Cross dresser busted ~

[airportis]

How exactly will it make it easier for someone to dress as a woman, something they've always been able to do by the way, and abduct children? Tell me exactly what has changed? Are there currently people stationed at restrooms to do a gender check and background check to prevent that exact circumstance? What law, act, mandate, will be lifted to "make it easier" than it currently is?
You, my friend, are the one missing the point. To make an assertion or infer that the transgender law will have a direct effect on the number of abductions, you must have some type of knowledge or data to support the statement. What is that data, specifically? That's the point. So where is your proof? Just post that and I'll readily admit I was wrong. Will you do the same when you can't post any such data?
The problem is, this isn't going to happen and there is no data to support that it will alter or change anything that will "make it easier" or harder.
When I bring up priests or politicians, it's strictly to point out the folly of some misguided fear, and the fact that there are plenty of circumstances where a higher percentage of molestation actually does occur, yet there is no law in place to prevent them from access to children. I'm not seeing any posts of outrage or calls to legislate those groups. It's my feeling that most are using this argument, your argument, to veil their true feelings as they relate to trans people. See the difference between us is you don't care if there's proof to support your ridiculous statement. You just don't want the sicko fuckers around so you use this made up bullshit to veil it.

As far as everybody being sick of me or even you being sick of me than all you have to do is provide your facts establishing what exactly the law did to "make it easier" and I'll drop the matter. We both know there isn't any and your agenda isn't proof.

So the reasons for your sudden concern one; does not translate to or include actual child abduction hotbeds. That makes me question the true depth of your "concern".
Two; you have absolutely zero evidence or support to warrant your fear in the first place.

That is the point air-po. You are using a talking point to hide your intent and it's baseless. I have evidentiary support to back my position, so in theory I am correct and you're not.

That is not being on a high horse nor is it narcissistic, it's simply debate. A simple check of the chronological posts will show that I responded to your post directed to me, not vice versa. I did not diminish your thoughts or opinions at all until after you did exactly that to me. So go ahead and call me whatever the fuck you want and pretend you're the voice of the masses at madjacks. I don't care. I'm not the one standing on top of the hill citing false information while trying to discriminate against people I don't know and calling it parental concern when I've never been concerned about it before.

Hope this helps,
FDC


Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

I have no agenda. You on the other hand........


I don't care who gets married to who or who identifies as what. You can't grasp the very basic argument here that bad people will exploit this rule, so there is really no point even discussing it with you. You want data to confirm. yeah I'm sure that in the land of exploiters that we live in, nobody is going to take this and abuse the shit out of it.

You are just ridiculous and so hung up on your political agenda. Anyone that thinks this could have bad consequences is a bigot or whatever else you're spewing. Like others have said, your far left agenda is clear. Most on here are just voicing an obvious concern of this new rule where you take it to a whole different left wing liberal agenda.

 

[fatdaddycool]

I have no agenda. You on the other hand........


I don't care who gets married to who or who identifies as what. You can't grasp the very basic argument here that bad people will exploit this rule, so there is really no point even discussing it with you. You want data to confirm. yeah I'm sure that in the land of exploiters that we live in, nobody is going to take this and abuse the shit out of it.

You are just ridiculous and so hung up on your political agenda. Anyone that thinks this could have bad consequences is a bigot or whatever else you're spewing. Like others have said, your far left agenda is clear. Most on here are just voicing an obvious concern of this new rule where you take it to a whole different left wing liberal agenda.

See what I mean man. Seriously, get as mad as you want at me, but you keep using terms like "most of us here" yet only a very small number of posters compared to the whole have actually posted.
You said I "can't grasp the very basic argument". I have a complete understanding of your argument. It's you that cannot grasp my even more simple argument that your point, argument, no matter how basic is without merit, baseless, unfounded, unproven, and pure speculation by some, yourself included. If you had any information to back up your claims you'd have posted it.
"The land of exploiters"? Are you including yourself in that incredibly broad statement?
"Nobody is going to abuse the shit out of it. Roll eyes" You asserted that it would make it easier for people to abuse the shit of it. You even insinuated that it would increase instances and availability, and them double down with the "obvious concern" comment as if everybody in the entire world is on your side on this and this is the first thing that occurred to all of them when the news was announced. That simply isn't true. If you look at my very first post on this matter, a response to sixfive's comment about all agreeing, I stated there's nothing to agree or disagree about. It changes nothing. It never occurred to me that anything of the sort would be the result. Because it's absurd. Nothing has changed. The exact same number of people that live here and have or would try to molest a child in a public bathroom has not changed. The availability, opportunities, and punishments have not changed one iota. If anything it will probably increase parental vigilance in public restrooms, but I have no way of proving that so I don't proclaim it to be true and certainly not obvious as you never thought that.

