Am I Vulgar for not wanting men in woman's bathrooms?

[jamil]

That's not "addressing", that's support. You don't get to encourage violence and then blame it on the other guy.

Okay after rereading Dave's posts, I've made a similar point before. When you go around ridiculing people as a method to get the change you want, it kinda pisses people off. If you (rhetorical "you") don't want enemies, some of whom are bound to be sociopaths, stop doing **** that makes enemies. It's an indictment of the tactics, not a call for action. Some of those enemies might not be all that stable. That's not condoning violence. It's not encouraging violence. It's advocating that you stop pissing people off to push the change you want, plus a warning that having a pissed off nation is a precursor for violence.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground by saying most of society is more comfortable with having separate bathrooms for both sexes. If some people in society think that should change, ridiculing and marginalizing people might be an effective way to push your societal change but that comes with the natural consequence of creating hostility.

 

[Expat]

How is the law misdirected? From what I've read, the law, much like Indiana's gun preemption law, it prevents NC political subdivisions from making laws that force people and businesses from having to play along with this fad. It doesn't prohibit Target from doing what they're doing but it prevents Charlotte, NC from passing an ordinance requiring Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a making them do as Target is doing. Of course it's being misrepresented as discriminatory but it seems like a pretty good solution to me.

But we have to force people to be tolerant as we can not tolerate any differing opinions. You see the same thing here on the INGO.

 

[jamil]

How is the law misdirected? From what I've read, the law, much like Indiana's gun preemption law, it prevents NC political subdivisions from making laws that force people and businesses from having to play along with this fad. It doesn't prohibit Target from doing what they're doing but it prevents Charlotte, NC from passing an ordinance requiring Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a making them do as Target is doing. Of course it's being misrepresented as discriminatory but it seems like a pretty good solution to me.

I've seen that law as a sort of RFRA. It's purpose to me seems more like sending a message than a preemption of something that's actually inevitable in NC. I can see passing the law if municipalities are starting to enact laws that force businesses to set policies it wants. It seems the Target thing got them thinking that it's coming. I dunno. I do think that like the RFRA, it's probably not having the affect they wanted. And that's why I called it misdirected.

 

[jamil]

But we have to force people to be tolerant as we can not tolerate any differing opinions. You see the same thing here on the INGO.

I'd be happy with the law if it basically said that political subdivisions can't force policies on businesses that don't directly affect communities' health or sanitary conditions. I'm okay with sanitary standards. Keep it clean and free from rodent and insect infestations. Keep the structure safe. That kind of stuff. But I'm okay with preempting all social engineering laws, including the right to bear arms and forcing businesses allow some delusional men to use women's restrooms.

 

[Lowe0]

Okay after rereading Dave's posts, I've made a similar point before. When you go around ridiculing people as a method to get the change you want, it kinda pisses people off. If you (rhetorical "you") don't want enemies, some of whom are bound to be sociopaths, stop doing **** that makes enemies. It's an indictment of the tactics, not a call for action. Some of those enemies might not be all that stable. That's not condoning violence. It's not encouraging violence. It's advocating that you stop pissing people off to push the change you want, plus a warning that having a pissed off nation is a precursor for violence.

So people should just kowtow to anyone who threatens violence?

 

[churchmouse]

So people should just kowtow to anyone who threatens violence?

Come on man.....you know that is not what he is saying.
I realize how being the "Devils" advocate works but seriously.....I really do not think this is his point.
...........Just adding my thoughts.

 

[jamil]

So people should just kowtow to anyone who threatens violence?

Did you not read what I said? No. No one threatened violence. what I said was people, especially the vocal minority, should not incite violence by pushing social changes that most people don't want using ridicule and public shaming. We have more polite conversations when we reason with each other rather than ridicule. But that takes longer. The SJWs want it now. And warning of the consequences of that is the only message I'm conveying. Don't make it more than it is.

 

[Lowe0]

Did you not read what I said? No. No one threatened violence. what I said was people, especially the vocal minority, should not incite violence by pushing social changes that most people don't want using ridicule and public shaming. We have more polite conversations when we reason with each other rather than ridicule. But that takes longer. The SJWs want it now. And warning of the consequences of that is the only message I'm conveying. Don't make it more than it is.

I see no reason not to advocate for what I think is best just because someone else is too immature to handle it without resorting to violence.

 

[trucker777]

Secular society continues to reject the laws of God, so the way I see it confusion and chaos will continue to increase. Its not going to get better before it gets worse. History does repeat again. Welcome to hell on earth, a mysterious Babylon of sorts...

 

[jamil]

I see no reason not to advocate for what I think is best just because someone else is too immature to handle it without resorting to violence.

Oh. Do advocate. But when people disagree with you and instead of presenting a logical rebuttal you ridicule and marginalize, don't be surprised when that pisses people off.

are you saying you can't advocate for anything without ridiculing and shaming people who disagree with you?

 

[Lowe0]

Oh. Do advocate. But when people disagree with you and instead of presenting a logical rebuttal you ridicule and marginalize, don't be surprised when that pisses people off.

are you saying you can't advocate for anything without ridiculing and shaming people who disagree with you?

At some point, logic and reason reaches all of the people that it's going to. At that point, if the remaining people feel shamed, there's nothing to be done about it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So people should just kowtow to anyone who threatens violence?

That's not "addressing", that's support. You don't get to encourage violence and then blame it on the other guy.

I see no reason not to advocate for what I think is best just because someone else is too immature to handle it without resorting to violence.

First, this is going to be challenging. I find you sufficiently contemptible that it is going to be difficult to deal with the subject matter without getting banned.

