Author Topic: El Presidente Trump?  (Read 9632 times)

Offline Ferodaktyl

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1002
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #150 on: March 10, 2017, 01:42:40 PM »
there's a Trump topic just under this one, would you mind using that one instead of hijacking this topic ?

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #151 on: March 10, 2017, 02:51:23 PM »
Yeah, fair enough - I'll stay away from Trump here.

I was just stating that I don't see this changing with the submisive liberal dems and authoritarian anti terrorist right wing repubs that seem to be winning atm.

"submissive"?  Are you in the same reality I am?  "RESIST!"  This is the LEAST "submissive" opposition party in my lifetime!  Possibly in the history of this country!

Not to mention that they are far MORE authoritarian than the Republicans (who definitely have their moments, mind you).  They want to control of the freaking BATHROOMS, for goodness sake!  Can you give me ONE example of an area of life they don't want control over?  "Authoritarian" is probably the best single-word descriptor for the Democratic Party today.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline pisskop

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3616
  • Excitebike
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #152 on: March 10, 2017, 04:14:02 PM »
2sense

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #153 on: March 11, 2017, 03:39:02 AM »
Erm....You realise texas is the state trying to pass that law....Red state....Very theocratic and conservative outside of the capital and even in portions within it
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SJR0035
http://uk.businessinsider.com/texas-bathroom-bill-what-is-sb6-2017-3?r=US&IR=T
alot of repubs have a history of pro miliary and authoritarianism but you also call the dems protest of trump historic .....

In direct response to the federal government pressuring the states over the issue.  You're calling DEFENDING against authoritarianism authoritarian.  That's... special.

they denied all court nominations by obama until trump got into office

Yes they did - that's called the "Biden Rule", after Joe Biden (Obama's VP), who did it first, back in 1992.

and while the dems refused to enter senate this year the repubs did the same thing over obamacare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States if not worse

Yes, and "shut downs" have been brought about dozens of times, by both parties.  That's what happens when the parties strongly disagree, and which party is primarily to blame varies by the situation.  BOTH parties have been in the wrong on that point many times.  That's not a good example of "authoritarian", especially since Obamacare itself is a GREAT example of authoritarianism, and it passed ENTIRELY along party lines (the Dems for, the Reps against).

Still we are arguing over something that doesn't really matter as this doesn't effect the fact that neither party will really argue against the spying upon citizens of the US and other foreign nations, if they do it will get minimal support due to how pro-authoritarian both sides are atm....

Sadly, on that, I can agree.  :-(
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #154 on: March 12, 2017, 10:23:01 PM »
Erm....You realise texas is the state trying to pass that law....Red state....Very theocratic and conservative outside of the capital and even in portions within it
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SJR0035
http://uk.businessinsider.com/texas-bathroom-bill-what-is-sb6-2017-3?r=US&IR=T
alot of repubs have a history of pro miliary and authoritarianism but you also call the dems protest of trump historic .....

In direct response to the federal government pressuring the states over the issue.  You're calling DEFENDING against authoritarianism authoritarian.  That's... special.
Wait wut, how the fuck is me bitching about a republican backed bill against porn and prohibiting who can enter a bathroom pro authoritarian, I cannot even find a single bit of evidence to support these bills being created due to federal pressure.....

Then you haven't been paying anyattention to the US for the last couple of years - it's been used by one side of the political aisle to "rally the troops", so to speak, and by the other side to deride the obviously stupid and intolerant backwater hicks on the other.  Here, some links from one google search - took me longer to bloody cut-and-paste them than to find them:

Court blocks federal government’s ‘guidance’ on transgender bathrooms

Trump revokes Obama guidelines on transgender bathrooms

Basically, the Obama administration decided to push mandating in any way it could, that anyone could use whichever bathroom they "identified" as at the moment.  Obviously, this is open to ridiculous abuses (and the examples have been exactly as expected).  In short, the bill you listed as Republicans being "authoritarian" was in direct response to and as a defense AGAINST authoritarian behaviour from the federal government.

