Previous  1  2  3  4  5

I see no point in terrifying the girls in this story:

Man strips in front of girls in locker room, says transgender law allows it

to convenience the tiny minority of biological males who might prefer to use a women's wash or change room.

As these types of stories appear and they will appear if you and yours succeed in changing a law that doesn't need changing you are inconveniencing the majority with a discomfort more reasoned and larger whatever discomfort the tiny minority you want to pander to may have been experiencing.

That's the problem with the Progressive agenda in general. It can be about creating societal chaos for the majority by over-valuing perceived or invented minor nonsense complaints for minorities.

Your argument amounts to this:

Child sexually assaulted at park:

Why are we building more parks? We are just making it easier for predators. We never had these problems when we had 3 parks, now there is a sex assault at the forth. We should have maintained the status quo, it is the urban planners who are to blame for all this...

No that's a bad analogy. That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is there are parks. There are laws governing standards that protect the convenience of the many. Don't change those laws unless you can show the common sense of that law no longer makes sense.

You mentioned the North Carolina law.

As I understand it the city of Charlotte wanted to change it's law to allow biological men to use women's washrooms. The state passed a law forbidding such municipal law changes. The state, as was their right, chose to maintain the status quo, and protect the rights of the many over the pouts of the few.

This one's from a newspaper that seems to favor the Progressive agenda. So it's fair.

Criminals are responsible for their own criminality. It is a failing effort to try to scumbag proof your entire society.
Laws are written to protect the rights of individuals. Criminals will always attempt to exploit laws to their benifit.

We can not try to presume to understand the ways in which criminals will attempt to undermine our laws but it is sufficient to say that we also have laws protecting us from them.

You are trying to argue that restricting access to washrooms will somehow keep everyone safer. It is total BS. Lets face the fact that if a drag queen walks into the wrong mens washroom, they could be in far more danger than any child would be if they walk into a ladies room.

You ignore the obvious danger in light of the obscure danger because of your innate hatred of all things different. No one really cares about your feelings though.

There are criminals. There are laws that have been developed over time to maintain the standard of protection from criminals.

If a majority demographic is finding the law as it exists provides greater protection than the law the way a minority would like to change it then nothing is broke. Don't fix it. Unless, of course, you can provide a common sense reason the comforts of the few should over-rule the rights of the many to feel safe.

You can't though. This isn't slavery. It's a tiny minority of biological men who might prefer to use women's washrooms.

I feel required to quote myself.

You are citing 3 or 4 cases as the entire basis of your argument to make life difficult for thousands of people. I would say you are the one courting the minority. An extremely slim one.

Oh God those damn Progressives again, denying me the right to keep slaves, beat the wife and go out fag bashing on Saturday nite!

This unisex/gender-neutral washroom trend hasn't been around long enough yet for it to be comprehensively determined if it's generating a positive or negative result. Until that happens anecdotal evidence of both bad and good incidents are all there it to judge it by.

Solution:

"I'll piss on the seat, teach those filthy faggots to piss where they're told."

Previous  1  2  3  4  5