undue" hardship on patients. (that's what women who want abortions are after all) lets talk about how with the Obama admin now people who are on Medicare now have to make the same two hour trip that used to take 15 minutes just to get certain care? People like my MIL and father and mother. Wasn't that way 8 years ago. Who is responsible for that?


My point was quite clear
It was not "one trip"

"Who is responsible" for Dr's refusing Medicaid really has little to do with this topic, and nothing to do with me other than the fact I mentioned it earlier as a reason why having "free birth control" really was meaningless in a lot of instances.


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> He's highly biased.
> 
> His credentials don't make him immune to prejudice
> 
> The study was a relatively small sample that overstates attempted suicides according to more current data


No citation to the "more current data"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> No citation to the "more current data"?


I posted the links before.
They shouldn't be hard to find


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> My point was quite clear
> It was not "one trip"
> 
> "Who is responsible" for Dr's refusing Medicaid really has little to do with this topic, and nothing to do with me other than the fact I mentioned it earlier as a reason why having "free birth control" really was meaningless in a lot of instances.


Let me make this clear then. Before Jan. she would have had to travel 30 miles to the next city to PP then spent a two hour trip to Houston. After Jan 1 she only had to travel across town then travel to Houston.

The two trip law became into effect in 2011 not 2016. Why the fuss now? Now _*any*_ clinic can do what PP did on their first trip. Makes easier for any clinic that already takes Medicaid to do this instead of having extra clinics that do one specific thing. 

Also since the clinic does many many other things they are less likely to be targeted by radical crazy people who want to bomb them. No one that I know wants to bomb a clinic that will say splint a little boys arm are give vaccines to children. 

Also ANY Dr. can still do abortions they just have to admitting privileges to a hospital. Those same Drs. can still do them and maybe even more will start. Don't know about you but if my daughter went to get an abortion I sure wouldn't want a Dr. that couldn't even get admitting privileges to do it. Would you?

Now how is all this worse for woman? They can still get an abortion just like last year and in many cases with less gas money. 

I will pull this from your playbook. 

Don't like this states laws don't move here. No one is forcing you.


----------



## mreynolds

And why I said one trip since you are hung up on that is this. It has been said by many that it now takes 2-4 hour trips (or however long they think) now instead of one. Its not that way. 

Don't believe the hype.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Says the self proclaimed deceptive con man


Where?


----------



## Elevenpoint

barnbilder said:


> So, in your opinion, the former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins is a nutjob. What about the folks that did this study in Sweden, using the great data they collected thanks to their socialized medicine system?
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885


Dr. McHugh is the top in his field, ever read his resume? He was going to leave Hopkins and head up a unit at another hospital, he was so outstanding in his field that Hopkins gave him anything he wanted to stay. Emeritus professor still at 85 years old, that good. Now had he said tg was hereditary, or any other nonsense spewed forth by LGBT community, he would be a god in his own right. But since he has a much different opinion based upon a lifetime of education and research, he is a bigot, belongs to hate groups, etc.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Says the self proclaimed deceptive con man


The above post is a lie, some on here are unable to recognize one.
Find the post where I said I was one, if you aren't telling a lie.

I've already been informed that HT allows lies to be posted.
I guess you figured that out long before I did.
The only prohibition is on calling one who does, a liar.


----------



## joebill

Irish Pixie said:


> Sanger is dead, she's been dead for years, and she wasn't a proponent of abortion. She was a proponent of birth control. Try reading something about her that doesn't come from an anti abortion website, just a suggestion.
> 
> The mess in Texas is in the courts now, and time will tell. I think the hardship will be found unconstitutional but that's just my opinion.
> 
> Do you really think that the right for a woman to control her own body will ever be taken away? It would be like bringing back slavery. Good luck with that.


Yeah, Sangert was a proponent of birth control through forced sterilization of blacks and other minorities, and anybody else she felt had "bad genes".

This was the birth of Planned Parenthood, and the strategy is to place them in poor neighborhoods to make "weeding the population" and "cleaning up the race"as easy as possible.

In spite of the fact thaty she was a complete racist and believed in eugenics, the left will absolutely defend her every time her name comes up as a defender of women. 

Wasn't a proponent of abortion? in her own words, she believed that the greatest gift a large family could give an infant was to kill it. I guess that's not abortion, you are right, it's first degree murder.

The left still gives people "margret Sanger Awards", so it's a bit late to try and disown her. At least she came right out and said what she thought instead of trying to pretty it up. The great wonder is not that such a woman couild exist, but that she is still a hero of the left today..

Wiki on margret Sanger, NOT an anti-abortion site........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics ...Joe


----------



## barnbilder

So I guess these folks are all extremely prejudiced as well?

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf

I'm sure the mystery links, probably a blogger, refute all of this overwhelming evidence that trangenderism, even gayness, is a predisposing factor to suicide. I'm sure there are lots of scholarly articles that discuss how wrong the scientific data that we have available on this is, considering how stacked the journalistic deck is. (The LGBT Journalists association has done some pretty impressive bragging about how, for a group that only makes up 3% of the population, they have way more people on editorial boards of major newspapers, proportionately.)

The hypocrisy of the liberal mind knows no bounds. "if one child could be saved" is the motto for gun control, but bring it into the abortion discussion, and it's fingers in the ears and singing. It ain't firearms availability or video games causing school shootings, it's the devaluation of human life. Couple that with declining mental health, and we will be lucky to survive another generation. How is embracing moral decline going to help all of that? Children need heroes. The heroes of today are a far cry from the heroes of the past.


----------



## Elevenpoint

joebill said:


> Yeah, Sangert was a proponent of birth control through forced sterilization of blacks and other minorities, and anybody else she felt had "bad genes".
> 
> This was the birth of Planned Parenthood, and the strategy is to place them in poor neighborhoods to make "weeding the population" and "cleaning up the race"as easy as possible.
> 
> In spite of the fact thaty she was a complete racist and believed in eugenics, the left will absolutely defend her every time her name comes up as a defender of women.
> 
> Wasn't a proponent of abortion? in her own words, she believed that the greatest gift a large family could give an infant was to kill it. I guess that's not abortion, you are right, it's first degree murder.
> 
> The left still gives people "margret Sanger Awards", so it's a bit late to try and disown her. At least she came right out and said what she thought instead of trying to pretty it up. The great wonder is not that such a woman couild exist, but that she is still a hero today.....Joe


Sick, isn't it? But that's her truth and many call her good. Well, the baby killin folk anyway....


----------



## farmrbrown

Just like the associations between other groups that are well known, this association will be denied.
It is deception in order to do maximum harm as quickly as possible to this country.


