NBA Cancels 2017 All-Star Game In North Carolina Over Anti-LGBT Law

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have checked as well and some of those stories have even made it here.
there are plenty of examples of it. so as stated your minimization argument is a failure.

you can either address the topic or you can't if you can't then that is not my issue.

the fact is before a store owner to ask the person to leave and to get out of the store and or call the cops.
now if they do that they can be sued.

the only reason that the cops were called is that women reported a camera.

Your examples are still an example of the exception proves the rule logical fallacy. It's like saying all cops are corrupt because a few are. How many traffic stops per day occur where a white cop pulls over a black driver and the situation turns out to be incident free? My guess is thousands. So, the fact that we hear about the few that aren't doesn't make this an epidemic. My guess is that hundreds of transsexuals use public bathrooms of which they identify many times a day. The few examples you find are equivalent to what I said about white cops and black drivers, before: insignificant statistically.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Whose safety is your main concern? Is it the safety of women and children? I'm not sure how children can defend themselves against adult predators but perhaps you have some ideas.

Whose freedoms are in jeopardy?
Yes, this is an area where the Second Amendment and conceal and carry laws might help make a difference.

This is ANOTHER example of the exception proves the rule logical fallacy... with a bit of appeal to emotion added just for an extra little kick.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I think he/she should change at home.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed as a non-answer.

 

[VanceMack]

I have no idea how this applies to what I said.



You can't prove that one is a transsexual anymore than you can prove that someone who buys a gun is going to use it for illegal purposes. My proposal would be, if you walk into a women's room, you need to look like a women. Same for men.



This is why all of this complaining is ridiculous. "I don't want my little girl in a bathroom with a man!" Stupid appeal to emotion. If it looks like a duck, you'd never know. NO transsexual wants to bring attention to themselves in that way. Common sense. If you look like a man, you use the men's room. No one is going to ask or know the difference. I doubt that any man who looks like a man, when walking into a men's room, has ever been asked, "excuse me, but to use these facilities, you need to have a penis. Do you have one?"

Oh, and I do not agree that the SSM laws have made things worse. Just brought out complainers and sore losers. That would have happened regardless.

Getting closer to common ground. We both agree this could have been handled better. I think that can be said about the implementation of all of the federal court ordered changes that have gone against the will of the people. Telling people their concerns dont matter is a surefire way to cause problems. Respecting others concerns as legitimate even if you dont agree with them can help find solutions that work for everyone.

At the end of the day...is it too much to ask to respect other peoples rights and beliefs rather than **** all over them? You believe body part specific should be the standard for showering. That proves you have a 'line' that others might find bigoted and hate filled. People that are concerned about this legislation have a similar concern and 'line'. Holy ****...just respect their concerns as at least as valid as your own.

Not every transsexual is 'pretty'. I think you work around enough of them you know that. Not all of them are altogether healthy mentally and emotionally. I can think of several I have worked with that would certainly bring about the types of fears and concerns women are raising about sharing the same bathroom with. Hell...we have problems with some in secure psych units that will think its high sport sitting in chairs with their dresses pulled up, no underwear, and opening and closing their legs while just you know...casually chatting. Some are just downright belligerent. Some...especially if they have had a few to drink...cause disturbances in ERs where they have to be held until they are sober enough to have someone go in and talk to them.

Not every one. Not always a problem. Still...legitimate concerns. And thats with 'legit' transsexuals. That doesnt include the men that are dressing as women TODAY citing these types of ordinances as their reason and excuse for dressing and undressing in front of children at the Y.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Getting closer to common ground. We both agree this could have been handled better. I think that can be said about the implementation of all of the federal court ordered changes that have gone against the will of the people. Telling people their concerns dont matter is a surefire way to cause problems. Respecting others concerns as legitimate even if you dont agree with them can help find solutions that work for everyone.

At the end of the day...is it too much to ask to respect other peoples rights and beliefs rather than **** all over them? You believe body part specific should be the standard for showering. That proves you have a 'line' that others might find bigoted and hate filled. People that are concerned about this legislation have a similar concern and 'line'. Holy ****...just respect their concerns as at least as valid as your own.

Not every transsexual is 'pretty'. I think you work around enough of them you know that. Not all of them are altogether healthy mentally and emotionally. I can think of several I have worked with that would certainly bring about the types of fears and concerns women are raising about sharing the same bathroom with. Hell...we have problems with some in secure psych units that will think its high sport sitting in chairs with their dresses pulled up, no underwear, and opening and closing their legs while just you know...casually chatting. Some are just downright belligerent. Some...especially if they have had a few to drink...cause disturbances in ERs where they have to be held until they are sober enough to have someone go in and talk to them.

