This is why men shouldn't be allowed in women's changing rooms.

[hoorta]

Those Catholic priests were not molesting boys in the girl's room, they were molesting them in the BOYS room. Boys in the men's room, girls in the women's room.

 

As the good Lord intended.

 

Yup- and us Catholics have a lot to live down over that one. Never could figure out why they didn't just change clothes and hire a hooker. Easy targets I guess.

 

I was at a bar in Toledo once and some fat bald guy with a wig in full drag and lipstick came in and pissed next to me.

 

I only know he had a wig because he/she was dancing and it fell off.

 

I don't particularly care where he pisses though, tbh. Didn't bother me any. But I guess that's at a bar - I really wouldn't have wanted that guy in the same bathroom as my daughter alone (if I had one)

 

I've seen real girls puking or pissing in men's room at bars because the women's room had a long line - that doesn't seem to bother anybody.

 

Ditto. I've seen women diving into a men's bathroom during a concert to use one of the stalls to save themselves from peeing their pants. I do understand that one.

[MLD Woody]

 

And you want to say it doesn't exist? Us older guys like me & Cal would beg to differ. If you want to say it's a fallacy- prove it if you can.

 

I think what Cal was trying to say- is if you don't have any boundaries on sexual behavior- there really aren't any on violence. Oh, it's against the law? Well until very recently so was Gay marriage. 0.002% think it's OK to shoot former co workers because you got fired, or starting with Columbine- to Sandy Hook shooting up schools- because you can.

 

I don't want to wear my religion on my sleeve- but compared to the 60s, the moral fabric of this country is coming apart. Of course if you happen to be agnostic or atheist- that wouldn't bother you much. Just hope some aggrieved whack job with a gun doesn't blow your head off for no reason.

 

Alright, you seem like a good guy. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and engage in a conversation with you. It's usually hit and miss from that side on this board (mostly miss), so this is doesn't always happen. Let's see how it goes.

 

 

Your first paragraph, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you want me to prove that a slippery slope is a logical fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope There's some more info. Your argument is that if we don't draw a line on the bathroom thing now, there will be no lines and we'll have total anarchy. You don't think you're taking some big steps there? Do you see how that isn't a legitimate argument?

 

How is this removing all boundaries on sexual behavior? How would that remove all boundaries on violence? You have to see how you're making a lot of leaps here with nothing to back them up other than "we're old", right? Did you just link the acceptance of gay marriage to Columbine and Sandy Hook? You have to be joking...

 

Yes, and I'm sure being a straight, white, christian male in the 1960s was pretty sweet. Of course, that doesn't account for the majority of people in this country. Your nostalgia for your own particular life back in the 60s isn't an argument to never change anything. What about people in the 60s? They might have liked it better when women couldn't vote. Would that be alright with you? Are you saying that because we aren't as Christian of a country anymore (even though we're still very, very much Christian), it is causing random acts of violence? Did those never occur in the 60s?

[calfoxwc]

[One Post]

I was at a bar in Toledo once and some fat bald guy with a wig in full drag and lipstick came in and pissed next to me.

I only know he had a wig because he/she was dancing and it fell off.

I don't particularly care where he pisses though, tbh. Didn't bother me any. But I guess that's at a bar - I really wouldn't have wanted that guy in the same bathroom as my daughter alone (if I had one)

I've seen real girls puking or pissing in men's room at bars because the women's room had a long line - that doesn't seem to bother anybody.

I've been at a bar just outside Toledo. It was called the Wagonwheel. Don't know if anyone's heard of it or if it still exist. It's by all the truckstops over there.

[hoorta]

 

Alright, you seem like a good guy. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and engage in a conversation with you. It's usually hit and miss from that side on this board (mostly miss), so this is doesn't always happen. Let's see how it goes.

 

 

Your first paragraph, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you want me to prove that a slippery slope is a logical fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope There's some more info. Your argument is that if we don't draw a line on the bathroom thing now, there will be no lines and we'll have total anarchy. You don't think you're taking some big steps there? Do you see how that isn't a legitimate argument?

 

How is this removing all boundaries on sexual behavior?

 

OK, I can't predict the future, but actions do have consequences. I can tell you one thing Woody from my trips out in the mountains- it's very possible to start an avalanche rolling one boulder off the top of a mountain. There's also loose gravel called scree- put it on a steep enough slope, and you can slide a long way down on it without moving a muscle. So yup, I know a thing or two about real world slippery slopes in nature. Now does that have any relation to human nature? You can certainly say no way Jose. As Bill Bellichick said "I can only go by what I see." My much longer than your perspective about things says that's certainly happening.

 

You're making the assumption society will eventually set limits on what (sexual)behavior is acceptable. With one or two exceptions, I haven't seen that happen yet. The envelope is constantly getting pushed.