(I checked several links, and I have no idea where you are getting that the bill in question has anything to do with porn.)
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #155 on: March 13, 2017, 10:58:27 PM »
1.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2017/03/08/a-tennessee-legislators-anti-porn-resolution-is-irresponsible-and-ignorant/
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/03/06/porn-resolution-passes-tennessee-senate/98830004/

2.You just linked to a seperate issue, that was a revoking of a bill passed by obama that was flawed (primarily because it doesn't request diagnosis of gender dysmorphia) whilst I was talking about a texan bill about be passed that actively discriminates against those that ARE transgender by forcing them into a bathroom of their original gender on birthcert (bit more authoritarian) so read it again bitch
www.businessinsider.com/texas-bathroom-bill-what-is-sb6-2017-3?r=US&IR=T SB6 texas
Modeled after this VERY AUTHORITARIAN BILL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Facilities_Privacy_%26_Security_Act, Imagine being asked for identification to use the fucking jacks....In communist america you need your papers to use toilets

3.Man no need for the insults as you obviously didn't read into my statement not the other way around, plus I see where your coming from but you cannot deny that a large deal of the republican (and quite a bit democratic) candidacy doesn't give a shit about civilian rights or living standards, both parties are flawed as fuck

1. OK, since you mentioned Texas, I didn't notice that first link was about a totally different thing in a totally different state (Tennessee).  Now, I have checked the link, and I would point out two things about it: A) it passed UNANIMOUSLY, meaning that all the Democrats voted for it, too, so that's a terrible example of one party being authoritarian compared to the other, B) it doesn't actually DO anything other than express an opinion, making it not actually authoritarian at all, and thus completely unrelated to what we're discussing.

2.  No, that's exactly the topic that YOU linked to originally (the transgender bathroom issue).  Read your own point again "bitch".

Yes, flawed or not, it is indeed in direct response to the authoritarian behaviour of the Obama administration.  Also, while you may certainly claim that it is flawed (and IMO, most laws are, so you'll get no knee-jerk disagreement from me), the bill itself does not mention transgender at all ("read it again bitch"), and, if you care about intentions, is specifically designed to protect women and children from sexual predators who conveniently "identify" as women just to go in and commit crimes (and yes, there are examples of that).

The issue here is that such a bill (even a "better" version of the bill) was not needed, was not even THOUGHT about until the authoritarian impulse to control this stuff was inflicted by the Obama administration - as I said, this is a DEFENSIVE action.  "How dare you be so violent to that person who violently attacked you!"

Response bills are often the worst kind (by either side), drafted in a hurry, without enough time spent thinking about secondary effects.  That doesn't make it OK, mind you, but it does make it more understandable (again, from both sides) - hopefully, they will slow down and draft something more reasonable and well-thought-out.

3.  Both parties are indeed horrendously flawed, and few politicians of any stripe "give a shit about civilian rights or living standards".  No disagreement from me there.

I end up having to take the side of one party, because the policy positions of the other reduce directly and easily to socialism, which has the highest body count of any ideology in the history of mankind (and did so in the least time, too), but as soon as that party is destroyed, I'll be out to get rid of the party I am currently defending.  To put it another way, one party is a shameless thief, but the other is a serial murderer.  They're both terrible, but one is way worse than the other - as soon as the murderer is sent off to jail, I'll work on getting the thief put away, too.  I hold no illusions about the supposed good of the party I end up having to support.  It feels like crap, but the choice isn't hard.

(Of course, the hard part is that both parties KNOW that large chunks of their own faithful feel this way about them, so they often work together to make sure neither of them is really fully defeated.  Sick, but hey, if you have no conscience, it's makes sense...  This is why some people refer to them both as the "Uniparty".)
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #156 on: March 14, 2017, 01:07:44 AM »
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/SB00006I.pdf#navpanes=0
 XP primarily the update focuses on bathrooms rather than the child abuse support of the original, and yes pedophilic sexual predators exist that would pose as transgender however that is a minority of a minority, you would be better off preventing homosexuals or bisexuals like me from using the bathroom from statistic likelyhood.

