I'm seriously considering setting my alarm for 3 or 4 am to view Trumps tweets.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not kidding.
Someone needs to explain to Rush the relationship between rape and consent.Well, this is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard someone "in the media" say:
Rush Limbaugh: "If The Left Ever Senses And Smells That There's No Consent In Part Of The Equation Then Here Come The Rape Police"
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
Well, this is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard someone "in the media" say:
Rush Limbaugh: "If The Left Ever Senses And Smells That There's No Consent In Part Of The Equation Then Here Come The Rape Police"
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
Oh that evil left wing consent!Well, this is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard someone "in the media" say:
Rush Limbaugh: "If The Left Ever Senses And Smells That There's No Consent In Part Of The Equation Then Here Come The Rape Police"
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
Rush "Latin America Sex Tourist" Limbaugh?Someone needs to explain to Rush the relationship between rape and consent.
Rush "Latin America Sex Tourist" Limbaugh?
As far as Rush knows, handing some pimp money for a handful of boner pills and an underage girl is consent.
Someone needs to explain to Rush the relationship between rape and consent.
I have an instinct to divert his faults to something something liberals? That's news to me. Have I been sleep posting?
when someone is suggesting it is acceptable to force teenage girls to change in front of somebody with the biological attributes of a male.
Honestly, I have no idea if I agree with him on most of his platform - I decided not to vote for him back when the only policy-oriented statement he had issued was build a wall and make Mexico pay for it and I haven't bothered to keep up to date with any new policies he's proposed since then.
What is it that Cuban has with Trump? Was Trump raped by him? Or were they lovers?she just invite them all to the next debate and have them sit in the front.
She brought Cuban to rd 1.
Trump (supposedly) brought Flowers and whoever else to rd 2.
What is it that Cuban has with Trump? Was Trump raped by him? Or were they lovers?
No, you're just oblivious to the habit:
I can only say "Duuuh"!Well, this is the most disgusting thing I've ever heard someone "in the media" say:
Rush Limbaugh: "If The Left Ever Senses And Smells That There's No Consent In Part Of The Equation Then Here Come The Rape Police"
RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it's perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there's no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.
An on-point explanation of observed behavior that directly refutes the point being made is not a diversion, even when taken out of context; nor is that an attempt to shift Trump's blame to liberals, especially given that I have actually stated Trump should be blamed for his actions.
Let:
X = teenage girls' privacy rights are violated by having a man appear.
Y = people who argue X is bad
Z = someone advocates for a policy that results in X.
Someone made the argument when X occurs Y show up, X occurred, but Y didn't show up, therefore Y approve of X in some circumstances.
I responded with a statement based upon observation that demonstrates the above argument is not sound by refuting the initial premise (when X occurs Y show up). Rather, I explained, when Z occurs Y show up, Z has not occurred, therefore Y cannot be expected to show up. I did not attempt to change the topic to Z, and while I did point out that X does not equal Z, I did not in anyway suggest that the behavior of those who do Z excuses the behavior of those that do X.
That's rather technical sophistry to argue that you think transsexuals are akin to donald trump.
Don't be surprised if I stop responding to your pathetic attempts to falsely twist arguments because you are unable to dispute the validity and soundness of said argument as it actually applies to the topic being discussed. It is getting to be more tedious than fun.
I simply never stated that transsexuals are akin to Trump. The original question is why are those posters who are concerned with perverts in girls' locker rooms/bathrooms not posting against Trump in this thread? I simply explained that those opposed to transgender individuals choosing their locker room (whether it is because the transgender person has different biological parts or because of the originally referenced perverts, i.e., horny non-transgender boys that would lie to get into women's locker rooms) by parallel reasoning, would have an incentive to appear if someone argues Trump should be allowed to go into the changing room at the pageants, not whereas in this thread, the general opinion is he should not have done so. The idea that Trump should not have done that is consistent with their beliefs, and people do not post as commonly simply to express agreement with the general consensus.
I suppose those people could show up and state "See, this is why transgender people shouldn't get to choose their locker room, because boys akin Trump (horny non-transgender boys whose egos exceed their level of respect for others) would lie to get into the girl's locker room," but that would be off-topic since this thread isn't about transgender locker room/bathroom policy.