----------



## joebill

Yeah, maggie is gone but her work continues......Slaughter On Maggie!......you GO, girl!....Joe


----------



## barnbilder

Sanger praised Hitler's efforts and contributions to the emerging field of eugenics. As I was saying, John Wayne, Auddie Murphy, look at the heroes we had. Today's youth are so confused they think Che Guevara and Margaret Sanger are heroes. Is it any wonder they don't know which bathroom to use.


----------



## painterswife

You are not really insuating that becauce someone supoorts a women's right to choose and Planned Parenthood now that they support what the founder's politics or beliefs might have been?


----------



## joebill

After all the liberal hype, I forsee some mother or grandmother asking little freddy, six years old;

"Freddy, you know that in America,you can do or be anything you want to have a happy life. You have heard a lot about things that people do that they feel are truly rewarding and fills their lives with happiness, so do you have any thoughts about which of these paths you want to follow?"

Freddy;

"Yeah, I want to be a transvestite"

Grandma:

"Oh, darling, I am so proud of you!"

Thus ends the fantasy for this week.....Joe


----------



## Elevenpoint

painterswife said:


> You are not really insuating that becauce someone supoorts a women's right to choose and Planned Parenthood now that they support what the founder's politics or beliefs might have been?


Yes, and that LGBT community due to their beliefs have lost all ability to think in a rational manner.


----------



## painterswife

elevenpoint said:


> Yes, and that LGBT community due to their beliefs have lost all ability to think in a rational manner.


Well that is an irrational opinion.


----------



## joebill

painterswife said:


> You are not really insuating that becauce someone supoorts a women's right to choose and Planned Parenthood now that they support what the founder's politics or beliefs might have been?


No, I'm insinuating that most of them have been taken in by the assertion that somebody has violated their rights and that babies are really only clumps of bloody cells that are better off dead. Any oher questions must wait until tomorrow......Joe


----------



## Elevenpoint

joebill said:


> After all the liberal hype, I forsee some mother or grandmother asking little freddy, six years old;
> 
> "Freddy, you know that in America,you can do or be anything you want to have a happy life. You have heard a lot about things that people do that they feel are truly rewarding and fills their lives with happiness, so do you have any thoughts about which of these paths you want to follow?"
> 
> Freddy;
> 
> "Yeah, I want to be a transvestite"
> 
> Grandma:
> 
> "Oh, darling, I am so proud of you!"
> 
> Thus ends the fantasy for this week.....Joe





painterswife said:


> Well that is an irrational opinion.


Here's one better that I ran across this week..sending an 8 year old boy to school dressed as a girl, they have an assembly in the gym to explain how people are " different ". Now the biological mom and dad split up, so mom decides she is a lesbian and hooks up with a woman. In the course of events of changing child from a boy to a girl, the lesbian girlfriend of the mom has an epiphany and decides she is actually a he and starts the change to a man...and is inspired by the little boy changing to a girl. Nope, not making this up. Ann said run, don't walk, to the nearest therapist.


----------



## Heritagefarm

barnbilder said:


> So I guess these folks are all extremely prejudiced as well?
> 
> http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/AFSP-Williams-Suicide-Report-Final.pdf
> 
> I'm sure the mystery links, probably a blogger, refute all of this overwhelming evidence that trangenderism, even gayness, is a predisposing factor to suicide. I'm sure there are lots of scholarly articles that discuss how wrong the scientific data that we have available on this is, considering how stacked the journalistic deck is. (The LGBT Journalists association has done some pretty impressive bragging about how, for a group that only makes up 3% of the population, they have way more people on editorial boards of major newspapers, proportionately.)
> 
> The hypocrisy of the liberal mind knows no bounds. "if one child could be saved" is the motto for gun control, but bring it into the abortion discussion, and it's fingers in the ears and singing. It ain't firearms availability or video games causing school shootings, it's the devaluation of human life. Couple that with declining mental health, and we will be lucky to survive another generation. How is embracing moral decline going to help all of that? Children need heroes. The heroes of today are a far cry from the heroes of the past.


Being depressed predisposes you to being suicidal too. We should probably ban depressed people too, because people-splatter on the sidewalks in unbecoming.

Maybe video games are causing the devaluation of human life, however. I certainly think they are. I've never played violent video games because they create me a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. These games were MADE with the intention of getting people to kill more easily. That's why the shooting rate for American soldiers went up so high after WWII - psychologists figured out that normally, people don't like killing each other. Violent emulators help quell that natural inhibition.


----------



## barnbilder

painterswife said:


> You are not really insuating that becauce someone supoorts a women's right to choose and Planned Parenthood now that they support what the founder's politics or beliefs might have been?


 Seeing as how PP's highest honor and accolade is the Margaret Sanger award, yes, I construe that her politics and beliefs are very important to that type of person. That air of superiority, unfettered by moral codes of decency or social norms. I see this displayed regularly.

You can tell a lot about people by who they pick for heroes.


----------



## barnbilder

Heritagefarm said:


> Being depressed predisposes you to being suicidal too. We should probably ban depressed people too, because people-splatter on the sidewalks in unbecoming.
> 
> Maybe video games are causing the devaluation of human life, however. I certainly think they are. I've never played violent video games because they create me a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. These games were MADE with the intention of getting people to kill more easily. That's why the shooting rate for American soldiers went up so high after WWII - psychologists figured out that normally, people don't like killing each other. Violent emulators help quell that natural inhibition.


 What could quell those inhibitions more than taking human life in it's purest and most innocent state and deeming it tissue, to be sold to the highest bidder?


----------



## Heritagefarm

barnbilder said:


> What could quell those inhibitions more than taking human life in it's purest and most innocent state and deeming it tissue, to be sold to the highest bidder?


I'm pro-life, but vote pro-choice because it's not my decision to make. 75% of abortions are convenience abortions; these are clearly immoral. The rest of due to health reasons, rape, incest, etc. These are fine.


----------



## greg273

barnbilder said:


> What could quell those inhibitions more than taking human life in it's purest and most innocent state and deeming it tissue, to be sold to the highest bidder?


 You know, if you want to blame someone for abortions, try blaming GOD. He is the biggest abortionist out there, look at all the FERTILIZED eggs that fail to get implanted in the womb, or all the miscarriages, or the still-births.


----------



## Elevenpoint

greg273 said:


> You know, if you want to blame someone for abortions, try blaming GOD. He is the biggest abortionist out there, look at all the FERTILIZED eggs that fail to get implanted in the womb, or all the miscarriages, or the still-births.


Yawn.....