Wow - that may well be the first time I've ever heard someone on "your side of the aisle" (as it were) admit what every bit of actual data tells us in regard to sexual predation.  Honestly, I think it is.  Thank you for that.  Really.

As to why one group and not another... well, honestly, society doesn't really much care about men (or boys, at least once they're old enough to be away from their mothers).  Society cares about women and "children", which is to say, girls of all ages and boys that are still in the "cute tiny child" stage.  The statistical threat from homosexuals against boys is simply not a priority.  Doesn't make it right, or anything, just the way it is.

And your right Authoritarian isn't a correct term for these bills however fascistic is,

"Fascistic" fits even less - in generic usage, that's basically a much more specific form of authoritarianism.  If "authoritarian" fits poorly, "fascistic" definitely doesn't fit.  Of course, at least on this side of the pond, it's primary usage is as a synonym for "poopy head that I don't like", so meh...

A better proposition is enable any with a diagnosis with gender dysmorphia to use the bathroom of their gender and have protection from this law/its abuse in court but guess what because of how half assed and one sided it is it primarily discrimiates against one group....Hey what do I know, bloody socialist Eurotrash

While I have reason to think that is also misguided*, if that was all the original push had been about, I doubt it would even have gotten any response, or very little, and almost certainly not enough to get bills like that getting any attention or traction.

* The primary way to deal with any form of dysmorphia is treatment, not everyone going along, and no, that's not some crazy right-wing crap, it's straight from the Mayo Clinic - you know, only one of the most highly respected and sought out medical institutions in the world, who've been dealing with this for decades before anyone else even paid attention to it.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #157 on: March 14, 2017, 06:43:52 AM »
Well I was refering to bathrooms in particular man x) non hetro's don't have higher pedophilia rate http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts%5Fmolestation.html, so in short fuck you too buddy

I read the entire article, even though I was already familiar with the particular line of reasoning used, and it can be summed up right here: "Cameron's claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals."

Basically, they simply define the problem away.  In clinical terms, they are certainly allowed to do as they like; yay for them.  In common parlance, a male who is sexually attracted to another male of any age is referred to as "homosexual" (or bisexual, of course).

In short, the evidence they lay out quite thoroughly confirms what they are claiming it denies: that is, sexual abuse of boys by men is disproportionately high.  In common parlance, the term used is "homosexual".

I can understand that this makes you angry.  Many facts in the world make me angry, but my anger does not change those facts.

Please note that I do not claim that homosexuals are "all" or "majority" or even "large minority" child sex predators.  Even the absolute worst numbers I can find (that have any basis in science at all - you can find anything you want if you don't care about that part) don't put the rate at more than triple the general population, which is to say, still quite small and not representative of the group as a whole.

However we want to phrase it transexuals exist and state based discrimination even if you do consider them mentally ill (to which I disagree severely) is appauling no matter the fucking case

I never denied that they exist, nor do I in any way support any form of "discrimination" against them.

Unfortunately, the facts of the world are that all policies are tradeoffs.  For an intentionally ridiculous example, we have made murder illegal and we punish murderers... this is "discrimination" against people who are genetically prone to violence!  However, in the interest of producing a society that does the least harm, we are willing to do some harm to those who wish to murder to save as many of the people who would be murdered as possible.

Yes, that example is ridiculous, but it illustrates that not all people can get what they want... but really, not all people can even get what is FAIR and RIGHT.  Policies must be balanced (as best as possible) to produce the FEWEST bad outcomes, and, in a society as large as ours, in no case is that number zero.

The number of people who are transsexual in any significant way (such as would matter for bathroom purposes) is WELL under 1% of the population.  It is quite possible (and indeed likely) that policies that produce the fewest bad outcomes for human beings of ALL kinds (as they are all equally valuable before the law) will leave such tiny groups with a disproportionate number of bad outcomes... but answer me this: how many non-trans people should have a bad outcome for each trans person who gets to avoid a bad outcome?  If all people are equal under the law (none are "more equal" than others), that answer must be no more than ONE (and the same the other way, of course!).

