PDA

View Full Version : NBA and NFL warning Texas Over Bathroom Bill'


mattsmith48
February 18th, 2017, 11:04 AM
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18706158/nba-joins-nfl-warning-texas-proposed-bathroom-bill

I have a lot of criticism to the NBA and NFL, but I think this is great. The NBA all star game is not the most exciting thing ever and the Super Bowl is getting kinda boring since the Patriots are winning all the time, but those things generate revenu to the cities and state who are hosting those events and with religion, money is the only thing these people really care about.

What you guys think about this?

Bull
February 18th, 2017, 11:42 AM
sick and tired of politics trying to make over every one in their image. End result is it hurts business as well as peoples independence!

azure moonstone
February 18th, 2017, 12:11 PM
Evidently they didn't learn from North Carolina. Sad.

Respecting the rights of others and losing tons and tons of money isn't as important as wanting to live centuries behind the rest of the modern world, I guess.

brandon9
February 18th, 2017, 06:14 PM
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18706158/nba-joins-nfl-warning-texas-proposed-bathroom-bill

I have a lot of criticism to the NBA and NFL, but I think this is great. The NBA all star game is not the most exciting thing ever and the Super Bowl is getting kinda boring since the Patriots are winning all the time, but those things generate revenu to the cities and state who are hosting those events and with religion, money is the only thing these people really care about.

What you guys think about this?

About the only points I agree with here are that the NBA is not exciting and that the Patriots need to be hamstringed.

It's ridiculously stupid to limit and overlook venues in Texas because people have to use the bathroom which corresponds to their proper birth sex. That's not a crazy law. What is crazy is that the NBA and NFL would overlook one of the biggest states in the country for the sake of a damn bathroom label. Want to talk about losing revenue? Tell Texas no major sporting events will be held there and watch how much money you lose. It's crazy that fucking sports leagues are now pushing political agendas, playing the social justice warriors, and seeking to influence state legislation. Didn't know the NFL/NBA were liberal interest groups! Between the "injustice for the black community" thing Kaepernick pulled last season and this, among other things, I'm sick of even my SPORTS entertainment being polluted with political bullshit.

It also makes sense you'd pick the ESPN link - a left wing perspective from a left wing network.

bentheplayer
February 18th, 2017, 10:27 PM
About the only points I agree with here are that the NBA is not exciting and that the Patriots need to be hamstringed.

It's ridiculously stupid to limit and overlook venues in Texas because people have to use the bathroom which corresponds to their proper birth sex. That's not a crazy law. What is crazy is that the NBA and NFL would overlook one of the biggest states in the country for the sake of a damn bathroom label. Want to talk about losing revenue? Tell Texas no major sporting events will be held there and watch how much money you lose. It's crazy that fucking sports leagues are now pushing political agendas, playing the social justice warriors, and seeking to influence state legislation. Didn't know the NFL/NBA were liberal interest groups! Between the "injustice for the black community" thing Kaepernick pulled last season and this, among other things, I'm sick of even my SPORTS entertainment being polluted with political bullshit.

It also makes sense you'd pick the ESPN link - a left wing perspective from a left wing network.

Lol its just business or what they call corporate responsibility these days. Not everything is liberal or conservative. Besides its up to people or organisations to do as they wish in terms of reacting to state law.

Dalcourt
February 18th, 2017, 10:37 PM
The whole bathroom bill outrage is one of the most ridiculous things of our present times. I will never really get the fuss conservatives make about it...probably just needing their save spaces.

I don't think any Texan will stop watching major sporting events wherever they are hosted and every company in their right mind will pour money into those events no matter what, too.

But yeah the more conservative and uptight those places get the more NOLA will play San Francisco and Portland of the South and attract much needed money.

mattsmith48
February 18th, 2017, 11:56 PM
It's ridiculously stupid to limit and overlook venues in Texas because people have to use the bathroom which corresponds to their proper birth sex. That's not a crazy law. What is crazy is that the NBA and NFL would overlook one of the biggest states in the country for the sake of a damn bathroom label. Want to talk about losing revenue? Tell Texas no major sporting events will be held there and watch how much money you lose. It's crazy that fucking sports leagues are now pushing political agendas, playing the social justice warriors, and seeking to influence state legislation. Didn't know the NFL/NBA were liberal interest groups! Between the "injustice for the black community" thing Kaepernick pulled last season and this, among other things, I'm sick of even my SPORTS entertainment being polluted with political bullshit.


Whether the Super Bowl is played in Houston or Santa Clara there is not a big difference on the how much money the NFL will make, same goes with the NBA they are not losing money because they moved their all star game from Charlotte to New Orleans, the only ones losing money are the states and cities losing these events. They are not pushing political agendas or playing the social justice warriors they are just saying we are against discrimination. And the only time they are trying to influence state legislation is when the teams are trying to get a new stadium for free.

PlasmaHam
February 19th, 2017, 10:58 AM
“Our girls and our women are not for sale. Yes, we are paying a price for our principles. But the safety of our citizens has got to take precedent over financial considerations.”
Its amazing how many people prioritize money over principles. Just goes to show how selfish a world we live in. Maybe the NFL and NBA should stop messing with states they don't agree with and actually be an example of transgender acceptance? If they want states to fully accept gender-confused people as who they claim to be, then they should be hiring transgender players! That would be a great showing of equality!

Also, by the Left's own standards shouldn't these companies not have any right to refuse service to these states because of differing viewpoints? By your own argument they are discriminating against states that believe differently than them, but I'm sure most of you are praising the recent decision in Washington in which a florist was charged with criminal discrimination over refusing service to someone who had differing viewpoints. I suggest that if you want people to take you seriously, stop being hypocrites.

Uniquemind
February 19th, 2017, 12:09 PM
Its amazing how many people prioritize money over principles. Just goes to show how selfish a world we live in. Maybe the NFL and NBA should stop messing with states they don't agree with and actually be an example of transgender acceptance? If they want states to fully accept gender-confused people as who they claim to be, then they should be hiring transgender players! That would be a great showing of equality!

Also, by the Left's own standards shouldn't these companies not have any right to refuse service to these states because of differing viewpoints? By your own argument they are discriminating against states that believe differently than them, but I'm sure most of you are praising the recent decision in Washington in which a florist was charged with criminal discrimination over refusing service to someone who had differing viewpoints. I suggest that if you want people to take you seriously, stop being hypocrites.

Discrimination of a State because of conflicting PR in a business model, is different from an employee discriminating against a person on a 1:1 person level.

But I do see why people are upset, it takes a lot of sacrifice to support and standby principles you believe are unpopular. Some would call it misplaced pride, and other times I think, depending on what's being defended or upheld, should be upheld and people should defend their ideals.

However I support truth over ideals, and there is definitely some hypocrisy here on this specific move, and this issue.

Does Texas have a reason for the bathroom law other than emotionally uncomfortable grounds? If it's a safety concern the state could've just hired background checked armed guards per bathroom, that would've been job stimulus. Also this is the state that should allow you to carry heat, so what's the protection argument doing here in the bathroom issue in the same state, if your threatened you have protection on you.

bentheplayer
February 19th, 2017, 12:29 PM
Its amazing how many people prioritize money over principles. Just goes to show how selfish a world we live in. Maybe the NFL and NBA should stop messing with states they don't agree with and actually be an example of transgender acceptance? If they want states to fully accept gender-confused people as who they claim to be, then they should be hiring transgender players! That would be a great showing of equality!

Also, by the Left's own standards shouldn't these companies not have any right to refuse service to these states because of differing viewpoints? By your own argument they are discriminating against states that believe differently than them, but I'm sure most of you are praising the recent decision in Washington in which a florist was charged with criminal discrimination over refusing service to someone who had differing viewpoints. I suggest that if you want people to take you seriously, stop being hypocrites.
Uniquemind
Technically, NBA and NFL are "buying" the services of the state rather than "providing" the service. The business model is slightly different for the sporting industry. Perhaps a easier analogy for you to understand this would be the Olympics games where cities have to submit proposals to the IOC and bid to be the venue. Thus while there is discrimination, it isn't unlawful and so there isn't hypocrisy as asserted. In commerce it has always been understood that the buyer/consumer is allowed to discriminate who they wish to buy from but the seller trading publicly isn't accorded rights to discriminate who to sell to.

Anyways this is nothing new considering the input from the tech and entertainment industries like Google, IBM, Disney etc. All these companies have been doing this for ages just that it may not have been widely reported.

Before you start talking on the Washington florist case have you read the official court ruling? I would be more than happy to discuss any issues you might find wrong with that ruling. In any case it would be difficult to argue that it wasn't discrimination and that the key idea is that businesses open to the public are not allowed to discriminate.

brandon9
February 19th, 2017, 08:53 PM
I'd like to point out this isn't the first time Texas and the NFL have clashed over a ridiculous stance by the NFL: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/02/20/of-course-texas-lonestar-state-tells-nfl-their-gun-laws-dont-apply-here/

Nor is this the first time, or even the second time, the NFL has threatened a state for "not following their values:"
(Snippet from The Washington Post)
The NFL has moved a Super Bowl before for political reasons, pulling out of Arizona in the early ’90s when that state did not recognize the birthday of the Rev. Martin Luther King as a holiday. Only three years ago, a political issue threatened Super Bowl XLIX in Arizona and the NFL was similarly clear about Arizona’s controversial bill that would allow businesses to deny services to gay people for religious reasons.

So, the NFL has a history of pulling the rug for reasons that don't align with the league's liberal ideology. They've meddled in politics before. Governor Abbott said it best, the NFL needs to stay out of politics; maybe they should worry about fixing the myriad problems in the NFL, such as poor refereeing, ridiculous rules, player injury, etc. instead of sticking their nose where it doesn't belong,

Lol its just business or what they call corporate responsibility these days. Not everything is liberal or conservative. Besides its up to people or organisations to do as they wish in terms of reacting to state law.

Unfortunately, you just don't see that in our modern "participation trophy culture" of political correctness and other such bullshit, everything boils down to liberal vs conservative. This entire thread is an example of it. Also, a law is a law; you must follow the law, regardless of who or what you are or represent.

Whether the Super Bowl is played in Houston or Santa Clara there is not a big difference on the how much money the NFL will make, same goes with the NBA they are not losing money because they moved their all star game from Charlotte to New Orleans, the only ones losing money are the states and cities losing these events. They are not pushing political agendas or playing the social justice warriors they are just saying we are against discrimination. And the only time they are trying to influence state legislation is when the teams are trying to get a new stadium for free.

So here's the math to prove you wrong, just because I can:

Houston - NRG Stadium - Capacity 72,220 (expandable to approximately 80,000)
Santa Clara - Levi's Stadium - Capacity 68,500 (Expandable to approximately 75,000)
Average Super Bowl ticket cost - $2500 to $3000
Simple Formula - Capacity x Ticket Cost = Profit

HOUSTON MATH:
Standard Capacity Low End - 72,220 x $2500 = $180,550,000
Standard Capacity High End - 72,220 x $3000 = $216,660,000
Expanded Capacity Low End - 80,000 x $2500 = $200,000,000
Expanded Capacity High End - 80,000 x $3000 = $240,000,000

SANTA CLARA MATH:
Standard Capacity Low End - 68,500 x $2500 = $171,250,000
Standard Capacity High End - 68,500 x $3000 = $205,500,000
Expanded Capacity Low End - 75,000 x $2500 = $187,500,000
Expanded Capacity High End - 75,000 x $3000 = $225,000,000

DIFFERENTIAL PROFIT (HOUSTON OVER SANTA CLARA):
SC Low End - $9,300,000
SC High End - $11,160,000
EC Low End - $12,500,000
EC High End - $15,000,000

This doesn't even factor in concession or gift shop sales at each venue, this is simply calculated off of average ticket prices and seating capacity. I can't say what universe you must live in to believe that there's not a difference in monetary gain for the NFL here; I don't know what right-minded company, organization, or individual would pass up the potential for an extra ~ $9-$15 million dollars. And let's not forget that Texas houses the largest stadium in the NFL, AT&T Stadium, which at max capacity can hold right around 100,000 people.

And yeah, they do push political agendas, I'll poke the opening quote I made on this post. They're playing SJW over this bathroom bill thing, which is not a horrific bill by any stretch of the rational imagination. And they most certainly have attempted, both now and in the past, directly and indirectly, to influence a state's decision on legislation over more than just stadiums.

Does Texas have a reason for the bathroom law other than emotionally uncomfortable grounds? If it's a safety concern the state could've just hired background checked armed guards per bathroom, that would've been job stimulus. Also this is the state that should allow you to carry heat, so what's the protection argument doing here in the bathroom issue in the same state, if your threatened you have protection on you.

Let's just take a moment and think about how absolutely ridiculous of a society we would be living in if we had to have armed fucking guards at every restroom in the state of Texas. Seriously.

Your point about the carry of firearms has several flaws:

1) It is a hasty generalization to assume that everyone has a weapon at all times in Texas. Especially that all women would have them - more men carry than women. And there's always your anti-gun faction in the state pissing a fit about people owning them.
2) Citizens cannot carry firearms in Texas in federal buildings, schools, public sporting arenas, businesses doing over 51% of their sales via on-premises alcohol consumption, correctional facilities, courts, polling places, and racetracks with a concealed carry permit, restrictions are tighter on open carry without a CCP. That's a lot of high-traffic areas that people can't have that protection with them.
3) The odds of someone being shot for attempting to or successfully entering a bathroom which does not correspond to their true sex is raised significantly, and would likely result in multiple legal cases regarding whether or not the shootings were justified, meaning an appreciable increase in both legal costs and court overload throughout the state. Not to mention the outcry from the left that'll inevitably follow a couple of shootings.
4) If you're threatened at all in attempting to use the bathroom, there's a problem that needs addressing. Having a firearm on you doesn't take away from the fact that you are in danger simply because someone who wasn't born of that sex got in the bathroom with you.