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mreynolds said:


> Let me make this clear then. Before Jan. she would have had to travel 30 miles to the next city to PP then spent a two hour trip to Houston. After Jan 1 she only had to travel across town then travel to Houston.
> 
> The two trip law became into effect in 2011 not 2016. Why the fuss now? Now _*any*_ clinic can do what PP did on their first trip. Makes easier for any clinic that already takes Medicaid to do this instead of having extra clinics that do one specific thing.
> 
> Also since the clinic does many many other things they are less likely to be targeted by radical crazy people who want to bomb them. No one that I know wants to bomb a clinic that will say splint a little boys arm are give vaccines to children.
> 
> Also ANY Dr. can still do abortions they just have to admitting privileges to a hospital. Those same Drs. can still do them and maybe even more will start. Don't know about you but if my daughter went to get an abortion I sure wouldn't want a Dr. that couldn't even get admitting privileges to do it. Would you?
> 
> Now how is all this worse for woman? They can still get an abortion just like last year and in many cases with less gas money.
> 
> I will pull this from your playbook.
> 
> Don't like this states laws don't move here. No one is forcing you.


Planned Parenthood does many other things besides abortions too.
Their biggest difference from the other clinics is their tendency to be in the poorest parts of towns.



> Don't like this states laws don't move here. No one is forcing you.


They're certainly forcing their views on all those who already live there


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *The above post is a lie*, some on here are unable to recognize one.
> Find the post where I said I was one, if you aren't telling a lie.
> 
> I've already been informed that HT allows lies to be posted.
> I guess you figured that out long before I did.
> The only prohibition is on calling one who does, a liar.


It's not a lie at all.
We've had this conversation several times, and I've told you before where to find it.

You've all but called me a liar twice in this thread alone, but now you want to get all melodramatic when I used your own words to describe you, after you referred to people here as "children of Satan".



farmrbrown said:


> Just like the associations between other groups that are well known, this association will be denied.
> It is *deception* in order to do maximum harm as quickly as possible to this country.


You've always said before deception is fine if it's for a "good purpose".



> Originally Posted by farmrbrown View Post
> So is telling a lie when presented with the truth.
> 
> *I'll back up ANYTHING I say*, I just prefer to do it person.
> That's the way I was raised I guess.


You're denying what you said now, even though I presented you with the truth


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not a lie at all.
> We've had this conversation several times, and I've told you before where to find it.
> 
> You've all but called me a liar twice in this thread alone, but now you want to get all melodramatic when I used your own words to describe you, after you referred to people here as "children of Satan".
> 
> 
> You've always said before deception is fine if it's for a "good purpose".
> 
> 
> 
> You're denying what you said now, even though I presented you with the truth


Then you should have no problem quoting the post here>>>>>>>>>

(I'll leave you plenty of room)














> You've all but called me a liar twice in this thread alone, but now you want to get all melodramatic when I used your own words to describe you, after you referred to people here as "children of Satan".



Well, at least you can understand conversation, even if you can't quote it correctly.
That's a good start in your education.
Maybe someday we can sit down and discuss the two seed lines from the garden of Eden.
Who knows? With God, al things are possible.
( I'll bet Obama thinks HE was the original "hope and change" guy)
LOL


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Then you should have no problem quoting the post here>>>>>>>>>
> 
> (I'll leave you plenty of room)
> 
> Well, at least you can understand conversation, *even if you can't quote it correctly.*
> That's a good start in your education.
> Maybe someday we can sit down and discuss the two seed lines from the garden of Eden.
> Who knows? With God, al things are possible.
> ( I'll bet Obama thinks HE was the original "hope and change" guy)
> LOL


I paraphrased. 

It's what you *meant*

John 8:44


> International Standard Version
> You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.


It's just one more example of a christian using the bible to hurl thinly veiled insults

I don't need to lie about anything


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> Being depressed predisposes you to being suicidal too. We should probably ban depressed people too, because people-splatter on the sidewalks in unbecoming.
> 
> Maybe video games are causing the devaluation of human life, however. I certainly think they are. I've never played violent video games because they create me a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. These games were MADE with the intention of getting people to kill more easily.
> 
> *That's why the shooting rate for American soldiers went up so high after WWII -* psychologists figured out that normally, people don't like killing each other. Violent emulators help quell that natural inhibition.


Where do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by barnbilder View Post
> So, in your opinion, the former psychiatrist-in-chief of John Hopkins is a nutjob. What about the folks that did this study in Sweden, using the great data they collected thanks to their socialized medicine system?
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0016885


It's been claimed many times that transsexuals commit suicide at a rate* 20 times* higher than average.

Your source refutes that claim:



> Sex-reassigned transsexual persons of both genders had approximately a *three times higher *risk of all-cause mortality than controls, also after adjustment for covariates.


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Yeah, Sangert was a proponent of birth control through forced sterilization of blacks and other minorities, and anybody else she felt had "bad genes".
> 
> This was the birth of Planned Parenthood, and the strategy is to place them in poor neighborhoods to make "weeding the population" and "cleaning up the race"as easy as possible.
> 
> In spite of the fact thaty she was a complete racist and believed in eugenics, the left will absolutely defend her every time her name comes up as a defender of women.
> 
> Wasn't a proponent of abortion? in her own words, she believed that the greatest gift a large family could give an infant was to kill it. I guess that's not abortion, you are right, it's first degree murder.
> 
> The left still gives people "margret Sanger Awards", so it's a bit late to try and disown her. At least she came right out and said what she thought instead of trying to pretty it up. The great wonder is not that such a woman couild exist, but that she is still a hero of the left today..
> 
> Wiki on margret Sanger, NOT an anti-abortion site........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics ...Joe


Sanger was a supporter of eugenics. Many other Amerericans were at that time as well- including Teddy Roosevelt, https://www.dnalc.org/view/11219-t-...davenport-about-degenerates-reproducing-.html

I'm not trying to disown her, and she did have ideas that I don't agree with it, but Sanger did bring birth control to women that desperately needed it. Eugenics is another very ugly part of our past, like slavery, no women's rights, sweat shops for kids, etc.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> Planned Parenthood does many other things besides abortions too.
> Their biggest difference from the other clinics is their tendency to be in the poorest parts of towns.
> 
> 
> They're certainly forcing their views on all those who already live there


Now the clinics do the very same thing that PP does. Even birth control. 

People can always move but I have heard no one but PP and people in PP pockets complain.

Oh, and every progressive in every other state.


----------



## mreynolds

Bearfootfarm said:


> I paraphrased.
> 
> It's what you *meant*


Nooooooo

Not you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

barnbilder said:


> Sanger praised Hitler's efforts and contributions to the emerging field of eugenics. As I was saying, John Wayne, Auddie Murphy, look at the heroes we had. Today's youth are so confused they think Che Guevara and Margaret Sanger are heroes. Is it any wonder they don't know which bathroom to use.


I don't believe that Sanger ever praised Hitler's efforts, is this your opinion or do you have a credible cite (not on an anti abortion site) to support it?