As with so many other points, certain minority groups are "more equal" and get more attention these days, which makes some people feel good about themselves... but only because they ignore the "normal" (or "majority" or whatever term you prefer) people they trample in the process.  Trampling three people to save one from being trampled is not justice, no matter which groups any of those four people belong to.

Note that I, in every case above, put EQUAL value on people of all kinds.  I don't really have to go "out of my way" to do that, because that's how I actually feel about stuff.

As such, insults based on claiming I am [whatever]-ist will not affect me in the slightest, other than to tell me you have no real argument, and calling me "too republican" is not far removed from that, really... in fact, the worst part of that insult is simply to associate me much with EITHER party, as my view of them both is quite poor; I ignore them entirely when it comes to determining morality, then look and see if either of them has anything like a moral position on the issues after the fact (and I'm usually disappointed with both of them).
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #158 on: March 25, 2017, 04:34:23 PM »
Nice analogy, comparing those that have a increased likelyhood to commit murder to those that have genetic predisposition towards a sexuality THIS IS WHY I SAID YOU WERE GETTING TOO REPUBLICAN

Just perhaps, you might have noticed that I did say that it was "intentionally ridiculous".  I'm taking the most extreme and ridiculous thing I can think of to make the point that people are restricted on things that they want or are even genetically compelled to do.  Society is a balancing act.

If I'm filling the role of "TOO REPUBLICAN" here, you are definitely fitting the role of "TOO DEMOCRAT" (meaning the party).  EVERYTHING must be taken as offensive, because any disagreement is clearly in bad faith... I can't have possibly done my absolute best to find the best data available and then looked at it honestly, because my conclusion is one that you don't like.

I accept that I may be wrong on things, which is why I put a lot of effort into actually CHECKING to see if I am right or wrong (and changing my position on things when I AM wrong, which happens less as time goes by with that attitude, but only "less" not "never").

Really because not all child molestation is done out of attraction and not only that but there are more heterosexual male pedophiles about 1:4 gay to hetero if you consider all male molestation gay from what I have read....this does increase the likelyhood amoungst homosexuals (not by much however) but it just wouldn't be practical to introduce a law with prejudice against close to 5% of the population (I have reformed my opinion a bit but not by much you still phrased it like a dick)

I didn't suggest or support any law on the subject.  It was incidental to our discussion about other things here.

As to phrasing... I've given up on phrasing.  Someone will take offense however I phrase it, often because they don't like the content but don't have the data or knowledge to challenge the content, so "phrasing" can be substituted.  That said, I don't AIM to be a "dick", so if that offense is genuine, then I apologize.

I am sorry but IN WHAT FUCKING WAY is this bill practical or even minimalizing those affected, barely any of the standard population would even know if a transgender was enabled to take a piss ?????, transgenders would be 0.001% of the population but the number of those with pedophilic attraction one would imagine would be in the 3-1% of that (Of which 35-50% of which attempt suicide so......oh and ftm tgs would be forced into female bathrooms which I can imagine going well x))

I never said this particular bill was practical or even good.  In fact, I pointed out that bills in REACTION to something are often fairly poor in actual execution.

The point is that, as you mentioned, for years, a true transgender person could use whichever bathroom they wanted, and nobody would know the difference... no intrusion from the federal government was NEEDED!

Now, a rapist or other sexual abuser can throw on a wig, claim they identify as a woman (at least for the moment), and go into the women's bathroom.  THAT kind of crap is what this is in response to.

Much of society is a (fairly difficult) balancing act, trying to produce the fewest bad outcomes.  A giant shove in any particular direction tends to throw MANY things badly out of balance for a significant period of time, producing many MORE bad outcomes than the claimed problem ever did.  Only the most extreme situations warrant such behaviour, and honestly, I can't think of the last time such action was warranted by the government when the government itself was not part of the problem.

Most recent example: the Civil Rights movement.  The actions of some state governments were indeed terrible, and action on the part of the federal government to correct it were indeed justified... but even then, they went WAY WAY too far, taking on phenomenal powers over private individuals that we still suffer from today.  THAT is the sort of bad side effects we get when taking such strong and immediate actions, even for a justified cause.