It all boils down to this - use the bathroom of your true birth sex, all this shit is more likely to be avoided. Allowing anyone to enter anywhere they like is just not safe, moral, or proper. Kudos to Texas for slamming the NFL and NBA over their bullshit, more people need to.

bentheplayer
February 19th, 2017, 10:26 PM
brandon9 First off how is Texas "slamming" the NFL and NBA? Texas can't compel them to continue using Texas as a venue. So where is the asserted slamming?

Secondly this is over morals and beliefs as well. Besides whats wrong with lgbt in a secular sense? Most modern companies today have a corporate culture and ethics agenda that they push. Why should ethics and beliefs be labelled as right or left. Do u think that equality and human rights is solely for the left then? The way you are suggesting is that the right is all for discrimination and restriction of freedom for certain groups. Is that ur understanding of the right and politics? I don't think that politics should even be over such issues. The very basics of a democracy is that all human is equal but you seem to be insinuating that certain groups have a "moral high ground" which they don't.

Finally, there are more important things than money alone. I seem to recall that Under armour sponsored athletes are condemning Trump's blatant hate speech even though Under armour ceo seems to support Trump. If such "agenda" are pushed elsewhere, why should NFL not be allowed to support equality? This bathroom issue isn't really the point but rather its the state willingness to discriminate. If bathroom was the real issue stadiums could easily build individual unisex toilets. Anyway newer and bigger stadiums can always be built elsewhere.

brandon9
February 19th, 2017, 11:23 PM
brandon9 First off how is Texas "slamming" the NFL and NBA? Texas can't compel them to continue using Texas as a venue. Secondly this is over morals and beliefs as well. Besides whats wrong with lgbt in a secular sense? Most modern companies today have a corporate culture and ethics agenda that they push. Why should ethics and beliefs be labelled as eight or left. Do u think that equality and human rights is solely for the left then? The way you are suggesting is that the right is all for discrimination and restriction of freedom for certain groups. Is that ur understanding of the right? Finally, there are more important things than money alone. I seem to recall that Under armour sponsored athletes are condemning Trump's blatant hate speech even though Under armour ceo seems to support Trump. If such "agenda" are pushed elsewhere, why should NFL not be allowed to support equality?

Fox Insider (full article http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/16/texas-gov-greg-abbott-blasts-nfl-bathroom-bill-super-bowl-threat )
On "America's Newsroom" today, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said the NFL should govern football, not politics.

He said that the NFL has its own share of problems, such as players committing acts of violence against women and not standing for the national anthem.

"The last thing the NFL needs to do is to get into the business of telling states how to operate their own political operations," Abbott said.

He added that if the NFL tries to dictate policies to the state of Texas, then he might pass a bill mandating that players have to stand and place their hand over their hearts when the national anthem is played.

"The NFL has no business whatsoever trying to get into the politics of various states. The NFL has its own problems that it must fix."

I'd say that's calling out the bullshit quite well. What's next for the NFL, expelling the Texas teams from the league because someone might be offended they have to use the correct bathroom when they go to a game?

Responding to your second point, I'd like to think most everyone here knows by now that I am nonreligious, so everything I argue is from a "secular sense" as you put it. I'm not going to launch into a debate over the relative problems I find with homosexuality as a whole, but I will discuss the transgender issue at hand, which I have in the past on here. First, it defies the very fabric of nature in that you have attempted to change your physical anatomy to become something you were not developed as through a process as old as mankind itself; you're changing your sex. Second, you are giving up the ability to reproduce and continue human existence. And no matter what way you spin it, you were born one very specific way, and you will always be that way, regardless of if you claim to be a woman or man after changing. In relevance to the bathroom issue here, take this scenario: there's a girl at my school that had surgery and became a boy, and they let her use the boy's locker rooms and such for gym. Guess what? Most every guy you ask in the locker room with her is uncomfortable knowing she is transgender. Now imagine the situation in reverse; a guy who becomes a girl, and is using women's locker rooms and bathrooms at the school. Do you honestly think 99% of those girls aren't going to be uncomfortable knowing that the "girl" in there with them was born as a man? Do you think most parents are comfortable with that kind of arrangement? The same situation is applied to every bathroom, locker room, what have you, across the country. Even people who support transgender people are made to feel uncomfortable when one is in the bathroom with them. Discomfort of people is only part of the issue here. The other part comes from the people who seek to abuse such legislation as allowing "sex-identified" bathrooms vs "sex-defined" bathrooms, such as your rapists and voyeurs. That shit does happen from this kind of lawmaking, countless cases.

You still miss the point that all ethics and beliefs are born of whether or not you identify with the right or left. Everything you believe in and all the moral codes you follow identify with one side or the other; it is a pretty clear-cut divide. Someone doesn't believe in the right to own a gun, they're left. I don't really support homosexuality, I'm on the right. It's all aligned one way or another. Our society has made that an irrefutable fact of life.

Human rights and equality are guaranteed by our Constitution. They didn't exist in the past, they do now thanks to amendments passed in prior centuries, end of discussion. Everyone that is legally a citizen of the US has the same rights and equality under the law, under the Constitution. Those who are here illegally are entitled to none of our Constitutional rights, as they are not citizens and are breaking our laws simply by being here.

This is well off the track of this thread, but since you called me out so blatantly, here you go; to me, the right is about a return to traditional American values, the days when our country was actually self sufficient and proud of itself. It is about a business economy, it is about the rule of law, defending our borders, it is about limited government and a return to strictly following our Constitution, everything the founding fathers intended. It is about proper social standards and issues, and isn't about making sure everyone isn't offended by the harsh realities of the world, which contrary to leftist belief doesn't owe anyone shit. It's the very rally against the left, which would sink our country if left unchallenged. It's what our country needs. The right is not about discrimination or restriction of freedom; it is about putting America first and returning our nation to greatness.

The Under Armour issue isn't really relevant to this thread, so I'm not going to address it. I will say, you're right, money isn't all important, unless you're in the business of making it, as the NFL organization is. Their focus, if anything, should be on revenue, not political agendas. The same goes for any sports league, company, you name it; if it exists to sell goods and services and makes money, it doesn't need to argue equality, it needs to focus on the business and leave politics and social issues out of it. That's how companies and organizations sink themselves, like Target has with conservatives lately.

Also, define that "blatant hate speech" for me, because I don't recall one. Trump gets so much shit lol. It's out of control.

Also, just saw your final edit, the state is not discriminating in any way - it's correct! And the stadium shouldn't have to have individual unisex toilets; people need to use the correct damn bathroom!

bentheplayer
February 20th, 2017, 05:51 AM
I'd say that's calling out the bullshit quite well. What's next for the NFL, expelling the Texas teams from the league because someone might be offended they have to use the correct bathroom when they go to a game?

Regardless of reason, such leagues are allowed to state their requirements such as anti-discrimination etc. This is in line with international practice where even the Olympics games banned certain countries previously from entering. If you feel so strongly against such bans, you are absolutely welcomed to form your league that conforms to your ideals. Considering that you don’t own these leagues, what gives you the right to dictate their actions? As you pointed out, these leagues are businesses and have the freedom to do as they please within the framework of the law. At best I can tell this action by them is perfectly legal.

Responding to your second point, I'd like to think most everyone here knows by now that I am nonreligious, so everything I argue is from a "secular sense" as you put it. I'm not going to launch into a debate over the relative problems I find with homosexuality as a whole, but I will discuss the transgender issue at hand, which I have in the past on here. First, it defies the very fabric of nature in that you have attempted to change your physical anatomy to become something you were not developed as through a process as old as mankind itself; you're changing your sex. Second, you are giving up the ability to reproduce and continue human existence. And no matter what way you spin it, you were born one very specific way, and you will always be that way, regardless of if you claim to be a woman or man after changing. In relevance to the bathroom issue here, take this scenario: there's a girl at my school that had surgery and became a boy, and they let her use the boy's locker rooms and such for gym. Guess what? Most every guy you ask in the locker room with her is uncomfortable knowing she is transgender. Now imagine the situation in reverse; a guy who becomes a girl, and is using women's locker rooms and bathrooms at the school. Do you honestly think 99% of those girls aren't going to be uncomfortable knowing that the "girl" in there with them was born as a man? Do you think most parents are comfortable with that kind of arrangement? The same situation is applied to every bathroom, locker room, what have you, across the country. Even people who support transgender people are made to feel uncomfortable when one is in the bathroom with them. Discomfort of people is only part of the issue here. The other part comes from the people who seek to abuse such legislation as allowing "sex-identified" bathrooms vs "sex-defined" bathrooms, such as your rapists and voyeurs. That shit does happen from this kind of lawmaking, countless cases.

To me the idea of gender is merely both a social and biological construct outside the confines of religion. This interpretation is generally in line with how medicine and anthropology view gender. How should gender be defined as? Perhaps you are not as well traveled as me but I have seen and was shown societies both past and present that has more than 2 types of gender, male and female, that you are exposed to. As for the bathroom issue, it is more of your own emotions and feelings than a rational objective reason. This again is a belief of your own and merely a fallacy appealing to nature again. What if hypothetically I feel uncomfortable among a certain race? Should I segregate them too?

Anyways I can’t quite relate to this as bathroom discomfort as I always use a private one. Since I am used to having the whole bathroom to myself should it be the law that all bathrooms can’t be “shared” due to my discomfort of “sharing”? As for this abuse, it is for legislators to ensure that it doesn’t happen. To use potential loopholes as an excuse simply shows laziness on the legislators’ part. I am very well versed with the law making process and policy formations as it’s a frequently discussed topic as part of my English and economics curriculum.

Anyways, Texas law seems to only allow people to change their sex assigned at birth if the person had a sex change op and were to be married. Isn’t this a little strange? Why should a birth cert sex change be allowed only if the person wishes to be married? In such a case should which bathroom should these people use?

You still miss the point that all ethics and beliefs are born of whether or not you identify with the right or left. Everything you believe in and all the moral codes you follow identify with one side or the other; it is a pretty clear-cut divide. Someone doesn't believe in the right to own a gun, they're left. I don't really support homosexuality, I'm on the right. It's all aligned one way or another. Our society has made that an irrefutable fact of life.

The right and the left is not about ethics originally but used to describe systems of society. Its just an overly simplistic system used to try classify politics. Seems that people are now misappropriating it for ethics too. In modern society, everyone should be free to choose what they want to believe in as long as their beliefs don’t encroach into the rights/freedom of others. This idea seems to be a protected right anyways by you constitution. There is very little reason and justification why civil rights of homosexuals have to be discriminated against just because you don’t support it.

Human rights and equality are guaranteed by our Constitution. They didn't exist in the past, they do now thanks to amendments passed in prior centuries, end of discussion. Everyone that is legally a citizen of the US has the same rights and equality under the law, under the Constitution. Those who are here illegally are entitled to none of our Constitutional rights, as they are not citizens and are breaking our laws simply by being here.

I am rather surprised with this statement given that you actually had formal lessons on constitutional law. Even I know that this isn’t the case when I don't take law formally. Which school do you study in again? To clarify, in the US, citizen only rights are the right to vote and run for federal offices. Non-citizens who are in the US whether legally or not are entitled to 14th amendment which states that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In fact the Supreme Court had ruled that non-citizens are entitled to the constitutional rights of the 14th amendment and due process under 5th amendment. Perhaps it is time to consider a better school? Personally, I don't know much about community colleges but the current one seems extremely dubious when the tutors can't differentiate the difference between the meaning of citizen and person which even a 6 year old can. Are you sure you are getting a world class education there? I mean we are talking about fundamentals of law and language here and not some fancy law theory. Is this really the standard of students who actually take law classes? This is a really shocking degree of ignorance that I never expected.

This is well off the track of this thread, but since you called me out so blatantly, here you go; to me, the right is about a return to traditional American values, the days when our country was actually self sufficient and proud of itself. It is about a business economy, it is about the rule of law, defending our borders, it is about limited government and a return to strictly following our Constitution, everything the founding fathers intended. It is about proper social standards and issues, and isn't about making sure everyone isn't offended by the harsh realities of the world, which contrary to leftist belief doesn't owe anyone shit. It's the very rally against the left, which would sink our country if left unchallenged. It's what our country needs. The right is not about discrimination or restriction of freedom; it is about putting America first and returning our nation to greatness.

Lol. I don’t even know what American values is given that it has been so distorted by the right who seem to enjoy “patriotic immunity”. (https://egbertowillies.com/2017/02/18/bill-maher-magic-republican-r-allows-get-away-anything-video/)Is the left about being offended or is it about peoples’ freedom? You seem to be contradicting urself when your perceived left is asking for less govt involvement in the regulation or legalized discrimination against others. What is going to sink your economy is your huge national debt which the right doesn’t seem to be too interested in now that they are in power. Another more immediate threat is the Russian involvement. Talk about hypocrisy. As for American Values, what are they to do you? From what I understand, they are supposed to be liberty, equality and self-governance.

The Under Armour issue isn't really relevant to this thread, so I'm not going to address it. I will say, you're right, money isn't all important, unless you're in the business of making it, as the NFL organization is. Their focus, if anything, should be on revenue, not political agendas. The same goes for any sports league, company, you name it; if it exists to sell goods and services and makes money, it doesn't need to argue equality, it needs to focus on the business and leave politics and social issues out of it. That's how companies and organizations sink themselves, like Target has with conservatives lately.

