Placating Transgenders

[QuickHitCurepon]

As I said, your version of “tolerance” is not a virtue, and has no place in a free or viable society.

Tolerance is ALWAYS one of the greatest virtues, if seen properly. I agree, liberals misuse it to the nth degree. Nonetheless, used properly, it is one of the cornerstones of a good character and a good attitude.

Tolerance of evil is not a virtue.

Tolerance of perversion is not a virtue.

Tolerance of madness is not a virtue.

And when you wrong-wing LIbErals speak of tolerance, that's what you mean by it. When it comes to that which is most worthy and deserving of genuine tolerance, you and your kind of the most intolerant of all.

By definition, a virtue contains none of those. Certainly not madness, perversion or evil.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

By definition, a virtue contains none of those. Certainly not madness, perversion or evil.

And yet that is what your version of “tolerance” is all about; which supports my point that “tolerance” of the sort which you proclaim, is no virtue at all.

 

[Boss]

I don't have to. Crimes are only actionable when they are reported. I can walk into any women's dressing room and if no one complains or objects, there is no action taken. Here's how this works... you have a penis and you're in a women's room and a woman sees your penis, they report you to the authorities and have you arrested for indecent exposure. You could also be charged for trespassing after a warning. The sign on the door said "women" and you're not permitted there.

What if a hermaphrodite were heavily on her period and needed to change tampons. As you say, he or she has a penis and should only go into the men's room. Now, would you want a hermaphrodite, who has a heavy period, changing tampons in a men's room stall?

As a chivalrous male, I don't mind whatever in my restroom. I'll put up with whatever disgusting thing I need to in order to make restrooms safe for my daughter, wife, girlfriend, mother, etc. I would rather risk seeing a hermaphrodite's bloody tampons than my young daughter seeing a tranny penis. And I think I speak for most fathers, husbands, boyfriends and sons in America.

 

[Boss]

How would you tell an implanted male from a hermaphrodite? Again, study your OWN thread.

I don't have to. Crimes are only actionable when they are reported. I can walk into any women's dressing room and if no one complains or objects, there is no action taken. Here's how this works... you have a penis and you're in a women's room and a woman sees your penis, they report you to the authorities and have you arrested for indecent exposure. You could also be charged for trespassing after a warning. The sign on the door said "women" and you're not permitted there.

There is no need to have someone sitting at the door checking your genitalia before entering any more than we have a police officer sitting in the parking lot of your local bar checking everyone's intoxication before driving their cars. You might get away with it... no one may notice... you may be a tranny who can pull off looking like a woman.... I may be a drunk who can pull of driving like I'm sober.

That's a red herring.

You don't know what a "red herring" is.

That's actually what YOU did. Whenever you resort to examples of hermaphrodites, that's implementing something misleading in order to distract from the argument.

What I did was filet your red herring, season it up with Boss' special blend of secret herbs and spices, deep fried it and served it back to you on a platter with a side-order of biting sarcastic analogy to accentuate, yet subdue, the gaminess of your red herring's own succulent stupid juices.

 

[Boss]

Tolerance is one of the most vital concepts in our society.

Again... Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance.

One of the qualities of tolerance is without a doubt, acceptance. However, there is infinitely more, to having true tolerance.

It simply is not a quality of tolerance or related to tolerance. In fact "acceptance" negates a need for tolerance. Tolerance can only logically apply to things you don't accept. That's exactly what the word itself means. Something is happening that you cannot accept but... you refrain from confrontation or action over it. So we see when you actually look at what the words mean, tolerance has nothing to do with acceptance other than being the alternative of it as opposed to violent non-tolerance.

Some good examples of "tolerance" to me, would be the Kaepernick thing... Both in the "tolerance" of standing with respect for the national anthem with fellow Americans who share that attribute together above all our differences and views.... and those who want to make a political statement. Some of us simply have to tolerate that we are inundated with stupid people who want to believe their own delusional nonsense, and we just have to put up with them having the voice of freedom to express themselves.

Tolerance is also found on both sides of the Confederate Flag stink. It's tolerant to respect that the flag has some relevant and important historic significance and should be preserved as a icon of the era and not distorted into some vulgar modern reincarnation. It's also tolerant to understand the visual imagery of that symbol is hurtful and offensive to many black Americans, Tolerance cuts both ways and that is sort of the good thing about tolerance and why it's important in our society.

It's not acceptance.

 

[JoeB131]

Now the PC crowd thinks we should all just accept these people for who they are and it's cruel and intolerant to speak out against their chosen lifestyle. But we don't apply this standard to everyone. Obviously, there are certain behaviors we don't accept as a society. Pedophiles aren't allowed to indulge in who they are. Necrophiliacs aren't allowed to do so. People who like having sex with animals aren't allowed to live how they please. We draw all kinds of arbitrary lines at what is acceptable behavior.

well, those aren't "arbitrary lines", guy. Children, corpse and animals can't consent to relationships, therefore having sex with them is unacceptable.