This bathroom thing?  It doesn't get anywhere CLOSE - it was entirely political grandstanding and virtue signaling, and the actual real-world results were irrelevant to the people doing it.  The right and proper response of sane state governments is to tell them to go away.

Sadly, but realistically, that response will not well-designed and carefully thought through... it will, by the very nature of it, be rushed and almost certainly done poorly.  I hate that - bad bills need to be replaced by good bills, preferably before being enacted, but honestly, it usually comes later in cases like this (from either side), meaning that sometimes, bad bills get left in place for significant periods of time (again, both sides do this in "reaction" situations).

That doesn't mean I think the bad bills are a good idea, but I do place the blame for them primarily in those who unreasonably created the situation being reacted to.

For another fairly extreme example, if someone breaks into my home in the night and I shoot and kill them, well, I don't like that, and if they were just at the wrong house and drunk, then it's even more of a tragedy... but that doesn't mean that I am to blame, or even I did anything morally wrong - my response was justified, even if imperfect.

Where that particular analogy fails is that, in the case of the person breaking into my house, they bear the primary consequences, with me only bearing secondary ones (like feeling some level of guilt, even if it was fully justified).  In the case of laws/regulations and counter-laws/regulations, the people inflicting both sets (initial and response) are seldom the ones who bear the consequences of the laws/regulations in question, so they tend to not take nearly enough care (again, on either side of the aisle, and as either instigator or response).

As such, I place the primary blame for such situations, even the primary blame for the lousy bills in response (and they often are), on the party that instigated the mess.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline Adragis029

  • NPC
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Mutant Mutant
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #159 on: May 15, 2017, 09:41:07 AM »
Then WHY EVEN BRING UP THAT RETARDED COMPARISON and yes society is a balancing act but I believed that we had gotten beyond prejudice based on sexuality a long time ago, I understand the analogy but it has very little significance to the discussion we were having as my argumentation was that they should be treated like any other women with verification that they are female so I would imagine that you were in the wrong in that circumstance IN THE DEFENDING OF A RETARDED TRANSPHOBIC LAW, that will probably never be reformed as long as corporate backed theocons remain in power

For someone claiming the moral progressive high ground, you certainly use the word 'retarded' a lot.

Offline Kevin Granade

  • Administrator
  • Survivor
  • *****
  • Posts: 5588
  • I code dead people.
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #160 on: May 15, 2017, 05:32:42 PM »
Pejorative such as "retard" and "fag", are not allowed on this forum, stop using them.
Its like a fun family cookout, except your family is burning in flames while trying to eat you. -secretfire
I'm more excited than a survivor on meth and toast'ems. -Nighthawk
The the giant wasp is slammed through the zombie brute!

Offline pisskop

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3616
  • Excitebike
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #161 on: May 15, 2017, 06:49:21 PM »
Let us be of the returning to the Trumpster and discussing his behaviors.

Trump has done, for instancing, the thing where he has stayed far, far away from the topic of bathrooms, locker rooms, and homosexuality.
      Hey, remember that Pence is the posterboy for conservative Christianity?  Why it was just 6 months ago I was told that some homosexuals I internet-know were more afraid of him than Trump, and that my not supporting HC was not supporting them.

I, of course, told them it was the nonsenses to equate supporting 'not HC' to actively disavowing the homosexuals and others of the ever-broadening LGBT community.


But, I have yet to see Tman make any major move to oust many of the groups that conservatives are commonly stereotyped to hate or dislike or *shivers* "fear'.


My expectations of Trump's performance have been ... altered by his repeated displayed sub-optimal ability to discretely move his pieces around the board, however I firmly believe that I and America have made the better choice in the last election cycle.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #162 on: May 15, 2017, 07:23:58 PM »
Oh and if I was such a offended snowflake I wouldn't even entertain the idea of argumentation (like my current GF) but it's simply the fact that you were spouting bullshit that is propagated by theo conservatives across the globe that made me not want to argue about this (such as the bullshit issue you had with body dismorhia treatment you brought up)

The "simple fact" of the matter is that, unless you are on a different topic, the "bullshit" I was spouting was supported by the link you claimed disproved it, and when I pointed that out, you seemed to realize it.  Maybe go back and read that part again?