Not every one. Not always a problem. Still...legitimate concerns. And thats with 'legit' transsexuals. That doesnt include the men that are dressing as women TODAY citing these types of ordinances as their reason and excuse for dressing and undressing in front of children at the Y.

There are people with psychiatric problems of all races, creeds, colors, religions, sexual orientations, and political ideologies. These too are exceptions. It is inappropriate to legislate based on exceptions. It's dangerous too as this is often a tool to be used to discriminate. We saw that with most of the bogus research from the early half of the 1900's regarding homosexuals. Ridiculously claim that all homosexuals are mentally ill and then legislate based on this. And I have no issue respecting beliefs and concerns from others. However, I will summarily dismiss them if they offer no compromise or understanding of mine. I have no problem being part of the compromise process; however, I would not invite someone to the table who also does not want to be part of the compromise process. Working together requires that. Oh, and when it comes to discrimination, I am really uninterested in "the will of the people". I would rather see that as the problem than continuing discrimination be the problem. Either way, there will be one. I'll take the former.

 

[VanceMack]

There are people with psychiatric problems of all races, creeds, colors, religions, sexual orientations, and political ideologies. These too are exceptions. It is inappropriate to legislate based on exceptions. It's dangerous too as this is often a tool to be used to discriminate. We saw that with most of the bogus research from the early half of the 1900's regarding homosexuals. Ridiculously claim that all homosexuals are mentally ill and then legislate based on this. And I have no issue respecting beliefs and concerns from others. However, I will summarily dismiss them if they offer no compromise or understanding of mine. I have no problem being part of the compromise process; however, I would not invite someone to the table who also does not want to be part of the compromise process. Working together requires that. Oh, and when it comes to discrimination, I am really uninterested in "the will of the people". I would rather see that as the problem than continuing discrimination be the problem. Either way, there will be one. I'll take the former.

It may very well be said it is inappropriate to legislate based on the exceptions. It's not inappropriate to take into account the exceptions just as it is not inappropriate to take into account all citizens when you are rewriting moral standards.
I get that you are uninterested in the will of the people. We have plenty of people on this site that express their outright hatred of 'the will of the people'. Congrats. You guarantee these kinds of battles will continue.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It may very well be said it is inappropriate to legislate based on the exceptions. It's not inappropriate to take into account the exceptions just as it is not inappropriate to take into account all citizens when you are rewriting moral standards.

I have no issue with taking them into account. I just don't give exceptions much credence when writing standards.

I get that you are uninterested in the will of the people. We have plenty of people on this site that express their outright hatred of 'the will of the people'. Congrats. You guarantee these kinds of battles will continue.

If you noticed, I had a qualifier. WHEN IT COMES TO DISCRIMINATION, I am uninterested in the will of the people. These kinds of battles will continue, regardless. I'd prefer that to happen then to buckle to the "will of the people" who want to discriminate. Some battles are worth fighting.

 

[Casper]

Baloney. Surgically altering one's appearance does not change one's gender. Nor does hormone treatments. If you are born a male, you remain a male. If you are born a female, you remain a female. And the medical community is completely aware of that.

And once again the Medical Community and Law says you are wrong. Keep repeating yourself and I will keep pointing out that you are wrong per the Law and Science.

 

[ludin]

And you don't get to make up mine. Judicial activism: SCOTUS making a decision I don't agree with.

opinion noted. not correct but noted.

Except that's not what they do. Everything we need is in the Constitution... things to manage our present and our future. All one has to do is look and use pieces to apply to current situations. That's what justices do.

that is exactly what they do or are supposed to do.
no it isn't. there job is to rule on the constitution as written.

they are not allowed to change or add to it. it is even in their own as judges to uphold the constitution.
the only way that the constitution can be changed is through the amendment process.

 

[ludin]

Your examples are still an example of the exception proves the rule logical fallacy.

You calling them exceptions doesn't make it so. there have been women that have filed lawsuits against their companies for this.
there are more and more news stories out there where this is becoming a problem. it is only going to get worse.

It's like saying all cops are corrupt because a few are. How many traffic stops per day occur where a white cop pulls over a black driver and the situation turns out to be incident free? My guess is thousands. So, the fact that we hear about the few that aren't doesn't make this an epidemic. My guess is that hundreds of transsexuals use public bathrooms of which they identify many times a day. The few examples you find are equivalent to what I said about white cops and black drivers, before: insignificant statistically.