You ask the rhetorical question of whether we should kowtow to anyone who threatens violence. You just got done telling us that we should kowtow to a vocal minority which demands that we do so with their final tool being the use of assorted means to destroy the businesses and lives of those who dissent to the point they cannot walk out the doors of their homes in peace. Oh, I get it, anything is OK with you so long as it does not involve direct physical contact.

You have a truly sorry perspective on life if 'what you think best' is for a statistically irrelevant percentage of the population to be able to force the overwhelming majority into a situation that many among that majority find distressing in order to accommodate that minority's delusional fantasies with no actual problem being solved by doing so.

You accuse me of encouraging rather than addressing an issue. Since you apparently flunked history, take some time to review instances of spontaneous upheaval. Now consider what happens when you take the pressure cooker of intolerable circumstances pushed past what would be a generally safe level, then at first only the most radical and least stable elements react, and then a larger number of people look at it at first not understanding those who have acted and then start asking themselves why they are putting up with what they are putting up with. You may think that the solution is for everyone else to react to having this nonsense shoved down their throats by saying 'thank you, may I have some more please', but judging by how human being operate and have operated throughout history would suggest that it may work for a while but not indefinitely.

Just for a bonus, now that you have me thinking carefully about the subject, what those who refuse to play, like our poster child baker who refused to service homosexual weddings? People in this situation could well notice that they have three basic choices when left without such legal protections as honoring their right to practice their religion, including not being forced to violate it:

1. Give in and have to live with violating their convictions.
2. Stand up and face a high probability of losing everything they have ever worked for in court.
3. Make the observation that they can, well, eliminate the problem and have a chance of getting away with it where the first two options are guaranteed losses.

Please don't tell me that you believe no one else in the United States would think of this.

It seems pretty obvious to me that we are sitting on a powder keg that has become politically incorrect for anyone to acknowledge as such. It has apparently also become politically incorrect to believe that anyone not part of some fringe group actually has rights.

 

[Lowe0]

You ask the rhetorical question of whether we should kowtow to anyone who threatens violence. You just got done telling us that we should kowtow to a vocal minority which demands that we do so with their final tool being the use of assorted means to destroy the businesses and lives of those who dissent to the point they cannot walk out the doors of their homes in peace. Oh, I get it, anything is OK with you so long as it does not involve direct physical contact.

Correct. Here's why: you have a right not to be assaulted. You have a right not to have a hand laid on you. But you don't have a right to someone else's commerce. They can (and should!) evaluate whether they want to support you, and act accordingly. And you have the same right: don't shop at Target if you disagree with them!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've seen that law as a sort of RFRA. It's purpose to me seems more like sending a message than a preemption of something that's actually inevitable in NC. I can see passing the law if municipalities are starting to enact laws that force businesses to set policies it wants. It seems the Target thing got them thinking that it's coming. I dunno. I do think that like the RFRA, it's probably not having the affect they wanted. And that's why I called it misdirected.

No. Charlotte, NC had already passed such a law. The NC law was a reaction to that, not because of Target.

 

[jamil]

At some point, logic and reason reaches all of the people that it's going to. At that point, if the remaining people feel shamed, there's nothing to be done about it.

Perhaps beyond the point of logic and reason you really don't have any moral authority. And if people feel shamed it may be because people are labeling them with pejoratives without proof to silence the dissenters.

You know, you're dancing around your justification of Saul Alinsky tactics. Why not just come out and say that people who dare disagree with you on social issues deserve to be mocked and shamed and ridiculed into submission?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Correct. Here's why: you have a right not to be assaulted. You have a right not to have a hand laid on you. But you don't have a right to someone else's commerce. They can (and should!) evaluate whether they want to support you, and act accordingly. And you have the same right: don't shop at Target if you disagree with them!

I understand exactly. Likewise for for the folks with the pizza shop that were dragged to center stage during the RFRA circus with their business forced to at least temporarily shut down along with assorted threats and a general miserable life. You don't mind seeing the lives of such people destroyed and consider it all fair play in order to shove this sh*t down other people's throats. Now, what does this tell us about you?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

But we have to force people to be tolerant as we can not tolerate any differing opinions. You see the same thing here on the INGO.

I've seen that law as a sort of RFRA. It's purpose to me seems more like sending a message than a preemption of something that's actually inevitable in NC. I can see passing the law if municipalities are starting to enact laws that force businesses to set policies it wants. It seems the Target thing got them thinking that it's coming. I dunno. I do think that like the RFRA, it's probably not having the affect they wanted. And that's why I called it misdirected.

You two still look the same to me, BTW.

 

[Route 45]

That's only because you've been getting your way.

(Insert hard look)

 

[Lowe0]

Perhaps beyond the point of logic and reason you really don't have any moral authority. And if people feel shamed it may be because people are labeling them with pejoratives without proof to silence the dissenters.

You know, you're dancing around your justification of Saul Alinsky tactics. Why not just come out and say that people who dare disagree with you on social issues deserve to be mocked and shamed and ridiculed into submission?

Consider this thread: no one has evidence of the supposed harm that will befall society if we treat transgender individuals as equals. Instead, we get some nonsense about "moral decay" (never mind that they can't explain what's immoral about being unsure of one's gender).

At that point, if one is stubbornly advocating against the rights of others with no logical basis for doing so? Then yes, they deserve to be shamed and ridiculed. Everyone has the right to say what's on their mind - and everyone else has the right to say what they think of it.

 

[femurphy77]

I personally am offended that you took offense at him being offended by your offensive position on an offensive issue that shouldn't be considered offendable based on a simple plumbing check by the offended of the offender!!!