The issue I do have with you is the political agenda bullshit. I don't appreciate you attempting to diminish my opinions by attributing my own personal beliefs with a political agenda. This has nothing to do with politics and certainly not my politics, you just assume, just like everything else, it to be. You're the one to start with political "left liberal" bullshit and you do it in an asinine attempt to diminish my position and opinions in any way you can. I don't just talk this shit and I couldn't give a single fuck if you believe it or not, I believe it. I might be a dick on here at times but I'm not toeing any party line. I said I think you're trying to veil you're true displeasure with the law. I think you believe that transgender people are sexually deviant or at least a bit fucked up. I also believe that fuels you're stance on the matter. You would never admit it but it's my belief anyway, not yours. It had nothing to do with my political leanings so quit trying to make it political. Just another assumption by you that's horribly inaccurate and it's bullshit. Regardless of what you think of me, you don't speak for me and certainly not for the "obvious" majority.


Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[fatdaddycool]

And keep in mind, you brought the argument forward saying that the law would bring an "obvious" result. It's your assertion, not mine. It's your responsibility to back it up, not mine

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[gardenweasel]

heres an example of some idiots taking advantage.....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/u...ampaign=benshapiro-share#.VwXOiCqc7wg.twitter

 

[fatdaddycool]

heres an example of some idiots taking advantage.....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/u...ampaign=benshapiro-share#.VwXOiCqc7wg.twitter

You're kidding, right? A college kid snuck into a residence hall community shower and tried to record a girl showering in a gender neutral shower room and that's somehow related to this?

You do realize as a RESULT of the incident they went to gender identified specific bathrooms. So if you identify a woman, regardless of how big your penis is, you use the women's restroom. So this incident is NOT representative of a sexual deviant molesting children in a gender identify restroom, you know, because it happened before they had them.
A gender neutral bathroom is not the same. You have gender neutral restrooms in your home for instance.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[airportis]

I think you believe that transgender people are sexually deviant or at least a bit fucked up. I also believe that fuels you're stance on the matter.

are you honestly this dumb or are you just fucking with me?

I am not going to reply to you again after this because you are clearly as thick headed as they come. this is like talking to a wall and no more key strokes will be wasted trying to explain a point of view to an egotistical narcissist who has tunnel vision only for his views and opinions.

to be very clear....

I do not have an issue with people being transgender or whatever else they want to be.

If you want to identify as something else, I do not care.

Identify as whatever the fuck you like.

I also have zero worries that trans or people identifying as a different gender are some sort of sexual deviants.

the main concern, as almost unanimously agreed upon, is for the twisted freaks out there who are NOT trans. a law like this certainly makes it more opportunistic to commit filthy acts.

but that is common sense. and apparently sometimes common sense is pushed aside as we are becoming more pussified and do not want to hurt someone elses feelings. I do not care about the politics of it. I do not care about the views people have of trans people. that is not the point.

the point is laws like this jeopardize the safety of far more people after the law than it were before. and that isnt a debate. that is fact.

if anyone else wishes to continues this argument against stubbornness, have at it, but I have had enough.

hope that helps. :0008

 

[IX_Bender]

Let the children use it
Let the children lose it
Let all the children boogie.


-DB

 

[fatdaddycool]

are you honestly this dumb or are you just fucking with me?

I am not going to reply to you again after this because you are clearly as thick headed as they come. this is like talking to a wall and no more key strokes will be wasted trying to explain a point of view to an egotistical narcissist who has tunnel vision only for his views and opinions.

to be very clear....

I do not have an issue with people being transgender or whatever else they want to be.

If you want to identify as something else, I do not care.

Identify as whatever the fuck you like.

I also have zero worries that trans or people identifying as a different gender are some sort of sexual deviants.

the main concern, as almost unanimously agreed upon, is for the twisted freaks out there who are NOT trans. a law like this certainly makes it more opportunistic to commit filthy acts.

but that is common sense. and apparently sometimes common sense is pushed aside as we are becoming more pussified and do not want to hurt someone elses feelings. I do not care about the politics of it. I do not care about the views people have of trans people. that is not the point.

the point is laws like this jeopardize the safety of far more people after the law than it were before. and that isnt a debate. that is fact.

if anyone else wishes to continues this argument against stubbornness, have at it, but I have had enough.

hope that helps. :0008

No it does not, it is not common sense, it does not jeopardize more people, or does not make it more opportunistic. It is not a fact. Facts are supportable, none of what you said is supported by a single damn thing.

You seem to think that you calling me stubborn or restating things you cannot possibly prove to be true, bringing up politics and asserting that my view is directly connected to a left liberal political agenda and then in the very next post claiming you don't care about politics all lend to the validity of your own personal feelings on the subject. Due to that we should all take your views as fact. Is that what you're trying to tell me?
I don't care if you don't answer, I wouldn't either if everything I said was in direct conflict of what I said in previous posts.