No it isn't. it is saying that we told you that this was going to be huge problem and it is. it is getting worse and will continue to get worse
you ignored it and wrote it off as a non-issue. now it is become a public problem that women can't enter their bathrooms without having
men in there.

women at the gym or pool can't change their clothes or anything without men being in there.
businesses have no recourse. if they call the cops or ask the person to leave they will be sued.

this is what happens when you let the minority run amuck with no checks or when you try to make emotional feelings laws.
instead of using logic and reason.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

opinion noted. not correct but noted.

Your opinion is as correct as mine.

that is exactly what they do or are supposed to do.
no it isn't. there job is to rule on the constitution as written.

they are not allowed to change or add to it. it is even in their own as judges to uphold the constitution.
the only way that the constitution can be changed is through the amendment process.

No one is talking about changing the Constitution. I am talking about using it. And I have already told you I do not support originalism. I support what Hamilton said about the Constitution:

Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

 

[ludin]

And once again the Medical Community and Law says you are wrong. Keep repeating yourself and I will keep pointing out that you are wrong per the Law and Science.

so if I wrap a wolf in a sheep skin is it now a sheep?
no it isn't.

If I turn a guy into a eunuch does he become a women? no he doesn't.
this is logic and reason not appeal to emotion.

changing the outside does not change the inside no matter how much people want to deny it.
logic and reason dictate that this is the case.

to say that they are women is an insult and disrespectful to real women everywhere.

 

[radcen]

Reality

Judicial activism: When the court disagrees with me.

Judicial engagement: When the court agrees with me.

 

[roguenuke]

you opinion is dismissed.
ensuring the safety of my wife and daughter is logic rational thinking.

You don't get to "ensure their safety" over the rights of others. Deal with it.

This is like someone trying to claim that black women are more prone to violence, so this is a reason to separate the restrooms black and white, and when someone points out that the chances of any woman attacking another in the bathroom, the person wanting the separation claiming "well I have a right to ensure the safety of my family in public restrooms even if it is statistically not likely for the thing I fear to happen".

 

[ludin]

Your opinion is as correct as mine.

Definition of judicial activism.
"Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.

shows that your opinion is not correct at all.

No one is talking about changing the Constitution. I am talking about using it. And I have already told you I do not support originalism. I support what Hamilton said about the Constitution:

that doesn't make Hamilton or you correct.
again they wrote that the constitution would need changed and provided a process for that to happen.

I can even cite you the amendment that allows for the constitution to be changed. anything outside of that process
is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

 

[ludin]

You don't get to "ensure their safety" over the rights of others. Deal with it.

actually I can. self-defense is very viable in all states.

This is like someone trying to claim that black women are more prone to violence, so this is a reason to separate the restrooms black and white, and when someone points out that the chances of any woman attacking another in the bathroom, the person wanting the separation claiming "well I have a right to ensure the safety of my family in public restrooms even if it is statistically not likely for the thing I fear to happen".

again another fallacy. do you actually have something other than fallacies or no?

if not then you have 0 argument. stop making stuff up and try actually presenting an argument for a change.
I know it is hard for you to do but you could at least try.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You calling them exceptions doesn't make it so. there have been women that have filed lawsuits against their companies for this.
there are more and more news stories out there where this is becoming a problem. it is only going to get worse.

No, they are exceptions. As I said, hundreds of transsexuals use the bathroom consistent with their identified gender without a problem. Your opinion that "it's going to get worse" has no basis.

No it isn't. it is saying that we told you that this was going to be huge problem and it is. it is getting worse and will continue to get worse
you ignored it and wrote it off as a non-issue. now it is become a public problem that women can't enter their bathrooms without having
men in there.

Incorrect. You saying it was going to be a huge problem is similar to chicken little's concern. The huge problem hasn't materialized. Exceptions have. Nothing more. And transsexuals have been going into women's bathrooms without incident of quite some time. I notice you ignore my analogy as it proves your position silly.

women at the gym or pool can't change their clothes or anything without men being in there.
businesses have no recourse. if they call the cops or ask the person to leave they will be sued.

Chicken little had similar concerns. Exceptions don't prove the rule.

this is what happens when you let the minority run amuck with no checks or when you try to make emotional feelings laws.
instead of using logic and reason.

Your complaints are what happens when people use exceptions to try to prove their own agenda, supporting authoritarianism or discrimination of the majority.

 

[ludin]

Reality

Judicial activism: When the court disagrees with me.

Judicial engagement: When the court agrees with me.

since I just provided the definition to this you would be wrong.

Definition of judicial activism.
"Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.

 

[roguenuke]

actually I can. self-defense is very viable in all states.

again another fallacy. do you actually have something other than fallacies or no?

if not then you have 0 argument. stop making stuff up and try actually presenting an argument for a change.
I know it is hard for you to do but you could at least try.