It may not be directly relevant but I was just merely pointing out that in this age, an increasing number of companies are pushing for and supporting the idea of ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and positive affirmation for minority groups. Considering the size of the pink economy and significant dislike of discrimination even amongst non-lgbt people, this seems to be a smart business move. While I don’t have the exact stats, I would hazard a guess that people who are anti-discrimination have a greater buying power than those who are for discrimination.

Also, define that "blatant hate speech" for me, because I don't recall one. Trump gets so much shit lol. It's out of control.

Considering that even the UK conservation MPs called Trump out for being racists and for hate speech, there isn’t much point in me pointing out specific evidence as you won’t accept it anyways. Actually it seems that even Fox news is starting to call out on what he is saying. If you choose to have selective bias towards facts then there isn't much point discussing this issue as you will never facts. If you really don't know what hate speech is, here (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35041402) is an article by BBC explaining hate speech. Just because hate speech might be legal in the US to a certain extent, this doesn't mean it isn't hate speech.

Given that political correctness is often misappropriated in this era of purposeful misinformation, here (https://qz.com/886552/a-linguist-explains-how-the-far-right-hijacked-political-correctness/#)is an article to explain what political correctness from a linguist pov is as I am too lazy to expound further on it. Political correctness is often used as a smoke screen by Republicans.


Greg Abbott can say what he likes but companies are free to choose where they wish to do business in.

brandon9
February 20th, 2017, 11:41 AM
QUOTE=bentheplayer;3489980]Regardless of reason, such leagues are allowed to state their requirements such as anti-discrimination etc. This is in line with international practice where even the Olympics games banned certain countries previously from entering. If you feel so strongly against such bans, you are absolutely welcomed to form your league that conforms to your ideals. Considering that you don’t own these leagues, what gives you the right to dictate their actions? As you pointed out, these leagues are businesses and have the freedom to do as they please within the framework of the law. At best I can tell this action by them is perfectly legal. [/QUOTE]

Here is the issue I find with this: if the league claims to have a zero-tolerance anti-discrimination stance, how in the fuck can it discriminate against an entire state for not agreeing with the league management's position? That's hypocrisy bigger than shit. That's like saying "Yeah, we don't promote discrimination, but by the way we're excluding your state from consideration for X Y and Z because you don't agree with us. Have a great day." That's unjust treatment of the state, and everyone in it, if I've ever seen it. Hell, it could be argued that the transgender people they're supposedly arguing on behalf of would technically suffer from the leagues' decisions to not host major events in Texas. Consider the transgender businessperson running a restaurant in Houston that may lose the opportunity at booming business from a major sporting event in the city, or the transgender person who otherwise would never be able to attend a Super Bowl unless it is in Texas. It's the most backwards ass stance they're taking.

To me the idea of gender is merely both a social and biological construct outside the confines of religion. This interpretation is generally in line with how medicine and anthropology view gender. How should gender be defined as? Perhaps you are not as well traveled as me but I have seen and was shown societies both past and present that has more than 2 types of gender, male and female, that you are exposed to. As for the bathroom issue, it is more of your own emotions and feelings than a rational objective reason. This again is a belief of your own and merely a fallacy appealing to nature again. What if hypothetically I feel uncomfortable among a certain race? Should I segregate them too?

Ah, but here's the distinction: you say "gender," I say "sex." The definition of each is as follows:

Gender - the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Sex - either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures, OR
the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

The difference is that everyone argues about "gender" as if it is the same as "sex." Gender is no more than a sociological term. Sex is naturally defined.

In your example of feeling uncomfortable around a certain race, that's much different. A race is not a sex. A black man and a white man and an Asian man are all men, biologically, in dealing with the issue at hand. But, to humor you, no, you don't segregate the race, you stay away from them yourself to avoid that feeling.

Anyways I can’t quite relate to this as bathroom discomfort as I always use a private one. Since I am used to having the whole bathroom to myself should it be the law that all bathrooms can’t be “shared” due to my discomfort of “sharing”? As for this abuse, it is for legislators to ensure that it doesn’t happen. To use potential loopholes as an excuse simply shows laziness on the legislators’ part. I am very well versed with the law making process and policy formations as it’s a frequently discussed topic as part of my English and economics curriculum.\

This entire thing here is about the difference between "public" and "private," which I'm not going to take the time to define because they are elementary terms at best. Discomfort of "sharing" as you put it can be avoided; don't use any bathroom other than your own. Discomfort of individuals having to be in a public bathroom with someone who is not biologically of the same sex is a totally different issue.

Anyways, Texas law seems to only allow people to change their sex assigned at birth if the person had a sex change op and were to be married. Isn’t this a little strange? Why should a birth cert sex change be allowed only if the person wishes to be married? In such a case should which bathroom should these people use?

The change shouldn't be allowed anyway, under any circumstance. And again, they use the bathroom of their original birth sex, as the person is not and never truly will be a man or woman, whatever they changed to. A transgender woman will never actually be a woman from a biological sense, nor will a transgender man actually be a man from a biological sense.

The right and the left is not about ethics originally but used to describe systems of society. Its just an overly simplistic system used to try classify politics. Seems that people are now misappropriating it for ethics too. In modern society, everyone should be free to choose what they want to believe in as long as their beliefs don’t encroach into the rights/freedom of others. This idea seems to be a protected right anyways by you constitution. There is very little reason and justification why civil rights of homosexuals have to be discriminated against just because you don’t support it.

I obviously can't explain this concept that everything is intertwined to you. Again, these people have the same rights under the law that I do; everyone is equal before the law.

I am rather surprised with this statement given that you actually had formal lessons on constitutional law. Even I know that this isn’t the case when I don't take law formally. Which school do you study in again? To clarify, in the US, citizen only rights are the right to vote and run for federal offices. Non-citizens who are in the US whether legally or not are entitled to 14th amendment which states that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In fact the Supreme Court had ruled that non-citizens are entitled to the constitutional rights of the 14th amendment and due process under 5th amendment. Perhaps it is time to consider a better school? Personally, I don't know much about community colleges but the current one seems extremely dubious when the tutors can't differentiate the difference between the meaning of citizen and person which even a 6 year old can. Are you sure you are getting a world class education there? I mean we are talking about fundamentals of law and language here and not some fancy law theory. Is this really the standard of students who actually take law classes? This is a really shocking degree of ignorance that I never expected.

I'm not ignorant, in any way. Let me educate you a bit.

First and foremost, our supposed "citizen-only right to vote" means jack shit in the current day and age, where illegal immigrants vote all the time. Strike one.

Our U.S. Constitution is meant, in the strictest possible interpretation, to apply to U.S. citizens. It is not called the "World Constitution," the "Universal Constitution," or the "North American Constitution:" it is intended only for the United States of America and those who are legal residents. The loose interpretation of the Constitution applies the 14th Amendment to any person on U.S. soil, which is about as fucked up an idea as can be. The 14th Amendment was meant to apply to U.S. citizens when it was passed, as was the Bill of Rights, the 19th Amendment, etc. Under no circumstance should our Constitutional rights apply to people who illegally sneak into this country and try to get around the system, as they are 1) criminals simply for being here illegally and 2) not citizens, therefore not protected under the U.S. Constitution nor U.S. law. Illegal immigration and the respective rights of these criminals is another debate entirely from this thread, and if you want to pursue this further, we can start another thread and I'll happily discuss this all day long.

Lol. I don’t even know what American values is given that it has been so distorted by the right who seem to enjoy “patriotic immunity”. (https://egbertowillies.com/2017/02/18/bill-maher-magic-republican-r-allows-get-away-anything-video/)Is the left about being offended or is it about peoples’ freedom? You seem to be contradicting urself when your perceived left is asking for less govt involvement in the regulation or legalized discrimination against others. What is going to sink your economy is your huge national debt which the right doesn’t seem to be too interested in now that they are in power. Another more immediate threat is the Russian involvement. Talk about hypocrisy. As for American Values, what are they to do you? From what I understand, they are supposed to be liberty, equality and self-governance.

The left argues for fucking "safe spaces" for the hopeless percentage of the population who are unable to deal with the reality of the world, for christ's sake. The left sees anything that isn't in 100% agreement with it as offensive. Again, freedom is guaranteed to all citizens of this country under the Constitution, the freedom debate is long over.

I don't contradict myself, either; the left wants government involvement in everything, the right does not. It's that simple.

American values... another thread.

Considering that even the UK conservation MPs called Trump out for being racists and for hate speech, there isn’t much point in me pointing out specific evidence as you won’t accept it anyways. Actually it seems that even Fox news is starting to call out on what he is saying. If you choose to have selective bias towards facts then there isn't much point discussing this issue as you will never facts. If you really don't know what hate speech is, here (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35041402) is an article by BBC explaining hate speech. Just because hate speech might be legal in the US to a certain extent, this doesn't mean it isn't hate speech. Given that political correctness is often misappropriated in this era of purposeful misinformation, here (https://qz.com/886552/a-linguist-explains-how-the-far-right-hijacked-political-correctness/#)is an article to explain what political correctness from a linguist pov is as I am too lazy to expound further on it. Political correctness is often used as a smoke screen by Republicans.

For lack of time, I'll have to come back to this one later.

Greg Abbott can say what he likes but companies are free to choose where they wish to do business in.

I'll reference the first response I made in this post, how can the company discriminate against a whole state and its population yet argue anti-discrimination tenets?

mattsmith48
February 20th, 2017, 03:59 PM
So here's the math to prove you wrong, just because I can:

Houston - NRG Stadium - Capacity 72,220 (expandable to approximately 80,000)
Santa Clara - Levi's Stadium - Capacity 68,500 (Expandable to approximately 75,000)
Average Super Bowl ticket cost - $2500 to $3000
Simple Formula - Capacity x Ticket Cost = Profit

HOUSTON MATH:
Standard Capacity Low End - 72,220 x $2500 = $180,550,000
Standard Capacity High End - 72,220 x $3000 = $216,660,000
Expanded Capacity Low End - 80,000 x $2500 = $200,000,000
Expanded Capacity High End - 80,000 x $3000 = $240,000,000

SANTA CLARA MATH:
Standard Capacity Low End - 68,500 x $2500 = $171,250,000
Standard Capacity High End - 68,500 x $3000 = $205,500,000
Expanded Capacity Low End - 75,000 x $2500 = $187,500,000
Expanded Capacity High End - 75,000 x $3000 = $225,000,000

DIFFERENTIAL PROFIT (HOUSTON OVER SANTA CLARA):
SC Low End - $9,300,000
SC High End - $11,160,000
EC Low End - $12,500,000
EC High End - $15,000,000

This doesn't even factor in concession or gift shop sales at each venue, this is simply calculated off of average ticket prices and seating capacity. I can't say what universe you must live in to believe that there's not a difference in monetary gain for the NFL here; I don't know what right-minded company, organization, or individual would pass up the potential for an extra ~ $9-$15 million dollars. And let's not forget that Texas houses the largest stadium in the NFL, AT&T Stadium, which at max capacity can hold right around 100,000 people.

And yeah, they do push political agendas, I'll poke the opening quote I made on this post. They're playing SJW over this bathroom bill thing, which is not a horrific bill by any stretch of the rational imagination. And they most certainly have attempted, both now and in the past, directly and indirectly, to influence a state's decision on legislation over more than just stadiums.

The amount money the NFL makes from the Super Bowl is not only related to the capacity of the stadium game is played in. Just for TV rights for the Super Bowl NBC, CBS and Fox each pay over 1 billion a year for the TV rights once every three years. If the NFL really cared this much about ticket revenu at the Super Bowl, the game would be in Dallas every year, losing 5,000 of capacity for one game is smarter financially then openly discriminating against a certain group of people, and losing potential customers and fans and discouraging them to spend money on their business.


Also funny that you were complained about me using a link from ESPN because they are ''a left wing network'' and then you go out posting an article from the biggest right wing propaganda machine in american history.

bentheplayer
February 21st, 2017, 02:59 AM
Here is the issue I find with this: if the league claims to have a zero-tolerance anti-discrimination stance, how in the fuck can it discriminate against an entire state for not agreeing with the league management's position? That's hypocrisy bigger than shit. That's like saying "Yeah, we don't promote discrimination, but by the way we're excluding your state from consideration for X Y and Z because you don't agree with us. Have a great day." That's unjust treatment of the state, and everyone in it, if I've ever seen it. Hell, it could be argued that the transgender people they're supposedly arguing on behalf of would technically suffer from the leagues' decisions to not host major events in Texas. Consider the transgender businessperson running a restaurant in Houston that may lose the opportunity at booming business from a major sporting event in the city, or the transgender person who otherwise would never be able to attend a Super Bowl unless it is in Texas. It's the most backwards ass stance they're taking.

Discrimination against the State is different from discrimination against certain groups of people. These are 2 separate issues. Besides why would people who do not agree with that state’s law continue to live there? Similarly, why should businesses continue to operate in States with laws that are against their company’s ethos. The idea of corporate anti-discrimination towards persons only has been there for a long time and isn’t a leftist idea. It is founded on the basis of meritocracy.

Ah, but here's the distinction: you say "gender," I say "sex." The definition of each is as follows:
Gender - the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Sex - either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures, OR
the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
The difference is that everyone argues about "gender" as if it is the same as "sex." Gender is no more than a sociological term. Sex is naturally defined.

I recall talking about intersex with you but I still don’t know how much you know on that issue on a genetic and morphologic level. Even sex which I have explained based on your appeal to nature is not perfectly demarcated to the degree of black and white.