To be considered remotely credible, a poster needs to cite outrageous statements such as this one.

Here is an example of a well researched and cited paper that supports that Sanger did not praise Hitler. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/sanger-hitler_equation.php


----------



## AmericanStand

joebill said:


> After all the liberal hype, I forsee some mother or grandmother asking little freddy, six years old;
> 
> 
> 
> "Freddy, you know that in America,you can do or be anything you want to have a happy life. You have heard a lot about things that people do that they feel are truly rewarding and fills their lives with happiness, so do you have any thoughts about which of these paths you want to follow?"
> 
> 
> 
> Freddy;
> 
> 
> 
> "Yeah, I want to be a transvestite"
> 
> 
> 
> Grandma:
> 
> 
> 
> "Oh, darling, I am so proud of you!"
> 
> 
> 
> Thus ends the fantasy for this week.....Joe


 
It's already happened and "Freddy" was only 4 years old at the time.


----------



## Irish Pixie

mreynolds said:


> Now the clinics do the very same thing that PP does. Even birth control.
> 
> People can always move but I have heard no one but PP and people in PP pockets complain.
> 
> Oh, and every progressive in every other state.


What do you think of the very high rate of potentially life threatening DIY abortions in TX? What is your opinion of how this came about? Do you think that shutting down half the clinics in TX had anything to do with it? 

âI didnât have any money to go to San Antonio or Corpus [Christi]. I didnât even have any money to get across town ... I was just dirt broke.â

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/11/texas-self-abort/416229/

"Iâm here to look for a small, white, hexagonal pill called misoprostol. Also known as miso or Cytotec, the drug induces an abortion that appears like a miscarriage during the early stages of a womanâs pregnancy. For women living in Latin America and other countries that have traditionally outlawed abortion, miso has been a lifelineâitâs been called âa noble medication,â âworld-shaking,â and ârevolutionary.â But now, itâs not just an asset of the developing world."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/

"Google searches can help us understand whatâs really going on. They show a hidden demand for self-induced abortion reminiscent of the era before Roe v. Wade."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/the-return-of-the-diy-abortion.html?_r=0


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> What do you think of the very high rate of potentially life threatening DIY abortions in TX? What is your opinion of how this came about? Do you think that shutting down half the clinics in TX had anything to do with it?
> 
> âI didnât have any money to go to San Antonio or Corpus [Christi]. I didnât even have any money to get across town ... I was just dirt broke.â
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/11/texas-self-abort/416229/
> 
> "Iâm here to look for a small, white, hexagonal pill called misoprostol. Also known as miso or Cytotec, the drug induces an abortion that appears like a miscarriage during the early stages of a womanâs pregnancy. For women living in Latin America and other countries that have traditionally outlawed abortion, miso has been a lifelineâitâs been called âa noble medication,â âworld-shaking,â and ârevolutionary.â But now, itâs not just an asset of the developing world."
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/
> 
> "Google searches can help us understand whatâs really going on. They show a hidden demand for self-induced abortion reminiscent of the era before Roe v. Wade."
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/opinion/sunday/the-return-of-the-diy-abortion.html?_r=0


And yet you think Texas wont be able to keep boys out of girls showers. There is some benefit to being a massive shipping border for the food people eat, owning the gas that keeps New York from freezing to death, and having the right to tell everyone to step off. Bathrooms should be a walk in the park.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Where do you come up with this stuff?


Unlike you, I very rarely just pull stuff out of thin air. Unfortunately I can't find the article right now. Pre-war era, they used bullseye targets. During the war, the realized most soldiers merely "posture," they shoot near the enemy, but rarely hit them. We're talking about close-quarter, over-the-field, infantry combat. I think the human hit-rate for bullets fired was pretty low, around 15%. After the war, they started using human-shaped targets. Apparently, this is all it takes to start untiring a person's killing inhibitions. Later, they developed war simulators to further quell soldiers' inhibitions. That's why so many modern war veterans was PTSD now - they learned to kill a lot of better, whereas previously they may have gotten away with trench combat where they didn't shoot anyone. After the wars, the military stopped needed the game tech so much and sold it to video game companies. In other words, modern video games are based on technology deliberately designed to quell the killing inhibition.

COnversely, this article believes that if we remove ourselves from the war equation, it becomes much easier to kill. Wait; that's exactly what I said - close proximity killing is difficult and traumatic.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...war-how-the-military-uses-video-games/280486/


----------



## joebill

Gee, there is an ileagal drug that poor folks in Texas can't get? Stretches credulity tight as a fiddle string....Joe


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> And yet you think Texas wont be able to keep boys out of girls showers. There is some benefit to being a massive shipping border for the food people eat, owning the gas that keeps New York from freezing to death, and having the right to tell everyone to step off. Bathrooms should be a walk in the park.


I don't think that Texas will be able to control women's right to a legal abortion for much longer just using Justice Kagan's remark in the third of the links I posted as a basis. Time will tell, eh?


----------



## thericeguy

joebill said:


> Gee, there is an ileagal drug that poor folks in Texas can't get? Stretches credulity tight as a fiddle string....Joe


For the benefit of others, not you, do you know what I read about in my tiny Texas town almost every week? Child molestors. The indictments brought, charges filed, sentencing, and those arrested for parole violations of same. We are talking about 100,000 population center. Imagine how bad the big cities are. 

Know what I never read sbout? Never even had someone tell me they even heard of someone who heard from someone? These DIY abortion victims. Wife is a nurse. She has no knowledge of treating such a patient in a long ER career. Lots of sex abuse bictims though. 

The DIY abortion is a solution in search of a problem. Same people, EXACT SAME PEOPLE, cannot see the perverts in every community and tell us its OK to have coed showers. Can you even begin to explain this mentality to me joe?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think that Texas will be able to control women's right to a legal abortion for much longer just using Justice Kagan's remark in the third of the links I posted as a basis. Time will tell, eh?


Yes, time will tell. In the meantime, some babies got to be born. You may not value them. Others do.


----------



## Irish Pixie

joebill said:


> Gee, there is an ileagal drug that poor folks in Texas can't get? Stretches credulity tight as a fiddle string....Joe


The drug isn't illegal, it's prescription only and because TX has closed so many clinics it's forced women to buy it on the black market to use in DIY abortions. Abortions not overseen by medical personnel so that they risk the woman's life.

Did you mean to sound so cavalier of women forced to perform risky DIY abortions? I truly hope not.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> The drug isn't illegal, it's prescription only and because TX has closed so many clinics it's forced women to buy it on the black market to use in DIY abortions. Abortions not overseen by medical personnel so that they risk the woman's life.
> 
> Did you mean to sound so cavalier of women forced to perform risky DIY abortions? I truly hope not.