That said, it is an interesting question. If Trump declared that he didn't think it was a problem to walk into the changing area because he identifies himself as a transgender homosexual woman, would that excuse his behavior? In anticipation you are just going to argue Trump would be lying - what if a wealthy individual who actually is a transgender homosexual female bought the pageant and did the same thing, including bragging afterword about how she gets to see hot women changing, would that be acceptable?
You literally continue to compare possible abuse of a policy to what a degenerate does as matter of habit, not because you actually think they're the same thing but rather it would look pretty bad to give up now.
Sure, it's evidently probable that someone like Trump would try to scam his way into women's facilities, but setting up an expedient false equivalence that these other people would as the first order of business makes proclamations about rational arguments rather comical.
No, I'm not arguing that the possible-abuse of the policy and Trump's behavior are the same. I'm arguing that the situation in which the former is presented differs from the situation presented in this thread.
If equivalency is relevant, a false equivalency between these two situations would support my argument - that the people raising the first are not hypocrites for failing to raise it here, because you can't criticize a person for failing to raise an argument that you believe isn't equivalent.
I will fully acknowledge that an adult transgender lesbian walking in on changing pageant contestants for creepy pervert reasons is not the equivalent of a teenager who identifies as a women and therefore doesn't want to change in the men's locker room. The question is whether those differences justify different policies and why. To explore that, we first have to decide whether the first situation is bad. I think it is. Then we can walk down the path to see where the important distinctions lie - what if the person is doing it solely for business reasons instead of peverted ones but it still makes the contestants uncomfortable - what if the contestants are told the person might walk in unannounced and to be prepared for that, etc...
We've got to start somewhere though, and the starting point should be "If a transgender homosexual female owns a beauty pageant and brags that one of the perks of said ownership is the ability to walk into the changing area with beautiful half-dressed women, how should society respond?"
The comparison wasn't between their "arguments", esp. given it's pretty specious to consider people like that even have any, but rather reaction to the situations. Ie. "someone can hypothetically abuse the policy" --> outrage, "Trump actually abuses his degeneracy" --> deflect.
Did you make the same arguments about how gay marriage can be abused, or similar? It's a lot easier to just come out of the closet and say you don't like a certain group of people.
Good to know you're willing to ignore that people are trying their best to deflect the fault elsewhere, including yourself.Exactly, now you've got it. The situations are different "someone says something I disagree with" = outrage v. "somebody does something outrageous" = no need to comment because everyone agrees it is outrageous.
I'm not sure exactly which way you mean abused and that is probably a topic for another thread, but since we seem to be the only two people still talking here, in quick sum, and with the caveat that I haven't put a lot of thought into that issue for a long time, so I could be overlooking some arguments:
Given the ease of divorce, allowing gay marriage can be abused - for example, I once had a roommate that was a grad student while I was working. I could have married him to reduce my taxes for a few years and let him piggyback onto my work health insurance and then just filed for divorce later. But, given I could already have done the same by finding a female roommate, I just don't think that is even close to a sufficiently warranted threat of abuse to deny gay marriage.
With regard to slippery slope, I don't see gay marriage leading to polygamy, there are different policies in play. I do think it substantially weakens arguments for making incest illegal, because gay marriage requires a recognition that marriage isn't about the ability to have children. Now, the inability to have children and a higher risk of having children with disabilities are different, but that probably isn't enough to justify denying marriage when are marriage policy is based upon love and contract rather than sex and children.
Are you ready, here comes the shocker - I was in favor of legislation allowing gay marriage even before the courts addressed the constitutionality of marriage laws.
Good to know you're willing to ignore that people are trying their best to deflect the fault elsewhere, including yourself.
The analogous situation would be the michael1980 sorts making a big deal out of suspect/ephemeral gay marriages while trying his best to ignore/deflect that his guy goes through them like potato chips.
At this point the best move for you is to claim that trying to excuse this is just playing devil's advocate.
The fault for Trump's actions lie with Trump. That is true regardless of who and how many people expressly state it. I think this part of the conversation is exhausted. I will go forth with a belief that either I have a better understanding of the psychological motives of people who post and/or a better ability to compare and contrast topics of discussion, and you can go forth thinking you have the same, and/or that I am a bad person and/or that I am attempting to deflect.
Can you clarify. I'm not sure what you are referring to specifically with michal1980's behavior and I'm not sure if you are referring to that as what I am trying to excuse or something else.
Also, are you ever going to answer whether you think it would be morally repugnant for a transgender homosexual woman who owns a female beauty pageant to enter the changing room in order to ogle the contestants in various stages of dress?