In your example of feeling uncomfortable around a certain race, that's much different. A race is not a sex. A black man and a white man and an Asian man are all men, biologically, in dealing with the issue at hand. But, to humor you, no, you don't segregate the race, you stay away from them yourself to avoid that feeling.

Why is race any different from sex then? All these feelings of discomfort are mere social construct. By your logic, if you feel uncomfortable then you should stay away from lgbt who use those washrooms rather than dictate which washroom they use.

This entire thing here is about the difference between "public" and "private," which I'm not going to take the time to define because they are elementary terms at best. Discomfort of "sharing" as you put it can be avoided; don't use any bathroom other than your own. Discomfort of individuals having to be in a public bathroom with someone who is not biologically of the same sex is a totally different issue.

I was referring to using private public bathrooms. There are already many places that I go to which have single person public bathrooms. Why should the idea of sharing a bathroom with a supposed similar sex be normalized but not privacy when you seemed so concerned about potential sex offenders’ abuse in the bathroom? I was just using that to show that these feelings of discomfort are merely social construct of your society. In Japan at one point in time nude mixed baths were common and both men and women would see each other nude as they bathed. I believe in Nordic countries families see each other nude too in saunas regardless of gender.

The change shouldn't be allowed anyway, under any circumstance. And again, they use the bathroom of their original birth sex, as the person is not and never truly will be a man or woman, whatever they changed to. A transgender woman will never actually be a woman from a biological sense, nor will a transgender man actually be a man from a biological sense.

Really? So what is biological? What if a person had a bilateral oophorectomy or bilateral orchiectomy or is intersexed? Even embryology isn’t perfect and there is always a possibility of a natural biological congenital malformation of the genitalia. Hormone therapy from a young age could easily change various physical characteristics. How different is a trans female from a born infertile female? They look the same morphologically but can't perform biological functions of getting pregnant. Even the olympics is now allowing trans athletes to compete.

I obviously can't explain this concept that everything is intertwined to you. Again, these people have the same rights under the law that I do; everyone is equal before the law.

You think that everything is left or right because in the US this overly simplistic concept has been ingrained into your political culture. There are a number of countries in this world with systems that don’t fit onto this spectrum. As I have explained people's idea of the right and left differs and there isn't a standard understanding of it such as public housing. Some would call it right while others left. This has now evolved into a tool to polarize people and encourage the historic left vs right party divide.

I'm not ignorant, in any way. Let me educate you a bit.

I am educated by people who graduated from the top 200 universities in the world or are leaders in their fields so I will pass on this especially when you have such a fallacious view without any substantial facts.

First and foremost, our supposed "citizen-only right to vote" means jack shit in the current day and age, where illegal immigrants vote all the time. Strike one.

This is hardly a strike and all you are doing is repeating the lie by the Trump’s campaign.

http://www.businessinsider.my/shepard-smith-trump-voter-fraud-claims-2017-1/?r=US&IR=T

This issue is really old and there isn’t any evidence on this voter fraud apart from repeated assertions. How very convenient to invent a “fact” or alternative fact. I only consider facts and not assertions.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/analysis-noncitizen-voting-vanishingly-rare

Based on official stats most voter fraud is committed by US citizens than non-citizens. I am tired of these baseless assertions of non-citizens voting in the Presidential election.

Our U.S. Constitution is meant, in the strictest
possible interpretation, to apply to U.S. citizens. It is not called the "World Constitution," the "Universal Constitution," or the "North American Constitution:" it is intended only for the United States of America and those who are legal residents. The loose interpretation of the Constitution applies the 14th Amendment to any person on U.S. soil, which is about as fucked up an idea as can be. The 14th Amendment was meant to apply to U.S. citizens when it was passed, as was the Bill of Rights, the 19th Amendment, etc. Under no circumstance should our Constitutional rights apply to people who illegally sneak into this country and try to get around the system, as they are 1) criminals simply for being here illegally and 2) not citizens, therefore not protected under the U.S. Constitution nor U.S. law. Illegal immigration and the respective rights of these criminals is another debate entirely from this thread, and if you want to pursue this further, we can start another thread and I'll happily discuss this all day long.

There are 2 forms of legal interpretation, spirit vs letter. The idea that the Constitution doesn’t apply to non-US citizens is merely your own opinion and flawed logic which isn’t in line with modern jurisprudence, US legal history. Your idea of so called strict interpretation is extremely flawed as it has no basis either in spirit or letter of the law which I shall explain in the following paragraphs. These are very basic fundamental legal logic and it might be in your own academic interest to seek out a law tutor to explain these stuff to you. On a global level, it might be useful for you to request for a comparative study of the language and application of constitutional law that occurs in other countries in the context of citizens (full v partial/perm) vs “aliens” (visa v illegal) as well as international law regarding immigration status and stateless people.

The US constitution isn’t the world’s constitution and to think that it is is grossly negligent and absurd since US doesn’t have global jurisdiction. However, the US constitution and law applies to everyone within US jurisdiction. This logic applies internationally where the law of each country applies in their respective jurisdiction and everyone who falls within that geographical space are bound by those national laws. If this isn’t the case, then anyone deemed as an illegal can be treated in any matter.
Going back to basics, the US constitution distinguishes some respects between the rights of citizens and non-citizens. The right to not be discriminatory denied to vote and the right to run for federal office are restricted to citizens. All other rights are written without such limitation. The 5 and 14 amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all persons. The rights of a judicial trial, assistance of a lawyer and right to confront a witness all apply to the accused i.e. person. Both the 1 and 4 amendment protection of political and religious freedom as well as privacy and privacy apply to people.

The fact that Framers chose to limit the rights to vote and run for federal office to citizens is a strong indication that they didn’t intend for other constitutional rights to be limited from non-citizens. (In spirit and in letter interpretation.) In fact even the way it was phrased doesn’t mean that noncitizens cannot vote on state and local law which was actually common until the twentieth century. The constitution only expressly restricts to citizens the right to hold federal elective office. The Supreme Court has plainly stated that neither the 1 or 5 amendment acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens and by extension citizen vs non-citizen. Also, for more than a century, the Court has recognised that the equal protection clause is universally applied to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to nationality. The Court has also repeatedly stated that Due Process clause applies to all “persons” within the US, including aliens regardless of their lawful, unlawful, temporary or permanent presence (refer to 533 U.S. 678,693). Non-citizens no matter of immigration status when tried for crimes are entitled to all of the rights attached to the criminal process as spelt out by the constitution without any distinction based on nationality.

Even ignoring both in spirit and letter interpretation, there are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of those fundamental rights as James Madison said that those subject to the obligations of the US legal system ought to be entitled to its protections.

It does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.

Based on this 4th president’s view, the constitution extends to all who are subject to American legal obligations which is obviously everyone in the US territory. Looking back at history, Madison’s view is supported by the fact that the Bill of Rights were not viewed as a set of optional contractual provisions to be enforced because they were agreed by the states and extended to certain contracting parties(citizens) but as inalienable natural rights that found their provenance in God, i.e. to every person in that territorial jurisdiction.

In the context of international law and Human rights treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all persons regardless of nationality are explicitly guaranteed the rights of due process, political expression/association and equal protection. Please get educated and familiarise yourself with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While non-citizens may not have the rights of entry or abode, they have a right to justice and to a trial if already found within the country.

In the context of international constitutional coverage comparison such as Sweden, Canada and Italy, certain rights are guaranteed to be equal between both citizens and non-citizens. Some may be explicitly stated by using the term “non-nationals” or through the use of the words “everyone”, “persons”. The term “persons” is used by the European Convention on Human Rights to extend certain fundamental rights to all persons regardless of nationality. The fundamental normative idea underlying this broad consensus is that persons have fundamental rights as a matter of being human and these rights should be honoured regardless of where they are from. The rights of due process and equal protection of all are possibly one of the most basic and accepted rights that the modern world demands of any society as they are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Before you bring in Dred Scott case, at that time, blacks were considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who whether “free” or not are still subject to the white authority and had no rights or privileges including the right to sue in court. As such the Civil Right Acts was born and explicitly used the word “persons” or human being. This is to eliminate the idea that blacks where “3/5” of a person. This was why I said that definition of personhood is extremely important in the eyes of the law in previous posts.

I believe that I have provided more than sufficient explanation and reasons on why you are woefully ignorant and misguided on this issue. These are very basic and elementary foundations to the study of law which would at best only be an introductory class on Constitutional law from a global perspective.

Illegals may have broken immigration law but as long as they are on US soil and not at the border, they have certain unalienable rights as spelt out by the US constitution. You are free to hold on to your unfounded ideology and “interpretation” but it definitely won’t hold in the court of law and you might find yourself being accused of breaking constitutional law. Even you way of explaining the so called logic you used isn’t sound.

The left argues for fucking "safe spaces" for the hopeless percentage of the population who are unable to deal with the reality of the world, for christ's sake. The left sees anything that isn't in 100% agreement with it as offensive. Again, freedom is guaranteed to all citizens of this country under the Constitution, the freedom debate is long over.

What is your reality of the world? If we were to objectively quantify it by achievement and ability to react appropriately to maximise ones benefit from the world, what have you gotten? Freedom may be granted in the law but it clearly isn’t happening in practice. Freedom and liberty is not just merely the absence of physical restrain but also one’s ability to enjoy various political, social and economic rights and privileges. Do lgbt and even females always have such freedom and liberty? Considering the numerous incidences of reported discrimination and abuse towards them, why should there not be safe spaces? Or are these crimes fake news or not crimes since these acts are “justifiable”?

I don't contradict myself, either; the left wants government involvement in everything, the right does not. It's that simple.

Then why are you demanding for extra legislation that discriminates against certain groups of people? Is this not govt involvement?

For lack of time, I'll have to come back to this one later.

Its ok, take your time but I hope you won’t simply “forget” and brush this aside.

I'll reference the first response I made in this post, how can the company discriminate against a whole state and its population yet argue anti-discrimination tenets?

The modern anti-discrimination tenets in the corporate world only apply categories of people like gender/sex, race, and sexual orientation; and not to states or countries. If we were to adopt your line of reasoning then isn’t sanctions against North Korea and Iran discrimination too? Please cease from using false analogies. It is getting old. The discrimination of people and institutions are fundamentally 2 different issues.

Mars
February 21st, 2017, 11:35 PM
Due to the nature of this thread,

VT Daily :arrow: ROTW

brandon9
February 22nd, 2017, 11:42 AM
Discrimination against the State is different from discrimination against certain groups of people. These are 2 separate issues. Besides why would people who do not agree with that state’s law continue to live there? Similarly, why should businesses continue to operate in States with laws that are against their company’s ethos. The idea of corporate anti-discrimination towards persons only has been there for a long time and isn’t a leftist idea. It is founded on the basis of meritocracy.

My argument is that discrimination against the state is, by extension, discrimination against the residents of the state, of whichever group you choose. Take a different example than transgender bathroom allowances and the NFL/NBA; say, for example, that a company like Amazon implemented a new delivery system that guarantees arrival of every order within 24 hours of placement, but it is only available in 49 states, Texas is excluded for whatever reason you might like to choose, political, ethical, whatever. Anywhere else in the country, everyone has their Amazon order within 24 hours, but in Texas, the old-fashioned system of shipping and delivery still applies; Amazon discriminates against Texas, and by extension, every person in the state by denying the same access to the new delivery system. Would you argue that the people of Texas need to move out of the state, that the state needs to change whatever is offending Amazon, or that Amazon needs to be a fucking business and stop withholding a service offered everywhere else in the country? The same principle applies to this bathroom issue. Discrimination of the state extends discrimination to every resident through the very nature of its existence.

I recall talking about intersex with you but I still don’t know how much you know on that issue on a genetic and morphologic level. Even sex which I have explained based on your appeal to nature is not perfectly demarcated to the degree of black and white.

You may also remember that I maintained - accurately from a scientific standpoint I might add - that people who are born intersex are NOT the same as people who opt for a sex-change surgery. Intersex, as I stated before, is the result of developmental issues; it is a defect classified under the group of conditions known as Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs), and is rectified in most cases at or soon after birth based on the most prominent genitalia and chromosomal/hormonal balances within the child. Transgender is not remotely even close to intersex; transgender is the result of one who is born definitively as either a male or female undergoing operations to change their sexual characteristics. They were clearly one sex or the other, and attempted to change that. There is a huge difference between the two concepts. Intersex is the result of an unfortunate series of events during development that result in defects of the body, and are not at all a choice of the affected person; transgenderism is the result of a deliberate series of events that result in attempted modification of the body, and are entirely a choice of the affected person.

Why is race any different from sex then? All these feelings of discomfort are mere social construct. By your logic, if you feel uncomfortable then you should stay away from lgbt who use those washrooms rather than dictate which washroom they use.

You stay away from a certain race because it makes you uncomfortable, you're labeled racist. Stay away from the "lgbt community" for the same reason and you're labeled an intolerant homophobe.

But see, here you go posing a new paradox; why should I or any other heterosexual individual (which accounts for about 95% of the population in America last time I checked) have to avoid public bathrooms because of the extremely small minority that are transgender, a figure comprising less than 1% of the entire population? That's discriminatory to the majority, which I'm sure a concept you'll attempt to shoot down as being an impossible figment of my imagination.

I was referring to using private public bathrooms. There are already many places that I go to which have single person public bathrooms. Why should the idea of sharing a bathroom with a supposed similar sex be normalized but not privacy when you seemed so concerned about potential sex offenders’ abuse in the bathroom? I was just using that to show that these feelings of discomfort are merely social construct of your society. In Japan at one point in time nude mixed baths were common and both men and women would see each other nude as they bathed. I believe in Nordic countries families see each other nude too in saunas regardless of gender.