If people want something bad enough, they'll get it. I've traveled over entire states on only a few dozen dollars. If they seriously believe they can't get across the state on their own, they're not trying hard enough.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Yes, time will tell. In the meantime, some babies got to be born. You may not value them. Others do.


Don't tell me how I feel, it's crude and boorish.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> If people want something bad enough, they'll get it. I've traveled over entire states on only a few dozen dollars. If they seriously believe they can't get across the state on their own, they're not trying hard enough.


Should they have to try so hard to get a legal medical procedure?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> The drug isn't illegal, it's prescription only and because TX has closed so many clinics it's forced women to buy it on the black market to use in DIY abortions. Abortions not overseen by medical personnel so that they risk the woman's life.
> 
> Did you mean to sound so cavalier of women forced to perform risky DIY abortions? I truly hope not.


When you argue noone is forced to shower with anyone, is it the same definition of "force" for all these womem being forced to have abortions? Is the govt showing up with rifles, strapping them down, and killing their baby? Who is forcing anything here in this completely voluntary action?


----------



## dixiegal62

Irish Pixie said:


> The drug isn't illegal, it's prescription only and because TX has closed so many clinics it's forced women to buy it on the black market to use in DIY abortions. Abortions not overseen by medical personnel so that they risk the woman's life.
> 
> Did you mean to sound so cavalier of women forced to perform risky DIY abortions? I truly hope not.


Unless abortions are now mandatory nobody is forcing them to do anything. They choose to take a black market pill.


----------



## thericeguy

Abortion rates by race. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/09/abortions-racial-gap/380251/

Why do you hate black babies and want more of them dead?


----------



## joebill

Yeah, it's always been about freedom, hasn't it? Well, maybe not so much. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nshj9rCTPdE[/ame]


These are events that happened within my lifetime, and only the tactics have changed, and then only because of public outrage. I'm sure lots of them regret the loss of the "good old days". when Southern Democrats could do as they wished.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Should they have to try so hard to get a legal medical procedure?


Maybe not. But sometimes nonessential medical treatment is inconvenient. Expecting otherwise is a bit of an entitlement complex on their part.


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's been claimed many times that transsexuals commit suicide at a rate* 20 times* higher than average.
> 
> Your source refutes that claim:





> Sex-reassigned transsexual persons of both genders had approximately a *three times higher *risk of all-cause mortality than controls, also after adjustment for covariates.


The paragraph you quoted does not dispute the suicide statistic. It only claims that the *risk* of _all-cause mortality_ is 3 times higher.

If you read the entire paper (note especially Table 2 under the heading 'Mortality', abt 1/2 down the page), it confirms the suicide rate. 

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Maybe not. But sometimes nonessential medical treatment is inconvenient. Expecting otherwise is a bit of an entitlement complex on their part.


Perhaps they don't think of abortion as a nonessential medical treatment? Judging someone else based on your (collective your) perception of their choice is wrong, no one else knows everything that is going on in someone else's life.

Plus it's none of anyone else's business. Not even a little bit.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Know what I never read sbout? Never even had someone tell me they even heard of someone who heard from someone? These DIY abortion victims.


 Thats because abortion is legal. I'll hold off on insulting your intelligence, but dang that one was pretty obvious. 
You know what is REALLY a solution in search of a problem? Bathroom laws that purport to keep men out of the ladies room. Although if they ever do put an enforcement provision in these stupid laws, I think we've found some over-eager volunteers right on this forum, those people like you who are overly obsessed with male genitalia and want gay dudes peeing next to their little boys in the mens room.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> When you argue noone is forced to shower with anyone, is it the same definition of "force" for all these womem being forced to have abortions? Is the govt showing up with rifles, strapping them down, and killing their baby? Who is forcing anything here in this completely voluntary action?


Huh? No one can force a woman to either carry a pregnancy to term _or_ have an abortion. It's *her* choice. You understand that, right? When you (collective you) restrict *her* access to a completely legal abortion is when she can turn to a DIY abortion to terminate *her* pregnancy. 

Why is it OK to restrict her Constitutional right to personal liberty and control over her body to the point where she'd risk her health and life on a DIY abortion? Can you explain?


----------



## barnbilder

Txsteader said:


> The paragraph you quoted does not dispute the suicide statistic. It only claims that the *risk* of _all-cause mortality_ is 3 times higher.
> 
> If you read the entire paper (note especially Table 2 under the heading 'Mortality', abt 1/2 down the page), it confirms the suicide rate.
> 
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885


That's not fair, you read the whole thing and comprehended the message. You are supposed to just skim through until you find one sentence that supports your agenda, or one sentence that you disagree with that you can use to condemn the whole thing.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps they don't think of abortion as a nonessential medical treatment? Judging someone else based on your (collective your) perception of their choice is wrong, no one else knows everything that is going on in someone else's life.
> 
> Plus it's none of anyone else's business. Not even a little bit.


Lets review your logic against some other possible choices. 

I choose to kill women. 
I choose to rape women. 
I choose to refuse education to minorities. 
I choose to buy a sex slave. 

Do you see how your logic that society has no valid claim to limit personal freedom just crumples into the heap of garbage that it is?


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Lets review your logic against some other possible choices.
> 
> I choose to kill women.
> I choose to rape women.
> I choose to refuse education to minorities.
> I choose to buy a sex slave.
> 
> Do you see how your logic that society has no valid claim to limit personal freedom just crumples into the heap of garbage that it is?


Sigh. Are all of the things you listed legal or illegal? C'mon. Please use some common sense and quit with the diversions to fantasy. Society has no claim over a woman's body, it is hers and hers alone.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> The drug isn't illegal, it's prescription only and because TX has closed so many clinics it's forced women to buy it on the black market to use in DIY abortions. Abortions not overseen by medical personnel so that they risk the woman's life.
> 
> Did you mean to sound so cavalier of women forced to perform risky DIY abortions? I truly hope not.


I've not seen a single instance of any DIY abortions being utilized and most certainly have not heard of any reported medical complications. Do you have more information regarding these? Just out of curiosity, could a regular doctor prescribe the drug being spoke of herein?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Are all of the things you listed legal or illegal? C'mon. Please use some common sense and quit with the diversions to fantasy.


Cmon, a law passes that abortion is illegal, murder is legal, rape is legal, denying minorities an education is legal, will you be here saying those things are fine and dandy because they are legal? 

At least PRETEND to be consistent.


----------



## thericeguy

Shine said:


> I've not seen a single instance of any DIY abortions being utilized and most certainly have not heard of any reported medical complications. Do you have more information regarding these? Just out of curiosity, could a regular doctor prescribe the drug being spoke of herein?