 

If you think it's OK- your prerogative. I don't & I'll leave it at that.

[MLD Woody]

 

OK, I can't predict the future, but actions do have consequences. I can tell you one thing Woody from my trips out in the mountains- it's very possible to start an avalanche rolling one boulder off the top of a mountain. There's also loose gravel called scree- put it on a steep enough slope, and you can slide a long way down on it without moving a muscle. So yup, I know a thing or two about real world slippery slopes in nature. Now does that have any relation to human nature? You can certainly say no way Jose. As Bill Bellichick said "I can only go by what I see." My much longer than your perspective about things says that's certainly happening.

 

You're making the assumption society will eventually set limits on what (sexual)behavior is acceptable. With one or two exceptions, I haven't seen that happen yet. The envelope is constantly getting pushed.

 

If you think it's OK- your prerogative. I don't & I'll leave it at that.

Well, I have nothing to post that will change you're mind. You're basing your beliefs on "I'm old", avalanches and the fact that things change...

 

If you can't see the differences between what we're talking about here and total anarchy, it's a lost cause.

 

Though I am sure there were people making the same arguments when we let women vote and interracial couples marry. The horror.

[calfoxwc]

In other words, woodypeckerhead, you don't have a legit answer to defend

your position, as most always, and you run and hide behind

 

"oh, it's no use because you are older, and I'm a victim"

 

and "I just proved my point...haha"

 

your opinions are so ignorant and birdbrainish you can't legitimately defend them to anybody

you "disagree with" on this board.

[MLD Woody]

You're missing the point Cal. I'm not being given anything to defend against. I need an actual argument to be made for me to produce a counter argument.

[calfoxwc]

excuses from the birdbrain woodpecker.

 

you can't explain your side, and you blame it

on the other side...not being the right side.......

 

egad, you are a woodypeckerhead.

 

[Clevfan4life]

I can stomach a lot of ideas, opinions, points/counterpoints......but linking the acceptance of individuals to marry who they please and a society saying fuck it shoot who you want on the street, I mean c'mon people. You have to be better humans than that. Something else is speaking through you if you're really of that opinion. You're basically infected.

[calfoxwc]

 

OK, I can't predict the future, but actions do have consequences. I can tell you one thing Woody from my trips out in the mountains- it's very possible to start an avalanche rolling one boulder off the top of a mountain. There's also loose gravel called scree- put it on a steep enough slope, and you can slide a long way down on it without moving a muscle. So yup, I know a thing or two about real world slippery slopes in nature. Now does that have any relation to human nature? You can certainly say no way Jose. As Bill Bellichick said "I can only go by what I see." My much longer than your perspective about things says that's certainly happening.

 

You're making the assumption society will eventually set limits on what (sexual)behavior is acceptable. With one or two exceptions, I haven't seen that happen yet. The envelope is constantly getting pushed.

 

If you think it's OK- your prerogative. I don't & I'll leave it at that.

exactly.

[gftChris]

 

You're making the assumption society will eventually set limits on what (sexual)behavior is acceptable. With one or two exceptions, I haven't seen that happen yet. The envelope is constantly getting pushed.

 

 

Well I disagree. The limit is set at consent and majority, by and large. If two people want to have sex, and are of appropriate age, who cares? If someone wants to have sex with someone or something that cannot consent (necrophilia and bestiality are the two go-to's for the gay slippery slope), then it's a whole different ball game.

 

The envelope isn't really being pushed, just re-opened after it was closed by the church, when the church (in the west) started acting as de facto lawmakers. Now legal systems are becoming secular, it doesn't matter what your religion says.

[calfoxwc]

I'm not reading the garbage, but it is what it is......

slippery slope is exactly what it is. To no end, no limits, no responsiblity/accountability -

pushing society into not being a society.

 

Debate Argument: Legalize Bestiality | Debate.org

www.debate.org/debates/Legalize-Bestiality/1

Explore the pros and cons of the debate Legalize Bestiality

[hoorta]

Well, I have nothing to post that will change you're mind. You're basing your beliefs on "I'm old", avalanches and the fact that things change...

 

If you can't see the differences between what we're talking about here and total anarchy, it's a lost cause.

 

Though I am sure there were people making the same arguments when we let women vote and interracial couples marry. The horror.

 

Yup- things change, and not necessarily for the better. Notice this progression? 1024> 512> 256> 128> 64> 32> 16> 8> 4> 2> 1. The last time I looked, women make up roughly 50% of the population.