You highlight the problem in your own words: "supposed similar sex" is not accurate sex. "Similar" and "identical" are two totally different terms. Bathrooms that have more than single-person occupancy are intended for the "identical" sex, not the "similar" or "supposed" sex. As for the sex offenders, anyone who denies that shit happens is lying to themselves. I won't post the news article because it'd reveal too closely my true location, but this very event happened at a Sheetz about half an hour from my house; a woman entered the bathroom, was washing her hands at the sink and a man came in and raped her. When they arrested him afterwards, he claimed to identify as a woman. In relevance to your point about communal bathing areas, I'd reference the fact that you yourself used the words "at one point in time," but regardless of that fact, communal bathing is not an American construct. European and Asian countries can do as they like, but in America, people value their privacy quite highly.

Really? So what is biological? What if a person had a bilateral oophorectomy or bilateral orchiectomy or is intersexed? Even embryology isn’t perfect and there is always a possibility of a natural biological congenital malformation of the genitalia. Hormone therapy from a young age could easily change various physical characteristics. How different is a trans female from a born infertile female? They look the same morphologically but can't perform biological functions of getting pregnant. Even the olympics is now allowing trans athletes to compete.

Biological sex is really not that difficult of a concept to understand, I mean seriously man, if you don't know the difference between biological sex and assumed sex you shouldn't even be trying to debate this.

1) Bilateral oophorectomies remove fallopian tubes and ovaries, which is only possible if the patient is a biological woman. The removal of these does not change the fact that she is a natural, real woman.
2) The same is true of bilateral orchiectomies; removal of one or both testicles from a biological man. Doesn't change the fact that he is a natural, real man.
3) I already discussed intersex above and I'm not going to repeat myself on it here.
4) Malformation falls in the same boat as above, and it is distinctly different from transgenderism because again, it is not a voluntary choice on part of the individual.
5) There are, believe it or not, studies and such out there that support the fact that transgender women are not biological women. Take the below article, which was originally from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

6) Infertile women are born, again, as natural, real women. They are not "created women" who intentionally accept that they are infertile. There again is the distinction between "chose" and "didn't choose."

I am educated by people who graduated from the top 200 universities in the world or are leaders in their fields so I will pass on this especially when you have such a fallacious view without any substantial facts.

I've provided you plenty of facts, you have just refused to accept them as such. I am older, have attained a higher degree of education than you have at the present, and am farther ahead in life than you are. Perhaps there's a disconnect between what I am saying and your ability to comprehend it based on these factors.

This is hardly a strike and all you are doing is repeating the lie by the Trump’s campaign.

http://www.businessinsider.my/shepard-smith-trump-voter-fraud-claims-2017-1/?r=US&IR=T

This issue is really old and there isn’t any evidence on this voter fraud apart from repeated assertions. How very convenient to invent a “fact” or alternative fact. I only consider facts and not assertions.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/analysis-noncitizen-voting-vanishingly-rare

Based on official stats most voter fraud is committed by US citizens than non-citizens. I am tired of these baseless assertions of non-citizens voting in the Presidential election.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/

The above is an article published on a study conducted by ODU, from my home state, finding that noncitizens have in fact been voting.

http://nypost.com/2016/02/22/new-bill-could-give-illegal-aliens-voting-rights-in-new-york-city/

A push to let them vote in minor elections in NY.

There's another article I will come back and link once their site is back up and running, I was reading it last night before their scheduled maintenance and it is very good on this issue.

If you'd like to make this another thread, by all means, we can do that too.

There are 2 forms of legal interpretation, spirit vs letter. The idea that the Constitution doesn’t apply to non-US citizens is merely your own opinion and flawed logic which isn’t in line with modern jurisprudence, US legal history. Your idea of so called strict interpretation is extremely flawed as it has no basis either in spirit or letter of the law which I shall explain in the following paragraphs. These are very basic fundamental legal logic and it might be in your own academic interest to seek out a law tutor to explain these stuff to you. On a global level, it might be useful for you to request for a comparative study of the language and application of constitutional law that occurs in other countries in the context of citizens (full v partial/perm) vs “aliens” (visa v illegal) as well as international law regarding immigration status and stateless people.

The US constitution isn’t the world’s constitution and to think that it is is grossly negligent and absurd since US doesn’t have global jurisdiction. However, the US constitution and law applies to everyone within US jurisdiction. This logic applies internationally where the law of each country applies in their respective jurisdiction and everyone who falls within that geographical space are bound by those national laws. If this isn’t the case, then anyone deemed as an illegal can be treated in any matter.
Going back to basics, the US constitution distinguishes some respects between the rights of citizens and non-citizens. The right to not be discriminatory denied to vote and the right to run for federal office are restricted to citizens. All other rights are written without such limitation. The 5 and 14 amendment due process and equal protection guarantees extend to all persons. The rights of a judicial trial, assistance of a lawyer and right to confront a witness all apply to the accused i.e. person. Both the 1 and 4 amendment protection of political and religious freedom as well as privacy and privacy apply to people.

The fact that Framers chose to limit the rights to vote and run for federal office to citizens is a strong indication that they didn’t intend for other constitutional rights to be limited from non-citizens. (In spirit and in letter interpretation.) In fact even the way it was phrased doesn’t mean that noncitizens cannot vote on state and local law which was actually common until the twentieth century. The constitution only expressly restricts to citizens the right to hold federal elective office. The Supreme Court has plainly stated that neither the 1 or 5 amendment acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens and by extension citizen vs non-citizen. Also, for more than a century, the Court has recognised that the equal protection clause is universally applied to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to nationality. The Court has also repeatedly stated that Due Process clause applies to all “persons” within the US, including aliens regardless of their lawful, unlawful, temporary or permanent presence (refer to 533 U.S. 678,693). Non-citizens no matter of immigration status when tried for crimes are entitled to all of the rights attached to the criminal process as spelt out by the constitution without any distinction based on nationality.

Even ignoring both in spirit and letter interpretation, there are strong normative reasons for the uniform extension of those fundamental rights as James Madison said that those subject to the obligations of the US legal system ought to be entitled to its protections.



Based on this 4th president’s view, the constitution extends to all who are subject to American legal obligations which is obviously everyone in the US territory. Looking back at history, Madison’s view is supported by the fact that the Bill of Rights were not viewed as a set of optional contractual provisions to be enforced because they were agreed by the states and extended to certain contracting parties(citizens) but as inalienable natural rights that found their provenance in God, i.e. to every person in that territorial jurisdiction.

In the context of international law and Human rights treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all persons regardless of nationality are explicitly guaranteed the rights of due process, political expression/association and equal protection. Please get educated and familiarise yourself with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While non-citizens may not have the rights of entry or abode, they have a right to justice and to a trial if already found within the country.

In the context of international constitutional coverage comparison such as Sweden, Canada and Italy, certain rights are guaranteed to be equal between both citizens and non-citizens. Some may be explicitly stated by using the term “non-nationals” or through the use of the words “everyone”, “persons”. The term “persons” is used by the European Convention on Human Rights to extend certain fundamental rights to all persons regardless of nationality. The fundamental normative idea underlying this broad consensus is that persons have fundamental rights as a matter of being human and these rights should be honoured regardless of where they are from. The rights of due process and equal protection of all are possibly one of the most basic and accepted rights that the modern world demands of any society as they are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Before you bring in Dred Scott case, at that time, blacks were considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who whether “free” or not are still subject to the white authority and had no rights or privileges including the right to sue in court. As such the Civil Right Acts was born and explicitly used the word “persons” or human being. This is to eliminate the idea that blacks where “3/5” of a person. This was why I said that definition of personhood is extremely important in the eyes of the law in previous posts.

I believe that I have provided more than sufficient explanation and reasons on why you are woefully ignorant and misguided on this issue. These are very basic and elementary foundations to the study of law which would at best only be an introductory class on Constitutional law from a global perspective.

Illegals may have broken immigration law but as long as they are on US soil and not at the border, they have certain unalienable rights as spelt out by the US constitution. You are free to hold on to your unfounded ideology and “interpretation” but it definitely won’t hold in the court of law and you might find yourself being accused of breaking constitutional law. Even you way of explaining the so called logic you used isn’t sound.

I am going to take this whole quote and place it in another thread under ROTW, this is just such a large debate we've launched into and it strays farther and farther from the original purpose of this thread. I cannot create it right this moment, but rest assured, I will later on today.

What is your reality of the world? If we were to objectively quantify it by achievement and ability to react appropriately to maximise ones benefit from the world, what have you gotten? Freedom may be granted in the law but it clearly isn’t happening in practice. Freedom and liberty is not just merely the absence of physical restrain but also one’s ability to enjoy various political, social and economic rights and privileges. Do lgbt and even females always have such freedom and liberty? Considering the numerous incidences of reported discrimination and abuse towards them, why should there not be safe spaces? Or are these crimes fake news or not crimes since these acts are “justifiable”?

The reality of the world is that you have to work for what you want, nobody owes you shit, and that certain truths are hard to accept, three things that 99% of the liberal population refuses to accept. But this first half of the argument can be tied into the new thread on constitutionality I will be making, and I'll save it for there.

As for the second half, yes, everyone has the same privileges, again, under the law. Freedom and liberty, guaranteed to all under the constitution. Safe spaces are a fucking disgrace to this country, made for those too pussified to deal with the realities of the real world they live in. When fucking "Post-Election Stress Disorder" is a new diagnosis by doctors comparing it to PTSD, there's a fucking problem. That's what a "safe space" represents.


Then why are you demanding for extra legislation that discriminates against certain groups of people? Is this not govt involvement?

It's about safety and crime control. And it isn't discriminatory, again, as they are bound to adhere to their biological makeup, not their "identified" one.

Its ok, take your time but I hope you won’t simply “forget” and brush this aside.

I do not intend to. Just juggling 14 arguments and a life at once.

bentheplayer
February 22nd, 2017, 03:37 PM
My argument is that discrimination against the state is, by extension, discrimination against the residents of the state, of whichever group you choose. Take a different example than transgender bathroom allowances and the NFL/NBA; say, for example, that a company like Amazon implemented a new delivery system that guarantees arrival of every order within 24 hours of placement, but it is only available in 49 states, Texas is excluded for whatever reason you might like to choose, political, ethical, whatever. Anywhere else in the country, everyone has their Amazon order within 24 hours, but in Texas, the old-fashioned system of shipping and delivery still applies; Amazon discriminates against Texas, and by extension, every person in the state by denying the same access to the new delivery system. Would you argue that the people of Texas need to move out of the state, that the state needs to change whatever is offending Amazon, or that Amazon needs to be a fucking business and stop withholding a service offered everywhere else in the country? The same principle applies to this bathroom issue. Discrimination of the state extends discrimination to every resident through the very nature of its existence.

Legally, institutions and people are generally viewed as separate entities. I hope that you stop using really bad analogies. Amazon is a private company and isn’t obligated to have a similar service level agreement with all states. In contrast, the state has an obligation to serve the interest of everyone and not just certain groups or the “majority”. This is the obvious difference between a private and public service. Under a free market system, companies are free to decide where they wish to operate. If Amazon chooses not to operate in Texas, there is no one stopping another company from offering Amazon like services in Texas. There is no reason to compel Amazon to provide Texas with that service. There are various reasons that companies may use to choose not to operate within that State if the company feels that conditions are not viable or suitable. Why should the reason of this bathroom law be any different from say a poor logistical network and infrastructure that prevents Amazon from attaining the 24hrs promise? Similarly, based on this free market mechanism, people are free to choose to move from Texas if they feel that another state is better. One of the fundamental principles in the US is that the best idea/state/method/business model will prevail and that people will vote with their feet/cash. This is the supposed mechanism to spur innovation. This was why I said there is no one stopping you from creating your own league. State boycotts and even consumer boycotts against companies is nothing new and both are fundamentally different from discriminating against a person. States and companies are boycotted/discriminated due to their actions while a person is discriminated for things they can’t change like age, sex, sexual orientation etc. The idea of being anti-discrimination is to ensure a level playing field for all to succeed based on merit rather than on some other reason. The purpose and intend of this anti-discrimination is fundamentally different between individuals and institutions. Discrimination against people is due to wrong preconceptions of people while discrimination against institutions is an act of showing disapproval towards the actions of institutions. Besides this “discrimination” usually end once the institution changes its actions. These are very basic tenets of commerce in the free market that you should have known by now.


You may also remember that I maintained - accurately from a scientific standpoint I might add - that people who are born intersex are NOT the same as people who opt for a sex-change surgery. Intersex, as I stated before, is the result of developmental issues; it is a defect classified under the group of conditions known as Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs), and is rectified in most cases at or soon after birth based on the most prominent genitalia and chromosomal/hormonal balances within the child. Transgender is not remotely even close to intersex; transgender is the result of one who is born definitively as either a male or female undergoing operations to change their sexual characteristics. They were clearly one sex or the other, and attempted to change that. There is a huge difference between the two concepts. Intersex is the result of an unfortunate series of events during development that result in defects of the body, and are not at all a choice of the affected person; transgenderism is the result of a deliberate series of events that result in attempted modification of the body, and are entirely a choice of the affected person.

The point was just that there is definitely more than 2 sex of male and female. There is evidence suggesting that twins who identify with a gender different (GID) from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioural causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics or exposure to hormones before birth.

http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33906-0/fulltext

The point is that your idea of physical characteristics as being the absolute indicator of sex is wrong as this paper points out. In any case, what gives doctors the right to assign one’s gender.