As I said earlier, a solution in search of a problem.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Cmon, a law passes that abortion is illegal, murder is legal, rape is legal, denying minorities an education is legal, will you be here saying those things are fine and dandy because they are legal?
> 
> At least PRETEND to be consistent.


Fantasy and yet another mediocre diversion. Murder isn't legal, rape isn't legal, denying anyone an educational isn't legal, and they won't be. It's never going to happen. 

Abortion is legal, has been for 43 years, and there is nothing that you can do to stop a woman from having one. Period. You may not like it but that's irrelevant. The most you (collective you) can do is whine about it. It is your right to whine but it's annoying to people who live in the real world.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps they don't think of abortion as a nonessential medical treatment? Judging someone else based on your (collective your) perception of their choice is wrong, no one else knows everything that is going on in someone else's life.
> 
> Plus it's none of anyone else's business. Not even a little bit.


It's not anyone's business how the treat their bodies, sure, but it is our business when it's everyone's tax dollars contributing to making it "easier" for her to get birth control. To be fair, I support that. I also support people not whining about how far away stuff is. Maybe it's a personal pet peeve of mine, because I live so far away from everything. *I* drive everywhere, but everyone else always scoffs at how far they have to drive to buy stuff from me.



Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Are all of the things you listed legal or illegal? C'mon. Please use some common sense and quit with the diversions to fantasy. Society has no claim over a woman's body, it is hers and hers alone.


Try to see it from their point of view. That's the open-minded thing to do. Liberal thinking promotes open mindedness. We're not being completely open minded until we try to think from their point of view. In their minds, unbroken fetuses have rights just like normal humans. A woman can't kill her baby; why can she kill her fetus?


----------



## barnbilder

Feigned concern over women's health, how touching. Let's see, the woman already had a choice, not to take drinks from strangers, not to make boyfriend stop at CVS, not to do a lot of things. So, if she chooses to do a do it yourself job, I see the harm as being a direct result of her choices, at many junctures.

There is always some risk assumed with invasive and elective medical procedures, especially to the nearly born, there is even risk associated with birth control drugs. Wonder how much risk is avoided by not having PP people available to get inside of people's head at a very troubling time, essentially "forcing" (through coercion) people to get an abortion. PP is not concerned with helping people, PP is concerned with making money and following in the racial extermination vision of their Sanger hero.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Fantasy and yet another mediocre diversion. Murder isn't legal, rape isn't legal, denying anyone an educational isn't legal, and they won't be. It's never going to happen.


Murder is legal so long as you are in control of an army and believe your foes to be morally inferior. Legal-ness is all about who's in control, and who's got the hand on current "morality." Legality and morality have basically no correlation.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Fantasy and yet another mediocre diversion. Murder isn't legal, rape isn't legal, denying anyone an educational isn't legal, and they won't be. It's never going to happen.
> 
> Abortion is legal, has been for 43 years, and there is nothing that you can do to stop a woman from having one. Period. You may not like it but that's irrelevant. The most you (collective you) can do is whine about it. It is your right to whine but it's annoying to people who live in the real world.


Texas seems to be on a decent path. Wasnt it you who said all these poor women lack access to abortions? Seems like we did stop a few. Guess you are incorrect they cant be stopped. 

Did you catch the Oklahoma (I yhink it was them) legislature making performing an abortion a felony and revoking medical license just a few days ago? Do not be so sure that law cant pass.

When it does, will you be here defending the wardens locking up doctors because "its illegal"? Or will you turn two-face against your own argument?


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Lets review your logic against some other possible choices.
> 
> I choose to kill women.
> I choose to rape women.
> I choose to refuse education to minorities.
> I choose to buy a sex slave.
> 
> Do you see how your logic that society has no valid claim to limit personal freedom just crumples into the heap of garbage that it is?


 All actions that directly harm others. A non-viable fetus is part of someones body, not separate, and not your business. 
And did someone on this forum actually say 'society has no valid claim to limit personal freedom', or is that you just blowing more smoke?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Murder is legal so long as you are in control of an army and believe your foes to be morally inferior. Legal-ness is all about who's in control, and who's got the hand on current "morality." Legality and morality have basically no correlation.


I said it before. I will repeat now. 

The law is not morale. Morality is not the law. 

Someone here likes to bounce back and forth that laws cannot be passed because they interfere with personal freedom, then turn right around and say limitations to freedom are OK because they are legal. I dare say they would fail and logic class. Emotional outcome driven belief system. Thank God they do not write public policy. It would be all over the place driven by whims.


----------



## Irish Pixie

greg273 said:


> All actions that directly harm others. A non-viable fetus is part of someones body, not separate, and not your business.
> And did someone on this forum actually say 'society has no valid claim to limit personal freedom', or is that you just blowing more smoke?


Thank you for making the distinction of harm to others rather than my blanket statement of legal and illegal. It's much better wording. 

I agree, the key is viability, non viable means it cannot support itself outside the uterus. 

I also have to shake my head at those that honestly think that the Constitutional right to personal liberty can be taken away from half the country.


----------



## Nsoitgoes

thericeguy said:


> Know what I never read sbout? Never even had someone tell me they even heard of someone who heard from someone? These DIY abortion victims. Wife is a nurse. She has no knowledge of treating such a patient in a long ER career. Lots of sex abuse bictims though.


Well I was a nurse in England many years ago, before abortions were legal. Over the years I worked ER, General, Gyne and ITU. I could tell you stories that would make your hair curl about self-induced abortion. 

About women with ruptured stomachs and spleens and severely damaged livers because of the belief that punches or kicks to the abdomen would cause an abortion. Broken limbs, backs and necks from "falling" down the stairs. Acute alcohol poisoning from the "hot bath and gin" method - several of these girls died. There were poisonings from the various herbs known to have abortifacient properties. 

The most horrific were the "attempts by instrumentation". Crochet hooks, knitting needles and the ever-popular wire coat-hanger. All, of course, without benefit of any anesthetic. Ask your wife how she would feel nursing a dying17 year old girl with wide-spread sepsis caused by over 20 puncture wounds to her cervix and vaginal vault from a coat hanger. If she had any compassion at all she would say this was barbaric. 

Do I support a woman's right to choose a safe procedure? You betcha. Rather than what went on before they were safe and legal I would support a clinic on every corner and two in every Starbucks.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> Murder is legal so long as you are in control of an army and believe your foes to be morally inferior. Legal-ness is all about who's in control, and who's got the hand on current "morality." Legality and morality have basically no correlation.


I agree that legality and morality have no correlation. Mortality isn't set in stone, what one person finds moral another may not, that's why we have laws.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Perhaps they don't think of abortion as a nonessential medical treatment? *Judging someone else based on your (collective your) perception of their choice is wrong, no one else knows everything that is going on in someone else's life.*
> 
> Plus it's none of anyone else's business. Not even a little bit.