 

The number I found for transgender is 0.3%, around 3\1,000. So, let me give you a little background on moi. I worked in a hospital laboratory for around 40 years. When you're establishing normals for any parameter (I'll pick calcium as an example) you test a bunch of healthy (and maybe unhealthy individuals) and come up with a plot of what you're seeing- and it looks like this: < ± 1 standard deviation from the mean (normal) > 1 SD, >2 SD, >3 SD. Hate to tell you but 0.3% is > 3 SD outside the mean. If your calcium level was >3 SD outside the mean, your doctor would tell you to get to the Emergency Room pronto. But some whack job psychiatrists want to tell me this 0.3% of the population is totally "normal"? I mean- WTF!

 

FWIW, the percentage of people diagnosed with bipolar disorder is supposedly 2.6%, about eight times more than the transgenderites. We don't call those people normal- we get them medication. Now these folks with gender identity problems are being told to channel their inner selves and let it all out. OK, I'll accept that- but don't try and tell me- and a significant portion of the citizenry that it's "normal". MHO- you're as screwed up in the head as someone with bipolar disorder, AND this bathroom rights thing is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

[MLD Woody]

No, you're missing the point.

 

Or you're actually using the inevitability of legal beastiality as an argument against the transgender bathroom issue and gay marriage. And if Thar is actually you're argument... Holy shit.

 

That's not an argument. In any legitimate form of debate that would get torn apart. I think the only people that see nothing wrong there are the same people that take the bible at face value and need no additional proof.

 

 

I already know you'll have no real response Cal. You'll claim I don't have an argument. But if you really can't comprehend the hole in the argument you and Hoorta are making, there's no real hope for you.

[gftChris]

But some whack job psychiatrists want to tell me this 0.3% of the population is totally "normal"? I mean- WTF!

 

Normal? No, clearly not, I think you'd be hard pushed to describe transgenderism or homosexuality as normal. But then again, most people aren't normal in most ways. But is 'not normal' necessarily bad? For example, it looks like around 0.3% of men are under 5 feet. Should they be medicated as well? Less than a percent of people have different coloured eyes, but we don't medicate them either.

 

Meanwhile, about 9% of the US population has diabetes - so much more 'normal' by your definition - and they do need to be medicated. 7% are depressed.

 

 

The idea that because something is uncommon it must be bad, and eradicated is just nonsense, to be honest.

 

 

(figures taken from a quick google - ymmv but the point remains)

[Westside Steve]

Isn't that a lot like demanding that completely abnormal behavior is perfectly normal?

 

As a matter of fact we have deemed many completely normal feelings as wrong.

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

As a matter of fact I will give you one example. Let's assume that marriage is allowed for any two human beings. Grounds for divorce include a few different things but one of which is adultery. Is adultery wrong and should it be grounds for divorce?

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

woodpecker - your claims are unsubstantiated.

 

No, rare <> abnormal all the time..

 

But it most certainly can, and does occur, that rare = abnormal.

 

Perversion, regardless of how rare it is, is perverted.

 

And perverted is bad. You endear yourself to perversion because it's part of

the fringe anything goes leftism you emote by, your beakness.

 

You can't back up your contentions, so you go personal and start the antagonistic, unwarranted attacks

on everybody who crosses your feathers.

[LogicIsForSquares]

woodpecker - your claims are unsubstantiated.

 

No, rare <> abnormal all the time..

 

But it most certainly can, and does occur, that rare = abnormal.

 

Perversion, regardless of how rare it is, is perverted.

 

And perverted is bad. You endear yourself to perversion because it's part of

the fringe anything goes leftism you emote by, your beakness.

 

You can't back up your contentions, so you go personal and start the antagonistic, unwarranted attacks

on everybody who crosses your feathers.

I really don't care if someone is perverted or not perverted. If their actions in no way effect me then I don't give a rat's ass if they play butt darts in their spare time while dressed like the Golden Girls. I guarantee you that a gay couple probably thinks my lifestyle is icky. They just deal with it.

[calfoxwc]

true, I've never cared. Back at Kent State, the gay lib - two really UGLY women holding hands, etc...

 

sick. But nobody cared. The left is now forcing those who aren't, to accept it as normal, and if they don't,

they will drive them out of business, socially try to destroy their reputation, etc etc etc.

 

they made war on everything they are not - it's the political power they have accrued since clinton was president, and obamao

has amplified it.

 

"Live and let live" has turned into "you non-gays will live the way we TELL you to live, or obamao and the

liberal activist judges will take your job, career, business, membership of facebook, etc...and then take your money and give it to us" so we can win the leftist lottery.

 

that is bs.

[hoorta]

Isn't that a lot like demanding that completely abnormal behavior is perfectly normal?

 

As a matter of fact we have deemed many completely normal feelings as wrong.

 

WSS

 

Steve, I think that's what me (and Cal) are getting at- and denied by Woody. What what was deemed "abnormal" is now getting pushed by a tiny (in this case) part of the population being "normal". Woodster thinks that's all well and good.