Only old and obsolete papers suggested that transsexualism is a choice. Time to get on with the latest evidence.

You stay away from a certain race because it makes you uncomfortable, you're labeled racist. Stay away from the "lgbt community" for the same reason and you're labeled an intolerant homophobe.

Why is there a difference between race and sexual orientation? The decision to view each as a separate entity is a merely social construct. Ask any anthropologist and they will confirm that.

But see, here you go posing a new paradox; why should I or any other heterosexual individual (which accounts for about 95% of the population in America last time I checked) have to avoid public bathrooms because of the extremely small minority that are transgender, a figure comprising less than 1% of the entire population? That's discriminatory to the majority, which I'm sure a concept you'll attempt to shoot down as being an impossible figment of my imagination.

Ah so you are suggesting that the right of the minority should be ignored. Suppose hypothetically homosexuals are the 1%, it is alright to discriminate against them? How about if you are deemed as a “burden” to society? Should such people be euthanized to remove their healthcare costs from society? Statistically, I believe that lgbt are the minority too. So you are saying that discrimination against them is justifiable on that basis?

How is the “majority” discriminated against? What can a transgender person do to them in the washroom? Perhaps we should do a poll asking people their opinion on how they will be discriminated against if they shared a bathroom with a transsexual. I don’t quite see this alleged discrimination so perhaps we could explore this further. I almost never share anything with others but I don’t see how sharing is a form of discrimination.

You highlight the problem in your own words: "supposed similar sex" is not accurate sex. "Similar" and "identical" are two totally different terms. Bathrooms that have more than single-person occupancy are intended for the "identical" sex, not the "similar" or "supposed" sex. As for the sex offenders, anyone who denies that shit happens is lying to themselves. I won't post the news article because it'd reveal too closely my true location, but this very event happened at a Sheetz about half an hour from my house; a woman entered the bathroom, was washing her hands at the sink and a man came in and raped her. When they arrested him afterwards, he claimed to identify as a woman. In relevance to your point about communal bathing areas, I'd reference the fact that you yourself used the words "at one point in time," but regardless of that fact, communal bathing is not an American construct. European and Asian countries can do as they like, but in America, people value their privacy quite highly.

So what bathrooms are intersexed people supposed to use? I used supposedly similar sex as intersex people who are gender assigned cannot in the strictest sense be either a male or female. How is the act of rape relevant to the rapist claiming to be a female? Even if trans were not allowed into female washroom, rapists will still enter the washroom to rape females. Is there some kind of security door that only allows "self-proclaimed" female into the bathroom? Probably not. The rapist only claimed so after being caught.

The reason I used “at one point in time” is because I know it happened about a decade ago in Japan but I am not sure if this is still the case now. I was merely using this to explain that rapist will still act regardless of whether they are “allowed” there or not.

Biological sex is really not that difficult of a concept to understand, I mean seriously man, if you don't know the difference between biological sex and assumed sex you shouldn't even be trying to debate this.

1) Bilateral oophorectomies remove fallopian tubes and ovaries, which is only possible if the patient is a biological woman. The removal of these does not change the fact that she is a natural, real woman.
2) The same is true of bilateral orchiectomies; removal of one or both testicles from a biological man. Doesn't change the fact that he is a natural, real man.
3) I already discussed intersex above and I'm not going to repeat myself on it here.
4) Malformation falls in the same boat as above, and it is distinctly different from transgenderism because again, it is not a voluntary choice on part of the individual.
5) There are, believe it or not, studies and such out there that support the fact that transgender women are not biological women. Take the below article, which was originally from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgender-mental-disorder-sex-change

6) Infertile women are born, again, as natural, real women. They are not "created women" who intentionally accept that they are infertile. There again is the distinction between "chose" and "didn't choose."


This is going into a nature vs nature debate and would probably be better if you created a new thread on this. Again you are relying on another person’s opinion rather than peer reviewed articles, papers and journals. Paul McHugh is well known to be extremely biased by refusing to look at the growing body of neurological and genetic research showing a biological basis of gender dysphoria such as androgen receptor repeat length polymorphism and regional grey matter variation in the cerebellum of trans who have undergone therapy. I won’t mind going through the various papers if you have working knowledge on genetics and anatomy. I used to be interested in this area of biology when I was younger. If there is a biological basis to transsexualism then it is no different from a congenital defect/malformation.

In any case that author of the commentary is committing academic dishonesty by writing a commentary which only selectively including literature that supports his agenda to fool the gullible whom are mesmerized by this Dr and psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins title. These cases are pretty common and not just limited to the field of medicine anyways. I have seen this all the time in other fields like business. As of now, the idea of biological is still poorly understood and to think that only physical characteristics should be used will be a rash and misleading act.

You seem ill acquainted with the various news sources and when to trust what they say. WSJ is mostly only useful for their reports on business and their op columns are pretty useless. Only their news coverage is useful and maybe their lifestyle magazine too.

I've provided you plenty of facts, you have just refused to accept them as such. I am older, have attained a higher degree of education than you have at the present, and am farther ahead in life than you are. Perhaps there's a disconnect between what I am saying and your ability to comprehend it based on these factors.

What you have provided for are still not facts but rather a convenient partial representation of the original article. Your “higher” degree of education doesn’t really matter much as I am regularly taught by various professors and master degree holders in various fields outside of school. While I attend normal school, my parents feel that normal school isn’t sufficient and actively supplement my education through various means. Even at your current age, I suspect you can’t claim to have attended dialogues/forums with world renowned academics or leading industry players that I did. For perspectives on the latest finance/economics/business front, I get access to various sessions planned by private banks as well as the regular market research done by their analysts.

This old argument of being older and having supposedly more life experiences doesn’t quite apply to me or to most kids in the top 1%. Most of us are way more exposed than people who are decades older than us as we have greater opportunities. While money can’t buy happiness, it can buy exposure and an accelerated growth. If we have issues that we don’t understand, we have access to people who will respond to our questions and tell us differing views. This is especially in the case of law/philosophy where there might be differing views. In terms of global culture, we have the ability to explore various parts of the world during the holidays. However, I admit that in the aspect of travel, I tend to avoid third world countries as I like my creature comforts and usually pass when my family were to travel there.

Simply put what people take years to accomplish or understand is done by us in a way shorter time. Take your maths curriculum on calculus and indices for example. You might be allowed a whole term or semester to learn the basic concepts but in my case I was expected to learn it over a lunch discussion. The standards and expectations that others have on you are unlikely to even meet those placed on me.

I actually didn’t want to bring this up but I hope you don’t hate me for the background that I was born into, which isn’t my choice anyways. Tbh, there are many times when I wished I was born into a simple family.

The mere notion that age or degree of education makes one’s arguments more correct shows how naÔve you are. Education is nothing more than to teach one how to think and analyse issues. You still have a long way more to grow academically. At the epitome of education, one’s job is to create knowledge and assess facts. Not simply take things at face value like what you have been doing so far. So far based on my discussions with you on constitutional law, it is quite evident that you are blind to what is fact vs fiction. It has been well established that the notion illegals are not covered by the constitution or allowed the right of due process is a long standing political myth that is often perpetuated by certain politicians.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/
The above is an article published on a study conducted by ODU, from my home state, finding that noncitizens have in fact been voting.
http://nypost.com/2016/02/22/new-bill-could-give-illegal-aliens-voting-rights-in-new-york-city/
A push to let them vote in minor elections in NY.
There's another article I will come back and link once their site is back up and running, I was reading it last night before their scheduled maintenance and it is very good on this issue.
If you'd like to make this another thread, by all means, we can do that too.

Why do you have such a huge propensity of quoting people who keep misusing what the original journal article said or misinterpreting what I wrote?

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/

Here is the original paper in question.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf

No one said that non-citizens don’t vote but that the proportion of such voters is small in the grand scheme of things. This point is reaffirmed as part the paper’s conclusion. Besides I was asking for evidence that a sufficiently significant population of illegals that definitively voted and changed the outcome of the presidential election.

Rather than depending on sensational head line news, talk about the contents of objective academic papers. Surely, based on your “higher” degree of education, you should be able to analyse these simple papers. Based on my brief read of this paper, this study is on non-citizens immigrants not just illegals. I.e. non-citizens with valid visas are included in this study. Most importantly, even the author stated that the data they used can’t be 100% certain in his personal blog and the findings should be seen in context.

As for the voting in NY, the law in the US only prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections. Since this is not a federal election, it is up to the state to allow non-citizens to vote and no one has the right to say they can’t do that in NY.

The reality of the world is that you have to work for what you want, nobody owes you shit, and that certain truths are hard to accept, three things that 99% of the liberal population refuses to accept. But this first half of the argument can be tied into the new thread on constitutionality I will be making, and I'll save it for there.

How is this relevant to safe haven concept? Obviously everyone have to work for what they want. Duh. We talk about working for thing, yet republicans seem very keen on living on borrowed time/money increasing the national debt.

As for the second half, yes, everyone has the same privileges, again, under the law. Freedom and liberty, guaranteed to all under the constitution. Safe spaces are a fucking disgrace to this country, made for those too pussified to deal with the realities of the real world they live in. When fucking "Post-Election Stress Disorder" is a new diagnosis by doctors comparing it to PTSD, there's a fucking problem. That's what a "safe space" represents.

Safe spaces are there to protect the weak who are unable to play on an even playing field. In fact it’s a disgrace that safe spaces need to be created due to people ignoring others rights to liberty and freedom.

Considering that congress is pretty chill with the national debt and that Trump has still not shown any evidence on an inclusive healthcare plan etc. I am not surprised people are worried for their future. I don’t know how that feels like but I think you are more familiar than me with the feeling of being unable to access the best possible healthcare money can buy due to affordability issues. Anyways, I won’t be so quick to scorn at others who face mental health issues when at a significant proportion of society will get it once in their lifetimes. Why should their worries and concern be deemed as less of an issue than the emotions that bug you?

It's about safety and crime control. And it isn't discriminatory, again, as they are bound to adhere to their biological makeup, not their "identified" one.

As I have pointed out that transsexualism has a biological basis, this argument is no longer valid. Biological makeup is more than just mere physical morphology but also at a genetic and cellular level.

I do not intend to. Just juggling 14 arguments and a life at once.

And who isn’t? I have got loads on my plate too but life moves on and we can only learn to be more efficient.

brandon9
February 22nd, 2017, 10:42 PM
Legally, institutions and people are generally viewed as separate entities. I hope that you stop using really bad analogies. Amazon is a private company and isnít obligated to have a similar service level agreement with all states. In contrast, the state has an obligation to serve the interest of everyone and not just certain groups or the ďmajorityĒ. This is the obvious difference between a private and public service. Under a free market system, companies are free to decide where they wish to operate. If Amazon chooses not to operate in Texas, there is no one stopping another company from offering Amazon like services in Texas. There is no reason to compel Amazon to provide Texas with that service. There are various reasons that companies may use to choose not to operate within that State if the company feels that conditions are not viable or suitable. Why should the reason of this bathroom law be any different from say a poor logistical network and infrastructure that prevents Amazon from attaining the 24hrs promise? Similarly, based on this free market mechanism, people are free to choose to move from Texas if they feel that another state is better. One of the fundamental principles in the US is that the best idea/state/method/business model will prevail and that people will vote with their feet/cash. This is the supposed mechanism to spur innovation. This was why I said there is no one stopping you from creating your own league. State boycotts and even consumer boycotts against companies is nothing new and both are fundamentally different from discriminating against a person. States and companies are boycotted/discriminated due to their actions while a person is discriminated for things they canít change like age, sex, sexual orientation etc. The idea of being anti-discrimination is to ensure a level playing field for all to succeed based on merit rather than on some other reason. The purpose and intend of this anti-discrimination is fundamentally different between individuals and institutions. Discrimination against people is due to wrong preconceptions of people while discrimination against institutions is an act of showing disapproval towards the actions of institutions. Besides this ďdiscriminationĒ usually end once the institution changes its actions. These are very basic tenets of commerce in the free market that you should have known by now.

In no way is it a bad analogy. The point here, as I've stated multiple times now, is that discrimination against the state applies to the entire populace. I'm not quite sure what about this concept is so difficult for you to wrap your head around. And I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop insulting my intelligence and understanding of how my own fucking country, law, constitution, and government work by saying I don't understand basics; I've lived here my entire life and perfectly well understand it, you are not from this country and as such have glaringly obvious misconceptions. You are twisting an example to suit your own agenda without even considering the broad picture of what I am saying, which is that discrimination is applicable to residents within a state when a state is being excluded, from anything, for whatever reason you like. This is really not a difficult concept to understand, it is one I've explained to people other than you who got the point the first time I made it.

The point was just that there is definitely more than 2 sex of male and female. There is evidence suggesting that twins who identify with a gender different (GID) from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not just due to psychological or behavioural causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics or exposure to hormones before birth.

http://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)33906-0/fulltext

The point is that your idea of physical characteristics as being the absolute indicator of sex is wrong as this paper points out. In any case, what gives doctors the right to assign oneís gender.

Again, first and foremost, you keep using the term "gender" as if it was synonymous with "sex." This is a fundamental difference you still have not demonstrated an understanding of. Intersex does not constitute a third sex, nor do transgenders constitute a fourth and fifth sex. Gender is a sociological and psychological concept only, and is not a true indicator of anything involving human or animal sex. Gender cannot be applied to a dog, rat, mountain gorilla, or goat; other animals act on SEXUAL characteristics and instincts. Gender is a human-created term that lacks any definitive or biological assertion of sex.