By the way, if it's "common sense", meaning the gross majority accepts it as valid, then why such the public backlash of canceled concerts, etc.... Seems not everyone thinks your views are factual at all.

Then again we both know they aren't remotely factual at all.

Hope that helps,
FDC

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[gardenweasel]

edit......f-ck it.....I`m pretty much done with this round of chicken-f-cking....:lol:

carry on gents....:facepalm:

 

[yyz]

heres an example of some idiots taking advantage.....

http://www.dailywire.com/news/330/u...ampaign=benshapiro-share#.VwXOiCqc7wg.twitter

Of course the University maintained it would not be so intolerant as to limit men and women to designated bathrooms. Instead, it is a ?temporary measure? to ?provide a safe space for the women who have been directly impacted by the incidents of voyeurism and other students who may feel more comfortable in a single gender washroom in the wake of these events.?

This makes perfect sense: some students are bigots and would prefer to not get naked in the presence of strangers of the opposite sex.


Just, WOW!

 

[Nose]

edit......f-ck it.....I`m pretty much done with this round of chicken-f-cking....:lol:

carry on gents....:facepalm:

Its always better the second time around!

 

[buddy]

Chris: "What's right for you is not right for me."
Pat: "Well, what's wrong for you is not wrong for me."
Chris: "You're evil."
Pat: "No, I'm good."
Chris: "You're evil and that's the truth!"
Pat: "No. I'm good and that's the truth."
Chris: "Are you male or female?"
Pat: "My name says it all."
Chris: "You look like a girl."
Pat: "I'm a starting linebacker."
Chris: "Can I take your picture?!"
Pat: "No!
Chris: "Why not?"
Pat: "That's not wise."
Chris: "Says who?"
Pat: "We're in a public restroom!"
Chris: "So?"
Pat: "It's not ethical."
Chris: "What does ethics have to do with anything?"
Pat: "Can we hold hands?"
Chris: "No. My boyfriend would get mad."
Pat: "Is your boyfriend male or female?"

 

[fatdaddycool]

Chris: "What's right for you is not right for me."
Pat: "Well, what's wrong for you is not wrong for me."
Chris: "You're evil."
Pat: "No, I'm good."
Chris: "You're evil and that's the truth!"
Pat: "No. I'm good and that's the truth."
Chris: "Are you male or female?"
Pat: "My name says it all."
Chris: "You look like a girl."
Pat: "I'm a starting linebacker."
Chris: "Can I take your picture?!"
Pat: "No!
Chris: "Why not?"
Pat: "That's not wise."
Chris: "Says who?"
Pat: "We're in a public restroom!"
Chris: "So?"
Pat: "It's not ethical."
Chris: "What does ethics have to do with anything?"
Pat: "Can we hold hands?"
Chris: "No. My boyfriend would get mad."
Pat: "Is your boyfriend male or female?"

Huh?

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[buddy]

Huh?

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

It's a brief summary of a classical narcissist trying to make a point with a transgender person.

 

[fatdaddycool]

It's a brief summary of a classical narcissist trying to make a point with a transgender person.

Classical as in a baroque period narcissist? Enlightenment narcissist?

Did you think of that all on your own? Am I supposed to be the Chris character? If so, you spelled my name wrong. Three hail Mary's should get you right with Yahweh again.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

 

[buddy]

Classical as in a baroque period narcissist? Enlightenment narcissist?

Did you think of that all on your own? Am I supposed to be the Chris character? If so, you spelled my name wrong. Three hail Mary's should get you right with Yahweh again.

Sent from my SM-G928P using Tapatalk

What makes you think you're either one?

Are you paranoid or just not getting as much attention
as you'd hoped?

(Don't bother to reply. The entire forum knows the answer.)

 

[yyz]

Classical as in a baroque period narcissist? Enlightenment narcissist?

Sometimes I want to throw your golf clubs in the pond, but I laughed at that one.

 

[MadJack]

Sometimes I want to throw your golf clubs in the pond, but I laughed at that one.

Seeing you throw his clubs in the pond would be MUCH funnier than him jumping in the pool. Oh man! :mj07::mj07:

 

[bleedingpurple]

the main concern, as almost unanimously agreed upon, is for the twisted freaks out there who are NOT trans. a law like this certainly makes it more opportunistic to commit filthy acts.

. :0008

Why would it? Non Trans people can already dress as a woman and enter a bathroom, I don't think the law would change that though process but maybe it would. I don't have facts

 

[shawn555]

What makes you think you're either one?

Are you paranoid or just not getting as much attention
as you'd hoped?

(Don't bother to reply. The entire forum knows the answer.)

Religion has rotted that tiny little mind of yours.