I bolded it for you greg. It was hidden among other words. I understand. Just trying to help out. 

Who is collective you if not society? Did you take that as some alien morality court that meets in their orbiting space ship weekly?

Society has no right to judge others because we dont know whats going on. That is the claim. 

So if God tells me I have to kill 12 women, rape 25 girls, and shoot 20 minorities or else He will strike me dead, thats OK cause noone else knows it just self defense, right? This is what you argue?

I said it before. I will repeat it. There is a group of anarchists here.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree that legality and morality have no correlation. Mortality isn't set in stone, what one person finds moral another may not, that's why we have laws.


Please explain your objection to murder, rape, and removal of minority education outside "thats illegal" then. Try and make your argument congruent in logic to "where someone showers or kills their fetus is none of your business" please, for consistencies sake.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you for making the distinction of harm to others rather than my blanket statement of legal and illegal. It's much better wording.
> 
> I agree, the key is viability, non viable means it cannot support itself outside the uterus.
> 
> I also have to shake my head at those that honestly think that the Constitutional right to personal liberty can be taken away from half the country.


 Personal liberty can and has been taken away from the entire country at different times in our history. There are many examples of it. It is illegal, in most areas, to commit suicide. It is illegal, in most areas, to partake in currently illegal drugs, It is illegal, in most areas, to sell/purchase raw milk. The list of infringements is long and, in most areas, does no direct harm to anyone other than the one taking the action.


----------



## Irish Pixie

barnbilder said:


> Feigned concern over women's health, how touching. Let's see, the woman already had a choice, not to take drinks from strangers, not to make boyfriend stop at CVS, not to do a lot of things. So, if she chooses to do a do it yourself job, I see the harm as being a direct result of her choices, at many junctures.
> 
> There is always some risk assumed with invasive and elective medical procedures, especially to the nearly born, there is even risk associated with birth control drugs. Wonder how much risk is avoided by not having PP people available to get inside of people's head at a very troubling time, essentially "forcing" (through coercion) people to get an abortion. PP is not concerned with helping people, PP is concerned with making money and following in the racial extermination vision of their Sanger hero.


Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that women that want abortions are just immoral whores that deserve what they get? I don't want to put words in your mouth.


----------



## barnbilder

A thing can be legal or illegal all day long. Big difference between that, and right and wrong. Slavery was once legal. By the logic that abortion is legal, what about supporting toddler murder. Two year olds are noisy, many parents just don't have time for that. Why can't parents "terminate" a pregnancy even later, like say up until kindergarten? Laws are made to be changed. There is no scientific basis for when murdering a human being should be illegal. Show me where it is scientifically accepted that life begins when light and air hit something.


----------



## thericeguy

Farmerga said:


> Personal liberty can and has been taken away from the entire country at different times in our history. There are many examples of it. It is illegal, in most areas, to commit suicide. It is illegal, in most areas, to partake in currently illegal drugs, It is illegal, in most areas, to sell/purchase raw milk. The list of infringements is long and, in most areas, does no direct harm to anyone other than the one taking the action.


They would argue that the same government who can strap you to a table and inject your body with drugs designed to cause your death is powerless to tell you where to pee. Absolute garbage of a claim.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Personal liberty can and has been taken away from the entire country at different times in our history. There are many examples of it. It is illegal, in most areas, to commit suicide. It is illegal, in most areas, to partake in currently illegal drugs, It is illegal, in most areas, to sell/purchase raw milk. The list of infringements is long and, in most areas, does no direct harm to anyone other than the one taking the action.


Is there a current infringement on abortion? 

Isn't that a list of the things that you think is out of the government's purview? Why use them to support your anti abortion agenda when you decry them at every other opportunity? 

Other than prohibition, and that was complete fiasco, what other situations were personal liberty taken away from at least half the country?


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Please explain your objection to murder, rape, and removal of minority education outside "thats illegal" then. Try and make your argument congruent in logic to "where someone showers or kills their fetus is none of your business" please, for consistencies sake.


I already stated my opinion, this attempt at diversion won't work. Go back and reread the pertinent posts for explanation.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> I bolded it for you greg. It was hidden among other words. I understand. Just trying to help out.
> 
> Who is collective you if not society? Did you take that as some alien morality court that meets in their orbiting space ship weekly?
> 
> Society has no right to judge others because we dont know whats going on. That is the claim.
> 
> So if God tells me I have to kill 12 women, rape 25 girls, and shoot 20 minorities or else He will strike me dead, thats OK cause noone else knows it just self defense, right? This is what you argue?
> 
> I said it before. I will repeat it. There is a group of anarchists here.


Collective you is so that the post isn't personal, in this case it means collective anti abortionists. Do you understand now? 

The rest of your post is nonsensical fantasy and I'm not responding to it.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Is there a current infringement on abortion?
> 
> Isn't that a list of the things that you think is out of the government's purview? Why use them to support your anti abortion agenda when you decry them at every other opportunity?
> 
> Other than prohibition, and that was complete fiasco, what other situations were personal liberty taken away from at least half the country?


Of course. The difference being that, in the instances that I have listed, there is no harm to another, with abortion, there is. Sure, I could have listed murder, hunting out of season, hunting endangered wildlife, robbery, or, any of the thousands of actions that are currently illegal, but, I wanted to list a few that are far less destructive than abortion. All of them are cases of government limiting the liberty of people.


----------



## barnbilder

You are stretching the boundaries of sentience when you keep making the "half the country" claim. A lot of women think that abortion is murder, and would never do it, even in extreme circumstances. For others, it is a non issue anyway, most of the strongest abortion proponents I know are tired old hippies, well beyond child bearing age, many times of sexual orientation not conducive to conception. Maybe 25% of the country, at the very most.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Of course. The difference being that, in the instances that I have listed, there is no harm to another, with abortion, there is. Sure, I could have listed murder, hunting out of season, hunting endangered wildlife, robbery, or, any of the thousands of actions that are currently illegal, but, I wanted to list a few that are far less destructive than abortion. All of them are cases of government limiting the liberty of people.


Gotcha.


----------



## Farmerga

Irish Pixie said:


> Gotcha.


Got me how? You understand my meaning, or, you believe you have found some inconsistencies?


----------



## painterswife

barnbilder said:


> You are stretching the boundaries of sentience when you keep making the "half the country" claim. A lot of women think that abortion is murder, and would never do it, even in extreme circumstances. For others, it is a non issue anyway, most of the strongest abortion proponents I know are tired old hippies, well beyond child bearing age, many times of sexual orientation not conducive to conception. Maybe 25% of the country, at the very most.