Next on the laundry list is the question of what gives doctors the right to assign SEX - not gender, which is an improper defining term. In intersex cases, when the defect is rectified, as I said it is based on the most prominent sexual features and chromosomal/etc balance within the child. When the doctor identifies these, and corrective actions are taken, the SEX is more or less defined as well as it can be given the defect. The doctor's job is to define the sex of the child. By your logically flawed question, what would give doctors the right to prescribe medications with known severe side effects to ill patients? What gives them the right to tell a person "take this" or "do that?" It is their job.

Only old and obsolete papers suggested that transsexualism is a choice. Time to get on with the latest evidence.

It is definitely a choice, man. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-whatever, it is all a choice you as an individual make. If I wanted to be gay, I'd go find a boyfriend. If I wanted to identify as bisexual, I'd go get two girls and another guy and have a foursome. You find an idea attractive, you act on it. In regard to transsexualism, I do not even know how in the hell you could even argue it is not a choice, given your self-proclaimed superior education and such, when in order to have the goddamn operation done the person has to CONSENT to it! That's making a choice!

Why is there a difference between race and sexual orientation? The decision to view each as a separate entity is a merely social construct. Ask any anthropologist and they will confirm that.

Race and sex are two totally separate things, that's the difference! You're not male because you're white and female because you're black!

Ah so you are suggesting that the right of the minority should be ignored. Suppose hypothetically homosexuals are the 1%, it is alright to discriminate against them? How about if you are deemed as a ďburdenĒ to society? Should such people be euthanized to remove their healthcare costs from society? Statistically, I believe that lgbt are the minority too. So you are saying that discrimination against them is justifiable on that basis?

These people are not their own individual sex, nor are they the sex they "identify" as, and therefore there is not even an issue over rights present; they are, whether they or anyone else choose to admit it or not, the sex of their birth, and as such use the restroom of their damn sex! They are subject both to the same rights and laws as true men and women are, because they cannot biologically change what they were born as no matter how hard they try or say they have.

Your "burden to society argument" is not clear-cut; what do you classify as a "burden?" If you take that in a criminal sense and look at say murderers, yeah, go ahead and kill them, they did someone else. You don't rehabilitate a murderer. But do you consider cancer patients burdens? You try to cure them, not euthanize them. That's a very open-ended statement you made there, and it requires significantly more explanation.

How is the ďmajorityĒ discriminated against? What can a transgender person do to them in the washroom? Perhaps we should do a poll asking people their opinion on how they will be discriminated against if they shared a bathroom with a transsexual. I donít quite see this alleged discrimination so perhaps we could explore this further. I almost never share anything with others but I donít see how sharing is a form of discrimination.

I said how the majority is discriminated against; they're shoved into the position of avoidance or forced acceptance because of a near statistical blip of the population. A transgender person can make them uncomfortable, can create tense situations, could be a lot of things. Or, "gender identified" individuals can come in and pose a serious threat to public and personal safety.

You could do a poll asking, but your results would be skewed left on the issue if conducted on this site, as the majority of frequent users here are left-leaning. It would not be a truly dispersed representation, because your poll crowd would not be equally divided based on ideology here. It is an idea though, just not one readily applicable to VT, in my opinion.

So what bathrooms are intersexed people supposed to use? I used supposedly similar sex as intersex people who are gender assigned cannot in the strictest sense be either a male or female. How is the act of rape relevant to the rapist claiming to be a female? Even if trans were not allowed into female washroom, rapists will still enter the washroom to rape females. Is there some kind of security door that only allows "self-proclaimed" female into the bathroom? Probably not. The rapist only claimed so after being caught.

I've addressed this. Intersex go to the bathroom of their assigned sex based on defect rectification procedures.

As for the issue of the rapist, the man was stopped by a store employee and asked why he was attempting to enter the women's restroom. He told the employee he identified as a woman, and she allowed him to enter, leading to the rape. He said the same to the police.

This is going into a nature vs nature debate and would probably be better if you created a new thread on this. Again you are relying on another personís opinion rather than peer reviewed articles, papers and journals. Paul McHugh is well known to be extremely biased by refusing to look at the growing body of neurological and genetic research showing a biological basis of gender dysphoria such as androgen receptor repeat length polymorphism and regional grey matter variation in the cerebellum of trans who have undergone therapy. I wonít mind going through the various papers if you have working knowledge on genetics and anatomy. I used to be interested in this area of biology when I was younger. If there is a biological basis to transsexualism then it is no different from a congenital defect/malformation.

In any case that author of the commentary is committing academic dishonesty by writing a commentary which only selectively including literature that supports his agenda to fool the gullible whom are mesmerized by this Dr and psychiatrist from Johns Hopkins title. These cases are pretty common and not just limited to the field of medicine anyways. I have seen this all the time in other fields like business. As of now, the idea of biological is still poorly understood and to think that only physical characteristics should be used will be a rash and misleading act.

We can have a new thread if you like, it's not like we don't have a few new ones already lined up from this.

Paul McHugh has a long and distinguished history in his professional field, regardless of what either side maintains about him or whether or not you agree with him. He is knowledgeable, he wouldn't have held positions like he did (including a presidential appointment to the Presidential Council on Bioethics by George W. Bush in 2001) if he were not an expert in his field.

I will direct you a couple articles supporting my stance on this issue that perhaps you might find a bit more "scholarly" in nature than news outlets:

Sexuality and Gender - Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences (very long work): http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016

American College of Pediatricians (supports just about every claim I've made quite concisely, despite children focus): http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

Case Study of Successful Treatment for Gender Dysphoria via medication: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8839957

As I said, we can take this to another thread if you so choose, as with every post we stray farther from the original issue in some way or another.


You seem ill acquainted with the various news sources and when to trust what they say. WSJ is mostly only useful for their reports on business and their op columns are pretty useless. Only their news coverage is useful and maybe their lifestyle magazine too.

On the contrary, I happen to believe that all media/news sources are horrifically inaccurate and biased, and I never trust 100% in anything a single one says, some I don't trust even 1%. The articles I have linked to are 1) the best I can do on my relatively short time availability to discuss this with you and 2) contain references to larger studies/works/articles/whatever that are more scientific than the outlet itself. I simply do not have the time nor access to find devoutly scholared sources most of the time, these responses I make to you oftentimes take hours to craft due to my insane schedule, nor does it help that 90% of my activity here is done via mobile device. Most of this is composed in separate chunks pieced together at the end when I go to submit this.

What you have provided for are still not facts but rather a convenient partial representation of the original article. Your ďhigherĒ degree of education doesnít really matter much as I am regularly taught by various professors and master degree holders in various fields outside of school. While I attend normal school, my parents feel that normal school isnít sufficient and actively supplement my education through various means. Even at your current age, I suspect you canít claim to have attended dialogues/forums with world renowned academics or leading industry players that I did. For perspectives on the latest finance/economics/business front, I get access to various sessions planned by private banks as well as the regular market research done by their analysts.

This old argument of being older and having supposedly more life experiences doesnít quite apply to me or to most kids in the top 1%. Most of us are way more exposed than people who are decades older than us as we have greater opportunities. While money canít buy happiness, it can buy exposure and an accelerated growth. If we have issues that we donít understand, we have access to people who will respond to our questions and tell us differing views. This is especially in the case of law/philosophy where there might be differing views. In terms of global culture, we have the ability to explore various parts of the world during the holidays. However, I admit that in the aspect of travel, I tend to avoid third world countries as I like my creature comforts and usually pass when my family were to travel there.

Simply put what people take years to accomplish or understand is done by us in a way shorter time. Take your maths curriculum on calculus and indices for example. You might be allowed a whole term or semester to learn the basic concepts but in my case I was expected to learn it over a lunch discussion. The standards and expectations that others have on you are unlikely to even meet those placed on me.

I actually didnít want to bring this up but I hope you donít hate me for the background that I was born into, which isnít my choice anyways. Tbh, there are many times when I wished I was born into a simple family.

The mere notion that age or degree of education makes oneís arguments more correct shows how naÔve you are. Education is nothing more than to teach one how to think and analyse issues. You still have a long way more to grow academically. At the epitome of education, oneís job is to create knowledge and assess facts. Not simply take things at face value like what you have been doing so far. So far based on my discussions with you on constitutional law, it is quite evident that you are blind to what is fact vs fiction. It has been well established that the notion illegals are not covered by the constitution or allowed the right of due process is a long standing political myth that is often perpetuated by certain politicians.

I addressed some of this in the very beginning part of this post, but here's the rest:

You claim a world-class education, and while you are obviously far more educated than the average person of your age, you still appear to lack thorough understanding of certain concepts. I freely have admitted to you in the past there are certain things you have undoubtedly more background in than I do, economics being an example. But what you do not have that I do is the experience of growing up in America, and knowing the workings of our government, law, and constitution from birth. You were not raised learning it, you will never convince me that you as a foreigner have a better understanding of United States politics or law than I do as a citizen. I am from here. You are not.

While it's great that you're in the top 1%, I'm going to have to call some bullshit on the "life experiences" thing. I have an uncle in the top 1% too, I've seen how he and my cousins live, and you know what? The top tier are comparatively sheltered from the harsher realities of life. You might have more opportunity based on your birth to attend certain schools or meet certain people, but you lack the ability to empathize truly with those beneath your status. You're a self-professed academic, yet I'm willing to bet you've never truly been in a position to witness the effects of certain issues on the general population, because you're sheltered from it. I see it all the time with my own family members. And I know I've had life experiences you'll probably never have as someone of your status; worrying about paying for my education, watching the government take my hard earned money out of my paycheck every two weeks for programs I don't even support nor partake of, busting ass at two jobs working 30+ hours a week while maintaining above 4.0 grade averages at two separate schools. And I'd be willing to bet you have never experienced the darker side of this world, either. You've probably never watched someone you care for die holding your hand, knowing you could do nothing to save or help them. You've most likely never been the victim of a crime, nor committed one yourself, or dealt first-hand with the consequences of your actions in a legal setting as I once did. You probably haven't ever been shot at by somebody, or had to fire back, nor have you probably ever had to jump out a second floor window because you stayed in a burning house to get someone else out first. You're sheltered from that side of life and the views it creates. Your experiences and beliefs are not based on those kinds of situations. You have the luxury of avoiding such things, of having an option to maintain those "creature comforts" that have been entitled to you since birth. Your world and mine are very fundamentally different. And I'm not even poor, my household income is over $100,000 a year. I don't despise you for being born into it, nobody has control over what life they are born into; I do caution you to never argue naivety with me again, nor assume that I am unable to distinguish facts. Especially involving the laws of my own country, of which you are not a citizen. No amount of foreign education is a substitute for growing up in this country. I would not dare to claim to know more about the law in your country than you do, have a bit of respect for my U.S. upbringing and don't claim to know more than me about my own goddamn Constitution, because frankly I'll call bullshit on you every time.

Hopefully this clarifies a bit of shit, and perhaps even makes you think a little about what you say and claim to know.

Why do you have such a huge propensity of quoting people who keep misusing what the original journal article said or misinterpreting what I wrote?

https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/

Here is the original paper in question.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Do-Non-Citizens-Vote-in-US-Elections-Richman-et-al.pdf

No one said that non-citizens donít vote but that the proportion of such voters is small in the grand scheme of things. This point is reaffirmed as part the paperís conclusion. Besides I was asking for evidence that a sufficiently significant population of illegals that definitively voted and changed the outcome of the presidential election.

Rather than depending on sensational head line news, talk about the contents of objective academic papers. Surely, based on your ďhigherĒ degree of education, you should be able to analyse these simple papers. Based on my brief read of this paper, this study is on non-citizens immigrants not just illegals. I.e. non-citizens with valid visas are included in this study. Most importantly, even the author stated that the data they used canít be 100% certain in his personal blog and the findings should be seen in context.

As for the voting in NY, the law in the US only prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections. Since this is not a federal election, it is up to the state to allow non-citizens to vote and no one has the right to say they canít do that in NY.

I'm going to point to the last several paragraphs above this quote and leave it at that regarding my "propensity for misuse and misinterpretation," my "higher degree of education" and supposed lack of ability to "analyze these simple papers." And perhaps once more reiterate that you can stop such shots against my intellect.

Noncitizen, illegal, makes no difference in voting. Either classification is not allowed to vote. In both cases it is a crime. I believe you yourself said in an earlier post that accusations of noncitizens voting in elections are "baseless," yet just now you said you don't deny they do vote. Bit of a contradiction there on your part, yeah? Any illegal vote is a problem, whether it's 100 or 100,000 of them. But, this concept of strict illegality and accountability is totally foreign and flawed to anyone who doesn't believe in the crime control model of policing, so I've unfortunately discovered.


How is this relevant to safe haven concept? Obviously everyone have to work for what they want. Duh. We talk about working for thing, yet republicans seem very keen on living on borrowed time/money increasing the national debt.

This is, for lack of better terminology, the most ridiculously laughable statement I've seen so far.

1) You just admitted not but a bit ago that you're part of the 1%, you don't have to work nearly as hard as someone like me to get what you want out of life. Sorry, it's true.
2) I think you've got your Republican and Democratic parties mixed up here. Republicans don't live off borrowed money and time, that's your clusterfuck of a welfare system created and used by those wonderful Democrats. And I'd point out that Obama increased our debt more than any president since FDR, in fact I even found an article (sorry it isn't probably up to your standards) that has a wonderful infographic showing the total debt in share of GDP for every president in US history, excluding Obama's final year in office:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-much-debt-did-each-president-leave-for-the-country/article/2560220#!

Safe spaces are there to protect the weak who are unable to play on an even playing field. In fact itís a disgrace that safe spaces need to be created due to people ignoring others rights to liberty and freedom.