A dude in a dress, while it might freak you out, isn't really hurting anyone.

 

[JoeB131]

No... it's being made into public policy all across the nation. My problem is there is a LACK of conversation.... we're NOT having one. There's no conversation because the PC Police shut it down and holler BIGOT!

Well, probably because the first thing that comes out of your piehole sounds bigoted...

Okay, tell me in simple terms, why the mean old crossdresser is making your sad life nexxt to the toxic waste dump unhappy, Cleetus.

 

[rcfieldz]

When will there be a Transgender Basketball League? I have an idea who could start one.

 

[AZGAL]

"A dude in a dress, while it might freak you out, isn't really hurting anyone." ITS IGNORANT STATEMENTS LIKE THIS THAT KEEP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS OPEN AND POLICE HAVING TO KEEP TAKING REPORTS OF SEX OFFENDERS MOLESTING INNOCENT GIRLS. a whole lot of denial about the struggles of women, girls, parents, etc in order to justify the "t" value added to the never ending letter game. I stop at LGB.

 

[Boss]

A dude in a dress, while it might freak you out, isn't really hurting anyone.

It doesn't freak me out and no one is trying to pass any law against it or expressing any opposition to it. This is about dudes in dresses using public restrooms designated for women. What you've done is jump to a conclusion... probably because your own personal view is what you insinuate mine to be.

well, those aren't "arbitrary lines", guy. Children, corpse and animals can't consent to relationships, therefore having sex with them is unacceptable.

But "consent" is just an arbitrary and subjective word that we define. For instance, children's age of consent is different in every state. Animals don't consent to sexual relationships in nature. You have no idea what a corpse may have consented to before they died. Birth date has nothing to do with mental capacity or maturity levels, things that are important in making any informed consent. It's simply an arbitrary line in the sand which, ironically, was drawn there by religious people based on their moralistic attitudes.

So just the very idea that "laws of consent" are some kind of protection against your sick and perverted progressive social agenda is laughable.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

By definition, a virtue contains none of those. Certainly not madness, perversion or evil.

And yet that is what your version of “tolerance” is all about; which supports my point that “tolerance” of the sort which you proclaim, is no virtue at all.

No, you seem to perfectly contradict me every time. My feelings about "tolerance" are based in non-condemnation. Because it does not take long for intolerance to turn to condemnation. There is nothing more vile than condemnation.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My feelings about "tolerance" are based in non-condemnation. Because it does not take long for intolerance to turn to condemnation. There is nothing more vile than condemnation.

I very much disagree. Some things need to be condemned, and refraining from doing so is not virtuous.

Evil should be condemned.

Perversion should be condemned.

Disorder should be condemned.

Madness should be condemned.

In saying that “There is nothing more vile than condemnation”, you are, yourself, condemning condemnation; demonstrating the hypocrisy and doublethink that is inherent in your position.

And, ignoring that, it's a silly position anyway. Anyone with any sense of right and wrong has to recognize that however vile you might be able to claim condemnation to be, there are much viler things.

Murder is viler than condemnation.

Sexual assault is viler than condemnation.

Theft is viler than condemnation.

Homosexual behavior is viler than condemnation.

Drug abuse is viler than condemnation.

I could go on and on and on, enumerating all manner of evils, that to anyone with any vestige of a conscience, are clearly much more vile than condemnation.

 

[Boss]

We're off in the weeds talking about "condemnation" because QuickDerp is having vocabulary problems. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance... that's the point that was challenged and failed to be refuted... now we've moved goal posts. Typical of any progressive.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We're off in the weeds talking about "condemnation" because QuickDerp is having vocabulary problems. Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance... that's the point that was challenged and failed to be refuted... now we've moved goal posts. Typical of any progressive.

I do not think we are looking at a semantic deficiency, other than as a smokescreen to cover what, at its root, is an abject lack of conscience—a willful refusal to distinguish between good and evil.

 

[Boss]

I do not think we are looking at a semantic deficiency, other than as a smokescreen to cover what, at its root, is an abject lack of conscience—a willful refusal to distinguish between good and evil.

It's designed to cover a lack of basic intelligence, in my opinion.

 

[AZGAL]

lgbtqabcdefghijklmnop.....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I do not think we are looking at a semantic deficiency, other than as a smokescreen to cover what, at its root, is an abject lack of conscience—a willful refusal to distinguish between good and evil.

It's designed to cover a lack of basic intelligence, in my opinion.

Not so much intelligence, I think, as morals and ethics.

 

[AZGAL]

 

[AZGAL]

 

[AZGAL]