Many that would never need to or want to exercise a right still expect that that right should not be taken away.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> Many that would never need to or want to exercise a right still expect that that right should not be taken away.


And it still effects anyone with a uterus, and that is approximately half the country. 

I wonder why he won't answer my question? Maybe he missed it, "Am I understanding you correctly? Are you saying that women that want abortions are just immoral whores that deserve what they get? I don't want to put words in your mouth."


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Are all of the things you listed legal or illegal? C'mon. Please use some common sense and quit with the diversions to fantasy. Society has no claim over a woman's body, it is hers and hers alone.


Okay, abortions are still legal. What law says that states must provide clinics within a 'reasonable' distance, that women shouldn't have to travel X amount of time to a location?


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Okay, abortions are still legal. What law says that states must provide clinics within a 'reasonable' distance, that women shouldn't have to travel X amount of time to a location?


It is not about reasonable distance. It is about government setting up special rules for one kind of medical procedure for the sole purpose of limiting someone's rights. The have not set up special rules for similar procedures with the same kind of risks.

Reasonable distance is one of the things effected by this end run regulation.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Collective you is so that the post isn't personal, in this case it means collective anti abortionists. Do you understand now?
> 
> The rest of your post is nonsensical fantasy and I'm not responding to it.


All anti and pro abortionists is society. The people who pass laws. Understand now? Pretend ignorance looks far to real to be appealing.


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> It is not about reasonable distance. It is about government setting up special rules for one kind of medical procedure for the sole purpose of limiting someone's rights. The have not set up special rules for similar procedures with the same kind of risks.
> 
> Reasonable distance is one of the things effected by this end run regulation.


Exactly, and it's in court right now.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> It is not about reasonable distance. It is about government setting up special rules for one kind of medical procedure for the sole purpose of limiting someone's rights. The have not set up special rules for similar procedures with the same kind of risks.
> 
> Reasonable distance is one of the things effected by this end run regulation.


You are saying someone can get an appendix out in a doctors office? Prove it. An appendix is tissue.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> All anti and pro abortionists is society. The people who pass laws. Understand now? Pretend ignorance looks far to real to be appealing.


I explained what I meant, why are you insulting me?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You are saying someone can get an appendix out in a doctors office? Prove it. An appendix is tissue.


Please stop telling lies. I never said anything about an appendix.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Please stop telling lies. I never said anything about an appendix.


You claimed it was a dpecial set of rules. I proved you wrong. Easy. Your argument has no basis in reality. Tonsil removal. Open mouth. Remove. Abortion. Open vagina. Remove. Same principle. Tonsils are done in hospitals. So should abortions. 

You want abortions available like starbucks coffee. Get real.


----------



## Txsteader

painterswife said:


> It is not about reasonable distance. It is about government setting up special rules for one kind of medical procedure for the sole purpose of limiting someone's rights. *The have not set up special rules for similar procedures with the same kind of risks.*
> 
> Reasonable distance is one of the things effected by this end run regulation.


Oh well. 

Abortions are still legal. Texas law is still legal.

Get over it.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You claimed it was a dpecial set of rules. I proved you wrong. Easy. Your argument has no basis in reality. Tonsil removal. Open mouth. Remove. Abortion. Open vagina. Remove. Same principle. Tonsils are done in hospitals. So should abortions.
> 
> You want abortions available like starbucks coffee. Get real.


You have proven nothing. You made a statement that was opinion and had nothing to do with what I actually said.

Did you know that there is no such rules for vasectomies or even a D&C.


----------



## thericeguy

Txsteader said:


> Oh well.
> 
> Abortions are still legal. Texas law is legal.
> 
> Get over it.


Bingo. Simple patient care law. Must have admitting rights to a hospital. Hospitsl must be nearby. This is to save the life when a punctured uterus happens because the fetus squirmed too much trying to avoid the tongs attempting to crush its skull to allow removal and the abortion provider gets frustrsted because they have another $10,000 in abortions to do that day and dont have time to play games.


----------



## painterswife

Txsteader said:


> Oh well.
> 
> Abortions are still legal. Texas law is still legal.
> 
> Get over it.


I don't need to get over it I suspect that the law will be struck down in the next week or two.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You have proven nothing. You made a statement that was opinion and had nothing to do with what I actually said.
> 
> Did you know that there is no such rules for vasectomies or even a D&C.


You have provided no evidence and has nothing to do with what I said. You are rambling again. Lay off the liar thing. Its against the rules. I dont want you reported. Attack the post. Not the poster.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You have provided no evidence and has nothing to do with what I said. You are rambling again. Lay off the liar thing. Its against the rules. I dont want you reported. Attack the post. Not the poster.


Report me. You obviously don't know the rules. If you tell a lie about me I can call it a lie.


----------



## painterswife

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/health/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html

"Medical groups note that other outpatient procedures with higher complication and mortality rates, like colonoscopy and liposuction, are not legislatively mandated to be performed at ambulatory surgical centers by physicians with hospital privileges."


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/health/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court.html
> 
> "Medical groups note that other outpatient procedures with higher complication and mortality rates, like colonoscopy and liposuction, are not legislatively mandated to be performed at ambulatory surgical centers by physicians with hospital privileges."


An injustice we must correct. One step at a time please. Next desperate act pls. Can you show me evidence these are actually done outside ambulatory centers? No need for laws when the right thing is being done. My colonoscopy was done in a hospital.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> An injustice we must correct. One step at a time please. Next desperate act pls. Can you show me evidence these are actually done outside ambulatory centers? No need for laws when the right thing is being done. My colonoscopy was done in a hospital.


I think you should read some of the threads here on HT that have already covered this and maybe the supreme court case. I have pointed you in the right direction. A bit of self education will help you to get up to speed on what many of us all ready are. When you are then we can have a discussion that does not have to repeat what has already been discussed here many times.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I think you should read some of the threads here on HT that have already covered this and maybe the supreme court case. I have pointed you in the right direction. A bit of self education will help you to get up to speed on what many of us all ready are. When you are then we can have a discussion that does not have to repeat what has already been discussed here many times.


Which supreme court case said Texas cant have that law again? I have pointed out in numerous threads how you are overcome by emotion, support horrible public policy, and barely make sense. Please review that data. I am beginning to think you are communist. Please fix the grammar in your signature. It drives me crazy.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Which supreme court case said Texas cant have that law again? I have pointed out in numerous threads how you are overcome by emotion, support horrible public policy, and barely make sense. Please review that data. I am beginning to think you are communist.


I have reported this post. I suspect it will soon be deleted by the admins.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I have reported this post. I suspect it will soon be deleted by the admins.


Woohoooo. You also think women can have a penis. I consider the source.


----------