Safe spaces are for the weak, yes, but they're not weak because they have no even playing field; they're weak because they can't face the realities of the world, they're too fucking timid to suck up their shit and be productive members of society. I have zero sympathy for "safe spacers," I find it absolutely fucking ridiculous. The idea that these are the people inheriting the world I may one day bring a child into makes me seriously consider whether I want to even have children, for fear of them living in a world full of bullshit like "safe spaces." Talk about fearing the future.

Considering that congress is pretty chill with the national debt and that Trump has still not shown any evidence on an inclusive healthcare plan etc. I am not surprised people are worried for their future. I donít know how that feels like but I think you are more familiar than me with the feeling of being unable to access the best possible healthcare money can buy due to affordability issues. Anyways, I wonít be so quick to scorn at others who face mental health issues when at a significant proportion of society will get it once in their lifetimes. Why should their worries and concern be deemed as less of an issue than the emotions that bug you?

I've not had issues with affording good quality healthcare in my life, I have more medical problems than most 50 year olds do, and I see the best doctors in my state for every issue I have. And as you may or may not be aware, I myself suffer from atypical depression, and have for many years, so I understand mental health issues perfectly, I live it every day. The difference is, and one reason I feel absolutely zero sympathy for the whining fucking children that have infested this country, is that they act like the fucking world is falling apart around them and have total breakdowns over something as simple as a fucking election, when in reality they have not a goddamn clue what it really is like for the world to crash down around you. I have fucking depression and I function infinitely better than those disgraceful, whining motherfuckers. They have mental health issues, but it's not "post election stress disorder," its more like a severe delusional disorder. Zero sympathy from me.

As I have pointed out that transsexualism has a biological basis, this argument is no longer valid. Biological makeup is more than just mere physical morphology but also at a genetic and cellular level.

I made my case on this above.

And who isnít? I have got loads on my plate too but life moves on and we can only learn to be more efficient.

Like I said, I work damn close to full time while also attending two schools at once, and trying to work in other things besides. I have a great deal of things going on at any given point in time that combine to make addressing every detail difficult. This post alone collectively took me about 3 hours to compose between being at work, doing schoolwork, and other responsibilities besides.

brandon9
February 22nd, 2017, 10:56 PM
The amount money the NFL makes from the Super Bowl is not only related to the capacity of the stadium game is played in. Just for TV rights for the Super Bowl NBC, CBS and Fox each pay over 1 billion a year for the TV rights once every three years. If the NFL really cared this much about ticket revenu at the Super Bowl, the game would be in Dallas every year, losing 5,000 of capacity for one game is smarter financially then openly discriminating against a certain group of people, and losing potential customers and fans and discouraging them to spend money on their business.


Also funny that you were complained about me using a link from ESPN because they are ''a left wing network'' and then you go out posting an article from the biggest right wing propaganda machine in american history.

Don't think I forgot about you, either, pal. I just wasn't worried with replying to you, because frankly this'll be a pretty quick and painless effort on my part.

Obviously you lack the ability to understand that in business, every dollar counts. But, hey, I'm an assistant produce manager in a retail setting at a grocery store and I deal with sales figures and profit margins every day I work, don't listen to me when I say every dollar is important. While the Super Bowl or any other major league event may not be held in Texas every year, by excluding the state, the leagues only stand to lose money in the long run, and that's a pretty poor business decision.

I've made blatantly clear why nothing in this argument is discriminatory, but I'm sure you haven't bothered to read any recent posts in this thread, as is customary when you reply to me, and I am equally sure you're just going to come back and call me intolerant and misinformed or something of the sort. If this is the case, please refrain from even replying, as I get the gist of that response right here and now.

And, I pulled that article off the Blaze because it was the only one I had time to hunt for, which you'd understand if you somehow found it in you to read my last post before this one. All media is bullshit, but I think calling Glenn Beck the biggest right wing propaganda machine in history is a stretch, even based on the standard of some things you've previously said to me. I'm sure you like the Clinton News Network though, that's not propaganda at all, right? Lmao.

Dalcourt
February 22nd, 2017, 11:00 PM
bentheplayer brandon9 I Personally feel this whole discussion here leads you and anyone else to nothing at all.

We have to ask us why do we make such a fuss about things like that. Why do we have to discuss transgender people like some dangerous exotic animals? Why not simply accept them as a part of our society and let them live how they want? I have never seen much harm done by this group of people. So why making a fuss about such trivial things?

Legislation about toilets and bathrooms I mean don't we have more pressing problems? If not, wow great we live in a acadian times.

I increasingly feel we need "safe spaces" for our "poor oppressed majority". As a whole the human being is a horrible cowardly animal, very much afraid of everything new, strange and unknown...We fight all new and unknown in the first place. As it scares us and hey it could take something away from us, right?
So majority wants their safe space and make every minority feel miserable so they shun public life.
It doesn't matter if it's blacks, lgtb or anything else...

Majority tried and tries to make them feel miserable about who or what they are...telling them they are not normal, don't belong here etc.
Treated like that from a young age what do you think you become? Depressed, developing mental problems, frustration, anger, violence....
Some of those beings then leash out...and what do we get then a "told you so...they aren't normal" from the majority.

So the majority creates those troubles not the minorities that are afterwards blamed.

One isn't simply transgender to make oneself interesting and trying to piss of other people . I'm sure there are a lot of people who wish they wouldn't be "different" but simply can't help it.

So majority has to get over the fears of the unknown that's instilled in our heads for ages. In the end we are all people and all differences are just in our heads and we make each other miserable over them.

Every single one of us what's to live in freedom and without being discriminated against this only works if if we start not discriminating against others.

bentheplayer
February 23rd, 2017, 01:08 AM
Peanut_ Thanks for your input. Perhaps it is true that this discussion is unlikely to result in any change but all i am hoping for is that people at least be aware of the stuff they quote and the legitimacy of the various sources people quote in this era of purposeful misinformation. My aim is to spread the truth so that the truth will prevail when faced with baseless accusations. I am not writing for Brandon per se but for others who are interested in this area and are unable to respond when faced with this barrage of false or malicious so called "facts" on lgbt issues.

Here are a few reasons on the need to be on guard against twisted information and loads of it is being created by the right wing.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-is-peace/
http://www.alternet.org/media/lie-big-lie-often-never-back-down-donald-trump-fox-news-and-real-reason-why-right-wing-lies
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658


Take the site that brandon9 loves to use as a means of showing that lgbt is a choice, The American College of Pediatricians. I am not sure if he realizes that what that group is preaching is pseudoscience and is in no way linked to the American Academy of Pediatrics(The true professional body of Pediatricians). What its(ACpeds) website will not tell you is that it is a fringe "medical" organization, working under the veneer of its professional-sounding name and claims, with the sole purpose of defaming and discrediting LGBT people, often by distorting legitimate research. ACpeds is nothing more than a mere right wing political advocacy group that perverts the truth by willful acts of omission or misinterpretation.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110727115017/http://www.nih.gov/about/director/04152010_statement_ACP.htm
http://www.citypages.com/news/university-of-minnesota-professors-research-hijacked-6725473

Here are just some links to the scientists voicing concerns that ACPeds mischaracterized or misused their work to advance its political agenda. Such forms of academic dishonesty is downright malicious and self-serving.

As for Paul McHugh, he may have a rather good "past record" but this doesn't mean that he isn't biased and immune from selective reading. In fact some studies that he used to support his position were used wrongly and the study authors specifically caution against interpreting the data in those manners that he did.

On the budget, listen to what Republican senator Rand Paul said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv8wc89KqUQ
Also did you read the article you quoted properly? It clearly stated "Presidents do not have full control over the federal budget, so they don’t deserve full responsibility for debt levels when they leave office." Statistics are possibly one of the most abused tool in politics. Read this for a better understanding on national debt under Obama. https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293 So far all these statements that you have made on public policies are still rhetorics which shows how little you know about sovereign debts and the wider context of public administration.


On the purported treatment by pimozide, there are multiple flaws in your argument.

1)It is a case report and no other case report or any other study shows that this drug work on trans people in general to the best of my knowledge.

2)There are major omissions of relevant details in the case report. This case report was not about a straightforward and uncomplicated case of gender dysphoria. Instead, it describes a patient with a borderline learning disability, a history of disruptive behavior such as aggression and frequent swearing, an intense fixation on the idea of transitioning, but “no insight into what a sex change would entail in practice”. For this reason, it was suspected that the patient’s desire to transition was a manifestation of a “monosympomatic delusion”. The study’s authors recognized that he patient’s symptoms were of an ambiguous origin and they did not provide a conclusive diagnosis. They did not conclude that pimozide was a promising alternative treatment to the transition in cases of uncomplicated gender dysphoria. In this case, the gender dysphoria arose from a delusional disorder. The authors further stated that whatever the diagnosis, this case underlines the importance of recognizing delusions in gender identity clinics. They also admitted that the uncertain diagnosis of one individual fails to support the claim that pimozide is a cure to trans people overall.

3)There is a difference between genuine gender dysphoria and apparent gender dysphoria arising as a result of delusional or psychotic conditions. This is a well-recognized phenomenon in the literature.

This causes me to question whether you have even read the full article or simply looked at the title. The least you could do before bringing up those sources is to read them first.


On the new Atlantis journal, I shall point out that failing to find proof for a biological theory at this stage of knowledge and research doesn’t mean that it doesn't exist. There are a number of flaws in this article through omissions or lack of current literature. I happened to come across the controversy that the new atlantis article caused and first off its a review article not a study. Based on the “born that way” claim, it is extremely contradictory that the authors expressed uncertainty about the causes of orientation but then say with great certainty that the “born that way” theory isn’t supported by scientific evidence. This is just one of the many glaring flaws in the article. Granted The New Atlantis article was thorough, but they failed to captured everything necessary to make the claims they made. In you want to discuss this further go ahead. These perpetuated myths can be easily debunked.

As for what I know, perhaps this might shock you but I have worked as a retail assistant before. I did that last year with the sole intent of understanding how it feels like. You are not the only one who is capable of working hard. In fact during my 1 month there, I was the only temporary staff who was complimented by a customer through the store manager when they checked out. I was rather surprised but evidently I left enough of an impression on that customer that they remembered my name and took the time to request to see the store manager. If you think that we don't know about work then you are severely wrong. It might surprise you but many multi-millionaire and even billionaire kids have at least worked in such a area once in their life. Its all about exposure but obviously we normally don't talk about it. Besides even among my peers, we are not a homogeneous group. Some choose to "specialize" while others choose to be more broadly exposed. As for losing people to death, even money can't buy life when one's time is up.

Anyways the business model and margins of a grocery retail store is very different from that of a sports league.

Actually I have encounter most of your proposed arguments and studies you cited b4 so I am able to simply regurgitate my past responses to them. I am just typing them out between boring lessons. School is pretty boring anyways. Btw I attend normal public school so I do know what happens in a state school albeit a better one obviously since admission is based on academic ability. As I expected all these accusations of the 1% not needing to work will come but that is just merely a product of class warfare which I will not enter. Going by your logic, since you are from an upper middle income household, what makes you think that you have a greater ability to comment on those who are middle income or working class when you don't belong to their social class?

Concepts on the interpretation of law and the constitution is almost similar apart from minor variations in jurisprudence. There is virtually extremely limited scope for "personal experience" in the form of natural law in courts these days. Say as you like but the courts don't condone that logic. The easiest but probably most painful way to find out is have a judge tell you that what I have said is true.

To quote someone I spoke with, "You don't need to be liberal to support trans people. You just have to be a decent human being."

Dalcourt
February 23rd, 2017, 10:16 PM
bentheplayer I don't say you should give up on trying to make people aware. When I discuss stuff with someone I know 100% I always hope that at least some bystander learns something from it. And on the forum at least someone who reads my arguments out of boredom or whatever, lol.

People tend to believe in what is the most comfortable and not in what is the truth.
I never rely on just one source of news...but reading or listening to different sources is hard work.

And in the USA it's sadly not done by making people aware about differences in news coverage.

There's still the churches and their pushing you in certain directions from your birth on.

The white (upper) middle class is unfortunately most responsive to this.
I feel they have to lose or at least think they have to lose the most from changes and that's were their views derive from.


But yeah as a whole my point of view is never let any minority or group be discriminated against without speaking out cuz you never know if you are not next.
You know the "First they came..." from Martin Niemoeller ? There's a lot of truth in it but sadly people here will only realise this once it's to late.

bentheplayer
February 23rd, 2017, 11:17 PM
Peanut_ Tbh I am not too interested with making aware rather I am mostly interested in refuting false crap that people keep propagating. Public opinion can be an extremely power force these days but when public discourse is perverted by false and malicious "facts" and alternative facts, the results can be disastrous. People are free to hold on to their unfounded believes but they should not be polluting the minds of others with lies or falsehoods. It is obvious that they will most likely never admit that they are lying but others can tell once they start to rely on irrelevant vague assertions that age or academic performance etc makes their lies more credible. The only problem is that such kind of assertive authority can have a negative impact on the gullible who rarely "question authority" even the dubious kind. Look up the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment. Some people in this world are just simply innately power hungry and love exerting their "power" on others by using all sorts of "justifications".

This is no different from the time when the Church proclaimed that Earth is the center of the universe or the civil rights movement back in those days.

When you talk about the white upper middle class, are you by any chance referring to their unfounded assumed moral and intellectual superiority that seems rather pervasive among certain persons?

As for Martin, I have not only heard of tha but seen it in practice in many aspects of life. Its actually a very powerful effective tool when applied correctly and is widely used in seemingly innocuous manners.