Self defense is only valid if there is a legitimate immediate threat, not simply because you fear someone might be a threat due to your preconceived beliefs or stereotypes or misconceptions.

 

[roguenuke]

since I just provided the definition to this you would be wrong.

Definition of judicial activism.
"Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.

The judges you are calling activists didn't legislate anything. They struck down laws as unconstitutional, as has been happening for 200+ years. Those laws are no longer enforceable.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Definition of judicial activism.
"Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.

shows that your opinion is not correct at all.

Since that's not how you are using it, it makes my definition accurate.

that doesn't make Hamilton or you correct.
again they wrote that the constitution would need changed and provided a process for that to happen.

I can even cite you the amendment that allows for the constitution to be changed. anything outside of that process
is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Doesn't make Hamilton or me wrong, either. Here's an example. The internet is covered by free speech. The Constitution doesn't mention the internet, SPECIFICALLY. Flag burning is covered by free speech. The Constitution doesn't mention flag burning, SPECIFICALLY. There is no need to amend the Constitution when the information is right there. It is not unconstitutional to use what is contained in the document.

 

[ludin]

No, they are exceptions. As I said, hundreds of transsexuals use the bathroom consistent with their identified gender without a problem. Your opinion that "it's going to get worse" has no basis.

no they are problems they are not just reported.

Incorrect. You saying it was going to be a huge problem is similar to chicken little's concern. The huge problem hasn't materialized. Exceptions have. Nothing more. And transsexuals have been going into women's bathrooms without incident of quite some time. I notice you ignore my analogy as it proves your position silly.

it is a huge issue and more parents and people are starting to complain about it. the grumbling will grow louder and as soon as an incident happens.
you will be the first one to complain. the fact is that it is going to escalate. the exception are not exception but proof.
no your analogy is what is silly.

Chicken little had similar concerns. Exceptions don't prove the rule.

it proves what we said would happen is happening.

Your complaints are what happens when people use exceptions to try to prove their own agenda, supporting authoritarianism or discrimination of the majority.

nope my complaints are what happens when you try and tell people and enforce your own agenda on the populace.
all these laws are agenda driven and they are creating a social mess not only for women but for businesses.

you are supporting authoritarianism of the minority.

 

[ludin]

Since that's not how you are using it, it makes my definition accurate.

that is exactly how I used it you can go and see my post and definition that I posted it is there in black and white.
so you are wrong.

Doesn't make Hamilton or me wrong, either. Here's an example. The internet is covered by free speech. The Constitution doesn't mention the internet, SPECIFICALLY. Flag burning is covered by free speech. The Constitution doesn't mention flag burning, SPECIFICALLY. There is no need to amend the Constitution when the information is right there. It is not unconstitutional to use what is contained in the document.

ahhh the old if it doesn't mention it fallacy.

it doesn't have to mention the internet. printed words are speech.
talking is speech. it doesn't have to mention the internet for it to apply.

this fallacy argument is old.

it is unconstitutional to use ideology to change the constitution to something that it doesn't say.
that is why we have the constitution amendment process.

 

[radcen]

since I just provided the definition to this you would be wrong.

Definition of judicial activism.
"Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.

:lol: You essentially prove my point. You confuse the official definition with the reality of how (most) people actually use the term.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

no they are problems they are not just reported.

ludin... do you know how weak that sounds? Come on. Basically, what you are saying is that "i say there are problems, I just can't prove it". This debate is going pretty good. Don't fall into dishonesty.

it is a huge issue and more parents and people are starting to complain about it. the grumbling will grow louder and as soon as an incident happens.
you will be the first one to complain. the fact is that it is going to escalate. the exception are not exception but proof.
no your analogy is what is silly.

My analogy is on target. And it's not a huge problem. Those who are complaining the loudest are folks who really don't understand the issue or anything about transsexuality. Transsexuals don't WANT to be seen as anything other than the gender of which they identify. They don't WANT to bring attention to this issue. You wouldn't have a clue if a real transsexual walked into a bathroom with you. They wouldn't want you to. Those who are complaining don't understand the issue at all and know nothing about transsexuals. All you are presenting are silly exceptions which don't apply to the population in general.

it proves what we said would happen is happening.

It proves their are exceptions. That's about it.

nope my complaints are what happens when you try and tell people and enforce your own agenda on the populace.
all these laws are agenda driven and they are creating a social mess not only for women but for businesses.

you are supporting authoritarianism of the minority.

Nope, these complaints are from people who are over reacting and who don't understand the issue. It's about the authoritarian and rigid majority trying to enforce this authoritarianism. That's what you are supporting, and you are doing it without really understanding the issue.