Quote
Just perhaps, you might have noticed that I did say that it was "intentionally ridiculous".  I'm taking the most extreme and ridiculous thing I can think of to make the point that people are restricted on things that they want or are even genetically compelled to do.  Society is a balancing act.

Then WHY EVEN BRING UP THAT RETARDED COMPARISON and yes society is a balancing act but I believed that we had gotten beyond prejudice based on sexuality a long time ago, I understand the analogy but it has very little significance to the discussion we were having as my argumentation was that they should be treated like any other women with verification that they are female so I would imagine that you were in the wrong in that circumstance IN THE DEFENDING OF A RETARDED TRANSPHOBIC LAW, that will probably never be reformed as long as corporate backed theocons remain in power

Ever heard the story supposedly about Churchill asking a woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds?  She eventually, citing all the good she could do with the money, says she would.  When he then asks her is she would sleep with him for five pounds, she takes offense, and says, "What kind of woman do you think I am?!?"  His response: "We've already established that, we're just arguing over price."

When something is not absolute, the way to prove something is not absolute is to give an exception to the supposed rule.  "Because I want it" or "because I need it for my own personal happiness" or NOT sufficient reasons for everything, and I can point that out by pointing out a condition where we ALL agree that those reasons are insufficient: "I need to murder you for my own personal happiness" is NOT a sufficient reason!  In fact, it's so ridiculous that you have taken offense at it... but it does make the point.  That was the ONLY point - no other comparison was intended, nor do I think (especially with the given disclaimer about "intentionally ridiculous") it was even implied.

Also, I have repeatedly and explicitly NOT defended that particular law.  In fact, I have said repeatedly that it's probably a bad law, and I've given reasons for why I would expect that due to the circumstances, even without reading it.  All I have defended is the need for *A* law that deals with the situation.

The repeated personal attacks on me make the point, I think.  I have argued logically and soundly, and you have responded with invective and ad hominem.  You have lost the argument, if indeed you can be said to have participated at all in any meaningful sense.

As I stated earlier in the thread: "I can't have possibly done my absolute best to find the best data available and then looked at it honestly, because my conclusion is one that you don't like."  So, therefore, clearly, I am _____-ist.  You can't really say WHY, logically, but it MUST be so.  BECAUSE SHUT UP, YOU ____IST!

But, I have yet to see Tman make any major move to oust many of the groups that conservatives are commonly stereotyped to hate or dislike or *shivers* "fear'.

In part, that's because, on the whole, those stereotypes are largely lies, perpetuated for political reasons.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread: "It is quite possible (and indeed likely) that policies that produce the fewest bad outcomes for human beings of ALL kinds (as they are all equally valuable before the law) will leave such tiny groups with a disproportionate number of bad outcomes... but answer me this: how many non-trans people should have a bad outcome for each trans person who gets to avoid a bad outcome?  If all people are equal under the law (none are "more equal" than others), that answer must be no more than ONE (and the same the other way, of course!)."

In modern politics NOT discriminating in favor the "correct" groups is called prejudice.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline Noctifer

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2832
  • Evening Star
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #163 on: May 16, 2017, 12:22:03 AM »
So I come here to see what kind of discussion is going on her since it seems to be constantly updated just to find out its a bunch of fedora tipping...
(click to show/hide)
May mother Venus guide us all!

...Noctifer's incredibly loot bloated Survivor Emcampments™...

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #164 on: May 17, 2017, 04:03:26 AM »
So I come here to see what kind of discussion is going on her since it seems to be constantly updated just to find out its a bunch of fedora tipping...

Well, it did sit idle for several weeks, but congrats on the most gratuitous insult of the thread.  That's actually quite an accomplishment for this thread, too...

There were actually several pages of mostly decent discussion before the more recent descent into poo-flinging and outright lies.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.