 

To some of us, that's not necessarily progress.

 

and as aside to Chris- if the docs see you have a genetic tendency towards dwarfism- they're going to give you human growth hormone. There's a difference between a easily quantifiable disease (diabetes) constant > 100 mg\dl blood sugar, and mental illness. Man- mental illness is 50 shades of grey- and it's tending towards black.

[Clevfan4life]

Its not a matter of normal or not, its a matter of letting people live their lives as long as they aint hurtin anybody. I feel nothing but sadness and compassion for people who feel they're in the wrong body. If they want their own restroom i could care less, it affects me none.

 

I agree there are grey areas, not any old man should be able to use the ladies room just cause he threw a wig and lipstick on. But if someone is going through the chemical treatments to be a woman than obviously this isnt some random 4 chan or reddit troll, otherwise known as the worst people humanity has "ever" produced.....all straight btw, let that one sink in

[gftChris]

As a matter of fact I will give you one example. Let's assume that marriage is allowed for any two human beings. Grounds for divorce include a few different things but one of which is adultery. Is adultery wrong and should it be grounds for divorce?

 

WSS

You're looking at divorce from the wrong angle. It isn't the adultery that automatically causes a divorce. It is the state of the relationship. In some places it is almost expected that men have affairs and the women are fine with it. in others it is the worst thing possible and the marriage is irrevocable.

 

It is the consequences of the action that spark a divorce, not the action.

[Westside Steve]

You're looking at divorce from the wrong angle. It isn't the adultery that automatically causes a divorce. It is the state of the relationship. In some places it is almost expected that men have affairs and the women are fine with it. in others it is the worst thing possible and the marriage is irrevocable.

 

It is the consequences of the action that spark a divorce, not the action.

The state of the relationship and not the adultery?

I'd have to guess that adultery is frowned upon and what we know is Western Civilization. Maybe there are some cultures where it's cool bUT I I can't imagine it not causing somebody unhappiness.

 

And whether anybody on this board engages in it or not I wouldn't bet very much that they haven't wanted to.

 

WSS

[hoorta]

Its not a matter of normal or not, its a matter of letting people live their lives as long as they aint hurtin anybody. I feel nothing but sadness and compassion for people who feel they're in the wrong body. If they want their own restroom i could care less, it affects me none.

 

I agree there are grey areas, not any old man should be able to use the ladies room just cause he threw a wig and lipstick on. But if someone is going through the chemical treatments to be a woman than obviously this isn't some random 4 chan or reddit troll, otherwise known as the worst people humanity has "ever" produced.....all straight btw, let that one sink in

 

It's the same compassion I feel for anyone that's seriously messed up mentally. Down's Syndrome, bipolar, you name it. In my hospital years I encountered people in the psych ward who didn't know what planet they were on. Would it really harm the transgenders if we compromise and say use the unisex bathroom? It works both ways- it may offend their sensitivities, but on the flip side, it offends plenty of other folks.

[Clevfan4life]

 

It's the same compassion I feel for anyone that's seriously messed up mentally. Down's Syndrome, bipolar, you name it. In my hospital years I encountered people in the psych ward who didn't know what planet they were on. Would it really harm the transgenders if we compromise and say use the unisex bathroom? It works both ways- it may offend their sensitivities, but on the flip side, it offends plenty of other folks.

Aren't they what the unisex rooms are for? ?

[gftChris]

The state of the relationship and not the adultery?

I'd have to guess that adultery is frowned upon and what we know is Western Civilization. Maybe there are some cultures where it's cool bUT I I can't imagine it not causing somebody unhappiness.

 

And whether anybody on this board engages in it or not I wouldn't bet very much that they haven't wanted to.

 

WSS

It's relatively common in latin europe, at least among the older generation. Without getting in to too much detail about extra-maritals, it's usually a symptom of a relationship that isn't going so well to start with.

 

Anyway, like I said, it's a relationship-by-relationship basis, and while it's probably a deal breaker for most people, for some it's not. Divorce doesn't just happen as an automatic consequence of any action, but rather when the relationship gets to the point where it's impossible to go on. An affair will quite likely push the relationship past that threshold, but not always. In some cases it sparks an honest conversation about what both parties want from the relationship, what's missing and what's not working, and they come out of it stronger.

 

It could be anything that pushes it past that point, something relatively trivial could be the straw the breaks the camel's back, like forgetting to pick up milk on the way home. On the other hand, an affair is a huge deal, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end of a relationship.

 

So the idea of some action being acceptable grounds for divorce is looking at things the wrong way - the state of the relationship is the grounds for divorce, if one or both parties aren't interested in continuing it. What gets it to that state is basically irrelevant.